School Shooting Threat in Franklin, OH

School Shooting Threat

A female student at Franklin Senior High School in Franklin, OH, was arrested after allegedly threatening a mass shooting at her school, causing her classmates to panic.  The 15-year old reportedly told several classmates that she wanted to do a mass school shooting and end it with a "suicide by cop".

No weapons were found on campus, and the student is facing charges of inducing panic.  Since it happened on school grounds, it is being treated as a felony.  An audio of the 911 call can be found HERE.

School Shooting Threat Analysis

From 1998 to 2012, there were 22 Active Shooter Incidents in US K12 schools (Satterly, 2014). This is using the DHS definition of an Active Shooter, “An Active Shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms(s) and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims” (DHS, 2013).  This averages out to approximately 1.47 incidents a year.

While these are tragic incidents, we need to maintain a proper perspective.  More incidents are prevented than actually occur.  Thankfully, this is one of those times where the good guys prevented something bad from happening.  In fact, it is a good thing that this young lady may now get the help she needs.

It would seem that Franklin Senior High School has developed the kind of school climate in which students feel comfortable with telling a staff member about a serious situation.  The school appears to have acted swiftly and correctly, and a possible tragedy was averted.

So what do we learn from this?  The cheapest, best way to prevent tragedy is to invest time in developing a rapport with your students, whether you are a principal, teacher, or SRO.  It is through that rapport that trust is built, and from that trust comes the capability for students to come forward with critical information in a timely manner. 

The students who came forward are to be commended, as is the school staff who quickly alerted the police, who then acted quickly to investigate, arresting the student before she could leave school.

This is the goal.  1.47 Active Shooter Incidents a year is 1.47 incidents too much.

The Sky is NOT Falling - School Fatalities

A Serious Look at School Fatalities

According to a study released in 2012, wolves are the number one cause of death in the United States.  After the Reynolds HS shooting, a group called Everytown for Gun Safety posted a map showing 74 school shootings since the Sandy Hook massacre.  What do these two events have in common?  They are not true.

The fictitious Wolf Study was cited in a rather humorous article in The Onion, a website of parodies and satirical stories.  Though the article involves made-up facts, it rings true in several ways as borne out by research in the field of what is known as terror management theory TMT.  TMT research indicates that people often become convinced that they are more likely to experience catastrophic but extremely rare events than factual risk evaluation indicates.  For example, though most passengers on commercial aircraft survive aviation crashes, most people believe they will be killed if they are on a plane that crashes.  TMT also explains why many people fear events that are bizarre and unusual even more than events that pose much greater actual risk because they as far more common and even deadly. 

Besides delivering humor, this story highlighted how wildly inaccurate statistical data is often used to generate increased and sometimes unrealistic levels of fear among the public.

The second study was of great concern because it used a flawed process to identify school shootings.  Shortly after it's release, The Blaze and CNN took a closer look at the figures.  The 74 alleged school shootings were reduced to 15 which included university shooting incident.  While 15 incidents is still tragic, this data provides a much more accurate indication of risk in a nation of more than 300 million people and 55 million K12 students.  It is important to keep in mind that while many people automatically think of any “school shooting” in terms of active shooter events, the majority of these fifteen tragedies are not active shooter incidents but are in fact, far more typical of the types of shootings that have claimed many more lives than active shooter incidents.  Though they are truly catastrophic and shocking events, active shooter incidents are not the leading cause of violent death at school.

Early in 2014, Safe Havens International commissioned me to do a study on the leading causes of death in K12 schools in the US.  On April 16, 2014, this study was released as part of a project for the Maine Department of Education.  It was called Relative Risks of Death in US K12 Schools.

The study centers around a very important question. Are active shooter incidents being addressed at the expense of the all­‐hazards approach? This question is a crucial one because preventable school fatalities may be occurring if resource allocation does not match the actual safety risks for K12 schools.

This was an observational study of open-source material.  Events were identified using the Department of Homeland Security definition of an Active Shooter, “An Active Shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms(s) and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims.”

The Top Five Causes of Death in Schools from 1998-2012:
1) School Transportation-Related Crashes (525)
2) School Homicides (489)
3) School Suicides (129)
4) Active Shooter Incidents (62)
5) Interpersonal Disputes (61)

The following were findings from the study:
1) Active Shooter Incidents are not the leading threat for fatal incidents schools face.
2) Active Shooter Incidents in schools (K12) are not happening more frequently.
3) Active Shooter Incidents should not be the primary focus for a school's prevention, mitigation and emergency preparedness efforts.
4) More focus needs to be given to school transportation-related safety.
5) More focus needs to be given to school homicides and school suicides.

Schools are better served using a risk assessment-based approach to school safety, as part of the All-Hazards emergency planning model.  School fatalities are a serious issue, one that is better served through proper data analysis and research.   My colleagues and I have spent considerable time and energy developing some of the most advanced training resources to address active shooter events available including the IS-360 training program which was part of the 2013 White House School Safety Initiative and recently released web courses.  At the same time, the research indicates that we should also address the less publicized situations that claim more lives than active shooter incidents as well.

 Oh, and keep an eye out for the wolves.

School Safety Training - Criterion-based?

There are numerous companies and numerous school safety programs out there, especially in the area of Active Shooter Intervention.  The last couple of blogs have been taking a look at various elements in school safety training, research and continuity of training.  Now let's look at criterion-referenced training.

Many quality training programs lack a component that is prevalent throughout education; the use of Goals, Objectives and Assessment.  One educational model that incorporates these elements is Criterion-Referenced Instruction (CRI).  This model was developed by Dr. Robert F. Mager (More research!), and is used by many professional educators to develop their lesson plans, and their curriculum.  To be sure, there are other models in use, but they do have common elements; What overall goal is being attempted? What are the standards to be assessed?  How will the assessment be conducted?

Having sat through quite a few different training programs and classes for school safety, the only ones I know that has followed these educational guidelines is FEMA.  To be able to get a certificate from the Emergency Management Institute, you have to complete the modules (goals and standards) and then successfully pass a final exam (assessed to a criterion).

Let's take a look at how an Active Shooter response lesson might look using this criterion.

There are numerous goals to set when considering how to respond to an Active Shooter Incident in your building.  I teach the use of the Window of Life to help people assess their actions during the critical opening seconds of any crisis.  The steps are: Protect yourself; protect others; protect your facility; notify public safety.  Since this addresses those critical first moments, let's establish a goal for its use.

Mager established a method to analyze goals.
1. Write down the goal in brief phrases or single words.
2. Write down the performance that, if achieved, would provide confirmation that the goal was achieved.
3. Delete any duplications or unwanted items. If there are items in 1 and 2 that are too abstract (fuzzy), rewrite to make more specific.
4. Write a complete statement for each desired behavior or performance. Describe the nature, quality, or amount considered acceptable.
5. Test the statements against the original goals in no. 1. If a student demonstrated the stated performances, would you be willing to say that he has achieved the goal? when the answer is yes, the analysis is complete.

When writing goals, use concrete language to describe measurable behaviors.  Some terms to use include: To write, to recite, to identify, to differentiate, to solve, to construct, to list, to compare, to contrast, to demonstrate.

Using all this, let's establish a goal.
1. Use the proper action steps during the first 30 seconds.
2. Staff and students are secured, and prepared for further action.
3. N/A
4. Upon recognition of an Active Shooter Incident, the student will take proper action steps, in 100% compliance with the Window of Life.
5. N/A

Using this, we go from an orientation, which is the common approach of a lot of school safety training, to describing discrete, measurable skills that can let the instructor know that their students understand what they have taught.

In today's world of liability issue, this can be huge.  An instructor who can document that his/her students met a criterion will be in much better shape than an instructor who says, "They attended my class."  This can be especially true of "Train the Trainer" certification.  The question now is, if you are a 'certified' instructor, what does that mean?  To an educator, that means that an instructor has demonstrated mastery of the skills for which they are instructing.

If the overall goal is to instruct educators on how to save lives, then shouldn't we find out if they can after they've been instructed?

Next: Who's Being Trained?

School Safety Training - What's the Research?

School Safety Training

Since the Sandy Hook massacre, there has been a figurative explosion in the amount of school safety training provided to schools.  On the surface, this would appear to be a good thing, but is it really?  Many of the training "programs" are not based on research, provide no continuity of training, are not criterion-based, and there is confusions as to who is actually being trained.  For the sake of brevity, one of these issues will be addressed at a time.

There is considerable information out there on how the human mind is affected by high -stress information.  LTC Dave Grossman has written extensively on the subject, as has Loren Christensen, Kenneth Murray, and others.  Dr. Gary Klein has done considerable research on how decisions are made under stress, Dr. Dewey Cornell has done considerable research on youth crime and school safety.  Yet, very few programs being used today rely on any of them to back what they do.

Dr. Cornell said, "Some people leap to dubious ideas, like bulletproof backpacks and arming teachers, when in fact our energy and resources are better spent dealing with less sensational everyday problems like bullying, or mental health issues like depression."  Yet the focus since Sandy Hook have been on "proactive responses" to Active Shooter Situations.  This, despite the fact that from 1998 to 2012, there were 22 Active Shooter Incidents in K12 schools, with 62 deaths in those incidents. 

While one death is a tragedy, schools have finite resources to apply to all the dangers they face.  In that same time frame, many more students died in school transportation-related crashes (525).  Many more students died by homicide (339) or by suicide (129), than by Active Shooter (62) (Satterly, 2014).  Yet millions of dollars have been spent to prepare for Active Shooter Incidents, and little for suicide and crime prevention in schools, or in better training for school bus drivers.

Anytime a school proposes a new program, the question should be asked, "What research supports this program?"  If they can't provide solid, peer-reviewed research that back what they do, then the school can do better.

Next: Continuity of Training.

Good Samaritan Laws and School Emergency Management Training

Good Samaritan Laws

The article in the above link raised a serious question for school safety trainers.  Kathi Lilga, executive assistant to the superintendent of Mountain View Whisman School District on California was reporting to the school board about modifications to their emergency plans called "Run Hide Defend". 

The interesting part was where she commented on teachers who might hesitate to make critical decisions during an Active Shooter Incident.  The article stated, “It also means a bad call could put lives at risk, but Lilga said that should not affect staff decisions. She said they are covered by Good Samaritan laws, which prevents people from being liable for civil damages if they act in good faith to help in emergency situations.”

Now that may be true in California, although a cursory glance at California's "Good Samaritan Law" did not seem to support this statement.  I emailed Dr. Dave Emmert, Chief Counsel for the Indiana School Boards Association, and asked him about Indiana's "Good Samaritan Laws".

He responded, in part, "It would not apply to an emergency situation such as a shooting at school, unless the school employee is rendering emergency medical-type care to an already injured person. In other words, it does not apply to an employee who decides to hit a shooter over the head with a hammer."  He went on to write, "If an employee negligently makes a decision during a shooting that results in further harm to persons, there is no immunity, and the school would be liable in damages."

So in Indiana, employees are not given immunity from liability for their decisions during an Active Shooter Incident, nor are schools given immunity for the training they give their employees.  it is important that schools, and school safety trainers, check with pertinent state laws to see what liabilities they may face.

School Shooting "Response " Options, Part II

Responding to School Active Shooter Incidents (ASI's)

In yesterday's blog, several issues with the ALICE approach were identified.  There are hidden financial costs due to Workman's Comp claims that, nation-wide, likely run into the millions.  Some schools that have replaced their emergency plans with ALICE.  The presentation approach used by ALICE is not true, criterion-based training, meaning that no effort is made to determine how well attendees have learned the material.  ALICE proposes that school personnel, and in certain circumstances students, engage in Close-Quarter Combat (CQC), which the Marine Corps defines as "physical confrontation between two or more combatants."

In thousands of assessments across the country, Safe Havens International personnel have found that school staff, some of whom have received ALICE and other 'proactive response' training, are responding improperly when faced with gun situations that are not ASI's.

There are possible serious liability issues with the implementation of ALICE, especially in its current state.  In a recent article of a school board in California advocating this approach, a member of the administrative staff said, "It also means a bad call could put lives at risk, but Lilga said that should not affect staff decisions. She said they are covered by Good Samaritan laws, which prevents people from being liable for civil damages if they act in good faith to help in emergency situations." 

This statement may not likely survive court scrutiny.  If a school trains an employee and the employee then makes a bad decision, even in good faith, then liability may still be conferred upon the school, if not the employee.

Analysis

The question then becomes, if ALICE and other 'proactive response' options are of concern, what are the alternatives?

1.  Use the All Hazards Approach, in which a school conducts regular risk and threat assessments, mitigates and prepares for identified risks/threats, coordinates their activities with local first responders, uses the National Incident Management System and the Incident Command System to respond and recover from any incident.  Under this approach, preparedness for an ASI would be one protocol among many in a school's emergency plan.

2. Use The Window of Life, a process for approaching the first 30 seconds of an incident, the critical time in which a situation can be won or lost by the decisions made.  Safe Havens International has a short, free video on The Window of Life.  A free, downloadable poster can also be found on Safe Haven's website.  The process is easy to remember; Take care of yourself, take care of others, protect your space and contact public safety.

3. Use a concept called "Permission to Live".  A well-trained, empowered employee can see beyond a written emergency protocol, and will know when it is appropriate to act outside of a protocol.  For example, during an ASI the protocol may call for a lockdown, but the employee may see an opportunity to safely evacuate his/her students.  He or she should not necessarily be constrained by the protocol, but guided by them.  The key is empowering the employee and giving them the means to be able to think tactically during high-stress moments.

Under ALICE, staff are given presentations on what to do during an incident, and are essentially instructed to "engage".  Even after being told to do so only as a last resort, what the participant remembers is "engage".  No attempt is made to assess the participant's retention of the material, so once the presentation is over, the schools are left to their own devices. 

What the school should do is to provide a protocol to guide actions, based upon a teacher's own comfort level, knowledge and background.  A teacher who is attempting to evacuate a class under fire when the teacher is ill-prepared to do so, or has not been trained to do so would most likely end up with tragic results, thus that particular teacher would follow the lockdown protocol.

We should be asking if schools should be ordering teachers to engage in CQC, even as a last resort.  There are those who have the personal inclination, background, and even training to engage in CQC.  But what of those school staff who do not have the personal inclination or background, even after they have received training?

It is imperative that schools take the time to consider these points before sending themselves down a path that may lead to tragedy.

Incorrect Data in the Aftermath of Troutman, Oregon

Incorrect Data

When dealing with school safety, it is important to use proper data to drive your efforts.  In the wake of the Troutman, Oregon school shooting, bad data has been put forth and swept along by social media, giving the impression that schools are not as safe as they used to be.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Blaze notes a journalist, Charles Johnson, who examined the faulty data from the group Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group funded by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  Of the 74 "school shootings mapped by the Everytown group, Johnson found issues with 33.  Everytown included every type of shooting imaginable, including, according to Mr. Johnson, some shootings that were only loosely associated with a school.

Analysis

This spring I released a study called Relative Risks of Death in U.S. K-12 Schools. In that report, the definition of an Active Shooter Incident was defined, using the definition put forth by the US Department Of Homeland Security. That definition is, "An Active Shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms(s) and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims.” This definition separates school shootings from shootings that take happen to take place at schools.

From the year 1998 through 2012, there were only 22 Active Shooter Incidents in K-12 schools.  These incidents resulted in the deaths of 50 students and 12 staff members.  Half of those incidents involved no fatalities, while of the other 11, three (Columbine, Red Lake and Sandy Hook) resulted in 46 (70.8%) of the 62 fatalities.

Active Shooter Incidents are terrifying, chiefly because their target selection is random.  That means anyone at the school is a potential target.  Targeted acts of violence, while dangerous, indicate a community violence issue in which the school is involved along with the community.  Active Shooter Incidents are targets of opportunity; schools just happen to be selected as a target because they have a high number of potential victims.  While one can predict violence at school in a violent community, we have thus far been unable to predict when a school will become a target of an Active Shooter.

School safety is a serious issue, and it is one about which we should have an on-going discussion.  We do no one any service at all by making it a fallacious discussion, using bad data.

Shooting Attack @ Reynolds HS

Shooting Attack in Oregon

Around 8:00am Pacific Time, it was reported that a person dressed in black, with tactical gear including a helmet, and armed with what appeared to be an AR-15, walked into Reynolds High School and opened fire.  Thus far one student is confirmed dead, as is the male shooter.

Early reports have the shooter found in a restroom by a police robot, indicating that he killed himself.

Reynolds is reportedly the second largest high school in Oregon, with over 2,800 students.

Analysis

As always with such events, early accounts have to be taken with a grain of salt.  This has been reported as an Active Shooter Incident, but that may change if the student who was killed was targeted by the shooter.  By DHS definition, targets in an Active Shooter Incident are randomly selected.

Please continue to watch as information is developed and vetted.

Pray for the family of the slain student, and for all the students affected by today's incident.

Teachers Train in Active Schooter

Teachers Train

The Alabama Association of School Resource Officers conducted Active Shooter Training for educators recently.  The training was different in that the educators were training like the law enforcement officers.  The used guns with simmunitions, real-life guns that shoot paint bullets.

This type of training puts the educators in the shoes of the police officers, and gives them a glimpse of what an Active Shooter Incident is like from their perspective.

Analysis

The Indiana School Safety Specialist Academy conducted similar training a couple of years ago at the Muskatatuck Urban Training Center, specifically in an old hospital.

                                                  Indiana educators move in a 'diamond' formation

I had the privilege of acting as the "red team", which means I played a bad guy.  I had previously received certification from the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy in Basic Active Shooter Doctrine, and had conducted previous exercises with the Academy.

Watching the educators learn how to move as a response team offered me additional insights into teaching educators tactics.  The teachers and administrators who were involved in the training were eager to learn, and the exposure to the tactics gave them a new-found respect for law enforcement.  In that regard, the training succeeded.

But as far as providing educators with the tactical skills needed to survive in those environments, the two day training fell far short.  I recall in one scenario, a teacher stuck her gun around a corner, turned her head away, and opened fire into a room.  While giving those around the teacher a good chuckle, it was not a sound tactical move.

All in all, the training was excellent, and the educators involved learned a lot.

The personality types of educators does not often lend itself to the learning of tactical skills.  This concept will be examined further in future blog posts.

Taking an Active Role in Active Shooter Training?

fox4kc.com

Teachers and staff in the Grandview School District are being trained to do more than locking down and waiting for police in the event of an Active Shooter Incident.  They are being trained to take a more active role, especially in the critical first few seconds.

Missouri state law requires active shooter training in all of it public and charter schools.

Analysis

The training above is a good thing, provided it meets some common-sense criteria.  Staying Alive involves taking a thoughtful, rational approach to planning and training.

1. Is the content of the training based on valid research?
Too often schools participate in training, especially Active Shooter training, using information that has not been researched, nor has been proven effective in the field.  uch programs have already been implemented in parts of the U.S., causing huge workman's compensation claims as staff members are getting injured during the training.

2. Are the instructors of the training certified as instructors?
Often, due to budget constraints, schools will hire a law enforcement officer to conduct Active Shooter training.  While the officer may have the best of intentions for the school, is the officer certified, at a minimum, as a law enforcement instructor? 

3. Are you being presented to, or are you being instructed?
A presentation is when information is given to a passive audience.  It will often involve numerous media slides and videos that show the concepts that the presenter wants to share.  A question/answer session at the end of the presentation does little to change the passivity of the audience.

Instruction takes place when a proper teacher/student relationship has been established.  Has the instructor broken down skills to be learned into sub-skills?  Does the instructor follow a logical progression of sub-skills to skills?  Does the instructor utilize the appropriate learning methods for his/her audience?  Is the student held accountable for retention of the knowledge learned?

4. Does the training create capacity, or will frequent "retraining" be required?
Schools will often hire consultants to conduct Active Shooter training.  Are these consultants working with the schools to make future use of consultants for that particular skill unnecessary, or are they working with the schools to create the capacity of the school to sustain the skills learned?  Sometimes consultants will "certify" school personnel, but will then state the personnel have to "re-certify" after a certain time period, necessitating the consultant return to provide the "re-certification".

Schools that do not take these factors into account may find themselves liable while implementing the concepts they learned, and finding out they don't work, or don't work well.  They need to do their due diligence, and take a thoughtful, considerate approach before implementing new training that will fundamentally alter the way they respond to a particular crisis.

Proper training will survive the scrutiny.