Lessons Learned From School Shootings: Perspectives from the United States of America (SpringerBriefs in Behavioral Criminology) 3030754790, 9783030754792

Citation preview

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN PSYCHOLOGY BEHAVIORAL CRIMINOLOGY

Scott Poland Sara Ferguson

Lessons Learned From School Shootings Perspectives from the United States of America

SpringerBriefs in Psychology SpringerBriefs in Behavioral Criminology Series Editor Vincent B. Van Hasselt, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA

Behavioral Criminology is a multidisciplinary approach that draws on behavioral research for the application of behavioral theories and methods to assessment, prevention, and intervention efforts directed toward violent crime and criminal behavior. Disciplines relevant to this field are criminology; criminal justice (law enforcement and corrections); forensic, correctional, and clinical psychology and psychiatry: neuropsychology, neurobiology, conflict and dispute resolution; sociology, and epidemiology. Areas of study and application include, but are not limited to: specific crimes and perpetrators (e.g., homicide and sex crimes, crimes against children, child exploitation, domestic, school, and workplace violence), topics of current national and international interest and concern (e.g., terrorism and counter terrorism, cyber crime), and strategies geared toward evaluation, identification, and interdiction with regard to criminal acts (e.g., hostage negotiation, criminal investigative analysis, threat and risk assessment). The aim of the proposed Briefs is to provide practitioners and researchers with information, data, and current best practices on important and timely topics in Behavioral Criminology. Each Brief will include a review of relevant research in the area, original data, implications of findings, case illustrations (where relevant), and recommendations for directions that future efforts might take. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10850

Scott Poland • Sara Ferguson

Lessons Learned From School Shootings Perspectives from the United States of America

Scott Poland College of Psychology Nova Southeastern University Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA

Sara Ferguson Psychology Services Center Nova Southeastern University Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA

ISSN 2192-8363     ISSN 2192-8371 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Psychology ISSN 2194-1866         ISSN 2194-1874 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Behavioral Criminology ISBN 978-3-030-75479-2    ISBN 978-3-030-75480-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75480-8 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Abstracts

Lessons Learned from School Shootings: Looking Back and Beyond Over the last three decades, school shootings have become a prominent concern that have gained significant public attention nationwide. High profile massacres such as those at Columbine and Sandy Hook have prompted calls for changes related to school safety measures and gun legislation. Response efforts have included growing research, increased prevention programming, and legislative modifications. As a result, current data reveal that schools continue to be one of the safest environments that youth spend their time in, and the risk of school shootings remains relatively low. Despite this, Americans continue to report heightened fears about the state of safety in our schools and myths regarding mass shootings reaching epidemic levels perpetuate. As such, it is pertinent that current and comprehensive reviews of school shootings are provided in order to inform the public and clarify misinformation. Further, given the continued occurrences of shootings in our schools, evolving response efforts and ongoing evaluation are necessary. This brief will investigate school shootings and their impact on individual, community, and societal levels. Additionally, it will include professional and personal perspectives from individuals such as school psychologists, teachers, and parents, all of whom have been directly involved in and impacted by school shootings. Such perspectives will provide valuable insight related to numerous aspects of school shootings. The authors aim to offer novel perspectives that can aid in informing best practices necessary to strengthen school safety measures, as well as prevention and response efforts. This brief will serve as helpful guide to better understanding the many factors surrounding school shootings, providing critical information and updated data that will be a meaningful contribution to the current literature.

v

Acknowledgments

We want to extend a sincere thank you to our contributors for their willingness to share their personal perspectives on this important topic. A special thank you to Michele Gay and Lori Alhadeff, two warrior moms who, in the tragic aftermath of losing their children in school shootings, have made a significant impact in the world of prevention and school safety. Additionally, to Stacey Lippel, a teacher at Marjory Stoneman Douglas who survived the school shooting in 2018, we thank you for your bravery and candor in sharing your experiences. To our professional contributors, we greatly appreciate your generosity of time and spirit and the work you are doing to keep our schools safe. Another thank you to the Suicide Violence Prevention (SVP) Office’s clinical and school psychology graduate assistants, Samantha Vance and Katlyn Bagarella for their invaluable help with completing this brief.

vii

Contents

1 School Shootings: An Overview����������������������������������������������������������������   1 1.1 Personal Perspectives: Introductions��������������������������������������������������   2 1.2 School Shootings Defined������������������������������������������������������������������   4 1.3 School Shootings Research����������������������������������������������������������������   4 1.4 History of School Shootings ��������������������������������������������������������������   5 1.4.1 Dispelling the Myths of School Shootings ����������������������������   6 1.4.2 Media Exposure����������������������������������������������������������������������   9 1.5 Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  10 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  11 2 School Shooters and Shootings ����������������������������������������������������������������  13 2.1 School Shooting Contexts������������������������������������������������������������������  13 2.1.1 School Types ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  14 2.1.2 School Size�����������������������������������������������������������������������������  15 2.1.3 School Location����������������������������������������������������������������������  16 2.1.4 School Funding Source ����������������������������������������������������������  16 2.2 School Shooter Common Characteristics ������������������������������������������  17 2.2.1 Langman’s Typologies������������������������������������������������������������  18 2.2.2 Additional Common Characteristics��������������������������������������  22 2.3 Contributing Factors to School Shootings: Biological, Psychological, Social��������������������������������������������������������������������������  22 2.3.1 Biological��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  23 2.3.2 Psychological��������������������������������������������������������������������������  24 2.3.3 Social��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  25 2.4 Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  27 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  27 3 Best Practices for School Safety to Prevent School Shootings ��������������  31 3.1 School Safety Efforts��������������������������������������������������������������������������  31 3.1.1 Security Measures������������������������������������������������������������������  32 3.1.2 Arming Teachers ��������������������������������������������������������������������  33

ix

x

Contents

3.1.3 School Resource Officers (SROs)������������������������������������������  35 3.1.4 Active Shooter Drills��������������������������������������������������������������  36 3.2 Threat Assessment������������������������������������������������������������������������������  37 3.3 Responding to a School Shooting: Crisis Intervention ����������������������  43 3.4 Best Practices for Prevention��������������������������������������������������������������  47 3.4.1 School Safety Planning ����������������������������������������������������������  47 3.4.2 School Climate������������������������������������������������������������������������  48 3.4.3 Socio-emotional Well-Being��������������������������������������������������  49 3.4.4 Adequate Mental Health Support�������������������������������������������  51 3.4.5 School Safety Programs����������������������������������������������������������  51 3.5 Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  54 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  54 4 Legal Issues in the Context of School Shootings ������������������������������������  59 4.1 Legislative Responses ������������������������������������������������������������������������  59 4.1.1 Firearms����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  61 4.1.2 Mental Health Legislation������������������������������������������������������  70 4.2 Other Relevant Legal Issues����������������������������������������������������������������  71 4.2.1 Juveniles and Sentencing��������������������������������������������������������  71 4.2.2 Liability����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  73 4.3 Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  76 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  76 5 Key Recommendations, Final Thoughts, and Future Directions����������  81 5.1 Key Recommendations ����������������������������������������������������������������������  81 5.1.1 Prevention ������������������������������������������������������������������������������  81 5.1.2 Aftermath of School Shootings����������������������������������������������  84 5.1.3 Media Exposure����������������������������������������������������������������������  88 5.1.4 Firearm Access������������������������������������������������������������������������  88 5.2 Future Directions��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  89 5.3 Resources��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  90 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  90 Index��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  91

About the Authors

Scott Poland, Ed.D., is a licensed psychologist with many years of school experience and nationally recognized expert on school crisis, youth violence, suicide intervention, school safety, threat assessment, and the delivery of psychological services in schools. He is an accomplished author on the subject matter of crisis intervention and has led over 1,000 workshops worldwide. Further, he has acted as the lead to numerous crisis teams following school shootings and suicides. In addition to his dedicated efforts in the community, Dr. Poland is a psychology professor at the Center for Psychological Studies and the director of the Suicide and Violence Prevention Office at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Sara  Ferguson, Psy.D., is the current postdoctoral resident at the Suicide and Violence Prevention Office at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Dr. Ferguson earned her doctorate in clinical psychology program with a specialization in forensic psychology at Nova Southeastern University. Dr. Ferguson’s clinical interests include suicide and violence prevention and contemporary relational psychotherapy in the areas of complex trauma, serious mental illness, and autism spectrum disorder. Dr. Ferguson’s research interests are primarily in the forensic domain, including suicide and violence prevention, juvenile offending, and neuropsychology of crime. She recently co-authored a SpringerBrief on juvenile homicide titled A Closer Look at Juvenile Homicide: Kids Who Kill.

xi

Chapter 1

School Shootings: An Overview

School shootings have gained significant attention over the last two decades, prompting heightened levels of concern and misconceptions about the related risks and current state of incidences. Further, the literature related to school shootings is inconsistent and reveals areas of mixed findings, some of which likely contributes to misinformation about the topic. For example, basic statistics of incidents and definitions of school shootings are variably reported, generating confusion about the trends and the current state of school shootings. As such, it is imperative that current data are updated and presented consistently, and that limitations to the way in which this topic is investigated are highlighted. This brief will provide such information and clarify facts versus fears related to school shootings. Of particular importance is an examination of the history of school shootings, the related oversaturation of media coverage, and amplified concerns that school shootings are frequent occurrences. Despite the increased fear, the data continues to show that the risk of school shootings remains relatively low (Cornell, 2015). Moreover, trends indicate that school settings can be considered just as safe as other environments in which youth spend their time. While this brief aims to clarify misinformation, it also recognizes the ongoing occurrences of mass shootings in schools and their tragic implications, further justifying continued need for public attention, scholarly exploration, and evidence-based recommendations. Risk factors and traits among the school shooter population will be explored. Specifically, commonly identified factors related to school shooters will be examined, including typologies, intrapersonal and interpersonal characteristics, and motives. Such knowledge is of vital importance, as it informs the public and, relatedly, the prevention process. While school shootings cannot be predicted, there a variety of methods for safety and prevention that should be implemented on individual, community, and societal levels. Currently, such methods are being executed inconsistently across schools, suggesting the need the for continued review and multidisciplinary collaboration. Best practices for school safety and prevention will be presented, including recommendations from relevant experts.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Poland, S. Ferguson, Lessons Learned From School Shootings, SpringerBriefs in Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75480-8_1

1

2

1  School Shootings: An Overview

In the aftermath of school shootings, parents, students, and community members often voice a call for action related to school safety, gun violence, and mental health policy. As a result, important changes have been made on many fronts; however, there is a need for continued efforts to ensure the safety of our schools and students on a large scale. These issues, along with specific legal cases and related legislation, will be presented and future directions will be discussed. Areas of paucity within the research and program implementation will be highlighted and recommendations for future investigations will be provided. Of importance, a unique aspect of the publication is the inclusion of novel and diverse perspectives related to the content reviewed in each chapter. Recent interviews with a variety of individuals who have been involved in and impacted by school shootings will be included throughout the brief, providing valuable insight and lessons learned from their experiences. Perspectives will be offered from professionals, including psychologists, school personnel, public figures, as well as parents and victims of school shootings. Firsthand accounts will provide a novel lens through which to explore the numerous facets of this topic and aid in informing best practices for school safety and the prevention of school shootings. These interviews have been marginally edited for grammar and conciseness. See below for an introduction to each of the contributors below.

1.1  Personal Perspectives: Introductions Lori Alhadeff: Mother, educator, safety advocate, and cofounder of Make Our Schools Safe. Lori lost her daughter, Alyssa Alhadeff, on February 14, 2018, in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas tragedy. Lori has taken significant action to increase safety at schools and has become a school safety advocate. In 2018, she was elected to The School Board of Broward County, Florida, and currently serves as District 4 Board Member. Dr. Dewey Cornell: A forensic clinical psychologist and Professor of Education at the School of Education and Human Development at the University of Virginia. He also serves as the Director of the UVA Virginia Youth Violence Project and a faculty associate of Institute of Laww, Psychiatry, and Public Policy. He has authored more than 200 publications in psychology and education, including studies of juvenile homicide, school safety, bullying, and threat assessment. Dr. Cornell is the principal author of the Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines, an evidencebased model of school threat assessment used in schools across the United States and Canada. Michele Gay: Mother, educator, and cofounder of Safe and Sound Schools. Michele lost her daughter, Josephine Grace, on December 14, 2012, in the Sandy Hook tragedy. Since that time, Michele has taken significant actions to increase the safety of our nation’s schools. She channeled her work as an advocate, improving safety and security in schools and communities across our country. She is now a highly soughtafter public speaker and school safety expert.

1.1  Personal Perspectives: Introductions

3

Dr. Peter Langman: A psychologist and well-known expert on the psychology of school shooters and other perpetrators of mass violence. He conducts trainings on understanding the psychology of school shooters and identifying potential school shooters for professionals in mental health, education, and law enforcement. He has been hired by government agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and Homeland Security to provide lectures and trainings on school shooting prevention and school safety. Dr. Langman is also a researcher with the National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) of the United States Secret Service. Stacey Lippel: Language arts teacher at Marjory Stoneman Douglas and survivor of the Parkland Shooting on February 14, 2018. Ms. Lippel is a firsthand witness to the shooting and is a hero in this tragedy. She saved a number of students who were in the hallway as the attacker began opening fire, ushering them into her locked classroom. Ms. Lippel lost two of her students that day and was grazed by a bullet. She has been open about her experience in the aftermath of the school shooting, offering invaluable insights and the importance of mental health support. William “Bill” Modzeleski: Senior Threat Manager with SIGMA Threat Management Associates and a nationally recognized leader in the area of school safety and emergency management. Mr. Modzeleski is a former Associate Assistant Deputy Secretary of the US Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug-­Free Schools. He has over 40 years of experience, and has been an integral contributor and coauthor to a number of programs and studies such as the Safe School Initiative (with Secret Service), the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative (with Health and Human Services [HHS] and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP]), the School Associated Violent Death Study (with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]), Threat Assessment Guide (with Secret Service), and Targeted Attacks at Institutions of Higher Education (with FBI and Secret Service). Dr. Scott Poland (one of the present authors): A licensed psychologist with many years of school experience and nationally recognized expert on school crisis, youth violence, suicide intervention, school safety, threat assessment, and the delivery of psychological services in schools. He is an accomplished author on the subject matter of crisis intervention and has led over 1000 workshops worldwide. Further, he has acted as the lead to numerous crisis teams following school shootings and suicides. In addition to his dedicated efforts in the community, Dr. Poland is a psychology professor at the Center for Psychological Studies and the Director of the Suicide and Violence Prevention Office at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Kenneth Trump: The President of National School Safety and Security Services, a national consulting firm specializing in school security and emergency preparedness training, school security assessments, school emergency planning consultations, crisis school safety communications, litigation consulting and expert witness support, and related school safety and crisis consulting services. Mr. Trump is a leading school safety expert and has more than 30 years of frontline experience; he has worked with school and safety officials from all 50 states and others internationally. He is the author, coauthor, and/or editor of three books, five book chapters, and more than 450 articles on school safety issues.

4

1  School Shootings: An Overview

1.2  School Shootings Defined As mentioned, despite the importance and popularity of this topic, the foundational research is limited and studies that have been completed often result in mixed findings. A primary reason for this is rooted in definitional challenges; the phrase “school shootings” is not clearly and consistently defined across research efforts. Disagreements on how to define a school shooting have prompted the use of varied definitions and, in turn, have led to the creation of several different databases that track incidences. In fact, an estimated 20 different entities have collected school shooting data in the United States (Jonson, 2017). A brief review of the literature demonstrates the absence of a widely accepted definition of a school shooting. There are a number of terms used such as mass shootings, rampage shootings, multi-victim shootings, targeted acts of violence, active shootings, and lone-wolf attacks. The inconsistent use of these definitions further complicates the research efforts, as it results in varied inclusion criteria. For example, some databases only track shootings in which multiple victims were injured, while others will include any occurrence in which a firearm was discharged on a school campus, even if by accident. Further, a number of databases track targeted school violence overall, including acts such as physical fights or attacks with other weapons, such as knives. These varied data collection methods create difficulties in the extrapolation of results across studies (Poland et al., 2017). For the purpose of this brief, the authors define school shootings as an event in which a perpetrator utilized a firearm on school campus to intentionally execute or injure others. This includes school shootings that have resulted in single and multiple deaths and injuries.

1.3  School Shootings Research It is important to gain a sense of the state of research as it relates to school shootings. As mentioned, despite the seriousness and grave impact of this topic, there is still much to learn about school shootings. Further, historical and current investigative efforts have created a complicated picture, reporting varied findings across studies. Researchers have dedicated their efforts to examining a number of domains, including shooter characteristics, histories, risk factors, and typologies. Other areas include aspects related to the attacks themselves, including the location of the attack, the perpetrator’s association with the school, the method used, how the attack was planned and put into action, and the outcome of the attack. Researchers have attempted to use these dimensions of school violence in order to best classify school shootings (Poland et al., 2017). Additionally, specific prevention, intervention, and safety methods have been reviewed, resulting in recommendations for best practices that require ongoing monitoring with time.

1.4  History of School Shootings

5

As discussed, study designs and collection methods vary greatly across the literature and investigators do not have one specific database that they extract data from, resulting in the mixed findings and recommendations. For example, some studies include incidents that occur solely on school grounds, while others include those that took place on the way to or from school or a school-sponsored event (i.e., sports game). Regarding perpetrator studies, there are some investigations that only include shooters who were directly associated with the school (i.e., a student or staff member), while others will include individuals who have no connection to the school. Additionally, much of the research focuses broadly on school violence, which ends up including a number of attacks that would not qualify as a school shooting (i.e., a knife attack). Studies that examine the preparation and planning of the attack include attempts to discern the motivation behind the shooting and to differentiate between incidents that occurred because of retaliation and those in which the attack served a symbolic purpose. Additionally, researchers often investigate the outcome of the attack, and may include any school-related event resulting in injury or death, whether accidental or intentional, contributing to a significant issue in accurately reporting prevalence rates. Victim characteristics are typically categorized based on their relationship to the school and perpetrator and whether they were targeted by the shooter or chosen at random. Lastly, some studies are based on the number of injuries deaths that occurred (i.e., single vs. multiple death attacks (Poland et al., 2017)). Given the discussed issues regarding the research on school shootings, it is important to be cautious in interpretations of data and provision of recommendations. Despite the varied findings across studies, there are a number of solid conclusions that have informed the prevention and intervention processes. These best practices, along with other widely accepted recommendations will be reviewed in detail later in this brief.

1.4  History of School Shootings While the topic of school shootings has become more prominent over the last 20  years, it is certainly not a new phenomenon. School shootings in the United States have been documented dating back to the early 1970s (Vossekuil et al., 2002). However, it wasn’t until the fateful day of April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School that school shootings began gripping American media headlines. In the aftermath of the tragedy at Columbine, fear spread quickly across the nation, prompting many to question the safety of our schools. Moreover, much of the public began to maintain the belief that school shootings were on the rise and becoming more and more of a common occurrence over time.

6

1  School Shootings: An Overview

1.4.1  Dispelling the Myths of School Shootings The fear and worry associated with school shootings have served to perpetuate two prominent myths regarding school shootings. Firstly, that our schools are dangerous places for the US youth to reside in day in and day out. Secondly, that school shooting incidences are becoming common occurrences that are reaching “epidemic” proportions in today’s society. These beliefs have prompted responses on federal and district levels, including knee-jerk reactions and prevention emphases on specific areas with little evidential backing (i.e., gun control). Given the appalling consequences of school shootings, it is understandable that many individuals hold these beliefs; however, it important to understand that they are not rooted in factual evidence and can be proven otherwise. To begin, while shocking and traumatic to many, the Columbine shootings occurred at a time in which student homicide risk was actually on the decline. Fox et al. (2018) comment on this, noting the high rates of single-victim homicides and gang violence observed in the early 1990s, predating the Columbine massacre. In fact, it is reported that the homicide risk for students peaked in 1992–1993, at one in two million. In the years after, the rate of risk declined steadily and has remained relatively flat since 2000, with an average risk as low as one in ten million (excluding the 2012–2013 school year during which 20 students and 6 adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School). James Allen Fox, a leading expert in mass homicides, completed a thorough analysis of multiple victim school shootings from 1992 to 2016, finding that contrary to the impression that many Americans have formed regarding the incidences of school shootings, the overall numbers of both incidents and of victims were far greater in the 1990s. He emphasized the importance of grounding beliefs about school shootings in historical statistical data. In a recent op-ed (2018), Fox relayed that since 1990, there have been 22 shootings at elementary and secondary schools in which two or more people were executed, not including attackers who died by suicide. He went on to state that while five of these shootings occurred over the past 5-plus years since 2013, claiming the lives of 27 victims (17 at Parkland), seven multiple-fatality shootings, with a total of 33 killed (13 at Columbine), occurred in the 1990s. A number of other sources point to important statistical information that aids in dispelling the myths that schools are dangerous and that school shootings are common occurrences. • Homicide is the second leading cause of death among youth aged 5–18. Less than 2% of these homicides occur on school grounds, on the way to/from school, or at or on the way to/from a school-sponsored event (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019). • The FBI reports that of the 160 active shooter cases that occurred in the United States from 2000 to 2013, only 16.9% (27 cases) of incidences occurred in school settings (Blair & Schweit, 2014).

1.4  History of School Shootings

7

• Mass shootings in school are rare, accounting for less than 1% of gunfire at schools (Everytown, 2020). • For every shooting in a school, there are 1500+ cases outside of schools (Cornell & Poland, 2021). • It is 10 times more likely that a student will die on the way to school than in a school shooting on campus (Pecanna, 2019). • More youth in the United States (ages 5–19) have died from pool drownings, lightning strikes, animal attacks, bus and bicycle accidents, and accidental falls than from mass shootings in schools in the past 20 years (CDC, 2020). Another renowned expert in the field of school shootings, forensic clinical psychologist Dr. Dewey Cornell provides additional information that aids in dispelling the discussed myths. He insists that schools today are one of the safest places to be. Further, he brings attention to the fact that most school-associated homicides are not acts of targeted violence that we typically think of, such as the shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas (MSD); rather, they are most often related to gang violence, drugs, or other criminal activity or interpersonal conflicts where the school is simply the site for the attack, rather than the target (Borum et al., 2010). He encourages the public to consider the prevalence of school shootings in the context of the national prevalence of gun violence and to shift the concern from school shootings specifically, to the broader issue of gun violence.

Personal Perspectives: Dr. Dewey Cornell, Threat Assessment Expert We have a larger problem of shootings and gun violence generally. For every shooting that occurs in a school, there are 1500 that occur outside of a school. If we look at the number of kids in school shootings, it is only 1–2%. If we consider how many schools have shootings and recognize that we have 100,000 schools [in the United States], then the average school can expect a fatal shooting every 6000 years. The statistics are overwhelming that schools are safe; safer than homes, restaurants, and other public places. However, school shootings still remains a serious concern. Given what has been discussed, we can confidently dispel the myths that school shootings are common occurrences, reaching epidemic levels, thereby rendering our schools dangerous places for students to be. However, the answer to whether school shootings are occurring more frequently in recent years remains elusive. Relatedly, accurate prevalence rates are not definitively agreed upon. This is primarily due to the issues discussed previously regarding the research of school shootings, its varied definition and inclusion criteria, and the differing methods used to study this phenomenon. While some experts remain emphatic in their report that school shootings are not on the rise in the recent years, others have reported findings that suggest otherwise.

8

1  School Shootings: An Overview

A prominent example to turn to is the data reported from Everytown (2021), the largest gun violence prevention organization in the United States. They complete ongoing research and analyses related to school shootings and school safety. Their recent trends regarding school shootings paint a far different picture, citing over 549 incidences of gunfire since the Sandy Hook tragedy to 2019. Critics of this number have pointed to the fact that while all incidences involved a school of some type (including technical schools and colleges), as well as a firearm, the inclusion criteria was broad in nature. A large percentage were completed or attempted suicides, accidental discharges of a gun, or shootings with not a single individual being injured (Fox, 2018). Further, Everytown does acknowledge that mass shootings remain rare events, accounting for less than 1% of overall school gun violence incidents (Everytown, 2021). Another important example includes a recent review completed by Dr. Peter Langman, one of our contributors and a leading expert in the areas of school violence and shootings, titled “Multi-Victim School Shootings in the United States: A FiftyYear Review” (2016). He utilized highly specific inclusion criteria that served to narrow the scope of incidences (i.e., did not include incidences in which guns were brandished or accidentally discharged, or shootings that occurred near school but not on campus). Ultimately, Langman analyzed 62 school shootings and concluded that over the last 50 years (1966–2015), school shootings have increased in frequency (see Table 1.1). At the same time, he also emphasized the notion that despite the rise, school shootings are “statistically extraordinarily rare” (Hirsch & Poland, 2020, p.11). Lastly, a review of the 2019 “The School Shooting Database Project” from the US Homeland Defense and Security reported that while school shootings remain rare occurrences, their frequency is increasing over time. They do, however, acknowledge the issues associated with this report, pointing to the inconsistencies in data collection and reporting of outcomes across publications. Nevertheless, the discussed findings leave us with a mixed impression regarding the current prevalence of school shootings. Taken together, it appears that while the frequency of school shootings has increased in the last several years, they continue to be rare occurrences and are certainly not reaching epidemic proportions, nor do they constitute fear and worry regarding the safety of our schools. They do, however, point to the continued need to investigate this topic and make efforts to create a more uniform reporting system. Further, the increased rates justify the critical need for the ongoing development and fine-tuning of evidence-based prevention programs. Table 1.1  Number of school shootings by decade Decade 1966 to 1975 1976 to 1985 1986 to 1995 1996 to 2005 2006 to 2015 Adapted from Langman (2016)

Number of school shootings 3 8 14 18 19

1.4  History of School Shootings

9

1.4.2  Media Exposure Despite the relatively low statistical risk, our nation continues to experience high levels of fear and panic regarding school shootings. Further, the myths discussed previously continue to exist and gain strength after every highly publicized incident. Given the fact that student homicide risk was much higher in the 1990s, why is our nation plagued with such fear today, when this was not the case at a time when the reaction was more warranted? What has changed in our society over the last three decades that may contribute to this? Answer: technology. Our nation has been on a fast track of progress regarding technology and its related facets such as news, the Internet, streaming services, and social media platforms. These technical advances have created a world in which almost all information is instantly accessible at our fingertips. Smartphones have become minicomputers that live in our pockets, creating immediate and broad access to friends, family, news events, and so much more. Further, news stories are no longer broadcasted on local television channels for an hour a night; they are readily available 24/7 from multiple outlets in the forms of videos, tweets, online newsletter articles, posts, etc. In many ways, these advances have shaped our society to be at its peak of connectedness, intelligence, and progress. While there are many positives associated with the technical advances in our society, in the context of school shootings, those very positives generate major concerns. The most prominent of all includes the excessive media exposure of school shootings and the related accessibility for Americans far and wide. For example, advances in technology and communications have created the opportunity for individuals to view horrific images or footage from shootings, some of which is even streamed in live time. Many scholars have noted the significant increase in media attention as it relates to school shootings. Dr. Cheryl Lo Jonson, an expert in criminal justice, provided a review (2017) on the state of the media and viewer engagement in the aftermath of infamous school shootings in the United States. In the month after the Sandy Hook shooting, over 90% of people reported that they were following the developing story somewhat closely or very closely (Fox & DeLateur, 2013; Saad, 2012; Jonson, 2017). Regarding publications, the New York Times alone published more than 130 newspaper articles about the shooting within that same time period (Elsass et al., 2015; Schildkraut & Muschert, 2013; Jonson, 2017). The increase in media coverage surrounding these events has had detrimental effects, most notably, the creation and maintenance of fear and panic regarding the safety of our schools and students. Research confirms this impact, demonstrating that media coverage of school shootings intensifies the level of emotionality surrounding these events via the increase in their visibility and salience, thereby creating a distorted sense of reality (Muschert & Carr, 2006). Further, the excessive national media attention given to school shootings biases our understanding of how likely it is that a school shooting will occur, creating a false perception of imminent danger (Cornell, 2015).

10

1  School Shootings: An Overview

It is also important to note that in many cases, media portrayals of school shootings have been faulty in nature, missing pertinent details that can lead viewers to develop a number of negative emotional reactions (i.e., panic) and misconceptions (i.e., schools are unsafe) about the state of school shootings. Bracy and Kupchik (2008) studied this very topic, investigating media portrayals of school shootings and violence between 2000 and 2006. They observed that the media frequently reminded the public about the Columbine massacre and disseminated inaccurate information, such as the notion that the shootings were random, unpredictable, and a growing danger. The authors also reported that many times, news stories were presented out of context; reporters often failed to utilize accurate statistical data regarding the degree of risks, especially as it relates to the low occurrence rate of the incidences. Given what has been discussed, it is not surprising that the general public becomes struck with fear and panic about the safety of our schools and that common myths continue to be spread over time. A review of historical Gallup’s Annual Work and Education polls reveal that in 1999, shortly after the Columbine massacre, parental fear for their child’s safety at school peaked at 55% and slowly decreased to about 20% in the years that followed. This number then spiked up to 35% following the Virginia Tech shooting. In a similar fashion, as time passed after Virginia Tech, fear dropped to 25% and then intensified to 33% in the wake of Sandy Hook (McCarthy, 2014; Jonson, 2017). The overexposure of the media regarding these events has greatly impacted parental perception, creating mass fears and misperceptions about the safety of our schools. Another negative factor associated with media reporting of school shootings is the indirect glorification of the perpetrators. For example, in the aftermath of a school shooting, many prominent magazine outlets use photos of the perpetrator on the cover; news anchors will also repeatedly show photos and headlines will splash their names across publications. While the public is eager to know more about the shooter, the exposure not only amplifies the tragedies and relatedly, fear, it also gives sensationalized attention to a very disturbed individual. Moreover, other individuals who are at risk for violence may view the public attention as positive, creating the image of an underserving hero in their eyes. This generates a higher risk for a contagion effect, in which others may attempt to copy the actions of a seemingly glorified shooter (Coleman, 2004; Towers et al. 2015).

1.5  Conclusion School shootings are a critical topic that require ongoing and current exploration. To date, there is no universal definition of a school shooting, nor are there universal methods for tracking their occurrences. This creates difficulty in completing consistent research on this topic and the related domains. Efforts must be made to create more streamlined investigations into school shootings in order to better understand

References

11

the offenders and their motives, along with the contexts surrounding the acts. These are vital sources of information to the prevention process. While there is no doubt that their impact is massive and traumatic, the public’s perception associated with school shootings is generally warped. Oversaturation of media coverage has prompted our society to run with the notion that school shootings are rampant throughout the United States, rapidly growing with each year passes. This belief, however, is untrue. Schools remain the safest environment for our students to spend their days. There is, however, is major need for ongoing research related to school safety and best practices for implementation, yet another essential component of prevention.

References Blair, J.  P., & Schweit, K.  W. (2014). A study of active shooter incidents, 2000–2013. Texas State University and Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice. www.fbi.gov/about-­us/office-­of-­partnerengagement/ active-­shooter-­incidents/a-­study-­of-­active-­shooter-­incidents-­in-­the-­u.s.-­2000-­2013 Borum, R., Cornell, D. G., Modzeleski, W., & Jimerson, S. R. (2010). What can be done about school shootings? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x09357620 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019, January 24). Characteristics of school-­ associated youth homicides  – United States, 1994–2018. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6803a1.htm Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, October 7). Unintentional drowning: Get the Facts. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-­safety/waterinjuries-­factsheet.html. Coleman, L. (2004). The copycat effect: How the media and popular culture trigger the mayhem in tomorrow's headlines. Paraview Pocket Books. Cornell, D. (2015). Our schools are safe: Challenging the misperception that schools are dangerous places. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85(3), 217. Cornell, D., & Poland, S. (2021). Threat assessment and suicide prevention. Navigate, 360. Elsass, H., Schildkraut, J., & Stafford, M. C. (2015). Studying school shootings: Challenges and considerations for research. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(3), 444–464. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12103-­015-­9311-­9 Everytown for Gun Safety. Everytown. (2021, February 25). https://everytown.org/. Fox, J. A. (2018, February 20). School shootings are not the new normal, despite statistics that stretch the truth. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/02/19/parkland-­ school-­shootings-­not-­new-­normal-­despite-­statistics-­stretching-­truth-­fox-­column/349380002/ Fox, J.  A., & DeLateur, M.  J. (2013). Mass shootings in America. Homicide Studies, 18(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767913510297 Fox, J.  A., Fridel, E.  E., & Shapiro, H. (2018). The menace of school shootings in America (Chapter). In The Wiley handbook on violence in education: Forms, factors, and preventions. Wiley. Guns in Schools. Everytown. (2020). https://everytown.org/issues/guns-­in-­schools/. Hirsch, P. & Poland, S., (2020). Dr. Peter Langman Interview: Why Kids Kill. SVP Newsletter, Spring/Summer 2020, 11. Jonson, C. L. (2017). Preventing school shootings: The effectiveness of safety measures. Victims & Offenders, 12(6), 956–973. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2017.1307293 Kupchik, A., & Bracy, N. L. (2008). The news media on school crime and violence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7(2), 136–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204008328800

12

1  School Shootings: An Overview

Langman, P. (2016). Multi-victim school shootings in the United States: A fifty-year review. The Journal of Campus Behavioral Intervention (J-BIT), 4, 5–17. McCarthy, J. (2014, August 13). Fear for child’s safety nearly back to pre-Sandy Hook levels. Gallup News Service. http://www.gallup.com/poll/174827/fear-­child-­safety-­nearly-­backpre-­ sandy-­hook-­levels.aspx Muschert, G. W., & Carr, D. (2006). Media salience and frame changing across events: Coverage of nine school shootings, 1997–2001. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(4), 747–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900608300402 Pecanna, S. (2019, October 11). Opinion | lockdown drills: An American quirk, out of control. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/11/ lockdown-­drills-­an-­american-­quirk-­out-­control/?arc404=true Poland, S., Conte, B., VanHasselt, V., & Bourke, M. (2017). School violence (chapter). In Handbook of behavioral criminology: Contemporary strategies and issues. Springer. Saad, L. (2012). Parents’ fear for children’s safety at school rises slightly. Gallup.com. https:// news.gallup.com/poll/159584/parents-­fear-­childrensafety-­school-­rises-­slightly.aspx Schildkraut, J., & Muschert, G.  W. (2013). Media salience and the framing of mass murder in schools. Homicide Studies, 18(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767913511458 Towers, S., Gomez-Lievano, A., Khan, M., Mubayi, A., & Castillo-Chavez, C. (2015). Contagion in mass killings and school shootings. PLoS One, 10(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0117259 U.S. Homeland Defense and Security. The school shooting database project. https://www.chds. us/ssdb/ Vossekuil, B., Fein, R., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002). The final report and findings of the safe school initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program and U.S. Secret Service, National Threat Assessment Center.

Chapter 2

School Shooters and Shootings

Significant scholarly efforts have been made toward examining common characteristics and patterns across school shootings. The majority of empirical work has emphasized individual characteristics of school shootings. Specifically, investigators have completed in-depth analyses of shooter typologies, related risk factors, and methods. A number of important studies have been completed; however, the body of literature remains somewhat small compared to the grave impact of the issue. This is due to a number of reasons, including the aforementioned issues with classifications of shootings and the variance in the availability of information regarding the shooters.

2.1  School Shooting Contexts Experts have noted the dearth of research on school shootings outside of individual factors, especially in light of the many identified contextual and environmental factors associated with school violence. For example, Osher et al. (2004) reported correlates of school violence with school environment (e.g., vandalism, crowded halls), school policy (e.g., teachers are not observed by administration, limited parent involvement via parent–teacher association), student behavior (e.g., presence of cliques, limited participation in extracurricular activities), and faculty and staff behavior (e.g., staff doesn’t attend to bullying). In an effort to expand the scope of research, several studies were completed in which a number of environmental factors associated with school violence were identified and further examined (See Kaiser, 2005, Newman et  al., 2004, Renfro et  al., 2003, and Soderstrom & Elrod, 2006). Such factors included school types (elementary, middle, high, college), school/classroom size (number of students and faculty), and location (rural, urban, suburban). In light of these findings, Flores de Apodaca et al. (2012) sought to further the investigation into environmental factors

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Poland, S. Ferguson, Lessons Learned From School Shootings, SpringerBriefs in Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75480-8_2

13

14

2  School Shooters and Shootings

associated with school shootings. The researchers analyzed 134 American schools where fatal shootings had occurred since 1966, ultimately finding significant relationships between several dimensions of school environments and fatal shootings. These results, along with supporting literature, will be explored in more detail below.

2.1.1  School Types As mentioned earlier, the rampage shootings at Columbine High School were a major contributor to the massive influx of media and public attention on school shootings. As a result, school shootings have become broadly associated with this tragic incident, prompting much of the public to believe that school shootings occur solely in high school environments. However, what history has showed us, other school settings can fall victim to school shootings. Consider highly publicized shootings that have occurred in other school types, such as elementary schools (e.g., Sandy Hook Elementary) or college campuses (e.g., Virginia Tech). Because of the varied occurrence, efforts have been made to better understand the school types most commonly associated with school shootings as means to best inform prevention efforts. Flores de Apodaca et al. (2012) analyzed the occurrence of school shootings in “school levels,” that is, elementary school (grades K–5), middle school (grades 6–8), high school (grades 9–12), and college campuses. Analyses revealed that fatal school shootings were 2.5 times more likely to occur at a high school or middle school campus compared to a college campus. These findings were further supported by the FBI’s 2013 review of active shooting incidents in the United States between 2000 and 2013 (Blair & Schweit, 2014). High schools were found to have the highest reported number of active shooting incidents (14 of the 25 shootings), followed by middle schools (six incidents), elementary schools (four incidents), and one shooting at a Pre-K–12 school. Personal Perspectives: Dr. Scott Poland, National Crisis Responder One hypothesis I have about why most shootings are in high school is that there has been a lot of frustration that has built up over many years. In high school, these individuals come to a point when they can no longer manage the distress. Dr. Langman (2016) examined this factor across a broader period of time (1966–2015). Regarding school type, he noted a change between the first 25 years of data (1966–1991) and the second (1992–2015), in which the rate of school shooting occurrences decreased over time in elementary and middle schools and increased

2.1  School Shooting Contexts

15

in high schools and college campuses. Higher rates in high schools and colleges continues to be a trend, evidenced by recent reports from the 2019 US Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center’s (NTAC) Analysis of Targeted School Violence. The NTAC examined 41 incidents of targeted school violence (majority of which were shootings) that occurred at K–12 schools in the United States from 2008 to 2017. Similar to findings from prior investigations, the highest rate of attacks occurred in high schools (19 of 30 incidents), followed by middle school (nine incidents), elementary school (one incident) and one shooting at a K–11 setting. While it appears that school shootings are pervasive across school types, study results are consistent in identifying high schools as the primary type of school in which shootings occur. This is a highly important piece of the prevention puzzle, indicating that no school type is immune to school shootings, and prevention must be targeted in all school settings, especially those with grades 9–12.

2.1.2  School Size Among the school-related factors examined across the literature, Flores de Apodaca et al. (2012) noted that the most consistent correlative finding to school violence is class size and total enrollment in the school (DeVoe et al., 2003). Higher rates of violence in larger and more crowded schools have been observed consistently. Kaiser’s 2005 analysis of multiple-injury school shootings highlighted these findings, reporting that 11 of the 13 incidences reviewed occurred in highly populated high schools, with enrollment counts ranging from 600 to over 1000 students. Current data continues to support these findings; Baird et al.’s (2016) review of school shootings between 1995 and 2014 reported that mass school shootings were more likely to occur at larger than average schools. Further, a 2019 analysis comparing 253 school districts in the United States that experienced at least one shooting from the 1998/1999 to 2017/2018 school years to the 13,201 that did not, affirmed prior reports from the last two decades, ultimately finding that districts with high enrollments are at a higher risk for a school shooting (Fridel, 2019). What aspects of larger than average school sizes contribute to the high rates of school shootings? Several researchers (Baird et al., 2016; Flores de Apodaca et al., 2012, Hyman et al., 2003) have suggested that the sense of anonymity that comes with more populated schools may be a contributing factor. Further, larger schools are linked to a student experience of increased alienation and isolation, prompting students to feel lonely and with limited social support (Böckler et al., 2011; Flores de Apodaca et al., 2012). It has been proposed that coupled together, anonymity and alienation may contribute to a student’s belief that a public display of violence is the only path to relief.

16

2  School Shooters and Shootings

2.1.3  School Location In light of the data reviewed thus far regarding contextual aspects of school shootings, the authors would be remiss to not examine the school location, including aspects of the surrounding community. A review of the locales of documented school shootings reveals mixed findings. Several studies have reported findings of high rates of school shootings in primarily suburban and rural areas (see Grøndahl et  al., 2016; Kimmel, 2008; Kimmel & Mahler, 2003; Livingston et  al., 2019; Madfis, 2014). However, there are contrary studies indicating similar prevalence rates in urban communities (see Anderson et al., 2001, Flores de Apodaca et al., 2012, NATC, 2019). A deeper investigation revealed a major factor that contributes to the opposing conclusions: gun violence. Gun violence and, relatedly, fatal shootings are found at significantly higher rates in urban communities across the United States (Pahn et al., 2019). Madfis (2016) spoke of this factor as it relates to school shootings, stating that while the majority of gun violence in school settings occurs in urban communities, rampage school shootings (i.e., school shootings where no single or specific individual is targeted by the shooter) more often occur in suburban or rural areas. This is further supported by Livingston’s 2018 descriptive analysis of school shooter and shootings characteristics, in which shootings with higher casualty rates were found to occur within rural and suburban communities. Dr. Peter Langman has been quoted on this association, stating, “People tend to think of violence associated with cities, not violence associated with small-town America, but this type of violence is the one associated with small-town America” (Pane, 2018). Several factors are hypothesized to contribute to this observed relationship, including fewer restrictions on guns in these communities, along an observed “copycat effect” in which teens emulate their peers’ disturbed behaviors. Furthermore, the smaller population within suburban and rural areas creates tighter-­ knit communities, ones in which “everybody knows everybody.” While in a broader context, close community relations can act as a protective factor to negative outcomes (i.e., depression, suicidality), however, for some individuals, it creates complications. For example, a peer argument or romantic relationship ending may become news across a town or community, enhancing the impact to those involved.

2.1.4  School Funding Source An additional factor discussed across the literature is the funding source of the school at which shootings have occurred. Prevalence rates of school shootings at public schools versus private schools have been documented across more recent studies. Flores de Apodaca et al. (2012) noted their surprise in finding the stark difference of school shootings in privately funded schools when compared to those that are publicly funded (2 of the 134 schools). This is further supported by the

2.2  School Shooter Common Characteristics

17

NATC’s (2019) report that 95% of the school shootings reviewed occurred in public schools. While the literature does not provide answers as to why there are such disproportionate rates between public and private schools, consideration of their respective environments may offer a few suggestions. Firstly, school size; recall the earlier discussion regarding the positive correlation between school shootings and higher enrollment. Generally, private schools are designed to be a more intimate environment, with smaller class sizes and higher student-to-teacher ratios, when compared to public school models. Baird et al. (2016) highlighted these factors as critical in the consideration of school shooting prevention based on their findings that students who have transitioned from a smaller, more supportive context, like a private school, to a larger public school are more likely to engage in school shootings. Secondly, given the smaller nature of private schools, there is likely a decreased sense of anonymity and an increased sense of connectedness among one’s peers, teachers, and the spirit of the school itself. Lastly, availability of resources; private schools typically have more financial freedom to provide support services, higher teacher-to-student ratios, and schoolwide community building (i.e., recreational student events, activities, clubs).

2.2  School Shooter Common Characteristics As mentioned earlier, the bulk of research related to school shootings has focused heavily on individual characteristics of school shooters. Numerous scholars have dedicated efforts to creating a “school shooter profile,” in which specific factors could be identified in advance as means to inform prevention. However, repeated explorations have generated a solid consensus: a “school shooter profile” does not exist. In fact, many experts argue that the creation of such profiles is dangerous; the commonly identified characteristics are broad in nature and ones that many students fall under but never turn to acts of violence. As such, the use of profiles may unfairly or wrongly label students as “at-risk” and as a result, unfairly infringe upon their liberties. Reviews of school shooter case studies (see Langman, 2009a, b, 2013, 2016) have demonstrated significant variations in relevant historical information, risk and protective factors, personality traits, psychopathology, and environmental contexts. Taken together, the most current and appropriate conclusion regarding individual characteristics of school shooters is that there are common factors and patterns observed across the population. Gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, for example, are three distinct features that are most consistently found, as the majority of school shooters have been middle to lower-middle class, white males (Kimmel & Mahler, 2003; Muschert, 2007; Verlinden et al., 2000). While repeated studies of school shooters over time have highlighted the range in factors across this population, findings have pointed to trends that lend well to groupings of characteristics, or typologies. However, it is important to note that

18

2  School Shooters and Shootings

these types are not cut and dry, can often overlap, and fail to include other pertinent miscellaneous characteristics. Typologies are not school shooter profiles, rather a way in which to best make sense of this elusive population.

2.2.1  Langman’s Typologies As noted, Dr. Peter Langman is psychologist and renowned expert in school violence; he has dedicated his career to studying school shooters and shootings. Dr. Langman has published numerous articles, research studies, and books on this topic; further, he created a website that serves as a public database of resources and information for use by professionals in mental health, education, and law enforcement. Among the large body of literature that he has contributed, Dr. Langman’s proposed school shooter typologies have been one of the most significant conclusions that have impacted related research and prevention efforts. The typologies were set forth initially in his 2009 study, “Rampage School Shootings: A Typology,” and were further expanded upon in his 2009 book, Why Kids Kill: Inside the Mind of School Shooters. In his review of 10 case studies of school shooters, Dr. Langman sought to explore not only how school shooters were similar, but also how they differed. His review revealed specific patterns that led to the grouping of school shooters into three types: psychopathic, psychotic, and traumatized. As time has passed, Dr. Langman has continued his research, finding further support for these typologies in more recent analyses of school shooters (see Langman, 2013, 2016, 2017). Psychopathic School Shooters  Psychopathic school shooters are characterized by clusters of traits that are typically observed in individuals with psychopathy. Firstly, these shooters display narcissistic tendencies, a key foundational factor linked to a number of other psychopathic traits. Narcissism is fueled by two factors: egotism and egocentrism; the former drives the belief that one is superior to others and the latter drives an individual’s interest in one’s own needs above and beyond the needs of others, observed as a lack of empathy. Langman (2009a, b) observed that some school shooters, similar to psychopaths, reject the conventional ideals of right and wrong, as the concept of morality impedes their ability to meet their own needs. The combination of deficient empathy and morality leads to a lack of guilt or remorse, as these individuals will stop at nothing to satisfy their own needs. Poor emotion regulation related to anger management is also noted across this typology, including the occurrences of fits of rage that can be dangerous due to their limited sense of empathy and moral conscious. Despite their lack of core humanistic qualities, psychopathic shooters are found to be skilled in impression management and utilize this ability to manipulate and deceive others as it pleases them. It is proposed that their narcissism inflates their sense of confidence, allowing them to present as charming or charismatic (Langman, 2009a, b). However, this positive impression management is usually shallow in

2.2  School Shooter Common Characteristics

19

nature and a veil for their sadistic desires. These shooters are likely to take delight in inflicting pain or harm to animals and humans, a common factor observed early on in the development of psychopathy. Lastly, regarding psychosocial and environmental contexts, psychopathic shooters were found to come from stable homes with no evidence of abuse or neglect. Dr. Langman has shared several case studies of psychopathic school shooters, including 11-year-old Andrew Golden, a middle schooler who, along with a friend, opened fire on the students and staff at Westside Middle school in Jonesboro, Arkansas, in 1998, ultimately killing four students and a teacher, and wounding ten others. Golden was described as a troublemaker, often acting as though he was “above the rules”; he was known to be a bully with difficulty controlling his anger. Reportedly, one peer alleged that he had killed her cat with a BB gun (Miller, 2017). Eric Harris, one of the shooters at Columbine High School is also included in this typology. Numerous psychopathic traits can be identified, most notably, in his motive for the shooting. Harris believed that it was his duty to eradicate inferior people and/or all of humanity.

Personal Perspectives: Dr. Peter Langman, School Shooter Expert Q: What did you use for your foundation as you were developing the three types? Were there previous works that influenced you? No, it was early on, and there was no literature on the typology of school shooters, evaluating for school shooting risk, and so on. Columbine was hardly the first school shooting or the first in the ‘90’s. There were a lot, including the previous academic year of ‘97–‘98. But the literature in the field hadn’t really caught up with the phenomenon. So, the early work by the Secret Service, the Department of Education, and the FBI were identifying characteristics of the perpetrators, but they were not dividing them into categories. I think going back to my very first case, the 16-year-old boy who came in after Columbine, I remember struggling with that individual trying to figure it out. Is this person psychotic? Is he psychopathic? He was not a cooperative client. That made it challenging. I remember even with that first case trying to figure out, what am I dealing with here? I was trying to make sense of the presentation, and what struck me as I was seeing the kids in the hospital and also the cases that happened across the country from ‘99 on was not how similar the perpetrators or would-be perpetrators were but how different they were. I was realizing there were significant differences in who they were and how they got to that point, even if the end point looked like it was the same thing—a school shooting. Why they were doing it and the path they took to get there tended to be very different from the next guy, and out of that emerged the recognition that I’m dealing with different types of people here.

20

2  School Shooters and Shootings

Dr. Langman has often noted the limitations regarding this typology, namely the fact that the psychopathy is not a diagnosis in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual-5 (DSM-5 [American Psychiatric Association, APA, 2013]), nor is it a term that is commonly applied to youth. Further, he has emphasized that while there are school shooters that fall within this category, the features that manifest vary from shooter to shooter and not every shooter has each characteristic described. Moreover, psychopathic school shooters are of the minority among the three typologies, countering a commonly held belief that all school shooters are psychopaths. Psychotic  Psychotic shooters have been found to make up a significant portion of school shooters. This is contrary to broader statistics on general juvenile homicide, in which psychotic killers are of the minority (Hernandez et  al., 2020). Dr. Langman’s work highlighted several psychotic school shooters, all of whom had symptoms of schizophrenia or schizotypal personality disorder, as defined in the DSM-5 (APA, 2013). Commonly observed presentations include the presence of positive psychotic symptoms such as command hallucinations and delusions. Paranoid delusions and those of grandeur have been documented across case studies. Moreover, some school shooters have had delusions regarding their sense of self (e.g., belief that one is an alien or God), causing significant disruptions to their identity. Additional symptoms relevant to identifying psychotic shooters include eccentric behavior, disorganized or odd thinking, and major impairments in the social and emotional domains of functioning. The present authors hypothesize that the observed deficits in the socio-emotional domains result in poor emotion regulation and coping skills, leading to dysregulated emotional reactions, such as rage or violence. Lastly, shooters in this typology were found to have significant issues with anxiety and/or depression. It is important to note that oftentimes these symptoms were not readily apparent to others, as shooters found ways to mask their difficulties, ultimately preventing themselves from getting the therapeutic help they so desperately needed. This makes sense especially in light of many parents’ reports of horrified shock after the shootings occur. Similar to psychopathic shooters, individuals in this typology had intact families and no history of abuse or neglect. Dylan Klebold, the counterpart to Eric Harris in the Columbine shooting, was categorized into the psychotic school shooter typology. Langman’s review of Dylan’s journals gave insight into his proposed diagnosis of schizotypal personality disorder. Dylan was observed as having disordered thinking processes, such as ideas of reference (i.e., the belief that innocuous things are specifically related to you), disorganized thinking, and delusions of grandiosity (i.e., quotes that he is at the level of a god). Additionally, he presented as detached from reality in many ways, a key feature in psychotic shooters. Dylan often wrote about his detachment from humanity and his own identity. Traumatized  The Traumatized typology was created based off the historical biopsychosocial information across case studies. These shooters are not grouped together based on the DSM-5 diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder; rather, they

2.2  School Shooter Common Characteristics

21

have all experienced multiple forms of trauma throughout development. These are youth who typically grew up in impoverished areas and in broken homes that were marked by adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). Parents were often substance abusers who engaged in criminal behavior. Caregiving was generally inconsistent, if not downright neglectful, and basic living needs were repeatedly left unmet. Most notable across the case studies, are the histories of recurrent physical, emotional, and/or sexual abuse. Physical and sexual abuse, especially abuse that is recurrent in nature and throughout childhood, can result in significant future difficulties and impairments in several domains of functioning. Exposure to traumatic events increases the likelihood for comorbid psychopathology, such as anxiety and depression. Moreover, individuals who experience multiple traumas often report a disrupted sense of self and difficulties relating to others due to avoidant or paranoid traits. Lastly, while trauma impacts one’s ability to feel connected to others, it also can impair an individual’s own emotional connectedness, often described as “emotional numbness” (Gold, 2000). In his 2009 book, Dr. Langman detailed the history of Evan Ramsey, the 16-year-­ old Alaskan high schooler who shot and killed two people and wounded two others. As a child, Ramsey was exposed to numerous ACEs. His father was imprisoned early on and his mother became an alcoholic, resulting in social services involvement. Ramsey was moved into foster care homes, where he was sexually abused in at least one instance. It is documented that he suffered from depression since the age of 10 years, and experienced suicidal ideation for 5 years leadings up to the shootings (CBS News Staff, 1999). Suicidal: A Related Typology  Dr. Langman noted an additional related typology observed across case studies that overlap within each of the three already set forth: suicidology in school shooters. His 2013 review found that 60% of the perpetrators were suicidal at the time of the shootings and 49% of those individuals died by suicide. This was further supported by the US Secret Service’s retrospective research on school shooters from 1974 to 2000, in which 78% of perpetrators had experienced suicidal thoughts or engaged in suicidal behavior before their attack (Vossekuil et al. 2002). Regarding typology specifics, the highest rates of suicidal ideation were found in psychotic shooters (86%), followed by traumatized (50%), and psychopathic (43%). Regarding completed suicide rates, psychotic shooters are the most likely to die by suicide, followed closely by psychopathic shooters, who, in contrast to traumatized shooters, have no ambivalence about their decision to die by suicide. Additionally, age presented as a moderating factor to a school shooter’s desire to die by suicide; older shooters were found to be more chronically suicidal and more likely to die by suicide. Anthony Preti (2006) posed an interesting theory regarding this typology, suggesting that these school shooters desire suicide with hostile intent. This is based on the idea that many shooters want to die by suicide but are either unable to do so

22

2  School Shooters and Shootings

themselves or they have hope of making a spectacle of the event (Fast, 2008; Langman, 2009a, b; Newman et  al., 2004; Rocque, 2012). He compared suicide with hostile intent to ancient ceremonies in which suicide was completed in part through revenge (Fast, 2008). This idea of suicide with hostile intent can be linked to efforts to demonstrate traditional and idealized qualities of manhood, that is, power and strength, a concept that will be explored further.

2.2.2  Additional Common Characteristics The identification of common themes across the school shooter population brings further understanding to pertinent historical factors and relevant stressors and contexts. Numerous studies found that many school shooters had academic and disciplinary difficulties (NATC, 2019; Langman 2013, 2016). Additionally, the occurrence of historical or recent interpersonal distress or failures, most notably recent interpersonal disputes, bullying, and social rejection have been consistently observed (NATC, 2019). Such interpersonal factors will be reviewed in more depth as they relate to motives for school shootings. As with other commonalities, it is important to keep in mind that while aforementioned factors have been identified in several of school shooters, it does not mean that they are present across all. Key findings from the US Secret Service’s School Safe Initiative report (Vossekuil et al., 2002) highlighted this fact, in which a range in academic functioning and social support was observed across school shooters, some of whom had no reported issues at all. The continued variation in findings aids in confirming the notion that no profile of a school shooter exists that can solidly predict the development of a school shooter.

2.3  C  ontributing Factors to School Shootings: Biological, Psychological, Social While a number of trends and commonalities associated with this population have been identified, the question of why persists. Scholars are in agreement that much like school shooter profiles, a simple explanation does not exist. Given the variation observed across this population and incidents, we cannot isolate one specific contributing factor to school shooters; rather, we must consider the intersection of relevant biological, psychological, and social contexts.

2.3  Contributing Factors to School Shootings: Biological, Psychological, Social

23

2.3.1  Biological Given that gender (male identifying) is one of the most salient factors across school shooters, a number of researchers have dedicated their efforts to examining this biological construct in this context. Masculinity is of particular interest within this population and intersects with all of the biopsychosocial domains. School shooters are found to have significant issues related to their level of masculinity, suggesting a strong link to the development of their life trajectory. More specifically, many male school shooters struggle to live up to the sociocultural ideals set forth regarding what makes up the “ideal man” (Langman, 2017). In western societies, such as the United States, clear messages regarding gender are communicated early on in a child’s life. Young boys are generally exposed to a set of norms that lead them to enact traditional masculinity. Broader American culture communicates messages of being cool, tough, unemotional, and in control; think of common phrases such as “crying is for sissies,” “take it like a man,” “get even,” and “give em’ hell” (Farr, 2018). Such norms are widespread in American culture, and most male youth are highly familiar with them by the time they begin school (Farr, 2018; Pollack, 1998). It is suggested that school shooters’ failure to fulfill their manhood causes a sense of damaged masculinity. This appears to be a driving force in their desire to enact violence, as it can serve as a route to overcome their perceived deficits. The use of guns and acts of violence help to create and demonstrate “ultra-­masculinized” identities (Kellner, 2012; Kimmel & Mahler, 2003). Several traits common to adolescent school shooters are linked to issues with masculinity and are summarized in the Table 2.1. While it is helpful to understand factors associated with damaged masculinity, it does not inform us as to why these shooters felt like they were inadequate males, outside of the messages communicated via peer harassment. Langman (2017) speaks of biological factors that have been long linked to violence, that is, chronic illness, birth complications, and minor physical anomalies. Across school shooters, common biological issues observed include medical problems such as significant illnesses or birth defects, factors related to appearance such as severe acne, short stature and obesity, and functional concerns such as poor coordination and limited Table 2.1  School shooters & masculinity: common traits • Experienced emasculating bullying by male peers  °  Themes surrounding affectional identification • Embraced themes of intense violence • Idolized violent antiheroes and related ideologies (e.g., Nazism) • Excessive interest in weapons, especially guns  °  Gun-owning families; modeling of misuse of firearms • History of misbehavior or disciplinary issues • Likely to have bragged about rampage fantasies Farr (2018), Kimmel (2008), and Langman (2017)

24

2  School Shooters and Shootings

athletic ability. Other miscellaneous issues include body integrity due to sexual abuse experiences and occurrences of impotence or fears of being sterile. Dr. Langman emphasizes the subjectivity factor associated with the biological aspects discussed. He cautions that it is unwise to make broad assumptions regarding the impact of body-related issues on male youth and their sense of masculinity. For one individual, a short stature may be a significant factor on their self-esteem; however, to another, a chronic medical condition may more greatly impair their ability to live up to their manhood (Langman, 2017).

2.3.2  Psychological Among the theories of the underpinnings of school shooters, psychological issues represent the most common class of expectations to best understand school shooters (Rocque, 2011). Mental illness has emerged as a critical factor in this population, much of which is not recognized until after the school shooting has occurred (Newman et  al., 2004). The NATC’s (2019) analysis examined mental health in school shooters in three ways: psychological, behavioral, and neurological, finding high rates of depression (63%), suicidal ideation (60%), anxiety, (29%), anger (26%), and psychosis (20%). Overall, 57% of school shooters were identified as having behavioral symptoms such as poor impulse control, misconduct and defiance toward authority, and other violations of social norms. Additionally, of that 57%, 29% of the perpetrators had Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Deficit (ADHD) diagnoses. Lastly, developmental issues or neurological conditions were reported in 20% of the school shooters, including developmental delays, cognitive deficits (e.g., executive functioning deficits), learning disabilities (e.g., dyslexia), and traits commonly associated with the autism spectrum. While psychological issues are not the only contributing factors to why school shootings occur, the associated risks, vulnerabilities, and deficits certainly give light to the role they can play. Youth with mental health issues often present with poor emotion regulation and limited coping skills; these deficits impact their ability to manage distressing emotions, process stressful life events, and function appropriately in domains of life. Moreover, depressed youth, for example, are at an increased risk for suicidal behavior, social isolation, and poor self-esteem, all of which can lead to numerous difficulties in various contexts. It is critical to note that while mental illness is present across a large number of school shooters, it is not a predicting factor. In fact, mental illness does not have any causal links to violence and data reveals that persons with mental illness are far more likely to be victims, rather than perpetrators, of violence, including gun violence (Kalesan et al., 2017). Consider the prevalence rates of depression in the general youth population, 3.2% of youth (ages 3–17, approximately 1.9 million) suffer from depression (CDC, 2020); of that percentage, a minute number of those youth go on to engage in violence, and even more rare, school shootings. As such, much like all of the other factors discussed, mental illness is not the straightforward factor

2.3  Contributing Factors to School Shootings: Biological, Psychological, Social

25

for school shootings; however, it certainly is a risk factor and its related impact on an individual may contribute to the question of why.

2.3.3  Social Familial Patterns  The final domain that requires attention includes contributing social factors observed across school shooters. Common familial characteristics have been mentioned briefly previously (i.e., families that own and misuse firearms) that warrant further examination. For example, family members involved in education as teachers, professors, or administrators is a family pattern that has been reported. Langman (2017) hypothesized that shooters in these families have a greater difficulty coping with their disciplinary issues and academic failures than other youth. An additional family pattern is military and/or law enforcement involvement, which may be the reason that many adult school shooters held aspirations to join one of these forces. Langman noted, however, that these efforts typically ended in failure, one that likely created an impaired sense of masculinity and an inability to uphold familial traditions. A broader contributor to consider is the role of external influences in the development of an individual’s desire to commit a school shooting. These influences are observed in a variety of forms, such as peer influence, ideologies, and violent media. Peer influence can take shape in two ways: Firstly, there could be passive peer acceptance, in which an individual shares his attack fantasies with a peer and there are no attempts by the peer to stop the attack from happening (Langman, 2016). Many school shooters have shared their intentions prior to the attacks, and it is suggested that peer passiveness may be interpreted as support for the shooter’s plan. Further, given that many school shooters are suicidal and that more often than not, suicidal youth will share their thoughts and plans of death with a peer, peer passiveness may send a message of social rejection, creating further isolation. On the other hand, peer influence can look vastly different, in which peers are actively supportive of the individual’s plan, or even go so far as to join in on the attack. Such relationships developed in cases like the Columbine and Westside School shootings. Violent Interests & Media Influence  Interest or following of violent ideologies has been reported across school shooters. A number of shooters have been found to support role models or figures of authority and related ideologies that aligned with their violent desires. Commonly, Hitler and his ideology of Nazism have been prominent influences in school shooters’ lives. Additional role models include other killers or school shooters, along with violent fictional characters from movies, video games, or books. Violent media, in general, should be considered as an influential factor in why school shooters develop. The US Secret Service and NATC’s School Safety Initiative Report (Vossekuil et al., 2002) found that over half of the attackers demonstrated interest in violence via several media mediums including video games, books, and movies. This was further supported in the NATC (2019) report in

26

2  School Shooters and Shootings

which nearly 40% of the attackers showed interest in violent media. These observations suggest a link to media violence and school shootings; however, there is no causal evidence, rather, anecdotal and correlative information that points to it being a factor or influence. In this time of ever-evolving technology and progress, it is imperative to discuss an important aspect of media influence: social media. Social media is a phenomenon that has exploded in the recent decade, particularly within the youth population. While social media has many benefits, it also comes with a number of risks. In the context of school shootings, social media has aided in the prevention of potential violence, for example, cases in which shooters have posted about their fantasies or ideologies and they have been reported to appropriate adults or authorities for intervention. However, in other cases, it has resulted in horrific consequences, such as live streams of shootings and increased publicization of the attacks worldwide. Further, it has opened more access for individuals to connect regarding violent interests. Lastly, social media has created an entirely new platform for bullying: cyberbullying. At-risk students who are harassed by their peers have an increasingly difficult time escaping bullying with the high rates that occur on social media. Experience of Stress  A significant factor that is predominant across school shooters is the experience of a recent stress in relation to the shooting. NATC’s (2019) analysis revealed that 100% of the sample experienced a stressor in the months leading up to the rampage. These stressors were categorized into social, familial, academic/disciplinary, and general/personal. Langman (2017) reported similar categories of stress, expanding them to include others more typically found in adult school shooters (i.e., military rejections, arrests or other legal issues, occupational failures, and financial distress). Recent stressors are an important contributing factor to consider, as such occurrences can have numerous implications for individuals. High rates of stress have been linked to behavioral and emotional problems in children and increased vulnerability to mental illness (Grant et al., 2003, NATC, 2019). Further, they can rock the psychological defenses of an already at-risk individual and should be considered in the answer as to why school shootings occur. Interpersonal Distress and Failures  Among the stressors identified, interpersonal related stress proves to be the most salient factor. In fact, 100% of the school shooters in the NATC (2019) report had experienced at least one interpersonal stressor preceding the attacks (i.e., a breakup or an incident of bullying). These associated stressors include experiencing distress related to the attackers’ relationships with peers (e.g., bullying or other peer conflicts) and romantic partners. The timing of such conflicts appears to be significant; half of the attackers reported that these stressors oftentimes occurred in the week leading up to the attacks. Bullying is a key factor that has received significant public and scholarly attention. A number of studies have demonstrated that school shooters, by and large, are victims of peer harassment (see Leary et al., 2003; Langman, 2013, NATC, 2019).

References

27

Several risks are associated with peer rejection in youth, including depression, anxiety, substance use, and behavior problems. Moreover, it has been argued that in some cases, bullying may have generated feelings of frustration that eventually led to the school shooting event (Vossekuil et al., 2002). However, while a relationship between bullying and school shootings is present, the nature is not entirely clear, as some school shooters have been described as bullies themselves or being well liked among their peers (Fast, 2008; Langman, 2009a, b; Newman et al., 2004).

2.4  Conclusion School shooters and their acts of violence are complicated matters to understand fully. Ongoing and expanded research is necessary to continue to inform prevention processes. Common factors in a number of domains have been identified, providing important information regarding higher-risk settings, environments, and individuals and their backgrounds. While there are mixed findings regarding the most common geographical areas (urban vs. rural), it is agreed up that the majority of school shootings occur in large, public high schools. No shooter profile exists; however, it appears that there are common traits that can be grouped into typologies of school shooters. Broad characteristics that are common across most school shooters are that they are generally white males with middle- to lower-class socioeconomic statuses. Further, many school shooters struggle with impaired senses of masculinity and psychological issues and have been victims of peer harassment. There are observed similarities in some familial characteristics, such as parents who are educators or involved in the military. Moreover, correlative information suggests a strong interest in violent media and ideologies across many shooters. Lastly, school shooters are found to overwhelmingly experience stressors, oftentimes leading up to the shooting. The information reviewed is critical to the development of appropriate prevention processes to best decrease the occurrence of these horrifying acts.

References American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 Anderson, M., Kaufman, J., Simon, T. R., et al. (2001). School-associated violent deaths in the United States, 1994–1999. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 2695–2702. Baird, A. A., Roellke, E. V., & Zeifman, D. M. (2016). Alone and adrift: The association between mass school shootings, school size, and student support. The Social Science Journal, 54(3), 261–270. Blair, J. P., & Schweit, K. W. (2014). A study of active shooter incidents, 2000–2013. Texas State University and federal bureau of investigation. US Department of Justice. www.fbi.gov/

28

2  School Shooters and Shootings

about-­us/office-­of-­partnerengagement/active-­shooter-­incidents/a-­study-­of-­active-­shooter-­ incidents-­in-­the-­u.s.-­2000-­2013 Böckler, N., Seeger, T., & Heitmeyer, W. (2011). School shooting: A double loss of control. Control of Violence, 261–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­1-­4419-­0383-­9_11 CBS News Staff. (1999, March 9). Rage: A Look at A Teen Killer. CBS News. https://www. cbsnews.com/news/rage-­a-­look-­at-­a-­teen-­killer/. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, December 2). Anxiety and depression in children. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/childrensmentalhealth/ depression.html DeVoe, J. F., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Ruddy, S. A., Miller, A. K., Planty, M., Snyder, T. D., & Rand, M. R. (2003). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2003. U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Farr, K. (2018). Adolescent rampage school shootings: Responses to failing masculinity performances by already-troubled boys. Gender Issues, 35(2), 73–97. Fast, J. (2008). Ceremonial violence: A psychological explanation of school shootings. The Overlook Press. Flores de Apodaca, R. F., Brighton, L. M., Perkins, A. N., Jackson, K. N., & Steege, J. R. (2012). Characteristics of schools in which fatal shootings occur. Psychological Reports, 110(2), 363–377. Fridel, E. E. (2019). The contextual correlates of school shootings. Justice Quarterly, 1–30. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1666907 Gold, S.  N. (2000). Not trauma alone: Therapy for child abuse survivors in family and social context. Routledge. Grant, K., Compas, B., Stuhlmacher, A., Thurm, A., McMahon, S., & Halpert, J. (2003). Stressors and child and adolescent psychopathology: Moving from markers to mechanisms of risk. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 447–466. Grøndahl, P., Bjørkly, S., & Walla, P. (2016). Research quality and psychological theory in publications on school shooters with multiple victims – A systematic review of the literature. Cogent Psychology, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1152759 Hernandez, K.  A., Ferguson, S., & Kennedy, T.  D. (2020). A closer look at juvenile homicide. Springer Briefs in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­38168-­4 Hyman, I., Cohen, I., & Mahon, M. (2003). Student alienation syndrome: A paradigm for understanding the relation between school trauma and school violence. The California School Psychologist, 8, 73–86. Kaiser, D. (2005). School shootings, high school size, and neurobiological considerations. Journal of Neurotherapy, 9(3), 101–115. Kalesan, B., Lagast, K., Villarreal, M., Pino, E., Fagan, J., & Galea, S. (2017). School shootings during 2013–2015 in the USA. Injury Prevention, 23(5), 321–327. Kellner, D. (2012). Rage and rampage: School shootings and crises of masculinity. Huffingtonpost. com. http://www.huffington.post.com/douglaskellner/rage-­and-­rampage-­schools-­s_b_1449714.html Kimmel, M. (2008). Guyland: The perilous world where boys become men. Harper. Kimmel, M.  S., & Mahler, M. (2003). Adolescent masculinity, homophobia, and violence. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 1439–1458. Langman, P. (2009a). Why kids kill: Inside the minds of school shooters. Macmillan. Langman, P. (2009b). Rampage school shooters: A typology. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14(1), 79–86. Langman, P. (2013). Thirty-five rampage school shooters: Trends, patterns, and typology (In School shootings) (pp. 131–156). Springer. Langman, P. (2016). Multi-victim school shootings in the United States: A fifty-year review. The Journal of Campus Behavioral Intervention (J-BIT), 4, 5–17.

References

29

Langman, P. (2017). A bio-psycho-social model of school shooters. Journal of Campus Behavioral Intervention, 5, 27–34. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/333644566_A_Bio-­Psycho-­Social_Model_of_School_Shooters Leary, M.  R., Kowalski, R.  M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 29(3), 202–214. https://doi. org/10.1002/ab.10061 Livingston, M.  D., Rossheim, M.  E., & Hall, K.  S. (2019). A descriptive analysis of school and school shooter characteristics and the severity of school shootings in the United States, 1999–2018. Journal of Adolescent Health, 64(6), 797–799. Madfis, E. (2014). The risk of school rampage: Assessing and preventing threats of school violence. Palgrave Macmillan. Madfis, E. (2016). “It’s better to overreact”: School officials’ fear and perceived risk of rampage attacks and the criminalization of American public schools. Critical Criminology, 24(39), 55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-­015-­9297-­0 Muschert, G. (2007). Research in school shootings. Sociology Compass, 1(1), 60–80. National Threat Assessment Center. (2019). Protecting America’s schools: A US secret service analysis of targeted school violence (pp. 15–16). US Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security. Newman, K. S., Fox, C., Harding, D., Mehta, J., & Roth, W. (2004). Rampage: The social roots of school shootings. Perseus. Osher, D., VanAcker, R., Morrison, G. M., Gable, R., Dwyer, K., & Quinn, M. (2004). Ecological perspectives and effective practices for combating school aggression and violence. Journal of School Violence, 3(2/3), 13–37. Pahn, M., Knopov, A., & Siegel, D. (2019, November 11). Gun violence in the US kills more black people and urban dwellers. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/ gun-­violence-­in-­the-­us-­kills-­more-­black-­people-­and-­urban-­dwellers-­86825. Pane, L.  M. (2018, May 22). Mass school shootings mostly happening in small-town America. AP NEWS. https://apnews.com/8660507c56b04dd0b580b248d39d2a2c/ Mass-­school-­shootings-­mostly-­happening-­in-­small-­town-­America. Pollack, W. S. (1998). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. Holt. Preti, A. (2006). School shooting as a culturally enforced way of expressing suicidal hostile intentions. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 36, 544–550. Renfro, J., Huebner, R., Callahan, C., & Ritchey, B. (2003). Violent behavior in rural and urban schools. Journal of School Violence, 2(4), 111–122. Rocque, M. (2012). Exploring school rampage shootings: Research, theory, and policy. The Social Science Journal, 49, 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2011.11.001 Soderstrom, I. R., & Elrod, P. (2006). Assessing Student Perceptions of School Victimization and School Safety. Journal of School Violence, 5(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1300/j202v05n01_02. Verlinden, S., Hersen, M., & Thomas, J. (2000). Risk factors in school shootings. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 3–56. Vossekuil, B., Fein, R., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002). The final report and findings of the safe school initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program and U.S. Secret Service, National Threat Assessment Center.

Chapter 3

Best Practices for School Safety to Prevent School Shootings

Over the last three decades, significant efforts have been made toward the implementation of prevention strategies, many of which have emphasized increasing and strengthening school safety. A number of studies (see Jonson, 2017; Curran et al., 2020, Bonanno & Levinson, 2014) analyzing these efforts have been conducted, resulting in a variety of recommendations, many of which continue to be debated today. This chapter will provide an examination of the ways in which schools have responded to school shootings, including implementation of school safety measures and threat assessment. Additionally, crisis intervention will be explored, along with best practices for the prevention of school shootings.

3.1  School Safety Efforts While school shootings are certainly traumatic occurrences that warrant concern from the public, the explosive media coverage has painted a picture that is far grimmer than what the reality is. As discussed in Chap. 1, school shootings remain a relatively rare event; however, ongoing media reports have generated an increased level of fear and worry over school shootings. This distress has prompted many to react quickly in the hopes of preventing further incidences, especially as it relates to school safety. While these efforts are typically made with good intentions, they often lack empirical evidence to support their effectiveness. A number of these measures will be discussed below, many of which are actively being investigated and utilized across schools in the United States.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Poland, S. Ferguson, Lessons Learned From School Shootings, SpringerBriefs in Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75480-8_3

31

32

3  Best Practices for School Safety to Prevent School Shootings

Personal Perspectives: Ken Trump, School Safety and Security Expert Q: What is your unique mission at School Security and what has been the greatest challenge you have faced in improving school safety? As a 30+-year K–12 school security and emergency preparedness professional, whether working for a school district or the majority of this time as a national consultant, the greatest challenge for improving school safety has been politics or, as I call it, “poli-tricks”  – political tricks. Denial, image concerns, and money concerns too often overshadow meaningful school safety efforts. It too often becomes what I call a “deny, deflect, and defend” process rather than a process driven by best practices, good policy, and reasonable funding. Q: What is the best way for schools to allocate their limited resources to improve school safety? Many things schools need to do require more time and leadership than money. School leaders should begin by investing in professional school safety assessments to identify what works, what the top concerns are, and what is needed to address those concerns. A good school safety assessment will serve as a multi-year strategic plan, save money that might otherwise be wasted on unnecessary security hardware and equipment, and provide evidence to members of their school community that they are taking school safety seriously while not overreacting and needlessly throwing money at things that may have limited impact.

3.1.1  Security Measures In response to shootings, the majority of schools work to increase their security measures. This can come in a variety of forms, from student ID badges, to security cameras, to the use of metal detectors. Among the many options, the quickest and most economical prevention measure to implement is restriction of access or access control. This refers to attempts to limit the access that individuals can gain from outside of the school. Access control can include several types of measures such as locked doors, one point of entry, gated campuses, and the requirement of visitor screenings and the of use of visitor ID badges. Given their ease of implementation, these measures are the most commonly used in response to school shootings (Fox & DeLateur, 2013; Lassiter & Perry, 2009; Zhang et al., 2016). Despite their widespread use, there is limited evidence to prove the effectiveness of access control in increasing school safety. Rocque (2012) points to school shootings completed in the past, in which many of these security measures were already in place. At Sandy Hook Elementary, for example, the doors were locked, but the perpetrator was able to enter the school through a window adjacent to the door

3.1  School Safety Efforts

33

(Sandy Hooky Advisory Commission, 2015). Further, we have seen cases in which the shooter had an authorized school ID badge and a legitimate reason for being on school campus (i.e., Columbine). Among the security measures discussed, metal detectors have received increased attention. Metal detectors are not a new concept to school safety; they have been used in schools for several decades as means to prevent the admittance of weapons, particularly guns (Hankin et  al., 2011). While metal detectors were traditionally used in urban areas (Hirschfield, 2008) in which there are higher rates of gun violence, their use expanded to suburban areas in response to school shootings. In some cases, metal detectors have been found to reduce the reported likelihood of bringing a weapon to school (Ginsberg & Loffredo, 1993); however, there are concerns regarding their widespread impact and effectiveness. Jonson (2017) highlighted these concerns, sharing that the installation of metal detectors may have unanticipated impacts on the students, such as increasing their perceptions of fear and disorder within the school (Hankin et al., 2011), Further, she cited findings that the presence of metal detectors has contributed to the criminalization of the school system (Hirschfield, 2008; Kupchik, 2009). Importantly, anecdotal evidence points to events in which metal detectors did not prevent a school shooting, such as the attack at Red Lake Senior High School, in which the shooter killed an unarmed security guard and then passed through a metal detector before committing more heinous murders (Heffelfinger, 2006; Langman, 2013).

3.1.2  Arming Teachers The topic of firearms has naturally been the epicenter of school shootings in a number of ways. Gun legislation as it relates to access and production of firearms has been hotly debated over time and remains a critical issue in the US today. In response to school shootings, the media and public typically focus on gun control, despite the lack of evidence for its effectiveness as means for prevention. In fact, school shootings are suggested to be among the most difficult violent acts to prevent using gun control (Kleck, 2009; Fox et al., 2018). Despite this, firearms continue to receive significant attention as means for prevention. Early on, policies were created to reduce the presence of guns in schools. Schools were declared “Gun-Free Zones” and administrators began to implement a “Zero-Tolerance” approach in which bringing firearms to school resulted in expulsion. More recent efforts have focused on increasing the number of guns on campus, including the use of law enforcement or security personnel, such as an armed School Resource Office (SRO). In the aftermath of the tragic Sandy Hook massacre, many states began to seriously consider the idea of expanding the use of armed professionals to school personnel, such as teachers and administrators (Butkus, 2020). This proposal has gained increased support after the horrific shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas (MSD). Since then, lawmakers in over 30 states have supported legislation that would allow school officials to carry firearms on campus; 10 of those

34

3  Best Practices for School Safety to Prevent School Shootings

states have passed bills to implement this (Dwyer, 2019). The intricacies of plans to arm school personnel include funding, qualifications, legalities, and ethics (Rogers et al., 2018). Proponents of this proposal point to schools’ statuses as “Gun-Free Zones,” indicating that schools are a known place where a shooter would be met with little opposition. Many supporters believe that arming teachers and administrators may serve as a powerful deterrent to an individual planning a school shooting. Further, it will likely result in a faster response to an active shooter incident (James, 2018), especially in more rural areas in which emergency services may be slower to respond due to distance (Klein & Blad, 2019). While this proposal has obtained public support, there are many who strongly oppose arming school staff. Firstly, most educators do not have ample knowledge in firearm safety and use, thus requiring an extensive amount of training to become proficient. This would require ample time and funds, both of which are already limited in this school context. Moreover, generally, educators have chosen a profession that is responsible for the enrichment of students’ minds, not the physical protection from violent attacks. Trump (2011) commented on this, stating that when asking school personnel to become armed, it is asking them to perform a public safety capacity that is outside of the scope of their teacher as an educator. As it stands today, the concept of arming teachers as an effective prevention effort has little evidentiary backing. A 2021 study by Peterson, Densley, and Erickson examined the association between the presence of an armed officer on scene and the severity of shootings in kindergarten through 12th grade (K–12) between 1980 and 2019. The results demonstrated that armed guards were not associated with significant reduction in rates of injuries; in fact, the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater in schools with an armed guard present. These findings bring great cause for concern regarding this prevention method and the need for ongoing review and research. Currently, there are no districts that require any school personnel to carry a firearm; rather, volunteers are sought and then given significant training (Carno & Klehr, 2017). Notably, the Federal Commission on School Safety Report (2018) supports the use of specially selected and trained armed school personnel. It recommends that school districts incentivize retired law enforcement officers and military veterans to become teachers by easing the teacher certification requirements. Personal Perspectives: Dr. Peter Langman, School Shooter Expert Q: What do you think about the fact that a number of districts are arming staff other than resource officers? I think it is a problematic approach for multiple reasons. Even if you’re skilled with a firearm shooting at a target, that has very little relevance to handling a firearm in a crisis situation. It’s very easy to make a mistake. When your heart is pumping and the adrenaline is flowing and your hand is shaking, to even get your gun out and aim it, especially with hundreds of students running wildly and maybe people bumping into you, it would be easy for a teacher to hit the wrong person.

3.1  School Safety Efforts

35

In fact, there is a study of New York City police officers who engage in firing against a suspect on the streets of New York. Even trained police officers miss their target 82% of the time. If they’re trained and it’s that hard to hit a target in a crisis situation, you have to ask where those bullets are going. It obviously would be very devastating for teachers with the best of intentions to wound or kill a student or colleague. That’s one big concern. Another concern is when police show up in that situation, if the first thing they see is a teacher pointing a gun at a student, the police may likely shoot the teacher. They may not know who the assailant is, and that teacher may be gunned down by mistake. There are other concerns too, but those are just some examples of what can go wrong with what seems like a good idea. When we start thinking of how this can really play out, it becomes more problematic.

3.1.3  School Resource Officers (SROs) A discussion regarding armed personnel leads to an exploration of the use of SROs as a prevention measure for school shootings. Beginning in the early 1990s, law enforcement presence in school settings began to increase, gaining federal support by 1999. In fact, between 1999 and 2005, the number of SROs who were federally funded and placed in schools increased by 50%. Moreover, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has offered over 745 million dollars in grant money to train and hire SROs, which has prompted many schools to utilize them as their primary prevention effort against school shootings (Addington, 2009; James & McCallion, 2013; Travis & Coon, 2005; Jonson, 2017). Similar to the argument for armed teachers, proponents of SROs believe that the presence of security personnel will deter individuals from attacking school settings. However, the research is limited, and the few studies completed have focused broadly on the effectiveness of SROs in reducing school crime, rather than school shootings (James & McCallion, 2013). Nevertheless, results indicate mixed findings; some studies have shown that SROs do not have a substantial effect on reporting being a victim (Tillyer et al., 2011) or on reports of serious violent crimes (Na & Gottfredson, 2013; Swartz et al., 2016). One study, however, did report that the presence of an SRO was associated with a decline in the number of reported serious violent crimes (Jennings et al., 2011). Jonson (2017) provides some clarity on the mixed findings, reporting that the role of the SROs varies from school to school, ranging from strict disciplinarian to more service-oriented approaches. This range likely impacts the student body and staff perspectives of the SROs, a factor that has been found to be critical in determining outcomes of school crime. Research has demonstrated that when students perceive their SRO in a more positive manner, they feel safer in school and are more

36

3  Best Practices for School Safety to Prevent School Shootings

likely to report potential criminal or concerning information to the SRO (McDevitt & Panniello, 2005). These findings suggest the importance of SROs developing positive relationships with school staff and students and can extend to the area of school shootings, given the fact that many perpetrators display warning signs or share their plans prior to the attack, creating an opportunity for others to share concerns with the SRO. However, the answer to the key issue of the effectiveness of SROs in reducing school shootings remains inconclusive. Critics point to the fact that some of the deadliest shootings, such as Columbine and MSD, had armed SROs on site and the shooters were not deterred by their presence. Further, there is some research that demonstrates that their presence has led to a criminalization of student misbehavior. Fox et al. (2018) comment on this, noting that discipline matters that would typically be dealt with internally at the school have resulted in formal sanctions (arrest and prosecution). Concerningly, many more students, particularly those belonging to minority groups, are becoming involved in the criminal justice system, termed the “school-to-prison pipeline.”

3.1.4  Active Shooter Drills Another school safety measure that has gained popularity in the aftermath of school shootings are the implementation of lockdowns and active shooter drills. Traditional lockdown drills include the removal of students, staff, and faculty from the threat of the active shooter by placing them in “locked classrooms or other secure areas” (Trump, 2011, p.  213). Lockdown drills became increasingly popular in the late 1990s and have long been considered the most common practice used by schools in response to a shooting (Campbell, 2018). Active shooter drills have been used more recently and include the use of traditional lockdown methods but are tailored specifically to incidences of school shootings. They utilize emergency practices such as staying quiet, locking the door, and turning off lights, and may also include tactics such as such as fighting back, distracting the shooter, and evacuating mock shootings in schools. There are even some drills that take it a step further and simulate a school shooting in action with masked gunmen (Everytown, 2020). Active shooter drills are helpful in that they provide law enforcement and schools the opportunity to practice skills and protocols and to identify and address areas of weakness in knowledge, communication, coordination, and decision-making (NASP, 2014). However, many leading experts have raised concerns about the use of these drills and their potential impacts. Further, current research has demonstrated mixed findings. Examples include increased adherence to emergency protocols in some cases, and a decrease in others, along with some students reporting feeling less anxious and more prepared after the drill, while others reported the contrary (Everytown, 2020). One of the most prominent critiques of active shooter drills relates to the lack of research on long-term consequences and wider community impacts like trauma and

3.2  Threat Assessment

37

Table 3.1  Guidelines for active shooter drills •  S  ufficient information and notification must be provided to parents or guardians in advance about the dates, content, and tone of any drills for students •  Drills should be ° Announced to students and educators prior to the start of any drill ° Age and developmentally appropriate ° Created by a team including administrators, teachers, school-based mental health professionals, and law enforcement •  Student input should be included ° Coupled with trauma-informed approaches to directly address students’ well-being as standard practice •  D  rills should not include simulations that mimic or appear to be an actual shooting incident •  Information should be tracked by the schools including: °  Efficacy and effects of the drills ° Symptoms and indications of trauma (e.g., bad dreams, fear of coming to school, asthma attacks, increased antidepressant prescriptions) •  Drill content should be reevaluated if students and/or educators are exhibiting signs of trauma. Adapted from Everytown (2020)

mental and physical health impairments. The aggressive nature of active shooting drills creates an increased likelihood that they may be traumatic to students, especially younger children. Moreover, individuals with traumatic histories may be at increased risk for becoming retraumatized. Many argue that the psychological distress and potential harm that come with these drills does not outweigh the benefits, as the probability that such an event will occur is low (Jonson et al., 2020). Given the broad use of active shooter drills, Everytown provide specific guidelines (see Table 3.1) for the implementation of such protocols, all of which have been adopted and recommended by the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) and the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO).

3.2  Threat Assessment Among the many recommendations for best practices for the prevention of school shootings, threat assessment has received strong support across experts. Broadly speaking, threat assessment is a comprehensive evaluation of the intentions of an individual(s) who may pose a threat to an organization, including how they might cause harm, and their motivation and ability to carry out the task (Clifton & Brooks, 2013). Threat assessment has been utilized by government agencies, law enforcement, and security professionals, and it is not a new concept in the realm of school shootings. Its use has been recommended since the early 2000s by both the US Secret Service/US Department of Education (DOE) and the FBI.

38

3  Best Practices for School Safety to Prevent School Shootings

Within schools, threat assessment is modified to meet the needs of both students and school personnel. It is used as a problem-solving approach to violence prevention in which assessment and intervention are conducted with students who have made threats of violence. Further, the use of threat assessment assists school personnel in determining the level of threat present and whether someone has either made a threat or poses a threat (Butkus, 2020). The goals of threat assessment in a school setting are to, firstly, maintain school safety as well as provide help to potential offenders by targeting their feelings of anger, despair, and hopelessness, ultimately assisting them in achieving success at school (Cornell, 2020). In school settings, the term “threat assessment” does not capture its emphasis on resolving interpersonal issues prior to escalating to violent acts and may be more aptly referred to as “safety assessment and intervention” or “behavioral assessment and intervention” (Cornell, 2020). Threat assessments can have a significant impact in the context of school shootings. As discussed previously, analyses of school shooters have demonstrated that most exhibit behavioral signs prior to the attacks that were of concern to those around them. Many times, attackers have revealed their plans to others, some of whom even attempted to recruit their peers to partner in the attack or have shared ominous warning or threats to others. Further, there have been a number of cases in which peers assisted (indirectly or directly) in the act of violence. Peer involvement ranged from offering encouragement to the attacker to assisting in the planning of the attack and obtaining weapons. This information (coined by Dr. Langman as “leakage”) demonstrates that most often warning signs can be detected ahead of a school shooting and that many times other people know about the plans. This is critical in the face of an impending attack, as it emphasizes the fact that in the majority of school shootings, there is a window of prevention. When discussing school-based threat assessment procedures, it is important to first make efforts to distinguish student threat assessment from student profiling. Contrary to profiling, threat assessment procedures are not initiated based on a broad set of common traits of a student, rather by the student’s own concerning behaviors (i.e., making threats). Further, when conducting a threat assessment, efforts are focused on reviewing the student’s behaviors to determine if they potentially pose a threat, rather trying to match them to a specific profile (O’Toole, 2000; Randazzo et al., 2006, Borum et al., 2010). In response to the recommendations from the FBI (O’Toole, 2000) and the US Secret Service and DOE (Vossekuil et al., 2002) to implement school-based threat assessment teams, a number of experts have offered guidelines for school-based threat assessments. In order to implement successful school-based threat assessments, policies and procedures must be in place in advance that instruct school members on how to respond to threats and threatening behavior. A threat assessment team must be created that includes a variety of members such as school personnel (i.e., teachers and administrators), mental health professionals, and law enforcement (most often, an SRO). Dr. Dewey Cornell (2020), leading expert in threat assessment, recommends that schools build teams internally, rather than utilize external resources. He explains that internal teams can respond to threats more

39

3.2  Threat Assessment

Identify student threats of violence

Determine seriousness of the threat

Develop intervention plans 1.Protect potential victims 2. Address underlying issue that triggered behavior

Fig. 3.1  Threat Assessment Guidelines. (Adapted from Cornell, 2018)

immediately and when ongoing monitoring of threats is required, school-based teams are able to do so with greater ease. He notes that in some cases, in which a serious threat of violence has occurred, it is recommended that internal teams connect with central administration and district-level consultants. The utilization of a multidisciplinary threat assessment team offers a number of advantages. Most importantly, it ensures a fair and accurate evaluation of and appropriate response to student threats of violent acts. Further, the varied skills and roles of the members allow for the provision of necessary resources and services that can target factors or stressors that precede the threat. Lastly, the multidisciplinary approach creates an intervention style that can be adapted to fit the individual needs of students (Erbacher et al., in press). Poland et al. (2017) speak to the strengths of this approach, sharing that the use of a diverse threat assessment team will enhance current school safety procedures, instill confidence in students that their needs will be met, and increase the overall safety of the school environment. Broadly speaking, threat assessment in the school setting should follow three general guidelines (Fig. 3.1). Firstly, the threat assessment team must work to identify student threats to commit a violent act. Once a threat is identified, the team must then determine the seriousness of the threat. While the majority of threats made are unlikely to be put into action, it is essential that the team firstly classifies the threat as either transient or substantial (Poland, 2008). Transient threats are generally short-lived and reactive, fueled by emotions in the heat of the moment. These types of threats are not typically well thought out and lack specificity, such as details of the plan of the attack. When details are provided, they tend to be implausible or inconsistent, for example, causing an explosion from space (Poland et al., 2017). Substantial threats are considered much more serious in terms of the danger they pose. They are typically premeditated with specific details (i.e., time of the attack, the intended victims, and how it will be carried out). Further, these threats may be

40

3  Best Practices for School Safety to Prevent School Shootings

accompanied by realistic means and a method to carry out the proposed attack. Substantial threats suggest that the individual has engaged in significant planning which increases the likelihood that the threat will be put into action (O’Toole, 2000). In substantial threats, there is an explicit intention of severe harm that requires immediate intervention. When attempting to classify the student’s threat, the team should ask questions that emphasize the reasonableness and sincerity of the threat, along with the perceived ability of the student to carry out the threat (O’Toole, 2000). Borum et al. (2010) provided 11 key questions to consider when assessing for threats of violence in school settings (see Table 3.2). It is important that not only the student who made the threat is interviewed, but also any others who are involved (i.e., the person who received the threat, other witnesses, such as peers or school personnel [Erbacher et al., in press]). It is critical to obtain and document as much information as possible, including verbatim record of the threat made, the context in which it was made, any events leading up to the threat, along with the motivation and intention behind the threat (Cornell, 2018). Poland et al. (2017) emphasize the importance of understanding what psychological and social factors have contributed to the threating behavior. They recommend that a mental health professional from the team administer a psychosocial evaluation, including the use of risk assessment measures, such as the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; [Borum et al., 2005]). Such measures assess for risk and protective factors in a variety of domains (i.e., historical, social/contextual, and clinical/individual) and provide helpful information to better understand potential origins and contributors to the student’s distress and the related threat. The assessment should include an exploration of the student’s current mental state and stressors (i.e., recent interpersonal conflict), familial support and

Table 3.2  Key questions for threat assessment 1. What are the student’s motives and goals? 2. Have there been any communications suggesting ideas or intent to attack? 3. Has the student shown inappropriate interest in any of the following?    (a) School attacks or attackers    (b) Weapons (including recent acquisition of any relevant weapon)    (c) Incidents of mass violence (terrorism, workplace violence, mass murderers) 4. Has the student engaged in attack-related behaviors? 5. Does the student have the capacity to carry out an act of targeted violence? 6. Is the student experiencing hopelessness, desperation, and/or despair? 7. Does the student have a trusting relationship with at least one responsible adult? 8. Does the student see violence as an acceptable – or desirable – or the only way to solve problems? 9. Is the student’s conversation and “story” consistent with his or her actions? 10. Are other people concerned about the student’s potential for violence? 11. What circumstances might affect the likelihood of an attack? Borum et al. (2010)

3.2  Threat Assessment

41

dynamics, along with any protective factors and coping methods. This is a key component to completing a comprehensive threat assessment, as it will provide the information necessary to inform your next steps, including whether or not the student is in need of further mental health intervention. The team should then utilize the information gathered to determine the appropriate response and course of action. They must work to create intervention and safety plans that simultaneously aim to protect potential victims and target the underlying problem(s) that triggered the threatening behavior. The plan of action will vary based on the threat and the level of harm it poses. Mild, transient threats may only require the provision of mental health resources and additional support within the school setting. Substantial threats, on the other hand, such as a plan to commit a school shooting, require more heightened responses, including serious disciplinary actions, such as suspension or expulsion, or involvement of law enforcement. In cases where a criminal offense has been committed, law enforcement may decide to complete a criminal investigation and pursue legal action against the presumed offender(s). In these cases, the team should ensure that their role is made clear and differentiated from those of law enforcement (Cornell, 2018). Lastly, the safety plan should include a review of whether the student(s) may return to school or if they will need to be placed in an alternative educational setting. Should the team determine the student can return to school, the plan must include conditions that will be met and how these conditions will be monitored to ensure everyone’s safety. Personal Perspectives: Dr. Scott Poland, National Crisis Responder It is important for all schools to recognize that expelling a student from school without providing the needed support does not eliminate the possibility that a student could return to their school and commit an act of violence Schools must work collaboratively with local police and should conduct safety audits of the school and when a student has made a substantial threat of violence the local police should be involved in the threat assessment process. Many school shooters had a strong presence on social media and posted several warning signs of the violence they later committed. School personnel and local police must make every effort to gain insight into the social media postings of a student who made a substantial threat. A warning sign of the next potential school shooter is one that is enamored with previous school shooters and intentionally studying their actions and the planning that went into the previous school shooting. Interventions should be chosen with care and tailored to the needs of the student, their family, and community. They should target the psychological, social, and ecological factors that contribute to the student’s threats of violence. Such interventions include mental health services, safety planning, and parent education. Schools can

42

3  Best Practices for School Safety to Prevent School Shootings

offer interventions in the forms of socio-emotional and academic support, mentoring programs, and skills training (i.e., interpersonal, problem-solving, anger management). Interventions at the community level should also be incorporated, including extracurricular groups such as recreational soccer team or mentoring programs. Guidelines for threat assessment are generally agreed upon across experts; however, their implementation in school settings varies from state to state. Despite the evidence for its effectiveness, many schools have been slow to adopt threat assessment procedures. Personal Perspectives: Bill Modzeleski, School Violence Expert Q:  What are the barriers to implementing threat assessment teams on a nationwide basis throughout schools? First of all, there’s very few things which education is a local matter. You're not going to see [threat assessment] come down as a mandate. We’ve tried that with other things in the past but it hasn't worked well. So, I always talk about marketing programs; we don't do a good job at marketing what you want. We have this feeling that if we tell them, if we say to do something, then they will do it; however, that’s not the case. We have to sell it and explain what, why, why should I do threat assessment and you have to explain to me in terms that is clearly understood that it's to my benefit to do threat assessment or anything else. And we don't always do a good job of that. We wait. Ultimately, the overarching goals of threat assessment are to keep schools safe and to help potential perpetrators address the underlying sources of their anger, despair, or hopelessness. Effective threat assessment equips school professionals with useful information about a student’s risks and personal resources. Additional student risks that can be identified and prevented are suicide, alcohol and drug use, physical abuse, criminal activity, and dropping out/truancy. Additionally, there are several other positive outcomes related to the use of a threat assessment approach, including a reduction in bullying, perceptions of a more positive and supportive school climate, greater willingness to seek help, and fewer long-term suspensions. While threat assessments can aid in preventing school shootings, they can also provide a valuable opportunity to identify students at risk for a variety of mental health problems and guide appropriate interventions and supports (NASP, 2015). Among the resources available, there are a few threat assessment protocols that have undergone scientific testing and review. Notably, researchers at the University of Virginia created the Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines Manual (Cornell & Sheras, 2006). This manual equipped school-based teams with an adapted, systematic approach to threat assessment that integrated the developmental needs of the students and the educational mission of the school. It has since been updated and renamed Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines (CSTAG; Cornell, 2018) as it is now utilized in many schools across the nation

3.3  Responding to a School Shooting: Crisis Intervention

43

outside of the state of Virginia. The CSTAG provides step-by-step instructions in creating and implementing effective threat assessment programming, most of which has been covered in the discussion above.

3.3  Responding to a School Shooting: Crisis Intervention As discussed, the ways in which schools are attempting to increase and maintain safety vary across states and their districts. There is, however, a consensus regarding the way in which schools should respond to a school shooting: crisis preparedness. Undoubtedly, the best form of crisis response in the aftermath of a school shooting is one that has been planned in advance, with an emphasis of acting instead of reacting (Poland et al., 2017; Trump, 2011). Best practices for crisis intervention include a multidisciplinary approach that addresses the physical, psychological, and emotional needs of everyone impacted by the tragedy. Firstly, schools should establish a multidisciplinary crisis team that consists of collaborative efforts from administrators, teachers, students, parents, mental health professionals, law enforcement, and other relevant school personnel. These teams should be properly trained in crisis intervention strategies, specifically those focusing on prevention and intervention (Erbacher, Singer, Poland, in press). There are a number of training programs that are already being implemented nationwide. Among these, the National Association for School Psychologists (NASP) offers the PREPaRE model, a training curriculum developed by educators who have firsthand school crisis response experience and formal training. It provides specific guidance to each crisis team member regarding how they can best fulfill their role in the response to school tragedies. The PREPaRE model’s name serves as the guidebook for best practices: • • • • • • •

P—Prevent and prepare for crises R—Reaffirm physical health & welfare, and perceptions of safety & security E—Evaluate psychological trauma risk P—Provide interventions a—and R—Respond to mental health needs E—Examine the effectiveness of crisis preparedness (NASP, 2020)

PREPaRE is offered through a series of two training workshops which focus on crisis prevention, preparedness, development of a multidisciplinary school safety team, crisis intervention, and recovery. This training has been utilized across the nation in all 50 states, in over 252 school districts, colleges, and universities. Further, analysis of trainee evaluations of the model indicate it has been well received among providers (NASP, 2014). Following a school shooting, it is essential that services are provided that promote recovery, resiliency, and the psychological well-being of those impacted.

44

3  Best Practices for School Safety to Prevent School Shootings

Schools are encouraged to utilize a psychological triage approach, in which individuals who are most in need of immediate services are identified. In this context, it is important to know that the individual impact of and response to trauma varies greatly. Factors such as a history of trauma and the individual’s psychosocial and geographic proximity will heighten the likelihood of a traumatic response. Furthermore, they will aid in determining the level of follow-up needed, including long-term provision of trauma-oriented services (Poland et al., 2017). The National Child Traumatic Stress Network and National Center for Post-­ traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD (NCTSN/NCPTSD) developed a crisis intervention program called Psychological First Aid (Brymer et al., 2006) that encompasses the above recommendations and more. The response program’s goals are to promote resiliency, improve adaptive functioning, and decrease the distress and negative effects associated with experiencing a traumatic event. It can be implemented in both individual and group formats and is made up of eight core actions that are summarized in Table 3.3. In the aftermath of school shootings, it is imperative that students and faculty are given the opportunity to express the broad range of emotions they are experiencing. Table 3.3  Core actions of Psychological First Aid 1. Contact and engagement

2. Safety and comfort

3. Stabilization 4. Information gathering: Current needs and concerns

• Develop an effective, helping relationship by responding to survivors in a compassionate manner • Begin with an introduction; move to directing questions to determine the needs and concerns of the individual • Maintain confidentiality and privacy • Ensure physical safety and attend to physical needs and comfort of the individual • Attend to children separated from a parent or caregiver • Provide information regarding disaster response • Protect from additional trauma exposure • Encourage interaction and social engagement • Attend to and help survivors missing a family member • Intervene with those experiencing acute grief reactions due to the loss of a loved one • Support survivors when death notifications are received or during body identification • Address grief and spiritual issues • Provide information and help in planning funeral arrangements • If needed, calm, stabilize, and orient survivors who appear emotionally overwhelmed • Nature and severity of traumatic experience • Loss and death of a loved one • Address concerns regarding immediate and ongoing danger • Preexisting medical and mental illness and current medications (continued)

3.3  Responding to a School Shooting: Crisis Intervention

45

Table 3.3 (continued)

5. Practical assistance

6. Connection with social supports

7. Information on coping

• Loss (person, place, property, pets, belongings) • Prior exposure to loss and trauma • Extreme negative emotions such as guilt or shame • Thoughts about harming self or others • Past use of alcohol and/or substances • Availability of social support • Specific concerns regarding developmental impact of the trauma • Identify the most immediate needs • Clarify the need and ask the survivor to specify the problem • Discuss an action plan • Help the survivor implement the action plan • Model appropriate social and emotional support • Enhance access to primary support persons • Encourage use of immediate available support • Discuss willingness toward giving and receiving support • Discuss post-trauma reactions and how to handle them • Provide information regarding stress reaction and psychological reactions to trauma exposure • Talk with children about bodily and emotional reactions • Provide information to encourage adaptive coping techniques • Introduce relaxation techniques • Provide family coping techniques to encourage stability and recovery • Assist with physical, emotional, cognitive, and social, developmental issues • Introduce anger management techniques • Address sleeping difficulties • Address alcohol and/or substance use

There is no question that school shootings are an act of violence that affect everyone in the school during the attack. Given the widespread impact, it is recommended that after a shooting, group processing should occur, in which each individual present is allotted the opportunity to share their personal experience, immediate and current reactions to the tragedy, and concerns about the future. Importantly, individuals should be encouraged to consider and describe the coping skills they could utilize and the steps that could be taken to allow them to feel safer in the moment and in the future (Poland et al., 2017). For those who are in need of additional care, it is essential that mental health resources are provided, as highlighted in Psychological First Aid’s eighth core action. Schools should have a list of referral sources that have already been vetted as being appropriate resources to connect victims to.

46

3  Best Practices for School Safety to Prevent School Shootings

Personal Perspectives: Stacey Lippel, Teacher and Survivor of MSD Shooting Q: What things were most helpful to you and what might have been lacking in the way of support? The most helpful things for me involved finding a trauma-trained specialist who used EMDR therapy with me. This was instrumental in my healing. I also attended two different retreats: One in upstate Florida which was for trauma of different natures. This helped me, through psychodrama, breath work, and other modalities, to feel my trauma and process it. I also attended a retreat this past March of 2020 called “Triumph over Tragedy,” a retreat for mass shooting survivors at On-Site in Nashville. This assisted me to process some deeper trauma I have; relationships with those who don't understand the new me as well as assisting me with the deep guilt I still feel. The lacking part always goes back to the fact that I had to find these things myself. I just wish I had a guide who would have walked me through this early on because, almost 3 years later, I still suffer. I wonder if, had I had the proper care earlier on, would I be “better?” I feel abandoned and I feel anger. There are so many professionals out there who understand trauma and could predict the stages I was going to go through. I resent that my school district did not take care of me.

Additionally, it is important to involve parents within the response to school shootings. Parents can play a critical role in the prevention of school shootings. After a school shooting, schools should work to maintain open and direct communication with them. Parents should be encouraged to talk with their children about the fact that, while they have endured a horrific tragedy, schools are safe places to be. They should discuss the specific role their own child plays in school safety. These discussions should include talking points provided by the school administration about the serious consequences of threats of violence, direction to use an anonymous reporting system if one is in place, and/or immediately disclosing to an adult when they learn of a threat of violence (Poland & Poland, 2017). Crisis intervention does not end there; effective intervention continues long after the initial response to a school shooting. It is recommended that the school holds debriefing sessions in the weeks that follow the shooting. These debriefing sessions should explore the effectiveness of the crisis plan, along with the emotional and psychological needs of those who have been directly impacted. Faculty and staff should be involved in this process and encouraged to continue to reflect on their experiences and identify the potential need for additional services (Poland et  al., 2017). Ongoing support and services must be made available for an extended period of time post school shooting to ensure that victims are well supported in a number of ways.

3.4  Best Practices for Prevention

47

3.4  Best Practices for Prevention 3.4.1  School Safety Planning Ensuring student safety is critical to student health, well-being, and academic success (Cornell, 2015). All schools should complete safety planning, not only to target prevention again shootings, but also to ensure that they are maintaining a climate of security for the students and school personnel. Much like crisis preparedness, school safety planning should be a collaborative, multidisciplinary, and comprehensive approach that includes individuals from the school setting and the broader community. It is imperative that mental health professionals are involved in this process, as they can target socio-emotional and psychological domains that relate to school safety and prevention. Proper school safety planning begins with an assessment of the current school practices. Safety plans should be individualized to meet the unique needs and concerns of each school. A needs assessment should be completed, in which a number of questions are asked to best inform the safety process. See Table 3.4 for a list of questions that can be asked; of note, this list is not exhaustive but can be used as an initial guide. Additional recommendations include the collection and analysis of data from school crime reports and administrative assessments of school safety. This will further inform schools of the problem domains that must be addressed. Lastly, schools should engage in dialogue with school members regarding their perceptions of safety and security in the school. This information can also be collected in the form of surveys.

Table 3.4  Needs assessment questions for school safety planning Please describe your school’s safety initiatives. Is school safety discussed regularly with staff? How are students involved in school safety? Are all doors to the school kept locked? Do you have a policy of a staff member greeting all school visitors? Are visitors at the school provided with a visitor badge? Does your school have a crisis team and, if so, who are the key members of the team? Did your school have any crisis events in the last 2 years?    If so, please briefly outline the nature of those, your response, and lessons learned. Have you identified local community mental health resources? Do you have a bullying prevention program? Have you surveyed students about issues such as feeling connected to school, safety at school, bullying prevalence, depression, and substance abuse? Does your school have a process to evaluate threats of violence against others? Please outline cultural issues that have impacted crisis intervention or safety planning. If you have conducted an active shooter or intruder drill, did you gather pretest and posttest information to determine if staff and students felt safer after the drill was conducted?   Were attempts made to identify staff or students with prior trauma that might be greatly impacted by the drill?

48

3  Best Practices for School Safety to Prevent School Shootings

3.4.2  School Climate Recall the earlier discussion regarding the tendency for school shooters to share their plans with others or demonstrate warning signs or behaviors that were of concern to others, creating a window of prevention. However, the prevention efforts can only occur if the individuals who are witness to this come forward with their concerns. Pollack et al. (2008) investigated how students with prior knowledge of targeted violence attacks made decisions after learning the information. Results further confirmed the notion that warning signs are almost always demonstrated, finding that 93% of the perpetrators displayed worrisome behavior leading up to the attack. Moreover, 82% of the attackers had shared details regarding their plans with others. The researchers found that school climate greatly impacted the likelihood of whether or not an individual with prior knowledge came forward to report the information. Those who did come forward cited a number of factors that contributed to their decision, including the belief that they would be taken seriously by school officials, would not experience a negative response as a result of their disclosure, and that the threats would be appropriately addressed. These findings provide key information to inform efforts toward ensuring a positive school climate that emphasizes safety and security. Contrarily, factors that deterred individuals from coming forward included their disbelief of the validity of the threat; this was impacted by their belief that the threat was likely made for attention, or that it was shared in jokingly manner (Pollack et al., 2008). Poland (2003) commented on this further, sharing that he has found that students also fear retaliation for disclosing the information, many of whom report a desire to not become involved at all. Further, students report that they have been conditioned not to seek help from school officials and they believe that there would be no efforts made even if they attempted to report a threat of violence. Pollack, Modzeleksi, and Rooney’s findings were of great significance as it relates to prevention. Firstly, they confirm the notion that a vital part of school shooting prevention is the immediate and accurate reporting of any concerns or threats made by others. Given the concerning percentage of students who do not disclose (82%), how might the school increase the likelihood of their reporting? The research findings answer this question, pointing to the importance of school climate. Fein’s et al. (2002) earlier research confirmed this, highlighting the fact that school environment plays a major role in promoting student willingness to disclose prior knowledge of attacks. Specifically, student willingness to report concerns over school safety is linked to settings in which they feel their disclosures will be taken seriously and that they will be respected. It is recommended that schools work to create a “climate of safety” in which emphasis is placed upon building positive and respectful relationships between students and school personnel; open, nonjudgmental communication is encouraged across all parties (Poland et al., 2017). Staff should be encouraged to develop personal relationships with students, especially those who may be at risk for bullying or social isolation. Mentorships can be a valuable preventative strategy, as just one

3.4  Best Practices for Prevention

49

caring adult in a student’s life can buffer their risk for future adversity. Further, as mentioned in Chap. 2, shootings are far more common at larger schools in which students are less connected to others and the school itself. Anonymity was highlighted as a key factor, which can be easily curbed if efforts are made toward building stronger connections among the student body and staff. Additionally, the fostering of positive student–staff relationships can aid in breaking any potential “codes of silence” that students may harbor with their peers. If these relationships are in place prior to a student learning of an attack, they are more likely to go to a trusted adult at school. Moreover, the positive connection helps the students to feel that they will not be punished for their report, that it will be taken seriously, and that swift action will occur to mediate the threat. (Bonnano & Levinson, 2014). Another way that schools can promote a sense of safety and security is to openly disavow negative behaviors such as bullying, harassment, and victimization. School environments where bullying occurs consistently and/or is not addressed by school personnel can impact academic learning and lead to the distress and isolation that motivate some students to engage in violence. Schools can change their environment by declaring their campus as “shame-free zones,” where such behaviors are not acceptable or tolerated (Fein et al., 2002). Schools are encouraged to implement formal anti-bullying programs as means to support this message, impact student culture, and reduce strain from interactions with peers (Bonnano & Levinson, 2014). See NASP’s (n.d.) “Framework for Bullying” publication for specific guidelines on how to implement such efforts.

3.4.3  Socio-emotional Well-Being The discussion of bullying brings us to another important recommendation in the prevention of school shootings, supporting the development of positive socio-­ emotional well-being in students of all ages. Social-emotional functioning allow individuals to understand and manage their own emotions, display empathy for others, and develop positive interpersonal relationships (Berman et  al., 2018). Fein et al. (2002) emphasized the importance of administrators and teachers targeting the socio-emotional needs in tandem with academic needs. This is especially important in the context of school shooting prevention, as we know that a number of socio-­ emotional risks have been identified in this population (i.e., suicide ideation, social isolation). To date, there has not been a formal investigation on the effectiveness of social emotional programming in reducing school shootings; however, a number of studies have pointed to findings that the implementation of social emotional programming is linked to enhanced student interpersonal skills, emotion regulation, and connection to school (Durlak et al., 2011), all of which create a buffer to the risks identified in school shooters. Examples include Lesson One (Oliver & Ryan, 2003), which helps elementary students to develop internal discipline and other life skills.

50

3  Best Practices for School Safety to Prevent School Shootings

Research has found that this program increased students’ problem-solving skills and impulse control, creating a more positive impact on how they relate to their peers and the broader school culture. Personal Perspectives: Michelle Gay, Mother of Josephine and Co-Founder of Safe and Sound Schools Q: In your opinion, what are the best measures to prevent school shootings? I think for me, with the background of education, where others, I think we’re very understandably looking for the one thing that was going to, you know, make school shootings or violence go away forever, I really understood that it was going to be a comprehensive approach that was required. I think that all came from the education background; from having worked with a lot of special education students. I think that was hard for people to understand in the beginning, you know, how come you’re not focusing on the door locks? How come you’re not focusing on changing the laws or whatever? But I really stuck to that. And that became how we framed all of our work at Safe and Sound. So, for us it would be this complete umbrella coverage is what we were looking for. At schools, there would be robust mental health, prevention and programming and education and postvention if needed. We would be able to help schools from prevention, all the way through recovery. I think that’s difficult for people to wrap their heads around when they’re in the middle of something. I think without that experience as an educator, I don’t know that I would have been able to see the whole spectrum, like that […] I think, a ton of it comes down to programming and school-based mental health supports and staff resources and training. There’s just so much training that our school-based mental health folks, our school counselors, our social workers, our classroom teachers, everybody in the building needs a degree of that training, to be able to connect students and staff, sometimes when there is a need. So, recognizing that right away, as well as, recognizing that there are simple things we can do to equip and train and educate staff about how to be safe and to feel safe in a moment of crisis […] It’s all about covering the mental and behavioral health piece, the culture and climate piece, and the health and wellness. Are students coming to school healthy and well and fed and ready to learn and managing stress. The physical safety aspects. The leadership is huge, as we started this conversation with the leadership. Leadership, a plan, a roadmap, a strategy for building and sustaining programs of support and safety. Then, you know, that day to day and emergency operations piece, coordinating with all of those free resources. You know, public safety professionals that are there and live and breathe, crisis prevention and in a very real time kind of way.”

3.4  Best Practices for Prevention

51

3.4.4  Adequate Mental Health Support Among the many areas of prevention discussed, mental health remains one of the most, if not the most important parts of preventing a school shooting. As mentioned, historically, knee-jerk efforts in response to shootings have focused on increased security measures and gun control, with little evidence to support their effectiveness. While in fact, there is solid research highlighting the major impact that adequate mental health support can have on student violence. A meta-analysis conducted by Sandra Jo Wilson and Mark Lispey of the Peabody Research Institute at Vanderbilt University (2007) found that there are a number of counseling programs and other psychological interventions that generate moderate to strong effects in improving student behavior and reducing student aggression and improving student behavior. In light of this, Cornell (2015) recommends that schools shift their efforts and funding from school security measures to the procurement of qualified mental health school personnel (i.e., school psychologists, guidance counselors, and social workers). These professionals are invaluable team members who can assist in the development and implementation of social-emotional programs, prevention programs, threat assessment procedures, and the ongoing intervention and management of students with mental health needs. The availability of mental health services to students is a critical component of both threat assessment and prevention. Recall common factors discussed regarding school shooters, including the presence of mental health issues, suicidal ideation, being victims of bullying, and experiences of recent losses. Without appropriate mental health services in their reach, students with such risk factors often go unnoticed and untreated, resulting in potentially devastating consequences.

3.4.5  School Safety Programs Best practices for prevention of school shootings and the promotion of school safety have been incorporated into a number of programs that are actively being used in schools today. Among them, student involvement is a key element. As discussed, students can play a critical factor in the prevention of school student by reporting learned knowledge of attacks or concerning behaviors. As such, schools are encouraged to involve students in their safety planning and prevention processes. Student involvement can be facilitated via the implementation of student safety task forces, the election of student officials to serve as school safety representatives, and the use of student safety pledges. Example programs that promote a climate of safety and incorporate student participation include Students Against Violence Everywhere (SAVE) and Striving To Reduce Youth Violence Everywhere (STRYVE). SAVE emphasizes crime prevention, conflict management, and service projects by encouraging student involvement in nonviolent prevention techniques both at school and within the community. STRYVE, a national youth violence

52

3  Best Practices for School Safety to Prevent School Shootings

prevention program, founded by the CDC, fosters youth safety and well-being through collaboration with community and organizational resources and encourages the development of positive relationships with supporting adults within the community (Poland et al., 2017). Lori Alhadeff, one of our contributors and the mother of Alyssa Alhadeff, founded an organization called Make Our School Safe. Its mission is to empower students and staff to help create and maintain a culture of safety and vigilance in a secure school environment. Personal Perspectives: Lori Alhadeff, Mother of Alyssa and Founder of Make Our School Safe Q: Can you tell me a little about the foundation and the primary goals for Make Our Schools Safe? When I was developing Make Our Schools Safe, I thought about 9/11 and what transpired with regards to airport safety and the hardening that was done. Schools need to bring in safety experts to do threat assessments and then implement that plan. Awareness must increase within schools. Bullets do not discriminate and it could happen at any school. School buildings need single point entries, armed law enforcement officers, and locked doors to classrooms and offices are essential components. Also, we need more mental health counselors. I do not think teachers should be armed. We need to give our teachers more money, resources, and respect. After February 14th, families and other elected officials in Florida helped passed the State Bill 7026. As a result, we have mandated law enforcement at every school. Unfortunately, though, this does not happen around the country. Make Our Schools Safe is trying to bring this awareness to all schools statewide. In my mind, the best way to [promote safety] is through schools being able to start a Make our Schools Safe Club. The kids that make up the Make our Schools Safe Club become the activists. The Make our Schools Safe Club students become the voice that brings awareness to the subject of school safety, change, and create a culture of safety within their schools. Make our Schools Safe Clubs started in New York and in Florida. As of now, there are eleven clubs that are in operation across the nation. These kids are already meeting with their principals, school board, and local law enforcement. Awareness is half of the battle. We need to make the safety in the school a top priority. If we become numb to these school shootings and another piece of a news broadcast, what have we achieved?

Another important example comes from Safe and Sound Schools, a nonprofit organization founded by Michele Gay, one of our contributors and Alissa Parker, two mothers who tragically lost their daughters in the Sandy Hook shooting. This tragedy inspired the Safe and Sound School Initiative in which Michele and Alissa

3.4  Best Practices for Prevention

53

have dedicated their efforts to providing communities with valuable resources to improve school safety (Safe and Sound Schools, 2021). Their “Straight A School Safety Model” provides a number of recommendations and activities in the form of safety toolkits that outline the guidelines on maintaining school safety. Personal Perspectives: Michelle Gay, Mother of Josephine and Co-Founder of Safe and Sound Schools Q: When did you and Alissa decide to form Safe and Sound Schools? How did that exactly come together and were you were you and Alissa already friends? The two of our families are both families of faith, so that was something that we connected with right away. That was an important part that would continue to be an important part of our recovery process to have a belief system and a faith system to fall back on and that’s something that we have seen in others, you know. Those that have something like that to hold on to a sense of something greater, some kind of faith or belief system. There is just anecdotally, a tremendous difference in how they’re able to move forward and certainly for the two of us. So, we connected and just in the process of supporting one another, we kept talking a lot about school safety and how in the heck this happened and how could we make sure that it never happened. Again, we both had two surviving daughters, mine older and hers younger, and so we would have to send them to school at some point. And as a public school teacher, I really believe in the power of the school. The social emotional connections and learning and all of that amazing stuff. So, I knew I wanted that. But I wasn't yet sure how that was going to be possible for us and for me. So that's where the seeds were planted. I remember sitting in the parking lot that day on the 14th; I didn't yet know everything that had transpired, but I knew that there had been some kind of attack, some outsider had made his way into the building and caused all of this. I just thought, “how in the heck could that be?” “How could it be that someone from our community would reach this point that they could do something like this?” “How is it that our school building was that easy for somebody to get in there?” So, that was already very much on my mind. I think with those seeds planted and the conversations that we were having, that became a real focal point for us. A lot of conversation and momentum immediately following our tragedy went to gun control and gun legislation. However, we just felt that, while those conversations are important and need to happen, there was not any conversation about what I view as sort of the ‘low hanging fruit.’ The social emotional support, the mental health programming that was not there in our schools, the school-based staff and mental health staff. That as well as better equipping and training and educating students and staff. That just seem to me like, why isn't anybody talking about that? So that's what really drove us to found this particular mission.

54

3  Best Practices for School Safety to Prevent School Shootings

3.5  Conclusion While there is still much to be learned about school shootings and the perpetrators, efforts thus far have led to a number of critical recommendations for best practices for school safety and prevention. Given the ongoing debate and limited evidence regarding the most effective security measures, additional research is required, and school should remain updated on current findings. Access control appears to be the most cost-effective and easy to implement in terms of locking doors, limiting entry points, and utilizing identification cards and visitor log-ins. When in place, SROs should make every effort to develop positive relationships with the student body and school staff. Undoubtedly, the use of threat assessment is a key part of the prevention process and should be implemented in schools across the nation. Every effort should be made to create a school climate of safety and security. Staff are encouraged to develop strong connections with students and provide mentorship to at-risk individuals. Schools must be prepared; this involves appropriate needs assessments and safety planning. Crisis intervention planning is essential and should be in place prior to an attack. Ultimately, school safety measures should not occur as knee-jerk reactions; they should be comprehensive and thoughtfully prepared in advance. An additional recommendation that is agreed upon across experts is the increase of mental health supports within the school setting. This includes hiring additional professionals and providing more extensive and trauma-informed training. Mental health professionals are an integral part of the prevention and aftermath of school shootings. In the aftermath, their services need to be available for those impacted by a school shooting. Further, social emotional learning should a primary target of prevention efforts and programming or curriculum should be a part of every school makeup. Ultimately, all parties should be working toward increasing the safety of our schools to best prevent school shootings.

References Addington, L.  A. (2009). Cops and cameras: Public school security as a policy response to Columbine. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1426–1446. https://doi. org/10.1177/0002764209332556 Berman, S., Chaffee, S., & Sarmiento, J. (2018). The practice base for how we learn; supporting students’ social, emotional, and academic development. National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development, The Aspen Institute. https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/ content/uploads/2018/03/CDE-­Practice-­Base_FINAL.pdf Bonanno, C. M., & Levenson, R. L., Jr. (2014). School shooters: History, current theoretical and empirical findings, and strategies for prevention. Sage Open, 4(1), 2158244014525425. Borum, R., Bartel, P. A., & Forth, A. E. (2005). Structured assessment of violence risk in youth (SAVRY). In T. Grisso, G. Vincent, & D. Seagrave (Eds.), Mental health screening and assessment in juvenile justice. Guilford. Borum, R., Cornell, D. G., Modzeleski, W., & Jimerson, S. R. (2010). What can be done about school shootings? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x09357620

References

55

Brymer, M., Jacobs, A., Lyane, C., Pynoos, R., Ruzek, J., Steinberg, A., & Watson, P. (2006). Psychological first aid: Field operations guide (2nd ed.). National Child Traumatic Stress Network and National Center for PTSD. Butkus, S. L. (2020). Investigating school shootings from 1996 to 2019 for processes needed to prevent and respond to future school shootings: A case study. Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University. Campbell, A. F. (2018, February 16). After Parkland, a push for more school shooting drills. Vox. https://www.vox.com/policy-­and-­politics/2018/2/16/17016382/school-­shooting-­drills-­training Carno, L., & Klehr, D. G. (2017). Guns in school? Two perspectives on a highly charged issue. District Administration, 53(10), 24. http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=125421067&site=eds-­live Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics: the creations of the mods and the rockers. MacGibbon & Kee. Cornell, D. (2015). Our schools are safe: Challenging the misperception that schools are dangerous places. American journal of orthopsychiatry, 85(3), 217. Cornell, D. (2018). School safety. School Safety Forum. University of Virginia. Cornell, D. G. (2020). Threat assessment as a school violence prevention strategy. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(1), 235–252. Cornell, D., & Sheras, P. (2006). Guidelines for responding to student threats of violence. Sopris West. Clifton, S., & Brooks, D. (2013). Security risk management. Security Science, 51–80. https://doi. org/10.1016/B978-­0-­12-­394436-­8.00003-­5 Curran, F. C., Fisher, B. W., & Viano, S. L. (2020). Mass school shootings and the short-run impacts on use of school security measures and practices: national evidence from the Columbine tragedy. Journal of School Violence, 19(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2019.1703713 Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432. Dwyer, K. (2019). Guns in school? Here’s a list of states that allow armed teachers. https://www. mcall.com/news/education/mc-­nws-­guns-­in-­schools-­list-­20181108-­story.html Erbacher, T. A., Singer, J. B., & Poland, S. (in press). Suicide in schools: a practitioners’ guide to multi-level prevention, assessment, intervention, and postvention. Routledge. Everytown. (2020). Reconsider active shooter drills. Everytown. https://everytown.org/solutions/ active-­shooter-­drills/ Fein, R., Vossekuil, B., Pollack, W., Borum, R., Modzeleski, W., & Reddy, M. (2002). Threat assessment in schools: A guide to managing threatening situations and to creating safe school climates. U.S. Secret Service and Department of Education. Final Report of the Federal Commission on School Safety. (2018). SchoolSafety.gov. https://www. schoolsafety.gov/resource/final-­report-­federal-­commission-­school-­safety Fox, J.  A., & DeLateur, M.  J. (2013). Mass shootings in America. Homicide Studies, 18(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767913510297 Fox, J.  A., Fridel, E.  E., & Shapiro, H. (2018). The Menace of School shootings in America (Chapter). In The Wiley handbook on violence in education: Forms, factors, and preventions. Wiley. Ginsberg, C., & Loffredo, L. (1993). Violence-related attitudes and behaviors of high school students—New York City, 1992. Journal of School Health, 63, 438–440. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1746-­1561.1993.tb06080.x Hankin, A., Hertz, M., & Simon, T. (2011). Impacts of metal detector use in schools: Insights from 15 years of research. Journal of School Health, 81, 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/ josh.2011.81.issue-­2 Heffelfinger, T. B. (2006). School safety: Lessons learned. United States Attorney’s Office District of Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Education, Minnesota Department of Public Safety. Hirschfield, P.  J. (2008). Preparing for prison?: The criminalization of school discipline in the USA. Theoretical Criminology, 12, 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480607085795

56

3  Best Practices for School Safety to Prevent School Shootings

James, N. (2018). Arming teachers as a response to school shootings. Congressional Research Service: Report, 1–3. http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp x?direct=true&db=tsh&AN=129148491&site=eds-­live James, N., & McCallion, G. (2013). School resources officers: Law enforcement officers in schools. Congressional Research Service. Jennings, W. G., Khey, D. N., Maskaly, J., & Donner, C. M. (2011). Evaluating the relationship between law enforcement and school security measures and violent crime in schools. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 11(2), 109–124. Jonson, C. L. (2017). Preventing school shootings: The effectiveness of safety measures. Victims & Offenders, 12(6), 956–973. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2017.1307293 Jonson, C. L., Moon, M., & Hendry, J. (2020). One Size Does Not Fit All: Traditional Lockdown Versus Multioption Responses to School Shootings. Journal of School Violence, 19(2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2018.1553719 Justia. (2019, June 20). Education Law. Justia. https://www.justia.com/education/ Kleck, G. (2009). Mass shootings in schools: The worst possible case for gun control. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1447–1464. Klein, A., & Blad, E. (2019). Scrap discipline guidance, consider arming school staff, Trump commission says. Education Digest, 84(7), 20–26. Kupchik, A. (2009). Things are tough all over: Race, ethnicity, class and school discipline. Punishment & Society, 11, 291–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474509334552 Langman, P. (2013). Thirty-five rampage school shooters: Trends, patterns, and typology (In School shootings) (pp. 131–156). Springer. Lassiter, W. L., & Perry, D. C. (2009). Preventing violence and crime in America's schools: From put-downs to lock-downs. Praeger. McDevitt, J., & Panniello, J. (2005). National assessment of school resource officer programs: Survey of students in three large SRO programs. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/ grants/209270.pdf Na, C., & Gottfredson, D. (2013). Police officers in schools: Effects of school crime and the processing of offending behaviors. Justice Quarterly, 30, 619–650. NASP. (2014). Best practice considerations for schools in active shooter and other armed assailant drills. Springer Reference. http://www.nasponline.org/resources/handouts/BP_Armed_ Assailant_Drills.pdf NASP. (n.d.) Bullying prevention. National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). https://www.nasponline.org/resources-­a nd-­p ublications/resources-­a nd-­p odcasts/ school-­climate-­safety-­and-­crisis/school-­violence-­resources/bullying-­prevention NASP. (2015). Threat assessment for school administrators & crisis teams. National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). https://www.nasponline.org/resources-­and-­publications/ resources-­a nd-­p odcasts/school-­c limate-­s afety-­a nd-­c risis/systems-­l evel-­p revention/ threat-­assessment-­at-­school/threat-­assessment-­for-­school-­administrators-­and-­crisis-­teams NASP. (2020). About PREPaRE. National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). https:// www.nasponline.org/professional-­development/prepare-­training-­curriculum/about-­prepare Oliver, J., & Ryan, M. (2003). Lesson one: The ABCs of life. Fireside. O’Toole, M. (2000). The School Shooter: A threat assessment perspective. PsycEXTRA Dataset. https://doi.org/10.1037/e319532004-­001 Peterson, J., Densley, J., & Erickson, G. (2021). Presence of armed school officials and fatal and Nonfatal gunshot injuries during mass school SHOOTINGS, United States, 1980–2019. JAMA Network Open, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37394 Poland, S. (2003). Congressional testimony: School violence from the perspective of a national crisis response consultant. In M. S. E. Fishbaugh, T. R. Berkley, & G. Schroth (Eds.), Ensuring safe school environments: Exploring issues-seeking solutions (pp. 3–12). Lawrence Erlbaum. Poland, S. (2008). Threat Assessments, District Administration, 78–79. Poland, S., Conte, B., VanHasselt, V., & Bourke, M. (2017). School violence (Chapter). In Handbook of behavioral criminology: Contemporary strategies and issues. Springer.

References

57

Poland, S., & Poland, D. (2017). The Montana crisis action School Toolkit on suicide [CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform]. Retrieved from https://saom.memberclicks.net/assets/ SAM_unpublished_links/CAST-­S 2017 FINAL_revised.pdf Pollack, W., Modzeleski, W., & Rooney, G. (2008). Prior knowledge of potential school-based violence: Information students learn may prevent a targeted attack. United States Secret Service and United States Department of Education. Rocque, M. (2012). Exploring school rampage shootings: Research, theory, and policy. The Social Science Journal, 49, 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2011.11.001. Randazzo, M.  R., Borum, R., Vossekuil, B., Fein, R., Modzeleski, W., & Pollack, W. (2006). Threat assessment in schools: Empirical support and comparison with other approaches. In S. R. Jimerson & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice (pp. 147–156). Lawrence Erlbaum. Rogers, L., Ovares, E.  A., Ogunleye, O.  O., Twyman, T., Akkus, C., Patel, K., & Fadlalla, M. (2018). Is arming teachers our nation’s best response to gun violence? The perspective of public health students. American Journal of Public Health, 108(7), 862–863. https://doi. org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304477 Safe and Sound Schools. (2021, March 2). https://www.safeandsoundschools.org/ Sandy Hook Advisory Commission. (2015). The National Child Traumatic Stress Network. https:// www.nctsn.org/resources/final-­report-­of-­the-­sandy-­hook Swartz, K., Osborne, D.  L., Dawson-Edwards, C., & Higgins, G.  E. (2016). Policing schools: Examining the impact of place management activities on school violence. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 465–483. Tillyer, M. S., Fisher, B. S., & Wilcox, P. (2011). The effects of school crime prevention on students’ violent victimization, risk perception, and fear of crime: A multilevel opportunity perspective. Justice Quarterly, 28, 249–277. Travis, L., & Coon, J. K. (2005). The role of law enforcement in public school safety: A national survey. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Trump, K. (2011). Proactive school security and emergency preparedness planning. SAGE Publications. Vossekuil, B., Fein, R., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002). The final report and findings of the safe school initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program and U.S. Secret Service, National Threat Assessment Center. Zhang, A., Musu-Gillette, L., & Oudekerk, B. A. (2016). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2015 (NCES 2016-079/NCJ 249758). U.S. Department of Justice.

Chapter 4

Legal Issues in the Context of School Shootings

The issue of laws and related legality in the schools is complicated. Federal legislation typically creates change on a national level. However, within the context of education law, the federal reach is limited. Education law is the body of state and federal law that covers teachers, schools, school districts, school boards, and the students they teach (Justia, 2019). While the federal Department of Education oversees the public school system, states are responsible for ensuring their schools are operating in compliance with state and federal laws. A variety of legal issues arise within the school context, especially as it relates to school shootings. This chapter will review pertinent legal issues, including legislative responses in the aftermath of school shootings and criminal and civil court proceedings.

4.1  Legislative Responses Legislative action is a primary response to school shootings in the US and occurs hugely because of the public response. School shootings have been said to incite “moral panics,” a phenomenon in which circumstances occur that lead individuals to believe that their societal interest and values are being threatened (Springhall, 1999; Cohen, 1972; Schildkraut & Hernandez, 2014). This can certainly be observed in the aftermath of highly publicized school shootings. Cohen (1972) noted that once a particular threat is identified, it becomes overly exposed in the media, resulting in an exaggeration of the magnitude of the threat. As mentioned in Chap. 1, excessive media coverage and inaccurate portrayals and reporting have significantly contributed to the development of fear and panic among the public. As discussed, national polls have confirmed this, observing increased parental fears regarding their children’s safety at school. These perceptions have led the public to demand action in response to school shootings. It is their

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Poland, S. Ferguson, Lessons Learned From School Shootings, SpringerBriefs in Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75480-8_4

59

60

4  Legal Issues in the Context of School Shootings

outcries that often lead policy makers and lobbyists to develop and propose legislation to enact changes to prevent future school shootings. Personal Perspectives: Ken Trump, School Safety and Security Expert Q: What kind of meaningful systemic changes do we need in the United States’ legislation/public policy as it relates to the prevention of school shootings? As a nation, we have what I call “rollercoaster” public policy and funding to public safety in general, and school safety specifically. Our school boards, state legislatures, and Congressional elected officials push school safety to the backburner when there is a not a high-profile school shooting in the news. When one does occur, they then propose a flurry of legislation and “throw money” at the issue to turn down the public temperature and get the media off their backs --- but only until things quiet down and they can go on to the next hot button issue of the day. Over time, the funds and programs are cut, but only until the next crisis. This rollercoaster approach is why we lack meaningful, long-term strategies and programs that will make a difference. In some cases, parents who have lost children in a school shooting have taken the lead on pushing for legislative changes. Lori Alhadeff is a prime example of this. She is first and foremost the mother of Alyssa Alhadeff, one of the 17 individuals who lost their lives in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting in Parkland, Florida. In the midst of her grief, Lori demonstrated the utmost resiliency and strength, taking action into her own hands. In 2019, she successfully won a seat on the Broward County School Board. Further, she and her husband have worked tirelessly to help pass “Alyssa’s Law,” a legislative move that could serve to provide additional safety for our schools.

Personal Perspectives: Lori Alhadeff, Mother of Alyssa and Founder of Make Our School Safe Q: What made you decide to run for the school board, Lori? After the tragedy of February 14th, I started a nonprofit organization called Make Our Schools Safe. Our mission is to empower students and staff to help create and maintain a culture of safety and vigilance in a secure school environment. Our family sat Shiva for Alyssa for a week. Everyone, I met felt that change was needed. No one though knew how to make those changes happen. It was clear to me that if I wanted change, I needed a seat at the table. If you want to get the job done, it’s best to do it yourself!

4.1  Legislative Responses

61

Q: Tell us a little bit about Alyssa’s law in New Jersey and what that is all about and its status? Alyssa’s law has been signed into law in New Jersey and Florida. Now every school in New Jersey and Florida is required to have a panic button so that the teachers can push if they see a threat and press the panic button. It automatically alerts law enforcement because time is life. We need to get law enforcement on campus as quickly as possible. It is true that a shooting can be over in six minutes or less. So, in that six minutes, we need to make it as quickly as possible for law enforcement to get on the scene, triage the victims, and take down the threat, as this will save lives.

Schildkraut and Hernandez (2014) comment on the importance of understanding public opinion as it relates to the introduction of novel legislation. They cite a number of studies (Burstein, 2003; Haider-Markel & Joslyn, 2001; Monroe, 1998; Page et al., 1987) in which the relationship between public opinion and policy has been investigated, reporting that all of the results confirmed that public opinion impacts policy. Furthermore, a key element of this effect is the salience of the issue, noting that the greater the public interest for a specific issue, the more enhanced the democratic responsiveness (Burstein, 2003; Schildkraut & Hernandez, 2014). This example is supported by the high rate of legislative proposals that occurs in the aftermaths of highly publicized school shootings, such as Columbine, a time in which the public cited violence and crime and gun control as the most important issues facing government (Saad, 1999).

4.1.1  Firearms Calls for action from the public vary; however, they are all linked to the ultimate goal of enhancing school safety. Among the domains of school safety, there is undoubtedly one area that receives the most public attention: firearms. The topic of firearms in the broader context of the United States is one of major debate and importance to many. There are a number of gun legislation implications in terms of violence, suicide rates, school safety, and civil liberties, fueling the ongoing debate regarding gun control and legal firearm possession. History of Firearm Legislation  A review of the history of firearms in the school context reveals an increase in the US legislative efforts in the 1990s. These efforts were warranted, given the high rates of gun violence in schools. In response, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was enacted and imposed criminal penalties for the possession or discharge of a firearm in a school zone, with the exception of specific roles (e.g., law enforcement [Katsyannis et al., 2018]). Soon after, Congress

62

4  Legal Issues in the Context of School Shootings

passed the Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA) in 1994, as part of the Improving America’s Schools Act. The GFSA implemented a “zero-tolerance” approach, in which schools that received federal funding were required to expel any students who possess a firearm on campus for at least 1 year (Borum et al., 2010). The zero-tolerance approach was created as means to be an effective deterrent to students bringing guns to school. Many legislators hoped its enforcement would not only prevent students from coming to campus armed but would also eliminate any potential threats at schools (via expulsion), thereby creating a calmer and safer climate for students and personnel. In legal terms, the zero-tolerance approach was assumed to provide some alleviation of professional and civil liability, should disciplinary actions against a troublemaker be ineffective, potentially leading to other acts of violence (Katsiyannis et al., 2018). Despite the presumed benefits, zero-tolerance received much criticism over time. On a federal level, the GFSA was created to target the possession of firearms; however, it directed states to pass their own legislation, prompting many to enact bills that broadened the scope of zero tolerance, including expulsion for a number of offenses unrelated to firearms (e.g., making threats, selling drugs, bringing a knife to campus). Critics voiced concerns over the effectiveness of these policies, along with the potential implications for students, their well-beings, and futures. In an effort to gain a better understanding of the policy’s effectiveness and impacts, a special task force, sponsored by the American Psychological Association (APA), completed a meta-analysis of the existing research on zero tolerance (Skiba et  al., 2008). Their investigation revealed that, contrary to the reported benefits, there was no real evidence that zero-tolerance policies enhanced school safety. In fact, this approach was linked to more hostile school environments and a decline in academic achievement. Ultimately, the task force’s findings did not support the implementation of zero-tolerance policies, demonstrating that they do not deter misbehavior and may even contribute to higher rates of misbehavior and school dropout for students they punish (Katsiyannis et al., 2018). Two additional significant pieces of legislation were also passed in 1994. The first, The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, created a 5-day waiting period and background check on any unlicensed individual attempting to purchase a firearm from a licensed gun manufacturer, dealer, or importer. This law acted as a temporary measure while the FBI established a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The new system enabled immediate background checks, either electronically or by phone, and was applicable to all firearms. Additionally, the Brady Law, as it became known, prevented individuals who had been judged mentally ill or who had been committed to a mental institution from purchasing a firearm (Schildkraut & Cox, 2013). The other key legislative policy was the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, more commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB). The AWB stated that it was “unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon” (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994). It forbade large-capacity ammunition feeding devices

4.1  Legislative Responses

63

(or magazines), holding more than 10 rounds for civilian-used firearms, and outlined a list of 19 specific semiautomatic firearms that were banned from production (Singh, 1999). The AWB also banned juveniles from possessing a handgun or ammunition for a handgun and prohibited the selling of firearms to a minor (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994). Of importance, the AWB was designed to only be in effect for 10 years (Singh, 1999). The AWB expired in 2004 when Congress failed to renew it, and to date it has not been renewed. However, it continues to be a source of major debate, particularly after Nicholas Cruz’s use of an AR-15 at MSD (Schildkraut & Cox, 2013). Another notable legislative piece that is connected to school shootings was put into place after a 1993 study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), which found that keeping guns in the home made people less safe and was strongly correlated with higher rates of homicide in the home. According to APA, after much campaigning from the National Rifles Association (NRA), Congress included the Dickey Amendment in its 1997 appropriations bill, banning the CDC from using funds for research “used to advocate or promote gun control.” This rule is still in place today. While the CDC is not explicitly banned from researching gun violence, the rule still restricts researchers from specifically examining the public health risks associated with gun ownership and use, creating significant restrictions in public funding for school shooting research (Peterson, 2018). Soon after the introduction of these legislative changes, the 1999 Columbine shooting occurred, fueling the fire for additional gun control. In the year after the tragedy, over 800 firearm-related bills were introduced; however, only approximately 10% of these laws were enacted (Soraghan, 2000). Significant federal legislative efforts were made that targeted the gun show loopholes for purchasing firearms. Supporters of these efforts cited this loophole as a critical aspect of the Columbine shootings, as Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold obtained the two shotguns and rifle that they used by way of a loophole. The loophole allows individuals to bypass a background check through the use of private dealers (many of whom sell to individuals 18 and over at gun shows), who are not mandated to complete a background check. The two perpetrators reportedly sought out dealers such as these and utilized an 18-year-old friend to purchase the guns without a background check. A number of reforms to address this loophole were introduced; however, none of them were successfully passed. To date, the Brady Law has not been extended to require private, unlicensed dealers to complete federal background checks, despite the continued lobbying for change. Many argue that this loophole has created an open door for potential school shooters to gain access to firearms undetected. Critics reject this claim, citing the fact that by and large, firearm sales take place with licensed dealers who require federal background checks (see Miller et al., 2007). Further, the data shows that majority of school shooters utilize legally obtained guns (Everytown, 2021). In 2007, Seung-Hui Cho, an undergraduate student at the Virginia Tech, went to campus and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others with two semiautomatic pistols, completing one of the largest school shootings to date. Following this

64

4  Legal Issues in the Context of School Shootings

massacre, Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine created a panel to investigate the events that led to the shooting. The panel reported a number of critical findings, including the fact that Cho had a significant mental health history, dating back to early childhood. Records were found that confirmed that Cho had received psychiatric treatment on several occasions in early adulthood, including a hospitalization due to a suicide attempt in 2005. Reportedly, this hospitalization was short lived, and Cho was discharged with orders to attend outpatient therapy, which were not followed up on (TriData Division, System Planning Corporation, 2009). The panel also highlighted the “widespread confusion” about the reach of federal and state privacy laws. Discrepancies were found between the federal laws governing records of health care provided in educational settings and those governing other health records, creating complexities in the sharing of information among parties. Further, Cho was able to purchase two firearms, despite the fact that his record of being a danger to himself made him ineligible to legally obtain a firearm under federal law. Lastly, the panel pointed to the gap in state reporting laws, in which there was no requirement that an individual like Cho, who had been ordered to outpatient treatment versus inpatient hospitalization, be reported to the database (TriData Division, System Planning Corporation, 2009; Washington Post, 2008). The panel’s conclusions and the related media coverage brought increased attention to mental health and gun violence. Governor Kaine signed an executive order that mandated all individuals who have been deemed a danger to themselves or others, regardless of whether they were recommended inpatient or outpatient treatment, be immediately reported to all relevant databases. Additional legislative actions were taken across the nation; 12 states enacted policies to improve their reporting (Brady Campaign Release, 2011). Additionally, in 2008, President George W. Bush signed the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act (2007) to address the loopholes in reporting systems. The Act required more efficient reporting, frequent updates of records, and increased coordination between State and Federal agencies. It also provided grant funding to a number of reporting agencies such as those for firearms and criminal history reporting (Schildkraut & Hernandez, 2014). The 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook reignited the school safety and firearms debate. Most legislative responses following Sandy Hook primarily focused on gun regulation. In 2013, state legislatures introduced 1500 gun bills, 109 of which became law. Elliot (2015) reviewed the massive legislative response, noting that generally, the bills fell into two categories: arming teachers and gun control. Elliot lamented the legislative focus, pointing to the fact that while the high number of bills demonstrates the state legislatures’ commitment to school safety, they did not recognize the many factors that encompasses school shooting prevention. In 2013, the NRA began to promote a “more guns” national strategy for school safety, pushing the “School Shield Program” that would serve to equip every school in America with trained sharpshooters. Additionally, a number of lawmakers

4.1  Legislative Responses

65

sponsored legislation to begin arming and training schoolteachers with firearms. While this is not a novel idea, it has certainly gained more popularity in the recent years (Fox et al., 2018). To date, a number of states are pushing legislation to arm their teachers and other school personnel. In 2019, Florida passed the Classroom Carry Bill that enables any teacher or staff member willing to undergo the required 144 hours of training, along with psychological evaluations and background checks, to carry a concealed gun in a school. The passing came with great debate and continues to be controversial today (Wamsley, 2019). As mentioned, the MSD shooting reignited the call for bans on assault weapons, along with a number of moves to increase gun control. In the aftermath of MSD, surviving students led efforts for gun reform, creating a comprehensive legislative proposal. They aimed to enact a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, raise the national standard for gun ownership, and create a national licensing and registry system and a national gun buyback program (Ali & Moe, 2019). These platforms continue to be critical points of gun reform efforts and are being fought for in present day. While many of these efforts have yet to be passed, a number of important legislative changes have occurred. For example, eight states (Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.) have passed Red Flag laws, which grant family members and law enforcement the ability to seek a court order to temporarily restrict an individual’s access to guns if they are considered a danger to themselves or others. Additional changes include the Trump administration’s ban on bump stocks, which enable semiautomatic rifles to fire faster and become more deadly. Additionally, in Florida, legislators passed the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, which established safeguards in publicly funded schools (see Table 4.1 for a summary of the key safeguards [Storey, 2019]).

Table 4.1  Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act Provisions of the law include: • Creation of the Office of Safe Schools and a description of the office’s responsibilities. • Allowing sheriffs to establish a Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program. • Utilization of the “FortifyFL” mobile suspicious activity reporting tool. • Establishment of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission. • New requirements for mental health services and training. • Requirements for a safe-school officer at each public school. • School safety assessments for each public school. • Appropriations of funding to address identified school safety needs. Adapted from Solodev (2018)

66

4  Legal Issues in the Context of School Shootings

Supporters and Critics of Firearm Legislation  Supporters of increased gun control as it relates to school shootings point to a number of prominent massacres that would have been prevented, should tighter laws be in place. For example, the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that was used to kill 17 people at MSD was purchased legally by 19-year-old Nicholas Cruz. Supporters cite the need for bans on these types of guns, as they are more powerful and have been linked to deadlier acts of violence. Sandy Hook is another tragic example; the shooter, Adam Lanza, used three firearms to kill 28 people that were legally purchased by his mother. While he did steal the guns from the home, no storage gun laws prevented him from doing so, as they were easily accessible to Adam, despite his known developmental and reported untreated mental health issues (Goodwin, 2013). This brings to light a very important fact related to school shootings: in nearly all cases, the guns used were legally obtained; many times, by the parents of the perpetrators (Everytown, 2021). Further, the guns were accessible to at risk youth within the homes. In fact, Everytown (2021) reports that 4.6 million American children live in homes with at least one gun that is loaded and unlocked. Supporters of gun control utilize this data and the unfortunate tragedies, such as Sandy Hook, to emphasize the need for additional laws that mandate appropriate storage of firearms. Further, these factors signal the need for increased communication with parents about gun safety and access and recommendations for increased security of storage methods, should they keep firearms in a home with children. Additionally, parents should become acquainted with common risk factors and warning signs associated with gun violence. Critics of increased gun control, on the other hand, predominantly cite the fact that legal ownership of firearms is a civil liberty protected by the Second Amendment in the constitution. Many legal firearm owners view gun control legislation as attempts by the government to wrongfully impart control over their citizens, ultimately infringing on their civil liberties. This notion has certainly created a major divide among Americans, impacting a number of political platforms and legislative policies. Ironically, in their efforts to highlight the ineffectiveness of gun laws, critics often point to many of the same school shootings that supporters do. Harris and Klebold, for instance, each had weapons in their possessions as juveniles, which was illegal under the AWB. Further, the sawed-off shotguns used were in direct violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Lastly, the TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun used by Klebold was a banned firearm under the AWB, which was in place at the time of the massacre (Schildkraut & Hernandez, 2014). Additionally, as mentioned, Adam Lanza stole the guns from his mother. These examples highlight the fact that despite the many gun laws in place, school shooters will often violate them in order to commit their acts of violence.

4.1  Legislative Responses

67

Effectiveness of Gun Control  Another prominent area of critique in terms of firearm legislative responses in the context of school shooting prevention is the amount of empirical evidence backing such efforts. A review of the literature reveals a significant gap in the evidence to support gun control as an effective prevention method. To date, there are no studies that have provided solid evidence to confirm that increases in gun control prevent and/or reduce the occurrence of school shootings. In 2015, the CDC examined this issue in the broader context of the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence. Overall, 51 studies from several scientific bodies were analyzed and a number of laws were reviewed, including bans on types of firearms, zero-tolerance laws for firearms in schools, restrictions on firearms acquisition, and fire-arms registration, among others. Ultimately, the results revealed that there was not sufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the laws examined. A more recent study (Gius, 2018) sought to investigate the relationship between school shootings and State and Federal gun control laws. The author completed statistical analyses of state-level data from 1990 to 2014 and school shootings that resulted in an injury or death, along with a review of both State and Federal laws. The results were astounding, finding that assault weapons bans reduced the number of school shooting victims by 54.4%. However, all other gun control laws (concealed carry laws, private sale background checks, and federal dealer background checks) had no statistically significant effects on school shootings. While this is pertinent information to gun reform movement and supporters of reinstating AWB, it also highlights the fact that most gun control efforts are not effective in preventing school shootings. Guis concluded his study by noting that while “assault weapons bans may reduce the overall number of school shooting victims, the average reduction in murder victims may be less than 10 per year. Hence, it is unclear if gun control is the most appropriate policy to use to reduce the number school shooting victims” (Guis, 2018 p. 320). Firearms Policy Recommendations  Everytown (2021) counters the notion that gun legislation is not an effective means of preventing gun violence. They offer detailed recommendations for firearms laws, many of which include evidentiary support, albeit the majority is related to broader gun violence rather than the scope of school shootings. See Table  4.2 for a summary of their firearms policy recommendations. Everytown’s recommendations are supported by other prominent agencies across the nation (i.e., American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association). However, the question of whether specific gun legislative efforts prevent school shootings remains elusive. Given the complexity of the issue, it makes sense that the modification of only one domain related to the topic cannot be a panacea. Much like the best practices recommendations in Chap. 3, policy changes must be comprehensive, rather than patchwork legislation. After the MSD shooting, an Interdisciplinary Group on Preventing School and Community Violence penned a call to action that lends well to a more comprehensive approach. It proposed the

68

4  Legal Issues in the Context of School Shootings

Table 4.2  Everytown firearm policy recommendations Secure gun storage Gun owners can increase the safety of their homes and communities by storing their firearms securely. This means storing them locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition. Securing firearms protects children and adults by preventing unintentional shootings and gun suicides. States should enact and enforce secure firearm storage laws. Under these laws, generally, when a person accesses a gun and does harm with it, the person who failed to securely store the firearm is liable. State legislatures need to make ensure their laws are precisely written to cover access by anyone under 18. Local officials also need to enforce these laws in appropriate situations. Additionally, policymakers should promote public awareness programs that can encourage secure storage and induce behavior change Extreme risk laws Extreme risk laws (i.e., “red flag” laws), enable loved ones or law enforcement to intervene by petitioning a court for an order to temporarily prevent someone in crisis from accessing guns. When family, school personnel, or law enforcement are alerted to a student or individual who is at risk for harming themselves or others and that student has access to guns, they can request a civil restraining order. This order can only be enacted when specific legal determination is made confirm the individual is a serious threat to themselves or others. The laws include strong due process protections to ensure that an individual’s rights are balanced with public safety. Once an order is issued, the individual is mandated to give up any guns they have and is prohibited from buying new guns. This prohibition is temporary, generally lasting 1 year. Extreme risk laws help to intervene when warning signs are identified, prevent an at-risk individual from purchasing a firearm, and can protect minors who have access to guns at their home Stop arming teachers In order to prevent violent tragedies, legislation should be passed to aid in the implementation of school safety solutions. Arming teachers, however, is not one of the recommended solutions. An armed teacher cannot, in a moment of chaos and confusion, be expected to act as a trained law enforcement officer. In fact, having access to a firearm in the classroom increases the likelihood that a student will access a gun and that someone will be shot outside of an active shooter incident Background checks on all gun sales Background checks are the foundation of any comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy to prevent minors, people subject to extreme risk protection orders, and other people who shouldn’t have guns from accessing them. Without background checks, guns are easily accessible in the online and gun show markets without any questions asked, making it difficult for law enforcement to detect violations of the law and undermining other strategies to keep guns out of the hands of shooters. Current federal law requires that background checks be conducted whenever an individual attempts to purchase a firearm from a licensed gun dealer. This is to ensure that the buyer is not legally prohibited from having the gun. However, current federal law does not require background checks on sales between unlicensed parties, including those at gun shows or online. This means that people with dangerous histories can avoid the background check system simply by purchasing their firearm online or at a gun show. Everytown recommends that all states mandate background checks on all purchases of firearms Adapted from Everytown (2021)

4.1  Legislative Responses

69

need for both increased gun control and preventative and responsive mental health services in K–12 schools (Astor et al., 2018). They discussed the use of a three-tiered model that is commonly used in public health and schoolwide systems of positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS). PBIS seek to protect individuals from gun violence using universal approaches for all (Tier 1), targeted strategies to reduce risk factors and promote protective factors (Tier 2), and individualized interventions for individuals for those whom violence appears imminent (Tier 3 [Katsiyannis et  al., 2018]). The Group also calls for additional funding for increased staffing of service providers who can coordinate and deliver mental health services for at risk youth. Personal Perspectives: Stacey Lippel, Teacher and Survivor of the MSD Shooting I don’t believe that assault weapons should be legal for any civilian to own. These are killing machines and I don’t see any purpose for them. Hunters can use hunting rifles. There also needs to be limits on ammunition purchasing. This needs to be controlled by the federal government. There must also be honesty in reporting at the local level. The second amendment exists if a person of sound mind and wants to buy a gun for personal protection or hunting animals. If someone has been arrested or baker acted, they should not be allowed to buy a gun and there should be system in place to stop that from happening. The Parkland shooter should have been arrested several times leading up to the shooting. There were many opportunities, either through school incidents or behaviors he exhibited at home. Had he been arrested even one time, he never would have been able to purchase the AR-15 he used in our shooting. It boggles my mind that he exhibited homicidal behaviors for years yet nothing serious was ever really done to stop him. There should be a national database that is linked between the police and gun sellers. Someone applies for a gun, the gun seller looks them up in the database, parameters are established whether this buyer should own a gun or not, and then a legal decision is made. It’s way too easy for people to buy guns. Mental health screening is critical. That element needs to be addressed at the local level and it is slowly happening. Schools and businesses have [Social Emotional Learning] (SEL) programs in place now. There is less of a stigma surrounding the idea of seeking counseling, so that’s good progress. We have resiliency centers, meditation is hip, and mindfulness is a commonly used term. I think our new first lady [Biden] will be instrumental in expanding these concepts nationwide.

70

4  Legal Issues in the Context of School Shootings

4.1.2  Mental Health Legislation The Interdisciplinary Group on Preventing School and Community Violence’s policy recommendations are more in line with the best practices for prevention of school shootings, addressing two significant domains: access to firearms and the mental health and well-being of youth. In light of the discussion regarding mental health and gun violence, it is highly important to dispel any notion of a strong relationship between the two. This yet another myth associated with school shootings, that mental health is a direct and constant contributor. As discussed, research has repeatedly demonstrated that there is no direct relationship between mental health and gun violence. People with serious mental illness are rarely violent and the large majority of gun violence toward others is not due to the presence of psychopathology. In fact, people with significant mental health issues are far more likely to become victims of violence, rather than perpetrators (Miller, 2017). Further, while Langman’s psychotic typology included a large number of perpetrators, juveniles with mental illness are of a rare subset in the broader context of juvenile homicide (Hernandez et al., 2020). This does not mean, however, that efforts toward the enhancement of mental health services and well-being should not occur. Given the recommendations for best practices of school shootings, one of the most important policy recommendations in the context of mental health is funding. Schools are in need of a significant amount of increased funding aimed toward mental health support, learning, and access. As highlighted in Chap. 3, proper support of social-emotional well-being of students and the employment of appropriate mental health providers in school settings is vital to the prevention process. NASP (2018) recommends policy changes that generate additional funding toward hiring school-based mental health professionals. American Counseling Association (2013) echoes these recommendations, highlighting the benefits of utilizing funds to implement school-based mental health services, including reduced use of weapons, force, and threats, and an increased sense of school safety. Policy changes as it relates to mental health prove to be a complicated matter, as there are a number of concerns related to civil liberties, privacy, and stigma. Historically, mental health has not been a primary agenda for political platforms. As mentioned, it became increasingly popular after the Virginia Tech massacre, prompting many to push for changes in mental health legislation; however, many of these efforts have been linked directly to gun control, rather than addressing the broader issue of mental health. After Sandy Hook, President Obama hosted a National Conference on Mental Health in which he shifted the focus from gun control to mental health treatment. He presented plans to combat the stigma of mental health, increase funding for mental health care, and offer resources to train new mental health professionals (Rosenberg, 2014). While these changes were positive, mental health advocates continue to point to the massive budget cuts in public mental health spending, noting a $4.45

4.2  Other Relevant Legal Issues

71

billion decrease across state between 2009 and 2012, leading to a grave shortage of services (Honberg et al., 2011; Pickler, 2013). One legislative area that has gained recent attention is mental health education. A 2019 bill, the Mental Health Services for Students Act, was passed by the House just last year. It was designed to increase access to evidence-based comprehensive mental health programs to students in  local schools and communities. The bill requested funding for youth-focused programs that incorporate best practices in education, social services, local primary health care, and trauma-informed behavioral health care to best meet the needs of at-risk youth. In the context of school shooting prevention, this type of mandate would be greatly beneficial, targeting the foundational needs of potential perpetrators. To date, it has yet to be passed by the Senate.

4.2  Other Relevant Legal Issues While legal issues in the context of school shootings are predominantly related to firearms, there are other relevant issues that warrant discussion. These issues move away from legislative policies and changes to the area of civil and criminal court matters. In the aftermath of school shootings, a number of civil and criminal issues come into play, such as liability, reparations, and sentencing. Personal Perspectives: Bill Modzeleski, School Violence Expert [I]t’s more than just money, it’s making sure that it’s used well. I would start off with schools of education where young men and women who are going to be teachers, very early on, have a recognition and some understanding about what mental health services are, number one, how to access them, number two. And how to follow up to make sure that they’re working, number three, and we haven’t had that in the past. And we really need that.

4.2.1  Juveniles and Sentencing One issue related to school shooters in the legal context is their trial outcomes and the related sentences. While many school shooters die by suicide, there are some who have been apprehended and tried for their heinous crimes. During the trials, there are public outcries for punishments that fit the nature of their violent acts; many call for the harshest of sentences possible. This issue becomes complicated, however, when the school shooter is a minor at the time of the shooting. Juveniles in the court system have been a hotly debated area in the legal field, especially as it relates to culpability of homicide, age as mitigating factor, and sentencing. Neuropsychological data has demonstrated that there are hard-wired

72

4  Legal Issues in the Context of School Shootings

differences in adolescents who commit criminal acts when compared to adult offenders. This knowledge has led to changes in the judicial system, in which juvenile offenders are judged in a less culpable and blame-worthy fashion, aiding in a reduction of juvenile waivers to the adult court criminal system. The significance of such information has yielded major shifts in trial proceedings and outcomes, especially when considering youthfulness as a mitigating factor (Hernandez et al., 2020). Personal Perspectives: Dr. Peter Langman, School Shooters Expert Q: Are kids [who commit a school shooting] fully responsible? At what point are they no longer responsible? That’s more of a legal question, getting into the “not guilty by reason of insanity,” defense, which is a separate issue. This does get into some very difficult issues of responsibility. There was a 12-year-old shooter who may have had some brain damage and was perhaps on the autism spectrum. He committed a school shooting. He also [died by suicide], so he never came to trial, but when you have someone that young with obvious intellectual deficits, how does the court view that? That becomes a very tricky issue. Kip Kinkel, who committed a school shooting at age 15, was diagnosed with schizophrenia after his attack. He remains in prison, and the ethics of putting a mentally ill teenager in prison for life have been discussed in law journals. A trilogy of Supreme Court cases (Roper v. Simmons, 2005; Graham v. Florida, 2010 Miller v. Alabama/Jackson v. Hobbs, 2012) dealt with this very issue, applying the Eighth Amendment’s ban of cruel and unusual punishment to the juvenile offending population, ultimately requiring courts to consider age as a mitigating factor in trials involving juvenile homicide. Roper (2005) argued that vulnerability to negative influences, immature judgment, and ever-evolving personality traits reduced juveniles’ culpability, thereby barring the most severe sentence of capital punishment for their crimes. Graham v. Florida (2010) utilized Roper’s (2005) diminished responsibility rationale to argue against life without parole (LWOP) sentences for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses. Lastly, Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs [Miller/Jackson] (2012), incorporated Roper (2005) and Graham’s (2010) argument of diminished responsibility with another arm of death penalty jurisprudence to bar mandatory LWOP sentences for juveniles convicted of murder. Additionally, judges were mandated to make individualized sentencing decisions, in which the age of the offender as a mitigating factor is strongly emphasized (Hernandez et al., 2020). Given these rulings, the sentences for juvenile school shooters have varied greatly, from life sentences with and without parole, to community service. Other mitigating factors involved in their sentencing include the level of violence used and the number of individuals killed and injured. See Table 4.3 for a summary of relevant cases that highlight the variation in trial outcomes.

4.2  Other Relevant Legal Issues

73

Table 4.3  School shooting trial outcomes Thurston High School Shooting • On May 20, 1998, in Springfield, Oregon, 15-year-old Kip Kinkel shot and killed his mother and father. The next morning, he used the same gun to open fire at his school, Thurston High School, killing 2 and wounding 25 others. • Kinkel was charged as an adult; he pleaded guilty to murder and attempted murder and is serving a 111-year prison sentence in Oregon (Bennet, 2012). Westside School Shooting • Mitchell Johnson, age 13, and Andrew Golden, age 11, shot their classmates and teachers in Jonesboro, Arkansas, on March 24, 1998. • Golden asked to be excused from his class, pulled a fire alarm and then ran to join Johnson in a wooded area 100 yards away from the school’s gym. As the students evacuated the building, the perpetrators opened fire and killed four students and a teacher. Ten other children were wounded. • Given their young ages, they were not tried as adults. They were both adjudicated as delinquents and sent to reform institutes until the age of 25. Johnson was freed in 2005; Golden was released in 2007 (Chavez, 2020). Pine Middle School Shooting • 14-year-old student, James Scott Newman, shot and injured 2 eighth-grade classmates at Pine Middle School on March 14, 2006, in Reno, Nevada. • Newman was initially booked and charged as an adult; however, ultimately, he was tried as a juvenile for the charges of two counts of battery with a deadly weapon and was put under house arrest until he completed 200 hours of community service (Sonner, 2006).

4.2.2  Liability Another legal domain related to school shootings is the matter of liability; that is, who should be held responsible for the crime? This is especially true in cases where the shooter dies by suicide, leaving many to feel that as a result, justice was not served, although there are a number of other significant damages that warrant legal attention. The issue of liability is typically argued in civil court proceedings; however, there are rare instances in which the liability of others (who are not the school shooter) will be argued in criminal court. The recent case of Mary York, the mother of 14-year-old Brandon Clegg from Richmond, Indiana, highlights this unfortunate circumstance. Reportedly, York failed to securely store the family gun; Clegg stole the gun and forced his mother’s boyfriend to drive him to his school with the intent of completing a school shooting. York alerted authorities and as a result, they were able to prevent the shooting from occurring. However, upon engaging with police officers, Clegg used the gun to take his own life. In the aftermath, Mary was charged with five counts of felony neglect of a dependent, one count of felony dangerous control of a child, and one misdemeanor count of criminal recklessness. York is currently awaiting trial (Fieldstadt, 2019). In the aftermath of school shootings, a variety of individuals and groups bring lawsuits against a number of different parties. Plaintiffs in these cases range from surviving students, parents of students who were murdered or wounded, the estate

74

4  Legal Issues in the Context of School Shootings

of teachers who have been killed, and students who bore witness to the shootings. The defendants, on the other hand, range from the sheriff and their department, police officers, parents of shooters, school administrators, SROs (e.g., MSD’s SRO, Scot Peterson, who was recently charged with seven counts of neglect of a child and three counts of culpable negligence and one count of perjury [Burke, 2019]), video game developers, psychotropic drug developers, and gun manufacturers and dealers (Alexander, 2019). Alexander (2019) completed a thorough review of school shooting–related lawsuits ranging from 2000 to 2018. He commented on the general consensus in school shooting cases that come to litigation: plaintiffs do not prevail. This holds true in both Federal and State courts, as the legal standards to find individuals liable or state entities in State or Federal court is extremely high. In Federal courts, the legal principles in the US Supreme Court’s decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989) are consistently cited. The ruling deemed that under the US Constitution, the state has no duty to protect life, liberty, or property on an individual when the violence is committed by a private individual; thus, the government is not liable when an individual shoots another person. In a similar fashion, state cases have been widely unsuccessful for plaintiffs, as the state is immune from liability when acting as a governmental function. Many of the cases that have been litigated thus far have focused on the notion that the school district has been negligent in the shootings and, as a result, is liable for damages. Examples include the unsuccessful lawsuits brought on by the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting. To date, the majority of these case outcomes are that the school has no duty to protect a student from an intentional act of a third party (Alexander, 2019). A recent piece of legislation, the Claire Davis Safety Act, was enacted in 2015 following the shooting at Arapahoe High school on December 13, 2013. Claire Davis was shot and killed by her schoolmate, Karl Pierson. In response to this tragedy, her parents successfully lobbied for a change in the Colorado Sovereign Immunity Act to create an actionable claim against a public school district when a crime of violence is committed on public school property or during school-­sponsored activities under certain circumstances. Ultimately, this act creates a right for victims to bring claims to against a public school district if they fail to exercise reasonable care to protect students, faculty, or staff from acts committed by another person when the harm is reasonably foreseeable and the victims are on campus. Of note, in 2019, a lawsuit against a California school district by Bowe Cleveland, a victim of the 2013 Taft Union High School shooting, resulted in a novel outcome. On the morning of January 10, 2013, 16-year-old Bryan Oliver entered his classroom with a shotgun, shooting two of his classmates, missing one, and hitting Bowe Cleveland in the chest. Cleveland survived but suffered years of medical complications and a difficult recovery. Bryan Oliver was charged as an adult with two counts of premediated attempted murder, facing a life sentence. His initial trial resulted in a mistrial because the jury could not agree on a verdict. Soon after, Oliver pleaded no contest to two counts of unpremeditated attempted murder and was sentenced to 27 years and 4 months in prison. Reportedly he will be eligible for parole in less than 10 years (Strode, 2019).

4.2  Other Relevant Legal Issues

75

Oliver is said to have been the victim of severe bullying and peer harassment, fueling his desires for revenge against those who had caused him harm. Further, it is reported that his plans for violence were leaked to other students and school personnel, including a hit list that prompted a 5-day suspension. Cleveland’s civil lawsuit alleged that the school was liable for not properly addressing the potential threats and maintaining a safe school environment (Genovario, 2013). Dr. Scott Poland, one of the present authors, acted as an expert witness in the trial. Personal Perspectives: Dr. Scott Poland, National Crisis Responder Q: Can you tell us about your involvement in the Cleveland vs. Taft Union High School District (2019) lawsuit? I was on the side of the plaintiff. It was my opinion that Bryan Oliver exhibited many warning signs of violence and although there was an initial threat assessment done by the school, it was inadequate and he continued to engage in threatening behavior, which should’ve necessitated additional threat assessments. The counseling services provided to Oliver were insufficient and additionally, the school assistant principal did not take seriously the bullying that Oliver was experiencing nor did the administrator take sufficient steps to stop the bullying. Q: What was the outcome of the trial? The jury awarded $3.8 million to the plaintiff but proportioned the amount of the award. Specifically, school administrators were found 34% liable, the school psychologist was found 19% liable while Bryan himself was found 27% liable and his family members 19% liable. The liability for his family was due to the fact that his mother allowed a loaded unlocked shotgun to be in the home and his older brother was the person who owned the shotgun. Q: What are your thoughts on the jury’s decision? I have many thoughts on the case as this is the only one that I know of where school personnel were actually held liable for monetary damages in civil court after a school shooting. It is my opinion that the jury got it right and I am hopeful that this will cause school systems to improve their ability to assess threats of violence towards others exhibited by students and to provide appropriate interventions. If a student is threatening violence towards others it should be viewed as a red flag that a student is need of interventions and support. This case provides hope that in some cases when the school is in the wrong, the liability may fall on them. However, it is likely that this will remain a rare trial outcome. Just days before the recent 3-year anniversary of the Parkland massacre, a Broward County judged issued a ruling dismissing an important part of the lawsuits brought against the school district. The judge ruled that the district did not have a responsibility to warn the students and the faculty of the potential danger posed by

76

4  Legal Issues in the Context of School Shootings

confessed shooter, Nikolas Cruz. In her ruling, Broward Circuit Judge Patti Englander Henning said that “the District without control over Cruz and without knowledge of a specific threat, did not have the duty to warn the plaintiffs of the actions eventually taken by Cruz” (Heiman, 2021).

4.3  Conclusion There are a number of legal domains within the context of school shootings. Firearm legislation is the most salient legal issue among those discussed and has undergone significant scrutiny and changes over time. Key legislative pieces have aided in the increase of gun control, resulting in decreased access for at-risk individuals. Firearms will continue to be a hotly debated topic and legislation should focus on storage, security, and safe and thorough processes for legal purchases. Given the fact that the majority of guns used in school shootings are obtained legally by the parents of the offenders, it is imperative that gun legislative efforts target storage methods and increased awareness for parents who keeps guns in their homes with children. In many of the school shootings discussed, secured storage methods would have been a significant deterrent, if not the key to preventing the traumatic tragedies. It is recommended that policy makers shift their efforts away from such an emphasis on guns and focus more on increasing funding and access to mental health services. The provision of adequate mental health care be a vital buffer to a number of individual and community risks. Much like the other legal issues discussed, liability as it relates to school shootings is a complicated matter to navigate and additional legislative action should be dedicated to this area. Ultimately, legislative efforts should incorporate evidence-based practices and recommendations from leading experts in the field; they should be aimed toward increasing school safety and preventing future school shootings.

References Alexander, M. D. (2019). School liability in school shooting cases. In School violence in international contexts (pp. 219–228). Springer. Ali, R., & Moe, C. (2019). School shootings in the U.S.: What is the state of evidence? The Journal of Adolescent health: Official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. https:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31122499/ American Counseling Association. (2013, February 11). Student support act: Reducing the student to counselor ratio. https://www.counseling.org/government-­ a ff a i r s / p u b l i c -­p o l i cy / p u b l i c -­p o l i cy -­n ew s v i ew / p o s i t i o n -­p a p e r s / 2 0 1 3 / 0 2 / 1 1 / student-­supportact-­reducing-­the-­student-­to-­counselor-­ratio Astor, R.A., Bear, G.G., Bradshaw, C.P., Cornell, D.G., Espelage, D.  L., Flannery, D., et  al. (2018). Call for action to prevent gun violence in the United States of America. https://

References

77

curry.virginia.edu/sites/default/files/projects/Call%20for%20Action%20FINAL%20for%20 DISSEMINATION%202-­28-­18-­3-­5-­18%20Corrections_422pm.pdf Bennet. (2012). Fourteen years later, looking back at a school shooting | The killer at Thurston high. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/ Borum, R., Cornell, D. G., Modzeleski, W., & Jimerson, S. R. (2010). What can be done about school shootings? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x09357620 Brady Campaign Press Release. (2011, January 7). One million mental health records now in Brady background check system. BradyCampaign.org. http://bradycampaign.org/media/press/ view/1336/ Burke, M. (2019, June 5). Former Parkland security officer Scot Peterson charged with neglect for not entering school. NBCNews.com. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-­news/ former-­parkland-­security-­officer-­scot-­peterson-­charged-­neglect-­not-­entering-­n1013831 Burstein, P. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 29–40. Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics: the creations of the mods and the rockers. MacGibbon & Kee. Chavez. (2020). A school shooting in Jonesboro, Arkansas, kills five. History.com. https://www. history.com/this-­day-­in-­history/a-­school-­shooting-­in-­jonesboro-­arkansas-­kills-­five. Claire Davis School Safety Act (C.R.S. 24-10-106.3) SB15-213 (2015). DeShaney v. Winnebago County., 489 U.S. 189 (1989). Elliott, R. (2015). The real school safety debate: Why legislative responses should focus on schools and not on guns. Arizona Law Review, 57, 523. Everytown for Gun Safety. Everytown. (2021, February 25). https://everytown.org/. Fieldstadt, E. (2019, October 17). A mother who warned officials her son was taking a gun to school now faces felony charges. NBCNews.com. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-­news/ mother-­who-­warned-­officials-­her-­son-­was-­taking-­gun-­school-­n1068161. Fox, J.  A., Fridel, E.  E., & Shapiro, H. (2018). The menace of school shootings in America (Chapter). In The Wiley handbook on violence in education: forms, factors, and preventions. Wiley. Genovario, K. (2013, January 11). Suspected school shooter Bryan Oliver: Top 10 facts you need to know. Heavy.com. https://heavy.com/news/2013/01/ california-­school-­shooter-­bryan-­oliver-­taft-­high-­facts/. Goodwin. (2013, January 1). Sandy Hook report: Shooter’s mom wanted to buy him gun for Christmas. Yahoo News. https://news.yahoo.com/sandy-­hook-­report%2D%2Dshooter-­s-­mom-­ wanted-­to-­buy-­him-­gun-­for-­christmas-­210859068.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS91cmw_cT1odHRwczovL25ld3MueWFob28uY29tL3NhbmR5LWhvb2stcmVwb3J0LS1zaG9vdGVyLXMtbW9tLXdhbnRlZC10by1idXktaGltLWd1bi1mb3ItY2hyaXN0bWFzLTIxMDg1OTA2OC5odG1sJnNhPUQmc291cmNlPWVkaXRvcnMmdXN0PTE2MTQzNDUyMDQxMjcwMDAmdXNnPUFPd lZhdzBBenZnRU4xbmpFTlZfZnh4cmtqZHQ&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIGV2bN_-­ YKqgP1BlR3OsbRf0_IInxq_Xmh6nRzNsBnNpoetYQBal_t4vivxszHEMkLTgfaZ_ NvfpHrROo0tjTxftZNoA68co46uijrYCPh2XDvgAYY4JLuPv1Tf8ZFsrlgPV35MMtEX2Q8_ iyyETSAZuoXI62-­JLSHeQJzv-­d8I. Graham v. Florida., 560 U.S. 48 (2010). Gius, M. (2018). The effects of state and Federal gun control laws on school shootings. Applied Economics Letters, 25(5), 317–320. Haider-Markel, D. P., & Joslyn, M. R. (2001). Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: The conditional influence of issue frames. The Journal of Politics, 63(2), 520–543. Heiman, A. (2021, February 9). School district had no duty to warn about potential danger posed by MSD shooter: Judge. NBC 6 South Florida. https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/ parkland-­school-­tragedy/school-­district-­had-­no-­duty-­to-­warn-­about-­potential-­danger-­posed-­ by-­msd-­shooter-­judge/2378414/

78

4  Legal Issues in the Context of School Shootings

Hernandez, K.  A., Ferguson, S., & Kennedy, T.  D. (2020). A closer look at juvenile homicide. SpringerBriefs in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­38168-­4 Honberg, R., Kimball, A., Diehl, S., Usher, L., & Fitzpatrick, M. (2011). State mental health cuts: The continuing crisis. National Alliance on Mental Health. Justia. (2019, June 20). Education Law. Justia. https://www.justia.com/education/. Katsiyannis, A., Whitford, D. K., & Ennis, R. P. (2018). Historical examination of United States intentional mass school shootings in the 20th and 21st centuries: Implications for students, schools, and society. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(8), 2562–2573. Miller v. Alabama., 567 U.S. 460 (2012). Miller, M., Hemenway, D., & Azrael, D. (2007). State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001–2003. Social Science & Medicine, 64, 656–664. Miller, J. (2017). 24 Images of the Heartbreaking Jonesboro Middle School Massacre. HistoryCollection.com. https://historycollection.com/24-images-heartbreaking-jonesboromiddle-school-massacre/. Monroe, A. D. (1998). Public opinion and public policy, 1980–1993. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(1), 6–28. NASP (2018). Preventing Mass Violence Requires Access to Mental Health Services and Reduced Inappropriate Access to Firearms. National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). https://www.nasponline.org/about-­school-­psychology/media-­room/press-­releases/preventing-­ mass-­violence-­requires-­access-­to-­mental-­health-­services-­and-­reduced-­inappropriate-­access-­ to-­firearms NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, H.R. 2640, 110th Cong., 1st Sess. (2007). Page, B. I., Shapiro, R. Y., & Dempsey, G. R. (1987). What moves public opinion? The American Political Science Review, 81(1), 23–44. Pickler, N. (2013). Obama mental health conference to expand beyond issues of gun violence. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/obama-­mental healthn_3377808.html Peterson, L. (2018, May 18). What is the dickey amendment?. POPSUGAR News. https://www. popsugar.com/news/What-­Dickey-­Amendment-­44099512 Roper v. Simmons., 543 U.S. 551 (2005). Rosenberg, J. (2014). Mass shootings and mental health policy. Sociology and Social Welfare, 41(1), 107–122. Saad, L. (1999, April 23). Public views Littleton tragedy as sign of deeper problems in country. Gallup News Service. http://www.gallup.com/poll/3898/public-­views-­littleton-­tragedy-­ signdeeper-­problems-­country.aspx Schildkraut, J., & Hernandez, T.  C. (2014). Laws that bit the bullet: A review of legislative responses to school shootings. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(2), 358–374. Singh, R. (1999). Gun politics in America: Continuity and change. Parliamentary Affairs, 52(1), 1–18. Skiba, R., Reynolds, C. R., Graham, S., Sheras, P., Conoley, J. C., & Garcia-Vasquez, E. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63(9), 852–862. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-­066X.63.9.852 Solodev. (2018). Office of Safe Schools. Florida Department of Education. http://www.fldoe.org/ safe-­schools/ Sonner, S. (2006, May 27). Teen gets house arrest in Nev. Shooting. AP NEWS. https://apnews. com/0f88a3b41c83210a09a4f67fa09f9c2f Soraghan, M. (2000). Colorado after columbine: The gun debate. State Legislatures, 26(6), 14–21. Springhall, J. (1999). Violent media, guns, and moral panics: The columbine high school massacre, 20 April 1999. Paedagogica Historica, 35(3), 621–641. Storey, K. (2019, August 21). How Gun Laws-and Gun Norms-Have Changed Since the Parkland Shooting. Esquire. https://www.esquire.com/news-­politics/a26290650/ parkland-­shooting-­one-­year-­later-­gun-­law-­changes/.

References

79

Strode, M. (2019, July 17). Bowe Cleveland awarded $3.8 million in damages for 2013 Taft school shooting. The Bakersfield Californian. https://www.bakersfield.com/news/bowe-­cleveland-­ awarded-­3-­8-­million-­in-­damages-­for-­2013-­taft-­school-­shooting/article_10c515c0-­a820-­11e9-­ b492-­7783a9cd6c21.html The Mental Health Services for Students Act of 2019 (HR 1109 / S 1122, 116th Congress). TriData Division, System Planning Corporation. (2009, November). Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech Addendum to the Report of the Review Panel. https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/prevail/docs/ April16ReportRev20091204.pdf Wamsley, L. (2019, May 2). Florida Approves Bill Allowing Classroom Teachers To Be Armed. . https://www.npr.org/2019/05/02/719585295/ florida-­approves-­bill-­allowing-­classroom-­teachers-­to-­be-­armed. Washington Post. (2008). 4 summary of key findings – The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-­srv/metro/summary.pdf Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, H.R. 3355, 103d Cong., 2nd Sess (1994).

Chapter 5

Key Recommendations, Final Thoughts, and Future Directions

This brief has covered a variety of pertinent issues relating to school shooters with the aim to increase the reader’s knowledge regarding the current state of the research, public policy, prevention efforts, and programming. While significant efforts have been put forth to better understand and address school shootings, there is still much to learn about the matter. Major gaps in the literature have been identified, along with barriers to expanding the current research. A number of critical recommendations have been provided across several domains; however, their implementation remains inconsistent. This chapter will summarize key recommendations and provide future directions as it relates to school shootings. Final thoughts of personal perspectives will be shared from our contributors. This guidance and insight will be of benefit to all readers who are interested in ensuring the safety of our schools.

5.1  Key Recommendations 5.1.1  Prevention By and large the most salient recommendation is that the best way to address school shootings is to implement a comprehensive prevention program that targets a number of domains. Ultimately, the goal is to increase school safety and maintain an environment of security for the students and school personnel. This begins on a foundational level; school leadership must be positive and collaborative. They must develop strong relationships with their team members and outside organizations, such as law enforcement and community partnerships. They must model a relational style with their team members that should be adapted with students. Strong and positive student and staff relationships are an essential part of building upon the foundation of a safe and secure climate. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Poland, S. Ferguson, Lessons Learned From School Shootings, SpringerBriefs in Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75480-8_5

81

82

5  Key Recommendations, Final Thoughts, and Future Directions

Personal Perspectives: Dr. Peter Langman, School Shooters Expert Q: In your opinion, what are the best measures to prevent school shootings? From a standpoint of preventing a school shooting, the number one thing is people need to be trained in threat assessment. There [are] several components in putting in an effective threat assessment process. One is a trained handful of people that are going to do the work of the threat assessment team, and they need really in-depth training. Second, train everybody in the school, all the staff, regardless of position, in a basic introduction to warning signs, and what to do when they see potential warning signs. Three, educate the students about warning signs; help them think through their potential ambivalence about reporting on a classmate or not. Help to differentiate ratting someone out from reporting a safety concern to save people’s lives; two very different things, but it may be hard for students to take that step. With that, you should have an anonymous reporting system in place to make it easy for students to come forward with what they know. If anyone knows what is about to happen, it is probably the students, but you have to have the relationships in place and have the system in place to make it as easy as possible for them to report what they know when it comes to safety concerns. Students should feel connected to their schools and have at least one positive adult mentorship. Anti-bullying campaigns should be incorporated in all schools, emphasizing campus as safe zones from discrimination and harassment. Students should be included in prevention efforts and be encouraged to share concerns about threatening behaviors. Avenues for reporting such concerns should be created, such as an anonymous tip line, ensuring the protection of the reporting individual.

Personal Perspectives: Bill Modzeleski, School Violence Expert Q: In your opinion, what are the best measures to prevent school shootings? [Students] want some sort of intimacy, some sort of connection. So that’s number one. […] We heard from kids over and over again, “Nobody wants to listen to us.” So those are two things which I think grabbed me and said, “we have to spend more of our time.” Today’s society calls it social-emotional learning, but essentially, it’s the same thing. How do we connect with kids? How do kids connect with us? That’s a good part of threat assessment is getting kids to identify other kids who are on pathway to violence or on a negative pathway. Children need services, they need help, they need connections, they need support with their parents, educational support. When I think of where we should put our money, I think it is in our effort. I don’t think we could ever put in enough metal detectors to stop kids from coming in. I don’t think teachers should be

5.1  Key Recommendations

83

armed; I think that’s crazy, it’s ludicrous to me! I do think that teachers should be armed with the knowledge and understanding that they should have their ears open, they should walk the hallways, they should treat kids good, they should understand kids. There has to be a connection to build between the family on one side and the school on the other side and the classroom. One of the most prominent recommendations across experts is the implementation of threat assessment teams. All schools should engage in threat assessment trainings and implement programming district wide. Every school needs a multidisciplinary threat assessment team and specific procedures. Florida school districts are a model for this, as school personnel from every county school system attended a recent 4-day training session hosted by one of the present authors, Dr. Scott Poland, and a contributor, Dr. Dewey Cornell. Additionally, comprehensive safety planning should occur, including an assessment of and ongoing monitoring of needs. Crisis intervention teams should be developed and plans for dealing with targeted school violence should be put in place before an event occurs. Policies should be preventative, not reactive. While some security measures are important, funding should not primarily be funneled to methods such as metal detectors. Recommended measures include the use of an SRO, student and staff ID badges, visitors sign-in, and other access control methods such as locked doors and one point of entry to campus. Personal Perspectives: Ken Trump, School Safety and Security Expert Q: What resources should be in place in the aftermath of a school shooting? The needs of school shooting victims must be looked at with a broad perspective. First, we must define “victims.” Victims obviously include those directly impacted by the shooting. But their families are also victims. Also, bystanders are victims as are others in the broader school community. We know people grieve in different ways and for different time periods. Identifying what each of these “victims” needs and getting resources to meet each of those unique needs is a huge challenge in planning for, and responding to, a school shooting. Another foundational part of prevention is the incorporation of social emotional and mental health curriculum and services. Students should be taught social emotional skills from an early age and mental health should be discussed openly to reduce stigma. Mental health resources and services are critical to the prevention process. Schools should be well staffed with appropriate mental health personnel. These professionals can meet the emotional and psychological needs of students via counseling and student support groups. Additionally, they are a vital part of safety planning, threat assessment, crisis intervention, and the aftermath of a school shooting. Partnerships should be formed in advance with outside mental health agencies to ensure proper resources are available for victims in the aftermath of a school shooting.

84

5  Key Recommendations, Final Thoughts, and Future Directions

5.1.2  Aftermath of School Shootings Naturally, in the aftermath of school shootings, chaos ensues. This is why it is so critical to have crisis intervention plans in place, along with appropriate strategies and resources to help the victims and those in need. One of the present authors, Dr. Scott Poland, has responded to 16 different school shootings to date. He has been an integral part of the intervention services and coordination of care in the aftermath of several school shootings. His personal insights are invaluable to the topic and his experience has shaped much of his recommendations for how victims, parents, schools, and the community should navigate the aftermath of school shooting. Echoing other experts and key recommendations, one of the biggest priorities in the aftermath of a school shooting is the availability of appropriate mental health services. Administration should move quickly to provide mental health services to staff, students, and parents, and must recognize that these services need to be provided over the long haul; political twists and turns should not interfere with the provision of these services. In an ideal scenario, each school staff member should be assigned a mental health professional and is strongly encouraged to develop a relationship with that individual; if it all possible, this relationship should continue on for months or even years. Remember, the impact of a school shooting does not cease to exist in a matter of weeks; oftentimes, the trauma experienced is residual and can persist for years. The services that are provided to staff members should be offered at no charge and it is critically important to help these individuals be prepared for and involved in the decision making about reopening of the school. Support services for students and faculty should be trauma informed; this requires additional training in crisis intervention and grief after trauma. These services should be strongly encouraged but not mandatory. One suggestion is for the leaders at school to engage in mental health services and disclose this with their staff and student body. This will serve as model for help-seeking and provide encouragement to other victims. Similar to the recommendation for longer-term relationships between staff and mental health professionals, every effort should be made for students who choose to participate in counseling to develop an alliance with their therapist. This means that they are provided the opportunity to meet with the same provider each time; students have often provided direct feedback that it feels as though they are starting over again when they have to meet with someone new each time. Given the significant increase in mental health services that is required, schools will have to consider logistical factors, such as space and privacy. All mental health services should remain confidential and be offered in a safe and private area. Given the limited amount of free space in most schools, it is recommended that trailers or portables are brought onto campus to serve as a place in which these services can be provided ethically. Another logistical consideration is funding. Schools are advised to obtain funding from the US Department of Education’s Project Schools Emergency Response to Violence (SERV). Project SERV funds short-term and long-term education-related services for local educational agencies and institutions of higher education to help them recover from events that have been violent or traumatic in nature and have disrupted the learning environment (Department of Education, 2014).

5.1  Key Recommendations

85

School officials need to immediately reach out to offer condolences to the families of the victims and visit any students or staff members that have been injured. As advised in Chap. 3, schools should have already identified in advance who they would call on and partner with for extensive mental health services after a tragedy. These resources must be made widely available to all victims. School should consider all sources of help that are offered in the aftermath of a school shooting. Personal Perspectives: Stacey Lippel, Teacher and Survivor of the MSD Shooting Q: What resources should be in place in the aftermath of a school shooting? What I needed was someone [from the school] who was specifically assigned to me to explain what I was going through and what I should do. I needed a professional to explain what I was going through because I was on autopilot, functioning as normal but far from feeling it. I needed someone to help me find a therapist. I needed to be able to process my trauma before facing my students. I needed special accommodations because of my degree of trauma. I should have been able to take a paid leave of absence or offered an early retirement. I needed [the school district and administrators] to acknowledge me and understand that my needs were different than the other teachers. Over the long term, I needed consistent check in’s, not only with me but for my children who attended the school. […]. Also, I shouldn’t have had to pay one dime towards my therapy. The district covered 10 sessions a year, but I was going every week, sometimes twice a week and I had to pay co-pays for myself and my family. I was too exhausted to fight it. By the time the district started paying attention to me, it was too late. I was bitter and had already found my own way. Many resources were created for the community, but it wasn’t appropriate for those of us who were directly involved in the trauma. We really needed a different approach from the very beginning. Within a few days after the shooting, a meeting should be held for parents involved in order to clarify support and services available to students, families, and school staff. Parents should be given specific guidelines about how to best help their children and the related traumatic reactions that are expected. Additionally, after a school shooting, a district-level administrator needs to be named as a recovery coordinator and that should be their sole job. In the weeks and months that follow a school shooting, a number of issues come to the forefront, including the reopening of the school and how to best memorialize the tragedy and those who lost their lives. It is recommended that every effort should

86

5  Key Recommendations, Final Thoughts, and Future Directions

be made in a reasonable amount of time to return to campus. Students report a strong desire to be together and to return to the routine of school. Prior to reopening, efforts should be made to increase the sense of safety for school personnel and staff; visible changes should occur, such as increased safety personnel, fencing, or more surveillance cameras. The reopening may take several days, weeks, or more, as it must be cleared as a crime scene and, oftentimes, cosmetic or architectural changes must be made. In aftermath of shootings, there are oftentimes calls to modify the building structures or tear down the school altogether. This decision has come under debate among survivors of school shootings. This was the case at Sandy Hook Elementary, which was torn down entirely 10 months after the shooting. Personal Perspectives: Michele Gay, Mother of Josephine and Co-Founder of Safe and Sounds Schools Q: What did you think of the decision to rebuild Sandy Hook Elementary School? That was hard. I was very emotionally attached to that building as were my two surviving daughters. However, our family moved and as a result, we were not in the community. I did not have children that were going to return to that building, so we sat that one out. We wanted the families that were there to be most apart of that. For the most part, families were behind tearing it down and it was, in our case, a very practical decision. The building had gone past its life expectancy. I think it was maybe 60 years old, so it was not brand spanking new building. There were a lot of difficulties with the building process in that early post tragedy journey. I guess the community hadn’t yet figured out how important it would be to have the victim’s families there or at least invited for every one of these critical decisions. So, there were things that were overlooked, that would cause pain, you know, sort of like the area, that latitude and longitude where the attacks happened, where our children and spouses were lost; that was very sacred to us. I’m connected with several of the families that lost children in Parkland and they’re kind of bumping up against similar things like that; it is so hard for a community to navigate. They want to try to do the right thing, the best thing. And they’re going to make missteps. Sometimes they’re going to make the right choice, but it’s still going to upset or hurt someone else. And how to handle that is so very difficult and painful. That’s why a crisis support network is so needed, it’s so important that you have somebody else to talk through, to think through. Are we going about this the right way? What would you suggest? So those kinds of things.

5.1  Key Recommendations

87

While tearing down the school may be a desired outcome in some communities, it is a very expensive venture; remodeling or providing a new look to the school would be far more affordable and importantly, would save a lot of money that could be utilized for mental health support and prevention. Memorializing the tragedy is a critical part of healing; however, it can, at times, become a point of conflict among parties impacted by the shooting. For example, it took 9 years for the memorial to be planned and completed for the victims of the shooting at Columbine. The planning of these memorials needs to include a wide variety of representatives from the affected families, the school staff and students, and the community. Other issues to consider in the aftermath of the shooting relate to many of the legal considerations discussed in Chap. 4. Shootings in which the perpetrators survive present particularly unique difficulties, as they will result in a trial and sentencing, with ongoing media exposure. These steps and the judicial process have proven to be distressing times for the survivors. It is important to recognize that in many cases, survivors are grouped into one category of thought, with the assumption that everyone has the same opinions about the attacker. However, this is not always the case and there are often differing perspectives about perpetrator and trial outcomes. Attorneys that become involved and the media must be sensitive to what the families of the victims continue to go through as the trial plays out. Long-term support must be provided to those who have survived school shootings. There should be awareness regarding the birthdates of the victims, as well as the anniversary of the tragedy. These are important dates to memorialize and will be extremely difficult for the survivors to endure. School mental health professionals should be attuned to these events and reach out to those known to be the most affected. Additionally, providers should monitor survivor well-being, as there are observed increases in suicides in the aftermath of school shootings. These families have experienced a life altering loss and need to have their friends and community always available to listen anytime they want to talk. Personal Perspectives: Dr. Scott Poland, National Crisis Responder Long-term support for the survivors of school shootings is an absolute necessity. These families have experienced a life altering loss and need to have their friends and community always available to listen anytime they want to talk. We are too quick as a society to tell somebody “I understand,” or to tell them “it’s going to be okay.” We cannot understand unless we lost a loved one to a school shooting and we must acknowledge it will never be okay. The challenge for the families is essentially to manage their grief.

88

5  Key Recommendations, Final Thoughts, and Future Directions

5.1.3  Media Exposure Given all that has been discussed regarding the relationship of the media and school shootings, recommendations for better media practices should be reviewed. As mentioned, the media unfortunately often takes a deep dive into every aspect of the school shooter’s life and they cover this with front-page news both locally and nationally. In general, the media should aim to reduce the overall coverage of school shootings. The 24/7 coverage of these attacks only serves to increase fears, perpetuate myths, and sensationalize horrific tragedies. Further, there are many disillusioned and angry students in our nation’s schools and when we glorify school shooters, it only increases the likelihood that another disturbed student might become inspired to commit the next school shooting. The continuous exposure and ease of access creates ideal opportunities for at-risk individuals to become influenced or fascinated by these acts of violence, increasing the likelihood of copycats. Media outlets should limit the use of the shooters’ names and photos. Basic facts regarding the event should be provided, resources for help should be offered, and the focus should be primarily on the victims and survivors. The reduction in media exposure will aid in building a more realistic, fact-based perspective of the state of school shootings, thereby promoting a culture of safety and security in our nation’s schools.

5.1.4  Firearm Access Broadly speaking, the ease to which at-risk individuals can access firearms should be restricted. Policy efforts are the primary way to implement change; however, it is important to remember that this is only one part of a comprehensive prevention approach. While a number of positive legislative efforts have been enacted, there are still significant concerns related to ease of access. Gun storage laws are recommended, along with the use of mandated background checks on all firearm purchases. Further, Extreme Risk laws can be helpful in preventing at risk individuals from accessing weapons. While legislation regarding gun control and reform is a key factor in targeting this domain, it is not the only method. As discussed, an overwhelming number of school shooting cases are completed with guns that are legally obtained by the parents of the shooter. Thus, efforts should be made to better educate parents regarding common warning signs and risk factors, along with the advantages of safe storage methods. As mentioned, the sad truth is that so many of the school shootings that have occurred may have been prevented if their parents had kept their firearms locked up properly. Reducing access to minors is critical.

5.2  Future Directions

89

5.2  Future Directions Looking to the future, there are a number of next steps to be taken in order to best address school shootings. On a federal level, the US DOE should develop a team of select school administrators and school psychologists that have experience in the aftermath of school shootings. Upon request, this team should provide individualized support for any school that experiences a school shooting. Every state needs a school safety centers to provide training and support for schools in this important area. Florida is among the few states that now has a school safety center in place, only in the aftermath of the tragedy at MSD. As repeated several times in this brief, there is every indication that most school shootings could have been prevented, as the vast majority of perpetrators talked to one or more other persons about exactly what they had planned. Schools across the nation should implement a requirement that every student is asked to identify a go-to trusted adult at school and if a student does not have such an adult, efforts should be made to build relationships with that student. We need to continually investigate why students do not come forward and alert adults when somebody is threatening violence. This involves increasing anonymous reporting safety apps, such as for the Fortify Florida (FortifyFL). Under the MSD Act, Florida school districts are mandated to utilize this anonymous reporting tool that allows students to feel safe reporting anyone threating violence (Department of Education, 2020). Additionally, we need all students to know the mantra “see something, say something” and we need to counter the mantra “snitches get stitches.” Prevention efforts cannot be effective and widely implemented without strong evidentiary backing. Ongoing, expanded, and repeated research and studies are necessary in order to best prevent future attacks. As discussed, there is a dearth of literature when compared to the seriousness of the issue. Further, there are barriers to researching this topic, given the varied tracking and reporting methods and databases available for review. It is recommended that school shooters are investigated as a specific subset of research, rather than being grouped in with mass shooters. Relatedly, a uniform reporting system should be implemented as means to streamline and create one pool of data to pull from. Primary areas that require further research include ongoing investigations of school safety methods, including physical security measures, active shooter drills, and the use of SROs. Other areas include reviews of prevention programming and implementation, including the broader sector of social emotional learning curriculum as a foundational prevention measure to buffer correlated risks factors. Continued recording and investigations of school shootings and their associated factors are imperative. As the United States evolves, so will its people, creating the need to maintain fresh perspectives on such a significant matter. While the hope is that our nation does not encounter another school shooting, the reality is that we will continue to witness these rare, but horrific events. The goal of all scholars, clinicians, educators, administrators, law enforcement, and policy makers should be to reduce school shootings via prevention. Increasing school safety is

90

5  Key Recommendations, Final Thoughts, and Future Directions

the primary route to this goal and should be implemented in a comprehensive fashion that targets the variety of domains within this context. Ultimately, school shootings can be prevented, and that in itself, is a major source of hope.

5.3  Resources Below you will find a list of relevant resources that are of benefit to a broad spectrum of readers. Some of these resources have been referenced in this brief and others are being introduced for the first time. The sources chosen are aimed to provide readers with the tools to be informed about school shootings and become involved in important prevention efforts. • Dr. Langman’s School Shooters’ Info Database: https://schoolshooters.info/ • Everytown for Gun Safety: https://everytown.org/ • Ken Trump’s National School Safety and Security Services: https://www.schoolsecurity.org/ • Make our Schools Safe: https://makeourschoolssafe.org/ • National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement: www.schoolcrisiscenter.org • National Child Traumatic Stress Network’s Psychological First Aid: https:// www.nctsn.org/interventions/psychological-­first-­aid • Sandy Hook Promise Foundation: https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/ • Safe and Sound Schools: https://www.safeandsoundschools.org/ • The Violence Project: https://www.theviolenceproject.org/ • Striving to Reduce Youth Violence Everywhere (STRIVE): https://www.cdc. gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/stryve/index.html • Students Against Violence Everywhere (SAVE): www.nationalsave.org

References Department of Education. (2014, May 5). Project SERV (school emergency response to violence). Home. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/dvppserv/index.html. Department of Education. (2020). Suspicious activity reporting app. FortifyFL. https://getfortifyfl.com/

Index

A Access control, 32 Active shooter drills, 36, 37 Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), 21 Alyssa’s law, 60 American Counseling Association, 70 American Psychological Association (APA), 62 Anonymity, 49 Anti-bullying campaigns, 82 Anti-bullying programs, 49 Arming teachers, 33, 34 Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Deficit (ADHD), 24 B Biological factors, 23, 24 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 62 Broward County School Board, 60 Bullying, 26, 27, 48, 49 C Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC), 63, 67 Characteristics of school shooters academic and disciplinary difficulties, 22 functioning and social support, 22 ACEs, 21 case studies, 17 DSM-5 diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder, 20 factors, 17

physical and sexual abuse, 21 psychopathic, 18–20 psychotic, 20 recent interpersonal distress/failures, 22 school shooter profile, 17 suicidal behavior, 21, 22 traumatic events, 21 Climate of safety, 48 Codes of silence, 49 Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines (CSTAG), 42 Copycats, 16, 88 Criminal justice system, 36 Crisis intervention, school shooting faculty and staff, 46 multidisciplinary approach, 43 parents, 46 PREPaRE model, 43 Psychological First Aid, 44 school violence, 83 services, 43 students and faculty, 44 support services, 84 trauma-oriented services, 44 Cyberbullying, 26 D Databases, 4, 5 Department of Justice (DOJ), 35 Depression, 24 Diagnostic Statistical Manual-5 (DSM-5), 20 Discrepancies, 64 Drugs, 7

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Poland, S. Ferguson, Lessons Learned From School Shootings, SpringerBriefs in Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75480-8

91

Index

92 E Education law, 59 Educators, 34 Egocentrism, 18 Egotism, 18 Empathy, 18 Environmental factors, 13 F Fear, 1 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), 62, 63, 66, 67 Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), 3 Firearms, 33, 34, 88 acquisition, 67 effectiveness of gun control, 67 history, 61–66 policy recommendations, 67, 69 school safety, 61 supporters and critics, 66 types, 67 Fortify Florida (FortifyFL), 89 Funding source, school, 16, 17 G Gang violence, 7 Gender, 23 Gun control, 33, 51, 61, 63–67, 69, 70, 76, 88 Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSA), 61, 62 Gun-Free Zones, 33, 34 Gun storage, 88 Gun violence, 2, 7, 8, 16, 33 H History of school shootings Columbine shootings, 6 data, 8 frequency, 8 historical statistical data, 6 incidences, 8 mass homicides, 6 media exposure, 9, 10 myths, 6, 7 student homicide risk, 6 trends, 8 United States, 5 Homeland Security, 3 Homicide, 6

I Internet, 9 Interpersonal distress, 26, 27 L Law enforcement, 41, 81 Legal issues juveniles and sentencing, 71–73 of laws, 59 legislative responses (see Legislation) liability, 73–76 Legislation Alyssa’s law, 60 Federal, 59 firearms (see Firearms) mental health, 70, 71 novel legislation, 61 school shootings, 59, 60 Liability, 73–76 Lobbying, 63 Lockdown drills, 36 M Marjory Stoneman Douglas (MSD), 63, 65–67, 74 Masculinity, 23, 24, 27 Mass homicides, 6 Mass school shootings, 15 Mass shootings, 8 Media attention, 9 Media exposure, 9, 10, 87, 88 Mental health education, 71 Mental health legislation, 70, 71 Mental health policy, 2 Mental health professionals, 47, 54, 84, 87 Mental health services, 83–85 Mental health support, 51, 54, 87 Mental illness, 24 Metal detectors, 33 Morality, 18 Multidisciplinary threat assessment team, 39, 83 Myths, 6, 7 N Narcissism, 18 National Association for School Psychologists (NASP), 43 National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), 63

Index National Child Traumatic Stress Network and National Center for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD (NCTSN/ NCPTSD), 44 National Conference on Mental Health, 70 National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), 62, 64 National Rifles Association (NRA), 63, 64 Novel legislation, 61 P Paranoid delusion, 20 Peer influence, 25 Physical and sexual abuse, 21 Policy makers, 76 Positive psychotic symptoms, 20 Posttraumatic stress disorder, 20 PREPaRE model, 43 Private schools, 17 Psychological factors, 24 Psychological First Aid, 44, 45 Psychology, 3 Psychopathic school shooters, 18–20 Psychopaths, 20 Psychopathy, 19 Psychosocial evaluation, 40 Psychotic shooters, 20 R Rampage school shootings, 18 S Safety assessment and intervention, 38 Safety plans, 41, 47 Schizotypal personality disorder, 20 School-based threat assessment procedures, 38 School climate, 48, 49, 54 School crime, 35 School environments, 48, 49 School location, 16 School officials, 85 School personnel, 38 School policy, 13 School-related event, 5 School Resource Office (SRO), 33, 83 School Resource Officers (SROs), 35, 36, 89 Schools, 33, 43, 44, 49, 83, 84, 89 size, 15, 17 types, 14

93 School safety, 2, 3, 11, 89 active shooter drills, 36, 37 arming teachers, 33, 34 Florida, 89 goal, 81 methods, 89 programs, 51–53 research, 89 safety reporting apps, 89 school shootings, 31 security measures, 32, 33 SROs, 35, 36 student involvement, 51 United States, 31 School safety planning, 47 School security, 3 School security measures, 51 Schools Emergency Response to Violence (SERV), 84 School settings, 38, 39 School Shield Program, 64 School shooters, 38, 48, 49, 88, 89 characteristics (see Characteristics of school shooters) factors, 51 biological, 23, 24 psychological, 24 population, 1 profile, 17 social factors familial patterns, 25, 27 interpersonal distress and failures, 26, 27 media influence, 25, 26 stress experience, 26, 27 violent interests, 25, 26 violence, 27 The School Shooting Database Project, 8 School shootings definitions, 4 district-level administrator, 85 environmental factors funding source, school, 16, 17 school location, 16 school size, 15 school types, 14, 15 firearm access, 88 funding, 84 geographical areas, 27 individuals, 2, 13 long-term support, 87 media coverage, 11, 31 media exposure, 87, 88

Index

94 School shootings (cont.) mental health services, 84 parents, 85 personal perspectives, 2–3 prevention, 1 mental health support, 51 school climate, 48, 49 school safety planning, 47 school safety programs, 51–53 socio-emotional well-being, 49, 50 research, 4, 5 risk factors, 1 safety, 1, 2 school reopening, 85, 86 school shooters (see School shooters) trends, 1 School-sponsored event, 5 School-to-prison pipeline, 36 School violence, 4, 5, 18, 83 environmental factors funding source, school, 16, 17 school location, 16 school size, 15 school types, 14, 15 faculty and staff behavior, 13 school environment, 13 school policy, 13 student behavior, 13 Security, 2 Security measures, 32, 33, 51, 54, 83 Shame-free zones, 49 Smartphones, 9 Social-emotional functioning, 49, 50 Social emotional learning, 54, 89 Social emotional skills, 83 Social isolation, 48 Social media, 26 State and federal laws, 59, 67 Stress, 26, 27 Striving To Reduce Youth Violence Everywhere (STRYVE), 51 Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), 40 Student homicide risk, 9 Students Against Violence Everywhere (SAVE), 51 Substantial threats, 39–41 Suicidal ideation, 21 Suicide, 21, 22 T Threat assessment CSTAG, 43 goals, 38, 42 government agencies, 37

guidelines, 39, 42 implementation, 83 internal teams, 39 interventions, 41 key questions, 40 law enforcement, 37, 41 mental health services, 51 multidisciplinary approach, 39 outcomes, 42 peer involvement, 38 prevention process, 54 problem-solving approach, violence prevention, 38 protocols, 42 psychosocial evaluation, 40 risk and protective factors, 40 safety plans, 41 school-based teams, 38, 39 school-based threat assessment procedures, 38 school personnel, 38, 40 school professionals, 42 school setting, 39 school shootings, 37, 38, 42 security professionals, 37 students, 38 behaviors, 38 mental state and stressors, 40 risks, 42 threat identification, 39 substantial threats, 39–41 transient threats, 39, 41 Traditional lockdown drills, 36 Transient threats, 39, 41 Trends, 1 V Violence, 10, 16, 23, 27, 38, 88 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, 62, 63 Violent crimes, 35 Violent media, 25, 26 Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines Manual, 42 Virginia Tech, 63, 70 Vulnerabilities, 24 Y Youth, 20, 21, 23–25, 27 Z Zero-tolerance approach, 33, 62 Zero-tolerance laws, 67