Threat Assessment in Schools David Liss Director Department of Safety & Security Marana Unified School District Jo Ann Gelormine Director Department of Student Services Marana Unified School District Cynthia Thomae Director Behavioral Health Services Northwest Fire/Rescue District

Source Material “The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of School Attacks in the United States” U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Department of Education May, 2002

Safe Schools Initiative Researchers identified 37 incidents of targeted school violence involving 41 attackers in the U.S. from 1974 through June In addition to studying primary source materials such as school, court and mental health records, researchers conducted interviews with the perpetrators of school- based attacks.

Assumptions vs. Actual Assumption: There is a profile which will help to identify potential perpetrators of school shootings. Actual: There is no accurate or useful profile of students who engage in targeted school violence.

Assumption vs. Actual Assumption: School shootings are impulsive acts. Actual: Incidents of targeted violence at school rarely were sudden, impulsive acts.

Actual: Incidents of targeted violence at school rarely were sudden impulsive acts. Some attackers conceived of the attack as few as one or two days prior to acting. Over half of the attackers developed their idea for an incident at least a month prior to the attack. Others held the idea of an attack for as long as a year.

Assumption vs. Actual Assumption: When school shootings occur, it comes as a surprise to all non-perpetrators at the school. Actual: Prior to most incidents, other people knew about the attacker’s idea and/or plan to attack.

In over ¾ of the incidents, at least one person had information that the attacker was thinking about or planning the school attack. In 2/3 of the cases, more than one person had information about the attack before it occurred. In nearly all cases, the person/people who knew was a peer. An adult had information about the idea or plan in only two cases.

Assumption vs. Actual Assumption: A student who threatens violence against someone is a likely candidate to be a school shooter. Actual: Most attackers did not threaten their targets directly prior to advancing the attack.

Assumption vs. Actual Assumption: School attacks are carried out by kids who are social isolates-not really connected to others in school. Actual: The largest group of attackers for whom this information was available appeared to socialize with mainstream students or were considered mainstream students themselves.

Not that simple ¼ of the attackers socialized with fellow students who were disliked by most mainstream students (“fringe groups”). 1/3 of the attackers had been characterized by others as “loners,” or felt themselves to be loners. Only 12% of attackers had no close friends.

Not that simple (cont.) Nearly ½ of all attackers were involved in some organized social activities inside or out of school. These activities included sports teams, school clubs, extracurricular activities, and mainstream religious groups. A significant number of attackers were in fact influenced by other students who encouraged violent plans.

Assumption vs. Actual Assumption: Students who perpetrate school shootings had frequent discipline problems in the past. Actual: Attackers’ history of disciplinary problems at school varied. Some had no behavioral problems, while others had multiple behaviors warranting reprimand or discipline.

Attackers’ history of disciplinary problems at school varied 2/3 of attackers had never been in trouble or rarely were in trouble at school. Only ¼ of the attackers had ever been suspended from school.

Assumption vs. Actual Assumption: Attackers have been victims of bullying. Actual: True, attackers (3/4) felt bullied, persecuted or injured by others prior to the attack.

Assumption vs. Actual Assumption: Students who perpetrate school shootings are careful not to give any warning signs. Actual: Most attackers engaged in some behavior prior to the incident that caused others concern or indicated a need for help.

Most attackers engaged in some behavior prior to the incident that caused others concern. In 93% of cases, there was evidence from the attacker’s behavior prior to the attack that the attacker had a plan or was preparing to harm the targets. In most cases, at least one adult was concerned by the attackers’ behavior.

Assumption vs. Actual Assumption: Most attackers have a history of substance abuse or a mental health disorder. Actual: Fewer than 1/5 had been diagnosed with a behavior or mental health disorder and ¼ had a known history of drug/alcohol abuse.

Mental Health Issues Most attackers (78%) exhibited a history of suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts at some point prior to the attack. 61% had a history of feeling depressed or desperate.

Assumption vs. Actual Assumption: Attackers had difficulty coping with significant loss or personal failures. Actual: True. Most attackers appeared to have difficult coping with losses, personal failures, or other difficult circumstances.

Coping with loss Almost all of the attackers (98%) experienced or perceived some major loss prior to the attack. Those losses included a perceived failure or loss of status (66%) and loss of loved one or significant relationship (51%). For most attackers, their outward behaviors suggested difficulty in coping with loss (83%).

Bottom Line Study findings suggest that school shootings are preventable. “The fact that most attackers engaged in pre- incident planning behavior and shared their intentions with others, suggest that those conducting threat assessment inquiries could uncover these types of information.”

Prevention Promotion: highlighting the behaviors you want to see Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support program Social Emotional Learning Responsive Classrooms Prevention Education Conflict Resolution and mediator skills Bullying prevention education

Prevention (cont.) Protection Differentiated discipline interventions that look at the whole child Student assistance teams Collaboration with law enforcement, public health, and other outside agencies Collaborations with family and community

Breaking the Code of Silence Serious efforts at prevention will fail unless students are willing to talk to adults at school. Breaking the code of silence entails creating connections between students and staff.

Managing Communications about Students of Concern Establish low barriers for reporting for those who may have information of concern. Advise students and adults of the kinds of information that should be brought forward:  Threats  Weapon-seeking behaviors  Weapons-using behaviors  Homicidal behaviors  Suicidal behaviors  Behaviors suggesting that a young person is contemplating or planning an attack

Managing Communications about Students of Concern Ensure that a thoughtful process is in place in the school or school district to assess information that is brought forward about a potential attacker. This process should be perceived as credible by students and adults. Recognize that what is reported may often be different than what actually was said or occurred.

Managing Communications about Students of Concern Establish and continually reinforce a policy that it is everyone’s responsibility to help develop and maintain a respectful, safe school environment. Reinforce positive behaviors and interpersonal interactions by teachers, students, and staff in the school.

Managing Communications about Students of Concern Build linkages to individuals, groups, and organizations that can offer support and assistance to students and to the school. Sometimes these persons and groups may provide information that can help prevent targeted violent attacks.

Key Questions 1. What are the motives and goals of the student? 2. Have there been any communications suggesting ideas or the intent to act? 3. Has the student shown inappropriate interest in school attacks, weapons, and incidents of mass violence?

Key Questions 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. Does the student have the capacity to carry out an act of targeted violence?

Key Questions 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/her actions?

Key Questions 10. Are other people concerned about the student’s potential for violence? 11. What circumstances might affect the likelihood of an attack?

Threat Assessment in Schools QUESTIONS / COMMENTS