The current news seems to be full of reports of threats against schools. A search of the WRAL website for stories on school threats reveals at least five discrete stories on threats against North Carolina schools in May alone. How can schools and law enforcement be prepared to respond to, and perhaps even prevent, threats against student safety? The National Threat Assessment Center of the United States Secret Service (NTAC) has been researching that topic for over 20 years. The results are consistent. Schools that have an effective threat assessment structure in place, casting a wide net to effectively identify youth along a continuum of need and offering a range of responses, are best positioned to address threats and prevent school violence.
There is No One Profile of a School Attacker
In 2019, the NTAC published Protecting America’s Schools, a study of 41 incidents of targeted attacks at K – 12 schools between 2008 and 2017. That study found that there was not a singular profile of an attacker or of the type of school where attacks occurred. The NTAC subsequently studied 67 averted plots by students or former students to attack K-12 schools. The results of that study were published in 2021 in Averting Targeted School Violence. While these studies did not find one profile for people who plan and carry out targeted school violence, they did identify some common themes among the population of plotters and attackers. These include that
- Retaliation for grievances was a common motive, especially grievances with classmates.
- Attackers and plotters commonly used or planned to use firearms that they had access to in their homes.
- Attackers and plotters often had unusual interest in violent or hate-filled topics.
- Attackers and plotters commonly experienced stressors in their families and their interactions with peers.
- Nearly half of the plotters and the majority of the attackers were also victims of bullying.
- Attackers and plotters tended to exhibit previous concerning behavior.
- Attackers and plotters often experienced psychological, behavioral, or developmental symptoms.
- Many plotters and most attackers had histories of school disciplinary involvement. Many plotters and attackers also had previous law enforcement contact.
- Attackers and plotters almost always communicated their intent to attack prior to the planned attack.
- Step 1: establish a multidisciplinary threat assessment team.
- Step 2: define concerning and prohibited behaviors (along a continuum from students in need of intervention to students who bring weapons to school or who threaten or engage in violence). Use a low threshold for intervention to identify students in distress and intervene early.
- Step 3: create a central reporting mechanism.
- Step 4: determine the threshold for law enforcement intervention. Weapons, threats of violence, physical violence, or concerns about an individual’s safety should immediately be reported to local law enforcement.
- Step 5: establish assessment procedures using a set of investigative themes.
- Step 6: develop risk management options to reduce risk. This should include individualized management plans with needed resources and support.
- Step 7: create and promote safe school climates that encourage positive and trusting relationships between school personnel and students, break down codes of silence, and help students build connections to peers and school.
- Step 8: conduct training for all stakeholders.
- Improve accessibility by offering multiple reporting methods, such as text messaging or a mobile application, email, phone call, and reporting to a trusted adult.
- Set operating hours that improve availability, allowing for reporting outside of school hours.
- Consider using confidential or anonymous reporting.
- Respond to reports in a timely and transparent manner and in a way that is efficient, fair, and transparent.
- Offer training that builds awareness of the reporting system.
- Build positive school climate by fostering trust and positive relationships.
