Preparing for a Mass Shooting

Introduction

With their potential to cause a high casualty rate, mass shootings are one of the most dangerous threats an organization can face (Doss & Shephard, 2015, p. 43). It is, therefore, of utmost importance to adequately prepare for such events. For the purposes of planning, an incident of this nature would generally be described as an “active shooter situation.” This references a scenario in which a shooting is unfolding and law enforcement and, to a lesser degree, citizens have the potential to affect the outcome with their responses (Blair & Schweit, 2014, p. 4).

The United States Departments of Education and Homeland Security prescribes that a crisis can be successfully managed via the following principles:

• 1.

  Prevention, referring to the activities to prevent violent incidents from occurring, e.g. those pertaining to leakage, risk assessment and threat assessment discussed in the previous three chapters;

• 2.

  Preparedness, ensuring an organization is ready for crises that are not prevented;

• 3.

  Response, including actions to minimize damage when a crisis does transpire;

• 4.

  Recovery, referencing activities to repair the long-term damage caused by the crisis (Brock, Jimerson, Hart & Nickerson, 2012, p. 464).

Whilst the previous section spoke about activities pertaining to prevention of an incident, this and the subsequent chapter examine the remaining three principles. The first principle of preparedness refers to the creation and practicing of response plans to ensure the organization is equipped to deal with an active shooter scenario. Particular emphasis should be placed on minimizing loss and lessening the impact of such an event. The next chapter focuses on response and recovery. Response refers to ways to respond quickly and neutralize the attacker. Recovery is allowing a community to recover from an active shooter event (Northern Illinois University Police Department, 2010, pp. 143-144). Notably, these phases are not distinct; with there being some element of overlap in each. For instance, recovery from a mass shooting may inform future planning efforts (Lindsay, 2012, p. 2). Similarly, the elements are not necessarily sequential nor should equal weighing be given to each (Cronstedt, 2002, p. 12).

Throughout this discussion, results from empirical research with emergency management experts are cited:

• •

  John-Michael Keyes and Ellen Stoddard-Keyes, the co-founders and Executive Director and Operations Director respectively of the I Love U Guys (ILUG) Foundation, which provides emergency management training to schools and other organizations.

• •

  John Nicoletti, one of the founding partners in Nicoletti-Flater Associates, which provides threat assessment and emergency management guidance and training. It works with the I Love U Guys Foundation and security personnel from Columbine High School to provide emergency management training for active shooter situations.

• •

  Stephen Brock and Melissa Reeves, lead authors of the PREPaRE crisis prevention and intervention model used to respond to school violence. Brock is a Professor and School Psychology Program Coordinator at California State University (CSU), Sacramento. Reeves is a Senior Consultant with SIGMA Threat Management Associates (SIGMATMA) and an Associate Professor at Winthrop University.

Also included are extracts from interviews with two of the gun violence prevention groups who expressed views on active shooter drills in schools:

• •

  Brian Malte, executive director of the Hope and Heal Fund (H&HF).

• •

  Shaun Dakin, founder of Parents Against School Shooter Drills (PASSD).