Threat Assessment in Schools: Lessons Learned from School Shootings Marleen Wong, Ph.D.. Director Assistant Dean and Clinical Professor Director of Field Education School of Social Work University of Southern

Safe School Initiative 2000 US Dept of Education and Secret Service   Joint study on targeted school violence   Develop useful information from prior school attacks to prevent future attacks   Reviewed 37 incidents   Interviewed 10 attackers in prison   Thinking, planning and pre-attack behaviors   Patterned after the Exceptional Case Study Project of the Secret Service – Lethal attacks on public officials since 1949 (1999)

Safe School Initiative US Dept of Education and Secret Service   Targeted Violence Rarely Impulsive   Planned Attack in Advance   Observable Behaviors Caused Concern or Indicated Need for Help   Attackers Had Difficulty Coping with Significant Loses or Personal Failure

Violence is Progressive: There are behavioral warning signs   Many Felt Bullied, Persecuted or Injured by Others Prior to Attack   Many Considered or Attempted Suicide   Other Students Knew, Some were Involved in Some Way   Most Had Access To or Had Used Weapons Prior to Attack.

School Violence Myths   Myth: It won’t happen here   Reality: It can happen anywhere   Reality: Denial leads to the ignoring of important warning signs.   Reality: Realistic awareness, not paranoia, can increase school safety.

School Violence Myths   Myth: Sometimes people just snap!   Reality: The snap theory is a fairy tale   Reality: Violent behaviors are progressive   Reality: There are observable signs along the way

School Violence Myths   Myth: No crime has been committed. There is nothing we can do about it   Reality: School shootings can be prevented   Intervention stops the forward motion of violent behavior   Reality: We need new ways of working together

Threat Assessment Concepts and Variables   Justification   Dehumanization   Human Target Selection   Site Selection   Emotionally Determined Sites   Sites of Opportunity

Developmental Realities   Some students may already possess significant violence potential before they even enter a school system   Contributing Factors? Victim of Abuse Chronic Violence in the Home or Community Family Dynamics…“I will punch you in the head”

THREE ELEMENTS TO BEGIN   Authority to Conduct an Assessment - A formal policy identifying team members, roles, threshold of concern for initiating a threat assessment   Capacity to Conduct Inquiries – An Investigative, inquisitive mindset, viewing information with healthy skepticism – what are the real FACTS   Multi-Systems Team Relationships Boundary Spanners – Individuals who build and maintain relationships across disciplines and agencies

WHAT IF…? A DVD Produced by   US Department of Education   US Department of Justice   Homeland Security   National Center for School Safety

Desired Characteristics of TAT Members   A Questioning, Analytical and Skeptical Mindset   An ability to relate well to parents, colleagues, other professionals and students   Solid knowledge of child development, the school environment, safe schools practices   A school and community reputation for fairness and trustworthiness   Ability to collect and evaluate information   Discretion   Respect for the authority given to YOU: Take Actions that Help not Harm

THREAT ASSESSMENT   Threat or risk assessment is the process of   Assessing risks to a particular target, group of individuals, or individual   Designing and implementing intervention and management strategies to reduce that risk or threat.

THREAT ASSESSMENT   “Risk investigation is only as good as the data.   Use of collateral/functional data sources is essential.”

Does The District Have a Formal Policy Regarding Oral or Written Threats by Students or Staff?   LAUSD BULLETIN “All threats made against individuals or groups…must be taken seriously and investigated to determine whether they pose a real danger to students or staff. Threats which initially appear or ultimately prove to be pranks or hoaxes are also taken seriously due to the severe disruption that false threats often impose on the daily operation of a school…”

WHO SHOULD BE ON THE THREAT ASSESSMENT TEAM Core Members at the School Site   Site Administrator – Principal/Educator   School Police Officer   School Mental Health Professional (Counselor, School Psychologist, Social Worker, Nurse or Attendance Worker) Additional Members   District Administrator and/or Legal Counsel

ELEVEN KEY QUESTIONS   1. What are the student’s motives and goals?   2. Have there been any communications suggesting ideas or intent to attack?

11 Key Questions   3. Has the subject shown inappropriate interest in any of the following?   School Attacks or Attackers   Weapons, including recent acquisitions   Incidents of mass violence such as terrorism, workplace violence, mass murderers

More 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?

More Key Questions   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?

Key Questions 8-11   9. Is the student’s conversation and “story” consistent with his or her actions/reality?   10. Are other people concerned about the student’s potential for violence?   11. What circumstances might affect the likelihood of an attack?

Introduce Yourselves   Create a group of 3   Reach over to someone you don’t know – Next to you; Behind you, or in front of you   Shake hands and introduce yourselves   Tell them your name   How many years you’ve worked in schools   Where you were born

Managing Threats: Lessons Learned from School Shootings   The perspectives of education, law enforcement and mental health are essential   No one person on the Threat Assessment Team should make a unilateral decision   The person making the threat is in a state of “fluidity”   Interrupting the forward movement of threatening behavior can be very effective

RESOURCES LAUSD Crisis Counseling and Intervention Services WEBSITE: On LAUSD.NET 1) Go to “Offices” 2) Click on “Crisis Counseling and Intervention Services”