Return to the Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative Contents Page
After careful review of the case histories of the 37 incidents of targeted school violence examined under the Safe School Initiative, 10 key findings were identified that highlight information that may have been known or knowable prior to school-based attacks and that therefore might inform some type of intervention in or prevention of future attacks. In this chapter, the authors discuss the implications that these findings may have for schools and communities in developing strategies for preventing targeted violence in schools.
In focusing in on these findings for their potential relevance to the development of prevention and intervention strategies, the authors acknowledge that these findings may raise other issues for consideration in addressing the problem of targeted school violence beyond those noted here. Moreover, the authors recognize that the conditions, circumstances and facts underlying the findings highlighted here may not manifest themselves in the same way in every school. Schools and communities therefore are in the best position to determine whether and how these findings and the implications suggested may apply to their particular problems and needs.The 10 key findings that the authors believe may have implications for the development of strategies to address the problem of targeted school violence are as follows:
Key Finding 1
Incidents of targeted violence
at school rarely are sudden,
impulsive acts.
Implications
Students who engaged in school-based
attacks typically did not “just snap” and then engage in impulsive
or random acts of targeted school violence.
Instead, the attacks examined under the Safe School Initiative appeared to be the end result of a comprehensible
process of thinking and behavior: behavior that typically began with an
idea, progressed to the development of a plan, moved on to securing the
means to carry out the plan and culminated in an attack. This is a process
that potentially may be knowable or discernible from the attacker’s
behaviors and communications.
To the extent that information about an attacker’s intent and planning is knowable and may be uncovered before an incident, some attacks may be preventable. However, findings from the Safe School Initiative suggest that the time span between the attacker’s decision to mount an attack and the actual incident may be short. Consequently, when indications that a student may pose a threat to the school community arise in the form of revelations about a planned attack, school administrators and law enforcement officials will need to move quickly to inquire about and intervene in that plan.[25]
Key Finding 2
Prior to most incidents, other people knew about the attacker’s idea and/or plan to attack. In most cases, those who knew were other kids–friends, schoolmates, siblings, and others. However, this information rarely made its way to an adult.
First and foremost, this finding suggests that students can be an important part of prevention efforts. A friend or schoolmate may be the first person to hear that a student is thinking about or planning to harm someone. Nevertheless, for a variety of reasons, those who have information about a potential incident of targeted school violence may not alert an adult on their own. Schools can encourage students to report this information in part by identifying and breaking down barriers in the school environment that inadvertently may discourage students from coming forward with this information. Schools also may benefit from ensuring that they have a fair, thoughtful and effective system to respond to whatever information students do bring forward. If students have concerns about how adults will react to information that they bring forward, they may be even less inclined to volunteer such information.
In addition, this finding highlights the importance in an inquiry of attempts to gather all relevant information from anyone who may have contact with the student. Efforts to gather all potentially relevant pieces of information, however innocuous they may appear on their own, from all individuals with whom the student has contact may help to develop a more comprehensive picture of the student’s ideas, activities and plans. In the end, investigators may find that different people in the student’s life have different pieces of the puzzle.
Key Finding 3
Most attackers did not threaten
their targets directly prior to advancing the attack.
Implications
This finding underscores the
importance of not waiting for
a threat before beginning an inquiry.
The Safe School Initiative
found that most attackers in fact did not threaten their target directly
and some made no threat at all. Instead,
other behaviors and communications that may prompt concern, such as hearing
that a child is talking about bringing a gun to school, are indicators
that the child may pose a threat and therefore should prompt the initiation
of efforts to gather information.
School administrators should
respond to all students who make threats.
The lack of response could be taken by the threatener as permission
to proceed with carrying out the threat.
In the end, however, it is important to distinguish between someone
who makes a threat–tells people they intend
to harm someone–and someone who poses
a threat–engages in behaviors that indicate an intent, planning or
preparation for an attack. Those
conducting inquiries should focus particular attention on any information
that indicates that a student poses
a threat, regardless of whether the student has told a potential target
he or she intends to do them harm.
Key Finding 4
There is no accurate or useful
profile of students who engaged in targeted school violence.
Implications
The demographic, personality,
school history, and social characteristics of the attackers varied substantially.
Knowing that a particular student shares characteristics, behaviors, features
or traits with prior school shooters does not help in determining whether
that student is thinking about or planning for a violent act.
The use of profiles in this
way likewise is not an effective approach to identifying students who
may pose a risk for targeted school violence at school or for assessing
the risk that a particular student may pose for a school-based attack,
once a particular student has been identified.
Reliance on profiles to predict future school attacks carries two
substantial risks: (1) the great majority of students who fit any given
profile of a “school shooter” will not actually pose a risk
of targeted violence; and, (2) using profiles will fail to identify some
students who in fact pose a risk of violence but share few if any characteristics
with prior attackers.[26]
Rather than trying to determine
the “type” of student who may engage in targeted school violence,
an inquiry should focus instead on a student’s behaviors
and communications to determine if that student appears to be planning
or preparing for an attack. Rather
than asking whether a particular student “looks like” those
who have launched school-based attacks before, it is more productive to
ask whether the student is engaging in behaviors that suggest preparations
for an attack, if so how fast the student is moving toward attack, and
where intervention may be possible.
Key Finding 5
Most attackers engaged in some behavior, prior to the incident, that caused others concern or indicated a need for help.
Implications
Several key findings point
to the fact that kids send signals–both directly and indirectly–to
others regarding their problems. The
boys who engaged in the targeted school violence examined by the Safe School Initiative were not “invisible” students. In fact nearly all of these students engaged
in behaviors--prior to their attacks--that caused concern to at least
one person, usually an adult, and most concerned at least three people.
This finding highlights the range of behaviors in a student’s life that may be noticeable and that could prompt some additional probing by a caring adult. A student’s family, teachers, friends and others may have information regarding aspects of a student’s behavior that has raised concern. As was true in some of the incidents covered in this study, individuals in contact with the attacker may have observed something of concern about that student’s behavior, but not of sufficient concern for them to notify anyone in a position to respond.
Educators and other adults can learn how to pick up on these signals and make appropriate referrals.[27] By inquiring about any information that may have prompted some concern, an investigator may be able to develop a more comprehensive picture of the student’s past and current behavior, and identify any indications that the student is intent on or planning to attack. However, discretion should be exercised in determining whom to talk to about the student, so as not to alienate or stigmatize the student of concern. A significant challenge facing schools is to determine how best to respond to students who are already known to be in trouble or needing assistance.
Key Finding 6
Most attackers had difficulty coping with significant losses or personal failures. Many had considered or attempted suicide.
Implications
Many students, not just those
who engaged in school-based attacks, experience or perceive major losses
in their lives. Most students
who face a significant loss, or who have difficulty coping with such a
loss, are not going to be at risk for a school-based attack. However,
information that indicates a student is facing or having trouble dealing
with a significantly difficult situation may indicate a need to refer
the student to appropriate services and resources.
In cases where there is concern
about the possibility that a student may engage in targeted violence,
attention should be given to any indication that a student is having difficulty
coping with major losses or perceived failures, particularly where these
losses or failures appear to have prompted feelings of desperation and
hopelessness. An inquiry also
should anticipate changes in the life of a troubled student, and consider
whether these changes might increase–or decrease–the threat
the student poses.
Key Finding 7
Many attackers felt bullied, persecuted, or injured by others prior to the attack.
Implications
Bullying was not a factor in
every case, and clearly not every child who is bullied in school will
pose a risk for targeted violence in school.
Nevertheless, in a number of the incidents of targeted school violence
studied, attackers described being bullied in terms that suggested that
these experiences approached torment.
These attackers told of behaviors that, if they occurred in the
workplace, likely would meet legal definitions of harassment and/or assault.
The prevalence of bullying
found in this and other recent studies should strongly support ongoing
efforts to reduce bullying in American schools.[28] Educators can play an important role in ensuring
that students are not bullied in schools and that schools not only do
not permit bullying but also empower other students to let adults in the
school know if students are being bullied.
Key Finding 8
Most attackers had access to
and had used weapons prior to the attack.
Implications
Access to weapons among some
students may be common. However,
when the idea of an attack exists, any
effort to acquire, prepare or use a weapon or ammunition may be a significant
move in the attacker’s progression from idea to action. Any inquiry should include investigation of
and attention to weapon access and use and communications about weapons. Attention should also be given to indications
of any efforts by a student to build a bomb or acquire bomb-making components.
The large proportion of attackers
who acquired their guns from home points to the need for schools and law
enforcement officials to collaborate on policies and procedures for responding
when a student is thought to have a firearm in school. In particular, schools should be aware of the
provisions of the Federal Gun-Free Schools Act, which requires that all
schools expel students who bring a firearm to school and should report
all violations to local law enforcement officials.[29]
Key Finding 9
In many cases, other students
were involved in the attack in some capacity.
Implications
This finding highlights the importance of considering what prompting or encouragement a student may receive from others in his life that influences his intent, planning or preparations for a potential attack. Any investigation of potential targeted school violence should include attention to the role that a student’s friends or peers may be playing in that student’s thinking about and preparations for an attack. It is possible that feedback from friends or others may help to move a student from an unformed thought about attacking to developing and advancing a plan to carry out the attack.
Key Finding 10
Despite prompt law enforcement
responses, most attacks were stopped by means other than law enforcement
intervention and most were brief in duration.
Implication
The short duration of most incidents of targeted school violence argues for the importance of developing preventive measures in addition to any emergency planning for a school or school district. The preventive measures should include protocols and procedures for responding to and managing threats and other behaviors of concern.
Return to the Final Report and Findings of the
Safe School Initiative Contents Page