What Schools, Staff, and Students Need to Do, and The
Help that They Need to Do It
Dear Colleagues,
Introduction
Too many times during
my career, I have heard school staff members across the country state the
following:
“We’ve tried everything. No one is responding, and the student is not
getting the help he needs. I’ll tell you
one thing . . . we’re going to be reading about him in the newspaper at some
point in the future. He’s going to hurt
someone.”
Just yesterday, in
a coaching call with a district Director of Student Services (I have had
monthly coaching calls with her for well over a year), we were talking about
the District’s strategies to prevent tragedies like the Parkland, Florida
massacre three weeks ago at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. During our conversation, she said:
“We have a school resource officer. But I’m not really sure what he does when
conducting a Threat Assessment, and we don’t have a set protocol for referring
students who are troubled across our schools.”
In Part I of this two-Blog series, School
Shootings: History Keeps Repeating Itself. . . What We Already Know, and
What Schools, Staff, and Students Need to Do. . .
[LINK HERE to Part I]
[LINK HERE to Part I]
. . . I emphasized that, while we need to remember the
fallen and mourn our losses, the ultimate school violence goal is to prevent
the next act of violence, the next (God forbid) school shooting.
To help attain this
goal, I re-reviewed the June 2004 U.S. Secret Service and Department of
Education document, The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School
Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of School Attacks in the
United States.
Analyzing 37
targeted school shootings from 1974 to 2000, this Report discussed the many
different motives underlying these atrocities— concluding that most of the investigated
shooters had no diagnosed mental health issues.
The Report
concluded that there is no single profile of characteristics that can predict a
school shooter, to which I added two missing components:
* First, the
factors related to school shootings are complex, and the ways to prevent them
are layered and comprehensive.
* Second, more
focus is needed on school safety, school discipline, classroom management, and
student self-management, and the root causes from each past shooting needs to
be applied to prevent any future potential events.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Beginning with the
End in Mind
At the end of the
first Blog in this Series (published on February 24th—not ten days
after the Douglas High School shootings), I encouraged students and staff,
schools and districts, and parents and community leaders to take the actions
in their power to make our schools safer. . . and to NOT wait for statutory
changes crafted by our state and federal legislatures and elected officials.
This is not to say
that some of our laws don’t need to be changed and strengthened.
This is simply to
emphasize that while laws guide behavior, it is the people who make choices,
take actions, and influence others’ (hopefully) for the common good.
But we must be
specific about what needs to be done.
Indeed, what are
the “layered and comprehensive ways to prevent future school shootings” . . .
as referenced above?
_ _ _ _ _
During the past
week, I received an e-mail from an interdisciplinary coalition of colleagues
who issued a “Call to Action to Prevent Gun Violence in the United
States.” Their Call is directed to
federal and state political leaders, as well as to law enforcement, advocacy,
social services, mental health, and educational agencies and organizations.
Significantly, the
Call has been endorsed by over 150 state and national associations, and over
2,300 well-regarded experts and advocates in the fields above.
I believe that the
“crux of the Call” (with two critical additions) begins to frame-out the next
layer of actions needed to prevent future school violence and shootings.
Critically, none of
the recommendations are new, and many schools, communities, and states have already
embraced and enacted them (see below).
Yet, they exist as
reminders that we largely know what to do, and a “call to action” to
move to the next level of implementation.
The recommendations from the Call are:
On the first level we need:
1. A national requirement for all schools to assess
school climate and maintain physically and emotionally safe conditions and
positive school environments that protect all students and adults from
bullying, discrimination, harassment, and assault;
2. A ban on assault-style weapons, high-capacity
ammunition clips, and products that modify semi-automatic firearms to enable
them to function like automatic firearms.
On the second level we need:
3. Adequate staffing (such as counselors,
psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers) of coordinated school- and
community-based mental health services for individuals with risk factors for
violence, recognizing that violence is not intrinsically a product of mental
illness;
4. Reform of school discipline to reduce exclusionary
practices and foster positive social, behavioral, emotional, and academic
success for students;
5. Universal background checks to screen out violent
offenders, persons who have been hospitalized for violence towards self or
others, and persons on no-fly, terrorist watch lists.
On the third level we need:
6. A national program to train and maintain school-
and community-based threat assessment teams that include mental health and law
enforcement partners. Threat assessment programs should include practical
channels of communication for persons to report potential threats as well as
interventions to resolve conflicts and assist troubled individuals;
7. Removal of legal barriers to sharing safety-related
information among educational, mental health, and law enforcement agencies in
cases where a person has threatened violence;
8. Laws establishing Gun Violence Protection Orders
that allow courts to issue time-limited restraining orders requiring that
firearms be recovered by law enforcement when there is evidence that an
individual is planning to carry out acts against others or against themselves.
On an educational
level, Recommendations #1 and #4 are either required or are consistent with the
precepts in The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA/ESSA).
On a legal level
(see below), many states already have laws on the books (or are currently
reviewing these laws because of the Parkland assault) that embody
Recommendations #2, #5, #8.
But I would like
to add two additional recommendations.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Mandatory
Reporting of a School Violence Threat (Additional Recommendation #1)
Every state in this
country (including the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) has statutes
identifying individuals who are required to report suspected child maltreatment
to an appropriate agency, such as child protective services, a law enforcement
agency, or a State’s toll-free child abuse reporting hotline.
We need similar statutes—or wording added
to these child maltreatment statutes—whereby those suspected of potential
school violence (including students, staff, and others) are reported both
to law enforcement and to community mental health agencies.
_ _ _ _ _
Mandatory Child Maltreatment Reporters
Mandatory Child Maltreatment Reporters
In approximately 48
states (and in most U.S. territories), specific professionals are required to
report child maltreatment. Collectively,
these professionals include:
Social workers
Teachers,
principals, and other school personnel
Physicians, nurses,
and other health-care workers
Counselors,
therapists, and other mental health professionals
Child care providers
Medical examiners
or coroners
Law enforcement
officers
In a scattering
of states, other legally-mandated reporters include:
Commercial film or
photograph processors
Computer
technicians
Probation or parole
officers
Directors,
employees, and volunteers at overnight and day camps, youth centers, and
recreation centers
Domestic violence
workers
Animal control or
humane officers
Court-appointed
special advocates
Members of the
clergy
Faculty,
administrators, athletics staff, and other employees and volunteers at all
public and private institutions of higher learning
Significantly, some
states identify any person who suspects child abuse or neglect as
mandatory reporters.
And so:
In the recommended “Mandatory Reporting of
a School Violence Threat” statute above, it is further recommended that all of
the individuals listed above be included as mandatory reporters.
_ _ _ _ _
Consistent with
this recommendation, teachers, administrators, mental health, related services
staff, and all other school-employed staff should be legally-mandated reporters
of a potential school violence threat.
Moreover, they
should be required to internally report a potential school violence perpetrator
to administrators, and to externally report the threat to law
enforcement and community mental health.
Once appraised, administrators should take immediate and measured
actions to assess and alleviate the threat—especially as related to potential
students, staff, or other aggressors who have access to a school or school
event.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Standardized
Threat Analysis to Accompany a Mandatory Reporting (Additional
Recommendation #2)
Accompanying or
embedded in the recommended Mandatory School Violence Reporting law and actions
above, should be language that, when a potential perpetrator is reported . . .
A mandatory multi-dimensional,
multi-respondent threat assessment, (a) that conforms to field-validated
standards and characteristics, (b) be completed by trained professionals within
a specific period of time. The threat
analysis should be completed by relevant community-based professionals and
agencies, with contributions by school-based professionals when a student or
employee is involved.
A review of the
websites of the federal agencies involved in this issue (including the
Department of Education, TSA, and the Secret Service), as well as a number of state
education departments and related state agencies, respectively, revealed a small
number of threat analysis protocols or manuals written specifically for schools
and other educational settings.
Most of the written documents found, however, either are or cite other documents that are well over 10 years old.
The Colorado School Safety Resource Center (organized under the Colorado Department of Public Safety), for example, just updated (June, 2017) its 2009 Essential of School Threat Assessment: Preventing Targeted School Violence document.
Most of the written documents found, however, either are or cite other documents that are well over 10 years old.
The Colorado School Safety Resource Center (organized under the Colorado Department of Public Safety), for example, just updated (June, 2017) its 2009 Essential of School Threat Assessment: Preventing Targeted School Violence document.
[LINK
HERE for Document.]
While this is a good
model example, many of the threat analysis protocols in this revision still
cite other guides and studies from the early 2000s.
_ _ _ _ _
The point is: All states need to research, update, and
publish valid, scientifically-based, and field-tested threat analysis protocols
and manuals that reflect their laws, statutes, and mandatory standards, and
their science-to-practice successes.
In making this
recommendation, I hope that this does not spark a “cottage industry” (beyond
what already exists) of marketers and entrepreneurs whose interests do not lie
in “the common good.”
In the final
analysis, we need effective, (re)validated practices that will protect our
students, staff, schools, and communities.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Since the Parkland
shooting, the U.S. Congress (unsuccessfully, so far) and a handful of state legislatures
(with varying degrees of success) have attempted to change and upgrade their
gun control laws. Critically, at this
point, it appears that changes in current law are more likely to occur at the
state, rather than the federal, level.
And yet, consistent
with the Second Amendment, it is also significant to note that any changes will
necessarily relate to gun control, and not gun abolishment.
Indeed, while many
states already have gun control laws on the books, the key questions right now
are,
“Are they the
attaining their goals (and what are their goals)?”
“Do they need to be
revisited and adapted to reflect the complexities of America in the 21st
Century?” and
“How do they balance
and protect our unalienable rights (in the Declaration of Independence
of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’), while simultaneous maintaining
our Constitutional rights (in the Second Amendment as ‘the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms’)?”
_ _ _ _ _
Significantly, some
state laws have answered these questions and maintained the third question’s
balance and protection. Below, we will
briefly review the “Child Access Prevention Gun Laws” currently on the books in
states across the country.
The point of this
review is to recognize that while some states need to strengthen their laws, other
states already have strong laws on the books.
These stronger laws
can be both a model for other states, and a comfort to some who do not believe
that strong, preventative gun control laws can be passed.
_ _ _ _ _
Child Access Prevention Gun Laws
Child Access Prevention
(CAP) laws help to reduce preventable shootings and suicides by children and
adolescents across the country by encouraging the safe storage of firearms at
home, and by holding adults liable when they allow children to have unsupervised
access to guns. Research has found that
millions of children live in homes with unsecured firearms and ammunition, and
that this access correlates with increases in child and adolescent suicide,
unintentional deaths, and deadly school shootings.
According to the
Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, there are no CAP laws at the
federal level. Nonetheless, current
Federal law makes it unlawful for any licensed importer, manufacturer or
dealer to sell or transfer any handgun unless the transferee is provided with a
“secure gun storage or safety device.”
Federal law also immunizes the lawful owner of a handgun who uses a
secure gun storage or safety device from certain civil actions based on the
criminal or unlawful misuse of the handgun by a third party.
At the state level,
as of Fall 2017, 23 states do not have CAP laws. At the same time, the different states that do
have CAP laws (since 1990) have reported notable reductions in gun-related
suicides and unintentional firearm deaths and injuries of children and
adolescents.
State CAP laws vary. According
to the Giffords Law Center [CLICK HERE],
“The strongest laws impose criminal liability when a
minor is likely to gain access to a negligently stored firearm regardless of
whether the minor actually gains access (California). The weakest merely
prohibit certain persons, such as parents or guardians, from directly providing
a firearm to a minor (Utah). There is a wide range of laws that fall
somewhere between these extremes, including laws that impose criminal liability
for negligently stored firearms, but only where the child uses the firearm and
causes death or serious injury. Weaker laws impose penalties only in the
event of reckless, knowing or intentional conduct by the adult. State CAP
laws also differ on the definition of ‘minor.’”
_ _ _ _ _
From a “numbers
perspective,” here is a quick overview:
* Fourteen states
and the District of Columbia have laws that impose criminal liability on
persons who negligently store firearms, where minors could or do gain access to
the firearm.
* Eight states
impose criminal liability for allowing a child to gain access to a firearm,
regardless of whether the child uses it.
An additional seven states affix criminal liability only when a child
accesses and uses a firearm, for example, in a threatening manner, for a crime,
or to cause death or serious injury
* Hawaii, Massachusetts, and the
District of Columbia impose criminal liability for the negligent storage of a
firearm even if it is unloaded. Massachusetts
requires that all firearms be stored with locking devices in place to prevent
accidental discharge.
* Finally,
different states allow several exceptions to their child access prevention
laws.
Once again,
according to the Giffords Law Center,
The most common exception applies where the firearm is
stored in a locked container (California, Connecticut, District of Columbia,
Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Rhode Island, and Texas). Another common exception applies where
the minor gains access to the firearm via illegal entry of the premises (California,
Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and
Texas). Other exceptions include cases where the firearm is used for
hunting, sport shooting or agricultural purposes, where the minor uses the gun
in defense of self or others, where the firearm is used to aid law enforcement,
or where the child has completed a firearm safety course.
_ _ _ _ _
Mental Health Reporting Laws in the United States
While there are
federal laws that prohibit the sale of firearms to individuals with a history
of mental illness, many of these laws have loopholes and voluntary provisions
that can result in gun purchases and/or access to weapons by those with
significant mental health concerns.
Indeed, federal law
does not require states to report individuals who are dangerous and/or with a
history of mental illness to the federal or state agencies that perform
background checks for gun purchases.
Moreover, many states do not voluntarily report these individuals to the
FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
NICS consists of
four federal data-bases. Two of them
contain records that may disqualify someone from possessing a firearm as a
function of their mental health or developmental disability history or status.
This is not
a privacy issue. NICS only identifies
individuals by name, birth date, and other demographic indicators. It does not identify individuals by diagnosis,
or with any other clinical information or data.
_ _ _ _ _
From a state law
perspective, 43 states have firearm purchase background check laws that
require or authorize specific individuals to report an individual with mental
health issues to NICS. An additional
four states require the reporting to go to a state data-base.
Significantly,
however, most of the state mental health reporting laws limit a “mental health
concern” to individuals who have been committed to a state mental health
inpatient stay under certain circumstances.
In addition, for
those states with required reporting laws, the time period for reporting an individual
with mental health concerns ranges from “immediately,” to 25 to 30 days, to “promptly”
or “in a timely manner.”
_ _ _ _ _
Implications for
Schools and School-Aged Students. At
some point, in a re-review of existing (or new) state laws, the issue of when, how,
by whom, and which students with mental health concerns should be reported either
to NICS or to a state data-base.
Somewhere in this determination, each state will need to consider these
students’ “age of consent,” or the “age of majority” (i.e., adulthood).
Clearly, all of
this is very complicated—especially when state laws differ across the many
variables relevant to gun ownership, access, and possession. While it would be “simpler” to have universal,
federal laws in this area, history has demonstrated that this is not simple at
all.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
After so many
gun-related deaths, injuries, and other incidents, all of us—parents, community
members, educators, other professionals, citizens—need to decide how to “do our
part” to prevent future events. While some
of us will communicate with our elected officials, others will take more
personal— sometimes, unseen— steps.
Clearly—as discussed
in the two Blogs in this series, we need to address the availability of guns to
children and adolescents, the types of guns that have been used against
students and school staff, how those who are potential threats—including those with
mental health issues—are assessed and reported, and how to address the root
causes of past events so that future attacks are prevented.
While this is a daunting
task, I have tried to demonstrate that we do have laws and systems in many
states that can be used as models, and to remind us that the task is not
impossible.
_ _ _ _ _
For now, I again
recommend that districts and schools complete an immediate audit of the
areas discussed in these two Blogs, and independently take the steps needed to
protect themselves.
As noted, there are
multi-faceted and multi-layered solutions that are in place in some
schools, but that must be present and successfully implemented in all
schools . . . even as we wait for the federal and state legal decisions and
changes that will hopefully strengthen and complement these here-and-now
actions.
We can’t prevent
every school shooting. But we can
prevent the vast majority of them. We need
to prevent the violence that we can, and take every step possible to minimize
the effects of those that can’t be fully prevented.
_ _ _ _ _
I hope that this
information has been useful to you.
Regardless of your political position on the issues discussed, I know
that we all agree that we need to protect our students, make our schools safe,
and address the needs of those who are vulnerable among us.
Let’s use this
common belief as the foundation of our continued discussions. Let me know how I can assist you in this
charge. I am always available by e-mail
or conference call.
Best,
Howie
