Election day school security is an issue principals, superintendents, and school board members around the country have grappled with in one form or another for more than a decade. We have seen administrators give more attention to the issue post-Columbine and post-9/11, not specifically because of Columbine and 9/11 threats per se, but as a result of good security analysis and good common sense.

As one principal put it best: “Why do we spend time, energy, and money to improve access control to our buildings every school day only to let anyone and everyone in the building on election days when we have no idea who these people are when they enter the school?” His point makes good sense in terms of consistency with a district’s security philosophy and program.

Most schools we have worked with have faced three options for addressing school security on election days:

1. Move polling out of the schools;
2. Make election days a staff-only day and/or other designated day where no students are present; or
3. Operate school with students present under enhanced supervision and security.

The Allen County School Safety Commission (Ft. Wayne, Indiana) successfully worked with election officials years ago to remove polling from most schools in the county. I have seen other schools do the same, although these school-communities still seem to be in the minority of the three response options.

Many schools have exercised option “2″ with staff-only professional days on days elections are held at their school. This option is a happy medium when local politics and logistics will not lead to completely removing polling from schools.

We still have many schools operating a “normal” school day but with beefed-up supervision and security. For those schools, we have provided some common-sense, cost-effective steps to improving school security, safety, and crisis preparedness on election days.

Strengthening school security on days when elections are held at a school makes good security sense and common sense.  It is certainly better than continuing on, do nothing, and assuming nothing could happen even though school leaders are opening a public facility to a large number of unknown adults (many with no regular business or connection at the school) and not taking any steps to reduce risks.

Do your school leaders strengthen school safety, security, and emergency /crisis preparedness on election days?

Ken Trump

Anything remotely close to comprehensive and balanced federal school safety public policy and funding died in 2011.  Minus a handful of exceptions, if that many, the same can be said for state level school safety efforts.  And far too many local school districts are not far behind.

The U.S. Department of Education, academic experts and school safety professionals spent over a decade preaching that the best chance of effectively addressing school safety is to have policy and programs comprehensive and balanced in their approach.  This means prevention-only or enforcement-only approaches are destined to fail.  Prevention, intervention, mental health, security, school-based policing, emergency preparedness, school climate, school discipline and other strategies collectively reflect such balance and comprehensiveness.

Although the “comprehensive and balanced” philosophy continues to be generally accepted in professional school safety circles, it did not stop the Obama Administration, Congress, special interest groups, state governments and others from destroying anything resembling  comprehensive and balanced school safety public policy and funding in 2011.

Some factors contributing to a “perfect storm”  climate that a number of school safety professionals believe has set back over a decade of progress made in professional school safety policy and funding include: 

• Obama Administration destroys the federal Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools:  Kevin Jennings, Obama’s Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug Free Schools, finished off his two-year stint in the U.S. Department of Education by almost single-handedly destroying anything resembling a comprehensive and balanced approach the federal school safety public policy and funding.  Jennings, an Obama campaign-bundler and founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), publicly advocated almost exclusively for “anti-bullying” policy and funding.  School emergency planning, school security, school-based policing, drug prevention and other violence prevention efforts were either eliminated or marginalized to the point of total ineffectiveness with Jennings at the helm.  Jennings resigned mid-year and moved seamlessly into a CEO job at a national non-profit organization having political origins.  Bill Modzeleski, the long-time number two guy in the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, retired from federal service after a decade in that office as what some privately described as the consummate bureaucratic “survivor” who followed the political winds of the day.  The Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools was eliminated weeks after Jennings left with the remaining programs tucked away under the Department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education where they continued the last few months of the year by putting out lame newsletters referencing other federal studies and programs, research reports, non-profit organization links and a periodic  reference to federal school nutrition and health programs. The Education Department attempted to spin the demise of this office by blaming Congress for cutting safe schools funds.
• Special interest groups intensified the politicizing of school safety by labeling gay rights special interest goals of creating federal and state laws enumerating the phrases “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” into a new protected civil rights class under the guise of “bullying.”  Simultaneous lobbying for federal “anti-bullying” laws and state-level laws have similar themes of protected class language, although federal efforts appear stalled due to the balance of power in Congress while state-level efforts have had mixed results. This “anti-bullying movement” or “safe schools movement” continues as we head into 2012.  Look for federal efforts to focus on slipping in language in the federal Elementary and Secondary Education (ESEA) Act reauthorization pending in Congress since the actual “anti-bullying” bills before Congress will likely go nowhere with the current Republican House majority.
• Civil rights special interest groups continued their assault against school-based police, school security and school discipline (suspensions and expulsions) by issuing multiple “studies” and “reports” from civil rights and liberal activist organizations.  Efforts continue behind-the-scenes to use these “studies” and “reports” to influence language in the federal ESEA Act mentioned earlier. 
• State education departments eliminated or dramatically downsized state-level school safety programs and funding.  The South Carolina Department of Education eliminated its state school safety office. Other state school safety centers or offices downsized their staff, programs, funding and/or influence.  A few state programs continue to surviveand thrive, such as the Indiana School Safety Specialist Academy in the Indiana Department of Education, but they are the exception and not the rule.
• School safety and prevention were first on the chopping block in local school district budget cuts.  2011 saw continued and intensified cuts of drug and violence prevention programs, mental health services, counselors, school security staff, school resource officer (SRO) programs, professional development training and similar school safety programs in local school districts.  Very early signs of the adverse impact of these cuts have already popped up in scattered areas.

Penny-wise but pound-foolish school safety budget cuts will likely continue into 2012 barring a major national catastrophic school safety incident with shortwaves reaching into local schools nationwide.  The politicizing of school safety will unquestionably continue, especially given the Obama Administration’s political courting of civil rights, gay rights and related special interest groups. 

Veteran school safety professional agree that it will take a long-time to undo the damages done to school safety public policy and funding leading up to and through 2011. 

Fortunately, at ground level we still have many school safety professionals advocating for truly balanced, comprehensive and professional school safety programs and strategies. Unfortunately, their backs are against the wall and they are fighting an uphill battle. They need our support, even if it is just moral support, now more than ever.

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at: www.schoolsecurityblog.com

Follow Ken on Twitter @safeschools

Visit and “Like” Our Facebook Fan Page at: www.facebook.com/schoolsafety

Civil rights advocates who portray police in schools as overly arresting kids are simply wrong.

Police officers who work in schools, commonly known as School Resource Officers (SROs), generally perform more as prevention programs where officers prevent  incidents versus taking on a ”cuff’n'stuff” role with the intent of increasing student arrests.

That’s not stopping civil rights and other special interest groups to claim, as was done in this suburban Cleveland news article, that “Stories abound of ever-younger children being pulled out of the classroom for seemingly minor infractions, only to end up with a criminal record from a young age.” (ACLU says police respond to schools too often)

Two recent news stories highlight school-based police officers in a much more accurate and positive light than do a number of other recent articles, books, and other politically-driven attacks upon police in schools:

• Study says officers help deter crime in schools:  A research study in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, concluded that school resource officers are effective.  The study found it normal for reported crimes to increase after officers are placed inside schools.  The university professor leading the study said it does not necessarily mean more crimes are being committed, but that officers are reporting offenses that might have otherwise gone unreported.
• Wake survey praises having armed officers in schools.  In Raleigh, North Carolina, school administrators praised the effectiveness of armed officers in their schools.  Survey data of school administrators showed “strong support” from middle and high school principals for the SRO program. School officials presented data showing a 54% drop in violent incidents in the district’s middle and high schools over the past six years.

These findings are consistent with my surveys of SROs back to 2001.

The findings are also consistent with my first-hand work with SROs across the country.

It is time to call out the civil rights activists who continue to hi-jack school safety to further their social and political agendas.  As we peel back the layers of some recent reports, books, and news stories, you may be surprised to see who is behind these publications and the biases these individuals and organizations bring to the table.

Stay tuned for more on the latest political assault upon school safety!

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

Federal authorities acknowledge a credible terrorist threat to your city or to a city near you. What does a school principal and superintendent do?

School officials faced this very reality last night when federal homeland security officials acknowledged a credible al-Qaeda terrorist threat to NY City and Washington, DC.

School safety officials in New York City and DC likely have detailed security and emergency preparedness plans specific to a credible terror threat. But what about schools in smaller school districts in the region or in other U.S. cities?

Place yourself in this position: It is late Thursday evening. Schools are closed for the day. National news alerts say federal homeland security officials acknowledge a credible threat involving vehicle-borne explosives.

Speculation and rumors abound, questionable details leak to the media about stolen rental trucks possibly picked up by terrorists in a large Midwest city, and public safety officials hold late night press conferences about the seriousness of the threat and heightened security measures.

Today the focus is on NY City and DC.  But what about the many smaller cities and their schools in the broader region?

And what if the location changed to another area of the country?  Suddenly overnight, the same type of credible threat is announced but the location is a different large city area in the Midwest or on the west coast.

For well over a decade, I have written about schools and terrorism on my web site, blog, and again in my latest book on Proactive School Security and Emergency Preparedness Planning.  Still, there are some who want to dismiss this conversation as being “alarmist” instead of as being a practical, balanced “realist” perspective.

Is your city and school district prepared to respond to a credible terrorist threat on a moment’s notice?

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

Overloaded.  Burned out.  Unemployed.

Distracted. Disjointed. Stressed.

These are just a few words describing what I see and hear more and more every day.  I find them among school staff, parents, neighbors, family, and about everywhere else life takes me each week.

Uncertain Times Breed Stress and Anxiety 

We live in a time of economic uncertainty, political divisiveness, and rapid changes in our personal and professional lives.  Talk to just about anyone and you’ll find they have some stressor (or multiple stressors) that seem to be adding a new level of intensity to their lives.

The school safety field is no different.  Severe budget cuts, the increasing politicization of school safety, and other burdens in education have pushed school safety to the back burner in many school communities.  These dynamics have also beaten down even the most passionate of front-line advocates for school safety.

In April of this year, my third book on school safety, security and emergency / crisis preparedness was published.  After months of writing, rewriting, and editing, I took a break from School Security Blog and other writing.  I needed a mental break from writing, fast paced travel, and the emotional drain of watching so many school safety efforts across the nation shift from proactive to reactive — and in many cases to “non-existent.”

We all need to know it is normal to need a break and  it is o.k. to be human.

A New Look at School Safety 

Summer break is a natural time for school people to reflect and regroup. Although the amount of time between school closing and school reopening seems to be getting less and less each year, the pace is slower than it is during the regular school year.  We can exhale, spend time with our family members and, physically and mentally separate from our workplace pressures.

Stepping back to unwind does not mean stepping away from our passion and commitment to an issue — in this case, school safety.  Since January I have been researching and analyzing a number of areas including:

• dramatic shifts in federal school safety policy and funding;
• increased politicization of school safety by civil rights activists to further their social and/or political agendas;
• defined patterns of fundamental school security and preparedness gaps; and
• an ongoing inside study of trends and issues in the news media, social media, and related communications issues that increasingly influence school safety and education in general.

The list is a lot longer, so look forward a rejuvenated School Security Blog in the weeks and months ahead.

Time to Rejuvenate School Safety

The school safety field needs to be rejuvenated.  Passionate people need a morale booster.  They need to know someone has their backs.  They need to know that people still care and that it is critical for them to care today more than ever.

I am bouncing back to do my part.  Will you join me?

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

Hours after the shooting of Millard South High School principal Curtis Case, and shooting death of assistant principal Vicki Kaspar, metal detectors in schools became the buzz of media and community talk.

Parents and communities understandably are grasping for a solution to a problem — school shootings — which has not been “fixed” for a over a decade following the Columbine High School attack in 1999.  People assume that while schools have taken many steps to prevent and prepare for a major incident of violence, they must go to metal detectors since these other steps have not “eliminated” the problem of school shootings.

As I pointed out in my interview for an Omaha World Herald follow-up story, there is no quick fix for school shootings:

It’s important, Trump said, that people not call for quick fixes after a school shooting.

“It would be very easy to throw up a metal detector, put more cameras, more officers in a school,” he said. “Create the facade of security, if you will, for the parents.”

Technology is important, he said, but what’s most effective is a comprehensive approach that includes a well-trained, highly alert staff; adults who know students well enough that they can recognize behavioral changes; and an atmosphere in which students feel comfortable reporting their concerns about other students.

One of the more common themes in many school shootings and other high-profile attacks, as well as from the data on suicide, is that there are many individuals with undiagnosed, misdiagnosed, and/or untreated mental health issues who commit violence.

While metal detectors may be a tool in some settings, the greater need our society seems to have is for “mental detectors”:  Those who can better detect, and act upon, individuals displaying warning signs of their mental health distress.  Although there is no quick fix with this complex issue as well, it is often pushed aside because it is complex, with people lobbying for more oversimplified and quick-fix “solutions.”

What say you?

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

Surveillance cameras and metal detectors are used to varying extents in a number of our nation’s school districts.  Cameras are in place in many urban, suburban, and rural districts.  Metal detectors tend to be used regularly in a smaller number of districts, often larger districts with a chronic history of weapons incidents.

Parents, the media, and some in the community often have unrealistic expectations of security when cameras or metal detectors are in place. Many mistakenly believe anything occurring within or outside of the school at any point in time will be clearly captured if a school uses cameras, regardless of how many cameras or how large the school.  If a school regularly uses metal detectors, some often believe a school will be weapons-free.

These unrealistic expectations can be attributed, in part, to modern television and movies.  The CSI Effect, as some of us in security call it, refers to the false belief that cameras in a school will capture anything and everything at any point in time as shown in some TV dramas and movies.  Even if a school has invested a large sum of money and has a well-designed camera system, every single inch of the building and grounds will not likely be covered on a 24/7 basis.

Likewise the TSA Effect (Transportation Security Administration airport weapons screening operation), as I call it, leaves some parents and media falsely believing that because a school (or other facility) uses metal detectors, there is a “guarantee” that no weapons will ever be in the school.  First and foremost, most school security operations using metal detectors do not have the number of staff or the training for weapons screening comparable to a large TSA airport.  And the reality is that, like TSA and airports, even if they did there is a still a chance that weapons can and will get into the facility, not to mention that items already in the school can be used as weapons even if not designed for that purpose.

So our advice is simple:  Educators should not create unrealistic expectations for students, parents, staff, and the community when they are using school security technology.  Cameras are a deterrent to those who are deterrable and MAY serve as evidence for those who cannot be deterred.  Metal detectors may serve as a deterrent and will likely detect weapons in some cases, but there is no 100% guarantee of success and there is no 100% guarantee that something else already in the school will not be used as a weapon.

The largest amount of security technology, and the best quality of technology, will stil not give the 100% guarantee of security that some parents, media, and others expect when these measures are in place. 

Setting realistic expectations when security technology is used in a school is important.  The first and best line of defense is a well-trained, highly-alert staff and student body. Any security technology is only as good as the weakest human link behind it. And even the best of security technology will still not create a guarantee of 100% safety.

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

To the Editor:

As evidenced in Johanna Wald and Lisa Thurau’s Commentary “Taking Safety Too Far?” (Feb. 24, 2010), there is a growing voice critical of the number of arrests police make in schools. As a former state police officer and 21-year school central-office administrator who is now a school safety consultant, I feel compelled to respond.

One child arrested at school is one too many. But there unfortunately are cases in which, for the protection of the majority of students and teachers, such action is sometimes necessary.

Three steps have to happen before a child is arrested. First, the student must exhibit inappropriate behavior. Second, a school administrator must determine that the behavior is beyond the control or the resources of the school, that the behavior may constitute a crime, and that calling the police is warranted. Third, the police, after investigating, must conclude that the student’s actions do in fact constitute a crime, and that probable cause exists for making an arrest.

The focus of criticism appears to be on the third link in this chain. But shouldn’t we also consider the first two, the harmful behavior of the student and the training and guidelines given administrators?

Some of the “new and innovative programs” touted as alternative disciplinary models boil down to schools being required to tolerate more out-of-control behaviors. Before police can be called, a student must be given three or four warnings, for example.

I do not favor a forced quota system of criminal tolerance, nor do most school administrators. Most educators have the best interests of students in mind and want to provide nothing more than a safe and healthy learning environment. The police are one tool they may use to do that.

My fear is that we will tie administrators’ hands and harm their ability to deal with inappropriate and violent behavior. To replace their decisionmaking with a formula developed by legislators or other people with no real-life school experience is truly a step backward for school safety.

Chuck Hibbert

Hibbert Safe School Consulting

Indianapolis, Ind.

Vol. 29, Issue 28, Page 35

Published Online: April 5, 2010

Published in Print: April 7, 2010

What are your thoughts?

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

“Good morning.  How may I help you?”  This is one of the most powerful phrases any adult responsible for child safety can say to maintain a safe school.

It is also one that is used the least by school staff.

A February 24th Associated Press article entitled, “Police: Colo. gunman entered the school earlier,” reported the suspect in the Deer Creek Middle School shooting in Littleton, Colorado, was in the building ”chatting” with school staff prior to the shooting:

“But there was growing evidence the school missed a chance to head off the attack.

Investigators said unemployed ranch hand Bruco Strong Eagle Eastwood walked through the doors of the Deer Creek Middle School earlier in the day, indicated he was a former student and chatted with teachers, apparently without drawing much suspicion.

Authorities said they do not know what motivated him to leave the building and open fire in the parking lot with a bolt-action hunting rifle, nor do they know the nature of his conversations with school staff.”

Legitimate Questions

If this is accurate, it raises legitimate questions which I believe school and law enforcement should candidly discuss in debriefing this incident:

1. Why he was allowed to sign-in to visit during school hours?  It is not common, nor a best practice, to have a 32-year-old male in a middle school visiting former teachers unannounced.  Most teachers are teaching mid-day or, if they are lucky, getting a very brief lunch.  A red flag? 
2. Where did he go? If he signed in, where did he go? Did he sign in and leave (end of story), or did he stay for awhile? How far did he get in the building? Were there opportunities and/or encounters for someone to have stopped, challenged, and/or reported him?
3. Who did he talk with and what action did they take? If he did talk with school staff, who did he talk with and what was the nature of the conversation? What was their impression of this unannounced encounter? Did they, or could they have, taken any action if the felt the encounter was unusual?
4. What did he do in the building prior to leaving and then start shooting? What transpired from the time he decided to leave the building to the time he started shooting?  Where was he parked? Would anyone have seen him, his vehicle, or the gun?

My goal is not to point blame and some may not like these pointed questions being asked. And overall, the school staff and first responders did an exceptionally outstanding job in responding to the incident. 

But this could be a teachable moment for all schools. Just as Deer Creek Middle School staff responded well due to lessons learned from prior shootings, others should learn from all of the lessons (good and not-so-good, if that be the case) from Deer Creek’s experience.

Impact on Shooting

Does this mean had the suspect been prevented from entering the school, signing in, and “chatting” with staff (if accurate), the shooting would have been prevented? Maybe or maybe not.

If staff had a bad feeling about the suspect and called police, would they have picked him up, searched his car, found the weapon, and hauled him away with no harm to anyone?  On the other hand, if he had been told he could not sign in and visit, could he have simply said, “Thank you,” and left with no suspicion aroused —only to return at dismissal to do exactly what he ended up doing: Shooting two students?

We will never know, and pointing fingers of blame is not productive. But to strengthen our “lessons learned” it is legitimate to look closely at the suspect’s presence in the building prior to the shooting and what he did under the guise of being a visitor.  To not have a candid conversation about this would, in my opinion, be a great loss for all schools to potentially learn another valuable lesson in school safety and crisis preparedness. 

Yesterday’s post  focused on school police departments.  Today, we take a look at school police and staffing in smaller and mid-sized school districts.

Chuck Hibbert is the president of Hibbert Safe School Consulting in Indianapolis, Indiana, and a consultant to National School Safety and Security Services.  He retired after 21 years of service overseeing school police officers and security services in MSD Wayne Township in Indianapolis, a school district with over 15,000 students. Prior to working with the school district, Chuck served 12 years with the Indiana State Police. (*see more bio below)

In our video interview, Chuck identifies key issues in managing and overseeing off-duty police officers, in-house security staff, and a ”hybrid-model” of  school police/security staffing.

In this interview, Chuck shares insights and lessons learned about hiring and supervising school police/ security officers, including:

• Administering a hybrid model of off-duty police and in-house school security personnel
• Hiring the right officer in these positions
• Incorporating school police and security officers into the educational culture
• Selecting district level school security directors
• Philosophy school security directors are encouraged to have about their roles

Tomorrow, we will look at School Resource Officer programs.  What makes them successful?  What factors contribute to failed programs?  What is the future direction of school-based policing?

Ken Trump

*Additional biographical information on Chuck Hibbert: 

Chuck earned a B.A. degree, has extensive specialized school safety and law enforcement training, and served as a master level instructor in Nonviolent Crisis Intervention as certified by the Crisis Prevention Institute. Chuck was co-designer of the concept leading to the creation of the Indiana School Safety Specialist Academy and served as founding chairperson of the Academy’s Advisory Council.  He has served as a school safety consultant for the Indiana Department of Education and is the recipient of the Bell Ringer Award for his contributions to school safety in Indiana.

Chuck is past chair of the Indianapolis Chapter of the American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS) and served on the Educational Institutions Council of the American Society for Industrial Security. He has authored articles and presented nationally including for the National School Boards Association and the Association of School Business Officials International. Chuck has appeared on local television news and in national news as a school safety expert. He was an invited attendee at the October, 2006, White House Conference on School Safety.