|
Every year the American public is exposed to more and more episodes of school violence. These incidents often result in serious injury and even death. For all the cases that make national headlines, there are significantly more that go no further than local media coverage. Beyond that, there are a significant number of school violence episodes that receive no media coverage. Most of these episodes will eventually result in lawsuits with the damage claims going higher with each passing year.
Violence in the workplace has been a reality that most security professionals have had to deal with for the past 20 years. In the 80s and early 90s national headlines frequently reported stories about the disgruntled employee going berserk, sometimes referred to as Ògoing postal.Ó The security profession recognized these threats early on in the evolution of workplace violence and aggressively initiated a number of strategies to mitigate the violence. They analyzed the etiology of violent acts on a case by case basis. They researched the precursors of violent behavior and developed predictive models for violence. They found that if potentially violent situations were interdicted in the incipient stage, then chances for mitigation were enhanced. They moved from a reactive mode to one of prevention.
We at SMSI Inc. have had the opportunity to testify as security experts in many lawsuits resulting from school violence. We have often been struck by the obvious naivety of many school security programs. Even after the fact, school districts seem to have difficulty getting it right in the wake of a serious incident. If you doubt this assertion, read the Columbine Report commissioned by the Governor of Colorado. The report seems to address corrective action in dealing with an event in progress, but comes up short when it comes to prevention in the first place. These results are partially the product of a strong law enforcement perspective in analyzing the tragedy of Columbine. There is little evidence that the Columbine Report sought input from security professionals.
At some point in time school districts will be forced to wake up to the fact that the old methods donÕt work, and that they are avoiding a substantial body of expertise by only calling on those who are within their cloistered milieu. It appears the school safety programs are often designed to meet the needs of political correctness as opposed to effective results. Districts seem to eschew outside expertise. The private sector has long seen the advantage of outsourcing specialized expertise.
Any effective school security program must combine the application of psycho-social expertise with appropriate security remedies. The only way to determine the appropriate remedies is to have security professionals first assess the entire school district, K through 12. The assessment process must not only focus on traditional physical security applications, but it must also focus on the psycho/social dynamics at each level of the education process. Research and experience tells us the most volatile arenas for school violence are middle schools. One needs only to look at the array of school violence eruptions within the last eight years. The majority of cases that drew the majority of national attention occurred in middle schools with the exception of Columbine.
The assessment process must solicit input from all affected parties. Without this input, there it will be difficult to get Òbuy-inÓ for the resulting school safety program. This process must, therefore, elicit information from students, parents, teachers and administrators. Board membersÕ inputs must also be elicited. Prior incident history must be taken into consideration with an eye toward trend analysis. That process must be sensitive to identify those incipient incidents that, given the potential for escalation, may be a portent of things to come.
There are numerous cases of school violence that fly below the national radar screen. Our school litigation experience includes claims of illegal search, student on student sexual assaults, hazing and schoolyard bulling. These cases all range between six and seven figures of liability exposure. In many of these cases the handwriting was on the wall prior to the incidents, and the probability of prevention was excellent. Yet, we find faculty turning a blind eye to the obvious.
The question is: ÒWould it be advantageous to conduct a district-wide safety and security audit now, or wait for an incident and let the plaintiffÕs expert conduct the security audit after the fact?Ó The very act of conducting a security audit will help mitigate culpability should an incident eventually occur.
Remedies must fit the unique needs and culture of each district. It is senseless to recommend a set of security solutions that will never be implemented. Therefore, security remedies must be consistent with the districtÕs willingness to implement them. Any set of security risks will respond to a wide range of mitigation strategies. The key is to develop solutions that will be acceptable to the parents and educators of the local community. Another key element in the development of a safe schools strategy is the degree to which local law enforcement is willing to become involved. There is a wide range regarding the extent that local law enforcement will be willing to immerse themselves in the security problems of the local school district, especially proactive involvement.
Finally, William Nesbitt, CPP, and SMSI Inc. have joined Lester Martisko, Ph.D. and the South Central Service Cooperative (SCSC), (www.mnscsc.org) in offering school districts safety and security assessments followed by development of safe schools strategies. Les Martisko is a psychologist and the Executive Director of SCSC. This organization offers school districts a wide variety of support services on a cooperative basis. They are ideally positioned to offer school safety and security programs anywhere in the country. This partnership between public school professionals and a veteran security professional affords their clients the best of two worlds.
Disclaimer: Security is a situational discipline. One size does not fit all. There are no universal standards. This article is intended to raise issues and provoke thought. Any solutions suggested in this article may or may not have direct application for a specific enterprise.
|
