Districts Implementation of Active Shooter Drill Policies

• Author: Cassandra C. Howard,Viki P. Kelchner,Breahannah Hilaire,Laurie O. Campbell,Eric D. Laguardia
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211068448
• Published date: 01 August 2022
• Date: 01 August 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211068448

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2022, Vol. 33(7) 667 –687

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/08874034211068448

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Districts Implementation of

Active Shooter Drill Policies

Cassandra C. Howard1, Viki P. Kelchner1,

Breahannah Hilaire1, Laurie O. Campbell1,

and Eric D. Laguardia1

Abstract

High-profile school shootings provoke public outcry and calls for policy responses

to gun violence in schools. However, policy makers face pressure from diverse

stakeholders with distinct agendas, and in some areas, there is little empirical research

to guide policy makers’ decisions. Active shooter drills are one such example of a

hotly debated policy response in need of further study. As a preliminary step to

filling this research gap, this mixed-methods study investigated how school districts

in Florida have implemented active shooter drills following legislation passed after the

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida. We analyzed

school safety specialists’ perceptions and reports of drill procedures and their

alignment with best practices. The majority of the districts surveyed aligned with

Best Practices established by the National Association of School Psychologists and

National Association of School Resource Officers. Implications for future research

and considerations for the implementation of active shooter drills are discussed.

Keywords

program evaluation, policy implications, research and policy

After the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, a

familiar debate over policy responses to school-based gun violence was revived. One

focus of media coverage revealed a wide range of perspectives concerning the topic of

active shooter drills. Highly publicized incidents of realistic drills that included props

1University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA

Corresponding Author:

Laurie O. Campbell, Department of Learning Sciences and Educational Research, University of Central

Florida, 4000 University Blvd, Orlando, FL 32801, USA.

Email: locampbell@ucf.edu

1068448CJPXXX10.1177/08874034211068448Criminal Justice Policy ReviewHoward et al.

research-article2021

668 Criminal Justice Policy Review 33(7)

and simulations of actual shooting incidents drew support from some and outrage from

others (Asmelash, 2020; Christakis, 2019; Ebbs, 2018; Hopkins, 2019). Amid the

wider public debate on how to effectively prevent and respond to rampage shootings,

Florida passed one of the most comprehensive state legislative responses to school

shootings in history. Characterized by a broad aim to increase school and law enforce-

ment cooperation, Florida Senate Bill 7026, or the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High

School Public Safety Act (MSDHSPSA), required districts to designate a school safety

specialist position charged with promoting school safety and security (Florida K-20

Education Code, 2019). The legislation also mandated monthly active shooter drills to

be conducted as part of each district’s emergency management plan and emphasized

active shooter drill training as an important component of the professional training of

school safety specialists in part due to the systematic shortcomings that contributed to

shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (MSDHS). The incident at

MSDHS was the fault of the assailant. Although there is only one individual to blame,

there were several deficiencies leading up to this shooting. The MSD Commission

Report (2019) outlines some key causes leading up to the event and the basis for new

legislation in Florida schools. Some of the causes include the inadequate reporting of

mental health warning signs based on the perpetrator’s mental and behavioral health

issues and how these issues were addressed by the school system. In addition, there

was little physical security, few security measures and policies, and faulty behavioral

threat assessment measures. Furthermore, on the day of the attack, the response by law

enforcement and the school’s resource officer was lacking and flawed.

Previous legislative responses to school shootings have been criticized for adopting

approaches with little empirical support. These critiques suggest that in an effort to

quell moral outrage, policies are created that ultimately serve private security compa-

nies and broader political goals more than they protect students (Addington, 2009;

Burns & Crawford, 1999; Goode & Ben-Yehuda, 2010). Florida’s increased emphasis

on active shooter drills and parallel creation of a district-level position for school

safety specialists warrant investigation into how districts have approached active

shooter drills in response to MSDHSPSA. To add to our understanding of how policy

and leaders can effectively promote safe learning environments for students, we used

a mixed-methods design to investigate (a) how districts have implemented active

shooter drills following MSDHSPSA, (b) how those drills align with National

Association of School Psychologists (NASP) and National Association of School

Resource Officers (NASRO) practices, and (c) the perceived strengths and weaknesses

in current active shooter drill practices.

Literature Review

The term “active shooter” is a law enforcement term used to describe an individual

who is attempting to kill others in a populated area (Federal Bureau of Investigation,

2019). Because the shooter is “active,” both civilians and law enforcement may

have to interact (or avoid interaction) with the shooter, with potential to affect the

outcome. The vast majority of students and staff will likely never have to respond