Effects of Lockdown Drills on Students’ Fear, Perceived Risk, and Use of Avoidance Behaviors: A Quasi-Experimental Study

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/08874034221089867
• Published date: 01 October 2022
• Date: 01 October 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034221089867

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2022, Vol. 33(8) 787 –813

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/08874034221089867

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Effects of Lockdown Drills

on Students’ Fear, Perceived

Risk, and Use of Avoidance

Behaviors: A Quasi-

Experimental Study

Jaclyn Schildkraut1 and Amanda B. Nickerson2

Abstract

Although widely used in schools across the United States, little is known about the

impact of lockdown drills, particularly related to psychological outcomes such as

fear, perceived risk, and avoidance. This study utilized survey data collected over

3 timepoints—baseline, after the first lockdown drill, and following training and a

second lockdown drill—from more than 10,000 students in a large urban school

district. The results indicate that students were less fearful and perceived lower

risk after participating in lockdown drills and emergency response training, although

reported avoidance behaviors increased. Perceived school safety predicted less fear,

risk, and avoidance, while perceived emergency preparedness predicted less fear

and avoidance but higher risk. Implications for broader considerations for school

administrators and policymakers related to emergency preparedness preparation,

including drills and training, are offered with particular focus given to best practices

for trauma mitigation.

Keywords

lockdown drills, Standard Response Protocol, emergency preparedness, school

safety, fear of crime

1The State University of New York at Oswego, USA

2University at Buffalo, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jaclyn Schildkraut, The State University of New York at Oswego, 458 Mahar Hall, Oswego, NY 13126,

USA.

Email: jaclyn.schildkraut@oswego.edu

1089867CJPXXX10.1177/08874034221089867Criminal Justice Policy ReviewSchildkraut and Nickerson

research-article2022

788 Criminal Justice Policy Review 33(8)

Lockdown drills, a practice currently used in 95% of public schools nationwide (Musu

et al., 2019), have been commonplace since the April 20, 1999, shooting at Columbine

High School. Although lockdowns can be used for a variety of emergencies that occur

within a building, they most often are discussed synonymously with active attackers,

including school shooters. During such incidents, building occupants who are able to

are directed to get behind locked doors, turn off the lights in the room to add a layer of

concealment, move out of sight of potential perpetrators (e.g., away from doors and

windows), and remain silent so as to not draw attention to themselves until law

enforcement can secure the scene (see, generally, Keyes & Deffner, 2015).1 The first

step of the lockdown—locking the door—is argued to be the most crucial as door

locks have been found to be the most successful lifesaver within buildings during

active shooter situations (Martaindale et al., 2017; Sandy Hook Advisory Commission,

2015). In just three school shootings—Red Lake High School in Red Lake, MN

(2005), Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, CO (2006), and Marjory Stoneman

Douglas High School in Parkland, FL (2018)—has anyone been killed behind a locked

door (Schildkraut & Muschert, 2019). Moreover, in each of these instances, the associ-

ated fatalities were not attributable to the locks’ failure but instead situational (e.g., the

shooter barricading within the classroom) and environmental factors (e.g., gaining

entry or shooting through glass panels in or near the door).

The purpose of drills more broadly is to build muscle memory (Shusterman, 2011)

so that in a real-life situation, like an active attacker, people will respond the way they

have been trained to, even when cognitive functioning is impaired by stress or fear (Di

Nota & Huhta, 2019). Other forms of emergency preparedness drills also are com-

monplace in schools. Fire drills, for example, have been standard practice since the

late 1950s after a fire killed 2 teachers and 93 students in a school in Chicago (Cowan

& Kuenster, 1996); today, 92% of schools practice similar evacuation procedures

(Musu et al., 2019). In addition, schools also prepare for natural disasters, including

earthquakes (Johnson et al., 2014; Simpson, 2002), tsunamis (Johnson et al., 2014),

and tornadoes (Hoekstra et al., 2014).

Despite the widespread use of emergency preparedness drills in schools, it is those

that specifically practice for lockdowns or active shooters (terms that, while different,

often are used synonymously in the discourse) that have drawn the most attention and,

by extension, criticism. News headlines featuring teachers being shot with pellets

(Herron, 2019; Zraick, 2019) and students being exposed to the sounds of simulated

gunfire (Richter, 2019) and/or fake blood-covered crisis actors (Aronowitz, 2014;

Pierpoint, 2019), with some even getting hurt during the course of such exercises

(Schell, 2019), have led to calls to end to these practices (e.g., Christakis, 2019;

Gerstmann, 2019). Everytown for Gun Safety (2020), along with the American

Federation of Teachers and National Education Association, published a white paper

calling drills “traumatizing” and recommending that students not participate. Similarly,

former presidential candidate Andrew Yang (n.d.) made abolishing active shooter

drills in schools one of his 2020 campaign platforms (see also Fearnow, 2019).

Absent the calls to end such practices, however, is any credible, empirical evidence

to support the claims that lockdown or active shooter drills are traumatizing students.