Fit the response to the threat

Jun 1, 2001 12:00 PM, Larry Anderson www.securitysolutions.com

Bomb threats were a problem this spring at Newport Middle High School in New Hampshire. Turns out it was all pranks, but the threats managed to shut down the school for several weeks. The school's 750 students waited in the cold while the police searched the school, and found nothing. After the sixth threat, pupils continued their schoolwork in nearby churches and businesses that donated space.

What tactic finally succeeded in ending the prankster threats?

The school instituted Saturday classes, and suddenly there were no more bomb threats.

“The incentive for whoever was going to do this mischief wasn't there any more,” Principal Larry Wight told the Associated Press.

This story emphasizes the point that not all threats are created equally. Reminders of a much more tragic scenario re-emerged this spring when the Columbine massacre was back in the news, the attention prompted by the release of the Governor's Columbine Review Commission Report. The report recommends that law enforcement increase its preparedness for large-scale emergencies, and that the top priority of the first officers on a crisis scene should be to stop any ongoing assault. All reports of verbal and written threats should be taken seriously, according to the report.

Some of the report's recommendations that have already been implemented in Jefferson County (according to one newspaper article) include

• deputies have been trained in “active shooter” tactics.

• the school resource officer program has been enhanced, including assigning deputies to middle schools.

• the sheriff's office and police in the county have adopted a common incident command model.

Not to be lost in the soul-searching is the idea that every security threat is different and every situation must be carefully evaluated before a response can be formulated. It's easy to second-guess the actions of law enforcement on that day in Colorado. What isn't as easy is anticipating what the appropriate response will be in the next such emergency, which will be unique and could challenge everyone's preparedness to respond.

There is a burgeoning science developing around the question of how to tell a serious threat from a prank — the FBI, for example, has written pages about it (available at www.fbi.gov/publications.htm). For the most part, the best we can do is to use analytical tools to evaluate the seriousness of a threat and how we should respond.

Clearly a single solution doesn't apply in every case. As psychologist Abraham Maslow said: “If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.”

School security professionals should not expect canned solutions to solve complex problems. They should keep an open mind about the nature of threats and take a broad-based approach to seeking solutions. It is obvious in retrospect that the bomb threat pranks in New Hampshire were very different than the massacre in Columbine. When analyzing a situation before the fact, telling the difference requires finesse as well as facts. It's an art as well as a science.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2012 Penton Media Inc.

This month in Access Control

• Targeting The Customer
• Electronic Pedigrees
• One Hero Among Many
• Who? What? When? Where? Why?
• More from September's issue