The guide begins by describing the problem and reviewing factors that increase the risk of bomb threats in schools. The guide then identifies a series of questions that might assist you in analyzing the local problem of bomb threats in schools. Finally, the guide reviews responses to the problem and what is known about these from evaluative research and police practice.
The scope of this guide is limited to bomb threats in schools, public or private, kindergarten through 12 th grade. Colleges and universities are excluded because they generally differ from schools. Their organization and administration differ; they have their own police within the university community; and many universities do not have a physically identifiable perimeter as schools do. In fact, college campuses have much more in common with other public service organizations, such as health services, entertainment venues and, to some extent, shopping malls. While there are a number of common responses to bomb threats that apply to almost any setting, the environment of schools is sufficiently different to warrant separate consideration.
The feature that distinguishes a bomb threat from other kinds of assaults and threats is that it is primarily a furtive crime—or at least a crime that can be committed from a distance. Modern communications make it possible for offenders to communicate their threat without having to physically confront the targets at the time of the threat or even at the time of the assault. Many assaults or destructive acts in schools follow threats, or constitute threats in themselves. The reason why an offender might choose a bomb as the carrier of the threat over some other item or implement of destruction and injury (e.g., assault weapons, arson) is unknown, though the immediate, disruptive action it causes is surely part of the reason. Certain kinds of injury and damage may also be enhanced by a bombing, such as arson achieved through an explosive device.
There are several problems related to bombs, threats, and schools that are not directly addressed in this guide and merit separate analysis. They include:
† See the POP Guide on Bullying in Schools.
† See the POP Guide on Graffiti.
† See the POP Guide on Stalking.
† See the POP Guide on School Vandalism and Break-ins.
Data on bomb incidents (any event in which an actual bomb or bomb look-alike is involved) and bomb threats (any event in which a bomb threat is communicated that may or may not involve an actual bomb or bomb look-alike) are limited. The FBI reports that close to 5 percent of bombing incidents in the United States in 1999 (the most recent year for which FBI data are available) were targeted at schools. It is unknown what portion of these incidents involved threats. For the period January 1990 to February 28, 2002 the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) recorded 1,055 incidents of bombs being placed in school premises.1 Again, we do not know what proportion of these incidents involved threats. For the most part, however, it is probably reasonable to conclude that bomb incidents involving real bombs in schools are relatively rare, though they have been with us for quite some time.† Furthermore, relatively few bomb explosions are preceded by a warning or threat to officials. Of the 1,055 bomb incidents in schools reported by ATF, only 14 were accompanied by a warning to school or other authorities.
† The first known school bombing occurred in May 1927 in Bath, Michigan. A local farmer blew up the school, killing 38 pupils, six adults and seriously injuring 40 other students ( Missouri Center for Safe Schools 2001).[Full text ]
There are no national statistics on bomb threats as such, though they are more common than bomb incidents. However, we can say that they are not evenly distributed throughout school districts: rashes of bomb threats can occur in particular localities.2 For example, in the 1997-8 school year, one Maryland school district reported 150 bomb threats and 55 associated arrests.3 The South Carolina Department of Education in its 1999-2000 school incident crime report lists “disturbing schools,” which includes bomb threats, hoaxes, false fire alarms etc., among its 10 top crimes, second only to simple assaults.4 During the past five years, many states have enacted severe penalties for issuing false bomb threats, which reflects the perception that the incidence of bomb threats is widespread.
The occurrence of bomb incidents or threats can have a major impact on the targeted victims depending on how the school responds. The potential for serious injury and damage makes even an empty threat a very serious incident. Thus, even though some 90 percent of bomb threats in schools may turn out to be pranks,† each threat must be taken seriously and acted upon immediately. Evacuation of buildings causes major disruption, which in many cases may be an attractive outcome from the offender’s point of view. Many school districts report losses in excess of $250,000 because of school closings and costs of bomb search squads. School districts are increasingly requiring schools to make up days lost due to bomb threats.5
† This is a widely quoted statistic. To the extent that the author could determine, it is not based on any specific research study. The Hartford Insurance Company (Hartford Loss Control Department 2002) reports that 5 to 10 percent of bomb threats involve real bombs. See http://mb.thehartford.com/insurance_info/pdfs/570-050.pdf.
Finally, the publicity that surrounds rare but shocking incidents of targeted violence in schools affects all communities, even those far away from where the incidents occur. After the Columbine incident,† more than 70 percent of respondents nationally said that the same thing could happen in their community. Fear of targeted violence in schools far outstrips the actual risk,†† which makes responding to threats extremely difficult for school authorities that may be hesitant to reveal the occurrence of every single bomb threat that occurs, particularly if there is strong indication that the threat is false.
† The Columbine High School massacre occurred on April 20, 1999, in Jefferson County, near Littleton, Colorado. Two teenage students planned the massacre, carried it out by shooting 12 students and one teacher, and committed suicide.
†† According to Reddy et al. (2001) “… the three major television networks: ABC, CBS, and NBC, aired a total of 296 stories on the shooting at Columbine High School in Jefferson County, Colorado…in contrast, lightning accounts for more deaths overall, and bathtub accidents account for more deaths of children, than do school shootings … yet, they receive comparatively little media coverage.”
Motives: There are many supposed motives for bomb threats, among them: humor, self assertion, anger, manipulation, aggression, hate and devaluation, omnipotence, fantasy, psychotic distortion, ideology, retaliation and no doubt there are many more.6 However, the research on motives is generally limited to other kinds of violence, so any imputation of motives to those who deliver bomb threats must remain speculative.
Delivery: Bomb threats are delivered in various ways: by letter, face-to-face, email, on a student’s website, or even a gesture. However the most common means of delivering a bomb threat is by telephone.7
How seriously should a threat be taken? The seriousness of a bomb threat is self evident because of the potential for widespread destruction that can be wrought by a bomb, compared to other weapons that are usually aimed at particular targets. However, if, as we have noted already, 90 percent of bomb threats are hoaxes (either there is no bomb at all or the “bomb” is a fake), how seriously should the threat be taken? Since the extent of disruption caused by bomb threats is considerable whether the bomb is real or not, all such threats are often responded to on the assumption that a real bomb does exist. In fact, the law throughout the United States tends to treat false bomb threats almost as severely as real bomb threats† and makes little exception for juveniles. Yet in the hurly-burly of the school setting, many threats are made in the normal course of the day among students and between teachers and students, some of which allude to explosives. The majority of such threats are never reported to the police. For example, a student states to his gym teacher, “All jocks deserve to be blown up.” The seriousness with which to take this threat depends on how it is delivered. If the student was laughing or joking, the teacher may pay no mind to it. If made by a student with a history of such pronouncements, the threat may be taken more seriously. It is therefore important for schools to develop a response plan that includes criteria for making assessments of seriousness and for adopting responses commensurate with that assessment (see below).
† Making a false bomb threat is a federal offense punishable under United States Code 18-844(e), with a penalty of up to 10 years in prison, $250,000 fine, or both. This penalty also applies to juvenile offenders (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 2003). However the majority of juveniles are prosecuted under local and state laws, which increasingly provide severe penalties.
Specificity of Bomb Threats. In general, the specificity of the bomb threat is the best guide to its seriousness.8 , † The specificity of a bomb threat may be assessed according to:
† This is a widely held view among experts. There is, however, no formal research study that affirms or negates it.
Table 1 summarizes in a general way the reasons given or inferred for issuing bomb threats and their links to the specificity of the threat. This is a classification based on information published in newsletters and other information outlets of government and non-government organizations that typically respond to bomb threats. Certain kinds of bomb threats are likely to be more specific than others. For example, a conditional threat must state the condition to be met, which requires much more specificity. In general, the more specific the threat, the easier it is to decide on the response.
Table 1: Types of bomb threats in schools and their specificity
|Type||Threat rationale||Vague threat||Specific threat|
|Conditional||“Do this or else.”||“Put back the candy machines or I’ll bomb the school.” Student expressing outrage, probably no bomb unless there has been a series of such threats.||“If you don’t put back the vending machines, a bomb will go off in the cafeteria at 12 o’clock today.”|
|Instrumental||Threat made in order to achieve another usually immediate goal.||Offender calls school and says, “There’s a bomb in the building” and immediately hangs up. Student calls in false bomb threat in order to disrupt classes and get the day off.||“I’ve put a bomb in the school set to go off at 10:00. Burn down the school!”|
|Getting even||Bomber inverts power relationship between himself and the target.||“Death to all and I shall rule the world.” Student places this threat on his website. Threat does not explicitly mention bomb. If identity of threatener is known should probably be taken seriously, especially if past history of threats.||“I’m sick of being humiliated by Smith. Today is the day when Smith and his precious science labs will be terminated.”|
|Hate (ideological, religious, ethnic)||Bomber makes threat against hated opponent or target.||“Death to all child murderers!” Threat called into a school day before family planning officials visit school.||“Stay away from school tomorrow. The child murderers will be blown to hell where they belong! I’m not joking!”|
Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem will help you frame your own local analysis questions, determine good effectiveness measures, recognize key intervention points, and select appropriate responses. Unfortunately, there is no research that directly addresses the causes of bomb threats in schools. There is, however, a limited amount of research that examines how threats of various kinds arise in schools and the situations in which they occur.9 The majority of this research is directed at developing two types of response: (1) an intervention plan aimed at prevention of threats and reducing their harm if carried out and (2) a response protocol in the event that an actual bomb threat or incident occurs. All of the research on which these two responses are based is focused on threat assessment, a protocol developed by the U. S. Secret Service to identify in advance individuals who may be most likely to attack the President and other individuals the Secret Service is responsible for protecting.
The methodology used in these studies has been to collect detailed information concerning the circumstances that prevailed before and after major cases of targeted violence, including shootings and bombings. This information is then analyzed for any patterns that may indicate those circumstances that seemed to be conducive to targeted violence. The Secret Service applied this methodology to 37 cases of targeted violence in schools (which included some bomb-related events), collecting data on the personal and background characteristics of the offenders, their behavior before the violence occurred, and the school administrative and interpersonal response to the behaviors of the offenders before and after the event.
Based on the results of the Secret Service studies and those of student surveys,10 there are four factors that contribute to bomb threats in schools and these factors interact in different ways in different situations:†
† “…there is no profile or single ‘type’ of perpetrator of targeted violence. Rather, violence is seen as the product of an interaction among the perpetrator, situation, target, and the setting” (Reddy et al. 2001).
The Secret Service study of incidents of targeted violence in schools concluded the following:11
† The Secret Service study found that “In virtually all … cases, the attacker told a peer. In only two of 37 cases did the peer notify an adult” (Vossekuil et al. 2002). [Full text ]
While there has been some suggestion that bombers have particular types of personalities (obsessive-compulsive, psychopathic), there is insufficient scientific evidence to back up this claim.12 Finally, the vast majority of threats are called in by students, though there are occasional cases of threats by teachers.†
† A third-year middle school mathematics teacher who reportedly told police she wanted the day off was charged Tuesday with calling in a bomb threat to Grayling Middle School ( Traverse CityRecord Eagle, April 10, 2002).
No research has definitively, or even roughly, identified a constellation of factors that causes an individual to issue a bomb threat or target violence in a school. However, the general literature of law enforcement and school authorities (e.g., FBI, U.S. Secret Service, ATF working with the Department of Education) has identified a number of possible factors, though it should be emphasized that this does not mean that any one or even several of these factors necessarily lead to bomb-threatening behavior:13
A school climate that is insensitive to provocations to violence (such as bullying, harassment by teachers and students, an excessively authoritarian climate,† lack of respect of students for each other or teachers, gang activity, presence of provocative graffiti, lax dress rules, etc.) may be more likely to be a target of bomb threats. And where a school lacks basic prevention programs against attackers (such as monitoring entry and exit to the school, surveillance of areas in the school where bombs may be left, training of teachers to deal with violence in schools, and a systematic program for identifying and reporting warning signs), it too may be more likely to receive bomb threats.
† Harsh imposition of authority by a school that relies entirely on fear not only has been associated with violence against teachers but also may result in a student’s unwillingness to come forward to communicate potential problems of violence including his or her own victimization (Regoli and Hewitt 1994, Curcio and First 1993).
Making a bomb is easily within the ability of juveniles. In fact, ATF reports that the success rate of bomb detonations for bombs in schools is slightly higher than that for the national rate of all bombings. The range of explosive substances and ways of detonating them are limited only by the bomber’s imagination and resourcefulness. Information on how to construct them is readily available on the Internet or is widely available in books.† Obviously, since this information is available to everyone should they wish to seek it out, its availability per se does not tell us which individuals are likely to make a bomb threat. Many of the recipes for making bombs use common everyday chemicals. However, even obtaining such information does not mean that individuals will use it to make a bomb or issue a bomb threat. Of course, they do not need any information on constructing bombs if they plan to issue a false bomb threat.
† There are many websites that provide the necessary information, though probably the most widely known is The Anarchist Cookbook of which there are many versions online ( www.righto.com/anarchy/online.html) or the original is available in hard copy from many book stores. This book provides directions on everything from how to make letter bombs to counterfeiting currency. Another popular source is the Black Booksof Improvised Munitions Handbooks, providing information on improvised explosives, bombs, firearms, timers, etc. This is a version of the U.S. Army Technical Manual 31-210.
Concealment is also not difficult. Although bombs may be concealed in an incredible variety of containers—from fire extinguishers to pens and letters— most bombs are of the simple pipe bomb form that is concealed in an ordinary-looking bag or some everyday object.14 , † Letter bombs are extremely rare, though they receive considerable media coverage.††
† The typical Hollywood device is sticks of dynamite with a clock taped to it. In fact, the most common device is a pipe bomb, a length of pipe filled with explosive…” (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 2003).
†† The U.S. Postal Inspection Service reports that of 170 billion pieces of mail processed in a typical year, only a very few letter bombs—an average of 16—are reported or investigated (Hartford Loss Control Department 2002). [Full text]
Bomb threats have often been called in via pay phones which reduced the likelihood that police could locate the individual placing the call.
Part of the means to carry out a bomb threat effectively is the placement of the bomb. The preferred places are in areas where there is constant public access.Of the 1,055 incidents reported by ATF, 92 were outside, many of these in the parking lot; 190 inside, the majority either in the restroom or in a locker; and 123 either inside or outside in trash cans, air conditioners, window or door areas.15 The opportunity to place a concealed bomb without detection is considerable unless the school has an established system of monitoring its premises.
Finally, the telephone’s popularity for delivery of threats hardly needs explanation: it is widely available, cheap, and provides a (perhaps) false sense of anonymity for the caller. Pay phones exist in many if not all schools, and cell phones—until recently difficult to trace—are widely available among students. As we will see below, monitoring this ready-made threat delivery system may be one useful preventive response.
The information provided above is only a generalized description of bomb threats in schools, and because of a lack of research on bomb threats in particular, has drawn on other research on related problems such as school shootings. You must combine these basic facts with a more specific understanding of your local problem. Analyzing the local problem carefully will help you design a more effective response strategy.
Much of what you do will also depend on how the problem presents itself in your jurisdiction. Since bomb threats in schools are a statistically rare phenomenon, it is likely that you may hear of only an occasional threat in your local schools. However, there is always the possibility that a rash of bomb threats may occur. In either case, you will need to ask questions that will lead to an effective response. An effective response will determine: (1) how to deal with the immediate bomb threat, in real time, and (2) how to prevent bomb threats from occurring in the first place. The following are some critical questions you should ask in analyzing your particular problem of bomb threats in schools, even if the answers are not always readily available. Your answers to these and other questions will help you choose the most appropriate set of responses later on.
The following are potentially useful measures of the effectiveness of responses to bomb threats in schools:
Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible responses to address the problem.
The following response strategies provide a foundation for addressing your particular problem. These strategies are drawn from a variety of research studies and police reports. Several of these strategies may apply to your community’s problem. It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem. Do not limit yourself to considering what police can do: give careful consideration to who else in your community shares responsibility for the problem and can help police better respond to it.17
Responses may be divided into two categories: (1) preventive responses aimed at reducing the likelihood of bomb threats and (2) immediate responses to a bomb threat should it occur. Your preventive responses will have a significant impact on how you and the school respond should an actual bomb threat occur. Just as installing sprinkler systems in public buildings prepares for a fire that has a low probability of occurring, so establishing a system for dealing with a crisis and managing the public space of the school in a secure way will minimize the impact of a bomb incident should it occur. Many of the responses outlined below are those that the recipients of the bomb threat (most likely school personnel) must implement. Thus, your prime responsibility is to establish a close working relationship with the schools to ensure that they implement the responses that are appropriate for their particular situation. So it is worth repeating: you will be unable to implement many of the responses listed here unless you can cultivate a close and trusting relationship with your local schools and school districts.†
† There are many resources to guide you in how to develop a law enforcement-school partnership; The most comprehensive is: Fostering School-Law Enforcement Partnerships (Atkinson 2002).
These responses are designed (a) to reduce the impact of a bomb threat should it occur (b) to prevent a bomb threat from happening in the first place and (c) to reduce the probability of a rash of bomb threats occurring.
† There are many crisis plans available on the web and elsewhere. The most comprehensive is Practical Information on Crisis Planning: A Guide for Schools and Communities published by the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (2003).
† See the POP Guide on School Vandalism and Break-ins.
† The introduction of call tracing considerably reduced the incidence of obscene phone calls (Clarke 1997). Publicizing its availability on all school phone lines may cause students to think twice before calling in a threat. [Full text ]
†† On December 20, 2002, Poughkeepsie, New York public schools received two bomb threats called in from local convenience stores; 1200 students and 100 staff were evacuated. Another threat came after Christmas break, which resulted in shutdown of schools in the New Paltz school district. Police worked with schools and local services to develop a better community phone security system. The next time a threat was called in, the voice of the caller was recognized from a recording made by the 911 system and an arrest followed soon after. The New Paltz school districts had experienced a rash of bomb threats in 1999, but since the December 20 incident, no further threats had been received.
Signs should clearly communicate to students the prohibition against and penalties for making bomb threats.
† See the POP Guide on Bullying in Schools for application of this approach. [Full text ]
† “Triggering events like fights, gang signs and terms, excessive teasing, bullying, extortion of lunch money, and trespassing…can all be precursors to more serious criminal activity like weapons and bomb threats.” (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 2003).
These responses are designed to ensure that you and the school respond to a serious bomb threat in a systematic and orderly manner so that panic and miscommunications among police, community services, the school and parents do not occur. Their effectiveness depends heavily, if not totally, on the first nine responses above, which provide the groundwork for the ordered steps of crisis response outlined below. They also help reduce the harm caused by the bomb threat.
Low Level of Threat: A threat that poses a minimal risk to the victim and public safety.
Medium Level of Threat: A threat that could be carried out, although it may not appear entirely realistic.
High Level of Threat: A threat that appears to pose an imminent and serious danger to the safety of others.
Source: Adapted from O’Toole (n.d.) [Full text ]
† The questions you must answer are: “Will it be an overt or covert search?” and “Will it be conducted without evacuation or after evacuation of the area to be searched? Regardless of the extent of the evacuation, a search is almost always advisable” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.). It should be noted, however, that evacuation may not necessarily be the appropriate response and will depend on local circumstances. In one junior-senior high school in New York in 2001, a rash of bomb threats resulted in the evacuation of the school only twice (School Board News (2001).
NOTE: These signs have been extracted from a variety of sources46 and do not represent a scientific assessment, and should be regarded as speculative.
(Source: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 2003)
|Prevention and Harm Reduction|
|#||Response||How It Works||Works Best If...||Considerations|
|1||Developing a response plan||Response plan reduces confusion should a threat occur and identifies points of early intervention||…the bomb response plan is coordinated with the school’s and community’s overall disaster response plan||Requires collaboration with local emergency response teams, such as police, firefighters and EMS services|
|2||Developing a threat reporting system||Identifies possible warning signs and communicates that violence or threats of violence are not tolerated||…you have a close and trusted working relationship with the school||Data collected may be used for policing research as well as indicating when immediate police intervention is required|
|3||Helping the school conduct a security survey||Identifies points of vulnerability for placement of bombs or break-ins||…it is followed up with specific recommendations for improving security, such as installation of appropriate lighting, placement of parking lots etc.||Your help will be needed by the school to convince the school board and district supervisor that the expense of upgrading security is justified|
|4||Controlling access to school premises||Makes it more difficult for would-be bombers to enter school||…the school involves the parents and students in implementing these changes||Some changes may be unpopular for legal, moral or political reasons|
|5||Monitoring communication into and out of campus||Increases chance of identifying possible sources of threats||…the school installs secure phone system, restricts cell phone use, monitors public phone use and Internet activity||Incoming email is difficult to control; regular mail must be inspected in case of letter bombs or threats by mail|
|6||Warning and educating students||Students learn that there are clear rules and laws against bomb threats that the school takes seriously||…the school communicates clearly by its policies and actions that contraband, weapons, and explosives are prohibited from school grounds and that bomb threats have very serious consequences||Searches may be legally challenged; collaboration of parents and school board is essential in establishing these procedures. Instruction by law enforcement officers may not be an effective method|
|7||Fostering a positive school climate||A safe and secure social and moral climate works against violence including bomb threats||…you get the total commitment of school principal to the whole-school approach||Dealing with milder forms of aggression may help reduce or prevent the incidence of serious violence; some methods of intervention such as peer mediation are not effective|
|8||Identifying troubled children, bullies and victims of targeted violence||Threat assessment training for teachers may help identify possible warning signs of bomb threats||…principal provides time for teachers to meet together and share information||Requires principal’s commitment to threat assessment approach, and time away from the classroom for teachers|
|9||Reaching out to parents||Parent cooperation helps to enforce rules and identify problems in advance||…schools make their facilities available for after-school activities and other community events where parents are involved||Rules aimed at preventing bomb threats and violence may appear unnecessary or excessive to parents; their involvement in understanding the rationale of such rules is essential|
|Immediate Responses to a Bomb Threat|
|#||Response||How It Works||Works Best If...||Considerations|
|10||Recording the threat||Response team, formed in Response 1, implements bomb threat response plan||…all procedures in considerable detail with forms and checklists are already provided||Recording exact details of threat is crucial|
|11||Analyzing the threat||Seriousness of the threat is assessed so that appropriate action can be determined||…decisions have already been made by the bomb response team as to what level of threat warrants reporting to police or other type of response||Depends entirely on Response 1|
|12||Evacuating the school||Decision is taken whether to evacuate the school according to seriousness of the threat and local circumstances||…decision-making procedure and responsibility for making decision has been worked out before hand in the response plan||Requires school practice of evacuation routes, toolkit for identifying and tracking students, contacting parents etc., all of which would have been worked out in Response 1|
|13||Locating a bomb||Response team conducts a search using procedures and materials provided by Response 1||…those searching are very familiar with the plan and school premises||Can be greatly enhanced if preparations for bomb search were made in Response 1|
|14||Talking to the media||Positive media relations are established to ensure smooth and accurate communication to parents and community||…an individual of the response team (Response 1) is the designated media spokesperson and is trained in media relations||Individuals with media training may not be available in which case a press conference is called and a written statement made, in order to maintain better control over information|
|15||Following up||Help the school provide support for those who have been traumatized by the incident||…you contact the National Organization for Victim Assistance||The response plan should be reviewed and adjusted where necessary|
|16||Placing police in schools||Police conduct sessions on gang avoidance, conflict resolution, violence reduction||..done within a broader safer schools program, including extensive dialog with school authorities||There is a danger that police may be looked to as the disciplinarians thus shifting responsibility for the problem away from the school|
|Response With Limited Effectiveness|
|#||Response||How It Works||Works Best If...||Considerations|
|17||Implementing zero-tolerance, mandatory suspension||Student is immediately removed from school||Removing the student does not remove the threat, as threats are commonly called in by students who have a grudge, who may be on suspension or have dropped out|
 School Board News (2001).
 South Carolina Department of Education (2000).
 Kiesewetter (1999).
 McCann (2002).
 McCann (2002).
 Gaughan, Cerio and Myers (2001).
 Meloy and McEllistrem (1998).
 Wilson, Gottfredson and Najaka (2001).
 Cornell and Sheras (1998).
 Schonfeld et al. (1994).
 Olweus (1978); Olweus (1992); Olweus and Limber (1999).
 Petersen, Larson and Skiba (2001).
 Astor (1998).
 School Board News (2001).
 School Board News (2001).
 Higgins (1996).
 Higgins (1996).
 Poland (1994); Mayer and Leone (1999); Petersen and Straub (1992).
 Petersen, Larson and Skiba (2001).
Adelman, H. and L. Taylor (2002). Fostering School, Family, and Community Involvement . Guide 7. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Astor, R. (1998). “School Violence: A Blueprint for Elementary School Interventions.” In E. Freeman, C. Franklin, R. Fong, G. Shaffer and E. Timberlake (eds.) Multisystemic Skills and Interventions in School Social Work Practice, pp. 281-295. Washington, D.C.: National Association of Social Workers Press.
Atkinson, A. (2002). Fostering School-Law Enforcement Partnerships. Safe and Secure: Guides to Creating Safer Schools. Guide No.5. Washington, D.C.: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, U.S. Department of Education, and U.S. Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/book5.pdf
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (2003). Bomb Threat Response: An Interactive Planning Tool for Schools. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives, United States Department of the Treasury and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, United States Department of Education. CD-ROM available at: www.threatplan.org.
Clarke, R.V. (1997). “Introduction.” In: R.V. Clarke (ed.). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. Albany, New York: Harrow and Heston.
Cornell, D. and P. Sheras (1998). “Common Errors in School Crisis Response: Learning From Our Mistakes.” Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 35 (3).
Curcio, J. and P. First (1993). Violence in the Schools: How to Proactively Prevent and Defuse It. Newbury Park , California : Sage.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (n.d.). The Bomb Threat Challenge. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Fein R. and B. Vossekuil (1998). Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations: A Guide for State and Local Law Enforcement Officials. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice Office of Justice Programs.
Gaughan, E., J. Cerio, and R. Myers (2001) Lethal Violence in Schools: A National Study. Alfred University. www.alfred.edu/teenviolence/
Gottfredson, D. (1997) “School-based Crime Prevention” in L. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S. Bushway (eds.) Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. A Report to the United States Congress. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice. [Full text ]
Hartford Loss Control Department (2002). Preparing for and Responding to Bomb Threats and Letter Bombs. Technical Information Paper Series. TIPS S 570.050
Higgins, S. (1996). “Bomb and Physical Security Planning.” In L. Fennelly, Handbook of Loss Prevention and Crime Prevention, 3 rd ed. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
International Association of Chiefs of Police (1999). Guide for Preventing and Responding to School Violence . International Association of Chiefs of Police. Washington, D.C.: IACP. www.theiacp.org/documents/pdfs/Publications/schoolviolence2.pdf
Kiesewetter, S. (1999). “ Bomb Threat Might Cost Mason Schools $250,000.” Enquirer November 18. www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/11/18/loc_bomb_threat_might.html
Mayer, M. and P. Leone (1999). “A Structural Analysis of School Violence and Disruption: Implications for Creating Safer Schools.” Education and Treatment of Children, 22:333-356.
McCann, J. (2002). Threats in Schools: A Practical Guide for Managing Violence. New York: Haworth Press.
Meloy, J. and J. McEllistrem (1998). “Bombing and Psychopathy: An Integrative Review.” Journal of Forensic Sciences 43:556-562.
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (n.d.). Addressing School-Related Crime and Disorder. COPS Innovation Series.
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (2003). Practical Information on Crisis Planning: A Guide for Schools and Communities . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and Whipping Boys. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Press.
Olweus, D. (1992). “Bullying Among School Children: Intervention and Prevention.” In R. Peters, R. McMahon and V. Quinsey (eds.), Aggression and Violence Throughout the Life Span. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
Olweus, D., and S. Limber (1999). “Bullying Prevention Program.” In D. Elliott (ed.), Blueprints for Violence Prevention. Boulder, Colorado: Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado.
O'Toole, M.E. (n.d.). The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective. Quantico, Virginia: Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG), National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC), FBI Academy.
Petersen, R., J. Larson, and R. Skiba (2001). “School Violence Prevention: Current Status and Policy Recommendations.” Law and Policy, Vol. 23, No.2, July.
Petersen, S. and R. Straub (1992). School Crisis Survival Guide: Management Techniques and Materials for Counselors and Administrators. West Nyack, New York: Center for Applied Research in Education.
Poland, S. (1994). “The Role of School Crisis Intervention Teams to Prevent and Reduce School Violence,” School Psychology eReview, Vol.23, Issue 2, pp.175-190.
Reddy, M., R. Borum, J. Berglund, B. Vossekuil, R. Fein, and W. Modzeleski (2001). “Evaluating Risk for Targeted Violence in Schools: Comparing Risk Assessment, Threat Assessment, and Other Approaches.” Psychology in the Schools 38(2):157-172.
Regoli, R. and J. Hewitt (1994). Delinquency and Society: A Child Centered Approach. New York: McGraw Hill.
Rich, T., P. Finn, and S. Ward (2001). Guide to Using School COP to Address Student Discipline and Crime Problems. Prepared for Office of Community Oriented Policing Services by Abt Associates. Washington, D.C.
Schneider, T. (2002). Ensuring Quality School Facilities and Security Technologies. Guide 4. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. www.safetyzone.org/pdfs/ta_guides/packet_4.pdf.
Schonfeld, D., M. Kline and Members of the Crisis Intervention Committee (1994). “School-based Crisis Intervention: An Organizational Model.” Crisis Intervention. Vol.1, No. 2. pp.-155-166.
School Board News (2001). “Assessing Bomb Threats.” Issues in Education (April 23, 2001). www.nyssba.org/adnews/issues/issues042301.htm.
South Carolina Department of Education (2000). “School Crime Incident Report.” www.myscschools.com/reports/crime00/#Top Ten Crimes
Smith, S., T. Kress, E. Fenstemaker, M. Ballard, and G. Hyder (2001). “Crisis Management Preparedness of School Districts in Three Southern States in the USA.” Safety Science, 39, 83-92.
Tunkel, Ronald F. (2002). “Bomb threat assessments—Focus on School Violence.” The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, October.
U.S. Department of Education (2000). Safeguarding Our Children: An Action Guide: Implementing E arly Warning, Timely Response. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Vossekuil, B., R. Fein, M. Reddy, R. Borum, and W. Modzeleski (2002). The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of School Attacks in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education. www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf
Wilson, D., D. Gottfredson and S. Najaka (2001). “School Based Prevention of Problem Behaviors: A Met-Analysis.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology. Vol. 17, No. 3.
You may order free bound copies in any of three ways:
Phone: 800-421-6770 or 202-307-1480
Allow several days for delivery.
Send an e-mail with a link to this guide.
Error sending email. Please review your enteries below.