By Alex Rodrigues, PsyD

During the past year, the U.S. has experienced another tragic wave of targeted violence (TV). Over the past months, several cities have fallen victim to planned violence at schools and workplaces. As a result, the conversation surrounding school violence has re-emerged nationally. News reports routinely cast school attacks as spontaneous events by individuals who suddenly “snap.” Such depictions are inaccurate and portray tragedies like those at Columbine and Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High Schools as inevitable. The belief that school attacks are unpreventable contradicts over 20 years of research, which clearly shows that attackers do not simply break and that school violence is preventable. The following details the phenomenon of targeted violence and intervention measures.

Defining Targeted Violence

Before addressing how communities can stop school attacks, understanding some terms and concepts is essential. The language surrounding TV can be complicated, and individuals often misuse certain terms when discussing the matter. For instance, although targeted violence, mass attacks, and gun violence are related, they are different terms with different meanings. Gun violence is a broad category of harm facilitated by a firearm, including suicide and violence toward others, so targeted violence is generally a subset of gun violence. Mass attack refers to violence where three or more individuals besides the perpetrator are injured or killed. Mass attacks usually involve gun violence but can also occur with other weapons, such as blades or explosive devices. Lastly, targeted violence refers to planned attacks on specific individuals, groups, or locations.

Targeted violence perpetrators have varied motivations, often incited by a perceived grievance (e.g., bullying) or political change. Such violence is considered instrumental violence in that the perpetrator plans the attack in advance. Instrumental and targeted violence differs from reactive violence, which is more time and context limited. Reactive violence involves an individual suddenly becoming distressed and acting violently. But in TV, the perpetrator acts calmly and may be seen acting ” cold-blooded ” after exiting the triggering situation. With the core concepts outlined, we can begin discussing the scientific findings of targeted violence.

Assessing Targeted Violence

Interestingly, the U.S. Secret Service conducted much of the early research on school-targeted violence. This may seem like an odd mission for an agency protecting elected officials since 1865. However, considering that most of the organization’s work involves distinguishing imminent threats from less pending dangers, school threat assessment appears to be a natural extension of the agency’s work. The U.S. Secret Service exhausts considerable resources in discriminating between individuals merely exercising their First Amendment rights, albeit in an unhealthy way, and those likely to graduate to physical violence. School threat assessments involve a similar dynamic, as evaluators confront situations wherein they must determine if a student who threatened violence was merely acting inappropriately or was, in fact, planning to commit harm.   

Preventing Target School Violence

Research has repeatedly demonstrated that school attacks are preventable. In fact, the U.S. Secret Service released a report on 67 averted school attacks in 2021, titled Averting Targeted School Violence: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Plots Against Schools, that highlights the measures needed to prevent campus attacks. The report emphasizes the importance of schools having a systematic approach to addressing threats. Similar to past investigations, researchers found that high-risk students presented with histories of school discipline, law enforcement contact, being bullied, substance use, and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) (NTAC, 2021). 

Would-be attackers routinely disclosed their plans to others before an attack. The early disclosure of a possible attack is referred to as leakage. Given that so many potential attackers leaked their plots beforehand, it is vital that schools develop threat assessment and management teams (TAM) to field reports about pending attacks and act accordingly. Consequently, parents, caregivers, and community stakeholders should ask their local schools how they manage such threats and whether the institution has a TAM team.

Best practice suggests that TAM teams should be multi-disciplinary, composed of teachers, school administrators, guidance counselors, law enforcement officers, mental health clinicians, and other relevant parties. Teams may also invite trusted community members and faith leaders to participate. The diversity of TAM teams reflects the complexity of school threats and the need for creative problem-solving. With a team in place, a school should inform community members how to alert the school about potential threats. There is a reasonable debate about whether schools should adopt an anonymous or named reporting system. The benefit of an anonymous process is that many might feel more comfortable reporting if the risk of personal consequences is limited. Unfortunately, some youths mistakenly believe that reporting any violence, including targeted school violence, is equivalent to snitching. By providing information anonymously, students can feel assured that others will not retaliate.

On the other hand, a named system, wherein reporters are identified, allows a TAM team to follow up with the individual to gain greater insight. Given the benefits of both systems, it may be advantageous to adopt an anonymous approach wherein parties are free to provide contact information if they choose.

Regardless of the notification system’s format, the instructions for making a report should be accessible and advertised prominently. For instance, many academic institutions list reporting system details on their websites. In developing a reporting system, stakeholders should aim to remove as many reporting barriers as possible, making the process easy for community members to share information. Lastly, schools should repeatedly remind students about how to report potential threats throughout the academic year so that such information remains readily available.

With a system in place, community members and students must know the behaviors to watch for. According to NTAC (2021), students are best positioned to notice changes in their classmates. Research indicates that potential attackers regularly share their plans with friends, classmates, and peers (NTAC, 2021). Consequently, students should remain cognizant of behaviors associated with targeted school violence, such as a fascination with Nazis, past school attacks, and firearms (NTAC, 2021). It is important, however, to avoid pathologizing healthy, appropriate interests. 

For example, students deeply interested in history should not be identified as threats because they are studying World War II and Adolf Hitler.

Whereas students who frequently praise Hitler and adopt a fashion style consistent with Neo-Nazi skinheads should be identified for possible intervention and monitoring. Students and adults should also be mindful when a youth tries to gain firearm access. 

The key is to consider whether that person has access to a gun, as opposed to whether they own one. In various plots, would-be attackers tried or succeeded in securing a weapon from their or a family member’s home. By remaining vigilant about such behaviors, community members are well-positioned to relay vital safety information to TAM teams and schools.

Conclusion

The phenomenon of targeted school violence is highly complex and, therefore, cannot be resolved with a one-size-fits-all approach. School violence is a community issue that requires ongoing discussion, education, and planning with students, parents, caregivers, teachers, law enforcement, and mental health professionals. The data are clear—school attacks are preventable, but everyone must play a role in prevention.   

Learn more from the Author

References

NTATC (National Threat Assessment Center, 2021).  Averting Targeted School Violence: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Plots Against Schools.  U.S. Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security.