Legislating School Crisis Response: Good Policy or Just Good Politics?

Legislating School Crisis Response: Good Policy or Just Good Politics?* PAULINE M. PAGLIOCCA and AMANDA B. NICKERSON

Over the past decade, a growing number of schools have responded to students’ safety and mental health needs following campus violence and other crises. More recently, policymakers have joined this trend, proposing legislation requiring schools to establish crisis response programs. This paper provides an overview of crisis response initiatives implemented by school districts following traumatic events, including school violence. It then examines recent state legislation and other policies, followed by a discussion of the advisability of such mandates, given the scant research and evaluation of school crisis response to date.

I. INTRODUCTION

Increasingly over the last decade, schools across the country have developed formal procedures for responding to violence, natural disasters, and other crises. Among the most well known of such strategies are those of crisis response teams (CRTs) addressing the safety and mental health needs of students, staff, and families. Although a growing number of schools, local service providers, and national organizations (e.g., the National Association of School Psychologists, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and the National Organization for Victim Assistance) now routinely respond to the safety and mental health needs of schools following campus violence and other crises, their services have rarely been formally evaluated. As schools have strengthened their capacity to respond to everyday crises, as well as large-scale emergencies, they have generally done so out of concern for the school population, and out of the public spotlight. In the late nineties, however, with media focus on a series of multiple-victim shootings on school grounds, the public became more aware of school crisis counseling and other services, and public officials began proposing legislation and regulations requiring schools to establish violence-related * The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Kimberly Jones, April Ace, Maria Tolbert, and Heidi Warren in the preparation of this article. Address correspondence to Pauline M. Pagliocca, Ph.D., Victims of Violence Program, Cambridge Health Alliance/Department of Psychiatry, Central Street Health Center, 26 Central St., Somerville, MA 02143. LAW & POLICY, Vol. 23, No. 3, July 2001 ISSN 0265–8240 # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK, and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

374

LAW & POLICY

July 2001

crisis management plans. Although multiple sources cite decreasing rates of violence in schools (see e.g., Brooks, Schiraldi & Ziedenberg 2000; Kaufman et al. 2000; and U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice 2000), even one such incident shocks the public and challenges notions of schools as safe, nurturing settings that act in loco parentis to care for the nation’s children. Understandably, widespread media coverage of violence on school grounds has resulted in an apparent new-found interest on the part of public officials. But, given the limited research and evaluation that exist in this field, on what basis are legislators and other policymakers creating mandates for crisis services in our public schools? This paper provides an overview of the types of crisis response initiatives implemented by school districts, following traumatic events. Common elements of school crisis response plans, including relevant research and evaluation support, are discussed. It then examines recent developments in state legislation and policies, followed by a discussion of the advisability of legislative and policy approaches, given the scant research and evaluation of school crisis response to date. II. CRISIS RESPONSE IN SCHOOLS A. EARLY EXAMPLES

Although interest in school crisis preparedness and response has grown in the past fifteen years (Brock, Sandoval & Lewis 2001), an historical examination shows that schools have been coping with violence and other disturbances since Colonial times (Crews & Counts 1997). Children’s responses to crises were addressed in the professional literature as early as the 1940s, although no reference was made to schools or their roles in crisis situations (Klingman 1978). With the growing recognition of youth violence in the 1960s and 1970s, schools assumed increasing responsibility for the welfare and conduct of students by forming police-school partnerships and implementing prevention programs targeting the medical, nutritional, special educational, psychiatric, and vocational needs of students (Crews & Counts 1997). Descriptions of school crisis situations and responses emerged in the professional literature in the late 1970s (e.g., Danto 1978; Keith & Ellis 1978). One of the earliest examples of a comprehensive model for school crisis preparedness and response was developed by Avigdor Klingman, in the context of repeated terrorist attacks on Israeli communities (Klingman 1978). Klingman outlines a multifaceted four-phase ‘‘preventive intervention for disaster,’’ viewing school violence as one such ‘‘community disaster’’ (Klingman 1996). In the predisaster phase, the emphasis is on anticipation of the event, involving the development of intervention plans, identifying and training responders, and rehearsing response procedures. The impact phase focuses on organization and intervention during the early stages of the disaster, including coordination of services, mental health consultation to # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

Pagliocca & Nickerson

SCHOOL CRISIS RESPONSE

375

school leaders and service providers, initial classroom intervention, and the provision of crisis intervention to those assessed to be at risk for further psychological harm. In the short-term adaptation phase, focus is on the traumatic event itself, assisting individuals, groups, and families to address and adapt to its impact. In the final long-term adaptation phase, individual, group, and family treatment may be provided, with the expectation that children will resume their student roles. Relapse prevention and reintegration of students into the school community and routine are typical strategies in this phase (Klingman 1996). (Common intervention strategies are discussed in further detail below.) Klingman’s ‘‘organizational-typological’’ model has evolved over approximately twenty years (Klingman 1978, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1996; Klingman & Ben Eli 1981) and was recently designated as an exemplary service-delivery program by the American Psychological Association (Roberts 1996), despite the absence of any systematic effort at evaluation (Klingman 1996). To Klingman’s credit, however, the model is one of the few that provides an explicit, conceptual framework for its multiple components. Throughout the 1980s, other notable, but less comprehensive, attempts were made to intervene in school crisis situations and to document the effectiveness of these efforts (e.g., Blom 1986; Galante & Foa 1986; Schwarz 1982). This historical context clearly suggests that, despite the proliferation of manuals for developing school crisis response teams and plans published in the 1990s (e.g., Brock, Sandoval & Lewis 1996; Klingman 1993; Nelson & Slaikeu 1990; Petersen & Straub 1992; Pitcher & Poland 1992; Poland & McCormick 1999), and despite current interest from media and public officials, it would be erroneous to conclude that schools have only recently begun to intervene with students and staff in crisis. B. TYPES OF CRISIS EVENTS OCCURRING IN SCHOOLS

Although definitions of crisis vary somewhat, three components appear consistently across descriptions. First, rather than being defined solely by an event, a crisis is determined by the perceptions of the individual(s) involved and the degree of support from the recovery environment (see e.g., Caplan 1964; Harvey 1996). Second, the individual is unable to use usual coping strategies effectively, and experiences dysphoric affect, such as anxiety or panic (Auerbach & Kilmann 1977; Baldwin 1979; Caplan 1964; Sandoval 1987; Schwartz 1971). Third, crisis reactions are common and do not, in and of themselves, signify psychopathology (Baldwin 1979). When viewed as a function of the individual, the event, and the environment, it is not surprising that a range of circumstances may be experienced as crises. Baldwin’s (ibid.) classification framework includes the following types: dispositional crises, crises of anticipated life transitions, crises resulting from sudden traumatic stress, maturational/developmental crises, those resulting from psychopathology, and psychiatric emergencies. Applied to the experiences # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

376

LAW & POLICY

July 2001

of schoolchildren, crises may result from a number of situations, such as academic failure, depression, crime victimization, and natural disasters. Brock, Sandoval, and Lewis, offering a definition applicable to schools, suggest that crises are sudden, unexpected events that have ‘‘an emergency quality to them and have the potential to impact an entire school community’’ (1996:14), placing ‘‘school crises’’ on a larger scale. Given this definition, an individual child’s frustration with academic tasks or emotional reaction to a parent’s divorce would not be classified as a ‘‘school crisis,’’ but repercussions of violent crimes and natural disasters would. Of primary concern to the public are the violence and crime occurring in schools today, including homicides, suicides, and nonfatal student and teacher victimization, including rape, sexual assault, robbery, physical fights with or without weapons, and simple or aggravated assault (Kaufman et al. 2000). A review of the literature on crisis response indicates several other types of events that meet Brock, Sandoval, and Lewis’s (1996) criteria for crises, such as the death of a student (Keith & Ellis 1978); the shooting of a teacher (Danto 1978; Keith & Ellis 1978); events associated with warfare (Klingman 1985; Schwarz 1982); natural disasters (Galante & Foa 1986); and tragic accidents (Blom 1986). C. TYPICAL RESPONSE PROTOCOLS

In the past ten years, a plethora of training manuals and other ‘‘how to’’ publications for responding to school crises, including violence, have been introduced. Although common elements of crisis plans are well known among educational professionals, they may not be as familiar to those involved in policy development. Here we discuss response protocols and components, not to advocate for their implementation or effectiveness, but to provide a description of what is currently typical in the school crisis field. A hallmark of most response efforts in schools is the formation of a multidisciplinary crisis response team (CRT). Some have recommended that teams be comprised of specific staff members, such as the principal, guidance counselor, nurse, psychologist, and teachers (e.g., Petersen & Straub 1992). Others, however, have advocated a functional, rather than a discipline-specific, approach to team formation (Brock, Sandoval & Lewis 2001; James & Gilliland 2001; Pitcher & Poland 1992). Although titles may vary across schools, functionally organized teams typically include a crisis response coordinator, counseling coordinator, media liaison, security/law enforcement liaison, medical liaison, parent liaison, and crisis interveners. Increasingly, school crisis programs provide for training team members in the overall crisis plan, as well as in their defined roles and responsibilities. Although a variety of comprehensive models exist, most school crisis plans include three common elements – crisis preparedness, crisis management during or immediately after the event, and both short- and long-term intervention following the incident.1 # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001



377

1. Crisis Preparedness Preparation is crucial to the development and sound implementation of any crisis response plan. Brock, Sandoval, and Lewis (2001) suggest that this include a school board policy mandating crisis intervention and the delineation of CRT members’ tasks and individual responsibilities in preparedness and intervention. The primary task at this anticipatory stage is to develop and disseminate response protocols at both the district and building levels. A principal component of this process is the training of school – and perhaps community – personnel, through the use of crisis scenarios and roleplays, simulations, and crisis drills (Brock, Sandoval & Lewis 2001; Klingman 1996; Pitcher & Poland 1992). Examples of individual responsibilities at the pre-incident level include, but are not limited to, the counseling coordinator maintaining a current list of community service resources and the medical liaison ensuring that emergency equipment is readily available. Because challenges often arise when multiple agencies intervene during a crisis (Baisden & Quarantelli 1981; Blom 1986; Kartez & Kelley 1988; Raphael & Meldrum 1993), it is also critical that schools develop relationships with emergency service organizations (e.g., police, mental health centers, hospitals) to plan for the efficient and effective provision of services (see e.g., International Association of Chiefs of Police 1999). While Klingman’s pre-disaster phase primarily addresses preparation for discreet incidents, an increasing focus of crisis preparedness includes efforts to prevent violence and promote safety in schools. These efforts may include collecting data on the incidence of crime and violence in the school and developing ‘‘safety conscious’’ policies and rules on attendance, conduct, and discipline to ensure that policies, procedures, and consequences are clear (Brock, Sandoval & Lewis 2001). Other recommended safety measures include training school personnel in crisis prevention and ensuring that the physical building is safe by reviewing the design (e.g., placement of lockers), supervision, and procedures for admitting visitors (Stephens 1994). Regarding building security, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) also recommends steps such as creating plans for ‘‘sheltering’’ students during an emergency, providing copies of emergency and evacuation plans to local emergency and law enforcement agencies, and establishing cues for students and staff to distinguish between directives from school and law enforcement personnel and those of intruders or others with no legitimate authority (Kramen, Massey & Timm 1999). Some schools have implemented more extreme safety measures, such as hiring police and security; installing surveillance cameras, intercoms, and metal detectors; and conducting sweep searches of lockers and students’ belongings (for further discussion, see e.g., Brock, Sandoval & Lewis 2001; Pitcher & Poland 1992). A different preventive approach to reducing violence in schools, currently advocated by leaders in the crisis and safety field, involves students, parents, and staff in the creation of a positive school climate (e.g., the Bullying # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

378

LAW & POLICY

July 2001

Prevention Program in Olweus, Limber & Mihalic 1999) and consulting with and training the school community in conflict resolution (Brock, Sandoval & Lewis 2001; Pitcher & Poland 1992; Stephens 1994). Relative to approaches concentrating primarily on emergencies, those focusing on improving interactions among students and staff and overall school climate are more consistent with the traditional role of schools in educating and socializing children. 2. Crisis Management 2 In the event of a crisis, the CRT is called into direct action, usually by the crisis response coordinator, often a principal or district superintendent. The IACP (Kramen, Massey & Timm 1999) stresses a ‘‘safety first’’ message, focusing on physical management of the school and removing children and staff from dangerous situations. Typically, the security liaison decides when to call law enforcement or other emergency response agencies, manages traffic and evacuation procedures, and reunifies students with parents. Reflecting a law enforcement perspective, the IACP cautions against disturbing ‘‘crime scenes’’ and tampering with evidence, issues not typical in the daily operations of most schools. During and immediately following a crisis event, there is also a need to disseminate accurate information, make decisions, and provide for the physical and emotional needs of students and staff. The crisis response coordinator would be expected to disseminate information, decide on any schedule modifications, guide staff and team members in their assignments, and document major events (e.g., Klingman 1996; Pitcher & Poland 1992). The medical liaison is involved in triage, direct intervention, and coordination with hospitals and medical personnel. The counseling coordinator is responsible for triage and screening children at risk, based on their exposure to the event, familiarity with victim(s), and presence of pre-existing risk factors (e.g., Klingman 1996; Pynoos & Nader 1988) and, along with crisis interveners, providing direct intervention, such as classroom counseling and psychological first aid (e.g., Brock, Sandoval & Lewis 2001; Pitcher & Poland 1992; Slaikeu 1990). The media liaison manages reporters, writes press releases, and guides others in handling the media.3 Some models (e.g., Pitcher & Poland 1992) also include parent and teacher liaisons, who are responsible for communicating with and disseminating information to these groups, whereas in other models such responsibilities are subsumed under other positions on the team. 3. Short- and Long-term Crisis Intervention Although crisis events, themselves, may be short-lived, ongoing intervention is often necessary to promote psychosocial adjustment. Short-term adaptation focuses on coping with loss and restoring natural routines, and may include addressing parental concerns, providing crisis counseling to faculty, # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001



379

conducting debriefing sessions with frontline staff, and intervening in classrooms (Klingman 1996). Crisis counseling, debriefing sessions, and classroom interventions often share the objectives of discussing common experiences, expressing feelings, and regaining emotional and cognitive control (Klingman 1993, 1996). With school-age children, such interventions may take the form of guided group discussions, story telling, drawings, skits, or other psychoeducational techniques (Blom 1986; Galante & Foa 1986; Keith & Ellis 1978; Pitcher & Poland 1992; Pynoos, Goenjian & Steinberg 1998; Schwarz 1982). Another important aspect of crisis work in schools is the provision of intervention for long-term adjustment. Therefore, most models suggest including procedures for identifying individuals in need of long-term treatment, referring them to appropriate mental health and social service agencies, and facilitating reintegration into the school, if applicable (Brock, Sandoval & Lewis 2001; Klingman 1996). Cook-Cottone (2000) stresses the importance of the school reintegration phase in crisis response. She suggests that the reintegration plan for students suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder and related difficulties include establishing a relationship between the school psychologist or other mental health professional and the student, educating the child and family about factors involved in recovery, developing an individualized plan for safety, and gradually reducing the level of support while increasing self-monitoring and independence. With this general description of common components of school crisis response, we now turn to an examination of existing research and evaluation in this area, to provide a context for examining recent state legislation. D. STATE OF RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

Although leaders in the field of school crisis response have advocated for intervention informed by research (Brock, Sandoval & Lewis 2001; Klingman 1996), the field lacks systematic study of the effectiveness of current response programs (Pagliocca, Nickerson & Williams 2002; Vernberg & Vogel 1993). Much of the existing literature consists of anecdotal accounts,4 with only rare reports of well-controlled research or systematic evaluation, leaving many unanswered questions about the effectiveness of crisis preparedness and response. Despite these limitations, a few notable investigations of specific strategies have been undertaken. Using the three phases of typical school response as a guide, we will highlight some common practices and discuss relevant research, sometimes drawing from the broader fields of disaster and psychological trauma. 1. Crisis Preparedness As discussed, CRTs have been widely advocated, although there is an absence of research indicating whether certain combinations of team # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

380

LAW & POLICY

July 2001

members (e.g., principal, school psychologist, nurse) are more effective than others, or if particular constellations of roles (e.g., security liaison, crisis interveners, medical liaison) may be preferable for certain types of crises. The school crisis field may look to the disaster literature, however, for some guidance in selecting team members. For example, a study of frontline disaster social workers identified several variables that predict adaptive coping, such as hardiness or positive coping style, social support, and a clearly defined role (Hodgkinson & Shepherd 1994). Comparable research with school personnel, along with an assessment of team composition, is warranted. Along with establishing CRTs, developing written crisis management and safety plans has become common practice, sometimes delineating specific strategies to be implemented during an actual crisis. Recommended components are surprisingly consistent across authors (e.g., Brock, Sandoval & Lewis 2001; Klingman 1996; Petersen & Straub 1992; Pitcher & Poland 1992), even though no systematic assessment of the necessity, application, or effectiveness of particular elements of crisis plans has been published to date, calling into question the basis for such similarity. While ‘‘agree[ing] wholeheartedly that plans are integral to successful crisis response,’’ Cornell and Sheras (1998:297) identified ‘‘common errors’’ across responses to a range of school crises. In their anecdotal review, they cautioned that having a detailed, written crisis response plan is not sufficient for constructive intervention. They contend that, more important, effective response must be guided by leadership, collaboration, and responsiveness to student needs. The role of such process variables, however, remains to be evaluated. One example of a practice that is becoming increasingly popular in preparedness plans is the use of crisis drills to ensure that procedures are in place and that the team is ready to implement them (Brock, Sandoval & Lewis 2001; Pitcher & Poland 1992). Although mock-disaster drills are commonplace in the work of emergency responders, some have questioned their effectiveness in schools and the involvement of students in this practice, citing the potential to heighten students’ perception of threat and possibly, reveal security information to would-be attackers (e.g., Grech 1999; Kramen, Massey & Timm 1999; Missouri. Department of Elementary and Secondary Education & Department of Public Safety 1999). Whether crisis drills enhance a school’s physical safety or psychological preparedness is not yet known. Much has been written about the composition, preparation, and functions of school CRTs. At this point, however, far less has been written about the functioning of these teams during an actual crisis. For example, do team members fulfill their roles as designed? Does the team operate efficiently and effectively? And how would we determine the answers to such questions? Posing such questions does not imply that team practices are ineffective or ill-advised, but rather recognizes that widely accepted and published strategies sometimes proliferate based on personal persuasion and clinical # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001



381

lore, rather than theoretical grounding or systematic evidence. Although personal experience may be useful in guiding interventions, Babad and Salomon have cautioned that a danger exists in confusing ‘‘personal acceptance’’ with ‘‘professional effectiveness’’ (1978:845). 2. Crisis Management The second phase of response – managing an emergent or ongoing crisis – generally incorporates psychosocial procedures similar to those used in large-scale disasters, such as organizing staff and volunteers, disseminating information, and employing crisis counseling and psychological first aid. Here, too, the school crisis field has yet to develop a body of research and evaluation. Findings from the disaster field, however, may in some instances offer guidelines for schools, not only in strategies for psychosocial intervention but in methodology for evaluating such efforts. Common problems in this phase include the involvement of multiple agencies unfamiliar with one another’s work and the organization of large numbers of sometimes inexperienced volunteers, both of which can impede efficient and effective response (Kartez & Kelley 1988; Raphael & Meldrum 1993). Another frequently noted problem is the demand for information, which can tie up agency phone lines (Kartez & Kelly 1988). Suggestions for addressing these problems, endorsed by agency administrators, include establishing centralized locations for media personnel to obtain information, holding pre-disaster multi-agency meetings to foster familiarity among agency staff who will work together in a crisis, and developing a plan for optimal use of untrained volunteers. While these recommendations have been developed in the context of community disasters, schools offer a unique capacity for responding to their own crises, although some will be of a scale to include many of the same agencies typically involved in disaster work. In addition, individual mental health professionals often volunteer in the wake of incidents of school violence. While several authors have advocated for primary reliance on the natural setting’s (i.e., the school’s) own resources (e.g., Caplan 1964; Klingman 1988; Weinberg 1989), models for effective identification, integration, and use of community agencies and individual mental health professionals have yet to be identified. One popular practice in both the crisis management and follow-up stagesd involves distributing informational handouts, describing typical behavioral and emotional reactions and offering suggestions for caring for those involved in a traumatic event. Unlike many other areas of school crisis work, a growing body of research exists, documenting adults’ and children’s emotional and behavioral reactions to traumatic events and effective strategies for intervention.5 Although providing such information may make intuitive sense, some (e.g., Vernberg & Vogel 1993) have questioned whether such handouts and brochures contain accurate information (including findings from existing research), are actually read, promote effective intervention # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

382

LAW & POLICY

July 2001

(or self-care), or otherwise contribute to effective coping. Along with these issues is the question of whether particular methods of information dissemination may be more effective than others. Considering the prevalence of this practice, time would be well spent in evaluating its impact. An aspect of crisis management infrequently addressed explicitly in school plans is response personnel’s use of coping strategies to help them perform their duties. Dyregrov and Mitchell (1992) surveyed emergency and health personnel, who reported emotional distancing from the event as most helpful. Specific strategies mentioned by workers included performing activities that reduced reflection; suppressing their emotions; seeking social support from other helpers; mentally preparing for the event while refraining from getting too much information that would interfere with their work; and actively avoiding thinking about ramifications of the event. Likewise, in the clinical treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder, strategies for addressing ‘‘vicarious traumatization,’’ the negative psychological impact of repeated exposure to traumatic stories, have also been identified and studied (McAnn & Pearlman 1990; Neumann & Gamble 1995; Pearlman & MacIan 1995). Although some school crisis literature acknowledges the potential effects of crisis work on school responders (e.g., Brock, Sandoval & Lewis 2001; Pitcher & Poland 1992), this has not been given adequate attention in crisis plans or been subjected to investigation. The impact of a traumatic event may have long-lasting effects on individuals, schools, and communities. Thus, schools and community agencies sometimes provide psychosocial services for weeks and sometimes months, even when the crisis itself has subsided. 3. Short- and Long-Term Intervention Mental health service delivery in large-scale disasters is generally organized according to either a medical treatment model, which involves screening victims and referring them to other agencies, or a social service delivery model, which employs outreach efforts to homes and schools and assists with problems in daily living that can ensue. Baisden and Quarentelli (1981) conducted a three-year comprehensive study involving symptom checklists, in-depth interviews, case studies, longitudinal data collection, and both published and unpublished reports regarding disaster service delivery in eight communities. They found that disaster-related, long-lasting emotional problems rarely occurred, yet problems in living were common, and that most people do not approach personnel identified as ‘‘mental health workers’’ in a crisis. They concluded that a social service delivery model was, thus, superior to a medical treatment model. Schools, however, appear to a adopt a medical model in the aftermath of violence and other crises, primarily attending to physical and emotional needs, with little attention to daily social needs beyond the immediate educational demands upon students. Whether providing interventions addressing social needs beyond # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001



383

the school setting would facilitate school-related recovery, such as improved attendance, or attention to learning and teaching, has yet to be established. With children, short-term intervention often involves classroom-based counseling, using methods designed to promote expression of feelings and increase toleration of anxiety. Across a range of traumatic events, research suggests that dealing with death and crisis situations directly, through techniques such as guided discussions, drawing, writing, and memorializing, result in more effective coping for children (Galante & Foa 1986; Keith & Ellis 1978; Klingman 1985; Schwarz 1982). For example, students involved in crisis-focused group discussions following an earthquake exhibited fewer fear reactions and decreased risk for negative emotional and behavioral symptoms (Galante & Foa 1986). Not all psychological interventions focus on children directly, however. Research has demonstrated that children’s crisis reactions are significantly affected by the responses of their parents and other important adults (Auerbach & Spirito 1986; Belter & Shannon 1993; Bolin 1988; Danto 1978; Doll & Lyon 1998). For example, in studies of disasters, children’s reactions, most particularly anxiety, have been assessed to be directly related to their parents’ psychological reactions and ability to cope in the aftermath of the event (e.g., Crawshaw 1963; Newman 1976). Such findings have lead to interventions aimed at parents and educators, as well as children. Existing research examining the effectiveness of such interventions, such as allowing opportunities for parents to receive information, ask questions, and consult with multidisciplinary teams about how to help their children, have lent support to the contention that these strategies result in better coping and fewer problems for children over time (Blom 1986; Danto 1978; Pynoos, Goenjian & Steinberg 1998). Although some school literature recommends providing crisis information to parents (e.g., Poland & McCormick 1999) or meeting with them as preventative measures for dealing with their children’s reactions (e.g., Petersen & Straub 1992), it cannot be determined how frequently such information is provided in written form or in face-to-face meetings, thus, limiting our knowledge about effectiveness. A popular short-term crisis intervention is psychological, or stress, debriefing. Coined as ‘‘critical incident stress debriefing (CISD),’’ this technique provides a structured group format for discussing reactions to crisis work and learning about effective coping strategies, with the aim of preventing the development of PTSD in adult emergency response workers (Mitchell 1983; Mitchell & Everly 1995, 1998). Debriefing and its many variants (e.g., Brock 1998; Johnson 1998; Juhnke 1997) have been advocated strongly by schools, without supportive empirical evidence. Some research has suggested that this may be an ineffective strategy for preventing PTSD (for an overview, see Avery et al. 1999; Mitchell & Everly 1995; Rose & Bisson 1998) when used with adult emergency workers, as designed. A recent review concluded that it may be ‘‘premature,’’ however, to draw conclusions about the impact of psychological debriefing, suggesting that # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

384

LAW & POLICY

July 2001

focusing solely on PTSD symptoms may limit understanding of the potential benefits of this approach (Bisson, McFarlane & Rose 2000). We are not aware of any published research assessing the effectiveness of psychological debriefing with children. Systematic evaluation of debriefing’s potential impact is warranted, for both adults and children. Here, we have provided an overview of the school crisis field, an area of practice that is enjoying increasing popularity among educators, safety and emergency personnel, and mental health professionals. Research findings to date have several implications for crisis intervention. First, it is clear that children are affected by crises and that they exhibit a wide range of responses. Second, organization of plans and clarity of responders’ roles are important for effective and efficient crisis response. Third, individual characteristics and use of coping strategies influence emergency response workers’ ability to perform their duties successfully. Fourth, one-time interventions, such as psychological debriefing, may not be as effective as sustained outreach and interventions in schools and communities, involving open discussion with children, parents, and teachers. Lastly, the effectiveness of interventions may vary depending on the type of crisis that has occurred. Beyond these conclusions, the school crisis research field has not matured to the point where specific recommendations can be made. Despite this situation, legislators and other policymakers have recently begun to advocate for the development of school crisis and safety plans, and some states have passed legislation mandating such plans for public schools. In the next section, we examine recent efforts in legislation and public policy.

III. RECENT LEGISLATION AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY REGARDING SCHOOL SAFETY AND CRISIS RESPONSE

The series of high-profile, violent tragedies on school campuses over the last decade, exemplified by the shootings at Columbine High School in April 1999, seems to have prompted legislators and other policymakers to take action, even though schools are rarely faced with such aberrant events (Kaufman et al. 2000). Across the country, resolutions and legislation were introduced, condemning such violence, commemorating those who were killed, and directing schools to take preventive and remedial measures. A. FRAMEWORK FOR EXAMINING LEGISLATION AND POLICY

Safety-related directives to schools vary in their focus, but generally reflect legislative and policy interest in three broad categories of school functions related to violence: (a) a policing function, focusing on general safety and security of the school, and prosecution of those who breach that safety; (b) an educational function, focusing on the day-to-day activities of the # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001



385

school, especially in the areas of curriculum, school climate, and general behavior management as measures for preventing school violence; and (c) a more focused, crisis management function, concentrating on planning for and responding to violence and other critical incidents. Each of these functions represents a different aspect of maintaining and restoring safety in schools. While much of the ensuing legislative action centers on campus violence, some also addresses a broader range of critical incidents more commonly faced by schools. Although these functions – policing, education, and crisis management – do not necessarily represent discreet categories, they provide a convenient framework for considering the various responsibilities that schools assume in relation to violence and other traumatic events and for discussing relevant policy. Applying a ‘‘functions framework,’’ this section discusses the various school roles and provides relevant examples from state legislation and agency policies. Because the policing and educational functions are examined in detail elsewhere in this volume, they are addressed here only to illustrate their representation in legislation and administrative policy. Instead, the discussion centers primarily on schools’ crisis management function, related to the safety and mental health impact of traumatic events, including campus violence. Selected examples of legislation and related policies that provide detailed direction for developing schools’ capacities to manage the immediate and subsequent impact of violence are identified and discussed, with attention to existing research and evaluation support. 1. Policing Function6 Although schools have traditionally served in a disciplinary role, they have increasingly assumed a ‘‘policing’’ function as well, using both personnel and technological strategies designed to prevent violence from intruding onto school property. In some states, legislation has been adopted that mandates or allows the use of such measures. Many schools hire their own security personnel or involve local law enforcement to maintain safety. For example, Arizona requires schools to use ‘‘trained school resource officers’’ (SROs) and/or ‘‘juvenile probation officers’’ (POs) in order to qualify for funding under the School Safety Program (SSP) (Ariz Rev Stat §15-154). Although the statute refers only to providing law-related education, the Arizona Department of Education’s SSP description indicates that such officers ‘‘promote a safe environment’’ and ‘‘encourage positive interaction between students and law enforcement’’ (Arizona Department of Education n.d.). Similarly, Florida law allows for school safety officers and SROs to be hired directly by a school district or in cooperation with local law enforcement agencies (Fla Stat ch 230.23175, 230.2318). Although resource officers may engage in instructional activity, the emphasis remains on their law enforcement role. Further endorsement for the use of personnel security, such as SROs and POs, has been offered by # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

386

LAW & POLICY

July 2001

the International Association of Chiefs of Police in a recent publication, Guide for Preventing and Responding to School Violence (Kramen, Massey & Timm 1999). In their discussion of school security measures, they recommend ‘‘SROs [who] often provide law enforcement, law-related counseling, and law-related education . . . [and] probation officers for use on campus to help supervise and counsel students’’ noting a traditional policing function, as well as an expanded function for school-based security personnel (ibid.: §2, 2). In addition to staff security, ‘‘hardware’’ technologies, including video cameras, walk-through and hand-held metal detectors, X-ray baggage scanners, and individual duress alarms have been adopted in schools across the country (see Green 1999 for a detailed discussion of the range of security measures). For example, Georgia schools may request state funding to install such security equipment as part of their required overall school safety plan (Ga Code Ann §20-2-1185(b)). Likewise, Mississippi allows the use of video cameras in classrooms in order to monitor student behavior (Miss Code Ann §37-3-83). Interestingly, the IACP, while supporting some technologies such as camera monitoring systems, cell phones, and alarms, recommends metal detectors ‘‘only in special circumstances to deter weapons on campus’’ (Kramen, Massey & Timm 1999:§2, 2). Despite an increasing use of personnel and technological security measures in schools, and support from state legislatures and professional organizations, there is ‘‘no comprehensive body of knowledge regarding their effectiveness,’’ according to a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) report, prepared by the Security Systems and Technologies Center at Sandia National Laboratories (Green 1999:10). An earlier report by the American Psychological Association also cited the lack of support for such approaches to prevention (APA 1993). Indeed, some have suggested that highly restrictive security strategies and an over-reliance on police intervention may actually be counterproductive, leading to increased student disruption (e.g., Mayer & Leone 1999; Petersen & Straub 1992) and undermining students’ perception of the schools’ authority (Hyman & Perone 1998). The IACP offers a range of school security options, most of which rely upon increased adult supervision, restricted access to school buildings and grounds, and publication of security policies in student handbooks and codes of conduct (Kramen, Massey & Timm 1999). Such security recommendations extend well beyond the mere presence of law enforcement and installation of ‘‘hardware.’’ 2. Educational Function7 Schools address violent and other disruptive behavior in more traditional, academic ways, as well, through efforts aimed at improving overall school climate, and through violence prevention curricula. Like the security field described above, school-based violence prevention programs have thrived # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001



387

over the past decade (Mendel 2000). Here, too, steps have been taken by legislators and other policymakers to support prevention through classroom curricula and schoolwide programs. For example, Missouri legislation directs the State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) to identify violence prevention programs, adding instruction related to ‘‘criminal street gangs,’’ to Missouri’s existing violence prevention curriculum8 (Mo Rev Stat §161.650). The statute also requires training for school employees in these instructional areas and in ‘‘early identification of and intervention in violent behavior.’’ In addition to legislation, the Governor’s Task Force on School Violence recommended that Missouri’s Violence Prevention Curriculum be fully implemented in coordination with the state’s ‘‘Show-Me Standards’’ (Mo Rev Stat §160.514), an overall framework for curriculum development, in effect identifying violence as a mainstream ‘‘subject’’ to be studied by the state’s school children (Missouri. Governor’s Task Force on School Violence 1999:16–17). Illinois provides another example of legislation requiring school districts to include ‘‘violence prevention and conflict resolution education’’ (105 Ill Comp Stat Ann 5/27-23.4), with instruction offered in: (a) the consequences of violent behavior; (b) the causes of violent reactions to conflict; (c) nonviolent conflict resolution techniques; and (d) the relationship between drugs, alcohol, and violence. Inclusion of this last component is important in that the legislature did not authorize funding for violence prevention instruction, but instead, directed the schools to use federal sources (such as the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act 1994) and private funds to meet legislative requirements. A separate initiative, the Illinois Violence Prevention Act of 1995, was amended in 1999, establishing the Illinois Violence Prevention Authority and enabling the Authority to fund school-based safety and violence prevention programs through the Safe to Learn Program (20 Ill Comp Stat 4027/25). While classroom and schoolwide prevention programs, whether for aggressive or other maladaptive behaviors, would seem to be within the expertise of school personnel, such efforts have received widespread criticism for lack of empirical support (e.g., in regards to drug prevention, see Gorman 1998; in regards to suicide prevention, see Mazza 1997). Indeed, the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations expressed its concern about the ‘‘general lack of evidence of the effectiveness of the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program’’ and advised that programs that have been ‘‘rigorously evaluated and found to be promising or exemplary’’ should be disseminated (U.S. Congress 2000:3–4). Despite a lack of demonstrated effectiveness, funding continues for such school-based violence prevention initiatives, with ‘‘promising’’ and ‘‘exemplary’’ programs still in need of identification, evaluation, and replication.9 The two functions discussed thus far – policing and education – are those that have received considerable attention from policymakers and educators # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

388

LAW & POLICY

July 2001

recently. The third function – crisis management, the primary focus of this analysis – to which we now turn, is relatively new to legislative bodies, but not to educators, who have devoted increasing time and resources to related efforts over the past decade. 3. Crisis Management Function The two functions discussed already concentrate primarily on system-level prevention of violence and other disruptive behavior. The crisis management function often takes on a more expanded focus, including preventing crises, managing crises as they occur, providing necessary intervention following critical incidents, and planning for all of these components. These categories are addressed in the burgeoning school crisis literature (e.g., Brock, Sandoval & Lewis 2001; Klingman 1996; Poland & McCormick 1999) and reflected in legislation and public policy, as well.10 Although the school crisis field has addressed situations affecting individual children, as well as an entire school or district, statutes and administrative policy have tended to focus mainly on events likely to affect large numbers of students and school staff, consistent with Brock, Sandoval, and Lewis’s (2001) designation of a ‘‘school crisis.’’ Some legislative measures have targeted specific management duties (e.g., safety audits and crisis drills),11 while others have been more extensive (e.g., calling for a comprehensive array of strategies and services).12 Likewise, some policies address school violence exclusively,13 while others recognize the broader range of traumatic events – natural disasters, for example – that schools may face.14 The language across statutes, administrative codes, and school board and professional organization policies varies somewhat, with terms such as safety plan, crisis plan, and emergency plan sometimes describing essentially the same comprehensive planning and response programs; at other times referring to more narrow procedures, such as the evacuation of a school building; and still others offering little that illuminates a policy’s intent. Thus, simply knowing that a school district has a ‘‘safety plan’’ or a ‘‘crisis team’’ does not clearly indicate the scope of the plan or the composition or responsibilities of such a team. Discerning state and district policy regarding school crisis response requires looking beyond the existence of legislation that directs school personnel to address emergency or violent incidents. The next section examines selected statutes and policies that emphasize crisis management and post-incident services (sometimes referred to as ‘‘postvention’’15 ) as integral ingredients of school safety plans. B. LEGISLATIVE REACTION TO SCHOOL VIOLENCE AND OTHER CRISES

To illustrate the types of crisis-related public policy that has emerged recently, we now focus on statutes and related policies from New York and Virginia, two states that have taken legislative action in response to actual # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001



389

and perceived violence in schools across the nation. These examples will be discussed in light of existing knowledge about crisis intervention. 1. New York Legislation and Policy On 6 January 1999, Governor George E. Pataki announced the creation of a Task Force on School Violence (New York [State]. Governor 1999a).16 Three months later, noting that ‘‘the level of violence perpetrated and experienced by students in our schools has continued to escalate,’’ the governor issued an executive order establishing the task force and authorizing its members to ‘‘study and report to the governor on a practical plan of action to address the growing trend of violence and disruptive conduct in our schools and to promote a safe learning environment for all children and school personnel’’ (New York [State]. Governor 1999b). Less than two weeks later, well before the task force had completed its mission, the governor followed his executive order with a proposal for a comprehensive school safety law, Project SAVE,17 citing the ‘‘sadistic attacks’’ at Columbine High School, which had occurred just four days before. In July of 2000, the New York Senate and Assembly approved Project SAVE, Safe Schools Against Violence in Education Act (Act of 24 July 2000). (a) Project SAVE Project SAVE is a multifaceted school safety plan that encompasses all three of the school functions (policing, education, and crisis management) related to violence. The New York State Center for School Safety (NYSCSS) describes Project SAVE as ‘‘the most comprehensive legislative plan in the nation . . . to promote a safer and more effective learning environment within New York State’s schools’’ (NYSCSS 2001). Provisions are wideranging, including, but not limited to, character education, disclosure of juvenile offender status to school officials, uniform reporting of violent crime, and development of school safety plans. Here we concentrate on those components of the plan most relevant to crisis management and response, particularly school safety plans. (i) School Safety Plans. Project SAVE legislation provides a detailed outline for the development, composition, and role of district-level and building-level safety teams and ‘‘safety plans regarding crisis intervention, emergency response and management’’(NY Educ Law § 2801-a(1)). This statute presents a good example of the inconsistent use of terminology in school crisis legislation, as discussed above. For instance, although New York’s two-tiered approach may appear similar to that currently advocated in the crisis management literature (e.g., Brock, Sandoval & Lewis 2001), here ‘‘safety team’’ refers to planning committees, rather than teams that will actually carry out management or intervention responsibilities. In addition, the statute delegates more comprehensive policing and education functions to school safety teams at the district level.18 Of note in the legislation is # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

390

LAW & POLICY

July 2001

attention to the composition of, not only teams that will carry out management duties, but also teams responsible for developing a district’s or individual school’s emergency plans. Because only the building-level plans provide for direct involvement in a crisis, we limit further discussion to those. (ii) School Emergency Response Plans. As outlined in the statute, buildinglevel school emergency response plans center on preparing for and managing a ‘‘serious violent incident’’19 or ‘‘other emergency.’’ Here, duties are divided between managing an emerging or ongoing crisis and attending to the emotional aftermath. The emergency response team includes ‘‘school personnel, local law enforcement officials, and representatives from local, regional and/or state emergency response agencies, [and] other appropriate incident response teams’’ (NY Educ Law § 2801-a.3.a). This team is charged with planning for and implementing the safety components of the plan, including procedures for securing a crime scene on school property, evacuating the school building and grounds; distributing maps, blueprints, and plans to emergency responders; defining a chain of command;20 establishing a system of communication. In addition, the team is responsible for managing medical and transportation needs; notifying parents about the emergency; and testing the plan through the use of drills and other exercises. Through this statute, the post-incident response team is established as a separate entity, and is comprised of ‘‘appropriate school personnel, medical personnel, mental health counselors and others who can assist the school community in coping with the aftermath of a violent incident’’ (ibid.:3.b).21 The task force also supported a distinct post-incident team and provided additional description of its responsibilities, identifying the members as ‘‘volunteers . . . to help with debriefing, counseling and assistance to victims and their families, the student body, school staff and community members after an incident’’ (New York [State]. Task Force on School Violence 1999:39). At the building level, schools are expected to coordinate with statewide disaster mental health organizations in order to access federal, state, and local mental health services, as well (NY Educ Law § 2801-a.3.f). The task force, also endorsing the integration of school and state mental health services, noted that ‘‘mental health services and counseling are critical and will be made available as needed to individuals exposed to serious trauma and acts of school violence’’ (New York [State]. Task Force on School Violence 1999:41). Unlike the professional school literature, which tends to address a range of school crises (e.g., Brock, Sandoval & Lewis 2001; Pitcher & Poland 1992), the duties of New York’s statutorily defined teams reflect a primary focus on safety and violence at school, while only brief reference is made to ‘‘other emergencies’’ and the mental health aspects of crisis response. Also, although ‘‘debriefing’’ and related crisis counseling are highly endorsed in the school crisis literature and common in crisis response plans, they are # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001



391

among the strategies whose effectiveness has yet to be systematically evaluated with children and school personnel. Yet, they are cited specifically by New York’s Task Force for implementation in the aftermath of school violence. This also applies to other elements of the New York statute, including specific composition of the response teams and undertaking ‘‘crisis drills’’ as a means of assessing response protocols in school settings (see Pagliocca, Nickerson & Williams 2002; Vernberg & Vogel 1993 for further discussion). (iii) Status of Emergency Response Plans. NYCSSS, as the agency designated to provide training and technical assistance on violence prevention and intervention, has published a time line for implementing various components of Project SAVE. Within the legislation, the education commissioner is directed to establish the format for both district-level and building-level plans, in collaboration with other state agencies. These safety plans are scheduled for development, beginning in February 2001 and extending through July 2001. As of this writing, the commissioner’s format had not yet been completed or issued.22 Based on the forthcoming guidelines, district-level emergency plans are to be developed and made available for public review, as required prior to implementation (building-level plans are considered confidential for safety reasons and, therefore, only a summary need be made publicly available). Although section 2801-a also requires safety teams to ‘‘review’’ their plans annually, it does not provide further guidelines for such. Project SAVE provides an example of legislation that is wide-reaching, focuses on school violence, and contains statutory mandates for the composition and implementation of planning and response teams addressing crisis management and follow-up intervention. This legislation was introduced in the spring of 1999, in the aftermath of several highly publicized incidents of violence on school campuses, and reflects a concern with such anomalous events, rather than the range of crises more routinely encountered by our public schools. Also, the statute, along with endorsements from the governor’s task force, elevates to the level of state policy intervention practices with little or no demonstrated effectiveness. We now turn to a second example of state legislation and policy addressing violence and other disruptive experiences on school campuses. Here, we will discuss Virginia’s recent legislative and administrative actions in light of existing knowledge in the field of crisis response and draw comparisons to New York legislation where applicable. 2. Virginia Legislation and Policy The Commonwealth of Virginia took a different approach in formulating legislation and policy related to crisis management in schools. Unlike New York’s Project SAVE, which was multi-faceted and included specific directives for developing school safety plans, Virginia legislation is far less # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

392

LAW & POLICY

July 2001

encompassing or specific (Va Stat §22.1-278.1, as amended and reenacted in 1999). Instead, the Virginia statute is restricted to responsibilities in preparing for and implementing a crisis management function, requiring schools to conduct ‘‘safety audits’’ and develop ‘‘written school crisis and emergency management plan[s].’’23 Although the statute defines ‘‘school safety audit,’’24 and ‘‘school crisis and emergency management plan,’’ 25 it charges the Superintendent of Public Instruction (for safety audits) and the Board of Education (for crisis and emergency plans) with the responsibility of developing relevant criteria. In the case of crisis and emergency plans, the Board of Education is directed to develop a model plan ‘‘for the purpose of assisting the public schools in Virginia in developing viable, effective crisis and emergency plans’’ (ibid.). The statute directs local school boards to ‘‘ensure’’ that every school develop a written plan, but, unlike New York’s requirement of public review of district plans, Virginia law does not authorize any mechanism for review or approval, either by the public or the Board of Education. Virginia’s legislators might heed Cornell and Sheras’s – both at the University of Virginia – cautions about the insufficiency of written plans in promoting effective response intervention (1998). Another difference between the Virginia and New York statutes lies in the degree to which they center on school violence. While New York focused almost exclusively on ‘‘serious violent incidents,’’ Virginia identified a broader range of ‘‘critical event[s] or emergenc[ies],’’ not restricted to those involving violence or even, necessarily, large numbers of students. For example, mentioned are natural disasters, medical emergencies, bus accidents, and staff deaths, in addition to threatening and violent situations.26 Although the Virginia statute takes a more expansive view of the scope of crises that schools may face, consistent with the school crisis field, it provides minimal direction for the prevention, management, or response strategies to be included in crisis and emergency management plans now required of Virginia schools. Instead, the legislation delegates that responsibility, through the development of model plans, to the Board of Education. Steps taken by the Department of Education in this regard will be reviewed next. (a) Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) Initiatives (i) Resource Guide for Crisis Management in Schools. When Virginia’s school crisis and emergency management legislation was signed into law in March 1999, VDOE was already engaged in long-standing statewide efforts in school crisis management. In 1990, for example, VDOE developed Crises Affecting Youth, a manual for school crisis teams (which was in its third printing when the 1999 legislation was passed), and had initiated one-day crisis management training workshops beginning in the fall of 1996.27 The latest revision of that manual, the Resource Guide for Crisis Management in Schools (hereinafter, the Guide, VDOE 1998) added content relative to school safety, and served as the basis for developing the model plan required by the 1999 legislation. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001



393

Like many of its commercially available counterparts, the Guide offers a range of practical information for school personnel about designing and implementing crisis plans. It identifies five ‘‘elements of effective crisis management’’: policy and leadership, the crisis response team, the school crisis management plan, communications, and training and maintenance of the team (ibid.:4), and organizes the content around these topics. Though no rationale for selecting these five elements is offered, they appear generally consistent with the school crisis literature. Although the Guide acknowledges the primacy of safety in any crisis, it is not the focus of the content contained therein; instead, much of the text centers on organization, communication, the emotional impact of critical incidents, and the elements of and participants in a crisis plan. The Guide also contains a number of checklists,28 ‘‘samples,’’29 and ‘‘Quick Guides’’30 to be used (or adapted) by team members in the event of a crisis affecting individuals, groups, or an entire school. This brief overview of the Guide’s content is provided as background for a discussion of VDOE’s approach to complying with the legislative mandate for a model plan. (ii) The Model School Crisis Management Plan. The VDOE took a somewhat unusual approach to complying with the legislature’s directive to develop a model crisis plan. Rather than issue another manual or set of guidelines, they developed a mock – or sample – plan, based on the existing Guide. This Model School Crisis Management Plan (hereinafter, Model Plan) identifies the fictitious ‘‘Commonwealth High School’’ (‘‘CHS’’) and presents the school’s crisis plan as it might appear in its final form (VDOE 1999). The Model Plan addresses preparation for crises; identification and management of students’ threatening behavior; management of ‘‘crises’’31 affecting students and/or staff, but not necessarily involving violence or having widespread impact; and management of ‘‘critical incidents’’32 that involve potential harm and are likely to affect the entire school (ibid.). Building on the framework established in the Guide, the Model Plan describes specific procedures to follow, and contains sample checklists and informational handouts specific to ‘‘CHS,’’ many of which have been adapted from those used in actual school districts across the Commonwealth. ‘‘Quick Guides’’ for each of the twenty-nine crises identified in the Guide, but tailored to the model school, are also included; two previously unaddressed crises – asbestos release and completed suicide – have been added in the Model Plan. In contrast to the Guide, the Model Plan focuses more sharply on violence in schools, perhaps reacting more to the series of school shootings across the country near the time of development (spring of 1999) than to the broad range of critical incidents contained in the statute. Taken together, the Guide and Model Plan provide directions and examples for districts to follow and may be seen as representing VDOE’s ‘‘policy’’ on school crisis response. Considering them as such, we now discuss elements of this policy in light of relevant literature and current practice. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

394

LAW & POLICY

July 2001

(iii) VDOE Policy on School Crisis. Virginia’s policy on school crisis response contains a number of procedures and recommendations common to school districts across the country, as well as some that diverge from typical practice. For example, related to the previous discussion regarding the absence of research and evaluation supporting any specific team composition, the policy designates crisis team members by their existing professional positions within the school, such as principal, school psychologist, nurse, and faculty member, apparently assuming relevant ‘‘expertise’’ by virtue of holding these positions’’ (VDOE 1998:30). This approach differs from one that identifies specific functions, (e.g., counseling coordinator, safety liaison), that might supersede the professional discipline of individual team members (see e.g., Brock, Sandoval & Lewis 2001; Pitcher & Poland 1992 for a more functional approach to team composition). Although a functional approach may be intuitively appealing, as yet it has not been systematically compared to one in which roles are assigned according to professional discipline or other criteria. Similarly, in comparison to New York’s policies, the position of community and government agencies in crisis response is apparently treated differently in Virginia, identifying them as a third level of a school’s ‘‘crisis network,’’ along with the building-level and central-office-level crisis teams. Whether involving a ‘‘third level’’ differs substantially in practice from New York’s collaborative approach with such organizations cannot be discerned merely by examining policy-related materials. Here, again, is another example of the earlier point about the lack of clarity and consistency of terminology used in this field. Other common practices can be found in Virginia’s guidelines. For instance, like New York, Virginia advocates the use of ‘‘debriefing’’ to address the psychological impact of critical events, recommending that, in the case of death, such intervention be conducted within a twenty-four to seventy-two-hour period (VDOE 1998:84). Although similar time periods are cited throughout the crisis literature (e.g., most notably, Mitchell 1983), evidence for such a claim is difficult to find. Yet here, its inclusion in the VDOE’s recommendations to school districts elevates it from clinical lore to official policy. The same may be said for some of the fact sheets and informational handouts included in Virginia’s Guide and Model Plan. As an example, although the theoretical and research literature documenting children’s behavioral and emotional reactions to traumatic experience is growing (for reviews, see e.g., DiNicola 1996; Fletcher 1996; Horn & Tricket 1998; Mazza & Overstreet 2000; Putnam 1996; Pynoos, Steinberg & Goenjian 1996), such sources are not cited either in the handouts themselves or in the reference sections included in the policy documents. Instead, most of the materials intended to be distributed to parents, teachers, and children cite only other school districts or district employees, raising Vernberg and Vogel’s (1993) question about the accuracy of information distributed by schools in the aftermath of a crisis. Thus, even when a solid base of information exists, it does not necessarily guide practice or policy development. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001



395

Here we have discussed some of the components of Virginia’s policy materials in comparison to those issued by the state of New York and in consideration of practice and scholarly literature in the crisis field generally, and the school crisis field, specifically. Although these two states took markedly different approaches to establishing public policy, their efforts may be instructive for other states, school districts, and individual schools in developing crisis response policies and plans. Most notably, effective policies may need to be broadly based, cutting across distinct areas of law (as in New York) and professional domains in order to address the multifaceted nature of violence and provide for crisis prevention, management, and post-incident services. Like Virginia, attending to a range of critical incidents, rather than only school-based violence, may promote the incorporation of existing theoretical and empirical literature in the broader trauma and disaster fields that has not yet been developed in the school violence field. This discussion has identified areas in which much remains to be examined and evaluated for effectiveness, but still has found its way into practice and public policy. Although it might be argued that schools should refrain from providing intervention whose effectiveness has yet to be demonstrated, we do not take such a position. Though evaluation is clearly needed, school personnel do not have the luxury of waiting for it to be completed and disseminated. With only incomplete knowledge available, they still must respond to children, families, and staff affected by violence and other critical incidents. We now turn to a discussion of the convergence of existing knowledge, developing policy, and future directions in school crisis response.

IV. CURRENT AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR PUBLIC POLICY

Although schools have responded to violence and other critical incidents for a number of years, legislative and executive branches of government have, in some cases, only recently demonstrated an official interest. It appears that national attention to highly publicized events has prompted their reaction, even while government-sponsored studies indicate a steady decline in school violence. Government actions, such as task forces and legislation calling for the development of crisis management plans, appear as late-comers to the school crisis field. In some instances (e.g., Virginia) such legislation appears to have created a mandate to provide services that, in effect, were already included in the state’s educational policy. But, even when legislation does not lead the way, it still has the potential to strengthen schools’ commitment to preventing and responding to school violence. And in cases where school districts have done little to develop their crisis management capacity, legislation may serve as an impetus to undertake such efforts, especially when it includes potential access to – or restriction from – public funds. In # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

396

LAW & POLICY

July 2001

addition, addressing school violence and crisis management through legislation that cuts across relevant areas of law (such as New York’s Project SAVE) and the related agency boundaries (both real and artificial) can establish mechanisms for collaboration in program development and implementation. But how far should legislation go? For example, given the limited documented effectiveness for current practice, should legislatures specify the composition and function of crisis teams or the particular response strategies to be used? Or, is it possible that, bolstered by legislation and policy, the school crisis field will encounter some of the same undesired outcomes as other school-based efforts to confront social problems? For instance, as discussed above, some school-based programs addressing suicide and drug use have flourished, even when they have been found largely ineffective, primarily because, as Gorman contends, ‘‘the principles upon which they are based are compatible with the prevailing wisdom that exists among policy makers and politicians’’ (1998:141). His conclusion raises the question of whether such ‘‘prevailing wisdom,’’ stemming from the public’s current interest in youth violence, may override established and still-developing knowledge in the crisis field, in favor of intervention strategies perpetuated through clinical lore and personal persuasion. Even though most public policy has lagged behind school practice in crisis response, the opportunity exists for it to step to the fore and take the lead. For example, although task forces and public forums on school safety represent steps in the right direction, too often they have relied heavily on testimonials from school officials and victims of violence. Though invaluable for understanding the experience of both groups, highly idiosyncratic, anecdotal evidence is insufficient for establishing public policy affecting the physical and psychological health of the nation’s children. In such an important area of public concern, policymakers must also look to academic and professional sources to establish mechanisms for identifying, disseminating, and implementing effective models of intervention. Likewise, researchers and practitioners must take a more active role in the political process. For example, both groups must advocate for adequate funding for research and evaluation and must assume responsibility for educating policymakers about effective models of crisis response, even when such strategies contradict favorite or commonly accepted practice or ‘‘prevailing wisdom.’’ By taking the lead in identifying and enabling sound, effective practice in school crisis response, legislative and administrative action may be seen as good policy, not just good politics.

is with the Victims of Violence Program, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School and The Cambridge Hospital. She was previously a member of the Psychology faculty at the University of South Carolina and at Tulane

PAULINE M. PAGLIOCCA

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001



397

University. She was educated at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst (B.A.) and the University of Virginia (M.Ed., Ph.D.). Pagliocca was the co-founder and former director of the Community Crisis Response Team in the Victims of Violence Program at The Cambridge Hospital, and currently serves as Coordinator of the National Association of School Psychologists’ Crisis Management in the Schools Interest Group. Her general research interests relate to children and the law and her teaching interests include child and family therapy, psychological trauma, and psychology and law. is a doctoral candidate in the School Psychology Program at the University of South Carolina and a predoctoral intern at the Devereux Foundation in Villanova, Pennsylvania. Her research interests include attachment, program development and evaluation, and the prevention of social and emotional problems in children.

AMANDA B. NICKERSON

NOTES

1. For a comprehensive discussion of school crisis response protocols, including the formation and training of crisis teams, specific intervention strategies, roles and functions of team members, and security and safety planning, see, e.g., Brock, Sandoval, and Lewis (2001); Klingman (1996); Pitcher and Poland (1992); and Poland and McCormick (1999). 2. Although protocols described here are advocated in the crisis response literature, they may not reflect actual procedures implemented by individual schools or districts. 3. The IACP’s Guide for Preventing and Responding to School Violence includes information on the rights and obligations of the media covering school violence (Kramen, Massey & Timm 1999). They address the following: (1) recommendations for executives in television, radio, Internet, recording, electronic game, and film industries (including the development of a ‘‘code of ethics and social responsibility’’); (2) planning for media coverage of school violence; and (3) providing coverage during and following incidents of school violence (including the coverage of bomb threats, specifically). 4. For example, Keith and Ellis (1978) provided a descriptive account of teacher and student reactions to six unrelated deaths of students. They based their brief report on clinical interviews with children and teachers, and counselors’ written summaries of the school’s handling of each of the deaths. Also taking a qualitative approach, Danto (1978) compiled a far more detailed chronicle of the steps taken by one elementary school’s strategies for responding to the murder of one of its teacher. This account is one of the few detailed case studies in the school literature. Notably, both of these reports appeared long before the school crisis field became well established. 5. For examples of reviews see Cohen, Berliner and March (2000); DiNicola (1996); Fletcher (1996); Horn and Trickett (1998); Mazza and Overstreet (2000); Putnam (1996); Pynoos, Steinberg, and Goenjian (1996); Raphael et al. (1996); Shalev (1996); Van der Kolk, McFarlane, and Van der Hart (1996). 6. Schools’ policing functions, focusing on legal measures to prevent, curtail, and punish violence, are addressed in detail in Redding and Shalf (2001), as well as in Peterson, Larson, and Skiba (2001, in relation to school discipline). 7. Schools’ educational function, primarily related to violence-prevention curricula, is discussed in detail in Peterson, Larson, and Skiba (2001), as well as in Redding and Shalf (2001, in relation to school disciplinary codes). # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

398

LAW & POLICY

July 2001

8. The components of the curriculum are: discipline, conflict resolution, abuse, anger management, positive/negative peer relationships, and citizen education. 9. For a recent effort to identify successful violence prevention initiatives, including some (such as the Bullying Prevention Program discussed above) that are school-based, see Blueprints for Violence Prevention, an initiative of the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the University of Colorado. The Blueprints initiative identifies ten successful programs that met stringent evaluative criteria, including: (a) strong research design, (b) evidence of significant deterrence effects, (c) multiple site replication, and (d) sustained effectiveness. ‘‘Promising programs’’ are also identified. Information regarding these model programs is available at http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints. 10. For laws requiring prevention, see e.g., California (Ca Educ Code § 35294): ‘‘safety plan’’ means a plan to develop strategies aimed at the prevention of, and education about, potential incidents involving crime and violence on the school campus. For policy addressing the management of a developing crisis, see e.g., Indiana ‘‘emergency preparedness plans’’ (Ind Admin Code tit 511, r 6.1-2-2.5), referring to safety measures during a range of emergency situations, and, ‘‘crisis intervention plans’’ in addition to emergency preparedness (Ind Admin Code tit 511, r 4-1.5-7); Mississippi (Miss Code Ann §37-3-83), calling for ‘‘crisis management/action teams’’ to respond to school violence. For an example of post-incident response, see the South Carolina Safe Schools Task Force Report, specifically mentioning ‘‘counseling services’’ for students, staff, and the larger community following a crisis (1999:41). 11. For example, Florida (Fla Stat 230.23(6)1(f)) requires ‘‘emergency drills’’ for a variety of incidents, including weapon use. 12. For example, see Utah (Utah Code Ann § 53A-3-402(17)), calling for ‘‘comprehensive emergency response plans to prevent and combat violence,’’ including prevention, intervention, and post-incident elements. 13. For example, Kansas (H Con Res 5018), ‘‘urging’’ public and private schools to create ‘‘crisis plans’’ that focus on safety related to weapons on school property. Similarly, Minnesota law requires the Department of Children, Families, and Learning to create model ‘‘crisis management policy’’ and school boards to adopt crisis management policies to address ‘‘potential violent crisis situations’’ (Minn Stat Ann § 121A.57). 14. For example, Georgia requires schools to develop ‘‘school safety plan[s]’’ to ‘‘help curb the growing incidence of violence in schools,’’ and to ‘‘respond effectively to such incidents,’’ but extends these plans to preparing for ‘‘natural disasters, hazardous materials or radiological accidents,’’ and ‘‘acts of terrorism’’ (Geo Code Ann § 20-2-1185(b)). Massachusetts, too, addresses a range of emergencies, requiring each district to formulate a ‘‘multi-hazard evacuation plan’’ for ‘‘fires, hurricanes and other hazardous storms or disasters . . . shootings and other terrorist activities, and bomb threats.’’ The plan must also include a ‘‘crisis response team’’ and plans for managing the crisis situation (Act of 28 July 2000 at § 363). 15. The term postvention is not typically found in the crisis literature but may be used in some school crisis plans. ‘‘Postvention techniques are procedures or initiatives carried out following traumatic crisis episodes . . . to help survivors cope with the aftermath of such events. Postvention techniques are generally accomplished after the precipitating crisis event has been contained’’ (James & Gilliland 2001:218). This conception of an event and a post-event period is in contrast to the proposal of Cornell and Sheras (1998:297) that ‘‘a crisis is more usefully conceptualized as a process than an event.’’ 16. Of note in this address is the violent tone of the vocabulary and phrasing used by the governor to connote his concern about school violence. For example, # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001


17.

18.

19. 20.

21.


399

combat school violence . . . attack the problem of school violence . . . develop aggressive new ways to rid our schools of violence’’ (New York [State]. Governor 1999a:9-10, emphasis added). Rather than being contained in a single statute, provisions of Project SAVE extend across several areas of New York legislation, amending education law, penal law, criminal procedure law, executive law, and the family court act. Elements relevant to school safety and crisis prevention and management may be organized into the following general categories: (1) Codes of conduct, e.g., dress, language, security, discipline, removal from the classroom, suspension (NY Educ Law §§ 2801, 3214); (2) uniform system for reporting violent incidents (NY Educ Law § 2802); (3) increased penalties, from misdemeanors to felonies, for assaults on students and teachers, (NY Penal Law §§ 120.05.9-11); (4) whistleblower protection for staff reporting violent incidents (NY Educ Law § 3028-c); (5) with some restrictions, notifications to schools of criminal sentencing (NY Crim Pro Law § 380.90), delinquency adjudication of students (NY Fam Ct Law § 380.1) and transitioning back to school (NY Crim Pro Law § 720.35; NY Fam Ct Law § 301.2; NY Exec Law § 510-a); (6) implementation of curriculum in ‘‘civility, citizenship, and character education’’ (NY Educ Law § 801-a); (7) education in violence prevention and mental health issues (NY Educ Law § 804.4); (8) school safety plans (NY Educ Law § 2801-a); (9) violence prevention and crisis training for teachers and those applying for employment (NY Educ Law § 2814.8) and certification (NY Educ Law § 3004.3); and (10) school violence prevention grant funding (NY Educ Law § 2814, utilizing existing grant programs for any new initiatives under Project SAVE; no new funding was allocated for implementing Project SAVE). Alternative categorizations of Project SAVE provisions may be found on the New York State Center for School Safety (NYSCSS) Web site; in a press release issued by the Lieutenant Governor of New York on 22 June 2000 (New York [State]. Governor 2000); and in a State Senate Memorandum in Support (New York State. Senate 2000) Senate on behalf of Senate Bill S. 8236 (NY Legis Leg. Memo 181 2000). Policing functions delegated to the districtwide safety team include arrangements for appropriate training of school safety officers and security personnel (NY Educ Law § 2801-a.2.c(i)); policies and procedures for school building security (ibid.:§ 2801-a.2.f); policies and procedures for disseminating information on identifying potentially violent behavior (ibid.:§ 2801-a.2.h); and the hiring, screening, training, and duties of hall monitors and other safety personnel (ibid.:§ 2801-a.2.k). Education functions allocated to the districtwide teams include prevention and intervention programs such as conflict resolution (ibid.:§ 2801-a.2.c(ii), peer mediation and youth courts (ibid.:§ 2801-a.2.c(iii), and extended day programs (ibid.:§ 2801-a.2.c(iv); and student educational programs (also included in the sections just cited) and mechanisms for reporting school violence anonymously (ibid.:§ 2801-a.2.k). ‘‘‘Serious violent incident’ means an incident of violent criminal conduct that is, or appears to be, life threatening and warrants the evacuation of students and/or staff’’ (NY Educ Law § 2801-a.3.a). The command structure must conform to the National Interagency Incident Management System-Incident Command System, already established as the State of New York’s emergency management command system. This element was strongly recommended in the New York State Task Force on School Violence’s report (1999). Although the wording in the statute, itself, is vague on whether the post-incident response team is separate from, or part of, the emergency response team, separate documents from the New York State Department of Education clarify their distinction, stating that


400

LAW & POLICY

July 2001

Project SAVE requires the designation of four teams: (1) district wide school safety team (2) building-level school safety teams (3) building-level emergency response teams (4) building-level post-incident response teams. (New York State. Education Department n.d.)

See also, ‘‘Project SAVE § 2801 Outline’’ in an e-mail to Dr. Pagliocca on 30 January 2001 from Laura Sahr, Emergency Planning Liaison, New York State Education Department, Office of Facilities Planning. 22. This issue was discussed in an e-mail to Dr. Pagliocca on 30 January 2001 from Laura Sahr (see end of note 21 above). 23. Prior to 1999, the statute addressed only safety audits. The 1999 amendment added crisis and emergency management plans to the Legislation. 24. The Virginia statute states that: . . . a written assessment of the safety conditions in each public school to (i) identify and, if necessary, develop solutions for physical safety concerns, including building security issues and (ii) identify and evaluate any patterns of student safety concerns occurring on school property or at school-sponsored events. (Va Stat § 22.1-278.1.A)

25. The statute states that: unless the context requires otherwise: ‘‘school crisis and emergency management plan’’ means the essential procedures, operations, and assignments required to prevent, manage, and respond to a critical event or emergency . . . . (Va Stat §22.1-278.1.A)

26. In addition, the statute specifically identifies: loss or disruption of power, water, communications or shelter; . . . other accidents; student . . . deaths; explosions; bomb threats; gun, knife or other weapons threats; spills or exposures to hazardous substances; the presence of unauthorized persons or trespassers; the loss, disappearance or kidnapping of a student; hostage situations; violence on school property or at school activities; and other incidents posing a serious threat of harm to students, personnel, or facilities. (Va Stat § 22.1-278.1.A)

27. Arlene Cundiff, Coordinator of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program at the Office of Compensatory Programs, Virginia Department of Education, provided this information in an interview on 13 November 2000 with Dr. Pagliocca. 28. For example, a ‘‘Crisis Management Planning Checklist,’’ ‘‘Intervention Checklist/Flowchart,’’ and ‘‘Checklist for Follow-Up.’’ 29. For example, a ‘‘Sample School Division Policy’’ on crisis management, ‘‘Staff Skills Inventory,’’ ‘‘Designation of Staff Assignments/Activity Sites,’’ and ‘‘Crisis Response Team Report.’’ 30. The ‘‘Quick Guide to Crises’’ contains action steps to take in twenty-nine different crisis situations. Incidents range from episodic problems affecting a single student to one-time events having long-lasting effects on an entire school community. The crises for which ‘‘Quick Guides’’ are provided are: accidents at school, accidents to and from school, aircraft disaster, allergic reaction, angry parent/employee/patron, assault by intruder, bomb threat, bus accident, chemical spill, childnapping/lost child, death, disaster, disaster preventing dismissal, fighting, fire/arson/explosives, gas leak, hostage/armed, injury, intruder/ trespasser, life-threatening crisis, perceived crises, poisoning, power failure/lines down, rape, shooting/wounding, suicide threats, vandalism, weapons situation, and weather. 31. ‘‘Crises’’ shall include but not be limited to situations involving the death of a student, staff member, or a member of a student’s immediate family by suicide, substance abuse, illness, or accident (VDOE 1999:1). # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001



401

32. ‘‘Critical incidents’’ shall include situations involving threats of harm to students, personnel, or facilities. Critical incidents include but are not limited to natural disasters, fire, use of weapons/explosives, and the taking of hostages (ibid.).

REFERENCES

(1993) Violence & Youth: Psychology’s Response, Vol. 1, Summary report of the American Psychological Association Commission on Violence and Youth. Washington, D.C.: APA. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (n.d.) School Safety Program. At http:// www.ade.state.az.us/health-safety/health/schoolsafety/default.asp (last visited August 2000). AUERBACH, STEPHEN M., and PETER R. KILMANN (1977) ‘‘Crisis Intervention: A Review of Outcome Research,’’ Psychological Bulletin 84:1189–1217. AUERBACH, STEPHEN M., and ANTHONY SPIRITO (1986) ‘‘Crisis Intervention with Children Exposed to Natural Disasters.’’ In Crisis Intervention with Children and Families, edited by S. M. Auerbach & A. L. Stolberg. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing. AVERY, ANNA, STEVE KING, ROGER BRETHERTON, and RODERICK ØRNER (1999) ‘‘Deconstructing Psychological Debriefing and the Emergence of Calls for Evidence-Based Practice,’’ Traumatic StressPoints 13(2): at http://www.istss.org/ Pubs/TS/Spring99/spring99frame.htm. AVERY, ANNA, and RODERICK ØRNER (1998) ‘‘First Report of Psychological Debriefing Abandoned – The End of an Era?,’’ Traumatic StressPoints 12(3): at http://www.istss.org/Pubs/TS/Summer98/summer98frame.htm. BABAD, ELISHA Y., and GAVRIEL SALOMON (1978) ‘‘Professional Dilemmas of the Psychologist in an Organizational Emergency,’’ American Psychologist 33:840–46. BAISDEN, BARBARA, and ENRICO L. QUARANTELLI (1981) ‘‘The Delivery of Mental Health Services in Community Disasters: An Outline of Research Findings,’’ Journal of Community Psychology 9:195–203. BALDWIN, BRUCE A. (1979) ‘‘Crisis Intervention: An Overview of Theory and Practice,’’ Counseling Psychologist 8(2):43–52. BELTER, RONALD W., and MITSUKO P. SHANNON (1993) ‘‘Impact of Natural Disasters on Children and Families.’’ In Saylor 1993. BISSON, JONATHAN I., ALEXANDER C. MC FARLANE, and SUZANNA ROSE (2000) ‘‘Psychological Debriefing.’’ In Effective Treatments for PTSD: Practice Guidelines from the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, edited by E. B. Foa, T. M. Keane & M. J. Friedman. New York: Guilford Press. BLOM, GASTON E. (1986) ‘‘A School Disaster – Intervention and Research Aspects,’’ Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 25:336–45. BOLIN, ROBERT (1988) ‘‘Response to Natural Disasters.’’ In Mental Health Response to Mass Emergencies: Theory and Practice, edited by M. Lystad. New York: Brunner/Mazel. BROCK, STEPHEN E. (1998) ‘‘Helping Classrooms Cope with Traumatic Events,’’ Professional School Counseling 2:110–16. BROCK, STEPHEN E., JONATHAN SANDOVAL, and SHARON LEWIS (1996) Preparing for Crises in the Schools: A Manual for Building School Crisis Response Teams. Brandon, Vt.: Clinical Psychology. —— (2001) Preparing for Crises in the Schools: A Manual for Building School Crisis Response Teams. 2d ed. New York: Wiley. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (APA)


402

LAW & POLICY

July 2001

and JASON ZIEDENBERG (2000) School House Hype: Two Years Later: Policy Report. Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute and Children’s Law Center. CAPLAN, GERALD (1964) Principles of Preventive Psychiatry. New York: Basic Books. COHEN, JUDITH A., LUCY BERLINER, and JOHN S. MARCH (2000) ‘‘Treatment of Children and Adolescents.’’ In Effective Treatments for PTSD: Practice Guidelines from the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, edited by E. B. Foa, T. M. Keane & M. J. Friedman. New York: Guilford Press. COOK-COTTONE, CATHERINE (2000) ‘‘Connection and Recovery: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and School Reintegration.’’ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, 28 March–1 April, New Orleans, Louisiana. CORNELL, DEWEY G., and PETER L. SHERAS (1998) ‘‘Common Errors in School Crisis Response: Learning from our Mistakes,’’ Psychology in the Schools 35:297–307. CRAWSHAW, RALPH (1963) ‘‘Reactions to a Disaster,’’ Archives of General Psychiatry 9:157–62. CREWS, GORDON A., and M. REID COUNTS (1997) The Evolution of School Disturbance in America: Colonial Times to Modern Day. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. CUNDIFF, ARLENE (2000) Interview with Pauline Pagliocca, 13 November. DANTO, BRUCE L. (1978) ‘‘Crisis Intervention in a Classroom Regarding the Homicide of a Teacher,’’ School Counselor 26:69–89. DINICOLA, VINCENZO, F. (1996) ‘‘Ethnocultural Aspects of PTSD and Related Disorders among Children and Adolescents.’’ In Ethnocultural Aspects of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Issues, Research, and Clinical Applications, edited by A. J. Marsella, M. J. Friedman, E. T. Gerrity & R. M. Scurfield. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. DOLL, BETH, and MARK A. LYON (1998) ‘‘Risk and Resilience: Implications for the Delivery of Educational and Mental Health Services in Schools,’’ School Psychology Review 27:348–63. DYREGROV, ATLE, and JEFFREY T. MITCHELL (1992) ‘‘Work with Traumatized Children – Psychological Effects and Coping Strategies,’’ Journal of Traumatic Stress 5:5–17. FLETCHER, KENNETH E. (1996) ‘‘Childhood Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.’’ In Child Psychopathology, edited by E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley. New York: Guilford Press. GALANTE, ROSEMARIE, and DARIO FOA (1986) ‘‘An Epidemiological Study of Psychic Trauma and Treatment Effectiveness for Children After a Natural Disaster,’’ Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 25:357–63. GORMAN, D. M. (1998) ‘‘The Irrelevance of Evidence in the Development of SchoolBased Drug Prevention Policy, 1986-1996,’’ Evaluation Review 22:118–46. GRECH, DANIEL A. (1999) ‘‘Security Drills, or Scares? School Crisis Plans Make Some Uneasy,’’ Washington Post 13 September:B1. GREEN, MARY W. (1999) The Appropriate and Effective Use of Security Technologies in U.S. Schools: A Guide for Schools and Law Enforcement Agencies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. HARVEY, MARY R. (1996) ‘‘An Ecological View of Psychological Trauma and Trauma Recovery,’’ Journal of Traumatic Stress 9:3–23. HODGKINSON, PETER E. and MELANIE A. SHEPARD (1994) ‘‘The Impact of Disaster Support Work,’’ Journal of Traumatic Stress 7:587–600. HORN, JOHN L. and PENELOPE K. TRICKETT (1998) ‘‘Community Violence and Child Development: A Review of Research.’’ In Violence Against Children in the Family and the Community, edited by P. K. Trickett & C. J. Schellenbach. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. BROOKS, KIM, VINCENT SCHIRALDI




403

and DONNA C. PERONE (1998) ‘‘The Other Side of School Violence: Educator Policies and Practices that May Contribute to Student Misbehavior,’’ Journal of School Psychology 36:7–27. JAMES, RICHARD K., and BURL E. GILLILAND (2001) Crisis Intervention Strategies. 4th ed. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Thomson Learning. JOHNSON, KENDALL (1998) Trauma in the Lives of Children: Crisis and Stress Management Techniques for Counselors, Teachers, and Other Professionals. 2d ed. Alameda, Calif.: Hunter House. JUHNKE, GERALD A. (1997) ‘‘After School Violence: An Adapted Critical Incident Stress Debriefing Model for Student Survivors and Their Parents,’’ Elementary School Guidance and Counseling 31:163–70. KARTEZ, JACK D., and WILLIAM J. KELLEY (1988) ‘‘Research-based Disaster Planning: Conditions for Implementation.’’ In Managing Disasters: Strategies and Policy Perspectives, edited by L. K. Comfort. Durham, N.C.: Duke Univ. Press. HYMAN, IRWIN A.,

KAUFMAN, PHILLIP, XIANGLEI CHEN, SUSAN P. CHOY, SALLY A. RUDDY, AMANDA K. MILLER, JILL K. FLEURY, KATHRYN A. CHANDLER, MICHAEL R. RAND, PATSY KLAUS, and MICHAEL G. PLANTY (2000) Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2000.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. KEITH, CHARLES R., and DAVID ELLIS (1978) ‘‘Reactions of Pupils and Teachers to Death in the Classroom,’’ School Counselor 25:228–34. KLINGMAN, AVIGDOR (1978) ‘‘Children in Stress: Anticipatory Guidance in the Framework of the Educational System,’’ Personnel and Guidance Journal 57:22–26. —— (1985) ‘‘Free Writing: Evaluation of a Preventive Program with Elementary School Children,’’ Journal of School Psychology 23:167–75. —— (1987) ‘‘A School-Based Emergency Crisis Intervention in a Mass School Disaster,’’ Professional Psychology, Research and Practice 18:604–12. —— (1988) ‘‘School Community in Disaster: Planning for Intervention,’’ Journal of Community Psychology 16:205–16. —— (1993) ‘‘School-Based Intervention Following a Disaster.’’ In Saylor 1993. —— (1996) ‘‘School-Based Intervention in Disaster and Trauma.’’ In Model Programs in Child and Family Mental Health, edited by M. C. Roberts. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocs. KLINGMAN, AVIGDOR, and ZION BEN ELI (1981) ‘‘A School Community in Disaster: Primary and Secondary Prevention in Situational Crisis,’’ Professional Psychology, Research and Practices 12:523–33. KRAMEN, ALLISSA J., KELLY R. MASSEY, and HOWARD W. TIMM (1999) Guide for Preventing and Responding to School Violence. Alexandria, Va.: International Association of Chiefs of Police. Also available at http://www.theiacp.org/pubinfo/ pubs/pslc/svres.htm. MAYER, MATTHEW J., and PETER E. LEONE (1999) ‘‘A Structural Analysis of School Violence and Disruption: Implications for Creating Safer Schools,’’ Education and Treatment of Children 22:333–56. MAZZA, JAMES J. (1997) ‘‘School-Based Suicide Prevention Programs: Are They Effective?’’ School Psychology Review 26:382–96. MAZZA, JAMES J., and STACY OVERSTREET (2000) ‘‘Children and Adolescents Exposed to Community Violence: A Mental Health Perspective for School Psychologists,’’ School Psychology Review 29:86–101. MC CANN, LISA, and LAURIE ANNE PEARLMAN (1990) ‘‘Vicarious Traumatization: A Framework for Understanding the Psychological Effects of Working with Victims,’’ Journal of Traumatic Stress 3:131–49. MENDEL, RICHARD A. (2000) Less Hype, More Help: Reducing Juvenile Crime, What Works – and What Doesn’t. Washington, D.C.: American Youth Policy Forum. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

404

LAW & POLICY

July 2001

MISSOURI. DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION and DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (1999) State of Missouri School Crisis Response Plan: A

Workbook and Planning Guide for School and Community Leaders. Jefferson City: Missouri Dept. of Public Safety; Missouri Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education. MISSOURI. GOVERNOR’S TASK FORCE ON SCHOOL VIOLENCE (1999) Governor’s Task Force on School Violence Report. Jefferson City: Missouri Dept. of Public Safety. Also available at http://www.dps.state.mo.us/home/governortaskforce.htm. MITCHELL, JEFFREY T. (1983) ‘‘When Disaster Strikes . . . The Critical Incident Stress Debriefing Process,’’ JEMS: Journal of Emergency Medical Services 8(January): 36–39. MITCHELL, JEFFREY T., and GEORGE S. EVERLY, JR. (1995) ‘‘Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) and the Prevention of Work-Related Traumatic Stress Among High Risk Occupational Groups.’’ In Psychotraumatology: Key Papers and Core Concepts in Post-Traumatic Stress, edited by G. S. Everly, Jr. & J. M. Lating. New York: Plenum Press. —— (1998) ‘‘Critical Incident Stress Management: A New Era in Crisis Intervenion,’’ Traumatic StressPoints 12(4): at http://www.istss.org/Pubs/TS/Fall98/ fall98frame.htm. NELSON, ELIZABETH R., and KARL A. SLAIKEU (1990) ‘‘Crisis Intervention in the Schools.’’ In Crisis Intervention: A Handbook for Practice and Research, 2d ed., edited by K. A. Slaikeu. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn & Bacon. NEUMANN, DEBRA A., and SARAH J. GAMBLE (1995) ‘‘Issues in the Professional Development of Psychotherapists: Countertransference and Vicarious Traumatization in the New Trauma Therapist,’’ Psychotherapy 32:341–47. NEWMAN, C. JANET (1976) ‘‘Children of Disaster: Clinical Observations at Buffalo Creek,’’ American Journal of Psychiatry 133:306–12. NEW YORK STATE CENTER FOR SCHOOL SAFETY (NYSCSS) (2001) New York State Center for School Safety. At http://www.mhrcc.org/scss (last visited on 4 February 2001). NEW YORK STATE. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. OFFICE OF FACILITIES PLANNING (n.d.) RESCUE Health and Safety Committee & Project SAVE Safety Teams. At http:// www.emsc.nysed.gov/facplan/articles/HEALTH1.html. NEW YORK (STATE). OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR (1999a) 1999 State of the State. Albany: Office of the Governor. Also available at http://www.state.ny.us/sos99 text.html. —— (1999b) Governor Pataki Proposes Plan to Reduce School Violence. Press Release. 27 April. At http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/year99/april27_99.htm. —— (2000) ‘‘Governor, Majority Leader, Assembly Speaker Announce Agreement on Legislation to Make New York’s Schools Safer.’’ Press release. 22 June. At http://www.state.ny.us/governor/ltgov/index.html. NEW YORK STATE. SENATE (2000) ‘‘Memorandum in Support.’’ Prepared for Bill Number S. 8236. Albany, N.Y.: The Senate. Preprinted in 2000 NY Laws 1633 (McKinney). NEW YORK (STATE). TASK FORCE ON SCHOOL VIOLENCE (1999) Safer Schools for the 21st Century: A Common Sense Approach to Keep New York’s Students and Schools Safe. Albany: Office of the Lieutenant Governor. Also available at http:// www.state.ny.us/governor/ltgov/report/index.html. OLWEUS, DAN, SUSAN LIMBER, and SHARON F. MAHALIC (1999) Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Book Nine, Bullying Prevention Program. Boulder, Colo.: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder. PAGLIOCCA, PAULINE M., AMANDA B. NICKERSON, and STEPHANIE H. WILLIAMS (2002) ‘‘Research and Evaluation Directions in Crisis Intervention.’’ In Best Practices in # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001



405

School Crisis and Prevention Intervention, edited by S. E. Brock & P. A. Lazaurs. Washington, D.C.: National Association of School Psychologists. PEARLMAN, LAURIE ANNE, and PAULA S. MAC IAN (1995) ‘‘Vicarious Traumatization: An Empirical Study of the Effects of Trauma Work on Trauma Therapists,’’ Professional Psychology, Research and Practice 26:558-65. PETERSON, REECE L., JIM LARSON, and RUSSELL SKIBA (2001) ‘‘School Violence Prevention: Current Status and Policy Recommendations,’’ Law & Policy 23:345–71. PETERSEN, SUNI, and RONALD L. STRAUB (1992) School Crisis Survival Guide: Management Techniques and Materials for Counselors and Administrators. West Nyack, N.Y.: Center for Applied Research in Education. PITCHER, GAYLE DIANE, and SCOTT POLAND (1992) Crisis Intervention in the Schools. New York: Guilford Press. POLAND, SCOTT (1997) ‘‘School Crisis Teams.’’ In School Violence Intervention: A Practical Handbook, edited by A. P. Goldstein & J. C. Conoley. New York: Guilford. POLAND, SCOTT, and JAMI S. MC CORMICK (1999) Coping with Crisis: Lessons Learned: A Resource for Schools, Parents, and Communities. Longmont, Colo.: Sopris West. PUTNAM, FRANK W. (1996) ‘‘Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Children and Adolescents.’’ In Review of Psychiatry, vol. 15, edited by L. Dickstein, M. B. Riba & J. M. Oldham. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press. PYNOOS, ROBERT S., ARMEN K. GOENJIAN, and ALAN M. STEINBERG (1998) ‘‘A Public Mental Health Approach to the Postdisaster Treatment of Children and Adolescents,’’ Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America 7:195– 210. PYNOOS, ROBERT S., and KATHI NADER (1988) ‘‘Psychological First Aid and Treatment Approach to Children Exposed to Community Violence: Research Implications,’’ Journal of Traumatic Stress 1:445–73. PYNOOS, ROBERT S., ALAN M. STEINBERG, and ARMEN GOENJIAN (1996) ‘‘Traumatic Stress in Childhood and Adolescence: Recent Developments and Current Controversies.’’ In Van der Kolk, McFarlane & Weisaeth 1996. RAPHAEL, BEVERLY, and LENORE MELDRUM (1993) ‘‘The Evolution of Mental Health Responses and Research in Australian Disasters,’’ Journal of Traumatic Stress 6:65–89. RAPHAEL, BEVERLEY, JOHN WILSON, LENORE MELDRUM, and ALEXANDER C. MCFARLANE (1996) ‘‘Acute Preventive Interventions.’’ In Van der Kolk, McFarlane & Weisaeth 1996. REDDING, RICHARD E., and SARAH M. SHALF (2001) ‘‘The Legal Content of School Violence: The Effectiveness of Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Efforts to Reduce Gun Violence in Schools,’’ Law & Policy 23:297–343. ROBERTS, MICHAEL C. (1996). Model Programs in Child and Family Mental Health. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocs. ROSE, SUZANNA, and JONATHAN BISSON (1998) ‘‘Brief Early Psychological Interventions Following Trauma: A Systematic Review of the Literature,’’ Journal of Traumatic Stress 11:697–710. SANDOVAL, JONATHAN (1987) ‘‘Crisis Intervention.’’ In Psychoeducational Interventions in the Schools: Methods and Procedures for Enhancing Student Competence, edited by C. A. Maher & J. E. Zins. New York: Pergamon. SAYLOR, CONWAY F. (1993) Children and Disasters: Issues in Clinical Child Psychology. New York: Plenum. SCHWARTZ, STEPHEN L. (1971) ‘‘A Review of Crisis Intervention Programs,’’ Psychiatric Quarterly 45:495–508. SCHWARCZ, JOSEPH H. (1982) ‘‘Guiding Children’s Creative Expression in the Stress of War.’’ In Stress and Anxiety, vol. 8, edited by C. D. Spielberger, I. G. Sarason & N. A. Milgram. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

406

LAW & POLICY

July 2001

(1996) ‘‘Stress versus Traumatic Stress: From Acute Homeostatic Reactions to Chronic Psychopathology.’’ In Van der Kolk, McFarlane & Weisaeth 1996. SLAIKEU, KARL A. (1990) Crisis Intervention: A Handbook for Practice and Research. 2d ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. SOUTH CAROLINA SAFE SCHOOLS TASK FORCE (1999) South Carolina Safe Schools Task Force Report. Columbia: The Task Force. STEPHENS, RONALD D. (1994) ‘‘Planning for Safer and Better Schools: School Violence Prevention and Intervention Strategies,’’ School Psychology Review 23:204–15. U.S. CONGRESS. HOUSE (2000) U.S. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2001. 106th Cong., 2d Sess. H. Rept. 106–645. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (2000) 2000 Annual Report on School Safety. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Education; U.S. Dept. of Justice. VAN DER KOLK, BESSEL A., ALEXANDER C. MC FARLANE, and ONNO VAN DER HART (1996) ‘‘A General Approach to Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.’’ In Van der Kolk, McFarlane & Weisaeth 1996. VAN DER KOLK, BESSEL A., ALEXANDER C. MC FARLAND, and LARS WEISAETH (1996) Traumatic Stress: The Effects of Overwhelming Experience on Mind, Body, and Society. New York: Guilford Press. VERNBERG, ERIC M., and JULIET M. VOGEL (1993) ‘‘Part 2: Interventions with Children After Disasters,’’ Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 22:485–98. SHALEV, ARIEH Y.

VIRGINIA. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (VDOE). DIVISION OF INSTRUCTION. OFFICE OF COMPENSATORY PROGRAMS (1998) Resource Guide for Crisis Management in

Schools. Richmond, Va.: Office of Compensatory Programs. —— (1999) Model School Crisis Management Plan. Richmond: The Office. Also available at http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/model.html. WEINBERG, RICHARD B. (1989) ‘‘Consultation and Training with School-Based Crisis Teams,’’ Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 20:305–8.

FEDERAL LAWS

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994, 20 USC § 7101 et seq (1994).

STATE LAWS

(alphabetically by state) Arizona Revised Statutes (Ariz Rev Stat) § 15-154 (Westlaw 2000). Ariz Rev Stat § 15-341 (Westlaw 2000). California Education Code § 35294 (Westlaw 2000). Florida Statutes (Fla Stat) ch 230.23 (2000). Fla Stat ch 230.23175 (2000). Fla Stat ch 230.2318 (2000). Georgia Code Annotated § 20-2-1185(b) (2000). 20 Illinois Compiled Statutes (Ill Comp Stat) 4027/25 (1999). 105 Ill Comp Stat Ann 5/27-23.4 (2000). Indiana Administrative (Ind Admin) Code tit 511, r 4-1.5-7 (Westlaw 2000). # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001



407

Ind Admin Code tit 511, r 6.1-2-2.5 (Westlaw 2000). H Con Res 5018, ch 191 1999 Kan Sess Laws 1723. Act of 28 July 2000, ch 159, 2000 Mass Adv Legis Serv 159. Minnesota Statutes Annotated § 121A.57 (Westlaw 1999). Mississippi Code Annotated § 37-3-83 (Westlaw 2000). Missouri Revised Statutes (Mo Rev Stat) § 160.514 (2000). Mo Rev Stat § 161.650 (2000). New York, Act of 24 July 2000, ch 181, 2000 NY Laws 721 (McKinney). New York Criminal Procedure Law (NY Crim Pro) § 380.90 (McKinney 2000). NY Crim Pro Law § 720.35 (McKinney 2000). New York Education (Educ) Law § 801-a (McKinney 2000). NY Educ Law § 804.4 (McKinney 2000). NY Educ Law § 2801 (McKinney 2000). NY Educ Law § 2801-a (McKinney 2000). NY Educ Law § 2802 (McKinney 2000). NY Educ Law § 2814 (McKinney 2000). NY Educ Law § 2814.8 (McKinney 2000). NY Educ Law § 3004.3 (McKinney 2000). NY Educ Law § 3028-c (McKinney 2000). NY Educ Law § 3214 (McKinney 2000). New York Executive Law § 510-a (McKinney 2000). New York Family Court (Fam Ct) Law § 301.2 (McKinney 2000). NY Fam Ct Law § 380.1 (McKinney 2000). New York Penal Law § 120.05 (McKinney 2000). Utah Code Annotated § 53A-3-402 (2000). Virginia Code Annotated § 22.1-278.1 (Michie 2000).
