On September 26, 2024, President Biden signed an executive order directing the US Department of Education and the US Department of Homeland Security to develop and publish updated guidance based on existing research on active shooter drills for schools. This directive came amid ongoing concerns about the potential negative impacts of such practices on students, including trauma and psychological distress. Importantly, the executive order recognizes both the need for schools to prepare for active shooter situations and the need to develop effective practices that minimize harms to students and teachers.

Each academic year, more than 95% of public K-12 schools drill students on lockdown procedures. And despite their widespread use, there is considerable variability both in how many drills are required by state and how these practices are conducted. Examples of “drills gone wrong”—the hyperrealistic practices in which teachers have been shot with pellets or students were exposed to mock shooters, actors covered in fake blood, and sounds of simulated gunfire—have rightfully raised concerns about the potential negative effects that active shooter preparedness efforts have on those who participate in such practices.

Identifying best practices in research and designing effective drills is, however, partly complicated by the consistent co-mingling of the terms “active shooter drills” and “lockdown drills.” Although often discussed synonymously, lockdown drills are different than active shooter drills both in the situations they can be used for and the ways in which they are designed and practiced. This presents problems for identifying a research consensus because it treats different procedures as one in the same and, in doing so, masks positive research findings about lockdown drills that can help inform the design of more effective practices.

Lockdown Drills v. Active Shooter Drills

As noted in the executive order’s accompanying fact sheet, there is limited research and guidance about how to conduct safe and effective drills for school shootings. We have, however, been conducting the largest study in the nation, to date, on the effects of lockdown drills. Our most recent paper to come from this research has important implications for how schools balance preparing students to respond to immediate threats of violence within the building and the potentially negative or unintended consequences of doing so.

In our inaugural article from this broader study, we found that after participating in two lockdown drills and associated emergency response protocol training, students reported feeling significantly more prepared to respond in situations that would necessitate a lockdown but also less safe. In follow-up analyses, we found that these same students expressed feeling less fearful and perceived lower risk of a school shooting occurring after participating in drills, and (importantly) that they were more likely to engage in the avoidance behaviors (e.g., skipping class or school) and protocol practiced in the drills.

One way that we can understand the impacts of lockdown drills on students and staff is through the lens of Protection Motivation Theory (PMT).

One way that we can understand the impacts of lockdown drills on students and staff is through the lens of Protection Motivation Theory (PMT). PMT is a widely used framework in the psychological sciences to understand how people are motivated to engage in self-protective behaviors, which may include avoidance but also can include more proactive or positive behaviors like participating in active shooter or lockdown drills. More specifically, decisions about employing self-protective behaviors are guided by balancing the likelihood of a threatening event occurring and the relative severity of its impact with the belief that one can engage in protective behaviors that will reduce the threat or its impact. One study examining adults’ perceptions of active shooter preparedness efforts through the lens of PMT, for example, found that respondents who perceived a greater risk of an event occurring and who believed their community’s preparedness efforts were effective, were then more likely to engage in self-protective behaviors. This framework, however, had not yet been used to understand active shooter preparedness efforts like lockdown drills in K-12 schools, where such practices are most common.

In employing the PMT framework in our most recent study, we sought to reconcile the numerous positive outcomes of conducting lockdown drills (improved perceptions of emergency preparedness, fear, and risk) with the adverse outcomes of decreased perceived safety and increased avoidance behaviors. The findings lend support to the PMT processes being at work. Specifically, we found that students whose perceptions of their school’s safety were weaker and who believed a school shooting was more likely to occur on their campus, were then more likely to engage in self-protective behaviors. Further, the more students perceived preparedness efforts, including lockdown drills, as effective, the more self-protective behaviors they engaged in. In other words, a decrease in perceived safety may help students take lockdown drills and other emergency efforts more seriously, rather than treating them as a tick-box exercise.

Why Does This Matter?

As our research and that of others shows, when conducted in accordance with best practices for trauma mitigation (e.g., always calling a drill as a drill, avoiding sensorial techniques, modeling calm behavior, and debriefing at the end of the practice), lockdown drills can be an important learning and preparedness tools to help students, as well as educators, be ready to respond in the event of a crisis. Importantly, even the best planned drills still have the potential to lead to adverse reactions, but as PMT highlights and as evidenced through our latest study, small losses in perceived safety or increases in perceived risk actually can help prepare even better because it galvanizes people to take more ownership in their safety and security.

Currently, little is known about the impacts of the active shooter drills President Biden has directed additional guidance on, highlighting the need for more clarity and research about procedures. At the same time, however, the research on lockdown drills consistently shows that such practices play an important role in preparing students and staff, particularly when situated in a comprehensive, all hazards emergency response plan. As stakeholders weigh the charges set forth by President Biden and work to ensure that active shooter drills, like other emergency preparedness drills regularly practiced in schools, are as safe and effective as possible, it is imperative to rely on the evidence and best practices as a way forward.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Jaclyn Schildkraut is the executive director of the Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium (RGVRC) at the Rockefeller Institute of Government
Emily Greene-Colozzi is an assistant professor in the School of Criminology and Justice Studies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell
Amanda Nickerson is a distinguished professor of school psychology and director of the Alberti Center for Bullying Abuse Prevention at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York
Drs. Greene-Colozzi and Nickerson are both members of the RGVRC