6
Best Practices for Protecting the Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Health of Students and Staff

As detailed in previous chapters, the research literature on the impact of school active shooter drills on the mental, emotional, and behavioral health of students and staff is thin. Despite the weakness of the existing evidence base, school active shooter drills are routinely implemented in schools across the country. As better research continues to develop, schools, districts, and state departments of education urgently require actionable guidance to inform their decisions on how best to safeguard the mental health and well-being of students and staff while implementing these drills.

The best practices outlined in this chapter are ultimately derived from what is currently known about child and adolescent development and learning, together with qualitative literature and information gathered in listening sessions with students, teachers, and caregivers (see Chapter 5). The guidance also draws on a widespread consensus, promulgated by authoritative professional associations and government agencies, on best practices for implementing school safety and security practices that mitigate the potential harms to mental, emotional, and behavioral health. These authorities include the U.S. Department of Education (ED), the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO), the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), the National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN), and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others. With the guidance from these authorities in mind, together

with the collective knowledge of its multidisciplinary expert members, the committee recommends a path forward.

It is important for state and local education authorities to monitor and evaluate the implementation of school active shooter drills continuously to minimize the genuine risk of negative impacts of the intervention itself on the mental, emotional, and behavioral health of students and staff. Additionally, the committee urges school officials to take routine steps to adapt and refine practices based on emerging evidence to ensure that current approaches effectively minimize risks and maintain safety while preserving the integrity of the learning environment.

This chapter begins with a discussion of strategies for mitigating mental, emotional, and behavioral health harms when implementing school active shooter drills; in so doing, it outlines best practices for local educational authorities before, during, and after drills are implemented. Recognizing the many factors school administrators and staff must consider when implementing active shooter drills, the chapter highlights the benefits of a multidisciplinary school safety committee charged with identifying necessary planning steps and anticipating potential unintended consequences that may be encountered during implementation. The discussion also examines the broader context in which these drills take place and underscores the need for a comprehensive school safety plan that prioritizes prevention as a fundamental component. The chapter then identifies practices that are likely to cause harm and that professional consensus suggests should be terminated and, if appropriate, prohibited by state legislation. Finally, the chapter outlines implementation considerations, including policy recommendations.

STRATEGIES FOR MITIGATING MENTAL, EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HARMS WHEN IMPLEMENTING SCHOOL ACTIVE SHOOTER DRILLS

When planning for and implementing school active shooter drills, it is important to consider the context in which the drills are typically implemented and to assess their potential harms and benefits. In promoting safe learning environments, schools are expected to minimize any potential negative impacts experienced by students and staff. While many schools conduct active shooter drills as part of their emergency preparedness efforts, it is important for the drills to be grounded in the context of the school’s comprehensive safety plan. When school active shooter drills are performed in isolation (as they often are), without adequate consideration of the children’s emotional and psychological well-being, they can inadvertently and unnecessarily arouse unnecessary anxiety or fear.

When grounded in a positive school climate, these drills—implemented as outlined in this report—can foster a prepared, resilient, and calm school community. Instead of viewing drills as isolated events responding to a hypothesized immediate threat, schools need to connect them to broader discussions about safety, school climate, and well-being. For example, schools can use active shooter drills as opportunities to assess communication channels and ensure that adequate time is allowed to debrief the drills and provide feedback, giving students and staff a voice in the process and facilitating relationship-building between teachers and students. Additionally, schools can use drills to discuss how to handle emergency situations outside of school grounds and to give students an opportunity to undertake other steps to enhance school safety or the overall school climate (Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports [PBIS], 2022).

While school active shooter drills are important, they represent only one aspect of school safety planning. A comprehensive approach requires a balance between preparedness (and mitigation for

immediate threats) and long-term prevention strategies that address the root causes of violence. Schools that focus too narrowly on active shooter drills may miss opportunities to prevent violence before it occurs. A positive school climate, social-emotional learning, and trauma-informed practices can create an environment that not only responds to threats but actively works to prevent them (PBIS, 2022).

This section details strategies for mitigating mental, emotional, and behavioral health harms when implementing school active shooter drills. The discussion includes practices that are least likely to cause mental, emotional, and behavioral health harms (green); practices that need to be implemented with caution as they are more likely to have negative than positive impact (yellow); and those with a high likelihood of causing harm—practices that this committee, in line with broad professional consensus, agrees should be ended (red). These strategies are summarized in Table 6-1 and described in detail in the subsections that follow. The committee’s recommendations for addressing the key considerations for decision-makers at all levels—from the national to the school level—entailed in the implementation of school active shooter drills are presented throughout the chapter.

TABLE 6-1 Strategies for Mitigating Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral (MEB) Health Harms When Implementing School Active Shooter Drills

PRACTICES LEAST LIKELY TO CAUSE MENTAL, EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HARMS

Recommendation 1: Schools should adopt trauma-informed, developmentally appropriate approaches to school active shooter drills that balance preparedness with emotional and psychological safety. It is essential for the design and implementation of drills to prioritize student and staff well-being in order to prevent unnecessary mental, emotional, and behavioral health harms and ensure that drills foster environments conducive to the learning and skill-building they are intended to impart. State-level legislation mandating drills should require the implementation of trauma-informed, developmentally appropriate drills designed with input from experts in mental health and child development.

In addition to drill design, the committee was asked to consider the supports, school programs, and staff expertise necessary to implement, monitor, and evaluate best practices effectively. Given the varying needs of students and staff, school districts and school safety teams need to carefully determine the appropriate level of

practice for active shooter drills, taking into account the community’s familiarity with the school’s emergency operations plan, the overall purpose of emergency drills, and the developmental needs of students. It is also essential to consider whether specific practices are appropriate for the school setting, as well as the broader school environment and community context in which the drills are conducted. Finally, assessing the readiness of individuals within the school community is critical before introducing more complex emergency response procedures. By carefully evaluating these considerations, schools can implement drills that create opportunities for skill-building and enhance a sense of preparedness while minimizing potential negative impacts.

Best Practices When Planning for School Active Shooter Drills

Best practices for implementing drills include setting clear educational goals; teaching emergency response skills using standard response practices, incorporating student and family input, and establishing a consistent communication plan with families and community partners. These practices prioritize the health and well-being of students and staff while minimizing potential harm. Schools with strong social-emotional programming and a positive climate create an environment that supports resilience and skill-building and can help mitigate the negative mental, emotional, and behavioral health impacts of school active shooter drills (CDC, 2009; Durlak et al., 2011; National Conference of State Legislatures, 2025; Osher & Berg, 2017; Thapa et al., 2013). Establishing a multidisciplinary team to support the planning for drills may also play a critical role in ensuring that drills are developmentally appropriate, trauma-informed, and tailored to the specific needs of the school community. Planning may need to include evaluating the frequency and context of drills to balance instructional time with efforts to ensure student well-being.

Having clear procedures in place for emergency events is a critical component of overall preparedness. Establishing communication strategies, accessibility accommodations, and plans for ensuring

emotional well-being can foster a sense of security for students and staff. Communicating a well-structured plan can also help reassure students, staff, and families that comprehensive measures are in place to address a range of needs during an emergency. By proactively identifying the needs of the school community and addressing support systems, schools ensure that emergency drills focus on practicing essential response actions and preparedness for real-world scenarios. Box 6-1 outlines common considerations for school administrators when addressing needs for preparedness planning and staff training.

Best practices for preparing to lead a drill include thoughtful planning, proactive communication, and comprehensive support structures. These practices proactively consider the mental, emotional, and behavioral health impacts of drills. Without this groundwork, drills may be experienced as isolated, anxiety-inducing events rather than as part of a coordinated strategy that fosters preparedness, confidence, and emotional well-being. Beyond reducing harm, good planning—transparent communication, trauma-informed

strategies, and inclusive planning efforts—can build supports that ensure that students, staff, and families feel informed, reassured, and empowered before they participate in a drill, creating an environment conducive to learning essential safety and preparedness skills. In this way, preparedness efforts extend beyond drills, creating a school safety culture that prioritizes both security and well-being.

Implement Robust Social-Emotional Programming Within the School in Order to Prime Students to Take on the Skills Needed for Drills

Chapter 3 reviewed studies on how active shooter drills impact perceptions of school safety. Most showed either negative or no changes in how students and staff perceived safety, even if they felt more prepared (Huskey & Connell, 2021; Moore-Petinak et al., 2020; Schildkraut et al., 2024a,b). These findings suggest that preparedness alone is not enough to foster a sense of safety and that additional approaches are needed to support social-emotional wellbeing alongside preparedness efforts. Consistent with the science of learning, both students and school staff will be in a better position to learn how to proceed with the drill activities and respond in emergencies if they are calm and anxiety is minimized. A key goal for drills, then, is to avoid using elements that can induce stress and trauma, which can lead to negative outcomes such as reduced concentration and school avoidance, which can, over time, impact educational achievement (Balfanze & Byrnes, 2012; Barrett et al., 2012; Boulton et al., 2008). Additionally, as highlighted in Chapter 5, previous exposure to trauma may trigger unpredictable behaviors during high-stress events such as active shooter drills. Schools can anticipate the possibility of these behaviors and take steps to mitigate their frequency and intensity to ensure the safety not only of the individual student with previous trauma exposure but also of other students and staff.

The importance of a calm and well-organized approach to school active shooter drills, with a focus on imparting skills that promote a sense of safety and security among students and staff, is consistent

with guidelines from ED (2025), NASP, NASRO, and Safe and Sound Schools (NASP et al., 2021); NCTSN (NCTSN, 2018); and the Maryland Center for School Safety (2024). By equipping students and staff with the skills needed to manage their responses and support one another, these practices provide a critical foundation for maintaining a sense of safety and security in drills and emergency situations.

Design Drills Using Discussion-Based and Standard Response Practices That Foster Skill-Building with Clearly Defined Action Steps

Discussion-based practices can apply to overall emergency operations, and they may be particularly beneficial for school active shooter drills. Discussion-based practices focus on building foundational knowledge through activities such as staff-led discussions, social stories or storybook readings, and student–teacher tabletop exercises that use games or child-friendly activities to teach emergency procedures. They do not require students to physically practice emergency actions (see Chapter 1).

Discussion-based practices provide an opportunity for staff and students to understand the purpose of school active shooter drills, helping them to be better able to grasp the context for learning standard response practices.^24,25 They may also allow time for reflection and processing and foster a sense of connectedness among students and staff, promoting resilience for both groups. These discussions also provide an opportunity for staff to highlight additional safety measures that are already in place to protect the school community. New students who are unfamiliar with these procedures, as well as

___________________

²⁴ During this committee’s listening sessions, multiple speakers stressed the importance of familiarizing staff with drill procedures before practicing them with students.

²⁵ For the purposes of this report, the committee uses the term standard response practices to refer to individual, predefined actions or procedures designed to guide students and staff in responding to different types of emergency situations, including school active shooter events.

students with functional and access needs, may require additional time and support to fully engage with discussion-based practices. Ensuring that all individuals have a strong foundational understanding can enhance a sense of preparedness.

Schools may also choose to use standard response practices—with students and staff physically rehearsing the actions needed to respond to an emergency, such as a school active shooter event—when implementing active shooter drills. For each response practice, staff and students are taught specific steps to take to complete the response. For example, for “lockdown,” the actions include locking the doors, turning off the lights, moving out of sight, and remaining silent. These practices emphasize procedural repetition to reinforce emergency responses. Such action-focused approaches emphasize practical safety skills, which highlight and teach specific skills (e.g., “hold” or “lockdown”), rather than highlighting or reinforcing fear of specific threats. In doing so, schools may be able to promote essential emergency preparedness without reinforcing the potential for violence. However, it is important to note that research evaluating the mental, emotional, and behavioral health effects of this approach is needed.

A standardized, action-based framework may also help streamline preparedness efforts and thereby reduce the overall number of drills required throughout the school year. For younger students and those new to emergency drills, it may be necessary to spend additional time on discussion-based practices before transitioning to standard response practices.

Universal design principles can be incorporated into standard response practices to ensure that terms and actions are clear and accessible to create a more supportive environment for all students during drills. For example, information on each standard response practice and its associated actions can be made available to parents, allowing them to understand the procedures and reinforce key safety steps with their children before a drill takes place and helping them bolster their children’s resilience—a protective factor against mental, emotional, and behavioral health harms. Additionally, materials

can be translated into multiple languages, ensuring broader accessibility, and specific instructions are provided for announcing each type of drill. However, although research has been conducted on drills practicing the standard response to the directive “lockdown,” the committee is unaware of any specific causal evaluation of the mental, emotional, and behavioral health impacts of standard response practices overall and more research is needed to fully understand their effects.

A 2025 implementation evaluation of the “I Love U Guys” Foundation’s (2021) Standard Response Protocol (SRP) and Standard Reunification Method (SRM) in Nebraska offers some initial insights into possible training needs for staff. As part of this evaluation, 1,530 participants in 14 SRP/SRM training sessions—with some attending multiple times—were surveyed. The participants noted concise language and standardized terminology for emergency response protocols as strengths of the SRP (Bulling et al., 2025). However, they also identified areas for improvement: more guidance on accommodating students with functional and access needs; strategies for very young children (pre-K) during drills; and clarification on student cellphone use during emergency drills. Additionally, participants emphasized the need for formal training for both regular staff and substitute teachers. They also recommended that training opportunities be offered in both asynchronous (self-paced) and face-to-face formats to accommodate different learning needs (Bulling et al., 2025).

Consistency of approaches across districts and schools offers additional benefits. Standard response practices can help reduce confusion among students and staff by providing clear, actionable steps for each emergency scenario. In eliminating the need to learn multiple, varying emergency protocols for different sites, this consistency may be particularly beneficial for substitute teachers, educators working across multiple schools, staff who have recently transitioned into new roles, and students who may make frequent school transitions such as those involved in the foster care system. Parents with children in multiple schools could also benefit from learning a

single, uniform protocol, which enhances overall community preparedness. Having structured, well-defined action steps could also be an asset for research on emergency preparedness and school safety.

Designing drills to emphasize clarity and consistency and build foundational knowledge in a developmentally appropriate manner is likely to foster a sense of preparedness among students and staff, and limit exposure to activities that may create fear and anxiety.

Guidance and recommendations from NASP, NASRO, and Safe and Sound Schools (NASP et al., 2021) as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics (Schonfeld et al., 2020) similarly emphasize the importance of teaching emergency response skills rather than simulating distressing crisis events, with the goal of promoting competence and preparedness rather than overwhelming participants.

Tailor Drill Design to Meet the Developmental Needs of the School Community

Chapter 5 provides an in-depth discussion of age and developmental considerations for implementing school active shooter drills. Table 6-2 highlights selected developmentally appropriate practices.

TABLE 6-2 Selected Practices for Developmentally Appropriate Implementation of School Active Shooter Drills That Mitigate Adverse Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Health Harms

Adapt Drills for Individuals with Functional and Access Needs

Chapter 5 outlines key considerations for planning school active shooter drills, including the functional and accessibility needs of students and staff; the roles of essential school personnel in emergency preparedness; and characteristics of individuals who may be particularly vulnerable to negative mental, emotional, and behavioral effects from these drills. Some students may require additional considerations or support based on their experiences, communication needs, or health conditions. These students include those who have experienced trauma or adverse life events; individuals with disabilities affecting mobility, cognition, communication, or sensory processing; and those who rely on behavioral health services or assistive technologies. To ensure that all students can participate in drills, schools and school safety teams can assess the functional and accessibility needs present within the school community. These needs often fall into broad categories, including sensory; physical/mobility; cognitive/developmental; speech/language; and social, emotional, and behavioral considerations. While disabilities are often documented and known to staff, individuals who have experienced

trauma may not be identified as easily. Given the goal of minimizing potential negative mental, emotional, and behavioral health impacts, a universal design approach can help create a more supportive environment for all students during drills. Providing emotional support and allowing for additional accommodations or practice when needed can further support students who face barriers to participation.

Safe and Sound Schools’ (2021) Especially Safe curriculum introduced the TEAMS framework, which categorizes the functional and access needs within a school community. Table 6-3 provides an overview of these categories as an example and highlights potential strategies for addressing individual safety accommodations and supports that may be needed during school active shooter drills or in the event of an actual emergency.

TABLE 6-3 TEAMS Framework of School Safety and Emergency Planning Considerations for Individuals with Functional and Accessibility Needs

SOURCE: Adapted from Safe and Sound Schools, 2021.

As discussed in Chapter 3, no published studies have specifically examined the mental, emotional, and behavioral impacts of school active shooter drills on students and staff with functional and accessibility needs. Addressing this gap is essential to ensure that schools can minimize mental, emotional, and behavioral health risks and adapt practices to better support all individuals. During the committee’s listening sessions, both students and school staff emphasized

the need for greater attention to accessibility considerations in planning for active shooter drills. Some expressed concerns that current drill practices and emergency preparedness planning lack sufficient detail to ensure their needs are met. One student who required mobility assistance noted that her school did not have an emergency evacuation plan for her, prompting her to develop her own strategy for contacting family members for assistance during an emergency. A 2024 RAND survey of a randomly selected sample of 1,020 K–12 teachers asking about the 2022–2023 school year reached similar conclusions, reinforcing the need for more inclusive emergency preparedness efforts. These concerns inform the committee’s guidance on the importance of school safety teams planning drills that accommodate students and staff with functional and accessibility needs.

Both the National Child Traumatic Stress Network (2018) and Safe and Sound Schools (2021) recommend developing individualized safety plans to ensure that students receive the accommodations necessary to participate in drills. These plans outline the specific supports needed, assign staff to assist students in completing drill actions, and identify additional intervention strategies that can help during emergency preparedness activities. When applicable, individualized safety plans may be integrated into students’ Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) or 504 plans to align with their broader educational and support needs²⁶ (see Recommendation 8). By developing these plans, school safety teams, special education staff, nursing staff, and mental health professionals can collaborate to address the specific needs of their school community. These considerations can then be incorporated into drill design. For instance,

___________________

²⁶ According to ED (2000), “To create an effective IEP, parents, teachers, other school staff—and often the student—must come together to look closely at the student’s unique needs. These individuals pool knowledge, experience, and commitment to design an educational program that will help the student be involved in, and progress in, the general curriculum” (p. 1). Similarly, developing an individualized safety plan can help ensure that school staff know their responsibilities for helping a student with safety limitations related to such areas as transportation/mobility; emotional, behavioral, mental, and medical health; auxiliary communication; and security and supervision (ED, 2000).

staff who are not assigned to a classroom can be positioned strategically in areas where additional personnel may be needed to facilitate the drill effectively (PBIS, 2025b).

Individualized safety plans also help identify training needs before a drill. Staff supporting students who rely on adaptive equipment or medical devices benefit from training in their proper use, ensuring readiness before an emergency occurs. Additionally, for students who require a buddy system during a drill, ensuring that the assigned support person understands their role in advance is essential. For students who require access to medication during emergencies, plans can outline how staff will coordinate retrieval or access in alignment with school policies and regulations, even if medication access is not a component of the drill itself.

Drills can also help identify unforeseen barriers, allowing schools to address these challenges and adapt practices accordingly. After-action reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of individualized safety plans, ensuring that special education staff and other key personnel contribute to the review process. Where appropriate, student and parent input can also be incorporated to refine strategies.

Consider the Frequency and Context of Drills

The frequency of emergency drills, including school active shooter drills, varies significantly across the country, often influenced by state law requirements. As described in Chapter 3, however, research to date has not identified an optimal frequency for active shooter drills. ED (2025) reached a similar conclusion, noting the lack of definitive evidence on how often these drills should be conducted.

A study by Schildkraut et al. (2023) provides some insight into drill frequency through an evaluation of lockdown drills in a school district in New York. Their findings suggest that four to seven drill implementations were necessary to achieve approximately 80% fidelity—a threshold for adequate, though not perfect, compliance. Beyond this point, additional drills did not lead to further

improvements, indicating a plateau effect. The study also found that some lockdown procedures were more difficult than others to implement consistently, making perfect fidelity even more challenging to achieve across classrooms. While these findings offer preliminary guidance, they have not been widely replicated across different school contexts or environments and do not specifically measure the relationship between the number and frequency of drills and mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes. As a result, it remains unclear whether similar patterns would emerge in other schools or among different student populations. More research is needed to determine how drill frequency, school characteristics, and training methods interact to optimize preparedness while minimizing potential negative mental, emotional, and behavioral health effects.

The committee acknowledges the multiple demands placed on schools and the importance of preserving instructional time while optimizing emergency preparedness and minimizing potential negative mental, emotional, and behavioral health effects. Drills need to be scheduled with sufficient frequency for students and staff to retain familiarity with the necessary actions. However, the optimal number of drills remains unclear, as more research is needed to determine how frequency, school context, and individual needs interact in establishing and maintaining preparedness while minimizing potential negative effects. Participants in the committee’s listening sessions noted that overly frequent drills could lead to fatigue, increased stress, and emotional overload, potentially diminishing their effectiveness. Moreover, a study by Schildkraut (2023) found that skills learned through drills were retained over several years.

Given the limited evidence on drill frequency, however, schools may need to evaluate their own data to determine the most appropriate frequency for their community. Additionally, some students—particularly new students unfamiliar with emergency procedures and those with functional and accessibility needs—may require additional practice. Schools can consider targeted strategies for ensuring that these students receive the necessary support without increasing the overall drill burden for the broader school population.

When determining the frequency of drills, school safety teams can assess which standard response practices are appropriate for their campus and then establish a schedule for practicing each response practice throughout the school year. States and localities with drill mandates can also consider whether the activation of an emergency response protocol may count as a drill practice if responding to the emergency required the use of the same standard response practice used in a drill. In the absence of legal mandates, schools may choose to conduct an after-action review following an emergency activation, gathering input from staff, parents, and students rather than conducting an additional drill.

When reviewing schedules, schools can also consider timing active shooter drills to avoid unnecessary distress—for example, scheduling drills outside of high-stress academic periods, such as exam periods and standardized testing days. To support psychological safety, school communities where incidents of school violence have occurred may wish to avoid conducting drills on the anniversary of events that may hold significance for the local community. Adjustments may also be necessary following recent mass violence or school shooting incidents, as these events can heighten safety concerns and anxiety within the school community. In such cases, postponing the drill or replacing it with a discussion-based lesson plan that reviews the necessary response actions may be more appropriate. Regardless of the approach taken, it is beneficial during these periods of increased vulnerability to have additional mental health support available to assist students and staff.

While discussing the timing of drills during the committee’s listening sessions, participants in the student panel suggested that school active shooter drills be practiced at different times of the day, including both structured periods (e.g., class time) and unstructured periods (e.g., recess, lunch, class transitions), taking account of the fact that active shooter events may not always take place when students are in a classroom. Practicing drills at varying times allows students and staff to hear activation communications in different

situations and apply safety actions in multiple locations throughout the school building or campus.

These considerations highlight the need to broaden discussions about drill frequency beyond the number of drills conducted to include when and where drills take place. The committee aligns with the ED (2025) recommendation that schools consider limiting the duration of drills to what is necessary and varying the timing of drills throughout the day. These approaches can help ensure that school communities understand how to respond effectively across a range of situations, time periods, and locations on school grounds.

Inform, Engage, and Collaborate with Parents

As noted in Chapter 5, schools can partner with parents to help reduce the negative mental, emotional, and behavioral health impacts of active shooter drills. One key area of collaboration is parent representation on school safety committees, ensuring that family perspectives are included in emergency preparedness planning. Additionally, professional organizations consistently recommend that parents receive clear and timely communication regarding drills, including details on the type of drill being practiced, an overview of procedures and objectives, information on the general frequency of drills, contact information for school staff available to answer questions, and notice when drills occur (ED, 2025; NASP et al., 2021; NCTSN, 2018). The committee acknowledges that schools may have safety and security concerns about sharing specific details in advance regarding the timing and location of drills. However, just as clear communication before drills begin can support students’ well-being, schools can also use existing communication channels to inform parents, helping them better prepare to support their children.

Schools can also support parents by offering resources that help explain drills in a developmentally appropriate manner, enabling families to discuss emergency preparedness at home. Given the variation in active shooter drill procedures, providing parents with specific details about the drill format can help alleviate anxiety and

reinforce a consistent message of preparedness and safety (NCTSN, 2018).

Clear communication and open discussions with parents can help minimize the emotional impact of active shooter drills on students. Many adults are not familiar with what is involved in a school active shooter drill. Providing resources in parents’ primary languages promotes accessibility, and offering informational meetings—particularly at the beginning of the school year—can help build trust and transparency between schools and families. These meetings offer an opportunity to:

review comprehensive school safety efforts, emphasizing that active shooter drills are just one component of a broader safety strategy;

• provide information about the types of drills students will practice throughout the year;
• demonstrate a drill for parents of younger students or families new to the district, allowing them to understand what their children will experience; and
• clarify how drill notifications and real emergency alerts will be communicated to parents, reducing uncertainty and anxiety.

When introducing new active shooter drill programs, schools can offer additional opportunities for parents to ask questions, collaborate on implementation strategies, and contribute to evaluation efforts. For students with functional or accessibility needs, parents play a key role in developing individualized safety plans and identifying effective adaptations to ensure that their children can participate meaningfully (ED, 2025; NCTSN, 2018; PBIS, 2025a).²⁷

Preplan Drills with a Multidisciplinary Team

As previously discussed, emergency response drills require careful planning and oversight by a multidisciplinary team that includes

___________________

²⁷ School staff may also have functional or accessibility needs, and there may be opportunities to identify effective adaptations to ensure that these staff can participate meaningfully in school active shooter drills.

members of the school staff such as administrators, teachers, custodians, school nurses and school-based mental health professionals; school resource officers or security personnel; special education specialists; and parents. When appropriate, students may also be involved (ED, 2025; NASP et al., 2021). Each team member plays a specific role in the planning, execution, and evaluation of these drills. Expertise in child development, special education, and health conditions is important to ensure that drills account for the developmental and accessibility needs of all students (NASP et al., 2021). District personnel, including the school board, superintendent, assistant superintendents, and police and sheriff’s departments (when applicable), also can play a crucial role in providing support, resources, and oversight. The Maryland Best Practices Guide (Maryland Center for School Safety, 2024) notes that school safety committees/teams need to be large enough to include key representatives from various disciplines but small enough to facilitate effective collaboration and decision-making. Additionally, state legislative requirements may influence the composition and responsibilities of school safety teams.

Many school safety teams also collaborate with local law enforcement; emergency management agencies; and first responders, such as fire departments and emergency medical personnel. These partnerships help ensure that school active shooter drills align with broader community emergency plans while also allowing for adaptations based on a school’s unique needs. For example, first responders can be informed about:

• the location of special education classrooms and the specific medical or accessibility needs of some students, ensuring a more effective emergency response; and
• crisis management or school safety expertise offered by nonprofit organizations, which may assist in planning and executing drills.

When planning active shooter drills, school safety teams need to first consider the goals of each drill, as those goals will determine the level of participation required:

• Drills using discussion-based practices, especially for new students, may focus on familiarization with school emergency protocols and will not require the involvement of community partners.
• School active shooter drills can be planned with a developmentally appropriate, trauma-informed approach, ensuring accessibility adaptations for students with functional and access needs while addressing the needs of both students and staff (Box 6-3).

Additionally, planning needs to account for logistical factors, such as:

• ensuring that sufficient wellness supports (e.g., access to school-based mental health staff) are available for students and staff;
• implementing evaluation strategies to assess the drill’s effectiveness and impacts on mental, emotional, and behavioral health (NASP et al., 2021; PBIS, 2025b); and
• verifying that drills comply with state regulations and align with best practices, addressing any potential legal implications (PBIS, 2025b).

Training all staff in self-regulation techniques before drills take place can also enhance their ability to support students in distress while maintaining their own emotional stability. When adults remain regulated, students are more likely to feel secure and calm during the drill (Braun et al., 2020). For example, an increasing number of states, including Texas, Nebraska, and New Mexico, are also pretraining school staff in Psychological First Aid for Schools (PFA-S) (Brymer et al., 2012), an evidence-informed intervention recognized as a best practice in ED’s (2013) Guide for Developing High-Quality School Emergency Operations Plans. PFA-S can be used during and after drills to provide immediate support to students and staff in distress (NCTSN, 2017). Any school staff or community partners can be trained in PFA-S, making it a valuable tool for schools with limited mental health personnel. Staff without direct student supervision duties can be strategically positioned in areas where additional

support may be needed during drills, ensuring that students and staff have access to emotional support and reassurance (PBIS, 2025b). When adults remain regulated, students are more likely to feel secure and calm during the drill (Braun et al., 2020).

Conducting School Active Shooter Drills

Once a drill is under way, the focus shifts to activating the essential components of the established plan and ensuring that key procedures are practiced in a structured and purposeful manner. As noted in Chapter 3, while the committee found little empirical research directly linking active shooter drills to specific mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes, best practices can still be identified by drawing on expert consensus and well-established principles from research on child and adolescent development. These insights can help ensure that drills are conducted in ways that reinforce safety, minimize distress, and foster a sense of control and confidence among participants. By ensuring that drills are conducted thoughtfully and supportively, schools can help students and staff engage in these preparedness activities in a way that is both effective for learning and skill development and psychologically safe. This section presents guidance on how schools can use careful planning, clear communication, and well-structured support systems in place to approach active shooter drills as part of a broader safety strategy that prioritizes both preparedness and well-being.

As the time for the drill approaches, preparations may be necessary for students with functional and accessibility needs to help them feel more secure and prepared; if necessary, they can be provided with an alternative learning opportunity, such as discussion-based drill activities. Preparations may include reminders about the drill, specific actions the students will take, and coping strategies. For instance, a teacher might reference techniques from a social-emotional learning or wellness program, such as slow breathing exercises, to help students regulate their emotions during the drill. All accommodations need to be in place for students with individualized safety plans before the drill begins—for example,

ensuring that headphones are available for students with sound sensitivity or that a designated buddy is positioned nearby to assist students who require additional support (NCTSN, 2018; PBIS, 2025b).

Finally, school staff can be reminded of the purpose of the drill, the specific action steps, and the availability of mental health supports throughout the drill. In listening sessions, the committee heard that when staff were well-prepared, understood their roles, and took the drills seriously, students reported feeling less anxious. Ensuring that all participants—both students and staff—feel informed and supported helps ensure a more structured, predictable, and psychologically safe experience.

Use Clear Communications During Drills

When a drill begins, school officials can clearly announce to all students and staff that a drill is occurring, possibly using the school’s emergency communication system. Additionally, a communication mechanism can be in place to notify parents, emergency responders, and other relevant external partners to prevent unnecessary alarm. This may involve automated messaging systems, text alerts, or emails that mirror the in-school announcement, reinforcing the message that the event is a drill rather than an actual emergency (NCTSN, 2018; PBIS, 2025a).

Such communications need to be accessible to all members of the school community, including multilingual learners and those who require communication supports (e.g., students who are deaf or hard of hearing). For example, drills may be designed to avoid relying solely on verbal commands, which may exclude students with special communications needs from fully understanding the instructions. To promote this practice, schools can:

• pair verbal commands with standard symbols that indicate required actions;
• ensure that emergency messages are repeated in common languages spoken by students;

• use both verbal and visual cues in drills so students become familiar with multiple ways of receiving emergency instructions;
• explore technological solutions for providing alerts that accommodate students who are multilingual learners, deaf, or hearing impaired; and
• use standardized follow-up communication for the standard response practice being rehearsed—along with visual icons—to further improve comprehension and response accuracy.

ED (2025) and NASP, NASRO, and Safe and Sound Schools (2021) also recommend clear and effective communication throughout the drill, including letting students and staff know when the drill has concluded to ensure that all participants are aware that normal activities may resume (ED, 2025; NASP et al., 2021). By prioritizing accessible and well-structured communication, schools can enhance preparedness, reduce confusion, and create a better safety experience for all students and staff.

Ensure That Wellness Supports Are Available

Professional organizations consistently recommend that wellness supports—such as access to school-based mental health staff and opportunities to debrief—be available both during and after active shooter drills to help mitigate stress and anxiety (ED, 2025; NASP et al., 2021; NCTSN, 2018; PBIS, 2025b). Additionally, as noted earlier in this chapter, pretraining staff in common trauma reactions can equip them to recognize when a student is struggling and may need to step away from the drill that is in progress to seek support (NASP et al., 2021; NCTSN, 2017).

After School Active Shooter Drills Occur

The period after a school active shooter drill is a critical time for ensuring that students and staff are emotionally supported. Having structured post-drill procedures allows schools to check in with

students and staff, particularly those who may be vulnerable to distress, while also gathering valuable feedback with which to refine safety practices. This section outlines best practices for post-drill support, including facilitating debriefing opportunities, conducting targeted check-ins with vulnerable students and staff, and compiling an after-action assessment. These steps not only help schools identify any immediate adverse outcomes but also create an opportunity to strengthen future preparedness efforts. By prioritizing communication, evaluation, and emotional well-being, schools can ensure that drills are not only informative and effective at imparting the knowledge and skills necessary to respond to an emergency but also supportive and responsive to the needs of the entire school community.

Provide Time for Students and Staff to Debrief

Regular debriefing and evaluation of drills are essential for identifying areas for improvement and ensuring that practices remain developmentally appropriate and trauma informed. Taking time to discuss the experience immediately after a drill, before resuming academic instruction, reinforces the purpose of the drill, allows for reviewing the action steps taken, and provides an opportunity to address any concerns or questions from students (PBIS, 2025a). It also allows teachers and school mental health staff to remind students of available mental health resources and how to access them (ED, 2025; NCTSN, 2018; PBIS, 2025a). Box 6-4 summarizes insights from the committee’s listening session with school social workers related to their role in supporting students before, during, and after drills—including during debriefings.

To help students regain focus and transition back to learning, teachers may guide them through grounding exercises or emotion-regulation strategies, ensuring that they feel calm and prepared for the remainder of the school day. Additionally, recognizing students’ efforts and participation—such as acknowledging how they followed safety protocols or supported one another—can help reinforce positive engagement with the drills (NCTSN, 2018, PBIS, 2025a).

ED (2025) recommends creating a systematic process for documenting feedback gathered during debriefing sessions an incorporating findings as part of the school safety committee’s planning. This feedback can help in refining protocols to minimize negative mental, emotional, and behavioral health impacts and to improve future drill experiences (ED, 2025; NCTSN, 2018). ED (2025) recommends that debriefing discussions include

• reinforcing the importance of practicing emergency procedures in case of a real emergency;
• soliciting student feedback on what went well and what could be improved;
• addressing concerns and answering questions that arose during the drill;
• assessing whether students need additional time or support before returning to academic activities; and
• ensuring that all students know how to access additional mental health or wellness supports. (p. 10)

By prioritizing post-drill discussions and evaluation, schools can strengthen both safety preparedness and emotional well-being, ensuring that drills serve their intended purpose without causing unnecessary distress for students and staff.

Check in with Vulnerable Students and Staff

As previously discussed, some students may be particularly vulnerable to adverse mental, emotional, and behavioral effects of school active shooter drills. Students with a history of trauma or loss, as well as those who experience anxiety, may benefit from meeting with a school counselor, school psychologist, school social worker, or school nurse to develop a personalized plan for active shooter drills; they also may need reminders and reassurance about their plan to help them navigate the experience and the time period afterward. These students as well may be positioned to offer their perspective and feedback on how to make the drills more trauma informed, and schools may benefit from using student leadership or focus groups to guide these practices.

Staff can provide additional support by reaching out proactively to students who have previously expressed concerns or been identified as needing extra assistance, ensuring that they feel prepared and supported. During the committee’s listening session with school nurses, panelists described the varied reactions they observed among students and emphasized the importance of checking in with those who may be at especially high risk for adverse mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes. These check-ins with vulnerable students allow staff to discuss the students’ experiences during a drill in a supportive and nonjudgmental way, provide guidance on coping strategies and assist in applying previously taught self-regulation techniques, and reinforce a sense of safety and control by addressing lingering concerns or distress (NCTSN, 2018; PBIS, 2025a).

Parents also can be engaged, if necessary, to keep them informed about the outcome of these check-ins and to provide suggestions for reinforcing coping skills at home. This collaborative approach can ensure that students receive consistent support across both school and home environments, helping to strengthen their emotional resilience both in future drills and in emergency situations.

School staff may also need extra support after a drill and can be encouraged to access available mental health resources. Having

access to wellness supports and debriefing opportunities helps ensure that staff have the resources they need to process their experiences, manage stress, and continue to provide reassurance and guidance to students (NCTSN, 2018).

Conduct an After-Action Assessment That Evaluates Results, Identifies Gaps, and Documents Lessons Learned and Successes Achieved

After completing a drill, schools can use a quality improvement process to evaluate the drill’s effectiveness at imparting preparedness skills and its impacts on mental, emotional, and behavioral health, and to identify areas for refinement. Seeking input from students, staff, school safety team members, and parents allows for a comprehensive review of the drill experience, enabling an assessment of how well protocols were followed, how participants experienced the drill, and where adjustments may be necessary. Engaging parents in this evaluation can also offer an opportunity to update them on the drill’s implementation, share available resources for students who may need additional support, and gather information on any concerns or suggestions they have for future planning (ED, 2025). This feedback can be compiled into an after-action report that documents lessons learned, successes achieved, and adverse outcomes of concern while also outlining opportunities for improvement (ED, 2025; NCTSN, 2018). Documenting action steps for improvement after each drill and keeping all relevant members of the school community informed of any changes can ensure that lessons learned translate to meaningful updates to safety procedures that reflect feedback from participants on how they experienced the drill, as well as promote positive mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes.

Through this ongoing review process, school safety teams may uncover unintended negative mental, emotional, and behavioral health impacts not previously recognized. During the committee’s listening sessions, for example, some participants described compliance checks conducted as part of school active shooter drills. One

practice involved checking that doors were properly locked by jiggling door handles during lockdown drills. While this practice was intended to evaluate procedural fidelity, it was noted that this activity elicited emotional distress for some students, even when they were informed in advance that it would occur. Although these accounts are anecdotal, this type of information highlights the types of insights that might be shared after a drill and areas in which adjustments might be considered to maintain the effectiveness of drills while minimizing unnecessary stress.

Consistently collecting feedback over time provides schools with valuable insights into the real-world impact of their emergency preparedness efforts. By adapting practices based on direct input from students, staff, and parents, schools can refine their approach in ways that balance safety, procedural integrity, and foster practices that mitigate potential adverse mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes.

Practices with High Likelihood of Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Health Harm

This section describes practices likely to cause significant and unnecessary mental, emotional, and behavioral health harms when implemented in the context of school active shooter drills. These practices include simulation exercises involving student participation; high-intensity, hyper-realistic, or high-sensorial components; and deception.

The committee recognizes the importance of simulation exercises for training emergency responders, but it is important to conduct these exercises outside regular school hours and without the presence of students and most school staff. Although mandatory participation is to be avoided, selected staff members from the school safety team may choose to participate or observe to help ensure that the school’s emergency response plans align with established emergency responder protocols.

Simulation exercises tend to mimic a school shooting or other school violence and typically include emergency responders

practicing how they will respond to an active shooter event in a school, which heightens the intensity of these exercises for those who participate in them. They may also include high-sensorial, high-intensity, and hyper-realistic components (e.g., using realistic actors firing blanks, having emergency personnel act like an intruder, using fake blood). In some cases, drills may simulate a real emergency by incorporating deceptive strategies, such as falsely announcing a real emergency or having a law enforcement officer enter the school as if they were an active shooter (Schonfeld et al., 2020).

As described in Chapter 3, there has been a paucity of research assessing how different elements of drills and simulation exercises affect participants’ reactions. As yet, no head-to-head studies have compared participants’ reactions to different types of school active shooter drills. While no direct research has been done on how high-intensity, hyper-realistic, or high-sensorial elements affect the mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes of students and staff, there is a growing professional consensus on the likely adverse impact of these practices. In some cases, legal complaints have been filed when the implementation of such drills has led to harm (Frosch, 2014; Safe Havens International, n.d.; Sawchuk, 2020; Trump, 2014). A recent RAND Corporation study (Moore et al., 2024) reports the finding from a 2023 American Teacher Panel Survey of 1,020 teachers that most schools do not incorporate these elements in their drills. However, 57% of teachers in rural schools reported that their drills included at least one realistic element, compared with 32% in urban schools and 46% of those in suburban schools (Moore et al., 2024).

The use of realistic elements in drills is grounded in the erroneous assumption that high-intensity, hyper-realistic, or high-sensorial elements that replicate the distress experienced in actual shooting events will better prepare students to perform the desired behaviors during a real incident. Examples in the media have suggested that such practices are effective in accomplishing the goal of evoking distress, but with no indication that these practices increase

preparedness (Schonfeld et al., 2017). Despite the lack of direct evidence, it is clear from the developmental sciences that effective learning—for both adults and students—does not typically take place under conditions in which individuals are experiencing excessive stress or anxiety (see Chapter 5). The purpose of school active shooter drills is for students and staff to learn the appropriate response when an emergency occurs at school, and the growing body of anecdotal evidence (including accounts from educators and other school staff during the committee’s listening sessions) suggests that simulation exercises are highly likely to impede rather than facilitate the learning of appropriate skills. There is no evidence that simulation elements, including deceptive tactics, improve students’ and staff’s perceptions of preparedness. Rather, these practices may dramatically heighten negative mental, emotional, and behavioral health impacts; result in injuries; and hinder the ability of teachers and students to resume academic learning (Frosch, 2014; Moore-Petinak et al., 2020; Sawchuk, 2020; Schonfeld et al., 2020).

In sum, there is wide consensus across professional associations that the use of simulation exercises with simulated violence and high-sensorial elements should be avoided, and that drills need to be developmentally and age appropriate, as well as trauma informed (Donovan, 2023; ED, 2025; Miotto & Cogan, 2023; Schonfeld et al., 2020). In presentations to the committee during its public information-gathering session, experts from NASRO, National School Safety and Security Services, Safe Havens International, and Safe and Sound Schools all concurred that students should not participate in school active shooter simulations or exercises or in any drill with high-sensorial and hyper-realistic components. In addition, an American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) policy statement recommends that children not routinely participate in high-intensity exercises during regular school time (Schonfeld et al., 2020). The statement suggests that children should not ordinarily participate in live crisis drills or exercises, and that they should do so only if their participation advances their personal preparedness or resiliency and/or meets the unique needs of children as a group that cannot otherwise

be advanced. In one incident described by Simonetti (2020), for example, a training drill included “students posing as injured individuals while others were chained to chairs as hostages and fastened to mock explosives” (Simonetti, 2020, p. 1021). These findings raise the question of what educational benefit or skill acquisition is gained by students in playing these roles as helpless victims.

Donovan (2023) affirms the AAP policy statement: “Drills that involve students should not realistically simulate active shooter situations” (p. 442). Miotto & Cogan (2023) agree that “children should not be routinely involved in high-intensity drills or exercises” and conclude that “live-action, hyper-realistic drills unsupported by research have no place in a student-centered, trauma-responsive learning environment” (p. 8). The Council for Exceptional Children’s Division of Emotional and Behavioral Health (CEC-DEBH) has observed that there appears to be “no evidence of any benefit or rationale for including a sensorial experience in these drills” and that “live simulations of assailants attacking a school are unnecessary” (p. 120).

In addition, several states have drawn a firm distinction between drills and simulation exercises. They ban mandatory student participation in simulation exercises (e.g., Minnesota Students Safe at School Act); or they encourage schools to conduct such exercises only when school is not in session; or they permit participation only after specific parental notification or consent²⁸; or they restrict drills from mimicking a shooting, violence, or any emergency.²⁹ The committee agrees with these alternative legislative approaches. Moreover, it is worth noting that some school simulation exercises have resulted in legal complaints that have led to state legislative action prohibiting students from being required to participate in these types of exercises (Frosch, 2014; Ind. Code § 20-34-3-27, 2024; Safe Havens International, n.d.; Sawchuk, 2020; Trump, 2014).

Although a strong consensus has now emerged that students should not be required to participate in simulation exercises,

___________________

²⁸ Tex. Educ. Code § 37.1411, 2025.

²⁹ N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs., tit. 8, § 155.17, 2025; Md. H.B. 416, 2024.

practices regarding staff participation vary. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Active Shooter Drills and Program Assessment (2025) acknowledges that simulations and full-scale exercises need to be limited to staff and local first responders, but it does not provide additional guidance on whether staff should be required to participate. School staff and administrators who participated in the committee’s listening sessions expressed many of the same concerns about simulations and reported their own negative experiences. Additionally, insurance companies have reported an increase in medical bills due to staff physical injuries as a result of drills, some of which led to lawsuits (O’Regan, 2019), mirroring similar concerns raised about drills conducted in nonschool settings. The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, along with the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, concluded in a recent report, “While there is almost no research affirming the value of these drills, stories abound in the media of incidents where students, educators, and staff have experienced distress and sometimes lasting trauma as a result of active shooter drills” (Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund et al., 2020).

As noted in Chapter 2, first responders receive specialized tactical training as recruits (e.g., Civilian Response to Active Shooter Events, which is offered by the ALERRT Center at Texas State University); many states (e.g., Indiana, Tennessee, South Carolina) require additional active shooter training for their law enforcement officers and agencies. These types of courses are geared to first responders and civilians in the community, but not to educators in their official job capacities (Martaindale & Blair, 2019). Given that simulation and full-scale exercises are complex trainings designed to replicate real emergencies and test first responders under highly stressful conditions, the committee does not recommend mandating that administrators or staff participate in these exercises, although some educators or school staff may wish to observe these simulations or volunteer to take part.

In summary, the committee recommends that, to minimize harm to students and staff, active shooter drills in schools exclude high-intensity, high-sensorial elements. It also recommends that deception, including false claims of an actual shooter or staged injuries or deaths, be forbidden. Such practices can cause significant psychological distress. Instead, preparedness efforts need to prioritize safety while safeguarding the mental, emotional, and behavioral well-being of participating students and staff. This approach aligns with professional consensus, as other experts in the field have explicitly stated that drills should not include deceptive practices (CEC-DEBH, 2024; Schonfeld et al., 2017).

Recommendation 2: State legislatures and education agencies should enact policies prohibiting the use of high-intensity or high-sensorial simulations and exercises, as well as deception, as part of active shooter drills in K–12 schools. If statewide action is not taken, local school districts should prohibit the use of these practices as part of active shooter drills and should require that all drills be announced to students, staff, and parents before they begin.

One appropriate measure of progress toward this recommendation would be the number of states banning high-intensity and deceptive drills. Success at the local level could be measured by tracking the percentage of schools eliminating use of high-intensity, high-sensorial elements and deception in drills; the number of schools allowing opt-out policies; and the number of students and staff reporting distress related to drills.

Moreover, consistent with its recommendation, the committee suggests that law enforcement personnel and emergency responders conducting high-intensity school active shooter response training do so outside of school hours and without student participants. The AAP recommends that, if adolescent students wish to volunteer to participate in such training activities, explicit parental consent be required, and the respective schools should establish safeguards to ensure that student participation is truly voluntary (Schonfeld et al.,

2020). The effectiveness of these policies could be measured by tracking reductions in the number of schools used as training sites during school hours, by increasing the adoption of alternative training models that exclude student involvement, and by tracking compliance with ethical standards for emergency preparedness exercises.

Practices More Likely to Have Negative Than Positive Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Health Impact

Options-Based Practices

Options-based practices emphasize critical thinking and in-the-moment decision-making when standard response practices cannot be implemented (Donovan, 2023; Miotto & Cogan, 2023; Schonfeld et al., 2020; Simonetti, 2020). By contrast, standard response practices provide structured, predefined actions that students and staff should take during emergencies instead of situational decision-making. While options-based strategies may be necessary in specific instances during real active shooter events (e.g., if a shooter enters a classroom), these skills may not be appropriate for the entire school community (NASP et al., 2021). Their application in a school setting requires caution. The limited evidence on their potential mental, emotional, and behavioral health impacts and on whether they are more effective than, or even equivalent to, alternative practices dictates caution in applying them in a school setting. Furthermore, the landscape of practices used during school active shooter drills caution remains regarding the appropriateness of options-based practices for all students and staff, revealed some indications that these practices may not be suitable for certain age groups for individuals with severe functional and access needs, or for those with trauma histories (NASP et al., 2021). Yet none of these programs specify with clarity who should not participate in these practices.

Although standard response practices address most emergency situations in schools, they do not cover every scenario involving an active shooter. As a result, some schools may consider incorporating

options-based practices into their drills to prepare for rare but high-risk situations. However, given the potential for adverse mental, emotional, and behavioral health effects and the limited research available, schools need to weigh the costs and benefits of introducing these practices carefully. This includes considering how they align with the specific context and needs of the particular school community, understanding whether they are developmentally appropriate, evaluating the overall time and resources required for implementation, and considering factors such as training requirements and costs. Additionally, the school needs to address staff and parental concerns and to evaluate any drills using these practices for potential negative mental, emotional, and behavioral health impacts.

While options-based practices may offer certain benefits, including flexibility, the committee does not advise mandating these programs through state legislation for the entire school community. Given the significant level of readiness required for successful implementation, options-based practices may not be suitable for all schools or all individuals within a school setting. Additionally, the existing evidence is unclear regarding the age groups for which various practices are appropriate, and how students and staff with severe functional and access needs, special educational needs, and those with experiences of trauma can effectively engage in these activities. Given these considerations and the very limited evidence currently available, the committee cautions against the use of options-based practices.

Timing and Manner of Prior Announcement of Drills

Unannounced school active shooter drills can create confusion and uncertainty about whether there is or is not an active threat—a state of uncertainty that can generate extreme emotional distress for students, staff, and parents. Moreover, unannounced active shooter training exercises that included high-sensorial, high-intensity, and deceptive components conducted outside of the school setting have resulted in legal complaints and at least one settlement related to claims about the significant adverse mental, emotional, and

behavioral health impacts on the participants (Frosch, 2014; Kalmbacher, 2024; Sawchuk, 2020; Trump, 2014). Additionally, at least one lawsuit that occurred after an unannounced school active shooter drill in which an educator claimed she developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (O’Regan, 2019). Announcing these drills before they begin can allow students to prepare for the experience, reinforce previously taught social-emotional skills, and address any questions students may have beforehand. The committee aligns with the ED (2025) recommendation that schools consider announcing when a drill is beginning and integrating them into existing lesson plans.

Although there is consensus that active shooter drills should be announced in advance, there is less agreement on the timing and manner of these announcements. For example, guidance from NASP, NASRO, and Safe and Sound Schools recommends that all participants be informed when a drill is about to begin and understand what it will entail, and that notifications be sent to parents, caregivers, and key community partners (if necessary) when drills are taking place (NASP et al., 2021). By contrast, ED (2025) has indicated that “unplanned” drills, meaning the exact time of the drill is not known to all participants may occur, but still notes that students and staff should be given prior notice that there will be an upcoming drill even if precise details of timing are not given. Given the potential for negative mental, emotional, and behavioral health impacts, the committee does not favor conducting “unplanned” and unannounced drills, and if such drills take place, it is important that they not include deceptive components; in particular, the organizers need to state explicitly that the event is a drill, not a real emergency to avoid deceiving participants. This announcement needs to be made before all drills begin to ensure that both students and staff are aware and can adequately prepare to participate.

Providing advance notice about the nature of practices that will be used allows schools to implement necessary accommodations for students who may be at particular risk of distress, such as those with anxiety, past trauma, or disabilities. This approach ensures that

flexible support measures—such as alternative participation options—are in place to protect student well-being. To support these students, schools can incorporate discussion-based practices such as standardized lesson plans that outline the steps for practices that will be used as part of the drill. These lesson plans can include visual aids and social stories to explain the purpose of the drills in an accessible and reassuring way. Providing alternative learning opportunities aligns with civil rights laws and other legal requirements, ensuring that all students can participate meaningfully in school programs and activities. This can be achieved through clear communication with students and parents, provision of accessible materials in a format they understand, and proactive efforts to remove barriers to participation (ED, 2025; Safe and Sound Schools, 2021; see also Recommendations 8 and 9).

IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS

School active shooter drills and other security measures do not operate in isolation, as most schools implement multiple strategies to prevent school violence. However, substantial autonomy exists at district and even school levels in selecting programs and approaches that align with their specific needs. Decision-makers must weigh a range of factors, including federal, state, district, and school policies; feedback from key constituencies; appropriateness and fit for their specific context; a strategy’s perceived effectiveness; capacity for implementation; and cost considerations.

This section presents recommendations and actionable strategies tailored to each level of potential influence, ranging from national policy initiatives to school-based implementation efforts. Additionally, it explores opportunities for philanthropic organizations and interested researchers to support schools in identifying, refining, and evaluating best practices. By fostering multilevel collaboration, schools can strengthen their emergency preparedness strategies while ensuring that student and staff well-being remain at the center of these efforts.

Guidance to Prioritize Health and Safety Across All School Settings

As discussed previously in this report, despite the prevalence of mandates requiring schools to conduct active shooter drills, no standardized guidance exists on their implementation, which has led to significant variations in approaches. This inconsistency has created an urgent need for minimally acceptable standards that prioritize student health and safety across all school settings. At the same time, universal, one-size-fits-all safety plans are not practical, as individual schools need to meet the needs of their specific school populations and face unique safety challenges. The broad range of school security strategies across disciplines further complicates efforts to establish a single, standardized model. Instead, best practices must balance consistency in core safety principles with flexibility to meet local needs.

The responsibility for developing guidance on active shooter drills has been spread across multiple entities, including professional associations, researchers, state and federal agencies, foundations, and advocacy organizations. While these groups have offered valuable recommendations, including best practices and policies, a cohesive, coordinated approach is necessary to ensure that schools have the resources, training, and support needed to implement safe strategies for all students.

Recommendation 3: Federal agencies, including the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, should issue national best-practice guidelines aligned with the committee’s guidance to follow trauma-informed and developmentally appropriate principles.

The committee recognizes the role of school active shooter drills in emergency preparedness, but their implementation needs to prioritize student and staff well-being to prevent unnecessary harm and

ensure that the drills foster environments conducive to the learning and skill-building they are intended to impart. As noted throughout this report, the use of high-intensity or high-sensorial simulations and exercises, as well as outright deception, has been shown to increase distress for both students and school staff. Use of these approaches with students and in school settings is not supported by research evidence. The essential path forward is to adopt trauma-informed, developmentally appropriate approaches that balance preparedness with emotional and psychological safety. Success in this area could be measured by the number of states adopting national best-practice guidelines and the publication of high-quality, methodologically rigorous research on effectiveness and best practices for school active shooter drills. (See also Chapter 7 for a discussion of priorities for future research.) To continue refining national-level guidance on best practices, federal funding can support research on the long-term psychological impact of drills on students and staff.

Recommendation 4: Research funders, including philanthropic organizations and research institutions, should fund independent studies on the effects of school active shooter drills on mental, emotional, and behavioral health, and support the adoption of trauma-informed safety practices to ensure that school safety practices are evidence based and centered on the health of students and school staff.

Additionally, these organizations can support initiatives that promote trauma-informed, developmentally appropriate school safety practices at the state and national levels. Success in this area could be measured by the number of high-quality, methodologically rigorous studies funded that examine the effectiveness and psychological impact of drills, increased public awareness of trauma-informed school safety practices, and the adoption of evidence-based policy recommendations by education agencies.

Universities and research institutions can collaborate with education agencies to assess and identify best practices in school safety

that minimize negative mental, emotional, and behavioral health impacts. By conducting rigorous evaluations of existing programs and practices, these institutions can provide data-driven recommendations to inform future policy decisions. The effectiveness of these efforts could be measured by the number of research studies conducted, the implementation of evidence-based policies, and documented improvements in outcomes related to school safety and mental health and well-being. (See also Chapter 7 for a detailed description of priorities for future research.)

Few school security measures require accreditation or formal oversight, leaving schools to navigate a rapidly expanding market of safety solutions with limited guidance. Without accepted standards, decision-makers must assess programs and strategies on their own, often without access to clear, evidence-based information on effectiveness. A common vocabulary for discussing safety and preparedness practices—along with transparent reporting from providers about the rationale for preferred practices, implementation data, and empirical evaluation—could help schools and districts make well-informed decisions about which practices best align with their needs and goals.

Training on School Safety Practices to Support Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Health

The responsibility for training, implementation, monitoring, and sustainability for school active shooter drills and other security measures often falls on school leaders and staff, many of whom receive little to no formal training on school safety practices. While some districts have created designated safety roles such as “safety liaison” or “safety specialist,” most school personnel—including teachers, school-based health care professionals, and administrators—are expected to carry out these responsibilities with limited professional development or structured support. Prioritizing training for school community members can help ensure that best practices are implemented with fidelity while also reducing strain on staff members involved in school security planning and response.

Additionally, pretraining staff in common trauma reactions can equip them to recognize when a student is struggling and may need to step away from a drill (NASP et al., 2021; NCTSN, 2017). Training all staff in self-regulation techniques can also enhance their ability to support students in distress while maintaining their own emotional stability. As noted previously, when adults remain regulated, students are more likely to feel secure and calm during a drill (Braun et al., 2020).

Recommendation 5: School districts should ensure that school nurses, school counselors, school psychologists, school social workers, and other school-based health professionals are engaged in proactively monitoring students for signs of anxiety or distress during and following school active shooter drills. School districts should provide educators and school staff with training that equips them to recognize and monitor signs of psychological distress in students when school active shooter drills are implemented. School districts, informed by mental health professionals, should ensure that appropriate mental, emotional, and behavioral health support services for students are available when drills are conducted.

School-based health professionals and child development specialists can also play a key role by reviewing school district policies and providing guidance on how drills may impact students and staff. The effectiveness of this practice could be measured by surveying changes in the involvement of health experts in drill planning, the expansion of school-based mental health interventions for students affected by drills, and the percentage of schools incorporating trauma-informed practices into their drill protocols. Teachers can also advocate within their districts for trauma-informed safety policies that prioritize student well-being. The effectiveness of these efforts could be assessed by monitoring student distress levels after

drills, tracking the adoption of appropriate training models that incorporate best practices for teachers, and surveying teachers on their ability to recognize and respond to student distress during and after school active shooter drills.

As a necessary part of a comprehensive school safety plan, active shooter drills are designed to prepare students, staff, and emergency responders for potential threats of violence. Law enforcement can play an important role not only in the implementation of these drills but also as part of a broader culture of school safety. In particular, school resource officers receive specialized training that can equip them with skills beyond traditional law enforcement duties, including crisis response, de-escalation techniques, and youth-engagement strategies. Their presence in schools can support both emergency preparedness efforts and the ongoing well-being of students and staff. The following recommendation outlines best practices for supporting the integration of law enforcement into school safety efforts in a way that is supportive, strategic, and trauma informed.

Recommendation 6: Any sworn law enforcement officer assigned to work in elementary or secondary schools should be properly trained to work with students in an educational environment and properly prepared to respond in a developmentally appropriate manner to the mental, emotional, and behavioral health needs of school-aged children and adolescents.

• State legislatures should require that all law enforcement officers assigned to schools—including full-time school resource officers and other sworn law enforcement officers stationed temporarily in schools—complete specialized training in supporting student wellbeing and contributing to safe, developmentally appropriate emergency responses that mitigate adverse

• mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes for students and school staff.
• Law enforcement officers assigned to work in elementary or secondary schools should be trained in the specific drills and security measures used in the schools they serve to ensure coordinated and effective responses.
• School districts and law enforcement agencies should verify that all officers working in schools have completed the required training prior to any school assignment.
• Researchers, education policy organizations, law enforcement training institutes, and law enforcement professional organizations should conduct research on the effectiveness of school resource officer training for all law enforcement officers assigned to schools, with a particular focus on their role in school active shooter drills and develop standardized training curricula for use nationwide.

Required training for law enforcement officers assigned to schools can include child and adolescent development, trauma-informed care, developmentally appropriate practices, ways of supporting students with disabilities, and approaches that can serve students across different school environments and community settings. To minimize harm during active shooter drills, training can emphasize the exclusion of high-intensity, high-sensorial elements and prohibit the use of deceptive tactics such as false alarms or staged injuries.

To ensure that officers are adequately prepared for their role in school active shooter drills, training curricula could also cover coordinated emergency response protocols, strategies for minimizing student trauma during drills, and best practices in communication for guiding school staff and students in high-stress situations. State law enforcement training academies could adopt curricula aligned

with the committee’s best-practice guidance. The impact of this policy could be measured by the number of officers completing certified training programs aligned with the best practices identified by the committee, by law enforcement participation in school emergency drills, and by student and staff perceptions of officer preparedness and responsiveness.

Districts can also explore opportunities to include school resource officers in ongoing professional development related to mental, emotional, and behavioral health, in alignment with the training received by school staff. The success of these efforts could be measured by school climate assessments; evaluations of officer involvement in emergency preparedness; and student feedback on how drills—and the role of law enforcement officers specifically—impact mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes.

To understand the effectiveness of training efforts, studies can evaluate how well law enforcement officers apply their training in emergency scenarios, the psychological impact of drills on students, and best practices for ensuring that drills are both effective and developmentally appropriate. NASRO could collaborate with researchers, emergency management experts, and education agencies to develop and refine training curricula and standards aligned with evidence-based guidance. Findings could inform continuous improvement of training for law enforcement officers and related policy decisions at the state and local levels. Measurable outcomes include the generation of an evidence-based standardized curriculum for school resource officer training; adoption of evidence-based improvements to training and drill protocols; documented changes in policies and practices; and documented changes in mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes reported by students and staff.

Funding and Resources Needed to Implement Best Practices

Beyond the challenge of navigating an unregulated school safety landscape, many schools lack the funding and resources needed to implement best practices effectively. School safety strategies vary widely in startup costs, implementation demands, and long-term

sustainability, and not all schools have access to the financial and personnel resources required for success. Additionally, the true costs of school safety decisions extend beyond direct financial investments. Schools must also account for the time, training, and capacity required to implement these strategies, as well as their potential unintended consequences. For instance, while fear and stress resulting from exposure to school active shooter drills or other security measures is difficult to measure, available research suggests that effects may extend beyond the drill itself.

The committee recognizes that school leaders often must make difficult trade-offs when allocating safety resources, balancing available funding, personnel, and time with the need to adopt effective, evidence-based strategies. To ensure that all schools can implement best practices, addressing funding gaps and resource disparities needs to be a priority. The following recommendation outlines policy aims and funding strategies that can help schools adopt and sustain high-quality safety practices, regardless of the financial constraints they face.

Recommendation 7: To ensure that all schools have sufficient resources to implement best practices in school safety, federal, state, and local governments should ensure that adequate funding is provided and sustained to promote a positive school climate; to foster safe and healthy learning environments; and to design, monitor, and evaluate school safety measures and policies, especially as they relate to reducing potential negative mental, emotional, and behavioral health impacts.

• Congress should fund the provisions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act pertaining to school safety initiatives, violence prevention efforts, and programs that promote a positive school climate.
• In the absence of federal action, state legislatures and education agencies should establish school safety

• grant programs to provide targeted funding for safety initiatives, student mental health, and program evaluation.
• Local school boards and municipal governments should allocate discretionary education funds to support school safety programs if federal or state funding is unavailable or inadequate.
• Foundations, corporate sponsors, and community organizations should be engaged to provide supplemental funding for developmentally appropriate school safety initiatives, particularly in underfunded districts.

Federal funding pertaining to school safety initiatives, violence prevention, and programs to improve school climate can ensure that schools have access to an adequate number of school-based health and well-being staff, including school counselors, school psychologists, school nurses, and school social workers, to support students in general, and specifically to assist with planning and implementing school active shooter drills and broader school violence prevention strategies. The funding should also support program evaluation to ensure that (1) resources are allocated to the most effective interventions; (2) they do not negatively impact mental, emotional, and behavioral health; (3) they promote positive mental, emotional, and behavioral health; and (4) schools have sufficient access to qualified professionals to support student mental health and overall well-being. Measurable outcomes for this action include increasing the number of schools receiving funding; collecting comprehensive data on program impact that include assessment of mental, emotional, and behavioral health impacts; documenting favorable student reports of school safety and school climate; and providing increased access to school-based mental health professionals.

State-level safety grant programs could be modeled after legislation such as the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to provide targeted funding for safety initiatives, student mental health, and

program evaluation. These programs could prioritize schools in under-resourced areas and ensure that best practices are implemented statewide. The success of these efforts could be measured by tracking the number of schools funded at the state level, reductions in disciplinary incidents, increased availability of school-based health professionals, and improvements in student and staff perceptions of school safety.

At the local level, school boards and municipal governments can allocate discretionary education funds to support school safety programs. By integrating safety initiatives into existing budget allocations, school districts can ensure that critical programs continue without disruption. The impact of these actions could be measured by monitoring the number of schools implementing developmentally appropriate safety measures, improvements in school climate as reported by students, and positive trends in school discipline.

Partnerships with foundations, corporate sponsors, and community organizations may also fill critical resource gaps and ensure that schools have access to necessary resources even in the absence of government support. The success of this approach could be measured by the total amount of private funding secured, the number of schools benefiting from these funds, and the assessments of the effectiveness of safety programs.

Accommodations for Students and Staff with Disabilities and Functional and Access Needs

The committee’s review found significant variation in how school active shooter drills are implemented across districts and schools, and very little information addressing accommodations for students and staff with disabilities and functional and access needs. At the committee’s public information-gathering sessions and during its series of listening sessions, multiple speakers highlighted planning; accessibility compliance; and the availability of supports for students with mobility, sensory, and other functional needs.

In some cases, inadequate planning or inadequate staffing results in drills that fail to account fully for the needs of all students.

Beyond logistical challenges, the lack of consistency in implementation also affects how safe and supported students feel during these drills. Ensuring that all students—including those with disabilities—are considered, accommodated, and included in planning efforts is critical for fostering a school environment in which every student feels secure. The following recommendation is aimed at supporting the effective implementation of school active shooter drills.

Recommendation 8: Students with disabilities should have equal access to emergency preparedness activities—including school active shooter drills—to ensure their safety during emergencies. Policies at the federal, state, and local levels should ensure that emergency preparedness measures address the individual needs of students, and schools should provide accommodations that allow students with disabilities to participate effectively in active shooter drills without compromising their well-being.

• Federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Education, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, should issue formal guidance clarifying how schools should apply the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to school active shooter drills.
• If federal action is delayed, state education agencies, legislatures, and emergency management agencies should take the lead in ensuring that students with disabilities are fully included in emergency drills with necessary accommodations. State laws and policies should mandate that schools plan proactively for accessibility in preparedness efforts.
• School districts, local education agencies, and municipal governments should take immediate steps to ensure that active shooter drills are accessible to

• students with disabilities by integrating clear accessibility measures into their planning and implementation.
• Disability advocacy organizations, educational foundations, and private- sector partners should collaborate to develop training materials and best-practice toolkits that support schools in implementing accessible active shooter drills.
• Researchers, universities, and disability advocacy organizations should collaborate to study the effectiveness of accessible active shooter drills, particularly their impact on students with disabilities.

Federal guidance clarifying how schools should the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to school active shooter drills could articulate the need for accessible emergency preparedness activities, including testing and evaluation of accommodations for students and staff with disabilities during school active shooter drills. Schools need guidance on integrating drill-related accommodations into IEPs and Section 504 plans, ensuring meaningful inclusion without causing undue distress or safety risks. Additionally, federal guidance can outline best practices for students with disabilities, their families, and service providers in drill planning to ensure that functional and access needs are considered at every stage. To monitor compliance with federal law, agencies can recommend regular reviews of emergency drill policies, data collection on accessibility challenges, and reporting on barriers and solutions. The effectiveness of these measures could be tracked by monitoring the number of schools incorporating individualized emergency plans for students with disabilities and feedback from students, parents, and educators on the implementation of these accommodations. Additionally, federal agencies could publish periodic reports summarizing accessibility improvements and ongoing

challenges to support the refinement of future guidance and best practices.

State laws and policies can mandate that schools plan proactively for accessibility in preparedness efforts by requiring that IEPs and 504 plans address emergency drills and response strategies. Additionally, states can establish clear accessibility requirements for all school emergency drills, ensuring the inclusion of students with disabilities in preparedness planning. States can also consider accountability measures, such as periodic audits of school compliance and the collection of feedback from students, families, and disability advocates.

At the district and local levels, school districts can ensure that active shooter drills are accessible to students with disabilities by integrating clear accessibility measures into their planning and implementation. This includes providing instructions in accessible formats; ensuring that necessary supports are available before, during, and after drills; and guaranteeing reasonable accommodations tailored to individual student needs. Schools can collaborate with disability service providers and advocacy groups to offer staff training in supporting students with disabilities during drills. Municipal governments can establish local policies and internal protocols that incorporate universal design principles and require accessibility audits. The effectiveness of these efforts could be measured by tracking school and municipal compliance with accessibility protocols, monitoring the number of institutions adopting inclusive drill policies, and conducting post-drill evaluations that gather feedback from students with disabilities on both the adequacy of accommodations and the impact of these drills on their mental, emotional, and behavioral health.

Training materials and best-practice toolkits that support schools in implementing accessible active shooter drills can provide clear guidance on accommodations and incorporate universal design principles and strategies to ensure that students with disabilities can participate safely. Philanthropic funding can be leveraged to support pilot programs that test and refine accessibility strategies in schools,

particularly where government funding is unavailable. Success could be measured by the number of schools receiving training and support, the distribution and utilization of accessibility resources (e.g., visual aids, sensory accommodations, text-based alerts), and the integration of best practices into school policies. Additionally, tracking the adoption of emergency preparedness strategies that include practices for improving accessibility in K–12 schools could help in assessing the long-term impact of these efforts.

Studies of the effectiveness of accessible active shooter drills, particularly their impact on students with disabilities, can assess how different accommodation strategies influence student safety, preparedness, and overall well-being, while also identifying best practices for implementation. Research can focus on evaluating real-world emergency outcomes, ensuring that accommodations meaningfully enhance both participation and safety. Findings can be used to inform school policies at all levels, driving improvements in emergency preparedness for students with disabilities. The impact of this research could be measured by the number of high-quality, methodologically rigorous studies conducted; by the extent to which research-based recommendations are adopted in school emergency plans; and by documented improvements in students’ experiences with drills, including both the effectiveness of accommodations and their overall well-being.

While federal laws such as the ADA, IDEA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act have historically established protections for students with disabilities, some students with functional and access needs may not be covered under these statutes. For example, students experiencing temporary impairments, heightened anxiety, sensory sensitivities, or other acute challenges may require additional considerations during school active shooter drills.

Schools can take proactive steps to support these students by identifying individual needs, incorporating flexible accommodations, and ensuring that all students are able to participate safely in emergency preparedness efforts. Creating a schoolwide culture of accessibility not only benefits students with legally recognized

disabilities but also provides critical support to those who may otherwise fall outside existing legal protections.

Recommendation 9: Schools should establish clear standards to ensure that active shooter drills are accessible to all students and staff and accommodate functional and access needs to ensure full participation and safety during emergencies. To address this obligation, specific requirements should be established to guide the planning and implementation of school active shooter drills that prioritize safety for all students and staff.

• The U.S. Department of Education, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Department of Justice should issue guidance for ensuring that functional and access needs are addressed in school emergency preparedness efforts.
• State legislatures and education agencies should implement policies requiring schools to proactively identify and support students and staff with functional and access needs in emergency preparedness activities.
• School districts should develop clear protocols for meeting functional and access needs during school active shooter drills.
• Philanthropic organizations and private-sector partners should support the development of training materials and guidance for school staff and safety teams, as well as pilot programs that help schools implement inclusive emergency preparedness practices.
• Universities, research institutions, and advocacy groups should collaborate to study the effectiveness of accessible emergency preparedness measures, particularly their impact on students with functional and access needs.

Federal guidance for ensuring that functional and access needs are addressed in school emergency preparedness efforts can include best practices for identifying and accommodating students and staff with needs related to mobility, sensory capacity, cognitive capacity, communication, and mental health issues during active shooter drills. Federal agencies can also fund research and pilot programs to evaluate accessibility strategies that promote inclusive participation without compromising safety. Compliance with these best practices can be encouraged through federal school safety grants. The effectiveness of these efforts could be measured by the number of states incorporating federal guidance into their emergency preparedness policies, by the extent to which federally funded programs improve accessibility in school drills, and by feedback from schools on the implementation of these strategies.

State-level policies can require schools to conduct accessibility audits of their active shooter drills to ensure that emergency plans account for those with mobility impairments, sensory processing differences, and communication barriers, as well as the needs of individuals with heightened vulnerabilities such as anxiety or PTSD. States can also establish training programs for school personnel on how to recognize and address functional and access needs in emergency drills. To assess impact, states could track the number of districts conducting accessibility audits and adopting inclusive drill policies, and seek feedback from students, staff, and families on the effectiveness of these accommodations.

Clear protocols for supporting functional and access needs during school active shooter drills can encompass offering instructions in accessible formats (e.g., visual, auditory, simplified language, multiple languages); ensuring that necessary supports are available before, during, and after drills; and providing alternative participation options for those who are likely to experience distress. For districts developing protocols, collaboration with disability service providers, families, and students can ensure that drills are designed to be inclusive and minimally disruptive. Success at the school level could be measured by the percentage of schools implementing

accessibility protocols in active shooter drills; by student and staff feedback on the adequacy of accommodations; by documented improvements in student preparedness; and by documented improvements in mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes resulting from the implementation of these supports.

To support the development of training materials and guidance for school staff and safety teams, and pilot programs that help schools implement inclusive emergency preparedness practices. Philanthropic organizations and private-sector partners could fund demonstration projects that test and refine accessibility strategies, particularly in under-resourced schools where government funding may be unavailable. Additionally, philanthropic organizations can play a role in raising awareness about the importance of meeting functional and access needs in emergency preparedness. Success could be measured by the number of schools receiving training and resources, the expansion of pilot programs that test inclusive preparedness strategies, and the integration of best practices into school policies.

Finally, universities, research institutions, and advocacy groups collaborating to study the effectiveness of accessible emergency preparedness measures, particularly their impact on students with functional and access needs, can focus research on evaluating different accommodation strategies; assessing real-world emergency outcomes; identifying any effects on mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes; and identifying best practices for ensuring full participation in drills. These findings can inform school policies and state-level guidance. The impact of these efforts could be tracked by the number of high-quality, methodologically rigorous studies conducted to examine these topics; by the extent to which research-based recommendations are adopted in school emergency plans; and by documented improvements in the inclusivity of school preparedness activities.

CONCLUSION

School active shooter drills can be conducted in a way that mitigates the potential to harm mental, emotional, and behavioral health. Success depends on their being integrated within a comprehensive school safety strategy that prioritizes prevention, preparedness, and well-being. Schools are responsible not only for responding to emergencies but also for creating an environment that minimizes risks, fosters resilience, and supports student and staff well-being. A strong foundation of violence prevention, mental health support, and a positive school climate ensures that emergency preparedness efforts, including active shooter drills, can enhance safety without causing unnecessary distress. Without these foundational supports, drills risk being isolated events that heighten anxiety instead of reinforcing confidence in emergency response procedures.

A major challenge in implementing active shooter drills is the lack of a strong evidence base accompanied by standardized guidance and oversight. As a result of this widespread deficiency, active shooter drills differ widely across schools and districts. Responsibility for school safety has been dispersed among professional associations, state and federal agencies, and advocacy groups. Addressing this underlying deficiency is a high priority for school systems throughout the country. Responding to this challenge is also a high priority for the nation.

To begin, the nation needs a much stronger evidence base that can inform cohesive, informed approach to safety protocols. Unfortunately, the absence of a clear, research-based set of best practices has left the field open to the use of harmful or ineffective strategies, including high-intensity, hyper-realistic drills; the use of deception; and other elements that can cause distress.

To ensure that drills are conducted in a developmentally appropriate, trauma-informed, and effective manner, schools require strong social-emotional programming, transparent communication, and a well-structured multidisciplinary approach to planning and

evaluation. Best practices include planning to tailor drills to the various needs of the school community, ensuring clear communication throughout the exercise, and making wellness supports available during and after the drill. Following a drill, a structured operational debriefing, targeted check-ins with vulnerable students, and an after-action review can help schools assess effectiveness, identify unintended consequences, and continuously improve their emergency preparedness efforts.

The implementation of active shooter drills also needs to be understood within the broader context of school safety. Drills are not a stand-alone solution, but one component of a larger system that includes planning, training, social-emotional learning, trauma-informed approaches, and comprehensive mental health support. When integrated thoughtfully, these elements work together to create an environment where students and staff feel secure, prepared, and supported rather than fearful or overwhelmed. However, achieving this balance requires adequate resources, staff training, and ongoing evaluation—elements not equally accessible across all schools in the nation. School leaders often face difficult trade-offs in resource allocation, weighing available funding, personnel, and time against the need to adopt evidence-based safety strategies that align with their school’s unique needs. Ensuring that all schools have the capacity to implement best practices requires attention to funding disparities, professional training, and policy guidance that support schools in making informed decisions.

By embedding school active shooter drills within a holistic framework that balances security and well-being, schools can enhance safety without instilling fear, and nurture a learning environment in which students and staff feel confident, prepared, and supported.

REFERENCES

This page intentionally left blank.