7
Future Research and Evaluation Needs

As often pointed out in this report, the limited body of research bearing on school active shooter drills leaves many important gaps in our knowledge and a corresponding—and compelling—need for new research on the mental, emotional, and behavioral health effects of these active shooter drills. Expanding the research base related to school active shooter drills and other school security measures—and ascertaining their effects on mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes—is imperative. The aim of this chapter is to review and summarize the limitations of current knowledge and to sketch a comprehensive plan for future research. This chapter begins with a discussion of limitations of existing research. The chapter then identifies research priorities and key questions for future research to address. It concludes with guidance for improving the data infrastructure available to support this research and opportunities to leverage existing data sources.

CURRENT RESEARCH LIMITATIONS

The committee’s review of the available research literature identified key limitations of the existing research on the impact of school active shooter drills and other school security measures on the mental, emotional, and behavioral health of students and staff. This section summarizes those limitations of existing research, as well as the methodological and practical challenges that account for the weak evidence base in this domain.

Challenges with Research Design and Funding

The section “Research Designs” in Chapter 3 identifies key gaps in existing research on school active shooter drills, particularly in the drills’ ability to prepare students to respond appropriately during a shooting event and to mitigate harm should such an event occur. The committee identified only one study (Zhe & Nickerson, 2007) that used a control group design with random assignment—the gold standard for determining the causal effect of an intervention such as an active shooter drill. The other studies reviewed relied primarily on weaker research designs, limiting the researchers’ ability to determine whether these drills effectively improve students’ ability to respond appropriately during a drill or if an actual event occurs. Additionally, the lack of rigorous studies has made it difficult to assess whether active shooter drills have unintended psychological effects that could undermine their intended benefits. As a result, the committee could not draw strong causal conclusions about the extent to which active shooter drills enhance preparedness; reduce harm; or otherwise impact children’s mental, emotional, and behavioral health.

Conducting research in K–12 schools can present a unique set of challenges. Methodologically, the lack of standardization of practices for active shooter drills across schools makes it difficult to compare outcomes and effectiveness. Longitudinal studies of mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes are complicated by the need to track students, educators, and other school staff over time. In addition, constraints on access to schools, competing priorities for use of instructional time, student and parent consent requirements, and privacy laws can each complicate data collection efforts. Research in educational settings also presents ethical challenges, such as navigating the potential for unintended harm to students and staff, as well as the ethical dilemma posed by research that uses control group designs, with the result that some students may be excluded from potentially beneficial interventions.

Further complicating these challenges—especially with respect to building an evidence base for better understanding the impact of

school active shooter drills—are the long-standing impediments to funding research related to firearm violence in the United States. As previously noted, the lack of federal funding for research on prevention of firearm violence is primarily grounded in legislative restrictions such as the Dickey Amendment (1996), which prevented the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from using federal funds to advocate for gun control (Institute of Medicine, 1999). While this law did not explicitly ban research on firearm violence, it led to a significant decrease in funding for such. In 2018, however, Congress clarified that the Dickey Amendment was not intended to prevent CDC from conducting research on firearm violence, and in 2019, allocated $25 million to CDC and the National Institutes of Health to study firearm violence as a public health issue, marking the first federal funding for such research in more than 2 decades (Van Sant, 2019).

The legislative and funding landscape surrounding the Dickey Amendment predated the widespread implementation of active shooter drills in K–12 schools. By 2018, when the law was clarified, approximately 95% of schools were conducting such drills. This figure rose to 98% in the 2019–2020 school year (Rockefeller Institute of Government, 2023). Thus, as many states and school districts began mandating active shooter drills, while rigorous research on their effectiveness, best practices, or the potential psychological impact on students and staff was largely lacking. This delay in pertinent research and assessment has also made it difficult for researchers to evaluate the impact of security measures in schools, such as the presence of armed law enforcement or security personnel and emergency preparedness training. Although some organizations undertook studies during this time to provide guidance, the scope of that research remained limited by the lack of funding needed to build the evidence base.

Data Needs

While the committee sought to examine both short- and long-term impacts of school active shooter drills, almost all the studies

reviewed assessed only immediate mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes, or used retrospective procedures for which the duration of any changes could not be established. This gap in current knowledge highlights a compelling need for research that prospectively assesses mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes over a longer duration (at least several months) after a drill.

Based on its review of the evidence, the committee identified six key areas for future research: (1) best practices for implementing school active shooter drills; (2) the development of standardized measures for assessing the effectiveness of drills; (3) short- and long-term effects on the mental, emotional, and behavioral health of students and staff; (4) ethical considerations for research on, and implementation of, school active shooter drills; (5) funding and the cost of implementation; and (6) community and population contexts. These research needs are discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.

An additional challenge is that existing research lacks uniformity in terminology used to describe school active shooter drills and associated policies and security measures. Greater clarity and specificity of terminology would improve the ability to compare study findings in general, and specifically to identify trends and patterns; aggregate findings across multiple studies; improve the reliability of measurement tools; translate research into consistent, actionable practices in schools; and ensure that researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and other decision-makers are communicating about the same concepts in the same way.

Limited Outcome Measures

Many studies reviewed by the committee used brief, ad hoc outcome measures rather than more comprehensive validated instruments. Use of those measures limits the range of potential outcomes assessed, as well as the committee’s confidence that the results of this research are meaningful. For example, it would be important to know whether students become desensitized to drills over time, but this question has yet to be studied. Studies have routinely measured

changes in emotions or perceptions post-drill instead of measuring changes in observable behaviors, such as disruptive classroom behaviors, absenteeism, academic achievement, or utilization of mental health support services. For example, many qualitative responders in literature reviewed by the committee in Chapter 3 described how drills disrupt the school day and impede learning, but no studies have assessed learning outcomes (e.g., Bonanno et al., 2021; Jackson & Golini, 2024).

School active shooter drills can affect the school climate, as well as the mental, emotional and behavioral health of individuals in a school. Understanding both short- and long-term outcomes is necessary to identify opportunities for early intervention as well as prevention of adverse effects (CDC, 2024, n.d.; National Institute of Justice, 2022). Short-term outcomes—such as anxiety and depression, social withdrawal, changes in sleep, decreased academic engagement, and burnout and stress among educators and staff—can signal that students or school staff may need support, allowing schools to intervene before negative effects escalate. In addition, an assessment of potential long-term effects is crucial given the risk that unaddressed adverse effects will lead to chronic mental health issues (e.g., long-term anxiety and depression, chronic posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD], persistent emotional dysregulation) (NASEM, 2019). For educators and other school staff, prolonged stress may also increase burnout and staff turnover. At the same time, while addressing potential risks is critical, it is equally important to identify positive outcomes so as to identify effective and beneficial practices (NASEM, 2019). Building an evidence base to understand these outcomes would give schools, school districts, and policymakers the evidence needed to inform resource allocation for support services, as well as selection of appropriate practices.

Current evidence does not sufficiently capture the full spectrum of potential effects of practices implemented during school active shooter drills on students and staff. Further research employing comprehensive measures is needed to develop a more complete understanding of the ways in which these practices may affect mental, emotional, and behavioral health, as well as how drills may foster

the development of prosocial behaviors and competency in self-regulation. It would also be useful to design studies that can identify unanticipated and unintended consequences related to the implementation of school active shooter drills and other security measures. For example, some active shooter drills include training to engage an armed assailant. While such training may decrease the perceived risk in some students or staff, it is unknown whether receiving that training will result in guilt if an individual fails to subdue an assailant in an actual event, or if it may increase the risk of injury in the process.

A comprehensive understanding of both potential positive and negative outcomes of drills will require a research design that incorporates a methodology that goes beyond an examination of anticipated outcomes.

Lack of Subgroup Analysis

Empirical information on how active shooter drills might affect subgroups of students is virtually nonexistent. The committee identified only a few studies assessing different age groups or considering student race, gender, or self-reported trauma exposure as moderators, and even this evidence was limited. Furthermore, aside from a single qualitative study of educators of students with autism spectrum disorder (Jackson & Golini, 2024), the committee found no research investigating how active shooter drills might differentially affect students with functional or access needs (e.g., students with physical or learning disabilities, multilingual learners).

Examination of variations in outcomes by population subgroup is crucial for a number of reasons. Mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes can be influenced by a wide array of factors (e.g., age, trauma exposure, community contexts, population-specific stressors, barriers to care, access to social support). Analysis of subgroup variations in outcomes can provide a means of identifying the causes of specific outcomes, which in turn can allow researchers to develop targeted interventions to address adverse impacts on health and well-being and to prevent more severe negative

outcomes. These data could also help policymakers make more informed decisions about how to allocate funding, services, and resources to schools to address identified needs.

Insufficient Focus on Individual Drill Components

Very few studies on the impact of school active shooter drills have directly investigated how different types or elements of drills or simulations might affect students and staff (e.g., announced vs. unannounced drills; high-intensity vs. low-intensity), and the committee identified no studies that explored the impact of high-intensity simulations or those involving deception. Most studies featured a group of participants who were all exposed to the same type of drill(s) that happened to be implemented in their school district (e.g., Schildkraut et al., 2022, 2023, 2024). Other studies measured drill components in some way but neglected to assess links between those components and health outcomes. Some studies combined didactic trainings with drills, even though these are different kinds of interventions with different risks (e.g., Dickson & Vargo, 2017). The committee found no “dismantling studies”³⁰ assessing how different elements of drills affected participants’ reactions, nor were there any head-to-head studies comparing participants’ reactions to different types of drills. Thus, despite concerns and even lawsuits objecting to high-intensity drills (e.g., Frosch, 2014) those involving realistic actors firing blanks or other simulation elements), the committee found no direct research on how these elements affect students and staff. Likewise, there was no information on how drill type or frequency may contribute to health outcomes of interest—a key question, since some states mandate multiple drills, and all schools must choose how often to implement them.

Some studies on the use of lockdowns in schools using standard response practices examined the committee’s outcomes of interest

___________________

³⁰ A dismantling study isolates and tests individual components of multicomponent treatments to identify which components are responsible for changes and the degree to which individual components are essential or nonessential, and which may be ineffective or harmful.

(e.g., perceptions of emergency preparedness in Schildkraut et al., 2020), but more research is needed to evaluate specific practices, identify supports necessary to ensure proper implementation, and identify effects on mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes. As noted in Chapter 2, several states have already adopted the “I Love U Guys” Foundation’s Standard Response Protocol. As implementation continues and potentially expands to other states, there is a critical opportunity to evaluate both the specific components of these protocols and their impact on mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes across a range of school contexts and student populations.

In this report, the committee recommends that options-based practices be approached with caution because of the existing gaps in the evidence base and increased potential for harms to mental, emotional, and behavioral health. Some options-based practices do not have developmentally appropriate adaptations or alignment with current guidance on appropriate training for students (e.g., NASP et al., 2021). Although some options-based practices provide adaptations for school settings and various age groups, important questions remain about the safeguards necessary to protect the mental, emotional, and behavioral health of students and staff. Additional research is needed to better understand potential risks and determine which components are developmentally appropriate for students at different developmental stages.

Impacts on School Staff and Caregivers

The available research base on the impacts of school active shooter drills focuses primarily on students rather than school staff and says little about how school active shooter drills affect teachers, administrators, school health care providers, security staff, or other key personnel—even though staff reactions to drills, and the overall school climate around drills, could be major influences on student responses (Berk, 2022; Dickson & Vargo, 2017; Kingston et al., 2018; Sprague & Walker, 2021). There is also very little research on caregivers’ reactions and preferences around drills, even though

parents play an important role in the school’s ecosystem while serving as a primary source of support for their children (Eisenberg et al., 1998; Hajal & Paley, 2020; Rutherford et al., 2015).

Within a school ecosystem, the well-being of students and school staff are interconnected. Stress and poor mental health experienced by the adults within the school can negatively impact students and staff’s ability to serve as a source of emotional support for students. By contrast, adults who experience their own positive mental health can help to create a school environment where students are more resilient and have better emotion regulation (NASEM, 2019). Moreover, the success of programs, practices, and activities intended to foster positive mental, emotional, and behavioral health depends on the buy-in of school staff and their positive mental health as an essential foundation for implementing those practices effectively. Improving understanding of the impacts of these practices on adults within the school can provide both an opportunity to understand how to mitigate adverse effects on adults and to provide an additional level of support for students.

Evidence on Impacts of School Security Measures on Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Health Outcomes

Research investigating the potential impacts of school security measures other than school active shooter drills on mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes remains thin. A significant constraint in the existing studies is the lack of focus on individual security measures as isolated variables. The majority of studies reviewed by the committee assessed school environments where multiple security interventions—such as the presence of school resource officers, metal detectors, and door locks—were implemented in combination. As a result, it is difficult to disentangle the specific effects of each measure, making it challenging to determine whether particular interventions contribute to or mitigate adverse mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes. This research gap underscores the need for more targeted investigations into the

independent and combined effects of school security measures on student well-being.

Physical Security Interventions (Door Locks)

The committee found little empirical research focused on door locks. Only one study focused specifically on ease of use of door locks (Martaindale et al., 2023) and the potential for stress to impact the ability to operate certain locking mechanisms. Given the increasing emphasis on school security, this gap represents a significant limitation in understanding how both the presence and functionality of door locks influence perceptions of school safety and the well-being of students and staff. Most research on school security assesses overall safety outcomes instead of isolating the specific role of door locks in shaping experiences of security, fear, or anxiety.

While locks are often assumed to enhance safety, they may also introduce unintended challenges. In older school buildings, for example, infrastructure limitations can prevent the installation of modern, easy-to-use locks. In some cases, if teachers may need to step outside their classrooms to engage a lock, they face the potential for heightened risk exposure during an emergency, which in turn could cause additional stress for both students and staff. Furthermore, research has yet to examine whether variation in the design of door locks influences perceptions of preparedness, or whether students and staff in schools with outdated or malfunctioning locks experience increased anxiety among students and teachers compared with those in schools with more secure locking mechanisms.

Beyond their use in active security incidents, more research is needed to understand how door locks may contribute to the broader psychosocial climate of schools. Because this topic has received very little attention in the empirical literature, variations in experiences and perceptions remain largely unexplored. Research needs to move beyond general evaluations of door locks as a security measure to investigate how the design, accessibility, and usability of locks affect both safety outcomes and mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes. Perceptions of staff members would be of

particular interest given that they may be responsible for operating door locks or other controlled entry mechanisms.

By focusing on security measures individually, researchers could provide more nuanced guidance for policymakers and school administrators, helping them assess not only the effectiveness of different security measures in preventing harm but also their influence on daily school experiences, anxiety levels, and perceptions of preparedness.

Surveillance Interventions (Metal Detectors)

Metal detectors are one of the most visible school security measures in use, yet their effectiveness both in preventing violence and in their broader impact on student well-being remains underexplored. Evidence reviewed by the committee suggests that metal detectors may be both a deterrent and a potential source of stress. For some individuals, they may contribute to perceptions of security and control over potential threats. For others, however, they may heighten feelings of surveillance or fear (e.g., Cobbina et al., 2019; Gastic, 2011; Perumean-Chaney & Sutton, 2012). In both cases, the extent to which metal detectors contribute to these psychological effects—independent of other security measures—remains unclear.

Research is needed to explore the impact of metal detectors and other surveillance interventions on student and staff perceptions of safety, assessing whether they foster a sense of security or contribute to heightened stress and a punitive atmosphere. Additionally, studies could examine the relationship between metal detectors and mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes, particularly whether frequent screenings are associated with increased anxiety or school avoidance behaviors. The role of school infrastructure and implementation also warrants investigation because factors such as building design, multiple entry points, and staffing limitations may affect the effectiveness and perceived fairness of security screenings. Moreover, research is needed to assess how metal detectors interact with other security measures—for example, by determining whether their effectiveness is enhanced when combined with other interventions, including access to mental health supports. A more

comprehensive approach to studying metal detectors would provide a clearer understanding of their broader implications for school safety and student well-being beyond their immediate role in preventing violence.

School Security Personnel Interventions

The role of school resource officers and other school law enforcement or security personnel—as part of emergency planning as well as within the broader school context—is complex. As discussed in Chapter 4, there is limited evidence on whether school security personnel influence students’ perceptions of safety in a consistent way. For some students, positive interactions with school resource officers may lead them to feel safer in school, while for others, the presence of school resource officers and other school security personnel may signal that the school environment is more dangerous and may therefore decrease perceptions of safety or school connectedness (e.g., McDevitt & Panniello, 2005; Theriot & Orme, 2014). Despite the widespread implementation of these programs, there is little research on the long-term effects of school resource officers on school climate and student well-being. Short-term impacts that have been studied are related primarily to school security and discipline rather than the direct effect of school security personnel on mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes. Research on the preventive role of school resources officers and other school security personnel on preventing school violence is also limited and remains inconclusive. Additional research on the direct role of school resource officers and other school security personnel in violence prevention and emergency preparedness activities in schools, and any related effects on mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes, is needed.

RESEARCH PRIORITIES AND KEY QUESTIONS

Best Practices for Drill Implementation

Extensive variation in the components of active shooter drills described throughout this report underscores the need for attention to both implementation and outcome. Implementation studies are needed to determine whether schools and training providers conduct the procedures as intended, whereas outcome studies aim determine whether school active shooter drills adequately prepare students and staff for an actual emergency. As discussed in Chapter 4, many school security measures now being implemented lack a robust evidence base, with inconsistent or underdeveloped support of their efficacy. However, given the ethical and practical challenges of using randomized controlled trials and other experimental designs to study school active shooter drills and other security measures, alternative research methodologies—including quasi-experimental, observational, and mixed-methods approaches—are needed to establish best practices for drill implementation.

A key goal of strengthening the research base on drill implementation is to develop guidelines for evidence-based practices that can help in ensuring that drills are both effective and psychologically safe. The needed research includes examining different models of drill implementation, including components that may not be directly enacted during drills themselves, such as the “run, hide, fight” framework. Understanding how different models impact preparedness and well-being can help schools refine their approaches to safety training.

The committee emphasizes that research in this area must also adhere to ethical guidelines that prioritize student and staff well-being. The committee strongly discourages conducting research with students that involves practices already identified as harmful, such as using high-intensity, highly sensorial elements or deception. Randomization is appropriate only when the risks and potential benefits of different options are believed to be equivalent, and there is sufficient consensus that the risks of high-intensity drills outweigh any

potential benefits. Research can still be conducted through natural experiments, retrospective studies, and controlled comparisons that do not introduce additional harm.

While some widely used approaches, such as options-based drills, have been promoted as best practices, their effectiveness has not been thoroughly studied. Options-based drills entail training staff and, in some cases, students to assess a situation and decide whether to flee, hide from, or engage an armed assailant. Furthermore, there is concern that these drills—when they are not adapted to be developmentally appropriate for use in schools— may encourage students or staff to put themselves in unnecessary danger. For example, practices that encourage individuals to subdue attackers as heroes may inadvertently reinforce risky behavior or create pressure to act in ways that unduly increase personal risk. Existing best practice guidance emphasizes that confronting an assailant should never be encouraged as part of training students (NASP et al., 2021).

Even well-intentioned interventions may have significant unintended and unanticipated negative consequences. While some students and school personnel report feeling more prepared after participating in drills, self-reports alone are insufficient for guiding policy. Individuals who feel empowered by these drills may underestimate the distress experienced by others with different coping styles, trauma histories, or vulnerabilities. Additionally, the perceived benefits of active participation in training may be misleading; feeling prepared prior to an event does not necessarily translate to effective decision-making or emotional resilience in an actual crisis.

Practices that encourage active participation in emergency response need to be evaluated not only for their immediate effects but also for their long-term psychological impact and potential for unintended harm. Research therefore needs to go beyond measuring short-term confidence to assess outcomes over longer periods, using case studies to explore unintended effects that may not be captured easily with traditional research methods.

In addition to studying active shooter drills, research needs to examine the effects of different standard response practices being used in response to perceived threats, rather than as planned drills.

These unplanned security measures may have different psychological and behavioral impacts on students and staff, particularly in schools where lockdowns are frequent. Data are needed on how often these events occur, how they are experienced by different student subgroups, and what interventions, if any, help mitigate their negative effects.

Some approaches have been proposed for helping students and staff cope with the stress of drills. These include implementing preventive social and emotional learning approaches, ensuring access to school-based mental health professionals, and utilizing psychological first aid techniques. Research is needed to examine the impact of these practices on students’ and staff’s mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes.

While active shooter drills themselves are now widespread, new school safety practices continue to emerge, often with little empirical evidence to support them. It is essential to establish standards for evaluating the effectiveness of new interventions before they are widely adopted. Schools and policymakers should not assume that an intervention is beneficial simply because it is well intended or widely used. Without sufficient evaluation, children and staff effectively become involuntary participants in research on untested safety measures. Research needs to focus on developing clear criteria for evaluating new interventions before they are implemented at scale, ensuring that schools make informed decisions based on strong empirical evidence.

Finally, while much attention has been paid to school active shooter drills, research is also needed on other school security measures, such as armed teachers, metal detectors, and the presence of school resource officers and other school security personnel. Given that schools may use school resource officers or other school security personnel in a variety of ways, differences in training—or lack thereof—among different types of personnel is an area for future research. For example, whether outcomes differ based on trained officers compared with untrained security personnel. If schools are implementing drills in contexts where teachers or other school staff are armed, it is critical to assess the mental, emotional,

and behavioral health effects of these policies. Research should examine whether armed personnel impact students’ perceptions of safety, increase or reduce fear, and influence student–teacher relationships. Similarly, the psychological effects of security infrastructure, such as metal detectors and surveillance, need to be studied to determine whether these measures contribute to a climate of security or one of fear and distrust.

Ensuring that school safety practices are both effective and psychologically safe requires a strong research foundation. By examining different models of drill implementation, addressing ethical considerations, and evaluating unintended consequences, research can provide critical guidance for schools and policymakers. Ultimately, improving the evidence base for school safety interventions will allow schools to make informed, responsible decisions that balance preparedness with well-being.

Standardized Measures for Assessing the Effectiveness of Drills and Other Security Measures

Assessing the effectiveness of school active shooter drills and other security measures requires a standardized approach to measurement that ensures consistency, reliability, and applicability across varying school contexts. Without clear, validated measures, it is difficult to determine whether these interventions achieve their intended outcomes or inadvertently cause harm. Currently standardized criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of school active shooter drills are lacking, making it challenging to compare results across schools, districts, and student populations. Recent guidance on achieving procedural integrity during the lockdown component of some drills offers a specific and helpful example of the types of effectiveness measures that could be considered (Schildkraut, 2022). However, existing research on the effectiveness of school security measures such as metal detectors, the presence of law enforcement personnel, and the use of door locks has not yet been sufficiently explored across varying school contexts, either individually or when used in combination with one another.

The development and use of standardized outcome measures for assessing active shooter drills and other security measures would provide several key benefits. First, establishing clear, uniform criteria ensures consistency in evaluation across different schools, student populations, and geographic regions. Without standardized measures, assessments may rely on subjective interpretations, making it difficult to compare outcomes meaningfully. Reliable and valid measures also increase confidence in the accuracy of assessments by ensuring that results are consistent over time and truly capture the intended outcomes. This strengthens the ability of schools and researchers to make informed decisions based on sound data.

Standardized measures also allow for comparability across contexts and over time. By using consistent assessment tools, researchers and policymakers can identify patterns, strengths, and areas for improvement across school settings. This comparability enhances understanding of how different approaches to drills impact students and staff, helping in turn to refine best practices. Additionally, having a structured evaluation framework promotes accountability and transparency by providing clear evidence of the impacts on mental, emotional, and behavioral health. Schools can use these data to demonstrate the effectiveness of their practices or to justify adjustments to policies and procedures.

Finally, standardized measures support evidence-based decision-making by helping schools allocate resources effectively and identify areas for improvement. By providing clear, actionable data, such measures allow schools to balance safety preparedness with the psychological and emotional well-being of students and staff. With a better understanding of the effectiveness of active shooter drills, schools can ensure that their safety practices are not only well-intentioned but also truly beneficial.

To develop and validate standardized measures for assessing the effectiveness of active shooter drills, research will need to address several critical questions:

• What outcome measures are needed to assess the effectiveness of drills? Research needs to determine what specific aspects of drills should be measured—such as preparedness,

• knowledge retention, or behavioral responses—to provide a comprehensive picture of the effects of drills on students and staff.
• What outcome measures are needed to assess the effectiveness of other school security measures?
• What factors need to be considered in creating and evaluating standardized measures? The committee proposes six factors to consider.
  • − Reliability: Do the measures produce consistent results over time, ensuring that findings are not influenced by random variations or inconsistencies?
  • − Validity: Do the measures accurately assess the intended outcomes? Are they truly capturing preparedness and other key constructs related to school safety?
  • − Fairness: Do the measures work equitably across different school contexts and student populations, including students with disabilities; multilingual learners; and students from differing racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds? Are there biases in administration or interpretation that could affect certain groups disproportionately?
  • − Practicality: Are the measures easy for schools and researchers to use, score, and interpret? Are they cost-effective and feasible for broad implementation?
  • − Impact: Can the measures detect meaningful changes over time? How do they inform decision-making? Are the results clear and actionable for school leaders, educators, and policymakers?

By addressing these questions, research can help establish robust, ethical, and scientifically sound measures for evaluating school active shooter drills and other school security measures. This research, in turn, can provide schools with the necessary tools needed to make informed, evidence-based decisions that prioritize student and staff well-being while maintaining effective emergency preparedness strategies.

Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Health Effects on Students and Staff

To advance understanding of the impacts of school active shooter drills and other school security measures on students and staff from a developmental perspective, research is needed to address key questions that can inform evidence-based practices and policies. It is essential to study the immediate, short-, and long-term mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes for children and staff in relation to both participation in school active shooter drills and exposure to other school security measures.

To begin, research is needed explore the immediate and short-term mental, emotional, and behavioral health effects of these interventions. For example, studies could assess emotional responses such as anxiety, fear, and stress, and examine how these responses influence classroom behaviors, learning environments, and staff experiences in the workplace. Understanding these short-term reactions is critical to determining whether drills and other security measures create a sense of preparedness or—to the contrary—inadvertently heighten distress.

Beyond these immediate effects, it is essential to investigate the longer-term impacts of both school active shooter drills and other security measures, including whether these practices are associated with shifts in students’ school engagement, perceptions of safety, and overall mental well-being over time. Similarly, for staff, research is needed to assess whether repeated exposure to drills and security protocols contributes to changes in job satisfaction, stress levels, or burnout. Ideally, studies would measure mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes across multiple time points, including assessments before and immediately after exposure, and at extended intervals postexposure.

In addressing these short- and long-term effects, research will need to consider individual differences that may influence how students and staff experience these interventions. Factors such as age, prior trauma exposure, and disability status are likely to shape responses, with some groups experiencing heightened distress or

unique challenges. Additionally, research is needed to examine the differential impacts on subgroups of students, such as multilingual learners or students from communities with high levels of violence, where exposure to safety threats outside of school may interact with the effects of drills. Identifying these differences would facilitate the development of tailored approaches that can minimize harm and better support the needs of all students and staff. To capture these variations, future research will require large sample sizes that support subgroup analyses for populations of interest. Future research also would benefit from including high-quality assessments of mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes that are age appropriate and reflect dimensions of both distress and resilience.

To build a comprehensive understanding of how school active shooter drills and security measures impact mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes, future research will need to address the following critical questions:

• What are the short-term effects of school active shooter drills and other security measures on mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes?
  • − How do students experience and react to active shooter drills or the presence of other security measures?
  • − How do outcomes vary by age?
  • − What are the mental, emotional and behavioral health effects on school staff?
• What are the long-term effects of school active shooter drills and exposure to school security measures?
  • − How do active shooter drills and other security measures shape students’ perceptions of safety, school engagement, and mental health over time?
  • − What are the cumulative effects of repeated exposure to these interventions on staff well-being and workplace satisfaction among staff?
• What measures should be prioritized in research, and what time frames are most appropriate for research?

• • − What validated measures should be used to assess mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes related to drills and security interventions?
  • − How can research ensure the inclusion of multiple outcome measures to provide a comprehensive understanding of mental, emotional, and behavioral health effects?
  • − What time frames are most appropriate for assessing both short- and long-term outcomes, and how can data collection be standardized across studies?

By addressing these research questions, future studies could help clarify the full scope of the effects of school active shooter drills and other school security measures, thereby informing policies that support student and staff well-being while balancing safety preparedness with psychological health considerations.

Addressing Ethical Considerations

Research on school active shooter drills presents a complex ethical challenge. These drills, along with other school security measures, are intended to prepare students and staff for potentially life-threatening situations and to protect them from harm. While active shooter events are rare, the consequences of failing to prepare for them can be devastating. At the same time, there is a real concern that some practices that have been implemented in school active shooter drills—particularly the use of high-intensity elements or deception—may cause psychological harm to students and staff. This tension creates a dilemma: How can researchers study the effects of these interventions without either exposing students and staff to unnecessary trauma or withholding preparation that could potentially save lives?

This fundamental ethical tension is not unique to school safety research. Many areas of clinical research, such as medical trials for new drugs or treatments, face similar questions about balancing potential benefits and harms. Ethical research frameworks developed

in those fields can inform the design of studies of school active shooter drills and other security measures. For example, one guiding principle from clinical research relevant to this context is “clinical equipoise”—the idea that researchers should conduct trials only when there is genuine uncertainty about which treatment option is best. In the case of school safety interventions, there is little genuine uncertainty about the harms of high-intensity, unannounced, or highly realistic active shooter drills and simulations. Basic science and child development research already indicate that such drills are likely to cause harm, and there is insufficient evidence to suggest that their benefits outweigh these harms. Therefore, it would be unethical to deliberately expose students to high-intensity drills as part of a study just to confirm that they are harmful. However, there are several ethical research strategies that can be used to study school active shooter drills without introducing new risks to students and staff.

Instead of traditional randomized controlled trials, researchers could use alternative designs that leverage existing school safety practices while minimizing harm:

• Waitlist control designs: Common in PTSD and anxiety treatment studies, this design allows researchers to compare outcomes for students who experience an intervention immediately versus those who experience it later. Schools planning to introduce a new type of drill or policy could stagger implementation, allowing researchers to assess the effects without denying schools access to preparation.
• Staggered enrollment: Used in some vaccine trials, this method involves phasing in an intervention over time, allowing for comparisons between early adopters and later participants. In school safety research, this approach could be applied if a district were rolling out a new drill policy across multiple schools, enabling researchers to study the effects over time while ensuring that all schools eventually receive the intervention.
• Natural experiments: Since active shooter drills and other school security measures are already in place across the

• country with substantial variation among states, districts, and schools, researchers could analyze differences that already exist instead of introducing new interventions. For example, comparing schools that already conduct drills at different frequencies could help in assessing the impact on student and staff wellbeing using statistical controls to adjust for non-random assignment.
• Embedded adaptive trials: Common in drug trials, these studies actively monitor for negative effects and adjust protocols accordingly. Schools implementing new safety practices could partner with researchers to track mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes in real time, adjusting drill intensity or format if signs of harm were to emerge.
• Longitudinal pre–post studies: Many existing studies on active shooter drills rely on cross-sectional designs instead of tracking the same students over time. High-quality longitudinal studies that followed students before and after drills could provide stronger evidence on the long-term psychological effects of these interventions without requiring new, potentially harmful drill scenarios.

Regardless of the specific research design used, nearly all ethically sound studies on the mental, emotional, and behavioral health effects of school safety measures require close collaboration with schools, districts, or even multiple jurisdictions. Partnerships between researchers and educational institutions can facilitate access to data, ensure that studies align with school needs, and help implement findings in a way that benefits students and staff. Without these partnerships, conducting rigorous and ethical research in this space will be significantly more difficult.

Given the ethical complexities of studying school active shooter drills and other security measures, research is needed to explore both the ethical considerations involved in conducting such studies and the responsible implementation of these interventions in schools. On the one hand, researchers have to determine how to study the effects of school active shooter drills and other security measures without

introducing unnecessary harm to students and staff. On the other hand, schools need guidance on how to design and implement drills in ways that minimize potential adverse outcomes while still achieving the intended safety and preparedness goals. The following questions highlight key areas for further research:

• Ethical considerations in research
  • − How can researchers study the effects of school safety measures without exposing students and staff to unnecessary harm?
  • − What research designs provide the most ethical and methodologically sound way to assess mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes resulting from participation in school active shooter drills or the use of other security measures?
  • − How can researchers and school leaders collaborate to conduct high-quality studies while prioritizing student and staff well-being?
• Research on ethical implementation of school active shooter drills
  • − How can active shooter drills be conducted in a trauma-informed manner?
  • − How should decision-makers balance the need for safety with the potential for harm?
  • − What are the ethical considerations for implementing drills across varying student populations and community contexts, including students with disabilities, multilingual learners, and students from communities with high exposure to violence?

By addressing these ethical and practical questions, future research could help schools refine their safety practices in ways that would both protect students from external threats and support their long-term mental, emotional, and behavioral well-being.

Funding and Cost of Implementation

Schools and districts are tasked with making critical safety decisions within the constraints of limited budgets. While the committee has proposed practices for mitigating the negative impacts of school active shooter drills and other security measures on mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes, the financial feasibility of implementing these practices remains a key challenge. Understanding the costs associated with various interventions and identifying sustainable funding sources are essential to ensuring that schools can adopt effective, evidence-based approaches without compromising other essential services.

However, funding decisions cannot be made in isolation—they must be informed by a broader understanding of intervention effectiveness, student and staff outcomes, and community and population needs. Without this context, limited resources may be directed toward interventions that are ineffective, exacerbate harm, or fail to meet the needs of schools across a variety of contexts. Research into the costs associated with the implementation of school safety and emergency preparedness measures needs to be integrated with research on the effectiveness of interventions, the specific outcomes associated with policies and practices, and community and population contexts. When schools must make decisions about how to allocate resources, understanding which interventions yield the best outcomes for students and staff would enable them to prioritize strategies that can promote safety without negatively impacting mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes when deciding how to allocate resources. Research that goes beyond cost assessments to examine the real-world impacts of interventions could help to ensure that financial investments lead to meaningful improvements in the well-being of students and staff rather than unintended harm. Moreover, research on community and population contexts can help schools and districts better understand their local needs and constraints, enabling them to prioritize investments in interventions that are both effective and contextually appropriate.

By examining these financial considerations, research could help ensure that school safety policies are not only evidence based but also economically viable, available for all schools, and aligned with the best interests of students and staff. It will be important for research to assess the financial burden of various school safety and emergency preparedness measures, including school active shooter drills, the presence of school resource officers, surveillance technologies, and alternative trauma-informed approaches, while also examining their effectiveness in promoting student well-being. However, understanding cost alone is not enough; policymakers and administrators must also consider how financial constraints influence the implementation of these measures and weigh their potential benefits and harms. They therefore need research into cost-effectiveness; resource distribution; and the trade-offs between these interventions and other essential student support services, such as mental health services and other prevention-based interventions.

At the same time, funding decisions are shaped by the broader landscape of available financial resources. Historically, federal, state, and local funding streams have dictated which policies and practices are adopted. However, these funding mechanisms come with limitations, including restrictions on how funds can be used and disparities in how resources are allocated across districts. A clearer understanding of these financial constraints can help policymakers and school leaders identify opportunities to invest in evidence-based practices that better align with student and staff needs. Key research questions include the following:

• What is the cost of existing interventions and policies?
• What are key considerations for schools, districts, and states as they make funding decisions, and how do these considerations vary in relation to community and population contexts?
• What are the funding streams available to implement policies and practices?
• What are the long-term costs—both financial and social—of failing to implement effective interventions?

• Do ineffective or underfunded interventions result in greater long-term economic or social costs?

Embedding financial considerations within the broader research agenda would help to ensure that schools are equipped to make informed and sustainable decisions that meet their needs and implement practices that meet the needs of all students and staff.

Community and Population Context

Schools exist within broader community ecosystems that can influence the implementation of school security and preparedness interventions. Understanding the potential impacts of school active shooter drills or the use of other security measures across community and population contexts is essential for ensuring that policies are effective for all students and do not exacerbate potential adverse outcomes. Research needs in this area include exploring how student and staff experiences vary based on such factors as demography, geography, resource availability, community safety levels, and prior traumatic experiences. Examining these variations can aid in better assessing the extent to which school safety and preparedness practices support or hinder well-being and identify strategies for mitigating potential harms.

Mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes related to school security measures vary across student populations. Factors such as age, disability status, home language, and prior trauma exposure can shape how students experience and respond to school active shooter drills and other school security measures. Key research questions include the following:

• How do different age groups perceive and respond to school active shooter drills?
• Are younger children more likely than older students to experience fear and anxiety?
• How do perceptions of school safety differ across urban, suburban, and rural communities?

• Do students in areas with higher levels of community violence perceive school security measures differently compared with those in lower-crime areas?
• How do students with disabilities or functional and access needs, including those with sensory sensitivities or cognitive differences, experience school active shooter drills or such practices as the use of metal detectors and surveillance measures? What accommodations can be made to minimize their distress?
• Do linguistic barriers impact students’ understanding of and response to school safety protocols?
• How can schools ensure that emergency preparedness measures are accessible to students and families who speak a home language other than the primary language of instruction?
• How do community attitudes toward law enforcement and institutional trust shape students’ responses to school safety measures?
• How do active shooter drills and other security measures affect students and staff with prior trauma exposure, including those from communities disproportionately impacted by violence? Are there evidence-based strategies for reducing the potential to retraumatize students and staff?
• What are the differential impacts of school safety and preparedness practices on students from different backgrounds or community contexts?
• In what ways do local policy decisions and state-level mandates influence the frequency, intensity, and psychological impact of school safety and emergency preparedness interventions?

Centering research on the realities of students and staff across a variety of contexts offers an opportunity to move beyond a singular approach to school safety. A more nuanced understanding of how security measures affect different populations can help to inform policies that protect students and staff without causing undue harm to their mental, emotional, and behavioral health and well-being.

IMPROVING DATA INFRASTRUCTURE

As described in the previous chapters, a great deal of variation is seen across schools, districts, states, and regions with respect to the types, features, and frequency of school active shooter drills and other school security measures and safety practices. What is known about these variations is often cobbled together and piecemeal; no comprehensive data infrastructure exists with which to track school security and safety measures at the national or state levels.

Improved data infrastructure will be essential if research is to formulate a clear account of the impact, including both benefits and costs, of school active shooter drills and other school security measures. While some data exist on school crime and safety, there are significant gaps in understanding how drills and other security practices affect students’ mental health and overall well-being, as well as school climate. Strengthening data collection efforts and ensuring more comprehensive tracking of security policies and practices across schools can therefore help inform evidence-based decision-making. Existing surveys, databases, and collections of guidance documents do provide resources for use by schools, administrators, policymakers, and other decision-makers in navigating these complex issues (see Box 7-1). These resources can serve as a starting point for enhancing data collection—whether by adding questions to existing surveys, incorporating supplementary guidance documents, or developing new indicators—to track the effects of school active shooter drills and other security measures on students and staff.

Fortunately, there are opportunities to leverage existing data collection and reporting efforts to better understand the landscape of school active shooter drills and other school security measures at the state and national levels, as well as their impacts on the mental, emotional, and behavioral health of students and staff.

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) administers a number of surveys and collects data through direct student assessments, longitudinal studies, and adult surveys, among others. NCES data collections could incorporate information about, for example, participation in school active shooter drills, utilization of mental health professionals, lost learning time, or absenteeism after drills. NCES’s National Teacher and Principal Survey³¹ may be a particularly useful vehicle for examining impacts on staff, and the Early Childhood Longitudinal Studies³² could provide opportunities to gain insights into the potential cumulative effects of experiencing drills year after year.

Similarly, the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System,³³ administered by CDC, monitors adolescent health behavior and experiences of injury and violence, school connectedness, and exposure to community violence. Questions related to active shooter drills and other school security measures could be added to this instrument to

___________________

³¹ See http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps

³² https://nces.ed.gov/ecls

³³ https://www.cdc.gov/yrbs/index.html

assess youth perceptions and mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes.

Specific to school crime and safety, the Report on Indicators of School Crime and Safety reports on school crime and safety data in the United States. Produced by NCES with contributions from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, it provides indicators on elementary and secondary student and teacher victimization; school environment; fights and weapons; safety, security, and mental health practices; and postsecondary campus safety and security. To better understand the mental, emotional, and behavioral health effects of other school security measures, questions designed to assess changes in perceptions of safety resulting from the use of multiple and individual security measures, effects on school attendance and avoidance, and effects on school climate could be added to this data collection.

Similarly, the School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS),³⁴ administered to school principals, is a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of about 4,800 public elementary and secondary schools. This survey offers the ability to explore the impacts of other school security measures on student and staff mental, emotional, and behavioral health, providing estimates of school crime, discipline, disorder, and programs and policies. The SSOCS questionnaire asks principals to report on a variety of topics related to crime and safety, including frequency and types of crimes at schools (e.g., homicide, rape, sexual assault, attacks with or without weapons, robbery, theft, vandalism), perceptions of other disciplinary problems (e.g., bullying, verbal abuse, disorder in the classroom), description of school policies and programs concerning crime and safety, description of the pervasiveness of student and teacher involvement in efforts that are intended to prevent or reduce school violence, mental health services available to students at school, responsibilities of sworn law enforcement officers and school resource officers, and general school characteristics. In order to better understand the mental, emotional, and behavioral health effects of other

___________________

³⁴ https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs

school security measures, questions assessing student perceptions of safety and anxiety related to the use of physical safety measures, trust in school resource officers, impact on school climate and feelings of belonging, changes in school avoidance and engagement, and staff perceptions of the impact of security measures on their ability to build positive relationships with students could be added to this data collection.

As detailed in previous chapters, school active shooter drills and other school security measures need to be part of comprehensive school safety planning, and school climate is a critical component of safety planning in supporting students’ development, safety, and well-being. Yet, school climate is not regularly assessed, and many districts lack the baseline infrastructure needed to support improvements in or examination of district-level conditions that might enable or facilitate better school environments. California offers one such state-level model for encouraging local educational agencies to administer school climate surveys and integrate the results into reporting and continuous improvement systems. In 2024, California began requiring local educational agencies to administer school climate surveys annually and to report the results as part of their local control and accountability plans and the state-level public data dashboards (Klevan et al., 2024).

Growing public concern about the safety of students in schools over the past 25 years has led to increasing interest in research on the frequency of school violence occurring within the United States, especially since the shooting at Columbine High School. However, there is no federal reporting requirement for school shooting events. Here, too, data are collected in a piecemeal fashion through a number of public information sites and databases. While these resources offer accessible opportunities to investigate the trends and patterns in school violence, they are not comprehensive. A federal reporting requirement for school shooting events is needed, to include a standard definition and prospective and ongoing data collection, including when active shooter protocols or related practices (e.g., lockdowns) are implemented in schools.

CONCLUSION

Ensuring school safety while minimizing harm to students and staff during active shooter drills is a complex but essential task. It is an unfortunate reality that youth and adults armed with firearms pose a genuine threat to the nation’s schools. School active shooter drills and other school security measures are widely implemented despite a notably thin evidence base bearing on their effectiveness and safety of these preventive interventions. As a result, this committee was charged with assessing current school practices and recommending an evidence-based path forward. Specifically, the committee was charged with addressing growing concerns about the potential mental, emotional, and behavioral health effects of school active shooter drills on students and staff. While emergency preparedness is necessary, current practices need to be reshaped. Better understanding of the adverse effects of those practices is crucial—especially given the widespread implementation of school active shooter drills across the United States, which affects millions of students and staff (and their families) annually. Advancing the research needed to gain this understanding would enable decision-makers to minimize harm, develop interventions that are responsive to participants’ needs, identify and evaluate best practices, allocate resources effectively, and create safe and supportive learning environments.

One of the central findings of this report is the wide variation in how schools conduct active shooter drills and implement other security measures. Without standardized criteria for evaluation, it is difficult to determine which approaches, if any, effectively enhance safety and preparedness without causing psychological harm. Developing standardized measures for monitoring and assessing the outcomes of drills and other security measures would improve data reliability, enable meaningful comparisons across contexts, and strengthen the ability of schools to implement evidence-based practices.

Future research needs to investigate the cumulative impact of repeated drills, as these are not isolated experiences for most

students but a recurring feature of their school lives. Given that these drills often occur multiple times each year, understanding how repeated exposure influences long-term mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes is critical. Additionally, more attention is needed on the effects of drills on adults, both to avoid harm to their own well-being and to better understand how their responses influence students’ experiences. Similarly, it will be important for future research to shift toward investigating demonstrable behavioral changes post-drill instead of relying solely on self-reported perceptions, which may not always align with actual preparedness or decision-making in high-stress situations.

Equally important is the need for research that accounts for community and population contexts. The lack of empirical data on how school active shooter drills affect different subgroups of students and staff highlights a clear gap in the existing evidence base. Individual characteristics—such as age, disability status, prior trauma exposure, or need for additional supports—may significantly influence how individuals participate and are affected by drills. Future studies will need to incorporate a more inclusive approach to ensure that school safety practices do not disproportionately harm the most vulnerable populations.

It will be critical for ethical considerations to remain at the forefront of future research efforts. Many traditional experimental methods, such as randomized controlled trials, are impractical or unethical in this context. However, thoughtful and creative research designs—such as modified waitlist–control protocols, natural experiments, and longitudinal studies—can help researchers overcome these ethical challenges while maintaining methodological rigor. It is essential that research focus on developing best practices for drill implementation that balance safety preparedness with trauma-informed approaches to minimize distress and maximize effectiveness.

Additionally, research needs to extend beyond active shooter drills to examine the broader landscape of school security measures. Policies such as arming teachers, employing school resource officers, and using surveillance technologies, carry their own risks and

possible benefits. Unfortunately, they often lack strong empirical support. Future studies are needed to explore the mental, emotional, and behavioral health effects of these practices, ensuring that all school safety policies are rooted in a robust evidence base.

Finally, while many school safety policies and practices have already been implemented without thorough prior evaluation, it is imperative—going forward—that new interventions undergo rigorous assessment before widespread adoption. Establishing minimum standards for evaluating school safety interventions can prevent harmful or ineffective practices from becoming entrenched and help schools make informed, responsible decisions. Without careful prior evaluation, students and staff may accurately be characterized as research subjects who are being subjected to untested safety measures, a situation that is both ethically and practically unacceptable.

Moving forward, a coordinated research agenda that prioritizes collaboration among researchers, schools, and policymakers is a necessary condition for improving school safety policies and practices. Strengthening the evidence base, developing ethical and effective methodologies, and promoting transparency in decision-making, can help ensure that school safety interventions not only prepare students and staff for emergencies but also protect their long-term mental, emotional, and behavioral well-being.

REFERENCES