Many organizations are working to “stake a claim” in the “active shooter” response.  A few of these even expand to emergency response, incorporating commands for other scenarios.  Yet when working on proper terminology, consideration should be given to many aspects.  Most importantly, these include: 

• Research & lessons learned from events 

• 9/11 lessons  

• Radio / auditory issues 

• Color coding (& color blindness) 

• Historic relevance 

• Steps of different responses 

Research & Experience 

• Experience shows us most staff are overwhelmed by the “playbook” approach 

• Research shows us people are not prepared / response can be generalized / generalization = action = lives saved 

In the many schools that we have worked with, asking staff about their individual response to an example emergency usually resulted in “um”.  In schools with multi-tabbed Emergency Booklets (the plastic covered, spiral bound notebooks), many staff would point to the book – then get lost flipping pages.  When asked to explain what steps they might take, “I think” and “I might” were common responses. 

Research Across emergencies, previous research has shown that an average of 75% of individuals remain inactive when facing danger (Leach, 2004; Mawson, 2005).  This inactivity can be labeled as “freezing,” where an individual is passive, standing still, and potentially, not evacuating even if the opportunity presents itself.  However, research has also shown that individuals can decrease “freezing” by engaging in training and rehearsal of appropriate response behaviors (Leach, 2004; Noto et al., 2024). 

9/11 lessons 

• Plain language is necessary 

The attack on the World Trade Center, September 11, 2001 was a tragedy, for the lives lost directly in the attack and for the lives lost through rescue efforts.  There were many lessons learned through those events, which should not be forgotten.  Most relevant here are the lessons of “10 codes”.  Every agency in the region responded to the World Trade Center that day, each brining with them their own “language” in the form of abbreviations (cops and teachers love their acronyms) and codes (10-4 is only one of 100 codes, and even that isn’t universal).  The connection here is that simple words which have standard or universal meaning are important for clear communication. 

Radio/auditory 

• DISTINCT words, readily distinguished from each other to avoid mix-ups, are needed 

• Research – words have meaning, so pick words that lead to the action to be taken 

Akin to the lessons of codes are the experiences of many users with garbled radio traffic.  Worse are old PA systems in schools, making Charlie Brown’s teacher sound good.  So using a few terms, widely different from each other, to direct emergency responses in mass communications means that everyone gets the same message.  Literally. 

Studies also shows that people follow the meaning of the words they hear.  This means that regardless of the training around terminology (which is needed), people are going to respond to the command words used.  This emphasizes the importance of using words that indicate the action taken.  Complicated terms like “reverse-evacuation” aren’t readily understood to direct movement.  Others like “lockdown”, especially when combined with qualifying terms “hard”, “soft”, etc., don’t always speak to what they intend (prison use is very different from what is intended in schools). 

Color coding 

• ENS should have audio/visual response, including color 

• Primary colors / ADA has screen provisions 

To further clarify message communication, each response can be given a color.  No one misses the bright white strobe of the fire alarms signaling to exit the building.  That flashing white light accompanies the auditory alarm – essential in loud areas (shops, gyms, and music rooms) areas with limited acoustic conveyance, and for those with hearing loss or impairment.  Using primary colors eliminates possible confusion or perception issues from color-blindness. 

History matters 

• EXIT – pros: known, short, simple, understood, signs in place.  Cons: red, green, white 

• LOCKDOWN – pros: ?  Cons: widely used – in many different ways (prison, military, lock-in, lockout, soft, hard), training (lay down and wait for rescue) vs. multi-option response, direction = no one moves, other? 

History, the long-term use of terms and directions, also matters.  “EXIT” signs have been required in buildings as long as fire alarms in many areas.  “Evacuation” signs are usually posted along designated highway routes in hurricane or tsunami areas.   

Similarly, the term “lockdown” has long been used in prisons and jails, which likely accounts for the transfer of the term to schools (police call for a school to close exterior doors by using the term they know).  However, going back to the lesson of plain language, what should be done is to notify the school of what is happening and let the school decide the response.  For example, police using K-9 units to track a subject near a school is a different response from an armed attacker at the school. 

Steps 

• “playbook” vs. generalization 

Finally, our work has shown us that – no matter the emergency – the basic response steps are the same.  The same process can then be instructed to staff to be generalized, or used across multiple scenarios.  Rather than a different set of directions for every conceivable emergency, this concept has been shown to increase efficiency, effectiveness, and expedite action, moving occupants more calmly to desired locations. 

There are plentiful considerations for simplified response.  We’re proud of the work we’ve done.  Reach out to us for more information.  And Stay Safe! 

The post Simplifying Emergency Response appeared first on ACAP.

There are many individuals and several organizations and companies that discuss or promote this terminology.  Unfortunately, it makes sense to those who are not considering the ramifications.   

Considering the number of schools and school personnel that are willing to latch on to the term and command should begin to shed light on the issue.  Most schools have policies and directions to keep all exterior doors locked during the school day; many add to that by limiting access to certain entries, some even requesting authentication before granting entry. 

If such methods are truly effective, why then is “Secure Mode” needed?  Advocates say that it is a useful indication for “responsible parties” to verify the school’s security.  Therein lies the issue; “Secure Mode” itself tells everyone in the school that they will receive a warning before the school really needs to be secured.  Events have shown, repeatedly, that simply is not the case. 

Instead of providing an additional layer of protection, “Secure Mode” then does the opposite.  By including it in planning and preparation, by its mere existence, the message is conveyed that buildings do not fully need to be secured.  We either lock something or we don’t; there is no in between.  And since most of schools propped doors come from students, telling them that someone will check the doors as soon as the command is given is as good as giving them permission to do it, regardless of what policy says.   

Understandably, with schools having so many issues, they may want to be able to notify some staff of an issue so that certain (or all) doors will be checked.  Unless all staff are being told to check doors, then the building does not need an announcement.  These staff members may be contacted by other communication methods, or doors may be checked or verified by other means.  The “mode” can be eliminated and promotion of a continually secure building begun. 

The last conceivable argument for the “Secure Mode” is that many buildings don’t have air conditioning, so windows may be open and need to be secured.  While it is  debatable that those staff with windows open actually close them following such a command, the basic argument remains the same: schools should be secured to begin with.  If funding for building or room air conditioning and purifying units is not available, other means for providing secure ventilation – rather than a school announcement which causes more issues than it solves – need to be sought.  In other words, the real problem needs to be addressed, not glossed over or swept under the rug.  There are solutions for the ventilation issue, though none are as appealing as the thought they are not needed.  Ultimately, the arguments for “Secure Mode” whittle down to the reality that we are in a world where school building security is a necessity that must be addressed with preventative measures, not a reactive process which cannot provide any realistic protection. 

There is only one path forward: eliminating commands and notifications for securing a facility and providing instructions and training to all occupants on the processes for making it happen.  Everyone in the building needs to understand they have a part in making their school safe.  They may not prop the door, but they may be thankful for someone who did; they may not use the propped door, but they may know who did and not scold or report them; they may not know who propped the door, but may not remove the object holding it open.  Everyone is responsible; everyone takes part in school safety or no one is safe.  This is the sad reality of today and no terminology will change that. 

Is your school secure or does it wait for a “Mode”? 

The post The Fallacy of “Secure Mode” appeared first on ACAP.

When an emergency scenario occurs, staff and students are most likely to follow the behaviors displayed by leaders and, therefore, having a plan is imperative (DHS, 2018). Across emergencies, previous research has shown that an average of 75% of individuals remain inactive when facing danger (Leach, 2004; Mawson, 2005). This inactivity can be labeled as “freezing,” where an individual is passive, standing still, and potentially, not evacuating even if the opportunity presents itself. However, research has also shown that individuals can decrease “freezing” by engaging in training and rehearsal of appropriate response behaviors (Leach, 2004; Noto et al., 2024). Having the ability to rehearse responses to emergency scenarios is imperative as learners are granted the opportunity to practice in a low-consequence environment. Some research has shown that individuals in active training (component of movement or rehearsal) have an increased likelihood of accurate responses in training compared to those who experience passive training (e.g., lectures, videos; Noto et al., 2024). Active training, specifically providing instructions, models, rehearsal opportunities, and feedback, has also been effective at generalizing to real-world scenarios regarding safety (Bergstrom et al., 2014; Garcia et al., 2016; Himle, et al., 2004; Johnson et al., 2006; Miltenberger et al., 2004). By having learners engage in the expected behaviors across emergencies, not only do they get additional physical practice, but they can further increase their awareness of respective alerting verbiage, or command terms.  

When creating command terms, it is beneficial to consider the context of the scenario. Stress exposure training research has identified that extreme levels of stress may lead to inferior performance or counterproductive reactions, such as decreased fine-motor skills or increased response time to verbal behavior (Driskell & Johnston, 1998; Grossman & Christensen, 2007). Therefore, clear command terms and instructions will help to set performers up for success. When setting up command terms, selecting verbiage rooted in specific behaviors can be helpful in setting up clear expectations.  

For example, let’s review the responses often used in active shooter scenarios and identify alternatives that label the true behavior expected of staff. Beginning with the term, “run.” If individuals are choosing to evacuate a location, they need to ensure that it is safe to do so. Therefore, they should not only run, but also continually check for any danger or change in circumstances. A replacement term that meets both of those characteristics? “Avoid.” When avoiding, individuals are removing themselves from a situation but further ensuring that they do not recontact the threat. The term “hide” is often used when responding to active shooter scenarios, but is hide truly the behavior being sought out? Unfortunately, as previously seen in active shooting scenarios, like Columbine High School, hiding is not enough to keep oneself, or students safe. Instead of hide, a term like “barricade” aids in clarifying the expectations of this response. Barricade infers that there needs to be some form of blockade separating the class from the threat. With the verbiage of barricade, the expectations of response are further elucidated. This leaves “fight.” With any level of active shooter training, the phrase “you should never seek out a fight” has likely been included. That is the exact difficulty with this label – individuals should not be seeking a fight. The question arises, what should individuals do? The expectation of individuals is that if the threat were to breach their safety zone (i.e., opening the door, opening the window), they would counter the intruder, whether that be via physical contact, verbal distraction, or other alternative means. Therefore, a term like “counter” would remind the individual that they are not seeking a fight but opposing or preventing a threat if needed. 

Beyond alert terminology, the instructions selected can aid in reducing the phenomenon of freezing. Selecting a common set of introductory behaviors can increase the likelihood of engaging in behavior. If the first responses across any emergency scenario are standardized, no decision-making is needed to begin moving. Examples of initial behaviors across emergency scenarios include, but are not limited to, locating the go-kit, removing it from storage, checking the communication device, instructing students to listen for the next set of directions, and checking for safety. Through training, learners would begin each emergency with said preliminary behaviors. Through this increased practice, if a scenario were to occur, the learner would have the most practice with preliminary behaviors, thereby increasing the likelihood that behavior occurs. Additionally, if a scenario that was not covered in training were to occur, learners could generalize the same preliminary behaviors to a novel emergency. Extending beyond their initial behavior, as deemed by Newton’s Laws of Motion, an object in motion stays in motion. In other words, if individuals begin to engage in responses to the emergency, they are likely to continue to act. 

The standardization of instructions can also be beneficial to ensure that educators engage in all necessary follow-through behaviors after an incident. The aftermath of any emergency is stressful, whether that be perpetuated by a human or nature. Providing a consistent set of “next step” behaviors will address what information is needed after an emergency. Examples of follow-through behaviors across emergency scenarios include, but are not limited to, accounting for the individuals in one’s group, identifying who is present and absent, identifying who needs medical attention, communicating the group’s status with the person in charge. By instructing, modeling, and rehearsing these steps with learners, educators will know how to respond when safe, what information should be collected, and have context as to the full operation of the system. Hopefully, practice of follow-through behaviors would decrease the flooding of calls to administrators. This is helpful because at the same time educators are collecting information, principals and superintendents can continue engaging in important conversations and planning with emergency response personnel. 

In conclusion, preparing educators for emergency scenarios is imperative. With active training, the likelihood of engaging in effective response behaviors increases while the likelihood of “freezing” is reduced. With the use of active training, educators can develop muscle memory, but beyond, feel empowered in their ability to respond in a true emergency. To further improve preparedness, training should include carefully selected command terms rooted in specific behaviors, and standardized initial and follow-through responses. Clear, practiced expectations will lead to action. Utilizing this approach, schools can create a culture of readiness, ensuring that individuals are equipped to navigate crises. 

The post Moving Beyond “Run-Hide-Fight” appeared first on ACAP.