Summary¹

“Active shooter drills” are a relatively recent addition to the variety of safety and emergency preparedness trainings offered for more than a century to students and teachers in U.S. schools. The term active shooter drills has been used to describe a range of practices including but not limited to lockdown drills, options-based drills, and full-scale simulation exercises. These terms—particularly lockdown drills and active shooter drills—are often conflated, though lockdowns represent only one practice on a broader spectrum of practices used in schools as part of active shooter drills.²

Following the 1999 school shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado, some schools began implementing active shooter drills as part of efforts to prepare for such incidents. These drills became more prevalent 13 years later following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut. Today, more than 25 years after Columbine, 95% of U.S. public schools conduct active shooter drills as part of emergency response training. Yet while these drills are now commonplace, evidence on their impact on the mental, emotional, and behavioral health of students and staff remains limited.

Increased public concern about school shooting incidents has coincided with increased implementation of safety and security measures, including active shooter drills and physical security

___________________

¹ This summary does not include references. Citations for the discussion presented in the Summary appear in the subsequent report chapters, as does a detailed discussion of the policies and evidence reviewed to support the committee’s conclusions and recommendations.

² Where possible, the committee specifies the nature of the drills described in the evidence reviewed.

measures (e.g., metal detectors, armed personnel, police presence). As a result, many states now mandate active shooter drills; however, the ways in which those drills are defined, designed, and implemented and the frequency with which they are carried out vary significantly. Indeed, the conflation and imprecise use of terminology for the practices that are being used in school active shooter drills further contributes to confusion about what types of activities students and staff are experiencing.

STUDY OBJECTIVES AND STATEMENT OF TASK

As school active shooter drills and implementation of other physical security measures have increased, so too have concerns about their potential negative effects on the mental, emotional, and behavioral health of students and staff.

In this context, the 117th Congress requested a comprehensive study on the mental health effects of lockdown drills and active shooter drills in elementary and secondary schools in the United States. This legislation (Public Law 117-328)³ directed the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to undertake a study focused on the mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes of these drills. The goal was to better understand the potential risk of adverse psychological effects and to identify best practices for mitigating those effects, as well as to identify practices that can improve safety and security while minimizing harm. The National Academies convened an ad hoc committee of relevant experts to carry out this study (see Box S-1 for a summary of the committee’s statement of task). The 14-member committee included experts in trauma-informed care, K–12 school administration and leadership, K–12 school security policy and programs, developmental-behavioral pediatrics, child and adolescent psychiatry and psychology, criminology, developmental neuroscience, developmental and

___________________

³ The appropriation can be found in https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/117th-congress/house-report/403.

family psychology, school psychology, public health, public policy, and program development.

It is important to recognize that the statement of task did not ask the committee to evaluate the effectiveness of school active shooter drills or other school security measures. While the effectiveness of these practices is an important consideration—particularly if there are potential associated risks—the committee was tasked with assessing the known impacts of such drills and security practices on mental, emotional, and behavioral outcomes and to identify practices to mitigate adverse effects on students and staff. References to what is known about effectiveness of practices or interventions are included where relevant to contextualize the outcomes that may result from various policies, practices, and interventions. The question of whether school active shooter drills should be discontinued altogether was also outside of the scope of the committee’s charge;

rather, the committee’s report focuses on identifying best practices for mitigating risks to student and staff wellbeing when these practices are implemented.

In responding to its statement of task, the committee drew on the specific body of research related to the impact of school active shooter drills, and how these drills and other school safety and security measures fit within a broader framework of comprehensive emergency preparedness strategies that promote safe and supportive school environments. The committee paid particular attention to community, school, family, and individual factors that can inform best practices for the use of these measures as components of a broader school safety and security strategy. The committee also drew on complementary research literature in such related areas as child and adolescent development, trauma-informed and developmentally appropriate practices, school safety, emergency preparedness, and violence prevention. To further enrich this review, the committee also solicited expert testimony and input from constituent groups through public information-gathering and listening sessions.

Although active shooter events can take place in a variety of locations, the committee was tasked with focusing specifically on active shooter drills in schools to understand their potential impact on mental, emotional, and behavioral health. The committee views schools as fundamentally distinct from other types of settings where active shooter events may take place, such as movie theaters, hospitals, and other workplaces. Schools are institutions for child and adolescent development and learning, and children are legally mandated to attend them. The wide age range of students in K–12 schools also introduces developmental considerations that are essentially connected to school safety and that must be understood and accommodated in order to create safe and supportive learning environments.

EVIDENCE ON MENTAL, EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH OUTCOMES

The committee’s review of the evidence informed the findings and conclusions that serve as a foundation for its guidance on best practices before, during, and after school active shooter drills. It also helped identify practices that should be avoided to prevent or mitigate the potential for adverse impacts on mental, emotional, and behavioral health. The committee’s findings and conclusions served as the basis for policy recommendations to meet the needs of schools, students, staff, and communities in the implementation of school active shooter drills and other school safety and security measures.

In reviewing practices being implemented in elementary and secondary schools across the country, the committee noted the wide variety of practices referred to as “active shooter drills”—many of which were not designed for application in schools or to meet the unique needs of student populations. As previously noted, the committee also found that research on the mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes (e.g., fear, anxiety, perceptions of safety and preparedness, perception of school climate) resulting from school active shooter drills and school safety and security measures is limited. These two findings are not unrelated: the lack of standard guidance on implementing school active shooter drills and the limited evidence evaluating practices to identify areas for improvement have led to the wide variation in how drills are implemented.

The current evidence base on the effects of school active shooter drills on mental, emotional, and behavioral health is limited and mixed. While some studies show that drills may increase participants’ sense of preparedness, others report increases in fear or distress—especially among students with existing vulnerabilities. Responses vary widely, and most studies reviewed by the committee relied on narrow outcome measures that may not fully capture more subtle or lasting effects. There is also a lack of long-term or causal data that could offer clearer guidance. Similarly, research on broader school safety and security practices offers mixed findings that make it difficult to differentiate the impacts of specific practices or how

multiple security measures interact to influence mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes. For example, measures such as locked doors may be perceived as protective, while more intensive or visible security strategies—such as metal detectors or regular law enforcement personnel presence—can cause some students to perceive their school environment as less safe. As with school active shooter drills, the impact of these measures depends heavily on context, including the school environment, developmental needs of students, and how policies are implemented.

Given the limited research on mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes related to school active shooter drills and security measures, the committee regards systematic research on this specific topic as a high priority. Specifically, it envisions a robust research agenda aiming at better understanding the effectiveness of specific drill elements at preventing harm in the event of an actual emergency, the potential risk for adverse outcomes associated with practicing these elements, innovative preparedness strategies, and the varying impacts on diverse populations of students and staff in K–12 schools. The committee also found that existing guidance on best practices was developed by a variety of professional associations, researchers, state and federal policymakers, foundations, advocacy organizations, and other groups and is not always consistent. Thus, it identified opportunities to address and improve this fragmented nature of the evidence base.

Tailoring approaches to school active shooter drills to meet the needs of individual communities requires accounting for school and community contexts, which can complicate efforts to provide standardized guidance. However, schools can improve the effectiveness of their safety and security planning through collaboration among educators, families, community members, law enforcement and first responders, and mental and physical health professionals.

The literature points to confidence among students and staff in their preparedness and their development of skills in regulating emotional responses in emergency situations as factors that could improve their sense of safety. The committee identified opportunities to ensure that all students and staff are prepared, can develop

emotion-regulation skills, have their needs considered, and can be included in emergency preparedness efforts. For example, students with disabilities or functional and access needs—including visual, hearing, communication-related, mobility-related, cognitive, attentional, and emotional—are sometimes not included in emergency management planning, which in turn may limit their opportunities for their full participation in emergency drills and preparedness for emergencies with potential consequences for mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes. Principles such as universal design⁴ offer an approach that schools can use to develop usable and accessible practices to ensure that the needs of all students and staff are met.

BEST PRACTICES FOR PROTECTING MENTAL, EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH FOR STUDENTS AND STAFF

The committee’s review of the available research and professional consensus on best practices for implementing school active shooter drills and on their impact—as well as the research literature on developmentally appropriate practices for fostering mental, emotional, and behavioral health—informed its formulation of strategies for mitigating potential risks to students and staff when implementing school active shooter drills.

While many schools conduct active shooter drills as part of their emergency response efforts, it is important for these drills to be grounded in the broader context of the school’s comprehensive safety plan. When school active shooter drills are performed in isolation (as they often are), without taking adequate account of the children’s emotional and psychological well-being, they can inadvertently arouse unnecessary anxiety or fear. When grounded in a positive school climate, these drills can foster a prepared, resilient,

___________________

⁴ Universal design is “the design and composition of an environment so that it can be accessed, understood, and used to the greatest extent possible by all people regardless of their age, size, ability, or disability” (section508.gov).

and calm school community. Thus, rather than viewing drills as isolated events responding to a hypothesized immediate threat, schools can connect them to broader discussions about safety, school climate, and well-being.

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.

The committee’s review of the evidence also identified practices that are likely to cause mental, emotional, and behavioral health harms when implemented in the context of school active shooter drills: simulation exercises involving student participation; high-intensity, hyper-realistic, or high-sensorial components; and deception.

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.

Table S-1 outlines practices that are least likely to cause MEB harms before, during, and after school active shooter drills (highlighted in green); practices that should be implemented with caution

because they are more likely to have negative impact than positive impact on mental, emotional, and behavioral health (highlighted in yellow); and practices that professional consensus largely agrees should not be implemented due to their high potential to cause harm (highlighted in red). These practices are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.

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

Overall, the committee concluded that a positive school climate⁵ is foundational to the effective implementation of school active shooter drills, and that school safety preparedness plans can be integrated into a broad framework that addresses prevention, mental health supports, and school climate. Currently, however, access to

___________________

⁵ School climate refers to the overall quality and character of school life, shaped by the shared experiences of students, families, and educators. It encompasses the school’s norms, values, relationships, teaching practices, and organizational structures. A positive school climate promotes safety, respect within the school community, collaboration, and engagement, supporting both learning and healthy development (schoolclimate.org).

the resources required to implement best practices effectively—not only funding, but also staff capacity and time—varies across schools. In addition to these resource constraints, schools may face context-specific challenges such as urbanicity and distance from first responders. The resulting variations in timing, methods, and decision-makers involved in implementing practices that are less likely to cause MEB harms can significantly shape the experiences of both students and staff. Thus, there is a need for strategies to ensure that schools have access to the necessary resources.

IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS

Considerable autonomy exists at the state, district, and school levels to select programs and strategies that address local needs. Decision-makers balance policies, feedback from key constituencies, appropriateness and context fit, perceived effectiveness, implementation capacity, and cost—among other factors—when deciding which policies and practices to adopt.

The committee formulated recommendations, summarized in this section, aimed at fostering consistent implementation and a unified understanding of best practices in school active shooter drills, ending the use of practices likely to cause mental, emotional, and behavioral health harms, addressing disparities in access to resources critical for a safe and supportive school environment, improving accessibility to ensure that all students and staff are considered in emergency planning, and promoting training for law enforcement personnel working in schools.

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 strategies that are safe for all students. The committee’s

recommendations outline actionable strategies tailored to each level of potential influence, ranging from national policy initiatives to school-based implementation efforts. Additionally, the committee highlights 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 the well-being of students and staff remains at the center of these efforts.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

THE CHALLENGE AHEAD: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE

Although an important goal of school active shooter drills is to enhance feelings of safety and preparedness, research exploring the actual effects of these drills on the mental, emotional, and behavioral health and well-being of those required to participate in them is sparse. The committee’s review of the available research on this topic and on the impacts of other commonly used security measures, identified limitations in the areas of research design and funding, data and outcome measures, subgroup analysis, attention to individual drill components and adult/staff populations, and guidance on the roles of school resource officers and community engagement strategies. The committee noted opportunities to fill these gaps by focusing on the following research priorities:

• Identifying and refining best practices in the implementation of school active shooter drills
• Identifying suitable variations in varied community and population contexts
• Developing standardized measures for assessing the effectiveness of school active shooter drills
• Ascertaining the effects of school active shooter drills on individual mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes
• Identifying and exploring ethical considerations bearing on research on the effectiveness and impact of school active shooter drills
• Quantifying and managing costs while assuring best practices

The committee also identified opportunities to improve the current data infrastructure and support future research by strengthening current data collection efforts to ensure more comprehensive tracking of safety and security policies and practices across schools—for example, by adding questions to existing surveys to capture more information about the mental, emotional, and behavioral health

outcomes associated with those measures. Leveraging existing data sources as a starting point has the potential to advance the evidence base more rapidly than would otherwise be possible.