In March 2024, Dan Hounsell, senior editor for FacilitiesNet, interviewed CIS security consultant Craig Gundry, PSP, cATO, for an article examining how facility managers should plan and conduct active shooter drills and training. The resulting article, “Strategies for Successful Active Shooter Drills,” was published in FacilitiesNet’s Emergency Preparedness section alongside commentary from Brendan King of Crisis Consultant Group. FacilitiesNet, published by Trade Press Media Group, is one of the most widely read online resources for facility management professionals and the publisher of Building Operating Management and Facility Maintenance Decisions.

Although most facility managers have no formal training in security, they frequently find themselves at the center of their organizations’ preparations for violence. As Craig noted in the interview, facility managers typically lead on matters related to the physical preparation of facilities — ensuring that effective infrastructure is in place to support response during a life-threatening situation — and frequently carry responsibility for the training component as well, depending on how each organization is structured.

Much of the discussion focused on a question CIS consultants encounter regularly in our assessment and training work: how often should organizations conduct active shooter training and drills? There is no established standard for commercial and workplace settings. Craig’s recommendation in the article was annual training as a minimum, noting that proactive organizations often exceed it — schools, for instance, typically conduct drills anywhere from four times per year to monthly. Organizations with complex operations may warrant greater frequency. Hospitals are a good example: the majority of people present in a healthcare facility at any moment are patients and visitors whose response during an emergency depends on the supervision of employees, which places a heavier training burden on staff.

The interview also addressed a misconception CIS encounters frequently among organizational leadership — the fear that active shooter training will traumatize employees. In our experience, this concern rarely survives contact with an actual training session. As Craig explained in the article, employees who receive this training for the first time do not react with heightened fear; they typically come forward afterward thankful that their employer is being diligent in preparing them to act in their own workspace.

A final topic explored in the discussion was emergency communications — a deficiency our consultants identify in many of the facilities we assess. Systems used for communicating emergencies must be reliable under high-stress conditions with good audibility throughout the facility. Some organizations have attempted to compensate for deficient public address infrastructure with phone- and email-based electronic mass notification systems. These systems are valuable, but only as redundant notification measures — never as the primary means of alerting building occupants during an attack, when every second of warning influences survival.

Read Dan Hounsell’s full article, “Strategies for Successful Active Shooter Drills,” at FacilitiesNet.com. For more on the issues discussed in the interview, see our active shooter response training for employee groups and Craig’s article on important tips for preparing employees through active shooter response training.

CIS consultants assist organizations worldwide in assessing facility readiness for active shooter violence. Contact us using the form below or by calling +1 (800) 247-6055 to discuss your facility.

On May 2, 2023, Fox News Channel published a story featuring an interview with CIS VP of Special Projects, Craig Gundry, discussing armed teachers as a protective strategy in schools.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/school-districts-across-america-consider-arming-teachers-aftermath-nashville-school-shooting

Unfortunately, some of the most valuable points we discussed in that interview were omitted from final publication.

As a first point, arming teachers is not a reliable strategy for response to active shooter attacks. As one source of support for this perspective, a team of researchers at Purdue University evaluated armed school employees during an analysis of alternative response models and concluded that employees carrying concealed weapons were far less effective than a school resource officer and performed only marginally better than police dispatched in response to 911 calls.[1]

Our position on this topic is clear. If schools wish to authorize teachers to carry concealed weapons, armed school employees should only be regarded as an additional readiness measure to supplement the existing presence of a professional armed responder (SRO or properly-trained armed security officer). And if schools decide to allow employees to carry firearms, they should approach this idea in a manner that is responsible, effective, and defensible from a liability perspective.

As a starting point, measures should be implemented to ensure that armed school employees are properly trained in safe firearms handling and marksmanship skills. There’s a major difference between shooting at paper targets on a firearms range and engaging a moving aggressor in an environment dense with students. To address this matter, states such as Virginia and Florida mandate specialized training and certification for security officers and school employees assigned in armed capacities.[2][3] However, many schools and districts adopting this measure overlook the importance of training standards.

Next, policies and procedures should be developed regarding approved methods of concealed carry and firearm storage and approved weapons and ammunition. Likewise, the role of armed teachers in responding to shooting events should be clearly defined so there is no implied expectation that an armed teacher is expected to seek out and neutralize a gunman. In other words, teachers are permitted to be armed for the protection of themselves and students in their immediate presence with no further expectations.   

For more information about this topic, see the video below. Our perspective about arming school employees can be found at 1:57:43.