DoJ school safety adviser speaks in Waupaca
By Robert Cloud
When an active shooter targets a school there are often warning signs.
“People don’t just snap,” according to Glenn Rehberg, with the Wisconsin Department of Justice Office of School Safety.
Rehberg spoke about how to identify potential threats to school safety at Waupaca High School on Oct. 10.
A major focus of his discussion was the Safe Schools Initiative (SSI).
A joint effort by the United States Secret Service and United States Department of Education, the SSI collected data from 37 school shootings from December 1974 through May 2000.
The SSI listed 10 key findings that school officials, law enforcement and the community can use to evaluate possible threats.
Ten key findings
First, incidents of targeted violence at school are rarely sudden, impulsive acts.
Rehberg said there is a process of thinking and behavior that leads to violence.
Second, prior to most attacks, other people knew about the attacker’s idea or even details of their plan.
“Most of the time, the disgruntled person does not directly tell the target of their intent,” Rehberg said, regarding the SSI’s third finding.
Fourth, there is no useful profile of students who engage in targeted school violence.
Rehberg said there have been a wide gamut of people who attacked schools, ranging from failing or unpopular students to a Homecoming king or varsity quarterback.
Fifth, most attackers engaged in some behavior prior to the incident that caused others concern or indicated a need for help.
Sixth, most attackers had difficulty coping with significant losses or personal failures. Many had considered suicide.
Seventh, many attackers felt bullied, persecuted or injured by others prior to the attack.
“That doesn’t mean they actually were bullied,” Rehberg said. The attackers perceived themselves as bullied.
Eighth, most attackers had access to and had used weapons prior to the attack.
Ninth, in many cases, other students were involved in some sort of support role.
Finally, despite prompt responses, most shooting incidents were stopped by means other than police intervention.
Rehberg noted the amount of time it takes for someone to flee an active shooter, call 911, for officers to be dispatched to the scene, then enter the building and confront the active shooter.
“How long would that take?” he asked. “Certainly longer than any one of us would wish.”
Building trust
Rehberg said the three most important factors in preventing a shooting incident at school involve students reporting concerning behavior or disturbing statements to school staff or law enforcement.
For that to happen, students must have “a trusting relationship with an adult staff member at the school,” Rehberg said.
Finally, if a student tells a teacher, counselor or school resource officer about a potential threat, there must be follow up and a serious assessment of the potential threat.
“Let the student know that the school looked into the situation and did something,” Rehberg said.
The real importance of a school resource officer, Rehberg said, is building relationships and lines of communications with students.
Waupaca incident
Rehberg discussed how the Waupaca School District recently responded to threatening comments made by a student.
He noted the staff responded immediately when students reported their concerns.
He said law enforcement was involved due to the close relationship between the school resource officer and the district.
Waupaca has a trained Threat Assessment Team in place to review the situation.
The district invited the Department of Justice to examine the incident and review their response, seeking constructive criticism from an outside source.
He said the administration shared information with staff and “kept the community informed to the extent that you can.”
Rehberg described the district’s response as conscientious, detailed and involving many people in the community.