The effectiveness of the use of technical means of safety and design features of the premises, in schools and other educational institutions

Between 2022 and 2023 more than 30 crimes* occurred in schools, other educational institutions and places with mass stay of children in different countries of the world, the victims of which were 236 people, 114 of whom died, most of the victims being children.

After each tragedy, especially those related to mass murders (there were 15 such cases), there were extensive discussions in the media, social networks, messengers and forums about why such terrible crimes occur and how to prevent them in the future.

The main topic of such discussions, in most cases, is to find out the reasons and motives that motivated the subject (or group) to commit this terrible crime. Although there is little practical benefit to be gained from such deliberations. Authoritative experts in personality analysis and forensic psychiatry have repeatedly proven that there is no single psychotype of a «school shooter», nor is there a single trigger that induces them to commit murder. According to these studies, the prevention of such crimes can be based only on the analysis of some behaviors-indicators of potential shooters, which with a certain degree of probability indicate their intentions, but it is still premature to talk about the effectiveness of such methods.  It should be taken into account, however, that the nature of threats is also changing, the main share of attacks on schools and other educational institutions are external attacks. If we analyze the period from 2010 to 2022 inclusive, out of 117 cases* qualifying as mass murder committed in schools or other children's organizations, only in 57 cases (48.7%) the offenders were pupils or employees of these institutions.

The case of March 27, 2023, at the Covenant School in Nashville, USA, is illustrative. A criminal armed with a firearm entered the school where he murdered six people and then was killed in a shoot-out with police. According to a statement made by the city's police chief, the school was not the perpetrator's original target. Based on the records found, the killer had planned to attack another location, but it was too well protected, so he chose a less secure site to attack - the school.

Schools, other educational institutions and places with large concentrations of children have long been high-risk targets, attractive to criminals and terrorists**. This means that a fundamentally new approach to their security is needed.  However, to date, there is no single format or template that can be used to build a system of safety and security for educational and other institutions for children. Studies on its development are being conducted, but most often it is done by independent researchers and just enthusiasts, representatives of scientific and analytical departments of law enforcement agencies try to stay away from this area. As a result of this attitude, the threat, which has existed on an international scale and has been increasing in activity for almost 30 years, continues to develop, covering more and more countries and using more and more deadly methods, meeting on its way virtually no counteraction.

Among those involved in the search for a solution, especially in recent years, is gaining popularity in such a direction as strengthening the buildings and premises of educational institutions, through the use of technical means of security and access control, as well as additional elements in the design of interior spaces. Information about various innovations in this direction periodically appear in the media, and in some schools, such technical security systems are already in place. In theory, these means of security and safety are very effective, but what about in practice?

So far, of several schools (for obvious reasons I will not name their names or locations) where such systems are used, no cases (including attempts) of mass murder or terrorist acts have been recorded, so it is not yet possible to evaluate the effectiveness of protective measures by real example. Therefore, I propose to analyze different variants of their use in theory and consider on hypothetical examples of attacks, with different scenarios.  

According to publications in the media and other information from open sources, I have identified several popular technical systems of security and access control, which the authors of such initiatives propose to use in educational institutions.

 

Automatically locking doors and windows made of particularly durable materials that can withstand shots and burglary attempts.

The authors of such initiatives claim that through the use of such technology, it is possible to quickly, at the touch of a button, deny a criminal access to a school building, or to block him inside a confined space, thereby depriving him of the possibility of further movement. There is a reference to the fact that such systems have long been successfully used in practice. It is true, they are used in prisons. However, prisons and schools are objects of fundamentally different functions, so the security systems in them are built on a different principle. The purpose of such systems in prisons is to prevent the inmate from leaving the territory, or during a riot, to deprive small groups of prisoners of the opportunity to unite with others. But a prison is a purpose-built, closed, secure facility, the security of which is ensured by a whole complex of interconnected systems and entire units of armed guards numbering several dozens of people. Automated security and access control systems are managed there by specially trained and experienced staff, from a specially equipped room (duty station) where all the surveillance and control systems are located.

Despite the fact that the school is an object with completely different characteristics and functionality, let us try to consider the hypothetical possibility of using such systems in it.

The question arises at once - how exactly or by whom will this locking system be activated and how is it controlled?

Variant 1: the system automatically locks the locks when the «Alarm» button is pushed, but in this case it does not save but on the contrary dooms to death. Let me explain by example: the signal was activated while the criminal in the hall or common corridor, he was noticed, pressed the alarm button, after which the system automatically blocked the doors of all rooms, it turns out that everyone else who at that moment was outside the premises - are the potential, and most importantly easily accessible victims, because in this case they have nowhere to hide, as all the doors to the premises are blocked.

Variant 2: the alarm has been activated when the offender has already entered the classroom, canteen, library or gymnasium, in this case those who were in the room with him at that moment have no chance to leave it, all possible exits are blocked, people will be trapped.

Option 3: The system locks the locks at the command of one of the school officials. In this case, the questions again arise:

1. how many such officials are there?

2. on what basis do they decide to activate the lock and how exactly do they do it?

If, according to the instructions, they activate the system upon hearing an alarm or grounds for activation, such as the sounds of gunshots, cries for help, etc. In this case, the situation will develop similarly to the above scenarios from options 1 and 2, with their negative consequences.

If the security protocol requires the officer to first personally verify the reality of the threat before activating the blocking system, then the question arises: how much time will it take to assess the situation and make a decision? It is worth considering that the decision is made by a person who is an employee of the field of education, who may have graduated from special courses, but he is not faced with the elimination of emergency situations on a daily basis, he has no relevant experience. Therefore, such factors as suddenness, fear, confusion, doubt, etc., can seriously affect his reaction, by the time the decision is made, it may be too late.

What delay means in such situations is clearly demonstrated by an attack on a school in the city of Izhevsk, Russia, September 26, 2022, when from the first shot to the arrival of the police only 5 minutes passed, during which time the offender managed to kill 18 people and wound 23 others.

It is also possible that the system of locking doors and windows is activated on command from the police station, with which there is a live video link. In this case, the decision would be made more deliberately and quickly, but again the question arises - Under what conditions would this measure be effective? I have considered many plausible scenarios and found only one, when the use of such a system could protect people in the case of mass murder in an educational institution.

In order to do that, the situation would go like this: the perpetrator was identified when he entered the building, all students, teachers and administrative staff are in classrooms and other offices equipped with bullet-proof doors, the hallway and corridors are empty. Provided that the attacker is armed only with firearms or edged weapons and his goal is mass murder. Only under such «sterile» conditions, this system can protect.

I have analyzed over a hundred actual cases of mass murders in educational institutions committed between 2010 and 2022 inclusive, out of 117 incidents, only three crimes had a similar scenario, that is less than 3% of the total.  

Now let's modify the above scenario a bit: the perpetrator, instead of using a firearm, or in addition to it, uses an incendiary device, the same Molotov cocktails, igniting them on the evacuation routes. A similar attack on a school was attempted in May 2019 in Volsk, Saratov region, Russia, a large-scale tragedy was avoided only because the incendiary mixture made by the perpetrator did not ignite. The attacker could also use highly toxic chemicals or poison gas. A similar case was recorded on November 12, 2019, in China, then a 23-year-old perpetrator, sprayed poisonous lye on the premises of a kindergarten, Caiyuan city, Yunnan province. Fifty-four people, including 51 children under the age of 7, received various degrees of poisoning.

In such scenarios, people trapped inside are at even greater risk. It is important to understand that the subjects of these crimes should not be underestimated, they are very rarely committed spontaneously, in most cases they are preceded by a long and careful preparation, the time and place of the attack are also not chosen by chance.

I will not dwell on this in detail, but the consequences of using such a system can be even more tragic if it is not an attack by a school shooter - a loner, but a terrorist act committed by an organized group, regardless of the purpose of their action, mass murder or hostage-taking.

 

Technical means of active safety.

I also found the idea of using such innovations for school security in media publications (one school in the U.S. has already installed this system). The authors suggest installing special smoke canisters in the corridors of schools, which spray thick smoke, making it difficult for an attacker to move.

The idea is certainly interesting, precisely in terms of its application as a protective measure in children's institutions. The fact is that similar systems have long been successfully used, but not in schools, but in prisons, to suppress escapes, as well as riots and mass fights.

If we consider the possible scenarios in which it could be used effectively, there is only one option. If the criminal is alone in a completely empty corridor, and an equally empty direction along his likely route of travel. Otherwise, the use of such devices can only do harm. Why?

Let me repeat at the beginning that we should not underestimate the subjects of these crimes, they prepare for their actions and take such features into account in their planning. Therefore, with a high degree of probability, the offender himself will have a gas mask, but his victims will not have the means of respiratory protection. The spraying of smoke, if there are other people in the corridor in addition to the shooter, especially children, will cause panic and disorientation, not to mention what will happen if among them are children with panic attacks, epilepsy or asthma. In addition, the smoke will hide the «shooter» from the security cameras. And now put all the factors together, if the attacker has the means of respiratory and visual protection, the use of such a system, will simplify the task of the offender, allowing him to move freely and secretly on school grounds, while making it very difficult for the police to find him and neutralize him.

The use of active technical means of security in such a format does not comply with the main principle of any security system – «Do no harm». Therefore, using them in this form is not only ineffective, but also dangerous. However, with proper refinement, taking into account most possible scenarios and circumstances, the development of several effective and safe models of their use is quite possible. The direction is very promising, but requires serious study and a different approach to use.

 

 

Structural features of the premises in educational institutions.

According to media reports, in one of the schools, as a security measure, special curved corridors were built in which students running away from the shooter would be out of his sight at all times. In addition, special concrete barriers were erected to allow students to hide from bullets.

I agree that, to some extent, this may indeed make it a little more difficult for the «school shooter», provided that he acts alone, is armed with a cold or short-barreled firearm, has very poor shooting skills, and is limited in time. In this case, it is important that of all the possible options of attack, he chose the one in which the starting point is the corridor, where at that moment there will be his potential victims. This scenario, while unlikely, is possible.

To this I would add that all these artificial obstacles, will create the same difficulty for the police when they enter the building to neutralize the threat.

That said, once again, the biggest mistake the designers of such «security measures» make is underestimating the subjects they are designed to counter. Attacks on educational institutions are spontaneous very rarely, in most cases they are crimes that are preceded by a long and careful period of preparation, and in their plans, the attackers take into account the «special characteristics» of the object of the future crime.   

In addition, the scenarios of possible threats are obviously not taken into account, because it is not only mass murder, it is also terrorism, including hostage-taking. The bright example is the September 1, 2004 occupation of the school in Beslan, Russia, by terrorists, and there is no guarantee that such an incident might not happen again. By equipping schools with bulletproof doors and windows, curved corridors, and concrete shelter barriers, we not only make it easier for them, we make schools more attractive as potential targets for takeover. After all, for the terrorists to seize such a building and turn everyone inside into hostages would not be very difficult, but for the anti-terrorist squad members who have to storm it, all these fortifications would create serious additional obstacles, which with a high probability would lead to very serious consequences. Even if we consider a situation in which a lone man who has taken only one office and students as hostages acts as an intermediary. If negotiations stall, there is only one option left - the use of force to free the hostages and neutralize the criminal. The most important factor in such operations is time, the faster the group penetrates the room and the more points of entry, the greater the chance of success. Accordingly, when storming the premises with armored doors and windows, these chances are much lower.

Do not also forget that not a single technical system in the world, even the most sophisticated, is not immune to failure. It can simply not turn on at the right time, it can not do it in full, it can turn on or off spontaneously. Also, do not discount the fact that control of any such system (especially if it is remote) can be intercepted, in which case the device is designed to protect people, become a tool to kill them.       

To ensure the security of an educational institution or other place with a mass presence of children, does not mean that it is necessary to turn it into an object capable of withstanding an attack by superior enemy forces or a high-security prison for a long time. When developing measures for the technical reinforcement of public buildings, and especially of children, it is necessary to take into account all possible scenarios and threats, even those that at first glance seem unlikely or even fantastic.

 

* When evaluating statistical data, it should be taken into account that their reliability corresponds to the real situation only by 60 - 65%. The reasons for such deviations are as follows:

1. not all countries publish publicly available information on such cases, or they do, but in a distorted (most often understated) form;

2. in cases where a crime is prevented at the stage of preparation, it is not always possible to prove the direct intention of the suspect to commit a mass murder or an act of terrorism. That is why quite a few criminals avoid responsibility for their actual intent, getting away with formal punishment for offenses of minor gravity, such as illegal storage of weapons, insults, threats, storage and distribution of extremist materials;

3. in cases where a crime can be prevented at the initial stage, before especially grave consequences occur (for example, the offender inflicted only light wounds on one or two people, the weapon for some reason did not fire, the guards or the surrounding people managed to disarm and detain, etc.), also it is not always possible to prove the existence of a direct intent by the suspect to commit a mass murder or an act of terrorism. On the recommendations of defense attorneys, suspects testify that they did not plan to kill anyone, but only wanted to frighten them, or that it was a prank in general.

 Author - Roman Grishin

** Although some do not see the difference, I am still inclined to separate the two types of perpetrators by their motivation. For the School Shooter, mass murder is a way of self-expression; he is guided by goals that he alone understands and is only trying to convey his personal message to those around him. A terrorist commits a crime guided by the ideology of a particular terrorist movement (or organization), and pursues the goals espoused by this extremist ideology (or organization).

Note: terrorist acts in educational institutions, committed by lone terrorists, are still a rare phenomenon for most countries, but, unfortunately, only for the time being. Judging by current trends, international terrorist organizations and movements consider this method of committing their actions very promising.