Issues Regarding the Adaptation of the Project for the United States and Countries with an Autonomous (Independent) Education System

 

This article serves as a supplement to the previously published project on the main website - a comprehensive security system for schools and other educational institutions designed to protect against criminal, terrorist, and other threats. It was prompted by a critical review of the project that I received; its authors represent one of the most serious and authoritative international organizations in the field of educational facility security.

I will reiterate that I view criticism - especially constructive criticism - in a completely normal and respectful manner; it allows me to identify and address vulnerabilities and errors that are clearly visible from an outside perspective. I view all critical comments and well-reasoned recommendations - especially those from recognized experts and practitioners - as a form of self-education and always take them into account in my work. I have outlined my main arguments regarding the comments mentioned in the review in a separate article.

After receiving the main review, I received another letter from the same author, which no longer contained criticism but rather a recommendation to take into account, when developing the project, the specific features of how educational institutions are organized and operate in different countries - primarily in the United States. I will quote from the letter:

In the United States and many other countries, such as the United Kingdom and India, the government has very limited control over independent schools, and they operate as separate entities. In the United States, only one state has a public school system. That is precisely why the remaining 49 states have between 30 and 250 separate public school systems, which, although regulated by federal and regional governments, are administered by local authorities and enjoy significant autonomy. And this is not unique to the U.S., so keep in mind that there are significant differences between countries.

This letter served as an additional incentive for me: if even leading experts cannot see a way beyond the existing system, then this system has truly become a “comfort zone.” But a comfort zone is a place where growth stops. Meanwhile, threats are growing. And we are falling behind.

I am very familiar with the situation described by the expert; I have pointed out that I drew on the American experience as the basis for the units for the prevention and suppression of direct (explicit) threats outlined in the draft. Specifically, the experience of establishing and operating police services such as the New York City Police Department’s School Safety Division (SSD NYPD) and the Los Angeles School Police Department (LASPD). I studied their activities, legal status, and effectiveness in considerable detail, comparing them with other cities and states where similar police services exist or do not exist. At the same time, I studied, using open sources, the principles governing the organization and operations of educational institutions and childcare facilities in various states - including kindergartens, schools, colleges, and universities. I also examined the regulatory legal acts governing their status, the procedures for interacting with local and federal authorities, the police, and the community, as well as how security issues are addressed.

In short, based on an analysis of the information, it can be concluded that the school safety system in the United States does not have a single federal (state) standard and is managed at the state and local school district levels. Most schools employ the most basic measures: access control, video surveillance, the presence of police officers, school security personnel, or private security guards, and regular emergency drills. Within the administrative structures of local governments, school districts, and certain large schools, there are specialized staff positions (coordinators, directors, deputies, specialists, etc.) that are entirely focused on security issues. In some states, state law provides for the possibility of teachers carrying firearms and using them to stop an attack in cases of direct threats to themselves and students. The Department of Education and law enforcement leadership periodically send guidance materials on safety issues to schools, but all these documents are largely advisory in nature. Within the administrative structure - both at the state level and at the level of individual school districts - in addition to officials from the departments of education, there are various commissions, committees attached to school boards, and task forces responsible for overseeing security matters.

A system like this took shape as early as the second half of the last century, when the main security threats to students and school staff were teenagers who poured glue on the chairs of teachers they disliked, smoked in the schoolyard, broke light bulbs in the restroom, stole pastries from the cafeteria, or scrawled graffiti on the principal’s office door. Nowadays, the nature and severity of these threats have significantly increased and changed. Today, no one is surprised by serious and particularly serious crimes committed in schools - including those involving bladed weapons or firearms, sexual harassment, rape, theft, robbery, and extortion—or serving as a breeding ground for arms and drug dealers, organized crime gangs, and extremist groups. Yes, this situation does not exist in every school, but unfortunately, it is present in many, and the proportion of such schools (colleges, universities, etc.) is growing year by year.

Yes, it’s unpleasant to admit, but it’s a fact - in the 21st century, educational institutions have become high-risk environments.

The existing security system for educational institutions simply wasn’t designed to handle a situation like this. Yes, there have been many attempts to expand and modernize it, but the potential for modernization is limited, and it has now been exhausted. In its current state, the system is incapable of countering modern and emerging threats; it has become obsolete. This is not a criticism of its creators; it is a normal, natural process for any component of the state and municipal governance system. Over time, and under the influence of changes in the country’s social and political life, the system reaches the end of its useful life and becomes unsuitable for further use.

A system that is not updated to address new threats ceases to provide protection. It becomes a mere prop. We put locks on cardboard doors and then are surprised when they are broken into. This is exactly what we are witnessing right now.

In my project, I propose a new approach to ensuring the security of educational institutions. This framework has been developed with consideration for both existing and potential threats of all types—from criminal to natural and man-made. It is a new and unconventional approach based on the principle of centralization, in which schools and other educational institutions are not autonomous entities but rather components of a unified, managed system. However, I want to emphasize that this applies only to security matters; it will not affect other areas of operation in any way.

The first step in the project is administrative reform (Section III: Proposed Solution; Subsection 1: Administrative and Legal Measures; Paragraph 1.2), the essence of which is to completely relieve the administration of an educational institution of responsibility for organizing, ensuring, and maintaining public order and safety on its premises. This involves not only removing responsibility but also prohibiting interference in the process of organizing and implementing public order and safety. Only this will allow for the creation of a solid foundation upon which a transparent and effective system can be built in the future, where responsibilities are clearly delineated. Educational institutions will be able to focus on their primary mission - the education and upbringing of the younger generation.

This is a necessary condition; without it, there is no point in even beginning any reforms - they will yield no results. A major problem for public safety - and a significant boon to crime - is the competition among educational institutions to maintain their reputations and achieve positive statistical results. This compels their leadership to use any means necessary to conceal committed offenses from official record-keeping and full investigation until these incidents begin to lead to serious consequences and it becomes impossible to conceal them any longer. It is not uncommon for staff members to use their official positions to interfere with the work of security services, demanding that rules be disregarded for the sake of the educational process or other institutional priorities. The current (autonomous) security system allows them to do so, and criminals actively exploit this vulnerability. The result is obvious.

The only effective way to change the situation is to strip the administrations of educational institutions and education officials of any influence over safety issues. Safety matters should be handled exclusively by specialized professionals who possess the necessary expertise and resources. But most importantly, their top priority will be the lives and health of students and staff at the educational institution, rather than its reputation or statistical reporting.

A detailed model for creating a security system based on the principles of centralization and a clear chain of command—specifying the interdependencies and the impact of various elements on specific processes and the resolution of specific tasks—is outlined in the draft.

The issue of funding also depends on the willingness and approach to addressing it. When transitioning from a decentralized to a centralized security system, financial flows are also centralized; in other words, instead of 10 recipients, there will be one. Own funds (including those freed up by reducing the institution’s own contribution), municipal, regional, and federal subsidies, grants, donations, targeted funding, and co-financing under various programs. All funds are received by the “Specialized Police Service” (Section III: Proposed Solution; Subsection: 3. Prevention and Suppression of Direct Threats to Security). It also assumes full responsibility for all tasks related to the protection and security of educational institutions; details on how this will be implemented can be found in the draft (Section: III. Proposed Solution; Subsection: 3. Prevention and Suppression of Direct Threats to Safety). Funds are reallocated from some sources to others. This is not an increase in spending; it is a redistribution of existing funds to improve their effectiveness. Yes, expenses will rise initially—investments in infrastructure, technical equipment, and organizational costs will be needed—but eventually, costs will drop to current levels, and the budget will become more transparent and predictable. The question is, are we willing to spend these funds on an effective system rather than on a false sense of security? If we want results, we’ll have to invest in them - that’s a fundamental principle. In this case, the end justifies the means, because the goal is people’s lives and health - first and foremost, children, who, due to their age and limited life experience, cannot yet protect themselves, so we adults are responsible for their safety.

The project is fully suitable for implementation in the United States and other countries with a developed system of local self-government and an autonomous (independent) system of education. This is provided that local authorities deem it necessary to adopt it. A number of U.S. government officials, governors, senators, members of Congress, and public figures have spoken out about the need for concrete and effective measures to increase safety in educational institutions. Furthermore, based on an analysis of media publications, social media, and other online platforms for communication, discussion, and expressing one’s views, there is a growing public demand for such measures in the U.S., which means that similar initiatives will receive support.

I would add that implementing this project in the United States may even be easier than in any other country, as it already has a solid legal foundation for doing so. There is a well-established and developed system of local self-government, where local authorities can make organizational decisions without lengthy coordination with the federal government, as well as a local police force, which serves as the foundation for prevention and rapid response.

The main critical argument raised by my opponents is that the system I propose has not been tested in real-world conditions, and therefore its practical effectiveness has not been proven. I agree; this is indeed the case, which is why I myself state that it cannot be implemented immediately and across the board. First, an experiment is needed - a practical test of its effectiveness under real-world conditions - over the course of several years in a single state or even a single city.  Real-world testing will inevitably reveal certain shortcomings and oversights; this is the correct scientific approach and a normal working process for anything new. In just a few years, taking into account the corrections made to errors and shortcomings identified during the experiment, as well as the additions and improvements made, this will be a completely different model. The effectiveness and functionality of each of its elements will have been tested and proven in practice through repeated trials and verifications under various conditions and scenarios. A template whose effectiveness has been proven in practice can be used worldwide, with minor adjustments for local characteristics, but its fundamental foundation will remain the same - one that, drawing on international experience, will only become better and more reliable year after year.

The main outcome is that schools will once again become places where parents can send their children without fear - places that embody reliability, confidence, and safety. Places where children gain knowledge and life experience, make friends, and experience positive emotions. A place where administrative and teaching staff focus exclusively on their core mission - educating and nurturing the younger generation—while safety is the responsibility of professionals. I have dedicated my life to this cause and am confident that this is an achievable goal.

Knowing how pragmatic Americans are - and for me, this is an exceptionally positive quality - I invite you to take a look and assess the prospects and opportunities that creating such an international model for school safety systems opens up.

I first voiced this idea nearly 20 years ago, and over the years, my conviction has only grown stronger: that Safety will be the most valuable resource in the 21st century.

Author: Roman Grishin

#review #expert #USA #US #schoolsafety #educationalsafety #safety #security #K12 #opinion #position #comment #response #project #system #criticism #proposal #evaluation #threat #terrorism #crime

A new article titled “Ensuring Safety in Educational Institutions.”

 

 I worked on it for four long years, during which time I gathered materials and prepared and published two additional studies on a similar topic.

The work took so long because I was looking for more than just practical solutions to existing safety issues in schools and other educational institutions. The main objective was to build a system out of them—a unified mechanism where everything is interconnected, where there are no superfluous details, and  each element complements and reinforces the others, where technology enhances and expands human capabilities rather than replacing them. 

The primary condition for working on the system project presented in this article—designed to ensure comprehensive security for educational facilities against criminal, terrorist, and other threats—was that a school must remain a school, not turn into a prison or a military base. It was difficult, but I managed to find such solutions.

The article begins with an analysis of the current situation, the results of conducted research, and an assessment of existing and potential threats. Subsequently, based on effective global practices for preventing and countering such threats, as well as public demand, I outlined my practical solutions, each of which is aimed at addressing specific vulnerabilities in the existing system for organizing security and safety at educational institutions, as identified during the study of actual crimes.

The project includes: administrative and legal measures, proposals for changes and additions to the system of technical fortification and security of educational institutions, the organization of security, monitoring, and response to direct threats, the use of technical security and access control measures, as well as many other issues and areas. 

In conclusion, I presented the results of a hypothetical experiment on the application of all proposed solutions, using the example of a real attack on an educational facility.

I am fully aware that the framework I propose has not yet been tested in practice, and it is premature to speak of its effectiveness; many of the proposals outlined in it are controversial. However, I believe I have achieved the main goal: to create a format, a basic foundation that can be used as a starting point to work on, improve, make changes and additions to, enhance capabilities, and increase effectiveness. To strive for excellence and create a safe space for our children.

As always, I welcome your reviews, feedback, comments, and constructive criticism. 

Read more

#schoolsafety #schoolsecurity #educationalsecurity #educationalsafety #violenceprevention #K-12 #massshooting #schoolshooting #research #criminology #schoolcrime #educationalcrime #terrorism #schoolterrorism #educationalterrorism #massmurder #article #threat

Announcement: Ensuring Comprehensive Safety in Schools and Other Educational Institutions: From Problem Analysis to Practical Solutions.

 

Note: it should be borne in mind that the author lives and works in Russia, so in this article, he considers the situation on the example of his country. Measures to ensure the safety of schools, other educational institutions and places with a mass stay of children that he proposes are developed by him for use in Russia, taking into account the existing law enforcement system and the situation there.

I am pleased to announce that I have finally completed the main part of my work on the article «Ensuring Comprehensive Safety in Schools, Other Educational Institutions, and Facilities and Locations Frequented by Large Numbers of Children Against Threats of a Criminal, Terrorist, and Other Nature».

All that remains are purely technical details: combining the separate sections into a single whole, making corrections, formatting it, and preparing it for publication on the portal’s main website. There is no exact date yet, but tentatively - late May to early June of this year.

This article is of a practical nature. I am not interested in discussing the problem or stirring up the atmosphere around it—crime statistics in schools, kindergartens, colleges, and universities do that much better. I am also not interested in the motives of criminals. I do not believe, nor do I even entertain the thought, that the mass murder of innocent people could have any justification whatsoever.

My interest lies in finding answers to other questions: can this be stopped? And if so, how exactly can it be done?

I began searching for answers to these questions back in 2018, when I was working on my first article about safety in schools and other educational institutions. I started that work almost immediately after the tragedy at the Kerch Polytechnic College, where 20 people were killed and another 67 were injured.

At the time, as I studied the timeline of that tragedy, I tried to understand: why was it so easy for the perpetrator to commit such a monstrous crime?

Here’s what I saw. A man armed with a gun, a large amount of ammunition, and homemade explosive devices leaves his home, walks to a public transportation stop, gets on a bus, rides to the right stop, walks to the college building, goes inside, finds an open, isolated room, prepares his weapon, arranges the ammunition for quick reloading, and sets the timers on the bombs. Then he goes out, heads to the emergency exit, tries to block it, walks toward the cafeteria, sets up an explosive device, goes back, grabs his weapon, and starts killing.

An explosion, panic. The killer moves calmly and, most importantly, unhindered through the college hallways, shooting at anyone who crosses his path or comes into view. He throws homemade grenades. Then he goes to the library, where he commits suicide.

It was all over before the first police car even arrived on the scene. No one stopped the criminal. No one stopped him. He killed himself when he considered his bloody mission accomplished. From start to finish, he had the situation completely under control.

 

It would be one thing if this were the first tragedy of its kind in Russia. But before this, there were Beslan, Moscow, Ivanteevka, Perm, Ulan-Ude, Shadrinsk, Sterlitamak, and Barabinsk. Wasn’t that enough to realize that the threat is real, and that a tragedy on the scale of the Kerch College attack is only a matter of time?

However, even this crime did not serve as a catalyst for recognizing the level of the threat and revising the entire security system. As always, everything was limited to talk and formal measures that had no real impact on the situation. Next came Kazan, Perm, Izhevsk, Bryansk—and these are only the largest crimes in terms of the number of victims. There were others, and quite a few of them.

The situation in other countries also clearly shows that there is no basis for optimistic forecasts. Statistics (link) clearly demonstrate a trend toward an increase in the number of similar crimes worldwide. The year 2025 set a kind of anti-record for their number. However, the first five months of 2026 clearly indicate that this record will be broken in the very near future.

All of this clearly demonstrates the complete vulnerability of schools and other educational institutions to criminals and terrorists. Every time there is another attack, meetings and discussions begin, task forces and commissions convene, plans and decisions are formulated, and high-profile statements are made to the media. However, very little time passes before new attacks occur and new victims emerge.

At the same time, even the simplest analysis of the chronology of these events shows that in most cases, the criminals exploited the same vulnerabilities that have long been known to everyone.

I was unable to get started right away. Difficulties arose, forcing me to postpone the work for nearly two years.

In the first area of research (the security situation at educational institutions in Russia and around the world), I encountered a lack of statistical data on crimes in this category that had been collected and systematized in a single source. I had to spend a tremendous amount of time and effort gathering information from dozens of different sources and cross-checking it.

Without these statistics, it is impossible to:

- gain an objective picture of what is happening;

- conduct a thorough (comparative and cross-sectional) analysis of the data;

- track developments over time;

- assess the true scale of the threat;

- explain ongoing criminological processes and identify the factors influencing them;

- predict how events will unfold.

Furthermore, there is a lack of understanding regarding the direction and specific characteristics of the threat’s development, which makes it extremely difficult to devise effective countermeasures. We see the result now, when, following yet another mass shooting or terrorist attack at an educational institution, experts, political analysts, law enforcement officials, educators, and journalists ask themselves: «Why didn’t the measures developed and implemented as part of the security strategy work?»

The answer is simple: they were developed based on incomplete data. And in many cases, this data was not only incomplete but also unreliable.

I myself have often come across statistics in media reports that are far removed from reality. For example, when commenting on yet another mass shooting at a school or university, the author would back up the article with general statistics on incidents at educational institutions—even though most of these incidents were not even indirectly related to mass shootings or terrorism. For the most part, these are general criminal offenses: committed due to personal animosity, or for financial gain (robberies, muggings, extortion), often out of hooliganism or even unintentionally.

Therefore, it is extremely important not only to know the statistics, but also to understand what lies behind these numbers. Proper data categorization is equally important.

The principles I used during data collection:

All collected cases underwent cross-analysis and comparison of information from various sources.

Preference was given to police press releases, reports, and court transcripts—these contain more facts than speculation.

All incidents were divided into groups and subgroups based on various criminological characteristics. This classification allows us to clearly see the nature of the situation’s development over a specific time period, both in comparison and in terms of trends.

Based on high-quality, systematically organized statistical data, it is possible to create more accurate (than currently available) criminological models and forecasts. Most importantly, these models can be used to develop truly effective measures for preventing and combating threats.

This requires reliable source data—verified, organized, and compiled into a single repository. But such data did not exist.

It became clear that a unified information and reference resource was needed, containing information on crimes in this category and at least a brief (minimal) set of factual data about their perpetrators and circumstances. Realizing this, I set out to create it.

As a format for presenting the data, I chose a format similar to a police incident report: a brief summary of the circumstances containing such information as the date, time, place, method, object, perpetrator, victims, consequences, outcome, and other reliably established facts.

In February 2024, the first edition of the Handbook of Crimes and Terrorist Acts in Schools and Other Educational Institutions was published on the «Public Order and Safety» portal, containing statistical data spanning 24 years (from 2000 through 2023).

The information has since been updated and expanded. The fifth edition is now available for download, containing data spanning 26 years. One of the main objectives has been achieved: an informative, user-friendly, and, most importantly, publicly accessible reference and analytical tool has been created for researchers and specialists in school safety.

For me, the main outcome of working on the handbook was that I was finally able to see a fairly objective picture regarding the first area of research. And as it turned out, this picture is far from optimistic. I won’t delve too deeply into the details—you can review the statistics and analytics for yourselves. The most important thing is that the year and a half spent on this was not wasted.

While studying materials on crimes in educational institutions, I noticed that experts often use the term «safety level» in their assessments, adding various adjectives to it: high, low, satisfactory, unsatisfactory, adequate, minimal, and so on. This raised a question for me: what exactly do they mean by this concept, and how do they define it?

After reviewing the information available in open sources, I have concluded that there is currently no unified (or even widely used) system in our country for assessing the safety levels of educational institutions based on formal criteria. Most reports containing such assessments are based on the personal opinions of the experts who compiled them.

An analysis of international experience also revealed nothing concrete—the situation there appears to be similar.

This situation struck me as, to put it mildly, strange. It is clear that there is a need for such a tool. Although I am not a proponent of total standardization in safety matters, I consider this area an exception. Since there was no evaluation system that could objectively calculate the safety level of an educational facility based on formal criteria (with minimal human influence), and I needed such a tool for my work, I decided to create it myself.

The result is a table in which evaluations are based on 64 criteria covering:

- characteristics of the educational facility’s grounds and its location;

- characteristics of buildings and structures;

- the presence of physical security and its features;

- technical security measures and their capabilities;

- additional active and passive security measures.

Each item, if present and operational, is assigned a number of points, which are then totaled. A final score is calculated. In addition to the total score, there are factors that negatively impact the final score.

Once completed, the table clearly shows:

- the level of security at the educational institution;

- its capabilities;

and most importantly—obvious shortcomings and vulnerabilities in the security system.

Based on the resulting assessment, measures and costs can be planned to improve the facility’s security level. Using annual data on such assessments of one or more facilities, it is easy to conduct comparative and dynamic analyses, clearly assessing the situation in a specific school, city, region, or even country over a given time period. You can compare both overall assessments and individual indicators or sections.

The result is a convenient and, most importantly, objective tool for monitoring the situation, where even a one-point drop in the rating compared to the previous period immediately indicates that the situation is deteriorating and action must be taken.

Even while collecting data for the handbook and developing the assessment table, I increasingly came to the conclusion that the model of a comprehensive security system for educational institutions that I had previously developed and outlined in my first article was ineffective and unpromising.

Solving the problem would require a completely different approach.

I began work on this at the end of 2023. In May 2026, I finally managed to complete it (though I assume it is not yet final).

In my new development, I was guided by public demand, which is as follows: schools, other educational institutions (including preschools), as well as facilities where large numbers of children gather, must be reliably protected from criminal, terrorist, and other threats, but at the same time, they must not be turned into something resembling a prison or a military base.

Is this realistic? I believe it is.

What needs to be done to achieve this, why, and exactly how—I will address these questions in the main article.

The publication is scheduled for late May to early June of this year on the «Public Order and Safety» portal.

Author – Roman Grishin.

Has the number of school shootings decreased in 2025?

Note: English is not my native language, so I use an automated translation system to communicate. I apologize in advance if the meaning of some phrases is conveyed incorrectly. 

Not long ago, one of the leading American experts in school safety, Dr. Kenneth S. Trump, published an interesting post on social media stating that in 2025, the number of attacks on schools had fallen to its lowest level in five years, and the number of victims of such crimes had also fallen to its lowest level.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17sPNNL7j5/

First, I would like to say that I have great and sincere respect for Dr. Kenneth S. Trump. I consider him one of the world's leading experts and practitioners in school safety issues, and I highly value his personal contribution to applied criminology. Thanks to his work, many children have saved their lives and health. However, in this case, I completely disagree with the assessment expressed by Dr. Kenneth S. Trump.

On the day I read this message, I was just finishing the final edits to the updated version of my annually published Handbook of Crimes and Terrorist Acts in Schools and Other Educational Institutions. In the published 5th edition, the main addition was the statistics for 2025. I can say right away that the past year set a kind of anti-record for all the previous 26 years of observations, so I even highlighted it in a separate section for comparison. In the entire history of observations since 2000, there has only been one similar sharp rise in all indicators, in 2014. In short, for example, the total number of crimes increased by more than 60% compared to 2024, and by more than 70% compared to the average for the previous five-year period (2020–2024). For crimes involving mass murder and terrorist acts, the increase was more than 43% compared to 2024, and more than 64% compared to the average for the previous five-year period. If we compare the number of people killed and injured (in absolute terms), the situation is similar.

These are global statistics. If we take the data for the US separately, the situation is as follows: in 2025, 32 crimes classified as serious and particularly serious were committed in US educational institutions, 16 of which were mass murders and terrorist acts. Compared to 2024, when there were 12 crimes classified as serious and particularly serious, including 7 crimes with signs of mass murder and terrorist acts.  If we take the average statistics for the previous five-year period from 2020 to 2024 (rounded up), the figures will be even lower:

- crimes classified as serious and particularly serious – 9;

- crimes with signs of mass murder and terrorist acts – 4.

However, one significant change did occur in 2025: 9 of the 16 incidents  with signs of mass murder took place not in schools but in universities, with this proportion (56.2%) of crimes in higher education institutions recorded for the first time. For comparison, in 2024 this proportion was 42.8%, and in 2023 it was 40%.

I cannot say for sure, but it is too early to talk about a decrease in the number of crimes; in fact, there has been no decrease, just a change in the principle of target selection. It is difficult to say exactly what this is due to, but the shift in threats from schools to higher education institutions has been observed worldwide. Between 2000 and 2024, it showed an average increase of 2.7%, and in 2025, the increase in this indicator was immediately more than 10%.

In essence, Dr. Kenneth S. Trump is right in saying that while it is not yet clear what exactly has influenced this situation and how it will develop further, it would be criminal to be complacent about the security of educational institutions.

author: Roman Grishin

#Schoolshootings #schoolsafety #schoolsecurity #DrKennethSTrump #K12 #K-12

Handbook of Crimes and Terrorist Acts in Schools and Other Educational Institutions, 5th edition

 

Dear readers and colleagues! I am pleased to announce that work on the fifth edition of the Reference Book has been completed. The file has already been posted on the website and is available for download. The new edition includes statistics for 2025, as well as additional data for previous periods, corrections of some errors and inaccuracies in previous editions, and a total of about 30 revisions and additions.

New data systematization and analytics tools

In addition to the existing ones, several new evaluation parameters have been added to the comparative and dynamic data analysis tables:

1. In the «Total victims» section, in addition to information about those killed and wounded, a subsection «Kidnapped» has been added, and the section «Involving hostage-taking» has been supplemented with a subsection «For the purpose of kidnapping.» This is related to crimes that occurred in November 2025 in Nigeria, where two organized, group, armed attacks on schools were carried out within four days of each other. In both cases, the aim of the attacks was to kidnap a large number of students and staff from these educational institutions (in both cases, more than 300 people were kidnapped, most of them children) for subsequent use as hostages in order to obtain ransom or satisfy political or religious demands from the authorities.

This section will include information on the number of people kidnapped at the time of the crime.

2. In category «2. Crimes falling under the criteria of mass murder and terrorist attacks,» an additional section «Suspect fled the scene» is created, with information about crimes where the suspect managed to leave the scene after committing the crime, and they were detained or found (in cases of suicide) outside the educational institution they attacked, or the crime remained unsolved.

Statistics in this section will allow (albeit not fully) an assessment of the level of protection of educational facilities from criminal and terrorist threats, as well as the responsiveness of law enforcement agencies. If a criminal was able to freely enter an educational institution, carry weapons, commit a crime, and then leave the scene unhindered. Such facts, and especially the increase in the proportion of such incidents (in comparative and dynamic analysis) in the total number of crimes, give grounds for certain conclusions. 

3. In category «2. Crimes falling under the criteria of mass murders and terrorist attacks,» an additional section «Suspect committed suicide (including attempts)» is created, with information about crimes in which the suspect committed suicide, either at the scene of the crime or within 24 hours after it.

A separate block of analytics on suicidal cases among suspects remains; this section is created solely for the convenience of tracking and comparing general statistical indicators. 

Indication of information about attempted crimes

This issue has been discussed repeatedly, especially after the release of version 4.0, with opinions both for and against this parameter being expressed. As a result of the discussions, it was decided to include this information in the category «2. Crimes that fall under the criteria of mass murder and terrorist attacks» starting in 2025. Only those incidents where the crime has reached the stage of immediate execution but, for reasons beyond the perpetrator's control, the perpetrator was unable to carry it through to completion will be included in the list.

For clarity, let's look at two examples of such attempts in 2025:

January 10, Kursk, Russia: an attempted attack on a secondary school using cold weapons and incendiary mixtures. The suspect, a former student of the school, put on a mask to hide his face and prepared weapons (a hammer, knife, and incendiary mixture), used the hammer to break a window, and entered the school premises. However, his actions attracted the attention of a security guard, who pressed the alarm button and called the police, and also began to pursue the suspect. The criminal dropped the bag with the weapons and incendiary mixture and fled the scene before he could harm anyone.

September 17, Ostrogozhsk, Russia: attempted attack on a secondary school with cold weapons. The suspect, a former student of the school, had previously posted threatening messages on his social media page, prepared weapons (a knife and a hammer), brought them to school, took them out, shouted verbal threats, and attempted to attack those around him, but was quickly neutralized by a teacher and security guard before he could harm anyone.

Such attempts will be included in the list and taken into account, but in cases where the crime was prevented during its preparation, such incidents will not be taken into account.

Information about the presence of security guards at educational facilities under attack

This is a good analytical tool, but unfortunately, at the moment, this information will only be published in part, mainly data on incidents that occurred in Russia, where this feature of such crimes is highlighted in media publications and official releases from law enforcement agencies.

Foreign media pay little attention to this circumstance, and it is rarely mentioned in publications and releases. I tried to make inquiries myself, but they all went unanswered. I do not know the reasons for this, especially since this information is not classified.

Statistics for 2025, tools for data analysis

Due to the fact that five-year periods are used for comparative and dynamic data analysis, and in 2025 such a period is just beginning, three new analytical tools are introduced for the convenience of visual representation of the situation, to compare statistics for the current year:

1. with the same period of the previous year, i.e., in this case, with 2024;

2. with the average indicator of the previous period, in this case, with the period 2020–2024; to calculate this indicator, the arithmetic mean value for each estimated parameter for the five-year period is used. Example: the average number of crimes committed with the use of firearms in the period 2020–2024, we take the values for 5 years, 2020 – 3, 2021 – 8, 2022 – 21, 2023 – 15, 2024 – 14. We add them up to get 61, divide by the number of years – 5 – to get 12 (if the value after the decimal point is 5 or less, we round down; if it is 6 or more, we round up, in this case to 2). The average percentage of such crimes is calculated in the same way.

3. With the average value for the entire reporting period starting in 2000, the calculation of the indicator here is similar to the calculation for the previous period.

This will be presented in the form of a table, where you can clearly see the dynamics of the situation for each individual indicator.

That's all for the changes and additions.

As new data comes in, work will begin on additions to the current edition and, at the same time, data collection for the sixth edition. I would appreciate any help in working on the new edition. You can find out how to do this in the final part of the reference book, in the section «Prospects for new editions.»

My goal is to create a useful, reliable, informative, easy-to-use, and, most importantly, publicly available reference and analytical tool for researchers and specialists in ensuring the security of schools and other educational institutions from threats of various types and nature.

Once again, I would like to thank everyone who helped me collect new information, clarify and correct previously published data, form and edit sections, and do other work on the reference book.

Sincerely.

Author and editor-in-chief of the project – Roman Grishin

 

#SchoolSafety #SchoolSecurity #SafetySchools #school #kindergarten #university #college #analytics #crime #terrorism #handbook #statistics #criminology #security #safety

Safety of educational and childcare facilities in 2025, preliminary results, new threats, forecast for 2026

Note: it should be borne in mind that the author lives and works in Russia, so in this article, he considers the situation on the example of his country. Measures to ensure the safety of schools, other educational institutions and places with a mass stay of children that he proposes are developed by him for use in Russia, taking into account the existing law enforcement system and the situation there.

Work is currently nearing completion on an updated version of the Handbook of Crimes and Terrorist Acts in Schools and Other Educational Institutions, which will include some corrections and additions for previous periods, as well as statistics for 2025. Taking into account the opinions and wishes expressed by colleagues, the form for submitting certain statistical data will be supplemented. I will provide more details about the new edition of the Handbook in an accompanying article to its publication.

Some preliminary conclusions about the security situation in schools and other educational and childcare institutions can already be drawn.

1. The negative trend continues.

Even for the incomplete year of 2025, crime rates have increased compared to both 2024 and the average for the most recent period (2020-2024). The increase is observed both in the total number of serious and particularly serious crimes and in incidents with signs of mass murders and terrorist acts.

2. The level of security in educational institutions remains low.

The vast majority of crimes are committed directly on the premises of educational institutions using weapons or explosive devices. This circumstance clearly indicates that the criminals entered the premises of the educational institution unhindered, carried weapons with them, and carried out their planned crime.

3. Using teenagers to carry out terrorist acts.

So far, this phenomenon is more common in Russia. Teenagers, following instructions from anonymous «curators» in messengers and social networks, commit arson or mine energy facilities, transport, cars, and police premises, as well as other law enforcement agencies. There are no exact statistics, but according to Russian media reports, 47 such crimes were committed in the first quarter of 2025. The main motives for committing these crimes are threats of violence, blackmail, and the promise of financial reward.

Although most of these crimes are committed in Russia (although there are isolated cases in other countries), this practice is rapidly spreading to other countries. Terrorist organizations and criminal communities are quick learners and closely monitor such «cutting-edge criminal experience».

Earlier, in my articles on PMC Ryodan and Red Dolphin, I expressed my opinion and made predictions that such crimes would be committed more often, that these cases were only a test and assessment of the possibilities of using teenagers, both individually and in groups, to commit crimes and terrorist acts with the possibility of anonymous, remote control of their actions. Unfortunately, as practice has shown, this experiment has been successful.

4. Dangerous precedents have been set in Nigeria.

In November 2025, within a span of four days, two organized, group, armed attacks on schools were carried out in Nigeria. In both cases, the aim of the attacks was to take hostages.

In the first case, on November 17 in the city of Magha, during an attack on a school, the deputy director was killed and a security guard was wounded, and 25 students were taken hostage.

In the second case, on November 21, in the city of Papiri, there were no deaths or injuries during the attack on the school, but more than 300 students and 12 teachers were taken hostage.

These cities are located in border states, less than 200 kilometers apart. After the first kidnapping, the Nigerian government launched a police operation and tightened security measures. However, this did not prevent the criminals from carrying out an even more daring attack four days later and taking 10 times more hostages.

Similar attacks have been carried out in Nigeria before, but not on such a scale. The last similar case (in terms of the number of people kidnapped) occurred there 11 years ago, in April 2014, when militants from a terrorist group kidnapped 276 high school students, 94 of whom have still not been released.

All this indicates that educational institutions have been and remain an easily accessible target for criminals and terrorists. They perceive children as a resource (a tool) with which they can commit crimes and terrorist acts with impunity, while remaining hundreds and thousands of kilometers away.

Forecast: The current situation clearly shows that the existing system for containing this threat is not working, and no effective system for actively countering it has yet been created. This means that in 2026, we should not expect any positive changes; at best, the situation will remain at its current level.

Author and Editor-in-Chief of the project - Roman Grishin.

#schoolsafety #crime #terrorism #victims #threats #safety #security #children #schools #college #kindergarten #university #statistics #summarizingresults #forecast #future

Announcement of upcoming publications

Dear readers and colleagues.

An article entitled «A Unified Approach to Assessing the Safety Level of Educational Facilities» will be published shortly (planned date: July 2).

In this publication, the author argues that there is currently no unified (or even widely used) system for assessing the safety level of educational institutions based on formal criteria. Most conclusions with similar assessments and findings are based on the personal opinions of the experts who compiled them, based on compliance with regulatory requirements, as well as a large number of various methodological guidelines, recommendations, and other documents containing mostly general and often vague wording.

The author proposes his own development – a table for assessing the overall level of security of an educational institution against criminal and terrorist threats, based on 64 criteria. Using this table should make it possible to objectively calculate the level of security of a facility based on formal criteria, with minimal influence from the «human factor», as well as to more easily and quickly conduct security audits and analyze changes in the security system of educational institutions, both in a single municipality and across an entire region or country.

Sincerely.

Author and editor-in-chief of the project

#SchoolSafety #SafetyLevel #SafetyAssessment #school #university #kindergarten #technicalcollege #university #institute #crime #terrorism #analytics #SafetyStandard