U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

Bomb Threats in

Schools

by Graeme R. Newman

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series No. 32
www.PopCenter.org

Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website

at www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help

you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your

community, including:

• Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides

• Interactive training exercises

• On-line access to research and police practices

• On-line problem analysis module

Designed for police and those who work with them to

address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great

resource in problem-oriented policing.

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Bomb Threats in Schools

Graeme R. Newman

This project was supported by cooperative agreement

#2002CKWX0003 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein

are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the

official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

February 2005

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series

Guide No. 32

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series i

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about

how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime

and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention and

to improving the overall response to incidents, not to

investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. The

guides are written for police–of whatever rank or

assignment–who must address the specific problem the

guides cover. The guides will be most useful to officers

who

• Understand basic problem-oriented policing

principles and methods. The guides are not primers in

problem-oriented policing. They deal only briefly with

the initial decision to focus on a particular problem,

methods to analyze the problem, and means to assess

the results of a problem-oriented policing project. They

are designed to help police decide how best to analyze

and address a problem they have already identified. (An

assessment guide has been produced as a companion to

this series and the COPS Office has also published an

introductory guide to problem analysis. For those who

want to learn more about the principles and methods of

problem-oriented policing, the assessment and analysis

guides, along with other recommended readings, are

listed at the back of this guide.)

• Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the

complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to

spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and

responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before

responding helps you design the right strategy, one that

is most likely to work in your community. You should

not blindly adopt the responses others have used; you

must decide whether they are appropriate to your local

situation. What is true in one place may not be true
ii Bomb Threats in Schools

elsewhere; what works in one place may not work

everywhere.

• Are willing to consider new ways of doing police

business. The guides describe responses that other

police departments have used or that researchers have

tested. While not all of these responses will be

appropriate to your particular problem, they should help

give a broader view of the kinds of things you could do.

You may think you cannot implement some of these

responses in your jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In

many places, when police have discovered a more

effective response, they have succeeded in having laws

and policies changed, improving the response to the

problem.

• Understand the value and the limits of research

knowledge. For some types of problems, a lot of useful

research is available to the police; for other problems, little

is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series

summarize existing research whereas other guides illustrate

the need for more research on that particular problem.

Regardless, research has not provided definitive answers to

all the questions you might have about the problem. The

research may help get you started in designing your own

responses, but it cannot tell you exactly what to do. This

will depend greatly on the particular nature of your local

problem. In the interest of keeping the guides readable, not

every piece of relevant research has been cited, nor has

every point been attributed to its sources. To have done so

would have overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The

references listed at the end of each guide are those drawn

on most heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of

research on the subject.
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series iii

• Are willing to work with other community agencies

to find effective solutions to the problem. The police

alone cannot implement many of the responses

discussed in the guides. They must frequently implement

them in partnership with other responsible private and

public entities. An effective problem-solver must know

how to forge genuine partnerships with others and be

prepared to invest considerable effort in making these

partnerships work.

These guides have drawn on research findings and police

practices in the United States, the United Kingdom,

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and

Scandinavia. Even though laws, customs and police

practices vary from country to country, it is apparent that

the police everywhere experience common problems. In a

world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is

important that police be aware of research and successful

practices beyond the borders of their own countries.

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to

provide feedback on this guide and to report on your own

agency's experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your

agency may have effectively addressed a problem using

responses not considered in these guides and your

experiences and knowledge could benefit others. This

information will be used to update the guides. If you wish

to provide feedback and share your experiences it should

be sent via e-mail to cops_pubs@usdoj.gov.
iv Bomb Threats in Schools

For more information about problem-oriented policing,

visit the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at

www.popcenter.org or via the COPS website at

www.cops.usdoj.gov. This website offers free online access to:

• the Problem-Specific Guides series,

• the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools

series,

• instructional information about problem-oriented policing

and related topics,

• an interactive training exercise,

• online access to important police research and practices,

and

• on-line problem analysis module.
Acknowledgments v

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are very much a

collaborative effort. While each guide has a primary

author, other project team members, COPS Office staff

and anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide

by proposing text, recommending research and offering

suggestions on matters of format and style.

The principal project team developing the guide series

comprised Herman Goldstein, professor emeritus,

University of Wisconsin Law School; Ronald V. Clarke,

professor of criminal justice, Rutgers University; John E.

Eck, professor of criminal justice, University of

Cincinnati; Michael S. Scott, clinical assistant professor,

University of Wisconsin Law School; Rana Sampson,

police consultant, San Diego; and Deborah Lamm Weisel,

director of police research, North Carolina State

University.

Nancy Leach and Cynthia Pappas oversaw the project for

the COPS Office. Rebecca Kanable edited the guide.

Research for the guides was conducted at the Criminal

Justice Library at Rutgers University under the direction of

Phyllis Schultze.

The project team also wishes to acknowledge the members

of the San Diego, National City and Savannah police

departments who provided feedback on the guides' format

and style in the early stages of the project, as well as the

line police officers, police executives and researchers who

peer reviewed each guide.

Contents

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

The Problem of Bomb Threats in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Related Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Extent of Bomb Incidents and Bomb Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Impact on Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

About Bomb Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Factors Contributing to Bomb Threats in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Family Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

The School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Munitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Locations/Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Responses to the Problem of Bomb Threats in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Specific Responses to Bomb Threats in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Prevention and Harm Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Immediate Responses to a Bomb Threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Response with Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Bomb Threats in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Appendix B: Warning Signs of Potential School Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Contents vii
viii Bomb Threats in Schools

Appendix C: Questions to Ask When Coordinating the Bomb Threat Response Team. . . . 45

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
The Problem of Bomb Threats in Schools 1

The Problem of Bomb Threats in Schools

The guide begins by describing the problem and reviewing

factors that increase the risk of bomb threats in schools.

The guide then identifies a series of questions that might

assist you in analyzing the local problem of bomb threats

in schools. Finally, the guide reviews responses to the

problem and what is known about these from evaluative

research and police practice.

The scope of this guide is limited to bomb threats in

schools, public or private, kindergarten through 12th grade.

Colleges and universities are excluded because they

generally differ from schools. Their organization and

administration differ; they have their own police within the

university community; and many universities do not have a

physically identifiable perimeter as schools do. In fact,

college campuses have much more in common with other

public service organizations, such as health services,

entertainment venues and, to some extent, shopping malls.

While there are a number of common responses to bomb

threats that apply to almost any setting, the environment

of schools is sufficiently different to warrant separate

consideration.

The feature that distinguishes a bomb threat from other

kinds of assaults and threats is that it is primarily a furtive

crime–or at least a crime that can be committed from a

distance. Modern communications make it possible for

offenders to communicate their threat without having to

physically confront the targets at the time of the threat or

even at the time of the assault. Many assaults or

destructive acts in schools follow threats, or constitute

threats in themselves. The reason why an offender might

choose a bomb as the carrier of the threat over some
2 Bomb Threats in Schools

other item or implement of destruction and injury (e.g.,

assault weapons, arson) is unknown, though the

immediate, disruptive action it causes is surely part of the

reason. Certain kinds of injury and damage may also be

enhanced by a bombing, such as arson achieved through

an explosive device.

Related Problems

There are several problems related to bombs, threats, and

schools that are not directly addressed in this guide and

merit separate analysis. They include:

• assaults on school officials;

• bomb threats that occur in other locations and against

targets other than schools (e.g., businesses and other

workplace environments, public spaces such as

shopping malls, public event venues such as

entertainment and spectator sports, transportation,

health services, government services);

• bullying in schools;†

• burglaries of schools;

• carrying weapons in schools;

• drug dealing in and around schools;

• false fire alarms;††

• gang violence;

• graffiti at schools;†††

• hate crimes;

• hazing;

• school pranks that cause disruption;

• shootings;

• sport violence (where team spirit is taken to an

extreme);

† See the POP Guide on Bullying in

Schools.

†† See the POP Guides on False

Alarms and Misuse and Abuse of 911.

††† See the POP Guide on Graffiti.
The Problem of Bomb Threats in Schools 3

• stalking (either of students or by students against

teachers);†

• threats to harm teachers or students, including death

threats; and

• vandalism of school property.††

Extent of Bomb Incidents and Bomb Threats

Data on bomb incidents (any event in which an actual

bomb or bomb look-alike is involved) and bomb threats

(any event in which a bomb threat is communicated that

may or may not involve an actual bomb or bomb lookalike) are limited. The FBI reports that close to 5 percent

of bombing incidents in the United States in 1999 (the

most recent year for which FBI data are available) were

targeted at schools. It is unknown what portion of these

incidents involved threats. For the period January 1990 to

February 28, 2002 the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms and Explosives (ATF) recorded 1,055 incidents

of bombs being placed in school premises.1 Again, we do

not know what proportion of these incidents involved

threats. For the most part, however, it is probably

reasonable to conclude that bomb incidents involving real

bombs in schools are relatively rare, though they have

been with us for quite some time.††† Furthermore, relatively

few bomb explosions are preceded by a warning or threat

to officials. Of the 1,055 bomb incidents in schools

reported by ATF, only 14 were accompanied by a warning

to school or other authorities.

† See the POP Guide on Stalking.

†† See the POP Guide on School

Vandalism and Break-ins.

††† The first known school bombing

occurred in May 1927 in Bath,

Michigan. A local farmer blew up

the school, killing 38 pupils, six

adults and seriously injuring 40 other

students (Missouri Center for Safe

Schools 2001).
4 Bomb Threats in Schools

There are no national statistics on bomb threats as such,

though they are more common than bomb incidents.

However, we can say that they are not evenly distributed

throughout school districts: rashes of bomb threats can

occur in particular localities.2 For example, in the 1997-

1998 school year, one Maryland school district reported

150 bomb threats and 55 associated arrests.3 The South

Carolina Department of Education in its 1999-2000

school incident crime report lists "disturbing schools,"

which includes bomb threats, hoaxes, false fire alarms etc.,

among its 10 top crimes, second only to simple assaults.4

During the past five years, many states have enacted severe

penalties for issuing false bomb threats, which reflects the

perception that the incidence of bomb threats is

widespread.

Impact on Victims 

The occurrence of bomb incidents or threats can have a

major impact on the targeted victims depending on how

the school responds. The potential for serious injury and

damage makes even an empty threat a very serious

incident. Thus, even though some 90 percent of bomb

threats in schools may turn out to be pranks,† each threat

must be taken seriously and acted upon immediately.

Evacuation of buildings causes major disruption, which in

many cases may be an attractive outcome from the

offender's point of view. Many school districts report

losses in excess of $250,000 because of school closings

and costs of bomb search squads. School districts are

increasingly requiring schools to make up days lost due to

bomb threats.5

† This is a widely quoted statistic. To

the extent that the author could

determine, it is not based on any

specific research study. The Hartford

Insurance Company (Hartford Loss

Control Department 2002) reports

that 5 to 10 percent of bomb threats

involve real bombs. See:

http://mb.thehartford.com/insurance

_info/pdfs/570-050.pdf.
The Problem of Bomb Threats in Schools 5

Finally, the publicity that surrounds rare but shocking

incidents of targeted violence in schools affects all

communities, even those far away from where the

incidents occur. After the Columbine incident,† more than

70 percent of respondents nationally said that the same

thing could happen in their community. Fear of targeted

violence in schools far outstrips the actual risk,†† which

makes responding to threats extremely difficult for school

authorities that may be hesitant to reveal the occurrence of

every single bomb threat that occurs, particularly if there

is strong indication that the threat is false.

About Bomb Threats

Motives: There are many supposed motives for bomb

threats, among them: humor, self assertion, anger,

manipulation, aggression, hate and devaluation,

omnipotence, fantasy, psychotic distortion, ideology,

retaliation and no doubt there are many more.6 However,

the research on motives is generally limited to other kinds

of violence, so any imputation of motives to those who

deliver bomb threats must remain speculative.

Delivery: Bomb threats are delivered in various ways: by

letter, face-to-face, email, on a student's website, or even a

gesture. However the most common means of delivering a

bomb threat is by telephone.7

How seriously should a threat be taken? The seriousness of a

bomb threat is self evident because of the potential for

widespread destruction that can be wrought by a bomb,

compared to other weapons that are usually aimed at

particular targets. However, if, as we have noted already,

90 percent of bomb threats are hoaxes (either there is no

bomb at all or the "bomb" is a fake), how seriously should

† The Columbine High School

massacre occurred on April 20,

1999, in Jefferson County, near

Littleton, Colorado. Two teenage

students planned the massacre,

carried it out by shooting 12

students and one teacher, and

committed suicide.

†† According to Reddy et al. (2001)

"... the three major television

networks: ABC, CBS, and NBC,

aired a total of 296 stories on the

shooting at Columbine High School

in Jefferson County, Colorado...in

contrast, lightning accounts for

more deaths overall, and bathtub

accidents account for more deaths

of children, than do school

shootings ... yet, they receive

comparatively little media coverage."
6 Bomb Threats in Schools

the threat be taken? Since the extent of disruption caused

by bomb threats is considerable whether the bomb is real

or not, all such threats are often responded to on the

assumption that a real bomb does exist. In fact, the law

throughout the United States tends to treat false bomb

threats almost as severely as real bomb threats† and makes

little exception for juveniles. Yet in the hurly-burly of the

school setting, many threats are made in the normal course

of the day among students and between teachers and

students, some of which allude to explosives. The majority

of such threats are never reported to the police. For

example, a student states to his gym teacher, "All jocks

deserve to be blown up." The seriousness with which to

take this threat depends on how it is delivered. If the

student was laughing or joking, the teacher may pay no

mind to it. If made by a student with a history of such

pronouncements, the threat may be taken more seriously.

It is therefore important for schools to develop a response

plan that includes criteria for making assessments of

seriousness and for adopting responses commensurate

with that assessment (see next page).

Specificity of Bomb Threats. In general, the specificity of the

bomb threat is the best guide to its seriousness.8,†† The

specificity of a bomb threat may be assessed according to:

• place and time indicated in the threat,

• description of the bomb to be used,

• specific targets mentioned or indicated, and

• reason given or implied in the threat.

Table 1 summarizes in a general way the reasons given or

inferred for issuing bomb threats and their links to the

specificity of the threat. This is a classification based on

information published in newsletters and other

information outlets of government and non-government

† Making a false bomb threat is a

federal offense punishable under

United States Code 18-844(e), with a

penalty of up to 10 years in prison,

$250,000 fine, or both. This penalty

also applies to juvenile offenders

(Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms and Explosives 2003).

However the majority of juveniles

are prosecuted under local and state

laws, which increasingly provide

severe penalties.

†† This is a widely held view among

experts. There is, however, no

formal research study that affirms or

negates it.
The Problem of Bomb Threats in Schools 7

organizations that typically respond to bomb threats.

Certain kinds of bomb threats are likely to be more

specific than others. For example, a conditional threat

must state the condition to be met, which requires much

more specificity. In general, the more specific the threat,

the easier it is to decide on the response.

Table 1: Types of bomb threats in schools and their specificity

Threat rationale

"Do this or else."

Threat made in

order to achieve

another usually

immediate goal.

Bomber inverts

power relationship

between himself

and the target.

Bomber makes

threat against

hated opponent or

target.

Type

Conditional

Instrumental

Getting even

Hate

(ideological,

religious,

ethnic)

Vague threat

"Put back the candy

machines or I'll bomb

the school." Student

expressing outrage,

probably no bomb

unless there has been a

series of such threats.

Offender calls school

and says, "There's a

bomb in the building"

and immediately hangs

up. Student calls in false

bomb threat in order to

disrupt classes and get

the day off.

"Death to all and I shall

rule the world." Student

places this threat on his

website. Threat does not

explicitly mention bomb.

If identity of threatener

is known should

probably be taken

seriously, especially if

past history of threats.

"Death to all child

murderers!" Threat

called into a school day

before family planning

officials visit school.

Specific threat

"If you don't put back

the vending machines,

a bomb will go off in

the cafeteria at 12

o'clock today." 

"I've put a bomb in

the school set to go

off at 10:00. Burn

down the school!" 

"I'm sick of being

humiliated by Smith.

Today is the day when

Smith and his precious

science labs will be

terminated." 

"Stay away from

school tomorrow. The

child murderers will be

blown to hell where

they belong! I'm not

joking!"
8 Bomb Threats in Schools

Factors Contributing to Bomb Threats in Schools

Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem

will help you frame your own local analysis questions,

determine good effectiveness measures, recognize key

intervention points, and select appropriate responses.

Unfortunately, there is no research that directly addresses

the causes of bomb threats in schools. There is, however,

a limited amount of research that examines how threats of

various kinds arise in schools and the situations in which

they occur.9 The majority of this research is directed at

developing two types of response: (1) an intervention plan

aimed at prevention of threats and reducing their harm if

carried out and (2) a response protocol in the event that

an actual bomb threat or incident occurs. All of the

research on which these two responses are based is

focused on threat assessment, a protocol developed by the

U. S. Secret Service to identify in advance individuals who

may be most likely to attack the President and other

individuals the Secret Service is responsible for protecting.

David Corbett

Highly specific bomb threats tend to be more credible.
The Problem of Bomb Threats in Schools 9

The methodology used in these studies has been to collect

detailed information concerning the circumstances that

prevailed before and after major cases of targeted

violence, including shootings and bombings. This

information is then analyzed for any patterns that may

indicate those circumstances that seemed to be conducive

to targeted violence. The Secret Service applied this

methodology to 37 cases of targeted violence in schools

(which included some bomb-related events), collecting

data on the personal and background characteristics of the

offenders, their behavior before the violence occurred, and

the school administrative and interpersonal response to

the behaviors of the offenders before and after the event.

Based on the results of the Secret Service studies and

those of student surveys,10 there are four factors that

contribute to bomb threats in schools and these factors

interact in different ways in different situations:†

Offenders

The Secret Service study of incidents of targeted violence

in schools concluded the following:11

• The attacks were rarely impulsive; 75 percent planned

the attack.

• The attacks were the end result of a series of events

that to the attacker seemed logical and inevitable.

• Often the planning of the attack consumed almost all

the attacker's time and energy to the point of

obsession.

• Most held a grievance at the time of the attack.

• Most of the attackers had actually told a peer that

"something would happen."††

† "...there is no profile or single

'type' of perpetrator of targeted

violence. Rather, violence is seen as

the product of an interaction among

the perpetrator, situation, target, and

the setting" (Reddy et al. 2001).

†† The Secret Service study found

that "In virtually all ... cases, the

attacker told a peer. In only two of

37 cases did the peer notify an

adult" (Vossekuil et al. 2002).
10 Bomb Threats in Schools

• There was no definitive "profile" of an attacker, though

there were many warning signs (Appendix B) that could

possibly prove useful in identifying possible attackers.

While there has been some suggestion that bombers have

particular types of personalities (obsessive-compulsive,

psychopathic), there is insufficient scientific evidence to

back up this claim.12 Finally, the vast majority of threats

are called in by students, though there are occasional cases

of threats by teachers.†

Family Background

No research has definitively, or even roughly, identified a

constellation of factors that causes an individual to issue a

bomb threat or target violence in a school. However, the

general literature of law enforcement and school

authorities (e.g., FBI, U.S. Secret Service, ATF working

with the Department of Education) has identified a

number of possible factors, though it should be

emphasized that this does not mean that any one or even

several of these factors necessarily lead to bombthreatening behavior:13

• history of violence in the home;

• parental acceptance of pathological behavior;

• careless use of weapons in the home by parents, easy

access to weapons, use of threats of violence to solve

disagreements;

• family moves frequently;

• lack of intimacy in the home;

• parents set no limits on child's conduct;

• excessive watching of TV, violent video games allowed;

and

• no monitoring of outside interests, including drug and

alcohol use, gang activity.

† A third-year middle school

mathematics teacher who reportedly

told police she wanted the day off

was charged Tuesday with calling in

a bomb threat to Grayling Middle

School (Traverse City Record Eagle,

April 10, 2002).
The Problem of Bomb Threats in Schools 11

School

A school climate that is insensitive to provocations to

violence (such as bullying, harassment by teachers and

students, an excessively authoritarian climate,† lack of

respect of students for each other or teachers, gang

activity, presence of provocative graffiti, lax dress rules,

etc.) may be more likely to be a target of bomb threats.

And where a school lacks basic prevention programs

against attackers (such as monitoring entry and exit to the

school, surveillance of areas in the school where bombs

may be left, training of teachers to deal with violence in

schools, and a systematic program for identifying and

reporting warning signs), it too may be more likely to

receive bomb threats.

Opportunity

Making a bomb is easily within the ability of juveniles. In

fact, ATF reports that the success rate of bomb

detonations for bombs in schools is slightly higher than

that for the national rate of all bombings. The range of

explosive substances and ways of detonating them are

limited only by the bomber's imagination and

resourcefulness. Information on how to construct them is

readily available on the Internet or is widely available in

books.†† Obviously, since this information is available to

everyone should they wish to seek it out, its availability per

se does not tell us which individuals are likely to make a

bomb threat. Many of the recipes for making bombs use

common everyday chemicals. However, even obtaining

such information does not mean that individuals will use it

to make a bomb or issue a bomb threat. Of course, they

do not need any information on constructing bombs if

they plan to issue a false bomb threat.

† Harsh imposition of authority by a

school that relies entirely on fear not

only has been associated with

violence against teachers but also

may result in a student's

unwillingness to come forward to

communicate potential problems of

violence including his or her own

victimization (Regoli and Hewitt

1994, Curcio and First 1993).

†† There are many websites that

provide the necessary information,

though probably the most widely

known is The Anarchist Cookbook of

which there are many versions

online

(www.righto.com/anarchy/online.ht

ml) or the original is available in

hard copy from many book stores.

This book provides directions on

everything from how to make letter

bombs to counterfeiting currency.

Another popular source is the Black

Books of Improvised Munitions

Handbooks, providing information on

improvised explosives, bombs,

firearms, timers, etc. This is a

version of the U.S. Army Technical

Manual 31–210.
12 Bomb Threats in Schools

Concealment is also not difficult. Although bombs may be

concealed in an incredible variety of containers–from fire

extinguishers to pens and letters–most bombs are of the

simple pipe bomb form that is concealed in an ordinarylooking bag or some everyday object.14,† Letter bombs are

extremely rare, though they receive considerable media

coverage.††

Part of the means to carry out a bomb threat effectively is

the placement of the bomb. The preferred places are in

areas where there is constant public access. Of the 1,055

incidents reported by ATF, 92 were outside, many of these

in the parking lot; 190 inside, the majority either in the

restroom or in a locker; and 123 either inside or outside in

trash cans, air conditioners, window or door areas.15 The

† “The typical Hollywood device is

sticks of dynamite with a clock

taped to it. In fact, the most

common device is a pipe bomb, a

length of pipe filled with

explosive...” (Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

2003).

†† The U.S. Postal Inspection

Service reports that of 170 billion

pieces of mail processed in a typical

year, only a very few letter

bombs–an average of 16–are

reported or investigated (Hartford

Loss Control Department 2002).

David Corbett

Bomb threats have often been called in via pay phones which

reduced the likelihood that police could locate the individual

placing the call.
The Problem of Bomb Threats in Schools 13

opportunity to place a concealed bomb without detection

is considerable unless the school has an established system

of monitoring its premises.

Finally, the telephone's popularity for delivery of threats

hardly needs explanation: it is widely available, cheap, and

provides a (perhaps) false sense of anonymity for the

caller. Pay phones exist in many if not all schools, and cell

phones–until recently difficult to trace–are widely available

among students. As we will see below, monitoring this

ready-made threat delivery system may be one useful

preventive response.

Understanding Your Local Problem 15

Understanding Your Local Problem

The information provided above is only a generalized

description of bomb threats in schools, and because of a

lack of research on bomb threats in particular, has drawn

on other research on related problems such as school

shootings. You must combine these basic facts with a

more specific understanding of your local problem.

Analyzing the local problem carefully will help you design

a more effective response strategy.

Asking the Right Questions

Much of what you do will also depend on how the

problem presents itself in your jurisdiction. Since bomb

threats in schools are a statistically rare phenomenon, it is

likely that you may hear of only an occasional threat in

your local schools. However, there is always the possibility

that a rash of bomb threats may occur. In either case, you

will need to ask questions that will lead to an effective

response. An effective response will determine: (1) how to

deal with the immediate bomb threat, in real time, and (2)

how to prevent bomb threats from occurring in the first

place. The following are some critical questions you

should ask in analyzing your particular problem of bomb

threats in schools, even if the answers are not always

readily available. Your answers to these and other

questions will help you choose the most appropriate set of

responses later on.
16 Bomb Threats in Schools

The School

Immediate response

• Are the schools in your locality aware of the problem

of bomb threats and their possible consequences?

• Does the school have a bomb-threat response plan?

• Does the school district and the local community have

a disaster plan?

Preventive response

• Does the school have a climate of respect and clear and

consistent rules of behavior?

• Does the school keep a record of threats by students or

teachers that are not reported to the police? 

• Does the school keep a record of violent incidents that

occur in and around the school (including school

buses)?

• Is there a system among teachers for sharing

information concerning serious threats or targeted

violence?

• Does the school have effective intervention programs

in place to deal with problem behaviors, including

bullying?16

• Does the school have a process for receiving and

responding to student grievances?

• Does the school have an up-to-date telephone

monitoring system?

• Are teachers in the schools aware of the warning signs

(see Appendix B) of targeted violence?

• Do troubled students (potential victims and offenders)

have a way to express their concerns to appropriate

adults such as counselors or designated teachers?

• Does the school monitor student activities in and out

of the classroom, on school buses and at sporting

activities?
Understanding Your Local Problem 17

• Does the school have a mechanism for identifying

troubled children? 

• Does the school work with parents to encourage

supervision of student Internet use?

Threats

• How many bomb threats at schools have been made?

• If there is a rash of threats, do some schools report

more threats than others?

• If threats are received, are they targeted against any

individuals (as in retaliation against bullies, for

example) or are they unspecified?

• Does the school have a procedure for evaluating the

seriousness of threats? 

• When a threat is reported to the police, how serious is

the threat and what type is the threat?

• What kinds of threats are received and do they vary

according to type or location of school?

• What proportion of threats turn out to be hoaxes or

pranks?

• Is there a way for bystanders who hear of threats or

observe targeted violence to report such behavior to

school authorities?

Munitions

• Are there reports of weapons use by juveniles either in

school or elsewhere?

• Do hardware stores or other retail outlets notify police

of unusual purchases of substances that may be used

for bomb construction?

• Are there isolated areas in your locality where juveniles

might experiment with bomb detonation?
18 Bomb Threats in Schools

Locations/Times

• Which schools have been the target of bomb threats?

• Does your town have a graffiti problem that indicates

problems of racism or other kinds of hatred and does

it extend to any schools?

• Are all incidents of arson or school break-ins reported

to the police? If not, why not? If so, are they followed

up to see if they indicate possible bomb threats or

incidents?

• Do incidents of arson, graffiti, school break-ins or

bomb threats occur in particular schools or particular

areas?

• If targeted violence and threats are reported, in what

locations in the schools do they occur? Are there hot

spots such as a locker room, a cafeteria, particular

bathrooms, a particular classroom?

• Are there particular times of the day or days of the

week when bomb threats more commonly occur?

Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your

efforts have succeeded and suggests how you might

modify your responses if they are not producing the

intended results. You should take measures of your

problem before you implement responses to determine how

serious the problem is, and after you implement them to

determine whether they have been effective. All measures

should be taken in both the target area and the

surrounding area. In most cases you will need to

coordinate collection of information with the schools.

(For more detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness,

see the companion guide to this series, Assessing Responses to

Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers.)
Understanding Your Local Problem 19

The following are potentially useful measures of the

effectiveness of responses to bomb threats in schools:

• Reduced number of threats received by school

authorities during a particular period in response to a

specific intervention, such as increased control by

school of telephone access.

• Reduced amount of time school activities are disrupted

by bomb threats.

• Increased willingness of students to report threats they

hear about to teachers (though these may not be

formally transmitted to police for action).

• Increased willingness of school officials to share

information with police regarding bomb threats.

• Increased cooperation between schools and police in

determining criteria for reporting threats to police,

when police will be called to intervene and what their

roles will be.

• Introduction by schools of proven intervention

programs targeted at problem behaviors.

• Reduced time taken to apprehend offenders.

Responses to the Problem of Bomb Threats in Schools 21

Responses to the Problem of Bomb

Threats in Schools

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a

better understanding of the factors contributing to it.

Once you have analyzed your local problem and

established a baseline for measuring effectiveness, you

should consider possible responses to address the

problem.

The following response strategies provide a foundation for

addressing your particular problem. These strategies are

drawn from a variety of research studies and police

reports. Several of these strategies may apply to your

community's problem. It is critical that you tailor

responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify

each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an

effective strategy will involve implementing several

different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are

seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem. Do

not limit yourself to considering what police can do: give

careful consideration to who else in your community

shares responsibility for the problem and can help police

better respond to it.17

General Considerations for an Effective Response

Strategy

Responses may be divided into two categories: (1)

preventive responses aimed at reducing the likelihood of

bomb threats and (2) immediate responses to a bomb

threat should it occur. Your preventive responses will have

a significant impact on how you and the school respond

should an actual bomb threat occur. Just as installing
22 Bomb Threats in Schools

† There are many resources to guide

you in how to develop a law

enforcement-school partnership;

The most comprehensive is: Fostering

School-Law Enforcement Partnerships

(Atkinson 2002).

†† There are many crisis plans

available on the web and elsewhere.

The most comprehensive is Practical

Information on Crisis Planning: A Guide

for Schools and Communities published

by the Office of Safe and Drug-Free

Schools (2003).

sprinkler systems in public buildings prepares for a fire

that has a low probability of occurring, so establishing a

system for dealing with a crisis and managing the public

space of the school in a secure way will minimize the

impact of a bomb incident should it occur. Many of the

responses outlined below are those that the recipients of

the bomb threat (most likely school personnel) must

implement. Thus, your prime responsibility is to establish

a close working relationship with the schools to ensure

that they implement the responses that are appropriate for

their particular situation. So it is worth repeating: you will

be unable to implement many of the responses listed here

unless you can cultivate a close and trusting relationship

with your local schools and school districts.†

Specific Responses to Bomb Threats in Schools

Prevention and Harm Reduction 

These responses are designed (a) to reduce the impact of a

bomb threat should it occur (b) to prevent a bomb threat

from happening in the first place and (c) to reduce the

probability of a rash of bomb threats occurring.

1. Developing a bomb threat response plan. You must

work with the school and school district to develop an

overall response plan should a bomb threat be received.

This plan should also be coordinated or preferably

included within a disaster or crisis plan that most likely

already exists in your community, and involves police,

firefighters, emergency response teams and so on.††
Responses to the Problem of Bomb Threats in Schools 23

A bomb threat response plan should fall within the

school's, the town's and county's overall crisis plans. It will

avoid making serious mistakes18 and ensure that the

response is systematic and avoids panic. The school will

need to form a response team whose function will be to

formulate the response plan, and, should an incident

occur, play designated roles specified in the plan. The

school will need your help to form this team and develop

the plan because it must be composed of not only selected

teachers, school administrators, staff well acquainted with

school premises (cleaning and maintenance staff), but also

local police, fire and emergency services representatives.

(See Appendix C for a detailed listing of questions to ask

when you meet with school administrators and teachers to

develop the plan.) Do not assume that, because the school

district or school has a response plan, this is sufficient. A

2001 survey found that, although the majority of school

districts had response plans, less than 40 percent had

provided training of more than one day for the response

team, and there was little attention to keeping the team

and plan up to date.19 Many districts had not conducted

any drills to test the response plan. Considerable training

and refresher courses (since there is continual turnover of

staff) are needed for members of the response team and

others with whom they would have to deal should a crisis

occur, particularly in regard to the different roles of the

response team members, lines of authority and

leadership.20 The online web course developed by the

Department of Homeland Security, Office of Domestic

Preparedness in conjunction with the Energetic Material

Research and Testing Center at the New Mexico Institute

of Mining and Technology is an easily accessible and

useful training tool. It is offered for free at:

http://respond.emrtc.nmt.edu/campus/.
24 Bomb Threats in Schools

2. Developing a threat reporting system. You should

work with the schools in your jurisdiction to agree on

what level of threats should be reported to the police.

Should every threat that implies an explosive device–even

those made obviously in jest–be automatically reported to

the police? Reporting a threat to the police sets off a

whole series of events that transfers the responsibility for

the event from the school to the police and others external

to the school, especially should the media become

involved. If you have a close and trusted working

relationship with each school, you should be able to work

out a set of rules for collection of bomb threats and other

incidents of violence, and a set of criteria for deciding

when such incidents should be reported to the police.

That decision will depend on an assessment of the risk

posed by the threat. (See box below on risk threat levels.)

A distinction should also be made regarding how such

information will be put to use. If you are able to develop a

research use for these reported incidents, without their

reporting to you automatically setting off a full emergency

response, for example, open sharing of incidents may be a

feasible alternative, leaving it to the police to decide

whether immediate intervention is required.

3. Helping the school conduct a security survey to

make it more difficult for intruders to place a bomb.

A security survey of the school premises should be

conducted with an eye toward preventing break-ins and

identifying vulnerable areas such as poorly lit parking lots,

parking lots too close to the school building, and hard-tomonitor areas.† Take steps to counter vulnerability by

installing lighting as necessary, adding fencing to the entire

perimeter of the school, installing break-in prevention

hardware on doors and windows, removing unnecessary

shrubbery or other items where bombs may be hidden,

† See the POP Guide on School

Vandalism and Break-ins.
Responses to the Problem of Bomb Threats in Schools 25

and patrolling parking lots.21 Consider surveillance camera

installation in locker areas and other areas that you identify

from the security survey that are rarely used or supervised.

Clearly, these preventive actions will demand money from

a school's usually strained budget. Your help in working

with the school board and district supervisors to convince

them of the importance of securing the school will be

needed.

4. Controlling access to the school building and

premises. The security survey will identify points of

access to the school premises. Advise the school, if

necessary, to limit the number of entrances so that access

can be monitored more easily, and require all visitors to

register at the school's main office. Consider ways to make

it easier to identify who does and does not belong in a

school. School uniforms make it easier to differentiate

students from non-students although they may not be

feasible for all schools. Limit vehicle access to campus, or

if not possible, situate parking lots far enough away from

school buildings that any bomb that explodes inside a

vehicle will not harm people in or near the school

building.

5. Monitoring communication into and out of the

school and grounds. As noted, telephones are the most

common means of communicating a bomb threat. Make

sure that the school administrators are versed in the use of

911 and enhanced 911, if it is available, and that they

know how to trace a call using *69.† Of course, school

phones should have caller ID available. A quick and easy

means of recording incoming phone calls should also be

available.†† Encourage schools to institute a cell phone

policy that minimizes their use or even prohibits their use

during school time. Schools should monitor use of public

† The introduction of call tracing

considerably reduced the incidence

of obscene phone calls (Clarke

1992). Publicizing its availability on

all school phone lines may cause

students to think twice before calling

in a threat.

†† On December 20, 2002,

Poughkeepsie, New York public

schools received two bomb threats

called in from local convenience

stores; 1200 students and 100 staff

were evacuated. Another threat came

after Christmas break, which

resulted in shutdown of schools in

the New Paltz school district. Police

worked with schools and local

services to develop a better

community phone security system.

The next time a threat was called in,

the voice of the caller was

recognized from a recording made

by the 911 system and an arrest

followed soon after. The New Paltz

school districts had experienced a

rash of bomb threats in 1999, but

since the December 20 incident, no

further threats had been received.
26 Bomb Threats in Schools

phones and consider installation of surveillance cameras.

Threats may also be sent by mail, so encourage the school

to develop a system for checking and vetting all mail that

comes into the school. All written communication should

enter the school through one portal. A third means of

communicating a threat is via the Internet either by email

or posting on a website. School computer use should, of

course, be closely monitored and students required to

acknowledge and agree to a responsible use statement that,

among other things, requires users to affirm that they will

not use the computer to send threats, harass, or create and

send destructive programs. Websites that incite violent

behavior or provide information on bomb construction or

weapon use should, of course, be blocked on all school

computers. The level of surveillance of students and

school activity is a sensitive issue. You will have to work

carefully with schools and local community groups to

establish a level of surveillance that is politically

acceptable and feasible.

6. Warning and educating students that weapons,

contraband, bomb-related materials and bomb threats

are prohibited. Post signs warning that individuals,

lockers and vehicles are subject to search. Institute a dress

code that prohibits dress that makes it easy to hide

weapons or bombs under clothing. If circumstances

require, search bags on entry into school or install an

electronic device to identify hidden weapons.22

Communicate to students clear rules of acceptable

behavior, and institute an anti-bomb threat program that

educates students and teachers on the psychological,

social, and economic destruction caused by bomb threats

and other targeted violence. Students should be instructed

on the law related to bomb threats, even when they are

hoaxes.
Responses to the Problem of Bomb Threats in Schools 27

7. Fostering a positive school climate, free of

aggression. Considerable research has been conducted in

the United States and elsewhere on the effectiveness of

using a "whole school approach"23 to reduce acts of

violence and aggression.† The overall social and moral

climate of the school can have significant effects on

reducing school violence. Other approaches have also

demonstrated a reduction in the amount of school

disruption and violence. These include those targeted at

anger management, adolescent positive choices, conflict

resolution, classroom behavior management, and antibullying programs.24 However, the effectiveness of these

approaches varies according to school locality, and they are

usually more effective if targeted at high-risk students.25

Peer mediation and counseling has generally not been

found effective in reducing problem behavior. And in the

case of drug use, instruction by law enforcement officers

concerning the legal penalties and negative effects of drug

use have not been found effective.26 Thus, you will need to

research with the school the appropriate type of

intervention that fits its needs. The following guidelines

are recommended:

† See the POP Guide on Bullying in

Schools for application of this

approach.

Signs should clearly communicate to students the prohibition against

and penalties for making bomb threats.
28 Bomb Threats in Schools

• Get the commitment of the school principal to the

necessity of taking the social and moral climate of the

school seriously. It is common, for example, for

bullying and minor violence to be dismissed as "just a

part of growing up."†

• Foster a school climate in which respect for others is

tantamount.

• Treat all violence, even very mild forms (e.g., abusive

language, taking a kid's lunch money) as serious.

Expanding the definition of violence increases the

awareness of its serious effects on children, may reduce

tolerance of milder forms of aggression, and may

reduce the incidence of serious violence.27 However,

this approach should not be confused with "zero

tolerance," which demands swift and rigid punishment

for minor acts that may in fact increase the overall level

of aggressiveness in a school. Rather, the aim of

promoting an expanded definition of violence is to

increase awareness and sensitivity to the negative

effects of everyday acts of aggression that are often

passed off as "normal."

• Encourage victims of violence to report incidents to

their teachers.

• Establish a school-wide policy that addresses issues of

aggression, rumor mongering, harassment, and teasing.

• Provide guidelines and training for teachers for dealing

with specific actions of targeted violence in their

classrooms.

• Establish a system for teachers to report and share

information on violent incidents and threats that occur

in their classrooms.

• Establish ways for students to report acts of violence

and threats that they witness; make use of student

leaders and representatives.

† "Triggering events like fights, gang

signs and terms, excessive teasing,

bullying, extortion of lunch money,

and trespassing...can all be

precursors to more serious criminal

activity like weapons and bomb

threats." (Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

2003).
Responses to the Problem of Bomb Threats in Schools 29

8. Identifying troubled children, bullies and victims of

targeted violence. As noted above, school intervention

programs that target high-risk students have been found to

be most effective. You should work with the school

district to develop a training program for teachers on how

to identify troubled children and the warning signs

(Appendix B) of possible targeted violence.28 However,

note that risks increase if troubled children are grouped

together in a single class or room.29 The idea of identifying

troubled children is to sensitize teachers to the warning

signs of possible targeted violence when students may

carry out their threats or violent fantasies. This is the main

goal of the threat assessment approach. Encourage school

principals to provide time for teachers to meet in groups

to share information concerning troubled children and

exchange ideas on classroom management when threats

and violence occur.

9. Reaching out to parents. Many, if not the majority, of

parents are busy working and often not at home when

their children return from school. Encourage the school

principal to provide useful after-school activities. Research

has shown that students who attend after-school programs

are less involved in delinquency and violence than those

who do not.30 This is perhaps the most effective way for a

school to reach out to parents to show that it understands

the pressures and demands that are placed on today's

working parents. Schools should:
30 Bomb Threats in Schools

• Keep parents informed of what is happening at the

school through cable TV, websites and letters and

brochures sent to the home.31 Some rules and their

enforcement in regard to prevention of school violence

may seem arbitrary and even unnecessary to parents,

especially if their content and enforcement are

communicated to them by their children rather than

directly from the school. Understanding and

compliance with school rules cannot work well without

the cooperation of parents.

• Consider providing programs for suspended or expelled

students, since they are at risk and may be unsupervised

at home if parents work.32

Finally, work with the school to make it a central

community resource that local organizations as well as

parents come to for a variety of services and recreational

activities.33

Immediate Responses to a Bomb Threat

These responses are designed to ensure that you and the

school respond to a serious bomb threat in a systematic

and orderly manner so that panic and miscommunications

among police, community services, the school and parents

do not occur. Their effectiveness depends heavily, if not

totally, on the first nine responses above, which provide

the groundwork for the ordered steps of crisis response

outlined below. They also help reduce the harm caused by

the bomb threat.
Responses to the Problem of Bomb Threats in Schools 31

10. Recording the threat. As we have noted, threats are

communications that are received mostly by telephone,

and sometimes by mail or email. In one case, a bomb

threat was scrawled on a bathroom wall.34 The threat is the

only information that links the bomb or possible bomb to

the offender. It is extremely important to record the exact

language of a threat received by telephone, or to preserve

the original packaging, envelopes and contents of a threat

delivered by mail and not to disturb it in any way. A

simple, easy-to-use recording device should be available

close to the telephone through which all calls come into

the school. There are many forms available that include

detailed checklists for recording bomb threats. The form

available on the ATF CD on bomb threats is an excellent

example.35 This form should be included as part of the

bomb threat response plan toolkit, and individuals who are

likely to answer the phone should be familiar with the

form and should receive training exercises in what to

record, and what to say and not to say to the caller.

Similarly, in cases where threats are made in person (such

as by a student to a teacher in the classroom) teachers

should be practiced and trained to solicit all relevant

information, and to record exactly what the student says

and his or her accompanying demeanor and physical

attitude when making the threat.

11. Analyzing the threat. Once the threat is received, the

details of the threat must be examined carefully to

determine whether the threat is of sufficient seriousness

to require immediate response and reporting to the police.

This decision should be made easier if the response team

(Response 1) has already laid down rules for assessing the

level of seriousness of a threat and at what level of

seriousness the threat should be reported to the police.

The FBI has established a rough guide for ranking threats

into three levels of risk.36
32 Bomb Threats in Schools

FBI CLASSIFICATION OF THREAT RISK LEVELS

Low Level of Threat: A threat that poses a minimal risk to the victim and public

safety.

• Threat is vague and indirect.

• Information contained within the threat is inconsistent, implausible or lacks

detail.

• Threat lacks realism.

• Content of the threat suggests person is unlikely to carry it out.

• Threat is made by young child (under 9 or10) and there is laughter in the

background.

• The caller is definitely known and has called numerous times.

Medium Level of Threat: A threat that could be carried out, although it may not

appear entirely realistic.

• Threat is more direct and more concrete than a low-level threat.

• Wording in the threat suggests that the threatener has given some thought to how

the act will be carried out.

• There may be a general indication of a possible place and time (though these

signs still fall well short of a detailed plan).

• There is no strong indication that the threatener has taken preparatory steps,

although there may be some veiled reference or ambiguous or inconclusive

evidence pointing to that possibility–an allusion to a book or movie that shows

the planning of a violent act, or a vague, general statement about the availability

of weapons.

• There may be a specific statement seeking to convey that the threat is not empty:

"I'm serious!" or "I really mean this!"

High Level of Threat: A threat that appears to pose an imminent and serious danger

to the safety of others.

• Threat is direct, specific and plausible. For example, "This is John Smith, I'm fed

up with Mr. Jones yelling at me. There's a bomb under his desk." 

• Threat suggests concrete steps have been taken toward carrying it out, for

example, statements indicating that the threatener has acquired or practiced with

a weapon or has had the intended victim under surveillance.

Source: Adapted from O'Toole (n.d.)
Responses to the Problem of Bomb Threats in Schools 33

12. Evacuating the school. The assessment of the

seriousness of the bomb threat will help decide whether to

conduct a search, what kind of search to conduct and

whether an evacuation or partial evacuation is necessary.†

Of course, if an evacuation is contemplated, a search of

the evacuation route and holding areas is necessary prior

to ordering the evacuation. The decision should be

considered by the bomb threat response team, but the

final decision will be the responsibility of the school

principal or school district superintendent, after

consultation with local police and other emergency-related

officials–again, depending on the assessment of the

seriousness of the bomb threat, and depending on the

working relationship you have developed with your

schools. While in most cases it is likely that there will be

no bomb, and that the motivation of the threatener is

probably to cause widespread disruption to the school by

calling in a hoax, there is strong pressure to conduct an

evacuation even if there is the slightest doubt that a real

bomb could be present. It should be noted, however, that

evacuation might not necessarily be the safest or even

necessary response.37 In one case, for example, a student

called in a threat, expecting an evacuation, and then shot

students as they exited the school according to a practiced

evacuation plan. In one junior-senior high school in New

York in 2001, a rash of bomb threats resulted in the

evacuation of the school only twice. Furthermore there is

some anecdotal evidence that conducting evacuations for

every bomb threat rewards the caller by doing exactly what

he wants, and so may increase the incidence of such

threats. In any event, the response plan (Response 1)

should also have produced an evacuation kit containing

basic but important information on such details as bus

schedules, phone trees, name tags, bus rosters and routes

etc.38

† The questions you must answer

are: "Will it be an overt or covert

search?" and "Will it be conducted

without evacuation or after

evacuation of the area to be

searched? Regardless of the extent

of the evacuation, a search is almost

always advisable" (Federal Bureau of

Investigation, n.d.). It should be

noted, however, that evacuation may

not necessarily be the appropriate

response and will depend on local

circumstances. In one junior-senior

high school in New York in 2001, a

rash of bomb threats resulted in the

evacuation of the school only twice

(School Board News (2001).
34 Bomb Threats in Schools

13. Locating a bomb. If the school has already attended

to the importance of maintaining the physical security of

the school and its surroundings (Response 3), the search

procedure will be much more efficient.39 The response

team should have assembled all available plans of the

school and a search protocol during its development of

the response plan. There are various search techniques and

procedures that may be followed, such as two-person

searching, order of rooms to be searched, whether special

equipment or explosives experts are required, etc. Your

response plan should have reviewed such procedures and

adapted them to its own plan. A search completion

checklist is also of considerable use.

14. Talking to the media. Your response plan should

have included directions on when to call the media to

report the incident or threat, who should do it, and

preferably who to call in the media. The response team

should have included a media representative in developing

the plan. It is preferable that parents and relatives of the

children be given timely and accurate information. Positive

relations with media outlets will make this task much

easier to accomplish. As a result of constructing the

response plan, training in media relations could be an

important undertaking for those individuals who will talk

with the media in time of crisis such as a bomb threat.40

15. Following up after the incident. Whether the

consequences of the bomb threat resulted in discovery or

even detonation of a bomb, or whether the threat turned

out to be just a hoax, you may need to follow up with the

school to:
Responses to the Problem of Bomb Threats in Schools 35

1. Put the school in touch with the National

Organization for Victim Assistance (www.trynova.org/), which provides a wealth of

information and access to support groups for

victims of many different kinds of violence.

2. Review the bomb threat response plan. After the

bomb threat incident is over, the bomb threat

response team should meet and review where

things went right and where things went wrong

and adjust the plan accordingly.

16. Placing police officers in schools. Depending on

local conditions prevailing in the school and surrounding

areas, placing police in schools on a permanent or regular

basis may be appropriate. However this should be done as

part of an overall "safer schools" approach, in which

police work with the schools and local communities to

reduce violence and the climate of violence in the school's

neighborhoods and communities.41 If police are perceived

by both teachers and students as the major school

disciplinarians, this shifts responsibility to the police and

inadvertently undermines school officials' authority and

control.42 Some research has suggested that the

introduction of police into a school may signal overreliance on police intervention and may in fact increase

levels of student disruption.43 Thus, this action should not

be taken without extensive preparation and dialog between

the police department and the appropriate school

authorities.
36 Bomb Threats in Schools

Response with Limited Effectiveness

17. Implementing zero tolerance. Some states have

legislated mandatory laws that, for example, require

"suspension for 365 calendar days any student who makes

a false bomb threat...".44 There are no research data to

support the effectiveness of suspension (either long or

short term) or other drastic punishments that are often

implemented in the name of zero tolerance, in reducing

student disruption or school violence. However, there is

research that links suspension to a higher dropout rate.45 A

zero-tolerance policy may also contribute to an excessively

authoritarian climate, which may actually provoke violence

in schools.
Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Bomb Threats in Schools 37

Appendix A: Summary of Responses to

Bomb Threats in Schools

The table below summarizes the responses to bomb

threats in schools, the mechanism by which they are

intended to work, the conditions under which they ought

to work best, and some factors you should consider before

implementing a particular response. It is critical that you

tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can

justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most

cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing

several different responses. Law enforcement responses

alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the

problem. The first nine responses are aimed at preventing the

initial occurrence of a bomb threat or rash of bomb threats in

schools. Your effectiveness in implementing these responses will affect

considerably the extent of harm resulting from an actual bomb

threat and the efficiency and effectiveness of your response and the

school's response (Responses 10-15) to the threat.

1.

2.

22

24

Developing a

bomb threat

response plan

Developing a

threat reporting

system

Response plan

reduces

confusion should

a threat occur

and identifies

points of early

intervention

Identifies

possible warning

signs and

communicates

that violence or

threats of

violence are not

tolerated

...the bomb

response plan is

coordinated with

the school's and

community's

overall disaster

response plan

...you have a

close and trusted

working

relationship with

the school

Requires

collaboration

with local

emergency

response teams,

such as police,

firefighters and

EMS services

Data collected

may be used for

policing research

as well as

indicating when

immediate police

intervention is

required

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Prevention and Harm Reduction
38 Bomb Threats in Schools

3.

4.

5.

6.

24

25

25

26

Helping the

school conduct a

security survey

Controlling

access to the

school building

and premises

Monitoring

communication

into and out of

the school and

grounds

Warning and

educating

students that

weapons,

contraband,

bomb-related

materials and

bomb threats are

prohibited

Identifies points

of vulnerability

for placement of

bombs or breakins

Makes it more

difficult for

would-be

bombers to enter

school

Increases chance

of identifying

possible sources

of threats

Students learn

that there are

clear rules and

laws against

bomb threats

that the school

takes seriously

...it is followed

up with specific

recommendations

for improving

security, such as

installation of

appropriate

lighting,

placement of

parking lots etc.

...the school

involves the

parents and

students in

implementing

these changes

...the school

installs secure

phone system,

restricts cell

phone use,

monitors public

phone use and

Internet activity

...the school

communicates

clearly by its

policies and

actions that

contraband,

weapons, and

explosives are

prohibited from

school grounds

and that bomb

threats have very

serious

consequences

Your help will be

needed by the

school to convince

the school board

and district

supervisor that the

expense of

upgrading security

is justified

Some changes may

be unpopular for

legal, moral or

political reasons

Incoming email is

difficult to

control; regular

mail must be

inspected in case

of letter bombs or

threats by mail

Searches may be

legally challenged;

collaboration of

parents and school

board is essential

in establishing

these procedures.

Instruction by law

enforcement

officers may not

be an effective

method

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations
Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Bomb Threats in Schools 39

7.

8.

9.

10.

27

29

29

31

Fostering a

positive school

climate, free of

aggression

Identifying

troubled

children, bullies

and victims of

targeted

violence

Reaching out to

parents

Recording the

threat

A safe and

secure social and

moral climate

works against

violence

including bomb

threats

Threat

assessment

training for

teachers may

help identify

possible warning

signs of bomb

threats

Parent

cooperation

helps to enforce

rules and

identify

problems in

advance

Response team,

formed in

Response 1,

implements

bomb threat

response plan

Dealing with

milder forms of

aggression may

help reduce or

prevent the

incidence of

serious violence;

some methods of

intervention such

as peer mediation

are not effective

Requires

principal's

commitment to

threat assessment

approach, and time

away from the

classroom for

teachers

Rules aimed at

preventing bomb

threats and

violence may

appear unnecessary

or excessive to

parents; their

involvement in

understanding the

rationale of such

rules is essential

Recording exact

details of threat is

crucial 

...you get the

total

commitment of

school principal

to the wholeschool approach

...principal

provides time for

teachers to meet

together and

share

information

...schools make

their facilities

available for

after-school

activities and

other community

events where

parents are

involved

...all procedures

in considerable

detail with forms

and checklists

are already

provided

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Immediate Responses to a Bomb Threat
40 Bomb Threats in Schools

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

31

33

34

34

34

Analyzing the

threat

Evacuating the

school

Locating a

bomb

Talking to the

media

Following up

after the

incident

Seriousness of

the threat is

assessed so that

appropriate

action can be

determined

Decision is made

whether to

evacuate the

school according

to seriousness of

the threat and

local

circumstances

Response team

conducts a

search using

procedures and

materials

provided by

Response 1

Positive media

relations are

established to

ensure smooth

and accurate

communication

to parents and

community

Help the school

provide support

for those who

have been

traumatized by

the incident

Depends entirely

on Response 1

Requires school

practice of

evacuation routes,

toolkit for

identifying and

tracking students,

contacting parents

etc., all of which

would have been

worked out in

Response 1

Can be greatly

enhanced if

preparations for

bomb search were

made in Response

1

Individuals with

media training may

not be available in

which case a press

conference is

called and a

written statement

made, in order to

maintain better

control over

information

The response plan

should be reviewed

and adjusted where

necessary

...decisions have

already been

made by the

bomb response

team as to what

level of threat

warrants

reporting to

police or other

type of response

...decisionmaking

procedure and

responsibility for

making decision

has been worked

out before hand

in the response

plan

...those

searching are

very familiar

with the plan

and school

premises

...an individual

of the response

team (Response

1) is the

designated media

spokesperson

and is trained in

media relations

...you contact

the National

Organization for

Victim

Assistance

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations
Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Bomb Threats in Schools 41

16.

17.

35

36

Placing police

officers in

schools

Implementing

zero-tolerance

Police conduct

sessions on gang

avoidance,

conflict

resolution,

violence

reduction

Student is

immediately

removed from

school

There is a danger

that police may be

looked to as the

disciplinarians thus

shifting

responsibility for

the problem away

from the school

Removing the

student does not

remove the threat,

as threats are

commonly called

in by students who

have a grudge,

who may be on

suspension or have

dropped out

...done within a

broader safer

schools program,

including

extensive dialog

with school

authorities

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Response With Limited Effectiveness

Appendix B: Warning Signs of Potential School Violence 43

Appendix B: Warning Signs of Potential

School Violence

NOTE: These signs have been extracted from a variety of

sources46 and do not represent a scientific assessment, and

should be regarded as speculative.

• Has engaged in violent behavior in the past.

• Has tantrums and uncontrollable angry outbursts

abnormal for someone that age.

• Continues exhibiting antisocial behaviors that began at

an early age.

• Forms and/or maintains friendships with others who

have repeatedly engaged in problem behaviors.

• Often engages in name calling, cursing, or abusive

language.

• Has brought a weapon or has threatened to bring a

weapon to school.

• Consistently makes violent threats when angry.

• Has a substance abuse problem.

• Is frequently truant or has been suspended from school

on multiple occasions.

• Seems preoccupied with weapons or violence, especially

associated more with killing humans than with target

practice or hunting.

• Has few or no close friends despite having lived in the

area for some time.

• Has a sudden decrease in academic performance

and/or interest in school activities.

• Is abusive to animals.

• Has too little parental supervision given the student's

age and level of maturity.

• Has been a victim of abuse or been neglected by

parents/guardians.

• Has repeatedly witnessed domestic abuse or other

forms of violence.
44 Bomb Threats in Schools

• Has experienced trauma or loss in their home or

community.

• Pays no attention to the feelings or rights of others.

• Intimidates others.

• Has been a victim of intimidation by others.

• Dwells on perceived slights, rejection, or mistreatment

by others; blames others for his/her problems and

appears vengeful.

• Seems to be preoccupied with TV shows, movies, video

games, reading materials, or music that express

violence.

• Reflects excessive anger in writing projects.

• Is involved in a gang or antisocial group.

• Seems depressed/withdrawn or has exhibited severe

mood or behavioral swings, which appear greater in

magnitude, duration, or frequency than those typically

experienced by students that age.

• Expresses sadistic, violent, prejudicial, or intolerant

attitudes.

• Has threatened or actually attempted suicide or acts of

unfashionable self-mutilation.
Appendix C: Questions to Ask When Coordinating the Bomb Threat Response Team 45

Appendix C: Questions to Ask When

Coordinating the Bomb Threat Response

Team

(Source: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 2003)

Police

• When should the police be called?

• When will police respond?

• Who will be sent?

• What is the police department's role at the scene?

• What is the school's place in the incident command

structure?

• What information, materials and participation will the

bomb squad require from school administrators?

• Where does evacuation decision-making power lie, with

police or with the principal?

• Will police participate in searches and if so, when and

how?

• When will an explosives detection canine be involved?

• Under what circumstances will police assume command

of the scene?

• When do police relinquish command of the scene?

• Will police assist with evacuation and relocation of

students and how?

• When will police declare the "all clear"?

• Who makes the decision to re-occupy the facility,

police, the principal, or someone else?

• Who conducts follow-up investigation of bomb threats

and how is the investigation conducted?

• What role will police have in the prevention of bomb

threats?

• How can police assist in "hardening the target"?
46 Bomb Threats in Schools

Fire

• When should the fire department be called?

• When will the fire department respond?

• Who will be sent?

• What is the fire department's role at the scene?

• What information, materials and participation will the

bomb squad require from school administrators?

• Will the fire department participate in searches and if

so, when and how?

• Under what circumstances will the fire department

assume command of the scene?

• When will the fire department relinquish command of

the scene?

• Will the fire department assist with evacuation and

relocation of students and how?

• When will the fire department declare the "all clear"?

• What role will the fire department have in the

prevention of bomb threats?

Bomb Squad (also may include Explosives Detection

Canine Unit)

• Who makes the request for the bomb squad?

• When will the bomb squad respond?

• Who will be sent?

• What is the role of the bomb squad at the scene?

• What information, materials and participation will the

bomb squad require from school administrators?

• Will the bomb squad participate in searches and if so,

when and how?

• What general procedures does the bomb squad use

when dealing with a suspicious item?

• When will an explosives detection canine be involved?
Appendix C: Questions to Ask When Coordinating the Bomb Threat Response Team 47

• Under what circumstances will the bomb squad assume

command of the scene?

• When will the bomb squad relinquish command of the

scene?

• What role will the bomb squad have in the prevention

of bomb threats?

EMS

• When should EMS be called?

• When will EMS respond?

• Who will be sent?

• What is the role of EMS at the scene?

ATF

• Under what circumstances should ATF be involved?

• Who makes the request for ATF?

• Who will be sent by ATF?

• What is the role of ATF at the scene?

• What information, materials and participation will ATF

require from school administrators?

• Will ATF participate in searches and if so, when and

how?

• Under what circumstances will ATF assume command

of the scene?

• How does ATF work with law enforcement and the fire

department?

• When will ATF relinquish command of the scene?

• What role will ATF have in the prevention of bomb

threats?
48 Bomb Threats in Schools

Local Emergency Management Office

• When will local emergency management be involved?

• What role will local emergency management take?

• What resources does local emergency management

have?

• How will local emergency management respond when

called?
Endnotes 49

Endnotes

1 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

(2003). 2 School Board News (2001). 3 National School Safety and Security Services (n.d.). 4 South Carolina Department of Education (2000). 5 Kiesewetter (1999). 6 McCann (2002). 7 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

(2003). 8 Tunkel (2002). 9 McCann (2002). 10 Gaughan, Cerio and Myers (2001). 11 Vossekuil et al. (2002). 12 Meloy and McEllistrem (1998). 13 O'Toole (n.d.). 14 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

(2003). 15 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

(2003). 16 Wilson, Gottfredson and Najaka (2001). 17 Atkinson (2002); International Association of Chiefs

of Police (1999); Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services (n.d.). 18 Cornell and Sheras (1998). 19 Smith et al. (2001). 20 Schonfeld et al. (1994). 21 See Schneider (2002) for a comprehensive guide on

safeguarding school facilities. 22 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

(2003). 23 Olweus (1978); Olweus (1992); Olweus and Limber

(1999). 24 Petersen, Larson and Skiba (2001).
50 Bomb Threats in Schools

25 Wilson, Gottfredson and Najaka (2001).; Gottfredson

(1997). 26 Gottfredson (1997). 27 Astor (1998). 28 Reddy et al. (2001); Fein and Vossekuil (1998);

Vossekuil et al. (2002). 29 International Association of Chiefs of Police (1999). 30 International Association of Chiefs of Police (1999). 31 International Association of Chiefs of Police (1999). 32 International Association of Chiefs of Police (1999). 33 See Adelman and Taylor (2002) for a comprehensive

guide. 34 School Board News (2001). 35 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

(2003). 36 O'Toole (n.d.). 37 School Board News (2001). 38 International Association of Chiefs of Police (1999). 39 Higgins (1996). 40 Higgins (1996). 41 U.S. Department of Education (2000). 42 Atkinson (2002), p.21. 43 Poland (1994); Mayer and Leone (1999); Petersen and

Straub (1992). 44 North Carolina Safe Schools (n.d.). 45 Petersen, Larson and Skiba (2001). 46 See International Association of Chiefs of Police

(1999).
References 51

References

Adelman, H. and L. Taylor (2002). Fostering School, Family,

and Community Involvement. Guide 7. Northwest

Regional Educational Laboratory.

Astor, R. (1998). "School Violence: A Blueprint for

Elementary School Interventions." In E. Freeman, C.

Franklin, R. Fong, G. Shaffer and E. Timberlake (eds.)

Multisystemic Skills and Interventions in School Social Work

Practice, pp. 281–295. Washington, D.C.: National

Association of Social Workers Press.

Atkinson, A. (2002). Fostering School-Law Enforcement

Partnerships. Safe and Secure: Guides to Creating Safer

Schools. Guide No.5. Washington, D.C.: Northwest

Regional Educational Laboratory, U.S. Department of

Education, and U.S. Department of Justice Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/book5.pdf

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

(2003). Bomb Threat Response: An Interactive Planning Tool

for Schools. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

and Explosives, United States Department of the

Treasury and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools

Program, United States Department of Education.

CD-ROM available at: www.threatplan.org

.

Clarke, R.V. (1992). "Introduction." In: R.V. Clarke (ed.).

Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies.

Albany, New York: Harrow and Heston.

Cornell, D. and P. Sheras (1998). "Common Errors in

School Crisis Response: Learning From Our Mistakes."

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 35 (3).
52 Bomb Threats in Schools

Curcio, J. and P. First (1993). Violence in the Schools: How to

Proactively Prevent and Defuse It. Newbury Park,

California: Sage.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (n.d.). The Bomb Threat

Challenge. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Justice.

Fein R. and B. Vossekuil (1998). Protective Intelligence and

Threat Assessment Investigations: A Guide for State and

Local Law Enforcement Officials. Washington, D.C.:

National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs.

Gaughan, E., J. Cerio, and R. Myers (2001) Lethal Violence

in Schools: A National Study. Alfred University.

www.alfred.edu/teenviolence/.

Gottfredson, D. (1997) "School-based Crime Prevention"

in L. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck,

P. Reuter, and S. Bushway (eds.) Preventing Crime: What

Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising. A Report to the

United States Congress. Washington, D.C.: National

Institute of Justice. www.ncjrs.org/works/.

Hartford Loss Control Department (2002). Preparing for

and Responding to Bomb Threats and Letter Bombs.

Technical Information Paper Series. TIPS S 570.050

Higgins, S. (1996). "Bomb and Physical Security Planning."

In L. Fennelly, Handbook of Loss Prevention and Crime

Prevention, 3rd ed. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Appendix 53

International Association of Chiefs of Police (1999). Guide

for Preventing and Responding to School Violence.

International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Washington, D.C.: IACP. www.theiacp.org/documents/

pdfs/Publications/schoolviolence2.pdf.

Kiesewetter, S. (1999). "Bomb Threat Might Cost Mason

Schools $250,000." Enquirer November 18.

www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/11/18/loc_

bomb_threat_might.html.

Mayer, M. and P. Leone (1999). "A Structural Analysis of

School Violence and Disruption: Implications for

Creating Safer Schools." Education and Treatment of

Children, 22:333–356.

McCann, J. (2002). Threats in Schools: A Practical Guide for

Managing Violence. New York: Haworth Press.

Meloy, J. and J. McEllistrem (1998). "Bombing and

Psychopathy: An Integrative Review." Journal of Forensic

Sciences 43:556–562.

Missouri Center for Safe Schools (2001). Dealing With Bomb

Threats at School.

National School Safety and Security Services (n.d.).

www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/school-bombs.html.

North Carolina Safe Schools (n.d.). Safe Schools: Fact Sheet on

State Law. 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (n.d.).

Addressing School-Related Crime and Disorder. COPS

Innovation Series.

www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=574.
54 Bomb Threats in Schools

Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (2003). Practical

Information on Crisis Planning: A Guide for Schools and

Communities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Education.

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and

Whipping Boys. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Press.

Olweus, D. (1992). "Bullying Among School Children:

Intervention and Prevention." In R. Peters, R.

McMahon and V. Quinsey (eds.), Aggression and Violence

Throughout the Life Span. Newbury Park, California:

Sage Publications.

Olweus, D., and S. Limber (1999). "Bullying Prevention

Program." In D. Elliott (ed.), Blueprints for Violence

Prevention. Boulder, Colorado: Institute of Behavioral

Science, Regents of the University of Colorado.

O'Toole, M.E. (n.d.). The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment

Perspective. Quantico, Virginia: Critical Incident

Response Group (CIRG), National Center for the

Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC), FBI Academy.

Petersen, R., J. Larson, and R. Skiba (2001). "School

Violence Prevention: Current Status and Policy

Recommendations." Law and Policy, Vol. 23, No.2, July.

Petersen, S. and R. Straub (1992). School Crisis Survival

Guide: Management Techniques and Materials for Counselors

and Administrators. West Nyack, New York: Center for

Applied Research in Education.

Poland, S. (1994). "The Role of School Crisis Intervention

Teams to Prevent and Reduce School Violence," School

Psychology eReview, Vol.23, Issue 2, pp.175–190.
Appendix 55

Reddy, M., R. Borum, J. Berglund, B. Vossekuil, R. Fein,

and W. Modzeleski (2001). "Evaluating Risk for

Targeted Violence in Schools: Comparing Risk

Assessment, Threat Assessment, and Other

Approaches." Psychology in the Schools 38(2):157–172.

Regoli, R. and J. Hewitt (1994). Delinquency and Society: A

Child Centered Approach. New York: McGraw Hill.

Rich, T., P. Finn, and S. Ward (2001). Guide to Using School

COP to Address Student Discipline and Crime Problems.

Prepared for Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services by Abt Associates. Washington, D.C.

Schneider, T. (2002). Ensuring Quality School Facilities and

Security Technologies. Guide 4. Northwest Regional

Educational Laboratory.

www.safetyzone.org/pdfs/ta_guides/packet_4.pdf.

Schonfeld, D., M. Kline and Members of the Crisis

Intervention Committee (1994). "School-based Crisis

Intervention: An Organizational Model." Crisis

Intervention. Vol.1, No. 2. pp.-155–166.

School Board News (2001). "Assessing Bomb Threats."

Issues in Education (April 23, 2001).

www.nyssba.org/adnews/issues/issues042301.htm.

South Carolina Department of Education (2000). "School

Crime Incident Report."

www.myscschools.com/reports/crime00/#Top%20Te

n%20Crimes.
56 Bomb Threats in Schools

Smith, S., T. Kress, E. Fenstemaker, M. Ballard, and G.

Hyder (2001). "Crisis Management Preparedness of

School Districts in Three Southern States in the USA."

Safety Science, 39, 83–92.

Tunkel, Ronald F. (2002). "Bomb threat assessments-Focus

on School Violence." The FBI Law Enforcement

Bulletin, October.

U.S. Department of Education (2000). Safeguarding Our

Children: An Action Guide: Implementing Early Warning,

Timely Response. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Education.

Vossekuil, B., R. Fein, M. Reddy, R. Borum, and W.

Modzeleski (2002). The Final Report and Findings of the

Safe School Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of School

Attacks in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education.

www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf.

Wilson, D., D. Gottfredson and S. Najaka (2001). "School

Based Prevention of Problem Behaviors: A MetAnalysis." Journal of Quantitative Criminology. Vol. 17,

No. 3.
About the Author 57

About the Author

Graeme R. Newman 

Graeme R. Newman is a distinguished teaching professor at the

School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, State University of

New York. He has published works in the fields of the history and

philosophy of punishment, comparative criminal justice, private

security, situational crime prevention, and ecommerce crime, and has

written commercial software. He was the CEO of a publishing

company for 15 years and, in 1990, established the United Nations

Crime and Justice Information Network. Among the books he has

written or edited are Superhighway Robbery: Preventing Ecommerce Crime

(with Ronald V. Clarke), and Rational Choice and Situational Crime

Prevention (with Ronald V. Clarke and Shlomo Shoham).

Recommended Readings 59

Recommended Readings

• A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their

Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This

guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners

to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying

public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It

provides guidance on whether and how to conduct costeffective surveys.

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An

Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers, by

John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide is

a companion to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series. It

provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing

problem-oriented policing efforts.

• Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel

(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with

accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic

pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The

document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.

• Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke

(Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of

volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing

opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of

initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems.
60 Bomb Threats in Schools

• Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing:The 1999

Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This document

produced by the National Institute of Justice in

collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum

provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the

annual award program that recognizes exemplary problemoriented responses to various community problems. A

similar publication is available for the award winners from

subsequent years. The documents are also available at

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

• Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime

Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office

Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and

describes the factors that make problem-solving effective or

ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in

England and Wales.

• Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory for

Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V.

Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98,

1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity

theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory have

practical implications for the police in their efforts to

prevent crime.

• Problem Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police

Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem

analysis and provides guidance on how problem analysis

can be integrated and institutionalized into modern

policing practices.
Recommended Readings 61

• Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein

(McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990).

Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented

policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses

how a police agency can implement the concept.

• Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime

Prevention, by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice

Press, 2003). Provides a through review of significant

policing research about problem places, high-activity

offenders, and repeat victims, with a focus on the

applicability of those findings to problem-oriented

policing. Explains how police departments can facilitate

problem-oriented policing by improving crime analysis,

measuring performance, and securing productive

partnerships.

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the

First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,

2000). Describes how the most critical elements of

Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have

developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes

future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report

is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

• Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in

Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman

(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the

rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the

problem-solving process, and provides examples of

effective problem-solving in one agency.
62 Bomb Threats in Schools

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime

and Disorder Through Problem-Solving

Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott

Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services, 1998) (also available at

www.cops.usdoj.gov). Provides a brief introduction to

problem-solving, basic information on the SARA model

and detailed suggestions about the problem-solving process.

• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case

Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke

(Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and

methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over

20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives.

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems:

Case Studies in Problem-Solving, by Rana Sampson

and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available

at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case studies of effective

police problem-solving on 18 types of crime and disorder

problems.

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook

for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for

police to analyzing problems within the context of

problem-oriented policing.

• Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement

Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G.

LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains

many of the basics of research as it applies to police

management and problem-solving.
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 63

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides series:

1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-02-9

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes.

Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-07-X

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V.

Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-16-9

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel.

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5
64 Bomb Threats in Schools

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly.

Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003.

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004.

ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A.

Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2

24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 2004.

ISBN: 1-932582-33-9

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-35-3

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glensor and Kenneth J. Peak.

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-39-8

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004.

ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004.

ISBN: 1-932582-43-6

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005.

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike

Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005.

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

Response Guides series:

• The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns.

Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

• Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should You Go

Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-41-X
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 65

Problem-Solving Tools series:

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Domestic Violence

Mentally Ill Persons

Robbery of Taxi Drivers

Student Party Disturbances on College Campuses

Vandalism and Break-Ins at Schools

Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places

Drunk Driving

Bank Robbery

Witness Intimidation

Drive-by Shootings

Runaway Juveniles

Exploitation of Trafficked Women

Disorderly Day Laborers in Public Places

Child Pornography

Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues

Traffic Congestion Around Schools

Problem-Solving Tools

Analyzing Repeat Victimization

Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem-Solving

Risky Facilities

Response Guides

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
66 Bomb Threats in Schools

Other Related COPS Office Publications

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook

for Law Enforcement. Timothy S. Bynum.

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First

20 Years. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems:

Case Studies in Problem-Solving. Rana Sampson and

Michael S. Scott. 2000.

• Community Policing, Community Justice, and

Restorative Justice: Exploring the Links for the

Delivery of a Balanced Approach to Public Safety.

Caroline G. Nicholl. 1999.

• Toolbox for Implementing Restorative Justice and

Advancing Community Policing. Caroline G. Nicholl.

2000.

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing

Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving

Partnerships. Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott

Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. 1998.

• Bringing Victims into Community Policing. The

National Center for Victims of Crime and the Police

Foundation. 2002.

• Call Management and Community Policing. Tom

McEwen, Deborah Spence, Russell Wolff, Julie Wartell

and Barbara Webster. 2003.

• Crime Analysis in America. Timothy C. O’Shea and

Keith Nicholls. 2003.

• Problem Analysis in Policing. Rachel Boba. 2003.

• Reducing Theft at Construction Sites: Lessons

From a Problem-Oriented Project. Ronald V. Clarke

and Herman Goldstein. 2003.
Appendix 67

• The COPS Collaboration Toolkit: How to Build,

Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships. Gwen O.

Briscoe, Anna T. Laszlo and Tammy A. Rinehart.

2001.

• The Law Enforcement Tech Guide: How to plan,

purchase and manage technology (successfully!).

Kelly J. Harris and William H. Romesburg. 2002.

• Theft From Cars in Center City Parking 

Facilities - A Case Study. Ronald V. Clarke and

Herman Goldstein. 2003.

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for

Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call

the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit

COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.


FOR MORE INFORMATION:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below.

e11042622 Created Date: February 16, 2005

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0