U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

33–941 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

PROTECTING OUR FUTURE: ADDRESSING SCHOOL 

SECURITY CHALLENGES IN AMERICA 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, 

RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 9, 2018 

Serial No. 115–69 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 


Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

WILL HURD, Texas 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

RON ESTES, Kansas 

DON BACON, Nebraska 

DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York 

J. LUIS CORREA, California 

VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida 

NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGA ́ N, California 

BRENDAN P. SHIELDS, Staff Director 

STEVEN S. GIAIER, General Counsel 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

HOPE GOINS, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND 

COMMUNICATIONS 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York, Chairman 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas (ex officio) 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (ex officio) 

KERRY A. KINIRONS, Subcommittee Staff Director 

MOIRA BERGIN, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director/Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., a Representative in Congress From 

the State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 3 

The Honorable Donald M. Payne, Jr., a Representative in Congress From 

the State of New Jersey, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 5 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 5 

WITNESSES 

PANEL I 

Mr. Jason Botel, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8 

Mr. Alan R. Hanson, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office 

of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 12 

Mr. Robert Kolasky, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Infrastructure Protection, National Protection and Programs Directorate, U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16 

PANEL II 

Mr. Jared M. Maples, Director, Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, State of New Jersey: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 30 

Mr. Ben Castillo, Director, Office of School Preparedness and Emergency 

Planning, Department of Education, State of New Jersey: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 32 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 35 

Ms. Jeanne Hengemuhle, Commanding Officer, Division of Human Resources 

Section, New Jersey State Police: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 37 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 39 

Mr. Timothy P. Gerity, President, New Jersey Association of School Resource 

Officers: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 41 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 42 

Page

IV 

Mr. Michael Reilly, President, Community Education Council 31, Staten Island, New York: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 45 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 48 

FOR THE RECORD 

The Honorable Donald M. Payne, Jr., a Representative in Congress From 

the State of New Jersey, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications: 

Letter from the National Education Association ............................................... 21 

Statement of the New Jersey School Boards Association ................................. 21 

APPENDIX 

Questions From Ranking Member Donald M. Payne, Jr. for Jason Botel .......... 63 

Questions From Ranking Member Donald M. Payne, Jr. for Alan R. Hanson ... 64 

Questions From Ranking Member Donald M. Payne, Jr. for Robert Kolasky ... 64 

(1) 

PROTECTING OUR FUTURE: ADDRESSING 

SCHOOL SECURITY CHALLENGES IN AMERICA 

Monday, July 9, 2018 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, Newark, NJ. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:04 a.m., in the 

Agile Strategy Lab, Room L70, Central King Building, New Jersey 

Institute of Technology, 100 Summit Street, Newark, NJ, Hon. 

Daniel M. Donovan, Jr. [Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Donovan [presiding] and Payne. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications will come to order. 

The subcommittee is meeting today to examine efforts to enhance 

school security. I appreciate the effort taken on behalf of all those 

involved to have this important field hearing take place, and I 

want to thank the New Jersey Institute of Technology for hosting 

us today. 

I also want to thank my colleague and my friend, Don Payne, 

whose home town we are conducting this hearing in, for his concern for our children, particularly since I am the father of a 3-yearold. Don’s concern is my concern, as it is all the people here today. 

So thank you, my friend, for leading us here today for this important hearing. 

This is an official Congressional hearing, so we must abide by 

certain rules of the Committee on Homeland Security and the 

House of Representatives. I kindly wish to remind our guests today 

that demonstrations from the audience, including applause and 

verbal outbursts, as well as any use of signs or placards, are a violation of the rules of the House of Representatives. It is important 

that we respect the decorum and the rules of this committee. I 

have also been requested to state that photography and cameras 

are limited to accredited press only. 

I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

School may be out for the summer, but for parents, the security 

of their children while at school is never far from their minds. No 

parent should drop off a child at school and fear for his or her safety. But, unfortunately, we have seen too many incidents of violence 

at our schools this year alone. 

Securing our educational institutions and ensuring a safe, 

healthy, and productive learning environment for our children is a 

2 

priority for me and for all of our witnesses here today, along with 

Mr. Payne. 

Whether it be a grant funding, guidance, technical assistance, 

threat and vulnerability assessments, training, or exercises, the 

Federal Government has a number of resources available to support States and localities as they work to secure our schools. 

Working together in the aftermath of the tragedy at Sandy Hook, 

Federal agencies developed the Guide for Developing High Quality 

School Emergency Operations Plans. Protective Security Advisors 

from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Infrastructure Protection have completed more than 1,000 visits with K–12 

schools to discuss security. 

In light of the recent tragedies in Florida and Texas, Federal 

agencies have taken an ‘‘all hands on deck’’ approach to this issue 

and have made a concerted effort to better coordinate the resources 

available for schools, including through the Federal Commission on 

School Safety. 

The Fiscal Year 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act provided more than $2 billion in funding for grants that can be used to enhance the security of our schools through the Title IV grants at the 

Department of Education, STOP School Violence Act grants at the 

Department of Justice, or Homeland Security Grant Program at 

the Department of Homeland Security. However, I am concerned 

that the States and localities may not be aware that these funds 

exist or that they may be used to enhance school security. 

This subcommittee has a history of working together, including 

on this very important issue. Along with one of my predecessors, 

the Ranking Member requested a review of Federal efforts to assist 

K–12 schools in conducting emergency planning and addressing security needs. Last Congress, he and I requested a follow-up review 

of efforts to assist institutions of higher education to address security needs. Both reports acknowledged the work that the Departments of Education, Justice, and Homeland Security are doing to 

support schools. However, they found that, in many cases, there 

was a lack of awareness of availability of resources and a need to 

better coordinate Federal efforts. 

I am eager to learn more about how the three Federal agencies 

represented here today are working to coordinate the various forms 

of assistance so that they will be most beneficial to our State and 

local partners. I am also interested in how these agencies are conducting outreach to educate our State and local partners on these 

resources. 

Efforts to secure schools must begin at the local level, and I 

know that States and localities across the country have taken steps 

to address this important issue, including through security enhancements in school buildings, the assignment of school resource 

officers, increased information sharing with law enforcement, training and exercises. It will be beneficial to hear about the innovative 

practices our second panel of witnesses are undertaking to provide 

security in their areas. 

I am looking forward to our dialog today and the opportunity to 

work together to ensure the safety and security of all of our children. 

[The statement of Chairman Donovan follows:] 

3 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR. 

JULY 9, 2018 

School may be out for the summer, but for parents, the security of their children 

while at school is never far from their minds. No parent should drop off a child at 

school and fear for his or her safety. But, unfortunately, we have seen too many 

incidents of violence at our schools this year alone. 

Securing our educational institutions and ensuring a safe, healthy, and productive 

learning environment for our kids is a priority for me and for all of our witnesses 

here today. 

Whether it be grant funding, guidance, technical assistance, threat and vulnerability assessments, training, or exercises, the Federal Government has a number 

of resources available to support States and localities as they work to secure our 

schools. 

Working together in the aftermath of the tragedy at Sandy Hook, Federal agencies developed the Guide for Developing High Quality School Emergency Operations 

Plans. Protective Security Advisors from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Infrastructure Protection have completed more than 1,000 visits with K–12 

schools to discuss security. 

In light of the recent tragedies in Florida and Texas, Federal agencies have taken 

an ‘‘all hands on deck’’ approach to this issue and have made a concerted effort to 

better coordinate the resources available for schools, including through the Federal 

Commission on School Safety. 

The Fiscal Year 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act provided more than $2 billion in funding for grants that can be used to enhance the security of our schools: 

Through the Title IV grants at the Department of Education, STOP School Violence 

Act grants at the Department of Justice, or Homeland Security Grant Program at 

the Department of Homeland Security. 

However, I am concerned that States and localities may not be aware that these 

funds exist or that they may be used to enhance school security. 

This subcommittee has a history of working together, including on this very important issue. Along with one of my predecessors, the Ranking Member requested 

a review of Federal efforts to assist K–12 schools in conducting emergency planning 

and addressing security needs. Last Congress, he and I requested a follow-on review 

of efforts to assist institutions of higher education address security needs. Both reports acknowledged the work that the Departments of Education, Justice, and 

Homeland Security are doing to support schools. However, they found that, in many 

cases, there was a lack of awareness of available resources and a need to better coordinate Federal efforts. 

I am eager to learn more about how the three Federal agencies represented here 

today are working to coordinate the various forms of assistance so they are most 

beneficial to our State and local partners. I am also interested in how these agencies 

are conducting outreach to educate our State and local partners on these resources. 

Efforts to secure schools must begin at the local level and I know that States and 

localities across the country have taken steps to address this important issue, including through security enhancements to school buildings, the assignment of school 

resource officers, increased information sharing with law enforcement, training, and 

exercises. It will be beneficial to hear about the innovative practices our second 

panel of witnesses are undertaking to provide security in their areas. 

I am looking forward to our dialog today and the opportunity to work together 

to ensure the safety and security of our children. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member, my 

friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, for any statement that he may have. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for agreeing first to hold 

this hearing today in northern New Jersey in my Congressional 

district, in my home town. As a parent of triplets, the concerns regarding school security have kept me up many nights. Tragically, 

school violence has taken the lives of far too many American children. It has been 19 years since the Columbine High School massacre which left 13 victims dead, and sadly, our children are still 

incredibly vulnerable while attending school. Unfortunately, there 

4 

has been a significant uptick in violence in our Nation’s schools in 

the last 2 decades. 

The 2012 Sandy Hook shooting left a staggering 20 children and 

6 adults dead, yet Congress fell short of passing legislation to combat gun violence in schools. 

This year there was about one school shooting a week in this 

country, including the shooting in Marjory Stoneham Douglas High 

School in Parkland, Florida that left 14 children and 3 teachers 

dead. Still, the response from Congress and the Trump administration has been lacking. 

Beyond making more grant funding available, Congress has done 

little to address the issue of keeping guns out of the hands of bad 

actors targeting schools. Even funding is not guaranteed. As we 

speak, the House Appropriations Committee is planning to consider 

an education spending bill that would cut school safety spending by 

$110 million. The idea of cutting financial support around school 

security amid the uptick in violence in and around schools is unconscionable. It is also worth noting that these proposed cuts come 

at a time when Congress is increasing spending for its own security. I hope my Homeland Security Committee colleagues will join 

me in opposing the cuts to school security funding. 

I hope to hear today from our witnesses about what Congress 

needs to respond to the threat of school violence with the urgency 

needed. Additionally, in looking at the issue of school safety, we 

need to be mindful that many children in urban settings experience 

safety threats daily which impacts their school performance. We 

need to incorporate threat of violence to children in urban areas 

into the conversation of school safety. 

I have introduced legislation, H.R. 3613, the Safer Neighborhoods Gun Buy-Back Act of 2017, to address neighborhood violence 

and to keep weapons off the streets. I would welcome the support 

of all the Members on this important bill. 

While many challenges remain at the Federal level, I am pleased 

to say that New Jersey is one of the leading States in school safety. 

New Jersey has implemented all the major security measures identified by the Secure Schools Alliance. Further, New Jersey has recently passed a series of gun safety measures, making it a leader 

in gun reform. It is my hope that New Jersey will continue to set 

the example in this area. 

In my time on the committee, this is the first hearing that we 

have had on this issue of school safety. Mr. Chairman, I hope we 

can continue to work together to ensure that our committee will 

see this issue as a homeland security priority. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for attending today’s hearing. 

I look forward to hearing what each of you are doing to address 

and further protect children in all communities around the country 

facing challenges around school violence. We must do more to protect the next generation. This country and communities like the 

ones I serve are counting on us. 

With that, I yield back. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Payne follows:] 

5 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER DONALD M. PAYNE, JR. 

JULY 9, 2018 

As a parent of triplets, the concerns regarding school security has kept me up 

many nights. Tragically, school violence has taken the lives of far too many American children. It has been 19 years since the Columbine High School massacre, 

which left 13 victims dead, and sadly our children are still incredibly vulnerable 

while attending school. 

Unfortunately, there has been a significant uptick in violence in our Nation’s 

schools in the last 2 decades. The 2012 Sandy Hook shooting left a staggering 20 

children and 6 adults dead, yet Congress fell short of passing legislation to combat 

gun violence in schools. This year, there was about 1 school shooting a week in this 

country, including the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida that left 14 children and 3 teachers dead. Still, the response from Congress and the Trump administration has been lacking. 

Beyond making more grant funding available, Congress has done little to address 

the issue of keeping guns out of the hands of bad actors targeting schools. Even 

funding is not guaranteed. As we speak, the House Appropriations Committee is 

planning to consider an education spending bill that would cut school safety pending 

by $110 million. 

The idea of cutting financial support around school security amid the uptick in 

violence in and around schools is unconscionable. It is also worth noting that these 

proposed cuts come at a time when Congress is increasing spending for its own security. I hope my Homeland Security Committee colleagues will join me in opposing 

cuts to school security funding. I hope to hear today from our witnesses about what 

Congress needs to respond to the threat of school violence with the urgency needed. 

Additionally, in looking at the issue of school safety, we need to be mindful that 

many children in urban settings experience safety threats daily, which impacts their 

school performance. We need to incorporate violence and the threat of violence children experience in urban areas into the conversation of school safety. 

I have introduced legislation (H.R. 3613, the Safer Neighborhoods Gun Buyback 

Act of 2017) to address neighborhood violence and keep weapons off the streets. I 

would welcome the support of all Members on this important bill. 

While many challenges remain at the Federal level, I am pleased to say that New 

Jersey is one of the leading States in school safety. New Jersey has implemented 

all the major school security measures identified by the Secure Schools Alliance. 

Further, New Jersey has recently passed a series of gun safety measures, making 

it a leader in gun reform. It is my hope that New Jersey will continue to set the 

example in this area. 

In my time on the committee this is the first hearing that we have had on the 

issue of school safety. Mr. Chairman, I hope we can continue to work together to 

ensure that our committee will see this issue as a homeland security priority. 

I thank all the witnesses for attending today’s hearing. I look forward to hearing 

what each of you are doing to address and further protect children in all communities around the country facing challenges around school violence. We must do 

more to protect the next generation. This country and communities, like the ones 

I serve, are counting on us. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The gentleman yields. 

Although we are the only two Members of Congress here, Members of the committee may be submitting opening statements and 

questions, and they may be submitted for the record. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON

JULY 9, 2018 

Good morning. I would like to thank the Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking 

Member for holding today’s hearing on school security. 

School violence continues to take the lives of so many young people, leaving behind devastated families and communities. Unfortunately, Congress has refused to 

address this issue head-on, despite the devastating increase in school shootings over 

the last 20 years, including at least 1 shooting about every week of the 2018 school 

year. 

In the aftermath of the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglass High School in 

Parkland, Florida, where 17 people were killed, President Trump made several proVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:28 Jan 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\115TH CONGRESS\18EP0709\18EP0709 HEATH
6 

posals geared toward improving school preparedness. One of those proposals called 

for the establishment of a Federal Commission on School Safety, a group comprised 

of Cabinet Secretaries tasked with developing school safety strategies. 

Predictably, the Trump administration’s school safety commission has stated that 

it will not study how access to guns affects school violence, which is completely 

senseless. Why are we wasting time discussing school violence when the Federal 

Commission on School Safety will not engage on the common factor in every catastrophic school shooting? The Commission’s willful ignorance has caused students 

and parents alike to criticize the Commission’s efforts. I hope that the administration will wake up and reconsider its stance on research guns and school violence. 

In the mean time, Congress needs to do its part to protect children in schools, 

which includes making sure there are adequate resources for communities to combat 

school violence and enacting common-sense gun safety legislation. I hope today’s 

hearing will serve a launching point for meaningful action in school safety and security by the Committee on Homeland Security. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and learning how Congress 

can be a better partner in solving the tragic problem of school violence. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. DONOVAN. We are pleased to have two distinguished panels 

of witnesses before us today on this important topic. 

The first panel includes Mr. Jason Botel, principal deputy assistant secretary of the Department of Education’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Welcome, sir. 

Mr. Alan Hanson, principal deputy assistant attorney general in 

the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs. Welcome, 

sir. 

Mr. Robert Kolasky, deputy assistant secretary for the Office of 

Infrastructure Protection in the Department of Homeland Security’s National Protection and Programs Directorate. Welcome, sir. 

Thank you all for being here today. The witnesses’ full written 

testimony will appear in the record. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Botel to testify in his opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF JASON BOTEL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Mr. BOTEL. Thank you, Chairman Donovan and Ranking Member Payne. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today to share what we at the U.S. Department of Education are 

doing to help States, school districts, and schools keep our children 

safe. 

The violent incidents occurring in our Nation’s schools in recent 

months and years, as Secretary DeVos has observed, are ‘‘devastating reminders that our Nation must come together to address 

the underlying issues that create a culture of violence.’’ Today, I 

am here to share what the Department has been doing to promote 

school safety and security and what we have learned about what 

works. 

First, over the past 5 years, following the terrible tragedy at 

Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the Department has maintained a portfolio of competitive grant programs 

designed to help States and school districts improve school climate 

and safety. Thanks to Congress, which provided increased funding 

for school safety in fiscal year 2018, later this summer we will 

make new awards under two of these programs. 

7 

First, we expect to make grants to States for school emergency 

management to an estimated 16 States. These grants will build 

State and local capacity to develop and implement high-quality 

school emergency operations plans. 

Second, the Department will make new State-level school climate 

transformation grants to provide technical assistance and other 

support for local implementation of evidence-based behavioral practices to improve school climate and behavioral outcomes for all students. 

You also will be pleased to know that on July 1, we awarded $1.1 

billion in State formula grants under the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants authorized by Title IV, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA. This was a $700 

million increase over the $400 million provided for Title IV, Part 

A in fiscal year 2017, and will provide nearly every school district 

in the country the significant new resources that can be used for 

locally-determined school safety activities. 

To support these efforts, the Department is developing additional 

guidance on how States, districts, and schools can use Title IV, 

Part A funds to promote school safety and security. In addition, the 

Department’s senior leadership has been personally involved in 

reaching out to schools and communities affected by violence. For 

example, after the tragic school shooting at Marjory Stoneham 

Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, Secretary DeVos met 

with the superintendent and principal to offer support from the Department. Following the shootings at Santa Fe High School in 

Texas, Deputy Secretary Mick Zais and I made a similar visit to 

meet with the superintendent and principal in Santa Fe. In each 

case, the Department followed up with material support, making 

$1 million awards to both districts under our Project SERV program, which helps districts and schools restore the learning environment following a traumatic natural disaster or violent incident. 

Most importantly, at least for our long-term efforts to reduce the 

incidence of school violence and keep students safe, the President 

established the Federal Commission on School Safety, which is responsible for providing evidence-based actionable recommendations 

to keep students safe and secure at school. Under Secretary DeVos’ 

leadership, the Commission held its initial meeting on March 28 

and immediately arranged a series of meetings, field visits, and listening sessions that over the past 3 months have generated input 

from students, parents, teachers, school safety personnel, administrators, law enforcement officials, mental health professionals, 

school counselors, security professionals, and researchers. These 

sessions have explored evidence-based and promising approaches to 

safety and security that include building the social-emotional competencies of students and staff, developing student character, preventing bullying via social media, engaging school safety personnel 

in schools, studying the effects of violent entertainment and media 

coverage of mass shootings, and improving school climate. 

At the Commission’s request, the Department also is considering 

conducting a survey of all State educational agencies on how they 

are complying with the Unsafe School Choice option requirement in 

Section 8532 of the ESEA. This long-standing provision of law requires each State to have a State-wide policy that any student who 

8 

attends a persistently dangerous school or who is the victim of a 

violent crime while on school grounds be allowed to transfer to a 

safe public school in the same school district. Such a survey could 

help highlight both weaknesses and best practices related to implementation of this important provision of the ESEA while also helping to identify ways that the Department can and should provide 

technical assistance in this area. 

The Commission will continue to collect information and data 

over the next few months on evidence-based interventions and best 

practices in a wide range of areas related to school climate and student safety. Commission members then will review this information, identify the most promising and actionable recommendations 

for State and local leaders responsible for school safety, and deliver 

its final report to the President. 

The Department of Education will always stand ready to do everything possible to help districts and schools recover from violent 

incidents. However, as the President has recognized in creating the 

Commission, our goal must be to prevent further violence in our 

schools. This hearing is yet another demonstration that Congress 

shares this goal, and I am confident that by working together with 

State and local leaders across the Nation, we will be successful in 

achieving it. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to discuss this important 

issue. I look forward to answering any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Botel follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JASON BOTEL

Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and other Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to share what 

we at the U.S. Department of Education are doing to help States, school districts, 

and schools keep our children safe. 

Mass violent incidents occurring in our Nation’s schools in recent months and 

years, as Secretary DeVos noted, are ‘‘devastating reminders that our Nation must 

come together to address the underlying issues that create a culture of violence.’’ 

Today, I am here to share what the Department has been doing to promote school 

safety and security and what we have learned about what works. 

First, with the support of Congress, for several years the Department of Education has been actively supporting States and school districts in promoting school 

safety and security, including: 

• Since 2014, funding States with the Grants to States for School Emergency 

Management Program to increase their capacity to assist districts in developing 

and implementing high-quality school emergency operations plans. Funding has 

been provided to 26 States thus far. States that have not previously received 

a grant under this program will receive a priority for a grant in fiscal year 

2018. We expect to make 16 new awards. 

• Since 2014, funding 12 States and 71 districts with School Climate Transformation Grants that support evidence-based behavioral practices to improve 

school climate and behavioral outcomes for all students, a key aspect to violence 

prevention. 

• Since 2014, funding 22 school districts with Project Prevent Grants to increase 

their capacity to identify, assess, and serve students who have been exposed to 

pervasive violence; help to ensure that affected students are offered mental 

health services for trauma or anxiety; support conflict resolution programs; and 

implement other school-based violence prevention strategies that will reduce the 

likelihood that students will commit violent acts in the future. 

• Over the past 3 years, funding more than 30 awards to States, school districts, 

and institutions of higher education with Project School Emergency Response 

to Violence (SERV) grants to help restore the learning environment after it has 

been disrupted by a violent or traumatic crisis, including to support the provision of mental health services after a learning environment has been disrupted 

by violence or an otherwise traumatic crisis. 

9 

• Over the past 8 years, funding to the National Center on Safe Supportive 

Learning Environments to provide technical assistance and support to States, 

school districts, and schools across this country in helping to provide safe and 

healthy school environments that prevent substance abuse, support student academic success, and prevent violence. Specifically, the Center supports States, 

school districts, and schools in using the U.S. Department of Education School 

Climate Surveys, a suite of free, high-quality and adaptable school climate surveys and an associated web-based platform. The School Climate Surveys measure 5 areas of school safety that can be used to assess school safety needs. • Since 2004, funding the Readiness Emergency Management for Schools (REMS) 

Technical Assistance Center, which supports school districts, schools, and institutions of higher education across the country in preventing, protecting, mitigating, responding, recovering from emergencies, and school shootings. The 

REMS Technical Assistance Center has guided emergency planning and helped 

schools consider what technologies are available and the role of security personnel. 

Second, since the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was signed into law, the 

Department has been planning for and actively implementing the Title IV, Part A, 

Student Support and Academic Enrichment program. This program is intended to 

improve students’ academic achievement by increasing the capacity of State educational agencies, local educational agencies, and local communities to provide all 

students with access to a well-rounded education; improve school conditions, including school safety and security, for student learning; and improve the use of technology to improve the academic achievement and digital literacy of all students. The 

Department issued non-regulatory guidance on Title IV, Part A, in 2016 that addressed issues relating to improving school conditions for learning, and we are currently developing additional guidance on how States, districts, and schools can use 

Title IV, Part A funds to promote school safety and security. 

Third, after the tragic school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School 

in Parkland, Florida, Secretary DeVos met with the school superintendent and principal to offer support from the Department. Deputy Secretary Mick Zais and I visited Santa Fe High School in Texas to meet with the superintendent and principal 

to do the same. After visits to Parkland and Santa Fe, the Department provided 

SERV Grants, in the amount of $1 million each, to both school districts. 

Soon after the Parkland shooting, the President established the Federal Commission on School Safety and appointed Secretary Betsy DeVos as chair of the Commission. The Commission is responsible for providing meaningful and actionable recommendations to keep students safe and secure at school. By way of a series of formal meetings, listening sessions, and field visits, the members of the Commission 

are gathering information from a long list of stakeholders including students, parents, teachers, school safety personnel, administrators, law enforcement officials, 

mental health professionals, school counselors, security professionals, and researchers. 

The Commission held an organizational meeting on March 28, 2018 and arranged 

a series of meetings, site visits, and listening sessions which have occurred over the 

last several months. Formal Commission meetings provide a forum for presentations 

from subject-matter experts, individuals affected by school violence, and other key 

stakeholders. Listening sessions provide opportunities for the public to be heard and 

provide recommendations to the Commission. Field visits involve travel to schools 

and other sites to observe and learn first-hand about current best practices in school 

safety. 

On May 17, 2018, the Commission hosted a discussion to learn from survivors and 

family members affected by the mass shootings at Columbine High School, Virginia 

Tech University, Sandy Hook Elementary School, and Marjory Stoneman Douglas 

High School, in addition to authors of official reports following incidents of school 

violence. 

The first field visit occurred on May 31, 2018, at Frank Hebron-Harman Elementary School in Hanover, MD. Commission members and their representatives heard 

from administrators, principals, teachers, students, and a National expert about 

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), a framework designed to improve social, emotional, and academic outcomes for all students. 

On June 6, 2018, the Commission hosted a public listening session at the Department’s headquarters. In total, 62 individuals shared their views on school safety. 

The forum was broadcasted on-line, and information was publicized on how members of the public can share additional comments with the Commission. 

On June 21, 2018, the Commission held a formal meeting at the White House. 

The meeting titled, ‘‘The Ecology of Schools: Fostering a Culture of Human Flourishing and Developing Charter,’’ featured three different panels of experts focusing 

10 

on effects of entertainment, media, cyber bullying and social media on violence and 

student safety. 

On June 26, 2018, in Lexington, Kentucky, the Commission conducted roundtable 

discussions with State and local officials as well as gathered information from the 

public on how schools, districts, institutions of higher education, and other local and 

State government agencies can improve school safety. 

These sessions have explored evidence-based and promising approaches to school 

safety and security that include: 

• Building the social emotional competencies of students and staff 

• Developing student character 

• Preventing bullying via social media 

• Engaging school safety personnel in schools 

• Studying the effects of violent entertainment and media coverage of mass shootings, and 

• Improving school climate. 

At the Commission’s request, the Department is also considering a survey to all 

State educational agencies on how they are complying with the Unsafe School 

Choice Option requirement in section 8532 of ESSA, which requires that each State 

that receives funds under ESSA (and all States choose to do so) have a State-wide 

policy that any student who attends a ‘‘persistently dangerous’’ school, or who is the 

victim of a violent crime while on school grounds, be allowed to attend a safe public 

school in the same school district. A review of States’ Unsafe School Choice Option 

policies is necessary to ensure that State policies are consistent with the law’s requirements and to identify ways that the Department can and should provide technical assistance in this area. 

The information and data collected will inform the Commission’s recommendations and best practices, which will be included in the final report. 

Based on the best available research and experience from implementing these activities, the Department has learned that prevention is key: Schools need to be prepared and provide needed student supports. For example, we have received reports 

from school district leaders that while schools may have experienced a traumatic incident, the emergency planning training they received from the REMS TA Center 

helped prevent or lessen the trauma the school experienced had they not been prepared to respond to these incidents. 

Working to improve school climate, build social emotional skills and provide access to mental health services; knowing the signs of youth violence; and being prepared with emergency protocols can help to identify and reduce safety and security 

risks in schools. Through the activities I have described today, we will continue to 

work tirelessly with our State and local school partners to ensure that children are 

safe and secure when they are at school. 

Thank you again for providing an opportunity for us to discuss this important 

issue. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hanson for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN R. HANSON, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. HANSON. Thank you, Chairman Donovan, and thank you, 

Ranking Member Payne. It is a privilege to be here in Newark to 

tell you about the research and grant programs we are supporting 

at the Department of Justice to prevent and reduce school violence. 

My name is Alan Hanson, and I am the principal deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Justice Programs. OJP is the 

funding, policy, research, and statistical arm of the Justice Department. We work closely with our partners at the COPS Office to 

support State, local, and Tribal public safety efforts. As you will 

hear, OJP and the COPS Office are devoting substantial resources 

to addressing the crisis of school violence in America. 

First of all, I commend the Members of this committee for appreciating the urgency of this issue and for taking steps to meet the 

challenges our schools and communities are facing. Congress has 

11 

already taken a very important step by including the Students, 

Teachers, and Officers Preventing School Violence Act, also known 

as the STOP School Violence Act, in this spring’s omnibus spending 

bill. 

As you well know, the Act authorizes funds to address school vio- lence and improve school security. Of the $75 million appropriated 

under the law, $50 million will be administered by OJP’s Bureau 

of Justice Assistance in the form of grants through States, local 

units of government, and Tribal governments. The balance of the 

funding is being administered by the COPS Office. 

BJA recently released two grant solicitations: No. 1, the BJA 

STOP Prevention Training and Response to Mental Health Crisis 

Program, which will train teachers to prevent student violence 

against others and self and provide specialized training for school 

officials and responding to mental health crises; it will also provide 

education to students with the intent to prevent violence against 

others and self. 

The second program, the BJA STOP Threat Assessment and 

Technology Reporting Program, will help States, communities, and 

Tribes develop threat assessments and create crisis intervention 

teams. Additionally under this program, projects will be funded to 

develop and implement anonymous reporting methods such as mobile applications, hotlines, or websites. 

We are requiring that these programs be evidence-based and involve cooperation with law enforcement, and we plan to distribute 

grants evenly across geographic regions. Grantees will be required 

to put up a 25 percent cash or in-kind match. Federal resources 

will fund the other 75 percent of each project. The $25 million being administered by the COPS Office will go 

toward helping States, Tribes, and units of local government purchase equipment and technology, provide training, and take other 

measures to improve school security. These new investments will 

build on previous COPS efforts which have included funding for almost 7,400 school resource officers across the country. 

It is important to mention that OJP has already been working 

to understand the causes of school violence and to find researchbased solutions to school violence problems. Our National Institute 

of Justice has funded more than 90 research projects totaling nearly $250 million under the Comprehensive School Safety Initiative. 

These projects cover a wide range of topics, from threat assessments and school discipline to bullying, mental health, and effective use of school resource officers. More than half of these projects 

examine the impact of interventions on shootings and other forms 

of school violence. 

The first of these research grants were made in 2015, with most 

being carried out over a period of 3 to 5 years. We expect the first 

of the final reports to become available in 2019, with further releases in the 3 to 4 years that follow. Once they are available, we 

expect those findings to be an invaluable source of information for 

school administrators, law enforcement officials, and other practitioners. 

In the mean time, information on existing evidence-based school 

safety efforts is available at our research clearinghouse, 

CrimeSolutions.gov. 

12 

We are also carrying out research through NIJ’s Firearm Violence Portfolio. Several research programs are under way that we 

hope will give us a better understanding of mass violence and illegal firearm use by youth. Our goal is to develop evidence-based 

strategies that can be used by communities throughout the Nation. 

School violence has claimed too many lives and robbed our Nation of far too much potential. I am grateful to the committee’s efforts to secure the resources we need to tackle this challenge. DOJ 

is committed to protecting students, faculty, and staff, to making 

our schools the safe havens of learning that they were intended to 

be. 

I thank you for your time and look forward to answering any 

questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hanson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN R. HANSON

JULY 9, 2018 

Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, Members of the committee, thank 

you for this opportunity to discuss research-based approaches to preventing school 

violence and school safety grant programs administered by the Department of Justice (Department). My name is Alan Hanson, and I am the principal deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Justice Programs (OJP). 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018, enacted on March 23 of this year, 

included the Student, Teachers, and Officers Preventing (STOP) School Violence Act 

of 2018, which authorizes funds to address school violence and improve school security by providing students, school personnel, and community members with the tools 

they need to recognize, respond quickly to, and prevent acts of violence. 

OJP’s grant programs and initiatives that address school safety are administered 

by several components: The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

(OJJDP), and the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC). These offices collaborate with 

other Department components, like the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office, and Federal agencies to identify and develop school safety approaches, with the goal of reducing crime and ensuring public safety. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 also provides $75 million to the STOP School Violence Act program to address school violence. BJA received $50 million to provide grants to States, units of local government, and Indian tribes. These 

grants are used for the training of teachers and the education of students to prevent 

student violence, and to support threat assessments, crisis intervention teams, and 

the use of technology for anonymous reporting. The balance ($25 million) was provided to the COPS Office to provide grants for law enforcement training and coordination to prevent school violence and for a variety of school safety equipment (e.g., 

metal detectors, locks, lighting) and alerting technologies. 

To address the legislative goals of the STOP School Violence Act, OJP developed 

two solicitations. The first is the BJA STOP Prevention Training and Response to 

Mental Health Crisis Program and the second is the BJA STOP Threat Assessment 

and Technology Reporting Program. Both solicitations opened on June 7, 2018, with 

a closing date of July 23, 2018. 

The BJA STOP Prevention Training and Response to Mental Health Crisis Program will fund States, units of local government, and Federally-recognized Indian 

Tribes to provide training to teachers and administrators. The training will help 

teachers and administrators identify and react to potential acts of violence and situations that may involve mental health issues. The program will also help educate 

students on violence prevention measures. This could include reporting potential 

threats and situations that students believe could lead to acts of violence. 

The BJA STOP Threat Assessment and Technology Reporting Program will provide funding to States, units of local government, and Federally-recognized Indian 

Tribes to develop and conduct threat assessments and implement crisis intervention 

teams. These efforts will encourage cooperation and partnership with local/Tribal 

law enforcement and the community to assist with the proposed programs. Under 

this solicitation, grantees can apply for funds to develop and implement a reporting 

program that can include mobile applications, web-based programs, or hotlines intended to ensure that any individual reporting can remain anonymous. This techVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:28 Jan 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\115TH CONGRESS\18EP0709\18EP0709 HEATH
13 

1 Information on all CSSI-funded projects is available here: https://nij.gov/funding/awards/ 

pages/awards-list.aspx?tags=Comprehensive%20School%20Safety%20Initiative. 

nology may be useful in sharing vital data with law enforcement to prevent incidents. 

Funding under the COPS Office may be used for coordination with local and Tribal law enforcement; training for local and Tribal law enforcement officers to prevent 

school violence against others and self; the placement and use of metal detectors, 

locks, lighting and other deterrent measures, or target hardening; the acquisition 

and installation of technology for expedited notification of local and Tribal law enforcement during an emergency; and any other measures that may provide a significant improvement in security. 

The Act requires that grants be evidence-based and have, to the extent practicable, an equitable geographic distribution among the regions of the United States 

and among urban, suburban, and rural areas. To ensure that there is an equitable 

distribution, the BJA solicitations are organized by categories based on population. 

This allows applicants to be evaluated with others whose jurisdictions are similar 

in size and face similar challenges. The Act also states that the Federal Government 

can provide only 75 percent of the funding for each project, thus requiring a 25 percent cash or in-kind match. 

The Act stresses coordination and partnership with local and Tribal law enforcement and emphasizes evaluation as a program element. All programs must reflect 

an evidence-based approach. Performance measures will help the Department identify successful programs and practices that can be shared Nation-wide. 

Prior to the STOP School Violence programs created this year, NIJ was actively 

involved in school safety research. Since 2014, NIJ’s primary investments in school 

safety have been through the Comprehensive School Safety Initiative (CSSI). CSSI 

is a research-focused initiative designed to produce knowledge and identify evidencebased programs that can potentially benefit K–12 schools and school districts across 

the Nation for years to come. 

Congress first funded CSSI in 2014 in the wake of the tragic shooting at Sandy 

Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. Altogether, CSSI was funded from fiscal 

year 2014 to fiscal year 2017, and that funding resulted in more than 90 CSSI 

grant-funded projects totaling nearly $250 million. 

CSSI projects build on other research, supported by NIJ and others, to inform 

school safety efforts. CSSI projects cover a wide range of topics, including school 

shootings, threat assessment, school resource officers and police, mental and behavioral health, emergency operations planning, school discipline, bullying, technology, 

and school climate. Fifty-five percent of CSSI projects examine the impact of interventions on shootings and other forms of school violence. Rigorous research designs 

are a hallmark of these projects; almost half use randomized experimental designs.1

CSSI funding supports evaluations and research on the causes and consequences 

of school violence. CSSI projects, like any research-focused program, typically take 

3 to 5 years to complete, and to ensure that they produce scientifically valid results 

that can be translated into effective policy. The earliest projects started in 2015, and 

only a small number have reached completion; therefore, no final reports have yet 

been published. The first final reports will be available within the next year or so 

with others to follow in the next few years. 

NIJ maintains CrimeSolutions.gov to help practitioners and policy makers understand what works in justice-related programs and practices. CrimeSolutions.gov is 

a valuable tool for school administrators and others to have for a more comprehensive understanding about evidence-based school safety efforts. Because this information is not static, CrimeSolutions.gov will be continuously updated as results from 

CSSI projects and other research efforts become available. 

In addition to CSSI, two other NIJ research portfolios will contribute to our understanding about keeping students safe: (1) The NIJ firearm violence portfolio will 

contribute to our understanding of mass shooting incidents and perpetrators as well 

as the illegal use of firearms by youths; and (2) the NIJ victims of crime portfolio 

includes a study examining the short- and long-term impacts of school shootings. 

OVC has the capacity to support schools that wish to plan for, and need to respond to, mass violence and terrorism. Following any incident of mass violence, including school shootings, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Victim Services Division collaborates with OVC on emergency response as well as immediate and longterm community needs. OVC’s ‘‘Helping Victims of Mass Violence & Terrorism Toolkit’’ is a comprehensive resource to aid communities in the aftermath of incidents 

of mass violence. In addition, through OVC’s Training and Technical Assistance 

Center, consultants can provide free technical assistance for schools and communities to better prepare them for these incidents. 

14 

Through the Antiterrorism and Emergency Assistance Program (AEAP), OVC supports victims and jurisdictions that have experienced incidents of domestic terrorism 

or mass violence. In fact, OVC has made AEAP awards following incidents of mass 

shootings violence at Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook Elementary School. OVC is 

also in consultation regarding recent incidents that occurred in Parkland, Florida; 

Santa Fe, Texas; and Marshal County, Kentucky. 

OJJPD also funds Gang Resistance Education and Training, an evidence-based 

and effective gang and violence prevention program built around school-based, law 

enforcement officer-instructed classroom curricula. The Department’s National Gang 

Center, jointly funded by OJJDP and BJA, disseminates information, knowledge, 

and outcome-driven practices that engage and empower those in local communities 

with chronic and emerging gang problems. 

This information helps create comprehensive solutions to prevent gang violence, 

reduce gang involvement, and suppress gang-related crime. Additionally, OJJDP 

supported the International Association of Chiefs of Police in the development of a 

tool kit on Enhancing Police Responses to Children Exposed to Violence, which may 

be helpful to law enforcement officials addressing school shootings. 

The Department is also collaborating with other Federal agencies and continues 

to consult with key school safety stakeholders across the country to learn about 

what challenges they face when it comes to keeping their schools and students safe. 

Findings from NIJ-funded studies will inform our decisions on how to best design 

future programs and equip schools and communities with the necessary tools to address and avoid future tragedies. Our goal is to develop evidence-based programs 

and comprehensive strategies that can be replicated throughout the Nation. 

The Department’s commitment to ensuring safety in our schools remains a top 

priority. We are committed to addressing these issues and will continue to work 

with Congress, States, and communities to maintain supportive and safe environments for our children. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to discuss these programs, and I look forward to addressing your questions. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Hanson. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Kolasky for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT KOLASKY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION, NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. KOLASKY. Thank you. Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member 

Payne, thank you for today’s opportunity to testify before you regarding the Department of Homeland Security’s on-going efforts to 

improve school security and preparedness in the face of the horrific 

massacres that we have seen in Florida and Texas earlier this 

year. Protecting against such horrors must be part of homeland security. 

In America, children should not have to worry about their safety 

when in school, and yet our Nation has witnessed and mourned the 

deaths and injuries of dozens of students and teachers. This year 

alone, there have been two mass shootings—in Parkland, Florida 

and Santa Fe, Texas—that remind us that we must do more to protect our students. 

DHS’s primary mission is to safeguard the American people. As 

the acting assistant secretary for the Office of Infrastructure Protection and the National Protection Programs Directorate, I help 

lead National efforts to reduce the risk to the Nation’s critical infrastructure to include efforts to enhance security at commercial facilities and public gatherings around the country. These efforts 

have provided DHS with deep expertise and extensive capabilities 

around security that can be leveraged by schools to improve the 

safety of students and teachers. 

15 

While DHS does not and should not provide direct security to 

schools, we do support those organizations with direct missions to 

keep schools safe and secure. I have worked with critical infrastructure owners and operators, which has endowed us with the 

know-how to elevate the overall level of security around the country. We are using this experience to support a unified response to 

incidents and to better equip the community-level response when 

prevention efforts falter. 

We share our tools and knowledge with State, local, Tribal, and 

territorial partners, the law enforcement community, first responders, school administrators, teachers, students, parents, and other 

stakeholders who are directly connected to the Nation’s more than 

130,000 kindergartens through high schools, K–12. This is accomplished through numerous DHS resources and programs. 

These critical initiatives include the Hometown Security Initiative through which the Department works with schools and community leaders to proactively think about security and implement 

security measures. The Department’s protective security advisors, 

as you mentioned at the beginning, Chairman Donovan, perform 

security-focused community-level outreach at educators’ conferences, school board meetings, and within the scope of existing 

resources help schools conduct security vulnerability assessments. 

Based on that work, DHS recently issued a K–12 security practice guide that can be used by communities to deter threats, address hazards and risks, and minimize gun violence incidents in 

our Nation’s schools. We will be providing these guides to schools 

and support organizations, and it will also be publicly available 

through the Hometown Security Initiative outreach website. 

We are doing all of this work as part of the Federal Commission 

on School Safety, which is charged with quickly providing meaningful and actionable recommendations and best practices to keep students safe at school. The Commission, which is chaired by Secretary DeVos at the U.S. Department of Education, also includes 

my Secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, 

and HHS Secretary Alex Azar. 

To facilitate the Department’s participation in the Commission 

and enable coordination of future efforts to enhance school security 

across DHS, the Department established a School Security Working Group, jointly led by NPPD, my organization, the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, and the Office of Partnership and 

Engagement. 

Since the attack at Marjory Stoneham Douglas High School in 

February 2018, the Department has also conducted over 200 engagements with State and local representatives, including schools, 

State committees, State school security forums, and school districts. DHS supported the Dallas Independent School District and 

the International Association of Venue Managers with a community outreach program, See Say Do, to provide Dallas schools with 

the tools, training, and resources to prevent an active-shooter incident through increased situational awareness. 

DHS has also been a leader in the Arizona Fusion Center, which 

has partnered with the Phoenix Police Department’s Threat Mitigation Unit and other Federal agencies, on the development of a community liaison program which is responsible for maintaining strong 

16 

working relationships with private-sector partners. The community 

liaison program is now working with school districts to provide active-shooter training and to foster open lines of communication between schools and the public safety community. 

DHS has also participated in the Marjory Stoneham Douglas 

High School Public Safety Commission meeting, which is part of an 

effort to analyze information from the school shooting and other 

mass violence incidents in the State of Florida and address recommendations and system improvements. 

I use these examples not to try to provide a comprehensive picture of all that the Department is doing but instead to bring tangible examples of how our work is supporting local communities. 

There are dozens of others like this. 

So in summary, recognizing that most of the Nation’s school administrators and educators are not experts in security, DHS is committed to utilizing our expertise to facilitate solutions. This means 

leveraging the capabilities of industry, school administrators, State 

and local officials, and our field personnel to ensure that the K–12 

community has the tools and resources they need to make the best 

informed security decisions. 

In closing, I want to underscore the importance of the role that 

every one of us plays in the Nation’s schools. A multifaceted program like this requires the skills, expertise, knowledge, and action 

of a wide and diverse community of interests. School security must 

remain a continuing high priority for the Nation, and I look forward to working with this committee to chair a path that will move 

schools toward enhancing approaches for managing risk and violence in the education environment. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kolasky follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT KOLASKY

JULY 9, 2018 

Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and Members of the subcommittee, 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Department 

of Homeland Security’s (DHS) efforts to improve school security and preparedness, 

in coordination with interagency partners. 

SCHOOL SECURITY

The Department of Homeland Security’s mission states ‘‘with honor and integrity, 

we will safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values.’’ The most 

important part of our mission is safeguarding the American people, which we do 

through a variety of means. The DHS National Protection and Programs Directorate 

(NPPD) is the Nation’s risk manager for securing cyber space and physical infrastructure. Through the implementation of our mission, we have developed deep expertise and extensive capabilities around security that can be leveraged by schools 

across the country. 

NPPD has been working with our partners in the public and private sectors for 

many years to defend against threats to crowded public venues. We have seen attacks on civilians, in the United States and abroad, as they go about their lives and 

participate in the offerings of a free and democratic civil society. Attacks arrive 

while attending services at houses of worship, enjoying a concert, or even going out 

for a stroll on a public path. In America, we expect—and deserve—to continue these 

normal activities free from harm. 

Similarly, our youth deserve an education in a facility where they are free from 

harm. Yet, in recent years, our Nation has witnessed and mourned the deaths of, 

and injuries to, dozens of students and teachers in our schools. Unfortunately, in 

this calendar year, two mass shootings in Parkland, Florida and Santa Fe, Texas 

17 

1 U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics, 2015 Digest of Education Statistics, Table 105.50 (2016). 

once again reminded us that we must do more to protect our students. DHS is using 

our experience working with critical infrastructure owners and operators to secure 

facilities around the country to better secure our schools. Our work with industry 

partners to secure the Nation’s critical infrastructure—through activities such as 

the development of security standards for Federal buildings, the regulation of security at high-risk chemical facilities, and the conduct of literally thousands of risk 

assessments at critical infrastructure—has endowed us with the know-how to elevate the overall level of security in the Nation. We are also leveraging our experience in supporting a unified Federal response to incidents to better support community-level response when our prevention efforts falter. While DHS does not, and 

should not, provide direct security to schools, we do support those organizations 

whose direct mission it is to work with schools. 

We readily share our tools and knowledge with State, local, Tribal, and territorial 

partners, the law enforcement community and others who are directly connected to 

the Nation’s more than 130,000 kindergarten through high schools (K–12).1 This 

sharing is accomplished through our growing regional presence that supports a Nation-wide network of our Protective Security Advisors, as well as other DHS resources and programs. 

WORKING TOGETHER FOR MORE SECURE SCHOOLS

The Department is proud to be part of the Federal Commission on School Safety, 

which is charged with providing meaningful and actionable recommendations and 

best practices to keep students safe at school. The Commission, which is chaired by 

U.S. Department of Education Secretary DeVos, also includes Department of Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen, Attorney General Sessions, and Department of 

Health and Human Services Secretary Azar. 

To help further the goals of this commission, DHS is focusing on seven lines of 

effort: 

• Promoting a public awareness campaign modeled on the ‘‘See Something, Say 

Something®’’ program to encourage awareness and reporting of suspicious activity; 

• Creating and sharing a guide on best practices for school-based threat assessments and violence prevention; 

• Updating and disseminating guidance on best practices for school building security; 

• Integrating and coordinating Federal resources focused on prevention and mitigation of active-shooter incidents at schools; 

• Providing active-shooter training for law enforcement officers; 

• Assisting in the development and implementation of tabletop exercises and 

workshops focused on security protocols, notifications and alerts, response, and 

recovery capabilities with schools and first responders; and 

• Establishing and sharing guidelines and training on tactical emergency casualty 

care. 

UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUES

The issue of mass shootings at schools is complex and multi-layered, to include 

understanding behavioral issues as well as security of facilities. The Commission is 

gathering information from a range of experts. These include students, parents, 

teachers, school safety personnel, administrators, law enforcement officials, mental 

health professionals, school counselors, security professionals, and others. Each 

member of the Commission has or will organize at least one meeting focused on 

some of their respective lines of effort. 

At past Commission meetings, we have discussed several of the factors that may 

contribute to violence, including: Cyber bullying and social media; youth consumption of violent entertainment; and effects of press coverage on mass shootings. We 

have also reviewed past reports and recommendations from experts following previous school shootings, including Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook. DHS 

is planning a Commission meeting for mid-August where experts in school security 

best practices, threat assessment, and active-shooter mitigation will share their insights and experiences with the Commission. 

18 

RECOGNIZING AND LEARNING FROM EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS

While the overall issue of school security remains complex, our efforts to learn 

from past experiences are yielding results. 

The Commission conducted a field visit to Hebron-Harman Elementary School in 

Hanover, Maryland, to learn more about Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). PBIS is a framework for assisting school personnel in organizing evidence-based interventions to help improve academic performance and social behavior outcomes for students. 

Three more field visits will take place over the next couple of months, including 

one led by the Department currently being scheduled in late August, which will 

focus on physical security for school buildings. 

The Commission has also hosted two Listening Sessions, the first taking place at 

the U.S. Department of Education in the District of Columbia, and the second in 

Lexington, KY. Members of Congress, State and local officials, law enforcement, parents, teachers, and students have taken this opportunity to provide input toward 

the Commission’s work. Individuals may also provide input directly to the Department of Education, as outlined in the Federal Register. 

RAISING THE BASELINE OF SCHOOL SECURITY

As the Department contributes to the work of the Commission, we are leveraging 

current programs that cut across the spectrum to boost school security. This work 

falls within three lines of effort: Education and Community Awareness; Building Capacity through Training and Exercises; and Increasing Early Warning to Identify 

and Report Potential Threats. 

The work performed in support of these lines of effort take into account five planning assumptions: • Enhanced school security can deter future attacks and disrupt them prior to 

mass damage being done; • School security should be designed to minimize disruption to the learning environment; • Investments in school security will be constrained by limited budgets; • School security is a shared responsibility and benefits from community involvement, empowering individuals, and leveraging law enforcement, non-governmental, and private-sector capability; and • The Department’s mission is to support enhanced school security in the face of 

potential threats and vulnerabilities, but DHS does not directly secure schools. 

Since the attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February 2018, the 

Department has also conducted over 200 engagements with State and local representatives including schools, State committees, State school security forums, and 

school districts. DHS supported the Dallas Independent School District and the 

International Association of Venue Managers with a community outreach program— 

‘‘SEE, SAY, DO’’—to provide Dallas schools with the tools, training, and resources 

to prevent an active-shooter incident through increased situational awareness. 

Another example of DHS work in this area includes the Department’s support of 

the State of Arizona’s fusion center, which has partnered with the Phoenix Police 

Department’s Threat Mitigation Unit and other Federal agencies on the development of a Community Liaison Program, which is responsible for maintaining strong 

working relationships with private-sector partners. The Community Liaison Program is now working with school districts to provide active-shooter training and to 

foster open lines of communication between schools and the public safety community. DHS has also participated in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission meeting, which is part of an effort to analyze information 

from the school shooting and other mass violence incidents in the State and address 

recommendations and system improvements. 

Recognizing that most of the Nation’s school administrators and educators are not 

experts in security, DHS is committed to utilizing our expertise to facilitate solutions. This means leveraging the capabilities of industry, school administrators, 

State and local officials, and our field personnel to ensure that the K–12 community 

has the tools and resources they need to make the best-informed security decisions. 

In closing, I want to underscore the importance of the role that every one of us 

plays in securing the Nation’s schools. A multi-faceted problem like this requires the 

skills, expertise, knowledge—and action—of a wide and diverse community of interest. School safety must remain a continuing high priority for the Nation. 

I believe the Department is well-positioned to assist in raising the base-line of security for K–12 schools, together with our partners at all levels of government, in 

academia, and in communities and law enforcement around the Nation. I look forward to working with this committee to chart a path that will move schools toward 

19 

enhancing approaches for managing risks from violence in the education environment. I thank you in advance for your continuing leadership in this regard and I 

look forward to your questions. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you for your testimony. 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning. 

I would like to ask the entire panel to help us understand this 

and ask each of you to respond. 

At the subcommittee’s request, the Government Accountability 

Office conducted reviews of the Federal efforts to support emergency preparedness and security efforts at K–12 schools and institutions of higher education. While both reports acknowledge the 

good work of the Departments of Education, Justice, and Homeland 

Security on this important issue, they noted that Federal efforts 

could be better coordinated and that education institutes were 

often unaware of the available assistance. 

How are agencies now working to coordinate these various guidance programs, assistance related to school security, and how are 

we working to allow localities to know of the availability of the 

services the three of you just described in great detail that are 

well-formed, well-thought-out, and would be successful, but only if 

localities know of their existence? 

So I would ask each of you to comment on what we are doing 

to coordinate our three major agencies, and second, how are we getting the word out to localities that your services are available to 

them? 

Mr. BOTEL. Sure. I will start. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So, first of all, in response to the report coming out of that GAO 

study, we did form a group called the Federal Partners and School 

Emergency Management and Preparedness, and there are a couple 

of components to that. There is a steering committee and a task 

force, and that group has met periodically since that report came 

out. Coming out of that, the agencies that have been working together, one of my colleagues mentioned the school guide for developing high-quality emergency operations. We are now about to release a district guide, and that is something we have worked together on. 

In addition, in September as we roll that out, we plan to have 

a portal that includes information about the resources that all of 

the agencies have that helps support and provide assistance to districts and schools in developing plans and keeping their students 

safe. 

Mr. HANSON. Similarly at the Department of Justice, we are also 

engaged in that Federal partnership my colleague described. That 

was created after the 2016 GAO report in response to that, and I 

believe GAO reviewed our efforts and closed that recommendation. 

So we have continued to work in regular contact through that partnership. Of course, the President created the Federal Commission 

on School Safety. So all of our departments, plus HHS, are now 

working together investigating best practices with the intention of 

disseminating those in a study and report coming out in the coming 

months. 

What we do at the Office of Justice Programs in the Department 

particularly is we regularly work with State and local governments, 

particularly with regard to law enforcement, less so with schools. 

20 

So we will leverage those relationships that we have long established for decades and work with our colleagues at the Department 

of Education to make sure their schools know about them as well. 

The way the Stop School Violence Act grants work are only 

State, local governments, and Tribal entities can apply for them. So 

we are accustomed to working with those partners. Like I said, we 

will also work with our partners at the Department of Education 

to make sure the schools know about those as well. Just last week 

we had a webinar about our grant programs between COPS and 

OJP, and we had over 210 participants. We have archived that on 

our website, and we will continue to reach out via the internet, in 

local or trade publications as appropriate, working with Congress 

and certainly making sure your constituents know about them, and 

also then via social media and other means that come up as we see 

as appropriate. 

Mr. KOLASKY. Then let me sort-of answer on top of that, sort-of 

the last mile, the committee end of that. We talked a couple of 

times, and you mentioned the protective security advisors. What 

we have done, we have protective security advisors in every highrisk urban area and State around the country. We prioritized their 

security advice toward being around school security, and really the 

folks who can help influence decisions being made around school 

security. As you know, Congressman, we were in Queens with 

school officials and local homeland security, local police, emergency 

managers in Staten Island. We appreciated you having us there. 

We really have been able to take the guides that have been coming out from across the Federal Government and then have an individual who can really help school boards navigate that. So that 

is something that we will continue to do because I think a lot of 

what we need to get done is to demystify what all these resources 

are and put them in the hands of people who want to make security decisions but don’t know how to do that, don’t know how to do 

so cost-effectively. 

Mr. DONOVAN. We talk about education being really grounded in 

the local level, and I am not too sure that when we think about 

schools being overseen by cities, counties, or States, that people 

look at the Federal Government as a resource for schools. We look 

toward the Federal Government to protect our Nation, to protect 

our interests overseas. But here in Newark, New Jersey, or on 

Staten Island or South Brooklyn, what I represent, do those communities who want to assess the vulnerabilities of their schools, 

those folks who need finances for whatever protective mechanisms 

are needed there, do they look at the Federal Government? I always think it is our job to allow them to know that these are available. 

My time has expired with one question, so I am going to yield 

what time I don’t have left to my colleague, Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

But before I go into my questions, I would ask to have a letter 

from the National Education Association and testimony for the 

record from the New Jersey School Boards Association entered into 

the record. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

21 

LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

July 6, 2018. 

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on 

Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications, Washington, DC 

20515. 

Dear Representative: On behalf of our 3 million members and the 50 million students they service, we would like to submit the following comments for the record 

in connection with the July 9 field hearing in New Jersey, ‘‘Protecting Our Future: 

Addressing School Security Challenges in America.’’ 

We thank you for holding this hearing. It is essential for all stakeholders, especially educators, to have a seat at the table during discussions of the vitally important issue of school security, including gun violence prevention. At the same time, 

we need to ensure that safeguards are in place to preserve the right to due process 

and prevent the resurrection of failed ‘‘zero tolerance’’ policies that can lead to the 

unnecessary and unjust expulsion of students of color. 

For too long, Congress has failed to take common-sense steps to end the uniquely 

American epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings. According to Everytown for 

Gun Safety, there have been nearly 300 school shootings since 2013, including at 

least 50 incidents of gunfire on school grounds in 2018. NEA and its members, like 

the public at large, overwhelmingly support stronger gun violence prevention laws, 

including comprehensive, enforceable background checks to prevent dangerous people from buying guns. 

In addition, we believe a comprehensive approach to providing a safe and secure 

learning environment must include increased funding for—and access to—schoolbased health centers and their staffs. Proper diagnosis can and often does start in 

our schools, yet there is a shortage of counselors, nurses, social workers, and psychologists in public education. 

We also support expanding—and increasing funding for—professional development for educators in the areas of bullying, mental and behavioral health, cultural 

competencies, and classroom management. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. 

Sincerely, 

MARC EGAN, 

Director of Government Relations. 

STATEMENT OF THE NEW JERSEY SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION

JULY 9, 2018 

NJSBA SCHOOL SECURITY INITIATIVES

Since the 2012 Newtown, Connecticut tragedy, the New Jersey School Boards Association, a federation of the State’s local boards of education, has engaged in school 

security initiatives encompassing research, policy (both NJSBA and local district), 

training/professional development, and advocacy. 

For the subcommittee’s July 9 field hearing on school security, NJSBA will focus 

on its activities in the area of research and information. We request that the following information be read into the record. 

SAFE AND SECURE SCHOOLS INITIATIVE: STATE-WIDE FORUM

Immediately after the Newtown tragedy, NJSBA planned a series of actions to assist public schools in addressing school security issues. 

Among the first strategies identified was education—that is, informing local 

school board members and their staffs of the requirements now in place and strategies they may consider. 

Our initial effort was ‘‘Safe and Secure Schools: Perspectives after Newtown,’’ a 

State-wide forum that drew over 650 people to The College of New Jersey in January 2013. The meeting featured experts from law enforcement, security, school climate, insurance, and crisis management. 

To reach a vital element of the school community—that is, parents—NJSBA also 

hosted two regional forums, with the participation of county prosecutors, local law 

enforcement agencies, and school district officials. Additionally, ‘‘school security’’ became a frequent topic of county school boards association meetings throughout the 

year. 

22 

SAFE AND SECURE SCHOOLS: YEAR-LONG STUDY

Based on observations from these forums and other sources, then-NJSBA President John Bulina identified a need to provide the Association’s membership with additional guidance and direction. 

In March 2013, he appointed a School Security Task Force and asked the group 

to take on the following tasks: 

• Survey school districts on their security practices and consult with experts in 

law enforcement, security, school climate, and other fields. 

• Review current developments affecting the implementation and funding of 

school security measures. 

• Identify best practices and changes in statute and regulation that would promote student safety and enable school boards to fund and implement security 

measures. 

• Review relevant NJSBA policy. 

More than 130 local school board members volunteered to serve on the task force. 

Eleven were selected. Their employment experience spanned several fields, including law enforcement, education, law, and homeland security. 

The task force study extended for over a year. The final report, What Makes 

Schools Safe?, includes 45 recommendations for action by the State and Federal 

Governments, local school districts and NJSBA. (The full report, along with other 

resources, is available at www.njsba.org/schoolsecurity.) 

Areas addressed include security personnel, school climate, policy and planning, 

communications, training, architecture and physical security, and financing. 

Four years after its release, the report remains relevant. It provides recommendations on subjects, ranging from school security plans and emergency response procedures to prevention strategies that involve facility upgrades, school climate, and 

education programs. 

The Final Report of the NJSBA School Security Task Force includes 45 recommendations addressing local school district practices and State and Federal requirements in six key areas: Security personnel; school climate; policy and planning; 

communications/community relations; physical security; and finances. 

Findings 

Each of the report’s recommendations is based on findings that were developed 

following consultation with experts and additional research. Key findings of the task 

force include the following: 

• New Jersey has strong and effective State-wide school security measures in 

place. For example, our State is one of only 10 that require periodic security 

drills throughout the school year. It requires crisis plans in each district, as well 

as agreements between school districts and local law enforcement agencies. The 

procedures result from State law and regulation, aggressive State initiative, 

local school board policy, and the interest of caring adults, including teachers, 

parents, school board members, and law enforcement personnel. 

• Effective security planning must involve every element of the school community 

and the broader community. 

• A safe and secure environment for our students requires not only protection 

from outside threats, but also the maintenance of a supportive and caring dayto-day internal school climate. 

• A strong, positive relationship between school officials and law enforcement/ 

emergency responders—built on mutual respect for, and adherence to their specific roles—is a cornerstone of an effective school security program. 

• An information gap persists concerning the various types of security personnel 

employed in schools (e.g., School Resource Officers, private security, retired law 

enforcement, etc.) and their training, qualifications and functions, a situation 

that has led to public misperception and misunderstanding. 

• ‘‘Deter, Slow, and Detain’’ intruders, a foundation of effective physical security, 

requires a different set of building blocks for each school and school district. 

However, certain low-cost options are available to address the common concern 

of controlling entry into schools and classrooms. 

• Funding for security upgrades and strategies has become extremely limited due 

to competing demands of the academic program and capital expenses, State regulation over non-instructional expenditures, the 2 percent tax levy cap, and the 

lapse of Federal funding for the School Resource Officer program. 

A list of the report’s 45 recommendations is attached to this statement. 

23 

NEXT STEPS

• NJSBA President Daniel Sinclair and Executive Director Dr. Lawrence S. 

Feinsod have appointed a new security committee that is reviewing the 2014 

report and, as necessary, will update information and recommendations. The 

update is expected to be completed this summer. • Each year, NJSBA establishes priority goals related to its Strategic Plan. For 

2018–2019, the Association will study the impact of the effective delivery of 

mental health services and early intervention strategies on student health and 

wellness, school climate, and school security. 

This effort will include appointment of task force that will explore the relationship 

of mental health services to school security. The task force, which will consult with 

mental health practitioners and other experts, will begin meeting in the fall and will 

issue a final report, including recommendations for further action and information 

on best practices, by June 2019. 

Founded in 2014, the New Jersey School Boards Association is a federation of the 

State’s local boards of education and includes a majority of New Jersey’s charter 

schools. NJSBA provides training, advocacy, and support to advance public education and promote the achievement of all students through effective governance. 

FINAL REPORT: SCHOOL SECURITY TASK FORCE 

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on its research, the New Jersey School Boards Association School Security 

Task Force makes a total of 45 recommendations in the following areas: Security 

Personnel; School Climate; Policy and Planning; Communications; Training in 

School Security; Physical Security; and Financing. 

I. SECURITY PERSONNEL

Local School District/Community 

1. Because of significant variations in the size of school districts and local law enforcement agencies, building lay-outs, student populations and community attitudes, 

the decision on whether or not to employ security personnel—armed or un-armed, 

police or non-police—must rest exclusively with the local school district and should 

not be dictated by the State. 

2. A school resource officer (SRO) can provide a critical safety factor and valuable 

counseling and support services for students. The employment of SROs is the ‘‘preferred’’ model for a law enforcement presence in a school building. 

3. In assigning SROs or other law enforcement officers to schools, local law enforcement agencies must consider fully the qualifications and aptitude of the individual, including his or her capability as a first responder and ability to relate to 

students. Additionally, the training of SROs must stress conflict resolution, restorative justice and stationhouse adjustment practices, as well as awareness of gang and 

drug abuse activities. 

4. School districts should ensure that all security personnel: (a) Receive training 

appropriate for employment in the school environment and (b) have in-depth understanding of local emergency protocols. 

5. In developing the Memorandum of Agreement, school districts/charter schools 

and local law enforcement should clearly address the intersection of school policy/ 

disciplinary code, Criminal Code and the Juvenile Justice Code. They must ensure 

that student behavior that is in violation of school codes of conduct be addressed 

by school officials and not be imposed on police. Based on Federal and State law 

and school policy, such guidance should ensure the following: Immediate response 

to crises; protection of the safety and interests of students affected by violent acts; 

the appropriate avenues of discipline and referral for student offenders; and the recognition of State requirements in areas such as student possession of firearms and 

weapons on school grounds, and harassment, intimidation, and bullying. 

State and Federal 

6. The State and Federal Governments, respectively, should provide and increase 

grant funding to support the assignment of law enforcement officers as School Resource Officers. 

7. The Legislature and the Governor should enact legislation to establish a new 

category of law enforcement officers, such as Special Law Enforcement Officer Level 

III, who are specially trained in working with students and assigned to protect our 

schools. Such law enforcement personnel can provide an additional school security 

option to school districts. The legislation should also relieve current limits on workVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:28 Jan 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\115TH CONGRESS\18EP0709\18EP0709 HEATH
24 

ing hours for special officers when they are assigned to schools and should ease the 

restrictions on the number of such officers employed by a municipality. 

8. The New Jersey Department of Education and the Office of the Attorney General should revise The New Jersey Guide to Establishing a Safe Schools Resource 

Officer Program in Your Community, which was published in 1998, so that the document reflects recent developments in the areas of security, funding, and programming. 

II. SCHOOL CLIMATE

Local School District/Community 

9. Local school districts should engage in school climate assessments and develop 

and implement plans to ensure that students have safe, secure, and supportive 

learning environments that provide meaningful communication and involvement 

with caring adults on the school staff. (A list of climate assessment resources is 

found on page 30 of this report.) 

10. Not all student groups experience school safety and the school climate in the 

same manner. To enable students to learn in supportive environments at each grade 

level, local school boards should adopt policies that recognize the importance of social-emotional learning, character development, restorative practices and community 

building. In addition, the Task Force recommends that school boards review the information on social-emotional learning, supportive practices, and authoritative disciplinary structures in Section II of this report, School Climate. 

11. To build a respectful school climate that enables the advancement of student 

achievement, local boards of education and school administrators should ensure that 

the principles of social-emotional learning and character development skill-building 

are infused into academic instruction in a coordinated manner and that there is a 

consistent application of discipline. 

12. Local boards of education should ensure that the School Safety Teams, required by the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights, are not only reviewing reports of harassment, intimidation, and bullying, but are also focusing on practices and processes 

related to school climate, so as to inform the school boards in their periodic review 

of HIB and related policies. 

13. To ensure their School Safety Teams have a positive impact on school climate, 

local boards of education should consider requiring the teams to meet more than the 

twice-yearly minimum. 

State 

14. As recommended by the NJ SAFE task force, the State should form an ‘‘interagency working group’’ comprised of various departments, including education, law 

and public safety, and health and human services, to address policy and programs 

on early intervention and mental health services at the community level. A similar 

State-level approach (the Education-Law Enforcement Working Group) has had a 

positive impact on local policy and procedures through the State’s Uniform Memorandum of Agreement. 

15. To clarify the role of the School Safety Teams in improving school climate, the 

New Jersey State Board of Education should amend administrative code (N.J.A.C. 

6A:16) to rename these bodies ‘‘School Safety/Climate Teams,’’ as recommended by 

the State’s Anti-Bullying Task Force. 

III. POLICY AND PLANNING

Local School District/Community 

16. The local board of education should ensure that the school district has completed assessments of physical security, threats, capacity, and school climate. The 

assessments, or audits, should be conducted in concert with local law enforcement 

and emergency responders, should follow guidelines published in the New Jersey 

School Safety & Security Manual: Best Practices Guidelines (2006) and should draw 

on the work of experts in the areas of school climate, security, and building design. 

17. Local board of education members should familiarize themselves with the 

terms of the Memorandum of Agreement between the local school district and the 

local law enforcement agency. 

18. Local school districts should form committees representing all stakeholders 

(staff, parents, administrators, emergency responders, law enforcement, community 

members, etc.) as part of their efforts to develop school security plans, to assess the 

plans on an on-going basis, and to identify necessary enhancement of school security 

protocols, equipment, and staffing. 

25 

19. Local school districts should ensure on-going, periodic review of the school security plan, the Memorandum of Agreement, administrative response procedures, 

and protocols governing security drills. 

20. School district security policies and regulations should address administrators’ 

responsibilities, building and site access (including after-hours use of facilities), and 

distribution of keys and access cards. 

21. School districts should stage State-required security drills at varying times 

and days of the week and under different weather conditions. Drills should involve 

numerous crisis scenarios, so that school officials and law enforcement can evaluate 

their effectiveness, make necessary adjustments in procedures, identify safety weaknesses and make recommendations for additional training. 

22. School districts should make tabletop exercises a regular part of the security 

protocol, especially when full-scale exercises and testing of crisis response is not feasible. Tabletop exercises should involve law enforcement, fire departments, and 

emergency response agencies. 

23. Local boards of education should review their policies related to school security, including those that address violence and vandalism, student conduct, emergencies/disaster preparedness, and weapons/firearms, to ensure that they are compliant with current statute and regulation and reflect district-specific factors and 

concerns. 24. School boards should ensure that practices and procedures are in place to address building access, emergency evacuation, security personnel and emergency 

medical services for events and functions that take place after the instructional day. 

State 

25. The New Jersey Department of Education should ensure that the manual, 

School Safety and Security Manual: Best Practice Guidelines, last published in 2006 

is updated as needed to incorporate the most recent developments in school security 

strategies and procedures, emergency equipment, and technology. 

IV. COMMUNICATIONS

Local School District/Community 

26. As part of their school security plans, local boards of education should: (a) Ensure that staff, students, parents, and members of the community are informed of 

changes in school security procedures in a timely manner and (b) convey the importance of reporting to school or law enforcement authorities unusual incidents or behavior in or around school facilities. 

27. To ensure communication with all members of the school community, law enforcement and emergency responders, school districts should implement multi-platform emergency notification systems that use telephone, email, text messaging, 

website, and other methods of communication. 

28. Because of the proven effectiveness of anonymous tip lines in preventing incidents of violence and promoting the health and safety of students, school districts 

should explore the use of such networks and take advantage of the systems that 

are currently available. 

State 

29. The NJ SAFE Task Force recommendation to establish a State-wide anonymous tip line should be pursued by the State Departments of Education, Community Affairs, and Law and Public Safety, as well as the Office of Homeland Security 

and Preparedness and other agencies. 

V. SECURITY TRAINING

Local School District/Community 

30. To ensure that all school staff members have the appropriate knowledge to 

improve security and help prevent and respond to emergencies, local school districts 

should: (a) Provide on-going training, and (b) utilize the varying no-cost training resources available to them at the local, county, State, and Federal levels. 

31. Training provided to district staff should vary in scope and should address 

specific threats that a district might face, along with general school security and 

safety principles. 

32. Training on security plans and response procedures should involve any individual in charge of students at a given time, including full-time staff, part-time 

staff, substitute teachers, and volunteers. Districts should ensure that all individuals in charge of students receive information on their role in emergencies. 

33. When conducting training, school districts should involve appropriate outside 

response entities, including personnel who would respond to the schools in an emerVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:28 Jan 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\115TH CONGRESS\18EP0709\18EP0709 HEATH
26 

gency. Districts should also encourage representatives of outside entities to visit 

schools and familiarize themselves with the facilities and their layouts as part of 

training exercises, such as active-shooter drills for law enforcement personnel. 

VI. PHYSICAL SECURITY

Local School District/Community 

34. Local boards of education and school administrators should use the State-required updates to their district’s Long-Range Facility Plan as an opportunity to ensure that security needs are met in an effective, consistent, and financially prudent 

manner. 

35. Local school boards should ensure that school security planning includes consultation with professionals in the areas of architecture, engineering, and information technology, as well as construction and fire code officials. 

36. For schools with extensive windows and glass doors, particularly at ground 

level, districts should implement the most effective and economical method to prevent penetration through the use of firearms. 

37. Through the use of security planning teams, school districts should: (a) Regularly review the effectiveness of protocols governing visitor entry, key distribution, 

and student, staff, vendor, and visitor access to school buildings and (b) identify improvements to these processes. 

38. To the extent possible, school districts should incorporate the Homeland Security Standards for new construction and the NJDOE ‘‘Security Standards for Schools 

under Construction’’ into renovations and alterations of existing facilities. 

39. School districts should routinely evaluate and review the condition of their 

buildings and identify maintenance issues (e.g., repair of door locks, doors and windows, alarm systems, public address systems, utility room access, etc.) in need of 

attention. 

40. School districts should ensure the effectiveness of revised school security procedures, new equipment, or building improvements/alterations through a careful review of threat/risk assessment and consideration of community desires and norms, 

and local budget constraints. 

VII. FINANCING SCHOOL SECURITY

Local School District/Community 

41. Local school districts and municipalities are encouraged to share costs to enable the assignment of School Resource Officers. 

42. The Commissioner of Education should amend State regulation (N.J.A.C. 

6A:23A) to eliminate ‘‘Operation and Maintenance of Plant cost per pupil equal to 

or less than the State median’’ as a standard for receipt of State aid when reviewing 

proposed school district budgets or requests to seek voter approval to exceed the tax 

levy cap. 

43. The State should designate additional construction grant funding for the express purpose of enhancing school security. 

44. The legislature should provide additional options to enable school districts to 

hire and retain appropriately trained security personnel. 

45. The Federal Government should restore grant funding to support the assignment of School Resource Officers. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Botel, during the school year, school shootings have averaged 

about 1 per week, and in response to the increase in school violence 

President Trump released his proposal for improving school preparedness on March 11, 2018 as part of the proposal. The President 

formed the Federal Commission on School Safety. Last month, Secretary DeVos stated that the Federal Commission on School Safety 

would not research the role of guns in school violence. 

So, is the Commission still determined not to research gun violence in schools? Just a yes or no answer. 

Mr. BOTEL. There is in the charge that the President gave—— 

Mr. PAYNE. Is that a yes or a no? 

Mr. BOTEL. The Commission is looking at firearms with regard 

to age restrictions. 

Mr. PAYNE. In terms of what? 

27 

Mr. BOTEL. Of age restrictions, of whether changes in policy in 

terms of at what age someone could acquire firearms, whether that 

could help make school safer. 

Mr. PAYNE. So the Commission is going to study, or is not going 

to study? 

Mr. BOTEL. Is going to study. 

Mr. PAYNE. That is a revelation. We were under the impression— 

what was Secretary DeVos intimating in her statement? 

Mr. BOTEL. I just know that in the document that you referenced 

that the President put out to form the Commission, there were a 

number of things that the Commission was charged to look at, and 

this issue of restrictions surrounding age and gun ownership, that 

was one of the things that he charged the Commission to look at, 

and they are looking at it. 

Mr. PAYNE. So Ms. DeVos is wrong? 

Mr. BOTEL. For that particular question, she may have seen it 

as a more comprehensive question on the issue. Again, the charge 

that the President gave the Commission is narrowed to the age restriction issue. 

Mr. PAYNE. It is interesting that as this administration moves 

forward, one hand doesn’t know what the other one is doing. But, 

c’est la vie. 

On June 6, the Federal Commission on School Safety held its 

first public meeting, and at that meeting many people stood before 

the Commission with concerns about the Commission’s work. Many 

asked that the Commission not ignore guns in its research. How 

is the Commission utilizing that feedback? I guess you are saying 

that they are looking at it. But based on the feedback from the 

public, how is that being utilized in formulating—— 

Mr. BOTEL. We have received a lot of feedback from the public. 

There have been listening sessions, the meeting that you are talking about. We also have an email address, safetyated.gov, where we 

have received hundreds and hundreds of pieces of input, and I can 

assure you that we have staff that look at every single piece of 

input we receive and share that with the Commission members, 

and they will determine ultimately what their report includes. 

They are planning on releasing their final report by the end of the 

calendar year. So all of that input is being looked at closely. 

Mr. PAYNE. But we agree that in all these instances, the one 

common factor was a gun being used in these acts of violence; correct? 

Mr. BOTEL. Yes. In the acts of violence you are talking about, 

there has been a lot of gun violence. That is right. 

Mr. PAYNE. So we just want to make sure that Secretary DeVos 

knows what the President is saying, and the President knows what 

Secretary DeVos is saying, and we get one common message coming out of the administration, because it just appears that everybody is all over the place with this stuff. No one knows what the 

other one is saying on a day-to-day basis. So how can the American 

public be secure in the fact that something is happening? If you are 

getting several different scenarios from different people in the administration, then who do you believe? Who do you follow? The Secretary says there won’t be any looking into gun usage, and then the 

President says that that is part of the Commission’s job. 

28 

Mr. BOTEL. Well, I think in the report that gets issued, as I said, 

I believe the plan is by the end of the calendar year it is going to 

address all the things that the President charged the Commission 

to look at. We are getting input on other things as well. Some of 

that will be in the purview of the Commission. Of course, I think 

we are getting a lot of information that will be helpful to the Congress and to others at the State level—you mentioned New Jersey—as obviously States and localities make their own policies. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. Well, my time is up. 

Boy, that is a quick 5 minutes. 

Mr. DONOVAN. It is a quick 5 minutes. 

We are going to thank all the witnesses for their testimony. As 

you can tell, the Ranking Member and myself didn’t get to ask all 

the questions we would like to ask, so we may have some additional questions to ask of you that we would ask you to respond 

to in writing. 

We are going to take a brief break so that the staff can change 

over the panel for our second panel. I thank all of you for your testimony, for what you are doing for our great Nation. Thank you, 

sirs. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. DONOVAN. We are pleased to welcome our second panel of 

witnesses. Our second panel includes Mr. Jared Maples, director of 

New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness; Mr. 

Ben Castillo, director of the New Jersey Department of Education, 

Office of School Preparedness and Emergency Planning; Major 

Jeanne Hengemuhle of the New Jersey State Police Department; 

Mr. Timothy Gerity, president of the New Jersey Association of 

School Resource Officers; and Mr. Michael Reilly, president of the 

Community Education Council 31 in Staten Island, New York. 

I thank you for being here today. The witnesses’ full written 

statements will appear in the record. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Maples for his testimony. 

It is good to see you again, sir. 

Mr. MAPLES. You, as well. 

STATEMENT OF JARED M. MAPLES, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND PREPAREDNESS, STATE OF NEW 

JERSEY 

Mr. MAPLES. Chairman Donovan and Ranking Member Payne, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am honored to speak on behalf of the dedicated professionals of the New 

Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, NJOHSP, 

who are working tirelessly to ensure the safety and security of the 

State of New Jersey. 

Today my remarks will focus on the work we are doing in New 

Jersey under Governor Murphy’s leadership to reflect National priorities while building local capabilities to address risk and protect 

our communities using partnerships, continuous improvement, and 

a whole-of-Government approach. 

New Jersey faces a complex, diverse, and fluid security environment, with persistent and evolving threats. We average over 1,200 

people per square mile, substantially higher than the National avVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:28 Jan 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\18EP0709\18EP0709 HEATH
29 

erage of 92. New Jersey has an undoubtedly unique risk environment. 

However, there is no threat more jarring or more important to 

address than the one to our schools. As we have seen in the appalling attacks like those in Florida and Texas, the tragic lesson we 

have learned is that schools are often targets of choice for those 

who wish to commit horrifying and attention-grabbing acts of violence. New Jersey has more than 600 school districts, with the 

number of schools exceeding 2,500. This number alone, not to mention the number of colleges and universities in the State, presents 

a vulnerability profile of critical importance. 

On March 26 of this year, Attorney General Grewal updated Directive 2016–7 to explicitly mandate that threats of school violence 

be sent to the New Jersey Suspicious Activity Reporting System, 

maintained by my agency. Accordingly, all school-related threats 

are reported to our Counterterrorism Watch located at the Regional 

Operations and Intelligence Center, our State Fusion Center, as 

well as the County Counterterrorism Coordinators. In partnership 

with the New Jersey State Police and the FBI, we work with law 

enforcement to track and disseminate information regarding possible threats to schools State-wide, which mitigates the possibility 

of violence. 

Regardless of the scope of our individual mission, all of us leading the State have and will continue to marshal a full contingent 

of resources for protecting our children and educators. 

As we continue our work, we recognize that continual improvement is the only way to succeed. Resting on our laurels will not 

strengthen security. We recognize that across the country and here 

in New Jersey, we must strengthen prevention efforts. Preventing 

an incident and avoiding the use of response tactics is our goal. As 

communities, we must embrace a culture of preparedness that invests equally in both prevention and response. 

We will continue to prioritize the identification of suspicious activity, mental health indicators, and ensure that there is a clear 

path for reporting and addressing issues before an incident occurs. 

We will expand innovative efforts such as suspicious activity reporting training for school bus drivers, custodians, teachers, and 

administrators. We will innovate our support for first responders 

by expanding capabilities to create waves of first preventers. 

Our strategic approach to security also includes supporting and 

building response capabilities such as comprehensive after-shooter 

training, including pre-incident indicators and pathways to report 

those indicators. Our first responder community here in New Jersey is one of the world’s best. Additionally, the New Jersey State 

Police, Departments of Education, Human Services, Health, Children and Families, and many other partners have built response 

capabilities that are second to none. New Jersey Department of 

Education has staff embedded with NJOHSP and conducts unannounced school security drills across the State to test both plans 

and the actions of faculty and staff in a controlled, realistic environment. We continue to offer large-scale active-shooter exercises 

for K–12 and partner with Federal DHS for hometown security initiative planning. 

30 

We recognize the consistent need to expand security capabilities, 

focusing on where mass gatherings of people occur, what those 

common vulnerabilities are, and ensuring that individuals, especially school children, know what to do when circumstances deviate 

from those they have practiced. To that end, our colleges and universities are participating in a new Mass Gathering Working 

Group to address these common vulnerabilities and build missing 

capabilities at locations where students gather throughout the 

State. 

We will continue to ensure that our plans do not just account for 

the security of the building, but build capabilities that empower the 

safety of their precious content, our children. We are currently 

working with the Office of the Secretary of Higher Education, the 

New Jersey Office of Emergency Management, and the New Jersey 

Department of Health to review every institution of higher education’s emergency operations plan. 

We will expand training models and traditional planning assumptions to address changing tactics and enable capabilities to 

deviate from the plans as situations dictate. We have already 

begun to transform our thinking and focus on these essential areas. 

Over the past 2 years, the State has continually implemented recommendations from the 2015 New Jersey School Security Task 

Force Report, including the creation of the New Jersey School Safety Specialist Academy and Certification Program; annual security 

training for public and non-public school employees; additional 

training and qualifications of Class III Special Law Enforcement 

Officers; and new school construction to incorporate security measures into architectural design. 

Subsequently, we have created a School Security subcommittee 

on the State’s Domestic Security Preparedness Task Force, which 

I chair, to coordinate horizontally across State agencies, and integrate vertically with National priorities and local needs. Part of 

that effort includes conducting security assessments at schools, as 

well as providing assessment training for local enforcement partners who can serve as force multipliers to enhance security capabilities in schools throughout the State. 

Work remains, but there are people dedicated to getting it right 

using a whole-of-Government approach. We will focus on prevention, we will innovate, and we will continue to build those capabilities that are vital to our overall security. 

Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and distinguished 

Members of the subcommittee, I thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions and yield 

back to the Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maples follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JARED M. MAPLES

JULY 9, 2018 

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and Members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am honored to speak 

on behalf of the dedicated professionals of the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, who are working tirelessly to ensure the safety and security 

of the State of New Jersey. 

31 

New Jersey faces a complex, diverse, and fluid security environment, with persistent and evolving threats. As you know, New Jersey has the highest population 

density of any State in the Nation—3 times the population density of New York and 

Pennsylvania—with almost 9 million residents in the fourth-smallest State by land 

mass. We average over 1,200 people per square mile, substantially higher than the 

National average of 92. We have some of the most critical infrastructure in the 

United States, and we are flanked by two of the largest cities in the country. New 

Jersey has an undoubtedly unique risk environment. 

However, there is no threat more jarring or more important to address than the 

one to our schools. As we have seen in the appalling attacks in Florida and Texas, 

the tragic lessons we have learned is that schools are often targets of choice for 

those who wish to commit horrifying and attention-grabbing acts of violence. New 

Jersey has more than 600 school districts with the number of schools exceeding 

2,500. This number alone, not to mention the number of colleges and universities 

in the State, presents a vulnerability profile of paramount importance. 

On March 26 of this year, Attorney General Grewal updated Directive 2016–7 to 

explicitly mandate that threats of school violence be sent to the New Jersey Suspicious Activity Reporting System. Accordingly, all school-related threats are reported to our Counterterrorism (CT) Watch located at the Regional Operations and 

Intelligence Center (ROIC), as well as the County Counterterrorism Coordinators. 

In partnership with the New Jersey State Police, we work with law enforcement to 

track and disseminate information regarding possible threats to schools State-wide. 

This collaboration and information sharing strengthens the State’s ability to mitigate the possibility of violence against schools. 

While some incidents call for an academic discussion to categorize whether they 

are crime and terror, this is not one of them. The distinction does not matter. The 

safety of our children is paramount. Regardless of the scope of our individual mission, all of us leading this State have, and will continue, to marshal a full contingent of resources toward protecting our children. 

NJOHSP ACTIONS

As we continue our work, we recognize that continual improvement is the only 

way to succeed. Resting on our laurels will not strengthen security. While we provide details of on-going efforts, be mindful that we are constantly seeking to improve. The most effective improvement we can take is to, quite simply, work to prevent these incidents from occurring. We recognize that across the country, and here 

in New Jersey, we must strengthen prevention efforts. Preventing an incident and 

avoiding the use of response tactics is our goal. As communities, we must embrace 

a culture of preparedness that invests equally in both prevention and response. 

We will continue to prioritize the identification of suspicious activity, mental 

health indicators, and ensure that there is a clear path for reporting and addressing 

issues before an incident occurs. We will expand innovative efforts such as suspicious activity reporting training for school bus drivers, custodians, teachers, and 

administrators. 

We will innovate our support for first responders by expanding capabilities to create waves of first preventers. We will continue to take a whole-of-Government approach under existing task forces to provide comprehensive active-shooter training, 

including pre-incident indicators and pathways to report those indicators. 

Our strategic approach to security also includes supporting and building response 

capabilities. Our first responder community here in New Jersey is one of the world’s 

best. The New Jersey State Police, Departments of Education, Human Services, 

Health, Children and Families, and many other partners have built response capabilities that are second to none. New Jersey Department of Education has staff embedded with NJOHSP and conducts unannounced school security drills across the 

State to test both plans and the actions of faculty and staff in a controlled, realistic 

environment. NJOHSP continues to offer large-scale active-shooter exercises for K– 

12 schools, including facilitating 2 last year in Bergen and Warren Counties. 

We recognize the consistent need to expand security capabilities, focusing on 

where mass gatherings of people occur, what those common vulnerabilities are, and 

ensuring that individuals, especially school children, know what to do when circumstances deviate from those they have practiced. To that end, our colleges and 

universities are participating in a new Mass Gathering Working Group to address 

these common vulnerabilities and build missing capabilities at locations where students gather throughout the State. 

We will continue to ensure that our plans do not just account for the security of 

the building, but build capabilities that empower the safety of their precious content—our children. We are currently working with the Office of the Secretary of 

32 

Higher Education, the New Jersey Office of Emergency Management, and the New 

Jersey Department of Health to review every institution of higher education’s emergency operations plan, an effort required by New Jersey statute. 

We will expand training models and traditional planning assumptions to address 

changing tactics and enable capabilities to deviate from the plans as situations dictate. We have already begun to transform our thinking and focus on these essential 

areas. Over the past 2 years, the State has continually implemented recommendations from the 2015 New Jersey School Security Task Force Report, including: 

• The creation of the New Jersey School Safety Specialist Academy and Certification Program; 

• Annual security training for public and non-public school employees; 

• Additional training and qualifications of Class III Special Law Enforcement Officers at schools and county colleges; and, 

• New school construction to incorporate security measures into architectural design. 

Subsequently, we have created a School Security Subcommittee on the State’s Domestic Security Preparedness Task Force to coordinate horizontally across State 

agencies, and integrate vertically with National priorities and local needs. Part of 

that effort includes conducting security assessments at schools, as well as providing 

assessment training for local enforcement partners who can serve as force multipliers to enhance security capabilities in schools throughout the State. 

CONCLUSION

Unfortunately, attacks on schools are just one facet of a larger security threat to 

open access public facilities with limited security and free movement. At the moment there remains a need to address concerns and lack of information sharing 

among mass gathering facilities such as amusement parks, arenas, casinos, colleges 

and universities, convention centers, stadiums, and any other venues that could be 

a potential target. 

Through efforts such as the aforementioned Mass Gathering Working Group, the 

Hometown Security Initiative, and our new Secure the Shore Initiative, we are 

working to protect all of New Jersey from terroristic threats to our public spaces. 

Work remains, but there are people dedicated to getting it right. We will focus on 

prevention. We will innovate. We will continue to build those capabilities that are 

vital to our overall security. 

Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and distinguished Members of the 

subcommittee. I thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. Under Governor Murphy’s leadership, we will continue to adapt to meet the current threat environment and better secure our schools through a whole-of-Government approach. 

I look forward to your questions, and yield back to the Chairman. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Maples. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Castillo. 

STATEMENT OF BEN CASTILLO, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

SCHOOL PREPAREDNESS AND EMERGENCY PLANNING, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. CASTILLO. Thank you, sir. Good morning, Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne. Thank you for this opportunity to 

testify today on behalf of the New Jersey Department of Education 

to highlight our efforts in school security. 

I first wish to convey my regrets for Commissioner Lamont 

Repollet for not being here today, but I thank him for entrusting 

me with this important task. I know I speak for the commissioner 

when I say that he is personally and professionally committed to 

school security. It is why he is committed to the work of the School 

Security Subcommittee for the New Jersey Domestic Security and 

Preparedness Task Force, which Director Maples had referenced. It 

is also why he was honored to provide an opportunity to attend this 

hearing to our summer interns, seated behind us, students who 

will be our next generation of teachers, principals, and parents who 

33 

deserve a seat to hear this important conversation. We are thrilled 

that many of them are here with us this morning. 

As Director Maples had mentioned, New Jersey has over 600 

public schools and charter schools. In addition to that, there are 

over 1,400 non-public schools serving almost 225,000 students. This 

equates to approximately 1.6 million students in New Jersey’s 

schools daily. During the academic year, most of our children spend 

fully a third of their formative years in schools. It is not only where 

they do their work of learning, but it is also where they socialize 

with their friends, they eat, they play, from kindergarten through 

high school. Recent tragic acts of school violence around the country remind all of us of our central moral and professional responsibility of keeping our children in a safe and nurturing environment 

so they can develop and mature to their fullest potentials. 

To that end, the New Jersey Department of Education, along 

with its partners and stakeholders, have been seeking to improve 

student safety through a multifaceted and student-centered approach that builds positive school cultures and socio-emotional 

learning in addition to the security postures of school buildings 

within the K–12 realm. Together with our sister agencies, including the New Jersey Departments of Community Affairs, Health, 

Children and Families, Law and Public Safety, Office of Homeland 

Security and Preparedness, State Police, and many other Federal 

and local government and non-government partners, we have established the Intergovernmental School Safety Group, and we have 

made student safety a core part of our departments’ value structure. This model captures the commissioner’s improvement model 

of ACE: Assess, Create, and Execute. As a group we are assessing 

the school security needs of the State and creating and executing 

solutions. 

For example, current administrative code requires districts to 

have written, comprehensive all-hazards school safety and security 

plans. Legislative mandates also require all schools to conduct a 

school security drill each month, in addition to the regular fire 

drill. This may very well represent the most robust school security 

drill schedule in the Nation. 

Furthermore, a number of recent directives were passed which 

further enhance school security efforts, many of which were mentioned by Director Maples, and they continue to be in force. 

In addition to the adoption of the latest school security task force 

recommendations, the Department of Education provides guidance 

to further enhance school safety and security. In our view, of the 

14 issues studied by the task force, and of the 42 recommendations 

offered in its final report, the establishment of the New Jersey 

School Safety Specialist Academy and the associated School Safety 

Specialist Certification Program are the most impactful. The enabling legislation requires each school district to designate a school 

administrator to be certified as a school safety specialist. These 

school safety specialists will be our most valuable points of contact 

in each school district with whom we can share information and 

make direct contact should situations warrant. They will be required to train annually on topics including bullying, hazing, emergency planning, emergency drills, drugs, weapons, gangs, and 

school policing. Additionally, as a result of concerns voiced by disVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:28 Jan 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\18EP0709\18EP0709 HEATH
34 

trict personnel, we also included blocks of instruction on physical 

security, bomb threat awareness and response, security considerations for front office staff, school bus transportation, and others. 

Through the Office of School Preparedness and Emergency Planning, the Department has been diligently providing training, guidance, and assistance at the grassroots levels of our K–12 educational communities. Through our outreach efforts, we share preventive strategies and promising practices, and identify many security challenges faced by our schools. 

Our unannounced drill observation initiative has provided opportunities for members of our office to collaborate directly with 

schools. Since the 2014–2015 school year, we have conducted over 

850 such observations. This outreach has led to an increasing number of requests for technical assistance, which have resulted in 

members of our office providing professional development sessions 

for school staff and presentations to parents and board members. 

Our office has provided site-specific security observations, school 

safety and security plan reviews, and drill guidance. We have responded to 205 requests for technical assistance, provided 121 presentations to educational organizations, and conducted 91 training 

assemblies. 

I see I am very close to my time. May I continue, sir? Thank you. 

We, along with our partner agencies, understand that no single 

entity bears the responsibility nor possesses the capability to keep 

our students safe. There must be a concerted, comprehensive, continual effort to make and keep our schools as secure as possible. 

We have partnered with U.S. Department of Education and the 

Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Technical Assistance Center, FEMA, our own Office of Homeland Security and 

Preparedness, the New Jersey State Police, our respective county 

prosecutors’ offices, local police, and others, in a collaborative effort 

to improve school security. In partnership with the Disaster and 

Terrorism Branch of the New Jersey Department of Human Services, we provided training in Comprehensive Active-Shooter Incident Management for Schools, which speaks to the importance of 

emotional components before, during, and after such horrific 

events. 

To enhance information sharing, the Office of the Regional Operations and Intelligence Center, in concert with our department and 

the Office of Homeland Security and New Jersey State Police, developed Intelligence Dissemination Reports for the school sector. 

These were most recently distributed following the aftermath of the 

shootings in Parkland, Florida; in anticipation of the school walkouts which occurred across the Nation; and prior to high school 

graduations to provide situational awareness to schools throughout 

the State. We will continue to seek additional collaboration in efforts to more broadly face the challenges of school security. 

Despite what seems to be a mounting tide of senseless violence 

occurring within our schools, schools overall remain relatively safe 

places for our children. However, we cannot remain idly by and 

allow injury, both emotional and physical, and deaths to occur 

among our students. We must reject that this is the new normal. 

We must not only stem the tide of school violence but turn it back. 

We must pledge to do more. 

35 

So in closing, if I may paraphrase Commissioner Repollet, ‘‘While 

we cannot control individual student behavior, we must continue to 

provide guidance and support through training and resources to 

the school districts in order to identify promising practices and effective preventive strategies.’’ 

This has been our mission, and we, along with our partners and 

stakeholders in school security, will continue to do so to the best 

of our abilities. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to address the committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Castillo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BEN CASTILLO

JULY 9, 2018 

INTRODUCTION

Good morning Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and distinguished 

Members of the subcommittee. I am Ben Castillo, director of the New Jersey Department of Education’s Office of School Preparedness and Emergency Planning. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify today on behalf of the New Jersey Department of Education to highlight our efforts in school security. 

I wish to convey to the subcommittee, the regrets of our Commissioner, Dr. Lamont Repollet for not being here today, but I thank him for entrusting me with this 

important task. I know I speak for the Commissioner when I say that he is personally and professionally committed to school security. It’s why he was named co-chair 

of the school security subcommittee for the NJ Department of Homeland Security 

and Preparedness. It’s also why he was honored to provide an opportunity to attend 

this hearing to our summer interns, students who will be our next generation of 

teachers, principals, and parents who deserve a seat at the table to participate in 

this conversation. We are thrilled that many of them are here with us this afternoon. As you may know, New Jersey has over 600 public school districts and charter 

schools encompassing over 2,500 schools. Additionally, there are over 1,400 nonpublic schools serving almost 225,000 students. This equates to approximately 1.6 

million students in New Jersey’s school daily. During the academic year, most of 

our children spend fully a third of their formative years in schools. It’s not only 

where students learn, but it’s also where they socialize with their friends, eat, and 

play—from kindergarten through high school. Recent tragic acts of school violence 

around the country remind all of us of our central moral and professional responsibility of keeping our children in a safe and nurturing environment so they can develop and mature to their fullest potentials. 

ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

To that end, the NJDOE, along with its partners and stakeholders have been 

seeking to improve student safety through a multi-faceted and student-centered approach that builds positive school cultures and socio-emotional learning in addition 

to the security postures of school buildings within the K–12 realm. Together with 

our sister State agencies, including the Departments of Community Affairs, Health, 

Children and Families, Law and Public Safety, Office of Homeland Security and 

Preparedness, State Police and many other Federal and local government and nongovernment partners, we have established the Intergovernmental School Safety 

Group and we’ve made student safety a core part of our departments’ value structure. This model captures the Commissioner’s improvement model of ACE: Assess, 

Create, and Execute. As a group we are assessing the school security needs of the 

State and creating and executing solutions. 

For example, current administrative code requires districts to have written, comprehensive all-hazards school safety and security plans. These emergency operating 

plans are the cornerstones which are relied upon in emergencies; and from which 

planning, training, and drills are based. Legislative mandate also requires all 

schools to conduct a school security drill each month, in addition to the mandatory 

monthly fire drill. This may well represent the most robust school security drill 

schedule in the Nation. Furthermore, a number of recent directives were passed 

which further enhance school security efforts. Many of these resulted directly from 

the work of the New Jersey School Security Task Force, an interagency group created by State law in 2014 charged with studying and developing recommendations 

36 

to improve school safety and security. In addition to the adoption of the latest school 

security task force recommendations, the DOE provides guidance to further enhance 

school safety and security. 

In our view, of the 14 issues studied by the task force; and of the 41 recommendations offered in their final report, the establishment of the New Jersey School Safety 

Specialist Academy and the associated School Safety Specialist Certification Program, are the most impactful. The enabling legislation requires each school district 

to designate a school administrator to be certified as a school safety specialist. These 

school safety specialists will be our most valuable points of contact in each school 

district with whom we can share information and make direct contact should situations warrant. They will be required to train annually on topics including bullying, 

hazing, emergency planning, emergency drills, drugs, weapons, gangs, and school 

policing. Additionally, as a result of concerns voiced by district personnel, we also 

included blocks of instruction on physical security, bomb threat awareness and response, security considerations for front office staff, school bus transportation, and 

others. 

NJDOE SCHOOL SECURITY EFFORTS

Through the Office of School Preparedness and Emergency Planning, the DOE 

has been diligently providing training, guidance, and assistance at the grassroots 

levels of our K–12 educational communities. Through our outreach efforts, we share 

preventative strategies and promising practices, and identified many security challenges faced by our schools. 

Our unannounced drill observation initiative has provided opportunities for members of our office to collaborate directly with schools. Since the 2014–2015 school 

year, we have conducted over 850 such observations. This outreach has led to an 

increasing number of requests for technical assistance, which have resulted in members of our office providing professional development sessions for school staff and 

presentations to parent and board members, and other audiences. Our office has 

provided site-specific security observations, school safety and security plan reviews, 

and drill guidance. We’ve responded to 205 technical assistance requests, provided 

121 presentations to educational organizations, and conducted 91 training assemblies. Just last week, the Governor underlined the State’s on-going commitment to 

school safety by signing a State budget that significantly increased the State’s investment in Security Aid, allowing districts the flexibility to support school safety 

initiatives that fit the needs of their students. 

While I can speak primarily to the Department’s on-going work regarding school 

security, a holistic approach to ensuring the safety, including preventive efforts, is 

vital. The DOE understands the importance of building strong, healthy, and positive 

school cultures through social-emotional learning. The NJDOE’s prevention and 

intervention efforts to create an environment where students feel safe to learn, align 

with New Jersey’s anti-bullying law. Districts are required to adopt and implement 

anti-bullying policies which include prevention, responding to allegations, and reporting. Each school is required to have a school safety/school climate team to focus 

on developing, fostering, and maintaining positive school climates. A School Climate 

Survey has been developed as part of a data-driven school climate improvement 

process to inform development and implementation of a School Climate Improvement Plan. 

PARTNERSHIPS

We, along with our partner agencies understand that no single entity bears the 

responsibility, nor the possesses the capability to keep our students safe. There 

must be a concerted, comprehensive, continual effort to make and keep our schools 

as secure as possible. We have partnered with U.S. Department of Education and 

the Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Technical Assistance Center, FEMA, our own Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, the New Jersey 

State Police, Department of Human Services, our respective County Prosecutors’ Offices, local police, and others, in a collaborative effort to improve school security. In 

partnership with the Disaster and Terrorism Branch of the New Jersey Department 

of Human Services, we provided training in Comprehensive Active-Shooter Incident 

Management for Schools which speaks to the importance of emotional components 

before, during, and after such horrific events. To enhance information sharing, the 

Office of the Regional Operations and Intelligence Center, in concert with our department and the Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, developed Intelligence Dissemination Reports for the school sector. These were most recently provided following the aftermath of the school shootings in Parkland, Florida; in anticipation of the school walkouts which occurred across the Nation; and prior to high 

37 

school graduation ceremonies to provide situational awareness to schools throughout 

the State. We will continue to seek additional collaboration in efforts to more broadly face the challenges of school safety. 

Finally, in an effort to learn from our colleagues around the Nation who are all 

seeking to improve school safety and security in the wake of the track act of school 

violence at Parkland Florida, in May of this year the Commissioner and I attended 

a school safety training hosted by the Indiana Department of Education. It was an 

honor to be a guest of the Indiana Department of Education to learn how their 

school and district leaders engage State and National best practices in school safety. 

We look forward to attending additional professional learning opportunities in the 

future. 

CONCLUSION

Despite what seems to be a mounting tide of senseless violence occurring within 

our schools; schools overall, remain relatively safe places for our children. However, 

we cannot remain idly by and allow injury, both emotional and physical, and deaths 

to occur among our students. We must reject that this is the new normal, stem, and 

turn back the tide of school violence. We must pledge to do more. 

Paraphrasing Commissioner Repollet: ‘‘... while we cannot control individual 

student behavior we [must continue] to provide guidance and support through training and resources to the school districts in order to identify promising practices and 

effective preventative strategies.’’ This has been our mission, and we, along with our 

partners and stakeholders in school security will continue to do so to the best of 

our abilities. 

I again thank you for the opportunity to address this esteemed subcommittee. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, sir. 

The Chair now recognizes Major Hengemuhle. 

STATEMENT OF JEANNE HENGEMUHLE, COMMANDING OFFICER, DIVISION OF HUMAN RESOURCES SECTION, NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE 

Ms. HENGEMUHLE. Good morning, Chairman Donovan, Ranking 

Member Payne. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 

today. I am Major Jeanne Hengemuhle, commanding officer of the 

Division Human Resources Section. 

The Division of State Police consists of four primary branches. 

Through these branches, the division preserves the ability to augment assets to address all hazards and threats from a holistic approach. Each branch works both independently and in concert as 

they pool resources to address the State’s most pressing concerns. 

The members within these branches actively seek out and maintain 

crucial relationships with outside entities, community leaders, 

school administrators, and other stakeholders to promote our abilities to counter school violence and to implement initiatives on 

school safety and security. 

School safety and security plans as mandated by the Department 

of Education effectively outline the State’s approach in preparing 

for threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk to the security 

and safety of New Jersey schools. Through the direction of the Department of Education, all school districts in New Jersey are required to have a school safety and security plan. These plans include procedures to respond to critical incidents. All plans for those 

schools located in State Police-patrolled areas are housed in both 

hard copy and electronic copy so they are immediately available to 

Troopers if an emergent situation occurs. 

One constant message across all branches within the Division is 

to develop innovative strategies and partnerships with public and 

private entities to prevent, protect, and respond to threats that speVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:28 Jan 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\18EP0709\18EP0709 HEATH
38 

cifically target our schools. Evidence of this resides within the 

School Safety and Outreach Unit, which was recreated under the 

Division’s Recruiting and Employee Development Bureau and is 

principally responsible for school safety and community outreach 

programs. They have established a partnership with the Department of Education, Office of School Preparedness and Emergency 

Planning. Members of the School Safety and Outreach Unit have 

participated in and supported school safety and security planning 

efforts, which include unannounced visits/drills and security planning efforts, instructing anti-bullying and anti-violence programs, 

and delivering drug prevention programs such as Law Enforcement 

Against Drugs, LEAD. 

The New Jersey State Police participates in the majority of the 

unannounced drills conducted State-wide. Led by the Department 

of Education, the unannounced drills provide technical assistance 

and support to schools with their preparedness efforts, while sharing best practices observed in these other districts. The evaluation 

of the drill is informational and provides an opportunity for cooperative collaboration. 

Presenting and instructing various programs through our School 

Safety and Outreach Unit demonstrates the State Police’s commitment to protecting our youth and communities from the proliferation of drugs, drug-related crimes, peer-to-peer cyber bullying, and 

violence. 

The Division has also partnered with the New Jersey Department of Homeland Security and Preparedness in a coordinated effort in planning and active participation in active-shooter exercises. 

These exercises are intended to test our abilities to respond effectively and efficiently to any hazards and threats to our communities and schools. The New Jersey State Police has looked at best 

practices in responding to an active-shooter incident and has just 

begun rolling out a restructure of our current protocols. 

Field Operations Troopers normally assigned to general policing 

stations throughout the State have received additional training and 

certifications, and are positioned as School Resource Troopers for 9 

regional high schools. They have the ability to immediately respond 

to all hazards and threats while providing instruction to students 

on a variety of topics and lessons at the school administration’s request. The Troopers’ presence also provides a sense of comfort and 

deterrence while further building public and community trust in 

law enforcement. 

Finally, in an attempt to further bolster school safety and public 

trust in law enforcement, the superintendent, Colonel Patrick Callahan, with the support of the Governor and the attorney general, 

has encouraged all enlisted members to visit schools where the 

State police is the sole provider of law enforcement services. These 

unannounced visits take place while members are traversing the 

State during the course of their day or in route to and from their 

primary work assignments. The randomness of this program also 

affords the State Police another layer of security via visible deterrence while building community relations and trust with school entities. 

Collaboration and community trust are essential components 

that need to be developed and fostered in order to sustain strong 

39 

relations with our community leaders and school administrators. 

The reality is that the State police, or any single law enforcement 

entity, lacks the personnel to appropriately address all hazards and 

threats independently. 

The collaborative working relationship between the State police, 

the Governor’s office, the Office of Attorney General, Office of 

Homeland Security, and all of the departments critical to school 

safety will allow New Jersey to strengthen our plans and responses 

with regard to school safety. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hengemuhle follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEANNE HENGEMUHLE

JULY 9, 2018 

Good Morning Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and Members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am honored to speak on behalf of the dedicated professionals of the New Jersey State Police. I am Major Jeanne Hengemuhle, commanding officer of the Division Human 

Resources Section of the New Jersey State Police. 

The division of State Police consists of four primary branches: Administration, Investigations, Homeland Security, and Operations. Through these branches, the division preserves the ability to augment assets to address all-hazards and threats from 

a holistic approach. Each branch works both independently and in concert, as they 

pool resources to address the State’s most pressing concerns. The members within 

these branches actively seek out and maintain crucial relationships with outside 

agencies, community leaders, school administrators and other stakeholders to promote our abilities to counter school violence and to implement initiatives on school 

safety and security. 

Under the direction of Attorney General Grewal, school safety and security has 

been enhanced. On March 26 of this year, General Grewal updated Directive 2016– 

7, to add school to the list of soft targets on Suspicious Activities Reports. By doing 

this, all threats of violence against schools (in any form, through any medium and 

from any source) are reported to the Regional Operations and Intelligence Center 

(ROIC) and the county terrorism coordinator. Now, the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness (O.H.S.P.) and the ROIC can analyze, track and 

disseminate threats against schools on a joint Intelligence Dissemination Report 

which reaches law enforcement and school superintendents State-wide, to name just 

a few entities. This flow of information allows New Jersey law enforcement to 

strengthen their ability to deter and/or stop school violence. 

School safety and security plans as mandated by the Department of Education in 

(6A:16–5.1), effectively outline the State’s approach in preparing for threats and 

hazards that pose the greatest risk to the security and safety of New Jersey schools. 

Through the direction of the Department of Education, all school districts in New 

Jersey are required to have a school safety and security plan. Each plan must be 

designed locally with the help of law enforcement, emergency management officials, 

public health officials, and other key stakeholders. All plans must be reviewed and 

updated on an annual basis. These plans include procedures to respond to critical 

incidents ranging from bomb threats, fires and gas leaks, to an active-shooter situation. All plans for those schools located in State Police patrolled area are housed 

in both hard copy and electronic copy so they are immediately available to troopers 

if an emergent situation occurs. 

The threat and reality of an active-shooter situation in our schools has become 

all too familiar in the United States. While, here in New Jersey, we have been generally spared from the truly horrific events that have plagued other communities, 

we still need to plan accordingly, collaborate, and to trust in our partner agencies 

in order to prevent these criminal acts. In the past, the New Jersey State Police 

has assumed a signature role in defending the State and its communities against 

these crimes. However, a justly comprehensive preparedness plan is a communal responsibility that requires a public effort in promoting safety and resilience through 

shared common goals and trust. It is vital that all partners build, organize, and enhance security and safety capabilities in a unified approach to be better prepared 

to counter all-hazards and threats in our communities and schools. 

40 

One constant message across all branches within the division is to develop innovative strategies and partnerships with public and private entities to prevent, protect, 

and respond to threats that specifically target our schools. Evidence of this resides 

within the School Safety & Outreach Unit, which was recreated under the Division’s 

Recruiting & Employee Development Bureau, and is principally responsible for 

school safety and community outreach programs. They have established a partnership with the Department of Education, Office of School Preparedness and Emergency Planning. Members of the School Safety & Outreach Unit have participated 

in and supported school safety and security planning efforts, which include ‘‘Unannounced Visits/Drills (UAD),’’ instructing anti-bullying and anti-violence programs, 

and delivering drug prevention programs (such as, Law Enforcement Against 

Drugs—L.E.A.D.). 

The New Jersey State Police participates in the majority of the UAD’s conducted 

State-wide. Led by the Department of Education, the unannounced drills provide 

technical assistance and support to schools with their preparedness efforts, while 

sharing best practices observed in other districts. The evaluation of the drill is informational and provides an opportunity for cooperative collaboration. Only one scenario is drilled: Active Shooter. As of 6/12/18, 66 unannounced drills were conducted 

State-wide. 

By presenting and instructing anti-bullying, anti-violence, and drug prevention 

programs, the division is afforded the opportunity to address several concerns simultaneously. The most obvious benefit is establishing trust between communities and 

their schools and law enforcement officials. Further, these programs provide the 

State Police with an avenue to stage a steady and visible deterrence for those who 

may pose a threat or intend to inflict harm on our communities and in our schools. 

Last, having troopers instruct in the L.E.A.D. program, demonstrates the State Police’s commitment to protecting our youth and communities from the proliferation 

of drugs, drug-related crimes, peer-to-peer/cyber bullying, and violence. 

The division has also partnered with the O.H.S.P., in a coordinated effort in the 

planning, and active participation in ‘‘Active-Shooter Exercises.’’ These exercises are 

intended to test our abilities in responding effectively and efficiently to any hazards 

and threats to our communities and schools. Specialized units and personnel are 

dedicated from both the Division’s Homeland Security and Operations Branches as 

they coordinate their responses in these drills. The New Jersey State Police has 

looked at best practices on responding to an active-shooter incident and has just 

begun rolling out a restructure of our current protocols. 

Field Operations Troopers normally assigned to general police stations throughout 

the State, have received additional training, certifications, and are positioned as 

school resource troopers for 9 regional high schools. They have the ability to immediately respond to all hazards and threats, while providing instruction to students 

on a variety of topics and lessons at the school administration’s request. The trooper’s presence also provides a sense of comfort and deterrence, while further building 

public and community trust in law enforcement. 

Finally, in an attempt to further bolster school safety and public trust in law enforcement, the superintendent, Colonel Patrick Callahan, with support from the 

Governor and attorney general, has encouraged all enlisted members to visit schools 

where the State Police is the sole provider of law enforcement services. These unannounced visits take place while members are traversing the State during the course 

of their day or en route to and from their primary work assignment. The randomness of this program also affords the State Police another layer of security via visible deterrence, while building community relations and trust with school officials. 

In order to promote an open line of communication, all 21 county prosecutors received a letter from Colonel Callahan informing them of this initiative. 

The State Police must establish community relationships and maintain public 

trust in order to continue to educate, detect, deter, prevent, and respond effectively 

to all hazards and threats. Collaboration and community trust are essential components that need to be developed and fostered in order to sustain strong relations 

with our community leaders and school administrators. The reality is, the State Police, or any single law enforcement entity, lacks the personnel to appropriately address all-hazards and threats independently. The State Police must approach our 

training, response, deterrence, and initiatives from a global perspective, while 

partnering with community leaders, school officials, outside law enforcement agencies, and State Departments and Offices to better serve and protect the citizens of 

this State. 

The collaborative working relationship between the State Police and the Governor’s office, Office of Attorney General, Office of Homeland Security, and all of the 

Departments critical to school safety will allow New Jersey to strengthen our plans 

and responses with regard to school safety. 

41 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Major. 

Mr. Gerity. 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY P. GERITY, PRESIDENT, NEW 

JERSEY ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS 

Mr. GERITY. Thank you, sir. Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, my name is Timothy Gerity. I am president of the New 

Jersey Association of School Resource Officers. I am also a full-time 

sworn law enforcement officer in Saddle River in Bergen County. 

My current assignment is that of Detective Sergeant, municipal 

counter-terrorism coordinator and liaison to the schools. I am also 

a member of the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office Cyber Crimes 

Task Force and School Safety Task Force. 

In January 2002 I was assigned as a school resource officer to 

a K–5 elementary, K–12 private, and 9–12 regional high school. 

Over the course of my career I have had the opportunity to serve 

on numerous committees and task forces at the local, county, and 

State-wide level. 

One of those working groups which is of particular importance to 

my testimony today was the group that authored the Uniform 

State Memorandum of Agreement between law enforcement and 

education, or the MOA for short. This document, jointly issued by 

the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety and Department of Education, serves as a basis or guide for the interaction 

between law enforcement and education. That document has been 

updated in 1999, 2007, 2011, and 2015. 

The purpose of my testimony as president is to speak about the 

New Jersey Association of School Resource Officers. In 2001, a new 

organization was incorporated in New Jersey, NJASRO for short. 

It is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization for school-based law enforcement, school administrators, and school security safety professionals working as partners to protect students, school faculty and 

staff, and the schools they attend. 

Through planning and strategic lobbying, the organization was 

successful in having the Safe Schools Resource Officer School Liaison Training Law passed in 2006. Recognizing the significant importance of properly training law enforcement officers, the Police 

Training Act required the Police Training Commission, in consultation with the attorney general, to develop a 40-hour training course 

for safe schools resource officer school liaisons. 

Similarly, in Title 18 Part A Education, 18A:17–43.1, the same 

training course is required for service as a safe schools liaison to 

law enforcement. 

NJASRO has trained approximately 1,200 class attendees over 

the last 10 years. On average, we would hold 4 classes in police 

training commission-approved facilities around the State, with approximately 25 attendees. In 2018, we have scheduled 8 classes 

and have capped attendance for logistical purposes to 40 attendees. 

Earlier this year we held classes in Monmouth in Bergen County. 

For the remainder of the year we have classes scheduled in Monmouth, Union, Ocean, Essex, Atlantic, and Morris Counties. We 

have begun scheduling for 2019 and have already booked Camden 

County for a January class. 

42 

The 5-day class consists of instruction blocks that include but are 

not limited to school resource officer roles and responsibilities, 

school safety, behavior and risk assessment, counterterrorism, juvenile law, school searches and seizures, the Memorandum of Understanding, Title 18 Part A, mentoring, special needs, and working 

with the administration. Attendees must verify their employment 

with a law enforcement agency or provide documentation of their 

employment by a board of education. Our cadre of instructors includes active-duty law enforcement, retired law enforcement, and 

education representatives. 

I turn it back to the dais. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerity follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY P. GERITY

JULY 9, 2018 

My name is Timothy P. Gerity, president of the New Jersey Association of School 

Resource Officers (NJASRO). Thank you for taking time to hear from members of 

the public regarding the important issue of school safety. 

I am a resident of West Milford, New Jersey in Passaic County. I am the father 

of 3 children and a full-time sworn law enforcement officer with the Saddle River 

Police Department in Bergen County, New Jersey. I hold a Master of Administrative 

Science Degree from Fairleigh Dickinson University with graduate certificates in 

Administrative Science and School Safety and Administration. My current assignment is that of Detective Sergeant, Municipal Counter Terrorism Coordinator and 

liaison to the schools. I am also a member of the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office 

Cyber Crimes Task Force and School Safety Task Force. 

For the purposes of establishing my background in school safety I’d like to give 

a brief history. In 1994 I was assigned as a D.A.R.E officer to a public and private 

school. I went on to become a D.A.R.E mentor. A mentor is an individual who trains 

fellow officers on how to deliver certain curriculum in schools. In January 2002 I 

was assigned as a school resource officer to a K–5 elementary, K–12 private, and 

9–12 regional high school. Over the course of my career I have had the opportunity 

to serve on numerous school safety task forces and committees. These task forces 

and committees have been at the local, county, and State-wide level. I was a Schools 

Sector Facilities Subcommittee member of the New Jersey Domestic Security Preparedness Task Force responsible, in part, for making recommendations that were 

reduced to writing for the 2004 ‘‘School Safety Manual Best Practices Guidelines.’’ 

In 2005, as a representative of NJASRO, I participated in an initiative that would 

see every school in New Jersey visited by a school safety expert. This initiative facilitated the completion, as part of Best Practices, two separate documents; a Vulnerability Assessment and a Field Checklist. The field checklist was designed to 

audit compliance with selected aspects of school security best practices. The local 

use vulnerability assessment was designed to identify vulnerabilities within the 

school and generate recommendations to reduce the risks. 

I still remain active and involved with committees and task forces that continue 

to evolve as administrations change and the nature of threats and incidents also 

change. In the interest of brevity, I will not go in depth on all of my involvement 

on all of these initiatives however the work product of a particular working group 

of which I was a participant of bears significant relevance to this testimony. In 1988 

the Uniform State Memorandum of Agreement Between Law Enforcement and Education (MOA) was jointly issued by the New Jersey Department of Law and Public 

Safety and the Department of Education. This document continues to serve as a 

basis or guide for the interaction between law enforcement and education. The MOA 

addresses emerging issues in schools whether they are related to weapons, school 

safety, harassment, intimidation, and bullying or technology. It also addresses the 

sharing of information between education and law enforcement as well as law enforcement conducting operations on school grounds. Undergoing consistent updates, 

the document serves as a relevant and important piece of reference material for not 

only those who function within the school environment but also for those who create 

and execute school safety and security plans. The MOA was updated in 1992, 1999, 

2007, 2011, and 2015 by a committee of various representatives from sectors who 

have interest in both public and private educational institutions. I was a member 

43 

of this working group up until 2011 but professional demands limited my availability. It is my goal to return as a seated member of this working group. 

The purpose of my testimony, as president, is to speak about the New Jersey Association of School Resource Officers. In November 2001, a new organization was 

incorporated in New Jersey. The New Jersey Association of School Resource Officers 

(NJASRO) is a not-for profit 501(c)(3) organization. NJASRO is for school-based law 

enforcement officers, school administrators, and school security/safety professionals 

working as partners to protect students, school faculty and staff and the schools 

they attend. The true and tested strength in the School Resource Officer program 

is that it is much more than a curriculum. The SRO Concept can easily be adapted 

to the needs of ANY community, desiring safe schools, and effective community 

partnerships. The Mission Statement of the organization was and still is to: 

‘‘Provide a network of communications and training for New Jersey’s School Resource Officers, Youth services personnel, School administrators, and Educators; 

Distribute and share advice, and coordinate information on the value of teaching elementary, middle, junior high, and high school students on the principles of good 

citizenship and community responsibility; Reduce school violence and drug abuse by 

enforcing violations of the law occurring on school property; Introduce programs 

that promote and enhance acceptable social behavior.’’ 

Through planning and strategic lobbying the organization was successful in having the Safe Schools Resource Officer/School Liaison Training Law passed in 2006. 

(Pub. L. 2005, c.276 (C.52:17B–71.8 et al.) ) Recognizing the significant importance 

of properly training law enforcement officers; the Police Training Act required the 

Police Training Commission in consultation with the Attorney General, to develop 

a 40-hour training course for safe schools resource officers/school liaisons. Similarly 

in Title 18A Education—18A:17–43.1 the same training course is required for service as safe schools resource officer or liaison to law enforcement. 

‘‘ . . . board of education shall not assign a safe schools resource officer to a public 

school unless that individual first completes the safe schools resource officer training course.’’ 

‘‘ . . . board of education shall not assign an employee to serve as a school liaison 

to law enforcement unless that individual first completes the safe schools resource 

officer training course.’’ 

A Safe Schools Resource Officer/School Liaison Training Program provided by 

NJASRO was found to meet all statutory training requirements and was implemented in police academies throughout the State. This training supports Section 1.8 

of the State-wide Memorandum of Understanding. 

‘‘It is recognized and agreed that without on-going active communication and cooperation among school and law enforcement officials the goals of this Agreement 

cannot be achieved. For this reason, Article 2 of this Agreement requires that law 

enforcement agencies and school districts designate one or more liaisons.’’ 

It is important to note that a safe and secure school environment requires the fostering of a supportive and nurturing learning environment, as well as protection 

from outside/inside threats. School Resource Officers, Class III Specials, school administrators, educators, and school safety professionals, properly trained, pursuant 

to C. 52:17 B–71.8, help to ensure that our children will learn in the most positive 

and constructive school environment possible. 

It is also important to note that while everyone involved in the process wanted 

to make schools safer for students and employees, there was also a concern that 

‘‘over policing’’ in schools would have an impact on the learning environment of 

schools and negatively affect school culture. In 2009, the American Civil Liberties 

Union (ACLU) issued a White Paper: ‘‘Policing in Schools, Developing a Governance 

Document for School Resource Officers in K–12 Schools.’’ In it, the ACLU highlighted the importance of written guidelines for an SRO program and the need for 

support and training for the SRO to understand their role within the school and the 

rights and needs of the children they would serve. Without that understanding, the 

SRO might create an ‘‘adversarial environment that pushes students, particularly 

at-risk students, out of school rather than engaging them in a positive educational 

environment.’’ The ACLU recommended that the SRO receive at least 40 hours of 

training at a minimum, to include topics such as adolescent development and psychology, working with special needs children, and cultural competency. NJASRO’s 

Safe Schools Resource Officers/School Liaison Training pre-dates and meets the criteria. 

School resource officers (‘‘SRO’’) are ‘‘police officers’’ who have extensive training, 

experience with the juvenile justice system, and community policing in schools. They 

44 

are role models, mentors, and act as a liaison between the police department, school 

administrators, and the local community. In many cases, SROs also teach classes 

such as the DARE curriculum to elementary students and play a vital role, on all 

levels, in identifying at-risk students, cases of abuse, intervene in drug and alcohol 

use and provide support for students who feel they have no one to turn to. SROs 

also provide law-related education to high school students in driver’s education and 

business-related classes, among other courses. 

While most would agree that a full-time police officer who is also a school resource 

officer is the ideal solution, this option is out of reach to many New Jersey districts 

because of budgetary restrictions. A full-time officer who is an SRO can cost in excess of $100,000, per year, per officer, including salary and benefits. Also, a full-time 

officer can be ordered to respond to police matters outside of schools causing them 

to leave school grounds during the school day. As a compromise to the desire to have 

full-time SROs in schools, balanced against the significant cost and the 2 percent 

budget cap for New Jersey public schools, the legislature offered a solution in 2016. 

NJASRO played a substantial role in providing pertinent information and proposing 

legislative language to find a solution to provide high-quality and cost-effective safety measures for schools. With the signing of Senate Bill 86, the creation of Special 

Law Enforcement Officer—Class III (‘‘SLEO Class III’’) a 2015 legislative Task 

Force recommendation was signed into law. 

The creation of the SLEO Class III now allows school districts to have a more affordable option to enhance school security and increase the number of highly-trained 

SROs in New Jersey Schools. SLEO Class III officers are typically paid hourly and 

do not receive health and retirement benefits for this position. The Class III officer 

is generally hired by the chief of police of the local police department and is in his/ 

her chain of command. Payment for these positions can be paid by the board of education, the municipality or on a fee-sharing basis. It is important for all sides involved from the superintendent of schools, mayor, and police chief to have an open 

and productive line of communication on this topic. 

However, even with the current proliferation of Class III officers, who are required to attend the Safe Schools Resource Officer/School Liaison training, the financial struggle remains the same for some districts. In the late 1990’s the COPS 

Office, Community Oriented Policing Services, under the United States Department 

of Justice, offered a 4-year SRO grant program. The grant paid the costs of assigning an officer to the schools for the first 3 years. The 4th year was split between 

the community and the education entity. This is truly where assigning police officers 

to schools gained traction in New Jersey and became an accepted Community Policing Model. Unfortunately, after its seminal introduction, the grant was not renewed. 

In the past few years there has been some very limited, competitive grant opportunities available to offset the costs of assigning an SRO to schools. However, they 

have been few and far in between. Current Federal grant opportunities, in the 

school safety arena, support training programs, development of initiatives or lean 

toward installing technology. There are very few, if any, that financially support districts in putting ‘‘boots on the ground.’’ I’m hopeful that, through my testimony, 

there comes a renewed opportunity through State or Federal grants to help local 

districts pay for full-time SRO’s, which by definition includes Class III Officers. 

NJASRO has trained approximately 1,200 class attendees over the last 10 years. 

On average we would hold 4 classes at Police Training Commission-approved facilities around the State with approximately 25 attendees. In 2018 we’ve scheduled 8 

classes and have capped attendance, for logistical purposes, to 40 attendees. Earlier 

this year we held classes in Monmouth County and Bergen County. For the remainder of the year we have classes scheduled in Monmouth, Union, Ocean, Essex, Atlantic, and Morris Counties. We’ve begun scheduling for 2019 and have already 

booked Camden County for a January class. The 5-day class consists of instruction 

blocks that include, but are not limited to, SRO roles and responsibilities, school 

safety, behavior and risk assessment, counterterrorism, juvenile law, school 

searches and seizures, Memorandum of Understanding, Title 18 A, mentoring, special needs and working with the administration. Attendees must verify their employment with a law enforcement agency or provide documentation of their employment by a Board of Education. Our cadre of instructors include active-duty law enforcement, retired law enforcement and education representatives. 

Security and vigilance has become standard practice in our Government buildings, 

airports, and other high-profile locations as part of our Nation’s homeland security 

efforts. This has resulted in the dismantling of numerous terror plots and created 

an environment where terror attacks are more difficult to execute at these locations. 

In light of increased security measures at other locations, terror attacks on soft targets involving innocent civilians and often children are becoming an increasingly 

more desirable target for attacks. If schools are to be considered soft targets then 

45 

planning teams must remain diligent and open-minded as they consider emerging 

threats. This is a complicated narrative as current trends dictate that emergency 

and crisis plans must be expanded to include the threats from Home-Grown Violent 

Extremists (HGVE’s) and the use of encrypted social media by terrorist networks. 

This places a tremendous burden on school safety planners as the luxury of planning and preparing for an attack orchestrated by radical extremist groups outside 

the United States, has shifted to where the planning and preparation must include 

threats originating from those individuals who are currently members of our student population. While successful threat assessments are vital to preventing the 

next school shooting the assessments must now address those individuals who face 

potential radicalization as a result of perceived injustices, anger, and isolation. The 

shift in planning must overcome the belief that terror attacks will only come from 

outside sources. 

Given these challenges facing school safety planners an assessment must be made 

in how plans are drafted and executed. School administrators must be made aware 

of common radicalization techniques affecting student populations and be given effective programs to challenge on-line radicalization messaging. They must be aware 

of and be able to identify behavioral indicators and provide assistance to youth who 

are struggling to adjust within their community. This in turn may help children 

cope with their feelings of isolation, anger, and depression and reduce the opportunity for extremists to exploit these feelings for recruitment. 

There are ample opportunities to assist youth and many techniques are already 

in use as schools look to prevent bias incidents and bullying from occurring. Schools 

could convene students from varying cultural backgrounds to promote cultural understanding and provide educational opportunities on aspects of different cultures. 

They could promote open discussions with the assistance of the community and religious centers about conflicts and ways that violent extremists may use religion to 

justify their actions. These few improvements in training, educating, and providing 

resources may greatly reduce the likelihood of a terror attack from within on a U.S. 

school. 

New Jersey has long recognized the importance and value of a safe and secure 

school environment. It has also recognized that safety and security must be in balance with a school’s main function which is to educate our children. School violence 

is a complex issue that can result in a never-ending debate amongst scholars in all 

fields of study. The common agreeable element amongst those who debate the topic 

is the fact we, as a society, need to do more to protect the school population. If we 

look at the history of initiatives in New Jersey, from 1988 to 2018 we see guides, 

task force creations, documents, manuals, electronic databases, plans, codes, directives, recommendations, laws, minimum requirements, and reports. NJASRO is 

proud to have participated in the latest State-wide school safety initiative. Just last 

week the New Jersey Department of Education held its School Safety Specialist Certification Training. I was proud to write the curriculum for and present on the topic 

of Law Enforcement and Education Partnerships. All of the initiatives, recognized 

or unrecognized, are the result of the due diligence in the areas of school safety and 

security by the countless members of various State agencies, task forces, working 

groups, and committees. 

While continued public meetings and community discussion are valuable platforms, true change will only come through action. Adequate resources also need to 

be allocated to enable schools to pursue these measures, and mechanisms need to 

be put in place to ensure compliance. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Gerity. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Reilly. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL REILLY, PRESIDENT, COMMUNITY 

EDUCATION COUNCIL 31, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK 

Mr. REILLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Donovan and Ranking 

Member Payne, for inviting me to testify today. 

One of the most frightening things a parent can hear is that 

there is an emergency incident at their child’s school. We feel vulnerable, and our first thought is to immediately go to the school. 

Parents and guardians should not respond to the school unless they 

receive official notification to do so. If a school has activated a shelter-in—the incident is in close proximity but outside the school 

building—or a hard lockdown—incident is in the actual school 

46 

building—parents and all non-emergency personnel will not be allowed into the building, and all staff and students will not be allowed to leave the building without authorization from emergency 

responders. 

An increase in vehicles and people at the school can interfere 

with emergency personnel responding to the incident. The first priority is to have a clear pathway for emergency responders to ensure everyone’s safety. 

Communication. There are certain circumstances when the 

NYPD and the DOE will limit what details are released. Although 

that may seem inappropriate, there is a legal reason. If preliminary 

details are included in a community notification and later determined to be inaccurate, that may jeopardize a criminal case. All paperwork and communications generated by the NYPD and the DOE 

are evidence and, as such, required to be handed over to a defendant’s attorney. For instance, if a community notification lists a specific license plate, color, make, and model of a vehicle used in a 

crime, and then it is determined that the initial information provided was incorrect, the suspect’s defense attorney could use the incorrect information to possibly raise a reasonable doubt, limiting 

the chances of a conviction in a case. 

When an incident happens, word can travel like the telephone 

game. With today’s technology it spreads faster, with even greater 

twists and embellishments. It is understandable that, in many 

cases, schools can’t release specific details about an incident. That 

can change when the incident is deemed under control. Schools can 

and should communicate with families to address any safety concerns they may have. An email, letter, or robo-call acknowledging 

an incident occurred and reassuring that safety protocols were implemented can help alleviate community concerns. 

Providing notification to the school community should be a crucial part of a school’s emergency response system. Communication 

builds trust and collaboration. Lack of communication leads to mistrust and gives the illusion that nothing is being done. That can 

be extremely damaging to a school community. 

It is also important to note that New York Education Law and 

the New York State Education Department mandate each public 

school to conduct at least 8 evacuation/fire drills and 4 shelter-in/ 

lockdown drills each year. 

New York City DOE school safety, emergency readiness. A vital 

component of emergency readiness within the DOE is the School 

Safety Plan. As part of the Safety Plan, schools/campuses must 

identify individual staff members to become Building Response 

Team members. In campus settings, each school must have one 

representative on the BRT. The BRT members are hand-selected by 

the principal to manage all school-related emergencies until the 

first responders arrive. In addition, all schools implement General 

Response Protocols, GRP, which outline the initial actions to be 

taken if an incident requires evacuation, shelter-in, or a lockdown. 

These actions are based on the use of common language to initiate 

the measures all school communities will take in a variety of incidents. 

All staff and students receive training in the GRP, and drills are 

conducted at various times throughout the school year. Lessons 

47 

have been designed for different grade levels so that the information is delivered to students without causing unnecessary alarm. 

Information about New York City DOE General Response Protocols is provided to parents on the schools.nyc.gov website to help 

guide conversations with their children about emergency readiness 

in schools. 

Community Education Council 31 has been advocating for greater security protocols for several years. In 2012, CEC 31 introduced 

a proposal titled ‘‘Comprehensive School Safety and Security,’’ 

which included locking all doors, installing security cameras at 

main entrances to school buildings, improving School Building Response Team training, overhauling school public address systems, 

and incorporating retired police officers as special patrolmen to 

supplement school security. 

After discussing the proposal with our local, State, and Federal 

representatives, the plan was introduced in State legislation and 

signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2014. The laws authorized the New York State Education Department to provide 

grant opportunities to schools to improve infrastructure security— 

replacing doors, installing cameras and other technology for school 

buildings—mandating increased training for school emergency response teams and more frequent security drills. The law also allows school districts to hire retired police officers as school resource 

officers. In addition, in the same time period, DOJ authorized the 

use of civilian clothes school resource officers, which aligned with 

the CEC 31 plan. Until then, the Federal grant opportunity only 

applied to uniformed school resource officers. 

After the Sandy Hook tragedy, a principal on Staten Island was 

proactive and locked the front door. Unfortunately, the school safety agent assigned to the school filed a grievance, claiming it wasn’t 

in their job description to get up each time someone knocked to 

open the door. These types of shortfalls in security can and must 

be adjusted to ensure the safety and security of our schools. 

Some have raised concerns that locking the front door may 

hinder emergency responders because they may not be able to access the building as quickly as possible. I believe the use of a key 

fob, pass key, or another similar technological access device could 

be utilized, allowing immediate entry for emergency responders. 

The FDNY has a similar system where they utilize a master key 

for elevator access across the city. 

It is important to remember that it is impossible to prevent all 

incidents, but we must continually try our best to limit the impact 

if an emergency occurs. 

CEC 31 believes there are several other protocols and supplemental supports that can help school communities. Improving communication between agencies would be beneficial. The NYPD and 

DOE do a tremendous job protecting our schools, but like everything else, there is always room for improvement. Having a regional Fusion Center model to monitor and track incidents and 

threats to schools could streamline information sharing to mitigate 

the possibility of missing an important trend or piece of information. 

Additionally, providing training and potential requirements at 

the Federal level for school districts to report incidents of bullying 

48 

or threats, as well as the disposition of all incident investigations, 

could help identify students who may need additional support and/ 

or counseling. Adding additional counselors to our schools would be 

a proactive step, but as I am sure you are aware, that requires 

funding. 

Last, after a recent incident at a high school in Staten Island involving a potential threat with a firearm, we held a safety meeting 

with our elected officials as well as the DOE and NYPD. We spoke 

about the impact to the response caused by parents and caregivers 

rushing to the school at the onset of the emergency situation. 

During that meeting we discussed incorporating a family staging 

area in school safety plans. This staging area would be a safe distance away from each school building. The school would send an 

email, family/community notification, that would include the staging location, which would be positioned a safe distance from the 

school building. Having a staging area could reduce potential obstacles emergency responders may encounter, increasing response 

times and saving lives. A staging area would allow emergency responders to focus resources on the initial incident and not redirect 

personnel for crowd control at the immediate incident scene. 

If possible, would DHS consider incorporating a parent/community video and training piece in the Emergency Management Institute Independent Study Program, suggesting schools incorporate a 

staging area and the importance for parents and other community 

members to wait for a notification and only respond to officially 

designated staging areas? 

I thank you for your time and allowing me to testify, and I yield 

back to the Chair. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reilly follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL REILLY

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Honorable Members. Thank you for inviting 

me to testify today. 

One of the most frightening things a parent can hear is that there is an emergency incident at their child’s school. We feel vulnerable and our first thought is 

to immediately go to the school. 

Parents and guardians should NOT respond to the school unless they receive official notification to do so. 

If a school has activated a Shelter-In (the incident is in close proximity but outside the school building) or a Hard Lockdown (incident is in the actual school building) parents and all non-emergency personnel will NOT be allowed into the building 

and all staff and students will NOT be allowed to leave the building without authorization from emergency responders. 

An increase in vehicles and people at the school can interfere with emergency personnel responding to the incident. The first priority is to have a clear pathway for 

emergency responders to ensure everyone’s safety. 

COMMUNICATION

There are certain circumstances when the NYPD and DOE will limit what details 

are released. Although that may seem inappropriate, there is a legal reason. If preliminary details are included in a community notification and later determined to 

be inaccurate, that may jeopardize a criminal case. All paperwork and communications generated by the NYPD and DOE are evidence, and as such, required to be 

handed over to a defendant’s attorney. 

For instance; if a community notification lists a specific license plate, color, make, 

and model of a vehicle used in a crime and then it is determined that the initial 

information provided was incorrect, the suspect’s defense attorney could use the incorrect information to possibly raise a reasonable doubt, limiting the chances of a 

conviction in a case. 

49 

When an incident happens, word can travel like the telephone game. With today’s 

technology, it spreads faster with even greater twists and embellishments. It is understandable that, in many cases, schools can’t release specific details about an incident. That can change when the incident is deemed under control. Schools can and 

should communicate with families to address any safety concerns they may have. 

An email, letter, or robo-call acknowledging an incident occurred and reassuring 

that safety protocols were implemented can help alleviate community concerns. 

Providing notification to the school community should be a crucial part of a 

school’s emergency response system. Communication builds trust and collaboration. 

Lack of communication leads to mistrust, and gives the illusion that nothing is 

being done. That can be extremely damaging to a school community. 

It is also important to note that New York Education Law and the New York 

State Education Department mandate each public school to conduct at least 8 evacuation/fire drills and 4 shelter-in/lockdown drills each year. 

NYC DOE SCHOOL SAFETY: EMERGENCY READINESS

‘‘A vital component of emergency readiness within the DOE is the School Safety 

Plan (SSP). As part of the Safety Plan, schools/campuses must identify individual 

staff members to become Building Response Team members (BRT). In campus settings, each school must have one representative on the BRT. The BRT members are 

hand selected by the Principal to manage all school-related emergencies until the 

first responders arrive. In addition, all schools implement General Response Protocols (GRP), which outline the initial actions to be taken if an incident requires Evacuation, Shelter-In, or a Lockdown. These actions are based on the use of common 

language to initiate the measures all school communities will take in a variety of 

incidents. 

‘‘All staff and students receive training in the GRP and drills are conducted at 

various times throughout the school year. Lessons have been designed for different 

grade levels so that the information is delivered to students without causing unnecessary alarm.’’ 

Information about NYC DOE General Response Protocols is provided to parents 

on the schools.nyc.gov website to help guide conversations with their children about 

emergency readiness in schools. 

Community Education Council 31 has been advocating for greater security protocols for several years. In 2012 CEC 31 introduced a proposal—titled Comprehensive 

School Safety and Security—which included: Locking all doors; installing security 

cameras at main entrances to school buildings; improving School Building Response 

Team training; overhauling School Public Address systems, and incorporating retired police officers as special patrolmen to supplement school security. 

After discussing the proposal with our local, State, and Federal representatives 

the plan was introduced in State legislation and signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2014. The laws authorized the NYS Education Department to provide grant opportunities to schools to improve infrastructure security (i.e. replacing 

doors, installing cameras, and other technology) for school buildings, mandating increased training for school emergency response teams, and more frequent security 

drills. The law also allows school districts to hire retired police officers as School 

Resource Officers. In addition, in the same time period, DOJ authorized the use of 

civilian clothes school resource officers, which aligned with the CEC 31 plan. Until 

then, the Federal grant opportunity only applied to uniformed school resource officers. 

After the Sandy Hook tragedy, a principal on Staten Island was proactive and 

locked the front door. Unfortunately, the school safety agent assigned to the school 

filed a grievance, claiming it wasn’t in their job description to get up each time 

someone knocked to open the door. These types of shortfalls in security can and 

must be adjusted to ensure the safety and security of our schools. 

Some have raised concerns that locking the front door may hinder emergency responders because they may not be able to access the building as quickly as possible. 

I believe the use of a ‘‘Key Fob’’ pass key or another similar technological access 

device could be utilized, allowing immediate entry for emergency responders. The 

FDNY has a similar system where they utilize a ‘‘Master Key’’ for elevator access 

across the city. 

It is important to remember that it is impossible to prevent all incidents, but we 

must continually try our best to limit the impact if an emergency occurs. 

CEC 31 believes there are several other protocols and supplemental supports that 

can help school communities. Improving communication between agencies would be 

beneficial. The NYPD and DOE do a tremendous job protecting our schools, but like 

everything else there is always room for improvement. Having a regional ‘‘Fusion 

50 

Center’’ model to monitor and track incidents and threats to schools could streamline information sharing to mitigate the possibility of missing an important trend 

or piece of information. 

Additionally, providing training and potential requirements at the Federal level 

for school districts to report incidents of bullying, threats, etc. as well as the disposition of all incident investigations could help identify students who may need additional support and/or counseling. Adding additional counselors to our schools would 

be a proactive step, but as I am sure you are aware that requires funding. 

Last, after a recent incident at a high school involving a potential threat with a 

firearm, we held a safety meeting with our elected officials as well as the DOE and 

NYPD. We spoke about the impact to the response caused by parents and caregivers 

rushing to the school at the onset of the emergency situation. 

During that meeting we discussed incorporating a family staging area in school 

safety plans. This staging area would be a safe distance away from each school 

building. The school would send an initial family/community notification that would 

include the staging location, which would be positioned a safe distance from the 

school building. Having a staging area would could reduce potential obstacles emergency responders may encounter, increasing response times and saving lives. A 

staging area would allow emergency responders to focus resources on the initial incident and not redirect personnel for crowd control at the immediate incident scene. 

If possible, would DHS consider incorporating a parent/community video and 

training piece in the Emergency Management Institute Independent Study program, 

suggesting schools incorporate a staging area and the importance for parents and 

other community members to wait for a notification and only respond to officially 

designated staging areas? 

I thank you for your time and consideration and the opportunity to discuss the 

challenges we face with school security. 

ATTACHMENT 1.—COMMUNITY EDUCATION COUNCIL DISTRICT 31 

MARCH 9, 2011 

The following resolution was presented to the public at the Community Education 

Council 31 (CEC 31) Calendar Meeting held on March 7, 2011 at the Petrides Educational Complex, Staten Island, New York. A vote was taken and the resolution 

approved unanimously by voice-vote of the CEC members present, as reflected in 

the Minutes. 

RESOLUTION NO. 65—RECOMMENDATION TO IMPLEMENT A CITY-WIDE 

PUBLIC ADDRESS/FIRE ALARM SYSTEM REPLACEMENT PROGRAM IN 

NEW YORK CITY SCHOOL FACILITIES 

WHEREAS, many of the New York City public schools’ Public Address/Fire Alarm 

systems are not adequate for today’s ever-increasing demands for school safety; and 

WHEREAS, numerous school administrators have requested overhauls of Public 

Address/Fire Alarm systems through Capital Plan Amendment requests; and 

WHEREAS, many school administrators have reported deficiencies of the Public 

Address/Fire Alarm systems during critical and non-critical situations; and 

WHEREAS, enhancement and/or replacement of such emergency equipment will 

improve each school administrator’s ability to notify staff, deploy and coordinate resources and effectively alleviate emergencies that may occur at a New York City 

public school facility; and 

WHEREAS, The Public Address/Fire Alarm Replacement Program can be funded 

by reducing each district’s yearly Capital Plan fiscal allocations by 5 percent to 10 

percent. The resulting funds can be allotted for 3 or 4 schools in each district to 

have a Public Address/Fire Alarm system retrofit yearly; therefore 

BE IT RESOLVED, that Community Education Council 31 requests the NYC Department of Education, Division of School Facilities and the NYC School Construction Authority implement a city-wide Public Address/Fire Alarm System Replacement Program similar to the Boiler Replacement Program that currently exists in 

the Capital Plan. 

Explanation: In this ever-changing environment for school safety, it is imperative 

to have an emergency notification system that consistently operates effectively. It 

is extremely important to provide quick communication for emergencies or other important information from both a central location and an individual classroom. The 

Public Address/Fire Alarm Enhancement/Replacement Program will provide for an 

improved fire and life safety program for each New York City public school. 

APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY by roll call vote of all members present: 9 YES; 0 

NO (Absent for vote: Chadwick). 

51 

PASSED and ADOPTED this 7th Day of March, 2011. 

KATHY BALDASSANO, 

Administrative Assistant, CEC 31. 

ATTACHMENT 2.—COMMUNITY EDUCATION COUNCIL DISTRICT 31 

JANUARY 8, 2013 

The following resolution was presented to the public at the Community Education 

Council 31 (CEC 31) Calendar Meeting held on January 7, 2013 at the Petrides 

Complex, Staten Island, New York. A vote was taken and the resolution approved 

by the CEC members present, as reflected in the Minutes. 

RESOLUTION NO. 76—CEC 31 RECOMMENDS THAT DOE INSTALLS ‘‘BUZZER’’ ENTRY SYSTEMS WITH VIDEO AND ‘‘PANIC BUTTONS’’ AT MAIN 

ENTRANCES TO NYC PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND CONSIDERS IMPLEMENTING RETIRED NYPD POLICE OFFICERS TO SUPPLEMENT 

SCHOOL SECURITY PERSONNEL 

WHEREAS, recent concerns have been raised by Council members, parents, 

teachers, students, law enforcement personnel, education officials and advocates regarding security in NYC public schools; and 

WHEREAS, current public school security consists of unarmed, uniformed New 

York Police Department (NYPD) school safety agents, with most NYC elementary 

schools having only one (1) school safety agent assigned; and 

WHEREAS, current public school entry procedures allow individuals to enter 

school buildings through an unlocked door at the main entrance, with the first point 

of visitor verification at the security desk—located beyond the entrance, inside the 

school building—where visitors are required to show identification; and 

WHEREAS, Community Education Council 31 (CEC 31) believes that school safety agents should have the opportunity to view a person requesting entry before the 

visitor gains access to any part of the building; and 

WHEREAS, CEC 31 believes a ‘‘buzzer’’ entry system with video camera, video 

capture for future recognition and ‘‘panic buttons’’ directly linked to NYPD dispatchers would offer an additional layer of security for our schools and provide valuable lead-time to alert emergency personnel of a potential critical incident; therefore 

BE IT RESOLVED that CEC 31 requests that the Department of Education 

(DOE) installs ‘‘buzzer’’ entry systems with video camera, video capture and ‘‘panic 

buttons’’ in NYC public school buildings; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that CEC 31 requests that the NYPD and the 

DOE consider implementation of the following proposal designating retired NYPD 

police officers as ‘‘special patrolmen’’ to supplement current security personnel in 

NYC public schools. 

A Proposal for the NYPD and DOE to Enhance Security in NYC Public School 

Buildings: 

Recent events have raised concerns about security in schools throughout the Nation. Several school districts across the country have implemented the use of armed 

security guards to minimize the threat of potential shootings in schools. 

CEC 31’s proposal would allow the NYC Department of Education the ability to 

hire retired NYC police officers as armed ‘‘special patrolmen’’. These ‘‘special patrolmen’’ will specifically be assigned to enhance school security against potentially violent and armed threats and will NOT be involved in routine school disciplinary matters. These special patrolmen will have peace officer status. 

The New York City Police Commissioner has the authority to designate qualified 

individuals as ‘‘Special Patrolmen’’ under the New York City Administrative Code, 

Section 14–106 (e) which states that ‘‘the NYC Police Commissioner under the application by any agency or public authority may appoint special patrolman for duty 

performed anywhere in the city for the agency or public authority.’’ 

This initiative will require hiring approximately 300–500 retired NYC police officers, who are licensed to carry concealed firearms. The NYC Department of Education will grant, in writing, authorization for these special patrolmen to carry concealed firearms on school property. These retired officers will fall under the direct 

supervision of the NYPD School Safety Division. The retired police officers will be 

assigned on a rotating basis to schools throughout New York City. (The program 

could be expanded to assign a ‘‘special patrolman’’ to every NYC public school building—approximately 1,000 school buildings.) 

52 

Suggested Rules and Regulations for the Program: 

• Administrative Code section 14–106 mandates that the special patrolmen 

MUST comply with the orders of the NYPD Commissioner and the rules of the 

New York City Police Department. 

• The NYC Department of Education will pay the special patrolmen as an independent contract employee via a 1099. This payment system is similar to the 

Off-Duty Employment Program that currently exists for active NYPD members. 

• Retired NYC police officers assigned as special patrolmen to the Department of 

Education will be required to file a 211 or 212 pension waiver, if necessary. 

APPROVED by roll-call vote: 8–1 (8 Yes; 1 No; not present for vote: Whitfield) 

PASSED and ADOPTED this 7th Day of January, 2013. 

KATHY BALDASSANO, 

Administrative Assistant, CEC 31. 

(Addendum letter attached.) 

ADDENDUM TO CEC 31 RESOLUTION NO. 76 

In addition to Resolution No. 76 which CEC 31 approved on January 7, 2013, we 

respectfully request that the DOE implement a policy of practice, procedure and 

training that further enhances existing policies established by schools to respond to 

emergency events. 

Specifically, CEC 31 requests: 

• That the DOE implement a standardized plan that all schools follow, regardless 

of a school’s location or CFN network, which will ensure a proper response to 

all types of emergency situations in any school. 

• That the DOE ensure that each and every school is appropriately training their 

staff, faculty, and students and all responders within the school’s established 

safety response plan. 

• That the DOE regularly ensures, with the guidance of trained professionals, 

that each and every school has a consistent plan which is frequently updated 

and that the schools providing age-appropriate drills & training on the approved 

plans on a regular basis. 

Further, and of utmost importance, that the DOE immediately ensure that each 

and every one of the schools is equipped with a working public address system and 

alarm/fire alarm system and that any other equipment that is a required part of 

a schools response to dangerous situations is updated and continuously checked to 

ensure that it is in proper working order. 

While the DOE insists that all of its schools have emergency reaction plans, such 

as Building Response Teams (BRTs), it is imperative that there be uniformity in the 

training of those who run the response protocols throughout the city. All BRT members must be uniformly trained on what, where, and when to do their tasks, no matter in which borough or district they are located. 

DOE’s supervision of a standardized safety plan and consistent checks that these 

plans are in place, trained upon and followed, will ensure that everyone involved 

in reacting to an emergency does so and that all safeguards and tools to implement 

them are always in place. 

Submitted on behalf of the Council Members of CEC 31, 

PETER J. CALANDRELLA. 

ATTACHMENT 3.—COMMUNITY EDUCATION COUNCIL DISTRICT 31 

APRIL 11, 2014 

The following resolution was presented to the public at the Community Education 

Council 31 (CEC 31) Calendar Meeting held on April 7, 2014 at Paulo Intermediate 

School (IS 75), Staten Island, New York. A vote was taken and the resolution approved unanimously by the CEC members present, as reflected in the Minutes. 

RESOLUTION NO. 83—CEC 31 REQUESTS THAT NYC DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION EXPAND THE MONITORING OF STUDENT INCIDENTS IN 

THE ON-LINE OCCURRENCE REPORTING SYSTEM TO IDENTIFY REPEATED INCIDENTS OF BEHAVIOR REQUIRING ADDITIONAL SUPPORT 

OR INTERVENTION 

WHEREAS, The NYC Department of Education Office of Safety and Youth Development maintains the On-line Occurrence Reporting System (OORS) for incidents 

involving individual students such as bullying, harassment or fighting, etc.; and 

WHEREAS, Chancellor’s Regulation A–832 requires school principals to document 

and investigate incidents in the OORS within 24 hours of receiving the report; and 

53 

WHEREAS, The current data capability of the OORS monitors incidents involving 

individual students only within the current school year and school level; and 

WHEREAS, Many incidents involving individual students continue with the same 

offender and victim when they advance to the next grade or new school; and 

WHEREAS, Transitions from elementary to middle school reveal the greatest gap 

in monitoring incidents, which can defeat establishing a safe learning environment 

for all students; and 

WHEREAS, Alerting and enabling principals with the OORS to potential patterns 

of behavior that stretch across grades and/or schools will help identify both student 

victims and offenders; and 

WHEREAS, Since the On-line Occurrence Reporting System utilizes students’ Office of Student Information System (OSIS) numbers to ensure privacy in identifying 

student victims or offenders, then if OORS identifies identical OSIS numbers involved in separate or multiple incidents, patterns of student behavior requiring additional intervention or support could be identified; therefore be it 

RESOLVED, That Community Education Council 31 requests that the NYC Department of Education expands the monitoring capabilities of the On-line Occurrence Reporting System at the school level to help promote a safer and more inclusive learning environment for all students and school communities. 

APPROVED by roll-call vote: 8–0 (8 Yes; 0 No; absent for vote: L. Timoney) 

PASSED and ADOPTED this 7th Day of April, 2014. 

KATHY BALDASSANO. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Reilly. 

Because there are five of you, and we only have 5 minutes each, 

we might do a second round if we don’t get through all of our questions. 

I thank you all for your testimony. 

I would just like to ask all of you, if you were here in the room 

during the first panel, my question to the panelists was that I 

wasn’t sure—the report, the General Accounting Report came out 

and said that there was some gap between the Federal resources 

that are available to all of you, and you utilizing them, that people 

might not have been aware of them. 

Have you guys gotten to use the Federal resources? Is there a 

problem with communication between us, the Federal Government, 

and the localities? Have you seen any obstacles in using the Federal resources that are available to all of you? I would just open 

that up to the panel. 

Mr. MAPLES. So, I will begin with the Federal Homeland Security 

Grant Program. We work directly with FEMA on all those initiatives, so we have pretty good communication and certainly blast 

that out to our constituency throughout the State of New Jersey. 

I think there definitely could be better communication from some 

of the Justice and Education programs. As I was hearing some of 

those opportunities, I would like the opportunity to be a megaphone for those throughout the State. It is something that we are 

certainly in a position to do with our partners in Education, State 

Police, Attorney General’s Office, and that is something we are 

going to follow up on. I was actually talking with my chief of staff 

about that earlier based off of the commentary we heard. 

There is opportunity, I think, from the State and local level that 

we have this unique capability to reach directly into the local governments and education departments, so we will plan on doing 

that. We are really going to double down on our efforts on that. 

Mr. DONOVAN. I was watching you, Jared. When you heard there was $2 billion available, I saw you writing that down. 

Mr. MAPLES. Yes, you can’t miss it. 

[Laughter.] 

54 

Mr. DONOVAN. Have the rest of you had any experiences, whether good or bad, or were you unaware of some of the resources that 

were available to you until today? 

Mr. CASTILLO. Yes, sir. If I may, this may be a good chance to 

give a shout-out to some of the work that is being done by our DHS 

partners. One of the representatives used to work for Jared before 

the Feds stole him, but they have been very, very good in reaching 

out to us, seeing what we are doing. That has been working well. 

If there is some way to maybe streamline that whole Federal 

grant process, that might be helpful, although with the size of the 

bureaucracy, that might be kind-of difficult. 

In addition to that, if there is any way perhaps to get a clearinghouse just for those things dealing with school violence where they 

could collect data and analyze it and provide that to all the States, 

anyone who might have a need for it, that would be very, very 

helpful. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Because one of my other questions was going to 

be if you have good practices, best practices, how were you letting 

other school systems know of your practices that maybe they could 

implement, as well? So maybe that clearinghouse that you spoke 

of could be a good source. 

Major, Mr. Gerity, and Mr. Reilly, do you have any comments 

about the Federal resources and how we can make it more accessible to you? 

Ms. HENGEMUHLE. I think any time money is involved, we all should know about it, and I did write down that $2 billion was it? 

Yes, with a ‘‘B’’. I think the State Police is always looking for Federal grants, State grants, anything to improve upon our processes 

right now. So I am going to go back and follow up on that, and follow up with OHSP as well, because money helps with a little bit 

of everything. If we can get it, we will do everything we can. 

Mr. DONOVAN. It has always been our belief to let the people on 

the ground do the work. We should present you with and offer and 

support you with the resources to do that work. 

Mr. GERITY. It may be to your point and a little beyond the point. 

I did hear the COPS Office mentioned earlier, Community Oriented 

Policing Services, and if you will bear with me for 1 second, I will 

be brief. 

In the late 1990’s, the COPS Office made a 4-year, School Resource Officer grant program available. Three years was paid by 

the grant for the cost of assigning a school resource officer, which 

by definition in today’s language includes Class III officers, paid for 

the grant for the first 3 years, and the fourth year was split between the education entity and the community. 

After the initial launch of the grant, after the 4 years expired, 

the grant was not renewed. So we found ourselves where we had 

come up with this terrific community-oriented policing program, 

embedded officers who became adjunct faculty members, very attached, role models, mentors to children, but a lot of districts loved 

the program and no one wanted to pay for it or could afford to pay 

for it. 

So just to bring it full circle, I know there have been some very 

limited grant opportunities over the course of the years, but they 

are few and far between. Most of the grant monies that seem to 

55 

come out, or are development of initiatives, or lean toward installing technology or training programs, there are very few, if any, 

that financially support districts in putting boots on the ground. 

Mr. DONOVAN. One of the difficulties we have in why people are 

discouraged from Federal grants, they usually have a time limit, 

and you never know if they are ever going to be renewed, and 3 

or 4 years from now there might be a different issue that needs to 

be addressed with those same resources, and we take it away from 

one and put it to the other. It is always easier for the Federal Government to buy hardware for you or help you to buy the hardware 

you need rather than the personnel that you could always use. 

Mr. Reilly. 

Mr. REILLY. Thanks. Just real quick, Chairman, thank you. I 

think one of the issues that we have, especially with New York 

City, the largest school district in the country, we have schools, we 

have 1,800 schools in 1,400 buildings. So 400 of our buildings have 

campuses, so they have a shared school safety plan. 

Part of the problem with grant funding is a lot of times there is 

a cap on how many people a district can have. Since our geographical districts are broken down, like Staten Island has its own 

school district but we are a part of the greater New York City district, we have in Staten Island what would encompass maybe several towns of school districts. We have 70 schools, and we serve 

60,000 students, just K–8. When we incorporate high school, we are 

talking 75,000 students. So sometimes we don’t qualify for a grant 

because it is capped at a certain amount of population, and that 

goes both at the Federal and the State level. The State level, we 

have seen that that has happened several times. So maybe if there 

is a way of targeting grants for specific areas in school districts, 

that may actually help. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Before I yield to my colleague, I just wanted to 

let you know that this committee is known to hold fewer hearings 

than other committees because we actually take the information 

that you give us and do something with it. Don and I never wanted 

to have a hearing for the sake of having a hearing because we are 

in Congress and that is what you are supposed to do. So all this 

information that you are providing to us is incredibly valuable, and 

the difficulties or obstacles that you all are experiencing through 

this process, we will take back. 

The folks behind us, the great, talented people behind us are memorializing everything you are saying. We will go back and work 

on these issues to try to make this system cleaner, better, and 

more efficient for all of you. 

I now yield to my colleague, Don Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Sitting here listening to the discussion and the surprise of the $2 

billion that we all were surprised to hear about, me included, goes 

to what I found since coming to Congress. There are resources out 

there, but if you don’t know the correct question to ask the Federal 

Government, no one really volunteers the information. They will 

answer it if you come up with the right question, but if you don’t 

ask the right question, nobody volunteers it. So we find out about 

a billion dollars today, something you probably all would have liked 

to have known a while ago. 

56 

But let me just start with Mr. Castillo and Mr. Maples. One of 

the things that we saw with the Parkland shooting was how students really came together and got involved with one voice to demand something be done to protect them in schools. If nothing else, 

we have learned that students want to be at the table when discussing school safety. 

As each of your organizations works to improve school safety, 

how do you incorporate feedback from students? 

Mr. MAPLES. I will start, if I could, and just address your first 

comment. One method we found in New Jersey that has helped is 

the non-profit Security Grant Program. I know New York, both 

States have done pretty well over the years. That has been a pretty 

good model through the Department of Homeland Security. FEMA 

runs that program. As far as getting the funding out in a coordinated way, if we could replicate that toward education, that does 

bring in multi-facets of the Federal Government involved in that 

one kind of initiative, and that includes hardware, sometimes personnel, but hardware, security assessments, et cetera. So those are 

toward non-profits, but if we could incorporate that into an education focus, that could be helpful as well. 

As far as our engagement with the students, we absolutely put 

a premium on what the student population is saying. When we go 

out and do these active-shooter drills, that is part of the feedback 

loop, making sure we understand what they are doing, how they 

are doing it, the flow of students. One area we are also looking to 

expand into is the technology, whether it be updating apps on the 

phone and getting out to them through technology, incorporating 

the feedback through social media networking, making sure they 

are aware of what we are trying to do on the State level, but then 

also to your point of getting the feedback into what they feel would 

be more secure, being able to report the suspicious activity when 

there are issues. 

So that is what we are doing. 

Mr. CASTILLO. Yes, we do take the opportunities. Every time we 

go out on an unannounced drill observation, we would mention to 

the superintendent—they would often ask of their staff members 

and teachers who are along with us on a drill to see what they say. 

However, often they will leave out the students, and we will ask 

them to try to reach out to the students to find any type of feedback that they may be able to provide, because probably many of 

the students know many of the vulnerabilities that are in schools, 

and maybe we just don’t hear about them. 

I did have the opportunity to partner with Congressman Bonnie 

Watson Coleman in one of her town hall sessions in Trenton. So 

any chance that we do get, we will speak to anyone who will listen, 

especially with the students. I know OHSP has been very, very active in trying to find just the right type of app, because that is the 

way students are communicating. So that has our full support on 

that. 

Mr. PAYNE. Also feedback from teachers and parents as well. OK. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MAPLES. Can I add one additional thing, too? As far as cybersecurity initiatives, we partnered in that with the overall school 

security. So we have really tried to do a lot of outreach through 

57 

technology programs, STEM, to make sure we are reaching out to 

students, educators, and administrators as well. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. 

Mr. CASTILLO. If I may also add, in addition to that, with the unannounced drill observations, it was usually just police officers, 

members of our office, perhaps a few people from the State police, 

as well as the Office of Homeland Preparedness that would observe 

what is going on with these drills. But what we would do is to invite teachers as well for these drills, and they would take the perspective of the bad guy or gal walking through those halls, and we 

could actually see the light go on: ‘‘Oh, this is the reason why we 

are doing these types of drills.’’ So that has been very helpful, and 

we are constantly soliciting that. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. 

Major Hengemuhle, I understand that New Jersey State Police 

have begun to conduct regular unannounced visits to schools. 

Please explain what has been learned from these exercises, or are 

these exercises found to be useful? 

Ms. HENGEMUHLE. So this was something that Colonel Patrick 

Callahan put into place in the beginning of February. So the return 

on investment, we didn’t really get a good feel because we have 

only had a few months to do it. What the Colonel wanted us to do, 

all members of the division, whether during the day during work 

or to and from work, was to go to schools within our districts, the 

ones we go to, in uniform, just to have a presence there to talk to 

the kids, to talk to the students. 

We have gotten very positive feedback on that. But again, it was 

only for a small time frame. So I have been in communication with 

my Lieutenant Colonel and the Colonel to put together some formalized training for all of the division so we are on spot with Department of Education, as well as the Safety in Schools and Security outreach unit. So when Troopers do go to these schools, we are 

all saying the same things. We are saying what we are teaching 

to these kids. 

So we did get positive feedback from the schools that we went 

to. It was unplanned, unannounced, just go in, be a presence. As 

of Friday, we had over 2,500 hours put toward this where Troopers—I don’t know the hours per Trooper, but over 2,500 hours from 

February to the end of the school year. 

Mr. PAYNE. It has been received well? I mean—— 

Ms. HENGEMUHLE. Yes, positive feedback from some of the 

schools. But again, we are looking into making a division-wide 

training so everybody knows what should exactly take place and 

that we are relaying the exact same information at each school 

within our areas. 

Mr. PAYNE. It has to do with school safety. 

Ms. HENGEMUHLE. Yes. 

Mr. PAYNE. That is what you are going in there for, not any 

other—— 

Ms. HENGEMUHLE. Visibility and school safety, no other reasons 

with this initiative. We go into schools for a lot of other reasons, 

but for this initiative it is just to be a presence, visibility. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. 

Should we do a second round? 

58 

Mr. DONOVAN. Yes. 

Just two quick things I wanted to ask. As I said before, we learn 

a lot from these hearings. What have we learned from the tragedies 

that we have recently had in Texas and in Florida, and what 

changes maybe have you guys made in your jurisdictions learning 

from those tragedies that we have experienced? 

The second question to Mr. Reilly, if you could explain to us. I 

read your testimony, and over the weekend I was asking parents 

if you heard something happen at your child’s school, what would 

you do? They said we would go to the school. I knew that was the 

wrong answer from reading your testimony. I said what if there 

was a staging area somewhere near the school where you could get 

all the information, you wouldn’t block emergency vehicles from 

going, and you will learn everything about your child’s safety and 

what was happening at the school? They said we would still go to 

the school. 

So after we answered the first question, I would like you to 

elaborate a little bit on how to encourage families to do what you 

have suggested, which I think is an amazing suggestion. But as the 

father of a 3-year-old, I am thinking I might go to my kid’s school. 

So if you could elaborate. 

But if you could first speak to me about some of the lessons that 

we have learned from the tragedies and how we have implemented 

maybe some other practices after those. 

Mr. MAPLES. So I will be brief so we can go down the row. I think 

one of the biggest pieces that came out post-February after Texas 

is a change in mindset. The normal training scenarios don’t always 

work the same exact way. So the answer is it may not work in 

every single situation. So something we have really tried to adapt 

with, again in partnership with the State police, education, the 

SRO Association, is to make sure the training is flexible enough to 

approach as many situations as could possibly come up to therefore 

save life. That has definitely been a big issue for us, and that prevention role took a real front seat there, getting out ahead of the 

problem before it becomes a problem. We have put a huge premium 

in the State of New Jersey on doing that. 

Again, as the gentleman from New York mentioned, it is impossible to get out ahead of every one of them, but we are going to 

do everything we possibly can to do that, and that is through a collective approach, again with everybody at this table plus mental 

health, children and families, et cetera. That is something we have 

really focused on. So it is the mindset, and then that prevention 

thing I think that has really come out from our side and something 

we are trying to push out from the State side. 

Mr. CASTILLO. Some of the challenges that we have seen, and 

they have been around for a while, probably one of the most glaring issues is the silos, once again with communication. We have 

heard time and time again that information was developed on this 

particular student at one time but, for whatever reason, it wasn’t 

shared. So we think the intelligence dissemination reports will be 

a step in the right direction. 

We do have very good communication with members of our partners. Again, if I can go back to that school safety specialist, pretty 

much the school resource officers have understood that we have got 

59 

to give police officers special training for when they go into the 

schools. That big piece that has been missing has been what are 

we giving the teachers and the school administrators in terms of 

the security perspective. 

I think back to teachers and folks working in education are 

among the most caring, supportive people I know. They didn’t sign 

up for the security piece. So I think if we can kind-of let them 

know those things that they should consider and give them that 

perspective, I think that would be very, very important as well. 

Ms. HENGEMUHLE. I agree that the communication that we have 

with the Department of Education and Homeland Security, we 

have looked at best practices with active shooters and, like I said, 

we just started rolling out some new protocols in July with the 

State Police approach to the active shooter. We would like to prevent all casualties at schools. I don’t know if 100 percent prevent 

will happen, but if we can lower them—and what you said in the 

beginning, New Jersey is the leading State in school security, that 

actually made me feel very good that that came up today and that 

that is brought up. It is because of the collaborative efforts of everybody at this table and everybody behind us, and with you especially, both of you, that we are able to do that by coming together 

and working together. 

For me, from the State police, from a training standpoint, the 

better we can train, the more that we can train, training the students, training the teachers, getting everybody educated could help 

a little bit in this dilemma right now. 

Mr. GERITY. I will echo everyone’s comments at the table, and I 

think it is demonstrating the collaboration and cooperation we 

have here of the individuals sitting in the different entities represented. I know in our district, Parkland was a different response 

in our eyes, where it almost appears that it is the first time that 

the students themselves stepped up and said enough is enough, we 

are tired of being sitting ducks. Prior to that, it would be the adult 

community that would react, take action, form committees, task 

forces, response plans. But this was a little different that the students stepped up. 

So our efforts, and I am sure it is occurring everywhere, I don’t 

just speak individually, that we are including students in our safety teams, our committees. Every time we meet, we bring students 

in, and we actively engage with students, and there is a sharing 

of information between education and law enforcement, so protecting students’ records. The school administrators will proactively 

reach out and look at that student’s involvement in the school community. If it appears that they are not involved in the school in 

some way, shape, or form, it may be because they are involved in 

some outside interest, but it is a method of behavioral assessment, 

if you will, to see why that student is not engaged. That may be, 

as you read numerous documentation, an indicator or a flag that 

there are issues there. So we are involving students. 

Mr. REILLY. Can I just touch on the first question first? Mr. 

Gerity just said about student records and safeguarding their information, of course, and making sure that we don’t give out information. Back in 2014, the Community Education Council, I wrote a 

resolution to the New York City DOE. They have an on-line occurVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:28 Jan 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\18EP0709\18EP0709 HEATH
60 

rence reporting system. That is how they keep track of all the incidents in their schools. Whether it is an injury, whether it is a bullying incident, whether it is someone just fell down the stairs, 

every incident gets reported like that. 

Now, one of the things that I asked them to do is they expunge 

those basically at the completion of the school year, and one of the 

shortfalls that I see with that is it is not just identifying, for lack 

of a better word, the suspect student that is committing a harassment or a bullying, but it is also doing a disservice to our victims, 

because when we don’t allow that information to be shared with 

the progressive grade when they move up and the other teachers 

and other counselors in that grade to support that victim, or even 

the person that we will call the bully, for lack of a better word, the 

actor, we miss the opportunity to provide support or guidance. 

It doesn’t necessarily mean that it is punitive. It is support that 

is actually going to make them more well-rounded. So if we get the 

opportunity to share that information going on, and if we don’t do 

it, we may miss an incident where it happened in 3rd grade between two students and they meet up again in 6th grade, and now 

we had the opportunity to stop a future incident between them but 

we missed that because of the communication piece and fostering 

that information. 

Touching on point No. 2, how I try to get the message out about 

parents not rushing up to the school and other community members until they are told, I try to tell everybody I run into, I try to 

speak about it everywhere I go. I volunteer. I have been doing this 

for the past several years, giving internet safety and cyber bullying 

assemblies and parent workshops and staff professional development. 

I lead with talking about school safety, school security. I have 

been on NY1 talking about school security. The first thing I talk 

about is don’t rush up to the school. In my prior life, before becoming a professional volunteer in the schools, I was a lieutenant in 

the New York City Police Department. So I understand how those 

seconds getting to an incident can be deadly, and the more time we 

save in the fastest direction to the incident will save lives, and that 

is how I do it. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a question for the entire panel in terms of the gun reform 

that we have just seen passed in New Jersey. We just passed a series of gun reform laws, making New Jersey the leader on this 

issue. Do you believe that the impact of this legislation—what do 

you believe the impact of this legislation will be on school security? 

Mr. MAPLES. One other important piece to this is the Crime Gun 

Information Sharing piece, as far as the State Police and Attorney 

General’s Office security, making sure those are connected to other 

States. That is part of this legislation. 

As far as the gun legislation that has happened, it is certainly 

something—anything that can help and remove threats is a plus 

from our perspective. I will tell you that there have been multiple 

arrests. I don’t want to get into the specific number publicly, but 

the State of New Jersey has made arrests after some of the legislation that has been passed previously, and I think that it will only 

happen after some of the more recent legislation. We do know that 

61 

there have been incidents prevented based off of the ability to 

make arrests off of those. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. 

Mr. CASTILLO. I echo what Director Maples mentioned. Our focus 

is basically at the door, keep those weapons and other things outside of the school. Any way that would happen, we see that as a 

plus. It has been very helpful in terms of what Jared’s office has 

been doing in terms of trying to get these suspicious activity reports that will allow law enforcement to take action and identify 

these folks, whether or not they own them or have access to weapons. So that has been very, very helpful as well. 

Mr. PAYNE. Well, just on that point, that is something I like to 

point out when we have been having this whole discussion around 

gun reform and safety in schools, that we are very positive about 

the move that these young people have taken their future into their 

own hands and are concerned about gun violence and safety in 

school. But I like to point out that in other communities, as you 

state, to keep the guns outside of the school, that is a problem for 

other students, is getting to and from school safely. So we have to 

make sure that we are looking at the entire issue because, yes, 

safety at school has become the paramount issue over the course 

of the last several years, but there is a question of children’s safety 

between school and home. So we want to make sure that we encompass the whole issue. 

Major. 

Ms. HENGEMUHLE. In talking about the children getting to and 

from school, I think that the initiatives that are taught during 

school help the faculty and the students in their everyday lives. 

Some of the programs that we conduct for younger students, we do 

New Jersey Drive, we do Internet Safety, we do Stranger Danger, 

we have an Explorer program. So we have a lot of programs that 

are conducted while the students are at school but will be beneficial for them coming to and from school. That is the most important thing. There are dangers outside the school, we all know that. 

So any educational piece that we can bring to the students, to the 

faculty is going to benefit going to and from the school as well. 

Mr. PAYNE. Right. Specifically speaking on the gun issue. 

Ms. HENGEMUHLE. On the gun issue. 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes. 

Ms. HENGEMUHLE. What we can do—you talked about New Jersey being the State leader in gun reform. Again, whatever can take 

place to reduce gun violence in the State of New Jersey and the 

United States is in the right direction. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. 

Sir. 

Mr. GERITY. Sir, with all due respect, I don’t have an answer to 

that question. I am obviously subservient to a board of directors, 

and for me to take a position without addressing the issue with 

them would be inappropriate. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. 

Sir. 

Mr. REILLY. I am actually not 100 percent familiar with the New 

Jersey law, but I can tell you New York State has some similar 

laws. I will say this: When they passed the New York State SAFE 

62 

Act, I had a little issue with it because I was a retired lieutenant 

from the New York City Police Department, and I tried advocating 

to the legislators, telling them that there is something in the law 

that you just made me a felon. You made me a felon because I had 

a 15-round magazine in my Glock, but I was a retired police officer. 

Thankfully, a few years later they corrected that. But unfortunately, when they rushed it through—so I am hoping New Jersey 

didn’t rush it through, and if there are any concerns that would actually need to be addressed, I would hope they would do it quickly 

and not let us wait, because unfortunately sometimes in our haste 

to get things done, we don’t look at the full picture, and that is 

even when I am talking about school security protocols as well. 

There are many times when people make suggestions at our school 

board meetings, at our CEC meetings, and we try and have a discussion about it and show where maybe one view doesn’t support 

the actual protocol taking place. 

Like one instance when talking about school security is when you 

hear a school is in lockdown, the first thing you think about is a 

school shooting. We actually had a school that was put on lockdown 

because a deer ran through a plate-glass window. So these all-hazard approaches, that is what the community needs to know about 

when it comes to the school security aspect. 

But I am willing to research the New Jersey State law, and if 

we can take some tips from there and advocate in New York as 

well, I am open to that. So, thank you. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Well, I thank all of our witnesses for their testimony today and for my colleague’s questions. The Members of the 

committee, as I told the other panel, may have some questions, 

even Members who aren’t here, additional questions for our witnesses, and I would ask that you respond to those in writing. 

Pursuant to Committee Rule VII(D), the hearing record will remain open for 10 days. 

Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:53 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(63) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER DONALD M. PAYNE, JR. FOR JASON BOTEL

Question 1a. In February, President Trump tweeted that arming ‘‘educators and 

other trusted people who work within a school’’ would help protect students. 

Has the Department of Education examined potential impacts to school safety and 

students if teachers become armed? 

Answer. On March 12, 2018, the President created the Federal Commission on 

School Safety (‘‘FCSS’’). https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-Statements/president-donald-j-trump-taking-immediate-actions-secure-schools. The President specifically tasked the FCSS to ‘‘develop a process to evaluate and make recommendations 

on school safety’’ and noted that ‘‘[t]he commission will study and make recommendations on the following areas of focus: . . . A plan for integration and coordination of Federal resources focused on prevention and mitigation of active shooter incidents at schools.’’ The provision of school security and the training of school 

personnel in that regard is inherently a State and local matter. As noted in the 

President’s statement creating the FCSS, the role of the Federal Government and 

the FCSS in particular is to ‘‘make recommendations on school safety’’ within the 

framework of what State and local jurisdictions have crafted. 

Accordingly, the FCSS has been studying, among many other things, the training 

of specially qualified school personnel such as school resource officers (SROs), school 

security officers (SSOs), administrators, and staff. Throughout the FCSS’ study of 

existing programs that arm school personnel, there has been a consistent emphasis 

on the efficacious deterrent posed by highly trained and voluntarily armed school 

personnel. The FCSS has learned that in almost every State SROs, who are sworn 

law enforcement officers, are armed. Many States also permit SSOs, non-sworn security officers, to be armed. Ten States currently allow school staff to possess or 

have access to firearms. No State mandates the arming of school staff. The 10 

States referenced permit specially-trained school staff to carry weapons upon meeting the State training and licensing requirements. It is estimated that several hundred school districts provide school staff access to firearms. All programs exercising 

the option to allow staff to carry weapons require significant training, among other 

qualifications, in order to participate. Examples of such programs include the Texas 

School Marshal Program, the South Dakota School Sentinel Training Program, and 

the recently announced Alabama Sentry Program. 

On August 1, 2018, the Department of Justice led a FCSS field visit to Arkansas’s 

Lake Hamilton School District where the FCSS heard about the challenges small 

rural school districts face when they have lengthy police response times. As Superintendent Steve Anderson said, ‘‘While we are blessed to have excellent law enforcement officers... because of where we’re located, the last two sheriffs here in Garland County told me we could expect 20 to 30 minutes wait time if an active shooter 

situation happened on campus before an officer could be here. We’re not willing to 

take that chance. We need someone to protect our kids.’’ The Commission has maintained a livestream of the field visit at: https://www.youtube.com/ 

watch?v=CAvkyAYMFSE&feature=youtu.be. The Parkland school shooting, for example, lasted only about 7 minutes. 

In the 1990’s, the Lake Hamilton School District was one of a small number of 

public school districts in Arkansas with Commissioned Security Officers (CSO) holding a license through the Arkansas Board of Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies. In 2015, the CSO license was changed by action of the Arkansas General Assembly. What used to be the CSO license was changed to the new Commissioned School Security Officer (CSSO) License, through Act 393 of 2015 (Ark. Code 

Ann. §1A17–40–330 et seq). The use of CSSOs in a school district must be approved 

by the superintendent. CSSOs can be administrators, faculty, or staff and must pass 

a standard background check and undergo extensive training. In its preliminary report dated July 1, 2018, the Arkansas School Safety Commission, after extensive 

64 

study, reaffirmed the deterrent effect that such practices have on school violence. 

http://www.arkansased.gov/public/userfiles/Communications/SchoollSafety/ 

SafelSchoollCommissionlPreliminarylReportlJulyl1l2018.pdf. 

Question 1b. Is the Department of Education making plans to arm teachers in the 

classroom? 

Answer. The Department of Education is not making plans to arm teachers in the 

classroom because this is a function appropriately reserved for the States. The 

FCSS, however, is reviewing existing State-level initiatives that enable highly qualified school personnel to access firearms under certain circumstances. The administration firmly believes that arming highly qualified and rigorously trained school 

personnel may help prevent violence at our schools and in our classrooms. 

Question 2. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am concerned about safety 

for children beyond the traditional classroom setting. Many children experience safety threats on their way to school, which is cause for concern, as these threats to 

their safety impact their ability to learn and excel in school. What is the Department of Education doing to combat threats to our children that exist beyond school 

grounds? 

Answer. Part of a comprehensive and effective emergency management/school 

safety plan is the consideration of safe zones of passage for students. One of the 

creative aspects of the Student Success and Academic Enrichment (SSAE) program, 

administered by the Department under Title IV, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, is that districts have the flexibility to use funds for 

activities that are coordinated with other school and community-based services and 

programs. Title IV, Part A funds can be used for programs that may be conducted 

in partnership with businesses, nonprofit organizations, community-based organizations, or other public or private entities with a demonstrated record of success in 

implementing these types of activities. 

The Department continues to offer technical assistance to States, districts, and 

schools in how to best plan and implement activities for student safety in going to 

and returning from school through sharing of practices and trainings through the 

Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Technical Assistance Center. 

This planning should be a part of a comprehensive school safety and emergency 

management plan. 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER DONALD M. PAYNE, JR. FOR ALAN R. HANSON

Question 1a. In February, President Trump tweeted that arming ‘‘educators and 

other trusted people who work within a school’’ would help protect students. 

Has the Department of Justice examined potential impacts to school safety and 

students if teachers become armed? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. Is the Department of Justice making plans to arm teachers in classrooms? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am concerned about safety 

for children beyond the traditional classroom setting. Many children experience safety threats on their way to school, which is cause for concern, as these threats to 

their safety impact their ability to learn and excel in school. What is the Department of Justice doing to combat threats to our children that exist beyond school 

grounds? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER DONALD M. PAYNE, JR. FOR ROBERT KOLASKY

Question 1a. In February, President Trump tweeted that arming ‘‘educators and 

other trusted people who work within a school’’ would help protect students. 

Has the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) examined potential impacts to 

school safety and students if teachers become armed? 

Question 1b. Is DHS making plans to arm teachers in classrooms? 

Answer. The Department of Homeland Security has not examined the potential 

impacts to school safety and students if teachers become armed and is not making 

plans to arm teachers in classrooms. 

Question 2a. Following the deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida, DHS established a Department-wide Executive Steering Committee tasked with directing 

DHS’s school security efforts. 

Which components are represented on this steering committee? 

Answer. Following the October 1, 2017, mass shooting incident in Las Vegas, Nevada, the Department established a Soft Targets and Crowded Places (ST–CP) Security Executive Steering Committee (ST–CP ESC) to coordinate Department efforts 

65 

with respect to the security of soft targets and crowded places, identify opportunities 

to enhance these efforts, and ensure Departmental unity of effort in this area. The 

ST–CP ESC is comprised of senior executive-level representation from Departmental 

components and offices engaged in ST–CP security activities, including the National 

Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Office of Partnership Engagement (OPE), Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Centers, Science and Technology Directorate, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), U.S. Coast Guard, 

U.S. Secret Service, Office of Policy, Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office, Office of Operations and Coordination, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of General Counsel, Office of Legislative Affairs (OLA), Office of Public Affairs (OPA), Privacy Office (PRIV), U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. 

To coordinate work across the Department on specific topics that fall within the 

ST–CP security realm, the ST–CP ESC is authorized to establish working groups. 

Earlier this year, the ST–CP ESC established a working group focused on school security. The School Security Working Group is co-led by FEMA, OPE, and NPPD, 

and includes representatives from most of the organizations that are part of the ST– 

CP ESC. 

Question 2b. Has the Steering Committee made any recommendations? If so, 

please describe. Please provide copies of any written recommendations of the steering committee. 

Answer. At the direction of the Secretary, the ST–CP ESC School Security Working Group developed an action plan detailing on-going and future activities the Department will perform to help enhance school security. Departmental activities described in the plan fall within three lines of effort: • Education and Community Awareness.—The Department engages school administrators, teachers, students, parents, and other stakeholders across the K–12 

and higher education communities, as well as law enforcement and other first 

responders who serve those communities, to raise awareness, communicate best 

practices, and promote no-cost/low-cost security measures. • Capacity Building, Training, and Exercises.—The Department directly helps 

schools enhance their security through capacity-building activities, such as the 

provision of training, exercises, workshops, and grant funding for schools to participate in those capacity-building activities. • Early Warning.—The Department works with the academic and law enforcement communities to establish and implement processes that increase the likelihood of individuals identifying and reporting concerning behavior or other signs 

of pre-attack planning, as well as providing schools and local law enforcement 

with the means to address potential threats before they are realized. 

Examples of specific school security activities the Department has taken since the 

establishment of the School Security Working Group include the issuance of K–12 

School Security: A Guide for Preventing and Protecting Against Gun Violence (2nd 

ed., 2018), providing schools with a means to assess their current security posture 

and identify options for consideration from among potential preventive and protective measures that can help the school address the threat of gun violence. The Department also recently issued the Enhancing School Safety Using a Threat Assessment Model—An Operational Guide for Preventing Targeted School Violence, which 

provides schools and communities with a framework to identify students of concern, 

assess their risk for engaging in violence, and identify intervention strategies to 

mitigate that risk. 

As the Department is only one part of the larger Federal community working to 

enhance school security, we also are collaborating closely with Congress, the White 

House, and other Federal departments and agencies to coordinate efforts in this 

arena through the Commission. The activities set forth in the DHS School Security 

Action Plan will help enable the Federal Government to meet the goals established 

for the Commission and will contribute to the development of the Commission Report to the President in the fall of 2018. 

Question 3. Though certain DHS preparedness grants can be used for school security activities, DHS does not make these funds available to public schools directly. 

Instead, State and local recipients have to identify school security as a priority. 

What percentage of DHS preparedness grant funds are used for school security activities? 

Answer. FEMA notes that school security accounts for about 0.07 percent of preparedness grants (using 2007–2017 totals). Based on the Biannual Strategy Implementation Reports (BSIR) for fiscal years 2007–2017, FEMA has provided a total 

of $141,608,502,068.85 in preparedness grant funding. Of that amount, 

$98,396,943.16, or 0.07 percent, has been used for school security activities. 

66 

Question 4. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am concerned about safety 

for children beyond the traditional classroom setting. Many children experience safety threats on their way to school, which is cause for concern, as these threats to 

their safety impact their ability to learn and excel in school. What is the National 

Protection and Programs Directorate doing to combat threats to our children that 

exist beyond school grounds? 

Answer. The school security guidance developed by NPPD and recently issued by 

the Department recommends that each school have a security team that is formally 

organized and that includes representation from district/school administrators, 

teachers, facility operations personnel, administrators, counselors, students, parent 

organizations, mental health groups/agencies, police, fire departments, and emergency medical services. The school security team should work with local law enforcement to ensure that students are safe when they leave school grounds. 

The Department also recommends the development of a ‘‘community of interest’’ 

of teachers, social workers, counselors, behavioral therapists, and law enforcement 

organizations in the local area, which can create a network for the common purpose 

of enhancing the safety of students and the security of schools. For example, in Cincinnati, four city school districts and one parochial school have partnered with the 

Greater Cincinnati Fusion Center to participate in their Intelligence Liaison Officer 

program. This program provides local agencies, first responders, and school administrators and teachers with an improved ability to recognize threat indicators and report suspicious activity to law enforcement organizations through the Greater Cincinnati Fusion Center and the Ohio Fusion Center Network. Additionally, these 

school districts and parochial school have collaborated with the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security to develop the Greater Cincinnati Safe and Secure Schools Initiative. This initiative facilitates information sharing and technical assistance—including Department-supported vulnerability assessments of schools—between 

schools, school districts, State and local government organizations, and the Federal 

departments that support school safety in and around Cincinnati. Relationships 

such as those created by the Intelligence Liaison Officer Program and the Safe and 

Secure Schools Initiative provide teachers and administrators with the resources 

and skills to identify potential issues and work to resolve them through counseling 

or other forms of available help to prevent delinquent behavior or violence that 

could result if an issue goes unresolved. 

While NPPD supports a number of activities that combat threats to our children 

beyond school grounds, it is by no means the only entity within the Department performing such activities. For instance, the Department’s Transportation Security Administration engages school districts and transportation providers on a variety of 

school bus security activities. 

While TSA’s mission space is counter-terrorism in the Transportation Sector, TSA 

does work collaboratively with providers of student transportation in order to mitigate the potential of terrorists or home-grown violent extremists seeking to threaten 

school buses for their malevolent purposes. TSA also works directly with the National School Transportation Association, the National Association of State Directors 

of Pupil Transportation Services, and the National Association for Pupil Transportation, as well as the Illinois Association for Pupil Transportation, to name a few, 

to share information about threat recognition and awareness. These security efforts 

between both Federal and State level representatives as well as transportation operator stakeholders in the private sector have potential safety implications that are 

a benefit to students in these systems. 

Æ