School Safety Consulting

I have recently finished as the Project Director of a Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools (REMS) grant from the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools.  I wrote a grant proposal for nearly $98,000, which was used to pay for a thorough facility assessment, supplies for teachers, some radio equipment for ourselves and a local private school, staff training, and a very thorough perception assessment that let us know how we did.

Apart from my primary goal of making our school corporation safer and better prepared, I was honored to meet many dedicated professionals in the school safety field.  At the beginning of the grant period, I sent out a Request for Proposals (RFP).  This lets consultants know what I need, and how much is available.  They then submit proposals to see if what they offer will fit, and can be afforded.

Having previously been acquainted with several consultants, one of whom helped me with a previously unsuccessful REMS grant proposal, I decided to use a blind committee to screen the proposals.  I had split up my grant into three sections; the assessment, the training, and the evaluation.  Each section would initially have separate consultants, until I had a chance to identify gaps in our corporation's preparedness.  Each proposal had all company references removed, and a panel of three administrators, none of whom were otherwise involved with the process and two of whom were certified Indiana School Safety Specialists, evaluated each proposal using a rubric developed for purpose.

As I stated earlier, I had developed working relationships, and even friendships, with several school safety consultants prior to this grant proposal.  One helped me write my previous failed grant proposal, whose failure was all of my own doing.  Another consultant helped me write the new proposal.  There was nothing promised, nothing implied in the assistance.  He was confident his company would be in the running, and I was removed from the selection process.  He and several other consultants were called by me to inform them of the RFP.

Everyone I spoke to was gracious and grateful of the opportunity, except for the consultant who had assisted me on the prior grant proposal.  He recognized some language in the proposal from a competitor, and became quite hostile on the phone.  I was taken a bit aback, as I had thought we had a good relationship, indicated by the personal phone call to deliver the RFP.  I was puzzled, as he had done a similar thing for me a couple of years earlier.  At the end of the call, I specifically asked the consultant if this meant that he was not going to participate in the RFP.  He said that he would absolutely NOT participate under "these conditions".

That evening I received an email from him, sent to my superintendent of schools and the Board of School Trustees President, and cc'd to me.  It accused me of unethical behavior, as well as rule violations.  The next morning I contacted my Federal Project Officer and informed her of the phone call.  She asked me for details, which I provided, and the only thing she asked me to do was make sure I had a written process for appeals, which I was more than glad to do.

In the end, the committee selected three companies for the grant.  Each consultant that participated was called and informed.  Each consultant graciously thanked me for the opportunity, and asked that I keep them in mind for future endeavors.  Not one appeal was filed.

During the course of the grant activities, I had the opportunity to collaborate with another REMS recipient whose school corporation was adjacent to mine.  During the training, the REMS Project Director for that corporation and I talked about the problems we faced as Project Directors.  I told her the above story, and she looked at me in amazement and said that was odd, as that consultant had helped her write her grant proposal.  She was less then thrilled with this consultant's work on her grant, which included taking less time to conduct a security assessment of her high school than it would have taken me to just walk through it.  We shook our heads at the apparent insanity of the school safety world, and got back to work.

The long and short of it is this: there are many dedicated school safety consultants out there.  You have to be careful not to hook up with one like I describe above.  Check references, read their blogs.  A person's writing can tell you a lot about a person, especially over the long-term.  While consultants need to talk themselves up a bit, is that all their writing is about?  Do they offer true insights, or do they tear people down?  Do they build capacity in schools, or do they need to return for 'refreshers'?  Ask around, people who have dealt with consultants can tell you what kind of job they've done, and how they conducted themselves during their work.

Ask yourself, if I were to hire this person to care for my kids, what information would I want to know, and then find that information.  The children in schools are yours, by proxy, so make sure the ones who work to keep them safe are quality people.  Make sure they know what they're doing, and ask what their background is in education.  If they are former law enforcement, check on their law enforcement record.  Prior military? Check on their military record.  Ask, and see how they take your question.  Remember, past behavior is a good indicator of future performance.

I was honored to meet and talk to the numerous school safety professionals during the course of my REMS grant.  There are always a few bad apples in every profession.  In the end, quality will show, both in performance and in character.

Take the time to check out both.

My 100th Post!

It's been a long road from my first post.  I am finally getting to the point that I think I am getting a handle on blogging.

As I continue down the blogger road, I want to give some thanks to some people that have helped make this blog possible.

LTC Dave Grossman, from whom I got the 'Sheepdog' idea.  You were one of my big inspirations when I first started in the Indiana School Safety Specialist Academy.  Hooah!

Michael Dorn, whom I consider a mentor, and a friend.  If someone back in 2004 would have told me that I would be friends with the world's foremost expert in school safety, I would have laughed at them.  Yet, here I am.  Not only has he taught me how to do site assessments and other school safety concepts, he is teaching me how to be a professional, how to write professionally, and has made me a better person overall.  My wife Robin will attest to how difficult that last task is.

Speaking of my wife, no WAY I could do this without her.  She has been a sounding board, a Devil's Advocate (Sometimes TOO good), a confidante, and has loved and supported me through some very trying times.  I love you, Robin.

And of course I cannot forget all the people who I am responsible for, the kids, staff, and administrators of the Community School Corporation of Southern Hancock County.  You are all dear to me, and are the reasons I do what I do.

Non in meus vigilo!

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

The F4 tornado that struck Henryville High School in Southern Indiana has generated  a brisk discussion on how they responded.  Fox News posted an excellent article framing the discussion HERE.

If a storm is coming, should the kids stay, or should they go?  It's a tough call.  If they stay, they are bunched together, but they are in your sphere of control.  If they go, they are out of your control, but you may still have liability for them.  The end result in Henryville was that no one got hurt, and I will not attempt to diminish that result.

When I first heard this story, I remember thinking, "Wow!  That was a gutsy call!"  I found myself wondering if that should be examined as a viable alternative in a storm.  My short answer is yes, with a caveat.  Too often in education, a horrendous event will cause people to jump on a bandwagon.  Look at the numerous theories on Active Shooter response that came out after the Chardon HS shooting.

I spoke with Dave Emmert, Chief Counsel for the Indiana School Boards Association about liability.  Dr, Emmert was, as is usual, very passionate in his discussion with me.  Regardless of the choice a school makes, six members of a jury are going to judge your actions on a 'reasonableness' basis.  The facts in each case will guide the individual findings.  But, as we often say in emergency management, the time to think about the disaster is before it occurs.

Was it reasonable to release the children early?  Sitting here in the comfort in my home, I can easily answer either yes or no, and feel myself right.  The truth is, I am glad I wasn't in that position.  However, I may be, someday, just as I was in 2002 when an F3 tornado in Indiana hit the middle school behind us and came within 50 yards of my elementary school.  So what is there to consider?

175mph winds of an F4 tornado don't have many things that will provide shelter.  The damage done to the high school in Henryville is proof enough.  But how much more protection does it offer than a school bus?  Several buses were caught out in the storm.  Intrepid drivers got their kids into safe areas.  One bus returned to the school in just enough time to get the students into the school.  They were safe.  The bus was stripped off of its frame and thrown into a nearby restaurant.

Schools typically are responsible for the students until the time they are safely off of the bus.  How long does it take your buses to get everyone home?  Will there be someone at home waiting?  What are the ages of the students you are sending home?  Are drivers properly prepared to respond if they are caught out in the open?  Do you have a means of alerting parents that their children are coming home early?

Should they stay or should they go?  Let's have that discussion now, while the weather is calm.

Active Shooter Training - Educator Style

On November 10th, the Indiana School Safety Specialist Academy conducted a regional training at the Muscatatuck Urban Training Center.  Mike Horton of the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy put some educators through basic active shooter training.  Day One consisted of classroom training, which I didn't attend. 

I was intrigued enough by the concept of educators going through this training that I asked Dave Woodward, the Program Director of the ISSSA, if I could observe Day Two, the scenario part of the training.  He agreed so there I was, wearing an orange vest and watching fellow educators demonstrate their skills in traveling in a team, and in room entry.

From a military or law enforcement perspective, there were times I cringed.  I watched a shooter stick a gun into a doorway and turn their head as they fired into the room.  I watched a person come out of a room with their hands up, was directed to the rear of the formation, and pulled a gun out of a pocket to shoot the team from the rear.

They were using sim rounds, capsules filled with soap that mark where it hits.  They sting, so the adrenaline was kicked up a notch every time they ran a scenario.  This is stress inoculation, as Dave Grossman explained it in his book On Combat.  When they face a real situation in their schools, these educators will remember this training, and it will help them make proper decisions.

What was important was not the mistakes being made, but the discussions that went on immediately after each scenario.  The LEOs involved shared their experiences and knowledge with the educators, and the educators shared their insights and knowledge with the LEOs.

This is an excellent concept for the ISSSA.  Educators need stress inoculation and a wide variety of experiences to be able to effectively respond to whatever comes their school's way.  Educators should not concentrate solely on active shooter training, but the lessons learned from this traiing will go far beyond what they went through.

Volunteering to go through this training shows Sheepdog traits.  My colleagues are to be commended, as is Dave and Ryan from the ISSSA.  You guys make e proud to be an educator AND a School Safety Officer!