What are the Responses to Bomb Threats in American Schools - Research Paper Example

 What are the Responses to Bomb Threats in American Schools Introduction Bombs and explosives are no longer restricted to military use only. Civilians are extensively using them for various purposes. Detonations have been found to inflict damage mainly via ground along with atmospherically transmitted mechanical stress, pressure damage, and also the contact and incursion of projectiles that are being driven by pressure. A bomb can either be homemade or factory made and contains explosive or incendiary substances. They are utilized to create shock, fire, gas, and heat causing extensive damage to the target. When a bomb explodes, instantaneous death is caused by the impact of the conventional explosives. Injury or death can also be realized as a result of airborne contamination and radiation. Bombs can be of any size and shape. A large amount bombs are homemade and are limited in their design due to the imagination and resources available to the bomber. As a result, their occurrence or presence can be fatal. In this regard, the paper will discuss the responses to the bomb threats and possible preventive measures in schools. Discussion Marks (2008, p.11) defines a bomb as any explosive weapon that relies on the exothermic reaction of an explosive material so as to give an exceptionally sudden energy release. Bombs can be concealed in various packages ranging from pens, to letters, to bags, and fire extinguishers (Newman, 2011). However, most bombs are concealed in ordinary looking bags or briefcases. In the recent past, bomb threats have been on the increase. There are various motives behind bomb threats, including anger, fantasy, retaliation, assertion, humor, ideology, aggression, hate and devaluation, omnipotence, manipulation, and many more (McCann, 2012). Even though about 93% of bomb threats in learning institutions turn out to be pranks, for safety purposes every threat needs to be taken seriously and action taken immediately (Kibble, 2009). In fact, the U.S the law tends to address false bomb threats nearly as severely as the real bomb threats. It is a federal offense to make a false bomb threat and it is punishable by law under the United States Code 18-844(e), with a penalty of up to 10 years in prison, $250,000 fine, or both. This penalty is also applicable to minor offenders (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 2003). Chauhan (2009) claims that bomb threats in schools can turn fatal since the chemicals used to manufacture bombs are easily available and can also be extracted from household products. Besides that, some of the materials can easily be bought in hardware stores as well as pharmacies. Several Al-Qaeda documentaries have demonstrated ways and means of making bombs using dynamite or trinitroluene. Trinitroluene is an explosive material with very convenient properties of handling it making it easy to use (Brown, 1998). The ease of bomb material availability implies that a perpetrator can arrive at the target empty handed, collect the required materials that are available locally and assemble them, and proceed to carry out sabotage (Dunlap, 2010). Before the disaster at Littleton, Colorado more than 90% of the bomb threats made to schools were regarded as pranks (McCann, 2012). This has presented the educators with a new security challenge. The school administrators, staff members, safety officials, and crisis teams need to be trained on handling bomb threats. The responses to bomb threats can be categorized into two sub-divisions preventive measures with the purpose of minimizing the likelihood of bomb threats and immediate responses to the bomb threats if they occur. In the prevention and harm reduction, these responses are aimed at reducing the impact of the bomb threat if it occurs, preventing a bomb threat from occurring, and decreasing the likelihood of a rash bomb threat from happening (Newman, 2011). First, develop a response plan for a bomb threat. It entails the development of two separate plans, including a bomb incident plan and physical security plan. The physical security plan offers protection to facilities, personnel, sabotage, damage, property, trespass, and other illegal acts. The plan controls the access to the building (Curcio & First, 2003). On the other hand, the bomb incident plan outlines a detailed process to be implemented if a bomb threat is given or executed. A definite chain of command needs to be designed. This instills confidence and reduces panic. Both plans need to involve firefighters, the community, law enforcement agents, and emergency response teams. The bomb threat response plan needs to fall within the nation’s, town’s, and school’s overall crisis plan to avoid serious mistakes (Newman, 2011). Second, come up with a threat reporting system. The schools ought to arrive at what threat level need to be reported to the authorities (Mayer & Leone, 2011). The schools also need to develop a set of rules for the collection of bomb threats together with other violence, and criteria which will be used to determine which incidences are reported to the police (Curcio & First, 2003). Third, carry out a survey in the school environment where the attacker can place or deliver a bomb. A security survey is done with an aim of preventing break-ins and determining the vulnerable areas including parking lots near the major buildings and poorly lit rooms. This can be attained by installing surveillance cameras, fencing the whole school, and installing lights (Newman, 2011). Next, control the exit and entry points to school buildings (Dunlap, 2010). The school needs to limit the access points in order to ensure easy monitoring of the school (McCann, 2012). School uniforms can also easily determine students and non-students in addition to limiting the access of vehicles into the school. Besides that, parking should be located far away from buildings. Fifth, monitor the communication in and out of the school. It has been evidenced that telephones are most used medium to relay bomb threats. The schools have to ensure that there is a quick and easy way of recording the incoming phone calls (Newman, 2011). Surveillance cameras also need to be installed in public telephones. All written communications must enter the school through one channel. Websites that promote violent behavior should be blocked from all the school’s computers (Kibble, 2009). Sixth, develop a positive school climate that is free from aggression. The school’s moral and social climate can have considerable impact on minimizing school violence. The approaches used to reduce school violence include adolescent positive choices, classroom behavior management, conflict resolution, anger management, and anti-bullying programs (Morewitz, 2010). Lastly, reaching out to parents or guardians. Students who attend after school programs are less likely to be engaged in criminal behavior and violence (McCann, 2012). Parents are supposed to be informed on what is happening at school via emails, brochures, and cable televisions. The school ought to develop programs for expelled or suspended students. Immediate responses to bomb threats are aimed at ensuring that the school responds to a bomb threat in an orderly and systematic way to avoid the occurrence of panic, confusion, and miscommunication among the parents, law enforcers, and community, as well as the school. First, record the threat. It is crucial to record the telephone conversation. Schools are supposed to have a ready-easy-to-use device for recording. In the same way, the recipient of the call needs to write down the caller’s ID number and the exact time of calling, and make educated guesses on the age, sex, accent, and voice of the caller (Regoli & Hewitt, 2007). The original packaging of the bomb needs to be preserved and avoid tampering with it in any way. Second, school evacuation. The assessment of the seriousness of the bomb threat determines if a partial or complete evacuation is required. Even though most bomb threats in schools are hoaxes, there is often a strong pressure to conduct an evacuation (McCann, 2012). Most offenders aim at causing widespread confusion and disruption. The decision to evacuate the school is the responsibility of the school principal or school district in consultation with the police and other senior emergency officials (Dunlap, 2010). An evacuation plan should be safe. Third, analyzing the threat. Immediately a threat is received, it is important to analyze the threat to establish if the threat is of adequate seriousness to call for immediate response and report to the police (Newman, 2011). Fourth, about talking to the media, it is paramount that all the inquiries from the media to be channeled to one person (Marks, 2008). The other persons should be informed not to speak about the situation to the outsiders. This is aimed at providing the media with accurate information. Fifth, locate the bomb. The search procedure to locate a bomb is supposed to be thorough and efficient. The first sweep covers all objects on the floor to the waist. The second sweep covers objects from the waist to the chin. Lastly, the third sweep covers all objects beyond the head. The search team should be proficient with all the hallways, ceiling areas, rest rooms, washrooms, and any other location where an explosive device can be concealed (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 2003). Lastly, a follow-up needs to be conducted to establish if the bomb threat led to a discovery or even detonation or just turned out to be a prank. Newman (2011) posits that a follow-up determines if the response strategy was effective. All the preventive measures need to taken in both the surrounding regions along with the marked area. The school administrators need to coordinate information collection with the schools (McCann, 2012). Other useful measures of effective bomb responses in schools consist of: minimizing the number of threats received by the school authorities over a certain period in response to a certain intervention, for example, enhanced control of the telephone access (Curcio & First, 2003); reducing the time school activities are disrupted by bomb threats; improving the student’s willingness to report to teachers any threats they hear; decreasing the amount of time to arrest offenders (McCann, 2012); offering training to the school staff including bus drivers, secretaries, grounds-people, and custodians who are likely to come in contact with homemade bombs or bomb threats; finally, if a suspicious package is found do not touch it and ask around who the owner may be. If it is not claimed contact the Emergency Dispatch Center. Conclusion In summary, high-profile violence incidences and easy to access homemade bomb’s formulas on the Internet have contributed to increase in bomb threats in learning institutions. Schools ought to have guidelines for handling bomb threats as well as apprehensive devices on the school environment. An effective response determines how to tackle the immediate bomb threat in real time, and it also prevents the occurrence of the bomb threats in the first place. The school administrators, parents, and the law enforcement agents need to work together to reduce teenage violence. Protecting the children is everyone’s responsibility. The school administration to need to alert and observant, and have safety measures in place to curb any threats to the school. Any bomb threat should be taken seriously, since a threat can be a diversion for the real intent. References Brown, G. (1998). The big bang: A history of explosives. New York: Sutton Publishing. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (2003). Bomb Threat Response: An Interactive Planning Tool for Schools. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives, United States Department of the Treasury and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, Washington D.C: United States Department of Education. Chauhan, S. (2009). The Al-Qaeda threat. New York: CRC Press. Curcio, J., & First, P. (2003). Violence in the Schools: How to proactively prevent and defuse it. Newbury Park (California): Sage Publications. Dunlap, S. C. (2010). The comprehensive handbook of school safety. London: Prentice-Hall. Kibble, D. (2009). Safety and disaster management in schools and colleges: A training manual. New York: Routledge. Marks, M. (2008). The emergency responder's guide to terrorism. New York: Red Hat Publishing Co., Inc. p. 30. Mayer, M., & Leone, P. (2011). “A structural analysis of school violence and disruption: Implications for creating safer schools,” Education and Treatment of Children, 22 (1), 333–356. McCann, J. (2012). Threats in schools: A practical guide for managing violence. New York: Routledge. Morewitz, S. J. (2010). Death threats and violence: New research and linical perspectives. New York: Springer Shop. Newman, G. (2011). Bomb threats in schools. New York: Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Inc. Regoli, R. & Hewitt, J. (2007). Delinquency and society: A child centered approach. New York: McGraw Hill. Read More