Abuse Reporting Requirements -
School Officials Not Exempt
 

By Attorney Larry Keating and Attorney David Judeika

On an ever-increasing basis, school officials have encountered issues involving mandatory reporting requirements for teachers, school counselors and school administrators regarding instances of child abuse and neglect. A tension often exists between the mandatory reporting requirements and the desire of teachers and school officials to resolve certain problems “in house.” This article will address issues and situations wherein teachers, school counselors and school administrators are statutorily required to immediately inform county social service departments, a licensed child welfare agency under contract with the county, or a law enforcement agency when such individuals suspect child abuse or neglect. Lastly, this article will discuss how the mandatory reporting requirement also applies in cases where the teacher or school official believes abuse and/or neglect is likely to occur in the near future.

THE LAW

In Wisconsin, Chapter 48.981 of the children’s code governs mandatory reporting of suspected abuse or neglect. A failure to report child abuse or neglect, as statutorily defined, occurs when an individual who is required to report child abuse or neglect has reasonable cause to suspect that a child observed in the course of professional duties has been abused or neglected, and that individual intentionally fails to report. The statute further identifies those individuals who are required to report and to whom the reports must be made. Wis. Stat. § 48.981(2). Specifically identified are school teachers, administrators and counselors. Moreover, the statute also provides definitions as to what constitutes abuse and neglect. In short, “abused” means physical injury inflicted by other than accidental means. Wis. Stat. § 48.02(1). In short, the State has defined neglect has been defined as a “failure, refusal or inability on the part of a parent, guardian, legal custodian or other person exercising temporary or permanent control over a child, for reasons other than poverty, to provide necessary care, food, clothing, medical or dental care or shelter, so as to seriously endanger the health of the child.” Wis. Stat. § 48.981 (1)(d).

A case recently arose in Kenosha in which a school administrator was charged with failing to report a case of abuse. Apparently, steps were taken to resolve the problem within the school setting. However, the District Attorney’s Office initially believed school officials had failed to report the abuse as statutorily required and brought charges. Ultimately, the charges were dropped after it was determined that the administrator had fulfilled the reporting obligation by consulting with and introducing the school liaison police officer to the reported victim. However, in order to avoid exposure to prosecution for non-reporting, school administrators should develop a specific written policy regarding mandatory reporting. The policy should be developed with input from social welfare agencies, law enforcement officials and legal counsel for the school district in order to ensure it meets the statutory requirements. The policy should then be distributed to staff for review and implementation. This will serve to avoid conflicts between meeting the reporting requirements and attempting to resolve such problems “in house.”

DETERMINING REASONABLE CAUSE TO SUSPECT ABUSE OR NEGLECT

Obviously, school officials often become aware of abuse or neglect in situations, which first present themselves as disciplinary issues. Often, a change in the student’s behavior and the resultant disciplinary action reveals the presence of abuse. A report to a trusted teacher by a friend of the victim may occur as well. In cases involving suspected abuse or neglect, school officials must first ascertain whether reasonable cause to suspect that the child has been abused or neglected is present. Once the teacher, counselor or official has determined that reasonable cause to suspect that the child has been abused or neglected exists, the statutorily mandatory reporting requirements are triggered. School officials must then notify the appropriate county Department of Social Services, child welfare agency under contract with the county department in counties with a population of 500,000 or more, or the appropriate law enforcement agency. The mandatory reporting requirement is met by immediately informing, by telephone or in person, the Department of Social Services, or a law enforcement agency of the facts and circumstances contributing to the reasonable suspicion that abuse or neglect has occurred. Beyond such reporting, school officials are not statutorily required to investigate further except to ensure the immediate safety of the child until the proper agency representatives or authorities arrive to take charge of the child.

ROLE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SOCIAL AGENCIES

Pursuant to the provisions of the statute, once notified, the duties of local law enforcement agencies are also delineated. Wis. Stat. 48.981 (3)(b). In short, the responding Sheriff or Police Department must first determine if the health or safety of the child, or unborn child in the event that a pregnancy is involved, is in immediate danger. If no such danger exists referrals to social service agencies for further investigation and action and the District Attorney’s office must follow if criminal prosecution is warranted. Each department is further required to adopt written policies regarding which types of reports will be referred to the District Attorney for criminal prosecution. Therefore, juvenile officers should acquaint themselves with the department policy in this area.

The duties of the county social welfare department are also delineated within §48.981(3)(c). Each agency must initiate a diligent investigation within 24 hours after having received a report for threatened abuse or neglect. The investigation must be conducted in accordance with the standards established by the agency in order to determine if “a child is in need of protective services.” Wisconsin also requires that reports made under Section 48.981 remain confidential. Section seven (7) of the statute specifically delineates to whom these reports may be disclosed, including what information may be subsequently disclosed to the original reporter. Once again, the reader should refer to this section of the statue should specific questions remain with respect to disclosure of reports.

Finally, a plan for coordinating the efforts of school officials, social welfare and law enforcement agencies should be developed. Such a plan will serve to ensure that suspected abuse or neglect is timely reported, properly investigated, and kept confidential.

IMMUNITY FOR REPORTING

The final issue to be addressed with respect to mandatory reporting is the issue of immunity from liability. Statutorily, any person or institution that makes a report in good faith, conducts an investigation or otherwise participates in becoming involved in the reporting or investigation of suspected abuse or neglect enjoys immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, which results by reason of this action. Wis. Stat. 48.981(4). The law further presumes that the reporter has acted in good faith. This provision serves to protect school officials from civil or criminal liability in cases where the initial reporting had occurred in good faith even though a subsequent investigation determined that no wrongdoing had occurred.

CONCLUSION

The Wisconsin statutes require school teachers, counselors and administrative officials to report suspected child abuse or neglect to social service or law enforcement agencies. The statutes also require confidentiality with respect to reports and further afford reporting individuals immunity from civil or criminal prosecution in cases where reports are made in good faith. An intentional failure to report as required exposes teachers, counselors and school administrators to possible criminal prosecution under the Wisconsin statutes. Therefore, in cases where abuse or neglect is suspected, school teachers, counselors and administrators should err on the side of caution and fully and faithfully comply with the mandatory reporting requirements.

Finally, an effort should also be made to develop written policies to better coordinate the efforts of the schools, social welfare agencies and law enforcement to identify, report and fully investigate cases of suspect abuse or neglect. These policies should be developed in addition to those policies statutorily required to be developed by each individual agency.

Special thanks to Dawn Weiss for contacting Attorneys Keating and Judeika and asking them to provide articles. Watch for more articles written especially for this association. Thanks to Attorneys Keating and Judeika for this information.
 

When Days Are Gray:   Avoiding
Burnout as Child Abuse Professionals
 

By Victor Vieth¹, reprinted with acknowledgement.

"Children suffer not (I think) less than their elders but differently."   C.S. Lewis²

Child abuse professionals are engaged in a high stress, high burnout calling. Unless and until this fact is adequately addressed, we will continue to see high turnover rates among child abuse professionals. Several common reasons for this burnout, and some possible solutions are offered in this article.

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BURNOUT

First, child protection officials are seldom honored in their departments and communities.  Some years ago, I spoke with a police officer handling nothing but cases of child abuse. The officer told me that many of her colleagues, such as those working in the drug unit, were honored for their labor. The narcotics officers executing a search warrant returned to the police station with guns, scales, drugs, money and other "cool" stuff. Their fellow officers lavished praise on them for doing a good, even noble act. But the child abuse officer told me that when she executes a search warrant, she returns to the police station with dildos, child pornography, Vaseline and other items that cause her colleagues to wrinkle their noses and inquire "how can you deal with this sick stuff all the time?" Nobody in her department, card club, church or neighborhood wanted to listen to her lament about the children keeping her awake at night.

Second, child abuse professionals are actually dishonored.  This is true even when the child abuse official does a stellar, sometimes heroic deed. As an example of the abuse inflicted on social workers, consider the following scenario. After New York social worker Marc Parent talked a troubled youth out of killing a younger sibling, both children were taken into custody. According to Parent, the mother of the children called and "hand-delivered a first class ranting before I could even say hello. 
The attacks flew out of her mouth like rusty nails..."³

Hostility comes not only from the victims and their families but also from the media, judges, and fellow service providers. As one commentator notes:

Service recipients, members of the judiciary, and other co-professionals occasionally offer resistance by being verbally hostile, accusatory, and demanding. These responses can make the case load seem undesirable and can easily lead workers to feelings of inadequacy, loss of self-

Third, college, graduate and law schools seldom prepare students for the reality that is child protection. Reporter Anna Quindlen describes a social worker's obstacles as follows:

Their training is inadequate, and the number of workers is too small for the number of families in trouble. Some of the cases would require a battalion of cops, doctors, and social workers to handle; instead there are two kids fresh out of college with good intentions and a handful of forms.⁵

Commenting on his lack of training, Marc Parent said he received "two weeks of solemn discussions on child protective issues, but little on getting a drug dealer to let you into an abandoned building or talking a restless police officer into sticking around until you get through with a case and back into your car."⁶

Fourth, the drumbeat of beaten, burned, bound, bludgeoned, raped and murdered children will, eventually, take its toll. We may pretend not to feel the pain but, for that to really be the case, we would have to be cold blooded. The impact may come subtly. We're afraid to let our children sleep over at a friend's house. We start to inspect the bruise of every playground child and wonder whether or not it is suspicious. We talk of torn hymens while we dine and wonder why our spouses lose interest in the food. Then, all of a sudden, it hits us. We are our work.
 

SUGGESTIONS FOR REDUCING BURNOUT

It is not enough to recognize the reality of burnout among child abuse professionals, we must be proactive in combating it. Toward this end, consider the following suggestions.

First, be well trained. If, for example, your job involves speaking to children, make sure you have a thorough grounding in child development, memory and suggestibility research, and linguistics. ⁷ Adequate training will produce stronger cases and fewer opportunities for defense attorneys, the public, and others to hurl rocks in your direction. Training also allows you to take a breather, reflect, and then develop the best practices. Training energizes child abuse professionals and gives us important contacts that can assist in the handling of difficult cases.  If you are a supervisor, make sure your budget allows for adequate training opportunities not only as a means of delivering quality service to the community, but as a means of assuring the emotional well-being of the keepers of the children.

Second, support the members of your multi-disciplinary team.  Make a concerted effort to get together on regularly scheduled social outings as a means of unwinding and offering each other support. If your jurisdiction does not have a multi-disciplinary team, this is one more reason to start one.

Third, praise one another often and in public. Press releases announcing a child abuse conviction should include public praise for the investigators and prosecutors handling the case. In addition, send personal thank you notes to all the workers involved in the case. Rather than a form letter, take the time to understand why the work of the child protection professional made a difference and commend the work accordingly. It can be as simple as writing "your interrogation of the suspect was extremely helpful in convincing the jury how unbelievable the defendant's story was." In the same vein, prosecutor organizations, bar associations and other groups should give awards or other recognition to those who do the job of child protection and who excel.

Fourth, keep a file of thank you letters you receive from victims and colleagues over the years. When days are gray and defeatism starts to set in, take a look at the file and remind yourself that sometimes you do make a difference. I know a prosecutor who keeps a collage in his office of the artwork child abuse victims sent to him over the years as a means of expressing their gratitude.⁸

Fifth, consider the option of periodically leaving the work of child abuse.  Choosing to handle drug or other cases for a time may allow you to get rejuvenated and come back to the child abuse unit with renewed energy. In some cases, it may not be necessary to leave the work of child abuse altogether but simply to handle a different aspect of it. For example, handling civil as opposed to criminal child protection cases may be sufficient. If you take a respite from your traditional duties, do not come back until you are ready. Well-meaning colleagues who miss you may encourage you to come back or may repeatedly contact you for advice on difficult cases. Make it clear that you are making a temporary, but clear break from child protection work and that you will return when you are emotionally able to do so.

Sixth, find a unique approach to motivation.  Recognize that the nature of our work puts us in the middle of broken homes overflowing with emotion and that we will inevitably be verbally abused, even by the victims we are trying to protect. To put this in perspective, remember you are not alone. Remember the words of Earl Warren, "everything I did in my life that was worthwhile, I caught hell for."⁹  Better yet, have these words matted, framed and hung in your office.  Some child abuse professionals may rely on their faith to sustain them. Prosecutors such as Robert Kennedy and Christopher Darden have found religion helpful in coping with the injustices of our justice system and of life itself.¹⁰ Creighton University Law Professor Joseph G. Allegretti suggests the high burnout rate in the legal profession is in part attributable to the fact that lawyers do not rely on their faith to sustain them in their work."¹¹

Seventh, never lose heart. As child abuse professionals, we know our lot in life is different from the lot of others. Other people may read, see, and hear the ugliness of the world but, by and large, they do so from behind the security of their newspapers, radios and television sets. We, on the other hand, experience the ugliness of the world up close and personal. We actually hear the quivering voice of a child who speaks to us about abuse. We actually see the disfigured face of a woman beaten solely because doing so made somebody feel strong.  

We learn of a man in Waco, Texas who sexually abuses children in the name of God. We learn of another man in Oklahoma who bombs children in the name of patriotism and, at some point, we begin to wonder if the whole world is insane, or is it us? If you have ever had a thought like this, perhaps you will find comfort in the words of Cesar Chavez who, in a speech in 1967, said:

When we are really honest with ourselves, we must admit our lives are all that really belong to us. So it is how we use our lives that determines what kind of men we are. It is my deepest belief that only by giving our lives do we find life. I am convinced that the truest act of courage, the strongest act of manliness, is to sacrifice ourselves for others in a totally no-violent struggle for justice. To be a man is to suffer for others. God help us be men.¹²

If you are not sure you have ever been near a hero or heroine, take a look at your colleagues. If you are not sure you have ever looked into the eyes of someone you knew to have courage, don't let the sun set tonight without looking in a mirror.

The weakest, the most precarious of vessels floating on the stream of life are those rafts occupied by abused children. For your willingness, even eagerness to commandeer one of these little boats, may God richly bless you.

1 Director, APRI's National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse.
2 C.S. LEWIS, SURPRISED BY JOY 18 (1955).
3 MARC PARENT; TURNING STONES: MY DAYS AND NIGHTS WITH CHILDREN AT RISK 29 (1996).
4 LORI HOMES & INTA SELLARS, A GUIDE FOR CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND COUNTY ATTORNEYS IN MINNESOTA, SECOND EDITION AT 8-9 (1997) (citations omitted) .
5 Anna Quindlen, Foreword to MARC PARENT, TURNING STONES: MY DAYS AND NIGHTS WITH CHILDREN AT RISK (1996).
6 Id. At 42.
7 This training is available at Finding Words, a course offered by APRI's National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse.
8 The prosecutor is Brian Holmgren in the office of the District Attorney, Nashville, Tennessee.
9 This quotation appears in a postcard advertising the PBS broadcast of Super Chief: The Life and Legacy of Earl Warren.
10 See Victor I. Vieth, Do Lawyers Need Religion?  80 BENCH & BAR 30 (September 1996).
11 See generally, JOSEPH G. ALLEGRETTI, THE LAWYER'S CALLING (1996)
12 ARTHUR M. SCHLESINGER, JR., ROBERT KENNEDY AND HIS TIMES 910 (1978).  

Two Differing Views on Child Hearsay Laws
 

American Prosecutor’s Research Institute (APRI) Update Express, June 2003. Reprinted with acknowledgement.

Carpenter v. State, 786 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. 2003)-Indiana

On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s admission of a videotaped interview and several out-of-court statements made by a child (A.C) who was less than three years old at the time of the interview and statements. A. C. was found incompetent to testify at trial, and thus the out of court statements --to her mother, grandfather and her videotaped interview were admitted at trial as evidence against her father of child sexual abuse. He was convicted.

This case involves Indiana’s “protected person” statute, Ind. Code § 35-37-4-6 (1998) which allows otherwise inadmissible statements to be admitted if the court finds at a hearing that the declarant is unavailable; the statement concerns an act that is a material element of certain designated offenses that were allegedly committed against the person; and that the statement has sufficient indicia of reliability.

HELD: Defendant’s conviction was reversed. The court determined that there was insufficient indicia of reliability to permit introduction of the child victim’s out-of-court statements. In an unusual analysis the court compared the facts in the present case to Pierce v. State, 677 N.E.2d 39 (Ind. 1997). The facts in Pierce are only similar in that there was a child victim. At approximately 10 AM on November 18, 1993, Pierce enticed a child to his car from a Wal-Mart where the child had been shopping with her mother. Pierce returned her to the store shortly thereafter where she told her mother and, a few minutes later, arriving sheriff’s officers, that he had unbuckled her belt and put his hand down her pants. The victim made statements to her mother on return and then at 2:30 made a videotaped statement to the sheriff’s department. The court found those statements admissible, reasoning that the statements were "spontaneous", that they occurred "a very short time" after the incident, that the child was "still excited" when the statements were made, and that "there was no time for an adult to plant a story in her head." In Carpenter, the court found it an abuse of discretion for the trial court to admit the statements, finding that the testimony recounting A.C.'s statements to her mother and grandfather and her videotaped interview failed to exhibit sufficient indications of reliability as the protected person statute requires because of the combination of the following circumstances: there was no indication that A.C.'s statements were made close in time to the alleged molestations, the statements themselves were not sufficiently close in time to each other to prevent implantation or cleansing, and A.C. was unable to distinguish between truth and falsehood

Case remanded for retrial.

Cf. Bugh v. Mitchell, No. 01-3417, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 9124 (6th Cir. May 13, 2003)

In the context of a federal habeas corpus proceeding, the defendant challenged the Ohio state court’s admission of hearsay testimony from four different witnesses in a child sexual abuse case. The circuit court affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas.

Hearsay statements from four adults recounting the incident as described by the four-year-old child victim were admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule as well as under the non-hearsay rule regarding statements of prior identification. The statements were admissible even in light of the fact that the child testified at the trial and most of her responses were nonverbal. Further, their admission did not constitute a violation of the Confrontation Clause. The circuit court also affirmed the district court’s reliance on United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (1988). The Owens Court rejected the idea that the dangers associated with hearsay required the testimony to be examined for either indicia of reliability or particularized guarantees of trustworthiness where the declarant is subject to cross-examination. The court also found the lower court ruling consistent with two other Supreme Court cases: Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 846 (1990) and Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (1990).

What Are Pornographic Images of Children?
 

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Reprinted with acknowledgement.

Under federal law, child pornography¹ is defined as a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where it

• depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or
   
• depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.²

Sexually explicit conduct includes various forms of sexual activity such as intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, and lascivious exhibition of the genitals.³ It is illegal to possess, distribute, or manufacture these images.

These illegal images can be presented in various forms including print media; videotape; film; compact disc, read-only memory (CD-ROM); or digital versatile technology (DVD)⁴ and can be transmitted through computer bulletin-board systems (BBS), USENET Newsgroups, Internet Relay Chat, web-based groups, peer-to-peer technology, and an array of constantly changing world wide web sites.⁵

All states and the District of Columbia have laws concerning child pornography. As a result a person who violates federal laws concerning these images may also face additional state charges.

Introduction

The Internet has created an exciting new world of information and communication for anyone with access to online services. While this technology offers unparalleled opportunities for children and adults to learn about the universe we live in, it has also had an immeasurable impact on the sexual exploitation of children, specifically the distribution of sexually exploitive images of children.

The development, increasing accessibility, and use of home-computer technology has revolutionized the distribution of these images by increasing the ease and decreasing the cost of production and distribution especially across international borders. Computer technology is transforming the production of these images into a "sophisticated global cottage industry." ⁶

While the activities of most pornographers are rather covert, it is not unusual for adults and children to encounter illegal images while exploring legitimate areas of the Internet. A current study has estimated that "as much as 20
percent of all pornographic activity on the Internet may involve children";⁷ however, accurate estimates are difficult to produce since a reliable methodology to measure the actual extent of these images online has yet to be devised.⁸ Nonetheless parents should closely monitor the online activities of their children and always maintain access to their children's online accounts.

Lasting Effects of Pornographic Images of Children

It is important to realize that these images can have a devastating and lasting effect on children. In addition to any physical injuries they can suffer in the course of their molestation, such as genital bruising, lacerations, or exposure to sexually transmitted diseases, child victims can also experience depression, withdrawal, anger, and other psychological disorders.⁹ Such effects may continue into adulthood. For instance women abused as children have statistically significant higher rates of nightmares, back pain, headaches, pelvic pain, eating binges, and other similar symptoms.¹⁰ Child victims also frequently experience feelings of guilt and responsibility for the abuse and betrayal, a sense of powerlessness, and feelings of worthlessness and low self-esteem.¹¹ These feelings are often expressed through increased fearfulness and changes in sleep patterns including re-occurring memories, flashbacks, dreams, and nightmares associated with posttraumatic stress.¹² Younger children tend to externalize stress by re-enacting sexual activities through play, while adolescents may experience negative effects on their growing sexuality as a result of inappropriate early sexual experiences.¹³

The lives of children featured in these illegal images are forever altered, not only by the molestation but by the permanent record of the exploitation. Once sexual exploitation takes place, the molester may document these encounters on film or video. This documentation can then become the "ammunition" needed to blackmail the child into further submission, which is necessary to continue the relationship and maintain its secrecy. In addition these documented images allow molesters to "relive" their sexual fantasies with children long after the exploitation has stopped.

A greater number of child molesters are now using computer technology to organize and maintain their collections of these illegal images. In addition they are also using the Internet to increase the size of these collections. Personally manufactured illegal images of children are especially valuable on the Internet, which provides the molester with a respected status among fellow exploiters and traders of this material. Once this status is achieved, molesters will often begin to trade images of their own sexual exploits with children among themselves.

When these images reach cyberspace, they are irretrievable and can continue to circulate forever. Thus the child is revictimized as the images are viewed again and again.

Online Predators

Individuals looking for potential child victims online have no difficulty finding them. It is quite common for these offenders to frequent "kids only" chat rooms and communicate with children who unwittingly divulge personal information about themselves. A more recent phenomenon is the solicitation of sex over the Internet. A survey conducted by the Crimes against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that one in five youth who regularly use the Internet received a sexual solicitation or approach over the Internet in 1999.¹⁴

After this initial meeting, child predators will often continue to communicate with the child electronically or through other means. Some of these individuals may then attempt to lower the child's inhibitions by gradually introducing sexual content into their online conversations and even send pornographic images to the child. When children are shown images of peers engaged in sexual activities, they are led to believe that this behavior is acceptable. This lowers their inhibitions and makes it easier for the molester to take advantage of the child sexually.

Parents are strongly encouraged to speak openly with their children about online dangers and monitor their online activities.

End Notes
¹As stated by Janis Wolak, Kimberly Mitchell, and David Finkelhor in Internet Sex Crimes Against Minors: The Response of Law Enforcement (Alexandria, Virginia: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, November 2003, page vii), “The term ‘child pornography,’ because it implies simply conventional pornography with child subjects, is an inappropriate term to describe the true nature and extent of sexually exploitive images of child victims. Use of this term should not be taken to imply that children ‘consented’ to the sexual acts depicted in these photographs; however, it is the term most readily recognized by the public, at this point in time, to describe this form of child sexual exploitation. It is used in this [document] to refer to illegal pictorial material involving children under the standards developed by statute, case law, and law-enforcement-agency protocols. It is hoped that a more accurate term will be recognized, understood, and accepted for use in the near future.”
²18 U.S.C. 1466A and 18 U.S.C. 2256.
³Id.
⁴Eva J. Klain, Heather J. Davies, Molly A. Hicks. Child Pornography: The Criminal-Justice-System Response, page 1 [hereinafter Response], citing Daniel S. Armagh, Nick L. Battaglia, and Kenneth V. Lanning, Use of Computers in the Sexual Exploitation of Children, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Portable Guides to Investigating Child Abuse. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1999, page 6.
⁵Response, supra note 3, page 1.
⁶Response, supra note 3, page 3, citing Child Pornography: An International Perspective, World Congress Against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, Stockholm, Sweden, August 27-31, 1996, page 9.
⁷Response, supra note 3, page 3, citing Allotted Day on Child Pornography, 36th Parliament, 1st Session, Edited Hansand 1, No. 172, February 2, 1999, page 12.
⁸Response, supra note 3, page 3.
⁹Response, supra note 3, page 10, citing Bentovim and Bentovim, "The Effects on Children and Their Families" in Organized Abuse: The Current Debate, page 60-62 [hereinafter Effects on Children].
¹⁰Response, supra note 3, page 10, citing Jeanne McCauley, David E. Kern, Ken Kolodner, et al., Clinical Characteristics of Women with a History of Childhood Abuse: Unhealed Wounds, 277 JAMA 1197, page 1362.
¹¹Response, supra note 3, page 10, citing Heather Y. Swanston, Jennifer S. Tebbutt, Brian I. O'Toole, and R. Kim Oates, Sexually Abused Children 5 Years After Presentation: A Case-Control Study, 100 Pediatrics, 1997, page 600, 603.
¹²Response, supra note 3, page 10, citing Effects on Children, supra note 8, page 60-62.
¹³Id.
¹⁴Response, supra note 3, page 7, citing David Finkelhor, Kimberly Mitchell, and Janis Wolak, Online Victimization: A Report on the Nation's Youth. Alexandria, Virginia: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, page ix.
 

When Multiple Images Of Child Pornography
Are Contained On Single Computer Disk,
Each Image May Be Charged As Separate Offense.
 

When Multiple Images Of Child Pornography Are Contained On Single Computer Disk, Each Image May Be Charged As Separate Offense.  On appeal from his conviction of possession of child pornography in violation of Wis. Stat. § 948.12, the defendant contended that the thirty-nine counts of possession of child pornography with which he was charged were multiplicitous.  The complaint charged thirty-nine counts based on the individual images found on the Zip disk removed from the defendant’s computer.  The defendant eventually pleaded no contest to eighteen counts.  He asserted on appeal that all but one charge should be dismissed on multiplicity grounds.

The court of appeals employs a two-prong test when analyzing a multiplicity challenge: (1) whether the charged offenses are identical in law and fact; and (2) if not identical in law and fact, whether the Legislature nevertheless intended multiple offenses to be charged as a single count

With respect to the first prong, it is undisputed that the charges here were identical in law because they arise under the same statute, Wis. Stat. § 948.12.  Thus, the court’s inquiry focuses on whether the charges were identical in fact.

The defendant argued that the charges were identical in fact, and therefore multiplicitous, because the police found all the pornographic photographs on a single computer Zip disk, and there is no evidence that he acquired each image with a separate volitional act.  The State, relying on State v. Multaler, 2002 WI 35, 252 Wis. 2d 54, 543 N.W.2d 437, submitted that each individual image may be charged as a separate offense, and the complaint is sufficient because each charge pertains to a picture of a different child.  The court of appeals agrees with the State that Multaler is dispositive on this issue.

In Multaler, the Wisconsin Supreme Court considered a multiplicity challenge to a possession of child pornography prosecution.  The State charged Multaler with seventy-nine counts, based upon the number of pornographic photographic images retrieved from his computer.  Multaler ultimately pleaded guilty to twenty-eight counts.  On appeal, he argued that the number of computer disks (two) determined the number of permissible charges for violating Wis. Stat. § 948.12, not the number of pornographic images contained on the disks.  The supreme court disagreed and concluded that the charges were not identical in fact:  “Although some of the downloaded image files contained multiple images, there were more than 28 separate image files.  In a statement given after his arrest, Multaler admitted that he “began downloading . . . in the winter of 1998,” thus suggesting that he obtained the image files over a period of time.  Even had he downloaded all the image files in a very short period of time, the fact that there were more than 28 separate files supports a conclusion that he made a new decision to obtain each one.  Every time he downloaded a new file, he recommitted himself to additional criminal conduct.  Each decision to download more child pornography represented a new volitional departure.”

The criminal complaint against the defendant in this case alleged that he possessed thirty-nine separate image files, each depicting a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct.  Each file is identified by a different name, such as File Aspty.054.jpg, File Batj07.jpg, File Billi16.jpg, etc.  Given these facts, the court of appeals concludes that, as the supreme court determined in Multaler, it is reasonable to assume that the existence of multiple files on the Zip disk demonstrates that the defendant made a new decision to download a particular image file.  Therefore, each image file “represent[s] a new volitional departure,” and the charges against the defendant are different in fact.

Turning to the second prong of the multiplicity test, the defendant argued that the Legislature intended only one offense regardless of the number of images on a computer disk.  The court of appeals notes that “Multaler considered and rejected this argument, and we, of course, are bound by the supreme court’s precedent.”  In Multaler, the court held that the intended unit of prosecution under Wis. Stat. § 948.12 is each pornographic image; the manner in which the images were stored does not dictate the number of charges.  State v. Schaefer, 2003 WI App 164 (Wis. Ct. App., No. 01-2691-CR, publication ordered August 27, 2003). 

G.A.T.E. (GANG AWARENESS TRAINING EDUCATION)
 

The attacks on September 11th, 2001 showed that our nation’s soil was not immune to Terrorism. Since World War II a foreign enemy had not attacked us on our own soil. Over the years many Americans have become complacent. Even with September 11th, we have forgotten the tragedy that occurred on that fateful day. Perhaps it is because we have short memory spans, or we are too busy with our own individual lives. But what we should all understand is that as a result of what are country represents, individually or collectively we are all targets.

One fifth of the Nations population, approximately 74 million people are in American schools five days a week . In the last ten years we have seen young people smuggle firearms into and out of schools and kill other students. We saw the ultimate example of this on April 19, 1999 when two students entered Columbine High School in Littleton Colorado killing 12 students, a teacher and then both committed suicide. This attack, while carried out by teenagers, involved automatic weapons, military tactics, and explosive devices. These two teenagers kept several hundred police officers at bay because law enforcement never foresaw an event of this nature occurring in a school. What would happen if the attack were a coordinated attack, by well-trained fanatical terrorists with the right weapons, plans, and explosives? Then multiply that by simultaneous attacks on four, five or twenty schools regionally or nationally. What would happen?

Similar to the events immediately following September 11th, the federal government closed down the airplane industry and brought the military into to protect the airline passengers. The quickest way to strike fear into Americans is to attack their children. After a series of coordinated attacks, parents fearing for the safety of their children would do what any parents would do, attempt to protect them. It would result in an immediate drop off in the work force as parents stayed home to take care of their children. If conservatively there are 53 million students in school and roughly fifty percent were from two parent homes that would imply that 25 million American parents potentially would drop out of the work force. This estimate is a conservative estimate at best.

The initial slow down in worker output, production and services would pale in comparison to what would happen next. Just after September 11th, unemployment skyrocketed to 5.4 percent according to the department of labor and presently the U.S. unemployment rate is at 6.5% (May 2004 BLS). Removing 25 million Americans from our labor force would push the unemployment rate up to 21.8%. At the height of the Great Depression, unemployment was at 24.9% which, took approximately five years to reach that level. The effects that would impact our country in such a short period of time would be cataclysmic.

The rapid removal from the work force would have a ripple effect across the economy. There would be a first initial wave of affected workers, which would follow with multiple waves as the economy began to tumble. Initially, those that would be affected are teachers, administrators, janitorial staff and administrative support staff. Next would be food service staff, grounds staff, book suppliers, clothing suppliers, office suppliers, bus drivers, bus companies, HVAC staff and vending and food service suppliers. The next impact would be across the board from the actual parents who elected to leave the work force to stay home with their children. Initially this would point to the service industry, manufacturing, office staff, and other technical type staff. Ultimately impacting the professional workforce as time went on.

Lt. Col Dave Grossman, a well-known expert on military tactics, history, violence and terrorism believes that the response from the federal government would be similar to what was done with the airline industry. Grossman states that before people would feel safe sending their children to school the government would have to recruit and train police officers to be placed inside every school in America. Grossman believes that this will take at least a year to complete such a monumental task. Certainly, the impact of hiring at least several hundred thousand officers into the work force will be financial burden for all municipalities already cash strapped. Certainly, the federal government would have to step in to either nationalize the police forces of the nation, or create a whole national school police force. The government will have to fund the hiring and training of those officers to protect the nation’s young people.

So why Schools?

Intelligence information that has been gathered suggests that as High profile targets are made less accessible, so called “Soft” targets become a more likely target. Historically terrorist attacks have attempted not to involve innocents, particularly children. However, over the years there has been a change in how terrorists attempt to produce terror and fear and that has been by attacking children. In Israel, numerous homicide bombers have targeted school buses, killing hundreds of students since the mid 1990’s. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed numerous children who were in the first floor of the Murrah Federal Building when their bomb went off. Besides this change in the Middle East there has also been a religious justification that has taken a strong foothold among Muslims extremists. An al Qaeda spokes man named Suleiman abu Ghaith has stated “We have the right to kill four million Americas – two million of them children – and exile twice as many and injure and cripple hundreds of thousands. We have the right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so they catch fatal and unusual diseases that Muslims have caught due to their (US) chemical and biological weapons.”

In addition, according the IntelCenter, al Qaeda has committed over seventy percent of there successful terrorist attacks between the months of August and November. Since, schools are in session all over the country during these months, it points to schools as an obvious target especially when you consider the comments of Sulieman abu Ghaith about killing and maiming two million children.

Shortly after the United States invaded Afghanistan, a cache of videotapes and intelligence information was gathered by intelligence agents on the ground. These tapes were videotapes of terrorist training, similar to the way high school coaches review the previous week’s football game for teaching purposes. On these tapes however, were terrorists invading a school. In the video were classrooms setup with desks, cardboard cutouts of children in seats and teachers standing up in the classroom.

Former Green Beret Jack Idema found the tapes as a contracted advisor for the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan while working for the Central Intelligence Agency. His discoveries lead to homeland security reevaluating numerous security procedures for executive protection. “Knowing al Qaeda trained to take out a presidential motorcade or an office building is scary, but nothing is more frightening than their training to take over a school,” said Idema, “In a classroom in a camp near Jalalabad, we found little desks with bullet holes in them and the back of chairs. Each had seven or eight bullet holes in them. They were definitely aiming to hit critical mass.”

This desire and apparent justification to kill two million children appears to directly target American’s children. What better a place to attack then a school where as many children as possible are present. Even Osama bin Laden made a comment about crippling the economy of the United States in a videotaped interview with the Muslim News Station al-Jazeera on December 26, 2001. During that taping he stated “It is important to hit the economy [of the US], which is the base of its military power…If the economy is hit they will become reoccupied.” This would directly bolster the theory that by attacking our schools in series of coordinated attacks would have the desired impact that al Qaeda wants.

Al Qaeda apparently has a desire to hit America again, and hit us hard. Our schools in the United States are better prepared since 9/11, but they are far softer targets and have a higher “value” than most other targets in the United States. School districts have been in financial crunches since prior to September 11th, attempting to provide the appropriate security necessary to protect all of our children would be an even greater financial burden, meaning some tough cost cutting measures would have to be enacted. The times we are in right now do not allow for miss steps and errors of judgment because we could not “think out of the box.” If September 11th was an attempt to cripple our financial strength, then the next attack will be designed to destroy our will to fight the “War on Terror” while simultaneously cutting our nations financial legs out from under us.

2005 Wisconsin Act 5

“Amie’s Law”

On May 17, 2005, Governor Jim Doyle signed 2005 Wisconsin Act 5 changing the rules for releasing a juvenile’s information from the sex offender registry. Under this new law, a sheriff or police chief can release information on an adjudicated or minor sex offender in the sex offender registry to an organization including schools, day care providers and certain governmental agencies; individuals or the general public if the release is determined to be necessary to protect the public.

In October of 2006, Governor Doyle directed the Department of Corrections to begin posting dangerous adults on the public sex offender registry who had committed sexual offenses as juveniles.

2005 Wisconsin Act 5 does not provide any statutory guidelines to law enforcement agencies to help them determine when an adjudicated minor registrant poses a risk to public safety which makes it necessary to publicly release information about the registrant.

The Department of Corrections contacted Dr. Anna Salter who reviewed current research, literature and risk assessment on juvenile sex offenders.  Dr. Salter then developed a set of guidelines with a format similar to the adult Special Bulletin Notification.  The guidelines use factors that current research shows to be the most important to public safety concerns. These guidelines are not a risk assessment, but rather a tool that law enforcement can use to structure discussions surrounding a youth’s risks, victim and family impact, and community safety.

Act 5 Guidelines

For Use with DOC-2342

1.  Number of Charged Sexual Offenses Including the Current Adjudication

Count all charged sexual offenses, misdemeanors or felonies, which occurred prior to age 18.  Include the most recent offenses in addition to charges for attempted sex offenses prior to age 18. 

2.  Number of known sexual abuse or sex assault victims 

This item only looks at the number of known victims, not at whether the person was ever charged with the offenses.  Use any reliable source

3. Duration of sexual offending history, from first known to current offense

This item does not require formal charges.  However, it does require that the information be from a reliable source.

4. Other Nonsexual, Antisocial Behaviors

The definition addresses all nonsexual, antisocial behaviors that may include: vandalism, vagrancy, truancy, fighting/battery, carrying a weapon, theft, reckless driving, driving under the influence, assault, burglary, robbery, and using or selling drugs, etc.  Formal charges are not necessary. 

5. Any Stranger Victims

This item is defined by whether there were prior interactions between the victim and offender that both were aware of, and happened at least 24 hours before the assault.   For example, an offender might “know” a victim by stalking her, but if the victim did not know the offender she is still defined as a stranger.  In addition, if the offender intended to assault a stranger, but the victim happened to know the offender, the victim is still considered a stranger. 

The “24 hour” rule applies to situations where the offenders may meet a victim in a bar, for example, and spend hours with them before luring the victim somewhere to be assaulted.  In this situation, the victim is still considered to be a stranger.  Only a slight degree of knowing is enough to make the victim not a stranger.  For example, if the offender worked in a convenience store and the victim came in several times to buy something, the victim is not classified as a stranger. 

6. Evidence of Deviant Sexual Arousal

This item requires evidence that the offender is sexually aroused by prepubescent children, violence, or fear.  Three or more prepubescent victims would generally be considered evidence of a deviant arousal pattern.  Self-reported fantasies of sex with children would count as well.  Child-victim grooming patterns would suggest that prepubescent children were not just victims of opportunity. 

To establish a sexual interest in violence, the rater would have to be convinced that the offender was not just interested in sex and the willingness to use violence to obtain sex.  Rather, it should be evident that the offender becomes aroused by the violence itself and had a specific sexual interest in forced sex.  In addition, evidence that the offender becomes sexually aroused by torture or victim fear would meet the definition of a deviant arousal pattern.

7. Deception, Planning and Grooming

This item reflects forethought and planning prior to the offense. It is evidenced by grooming behavior, manipulation of the victim or her/his family, or use of deception to obtain access to the victim.  At its extreme, it may include a set modus operandi which is consistent across victims.  However, there may also be more moderate levels of manipulation which reflect a prior intent to offend.  Victims are generally pre-determined and are not victims of opportunity.  An example of an exception might be an offender who pretends his car had broken down with the intent of assaulting any female who stops to help.  This reflects planning and deception, even though the specific victim was a victim of opportunity. 

8. Treatment

Is Juvenile Compliant or Non-Compliant. Being terminated from treatment is a clear indicator of risk in adolescents and adults.  However, in Wisconsin DOC, juveniles are required to stay in treatment and are not terminated.  Therefore, noncompliance with treatment must be measured in other ways: e.g., individual is frequently removed from treatment because he is serving time in segregation for infractions.

9.  Stability of current living situation

A stable living situation may consist of one or two parents/guardians, or it may consist of a group home, foster care, or an independent living situation.  Stability is not characterized by the type of living situation, but by whether or not the situation frequently changes in major and unpredictable ways and if there is continuity of adequate care and supervision.  If the offender is in and out of the home because of his behavior, the living situation itself may still be stable. 

Frequent moves, constantly changing adults in the home, caretaker mental illness, drug addiction or spousal batteries would all be examples of an unstable living situation.  Other examples of unstable living situations may include if the offender is placed in and out of the home because the family becomes homeless, a parent cycles in and out of jail, a caretaker abandons the family and then returns, or because a caretaker relapses into drugs and the offender must periodically live with others.

10. Positive support system

This item measures the amount of positive support the offender has in the community.  It could include family members, foster family members, friends, teachers, mentors, coaches, therapists, or others outside the home.  Institutional organizations such as a church community or youth organization may also be a positive support system for the offender. 

Document 2342 and the definitions for the Act 5 guidelines can be found at http://www.wi-doc.com/index_juvenile.htm

“Preparing for School Attacks”

by Richard Fairburn and David Grossman

Reprinted with permission of the POLICE MARKSMAN magazine
For those in the emergency response community who thought school attacks were a thing of the past, the recent active shooter incident in Montreal, Canada, and disrupted attack in Green Bay, Wisconsin signaled a loud wake-up call. Just a few days later, hostages were taken in a school in Bailey, Colorado with tragic results and a principle was killed by a student in a Sauk County, Wisconsin high school. The Bailey, Colorado incident was horribly ironic in that a SWAT team from neighboring Jefferson County (the agency in charge of the Columbine response) was called upon to make the hostage rescue assault.

Our school children are at risk from both angry students and determined terrorists. After the Columbine high school attack of 1999, many police agencies adopted and trained some form of “Rapid Deployment” tactic for responding to an active shooter. But, with lack of use and the memory fade induced by time, many departments have allowed their “edge” to become dull. We must program school protection permanently onto our emergency response hard drives.

Understand the Problem

At the end of the 20th Century, the United States suffered a number of high-profile school attacks perpetrated by students. The Columbine attack made the most national news, but was only one of a significant string of violent assaults that continue today.

The police response to a school attack committed by a student or students is a daunting task. Confusion and panic are rampant at these events and merely identifying and locating the attacker(s) can be a huge problem. However, few of these attackers are hardened killers. In several cases they were brought under control, putting a stop to the killing, with nothing more than verbal commands from an authority figure. The boys at Columbine had trained themselves well enough to exchange gunfire with the police and even clear a malfunctioning weapon to get back in the fight. But, most school and workplace shooters are seeking easy targets, not a gunfight.

The world watched what happened September 1, 2004, at Beslan, Russia with stunned disbelief, but it has happened in many other nations. Turkey has had over 300 schools destroyed by terrorist attacks. Pakistan, Algeria, and many other nations, in addition to Russia, have experienced brutal school massacres committed by terrorist groups. The groups perpetrating these attacks shared common motivations ... the same motivations that brought us the attacks of September 11, 2001.

One of the most tragic and devastating terrorist acts in Israel was the Ma'alot school massacre in 1974 in which 21 Israeli children were murdered in a brutal terrorist act that set the stage for many subsequent attacks on schools. As a result of this incident, Israel has lived for thirty years with armed security in every school, armed guards on every field trip and sporting event, armored busses and armed security on those busses. Can anyone comprehend what it would cost the United States to have that kind of security for every school, every field trip and every bus in America? You think your school, city, state or nation has budget problems now?

Col. Grossman (one of the authors of this article) co-authored an article published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, which stated that if a series of active shooter terrorist attacks happened in the US, as they have in Israel, we will arm our selves and get on with life – just like Israel. But, you can't arm the kids! Even Israel can't arm its children. If a major terrorist attack on a school is successful, the terrorists can impact every family and every school in America, disrupting our economy and way of life unlike any other conventional attack. It is our job to prevent that and to protect our kids.

A police response to a terrorist attack may need to be very different from what would work with a incident committed by students. In an August 2002 Pakistani incident, one armed guard drove off four armed terrorists attacking a Christian school. On the contrary, the attackers at Beslan in 2004, were heavily armed and determined to achieve a huge body count ... which they accomplished. One well armed responder might drive off or delay a small-scale terrorist attack, but a well prepared terrorist team could overwhelm all but a military-level response team. The possibility of terrorists in the United States assembling 30 armed attackers without detection is very remote, but even this remote possibility must be taken into consideration.

The sky is NOT falling. This is only one of many things terrorists could do to us. If we over react; if we change our way of life because of the threat of school massacres, then we give way to fear and the terrorists get the victory they desire without having to fire a shot. So, we must strike a balance between preparing for an unthinkable horror without giving way to unreasoned fear. We must respond with a balanced and reasoned "all hazards" approach to this threat. The odds of a school attack in your community are admittedly low. The odds of any given police officer being shot making a traffic stop today are also low, yet we train for that eventuality on a regular basis. If the risk is high, we must train and prepare, no matter the likelihood. To ignore the threat is to live in denial. Consider these “Five D’s:”

In order to avoid falling victim to DENIAL:

• DETER - Have alert, visible and armed security on site. Train and equip response teams to a high standard and make their capabilities known (though the details of their response techniques should remain classified). Convince the potential attacker they won’t succeed in killing innocent targets if they come to your locale.
• DETECT - Like Detectives, be ever vigilant for “clues.” Virtually every school attacker, student or terrorist, conducts extensive reconnaissance of their target. They will analyze the availability of ingress and egress points. Questions will be asked about the site’s security preparations. They may photograph and/or sketch the area. Both human and video surveillance can help you pattern these recon missions.
• DELAY - Harden the target with security checkpoints and random security patrols. Drill lockdown procedures to remove easy targets from their potential kill zone. Make sure the lock-down procedure includes the means to lock the doors to areas of refuge. Avoid the urge to evacuate anyone into an area not proven to be safe from potential snipers or bombs.
• DESTROY - If they still choose your site as their target ... you must respond quickly and forcefully. An analysis of active shooter incidents by co-Author Richard Fairburn suggests that even a Rapid Deployment team is unlikely to assemble in time to save lives.(1) In most incidents, the only chance available to save lives is an instant response by on-scene personnel or the first arriving officer. At this point we are not just seeking to defeat the attackers. One of the lessons of the 2004 Russain school massacre, as outlined in John Giduck's excellent book, "Terror at Beslan" is that we must attack immediately, with maximum violence, and no intention of pulling back or giving up ground. Attack the enemy hard and fast and DESTROY them before they destroy more innocents.

Make a Plan

Since very little innovative thinking occurs under combat conditions, we must plan and train for the next fight before we’re in it. Rapid Deployment tactics are a prime example. Some have criticized the actions of the police responders at Columbine, yet no police agency in the country had ever anticipated a school attack of that magnitude ... until it happened. The responders at Columbine reacted as they had been trained and, quite frankly, the complications of that incident might not have allowed a significantly different response irregardless of their training.

Most schools and response agencies now strongly recommend a policy of “lockdown.” When we consider how both fire alarms and bomb threats have been used to evacuate victims into the “kill zone” of a prepared outside ambush, perhaps a lockdown is the best initial response to any school threat. Lockdown drills, like fire drills, are now mandated for schools in some states.

Pre-plan your site. Staging Areas, Command Post locations and Reunification Sites should be pre-determined. All resources scheduled to respond to your school should be part of periodic drills ... actual hands-on drills, not tabletop exercises.

Choose and Train your People Well

Armed security in your school will go far to deter an attack, but if an attack comes, these officers may be the first to be targeted. So, we need a certain type of officer as a School Resource Officer (SRO). At the risk of insulting some, we must state a fact. Some officers are assigned to schools because they are ineffective on the street. Choose your best officers to protect your most valuable property ... your children. SROs must be intelligent, alert, inquisitive and congenial, yet be ready to shift into “combat mode” in an instant. We need “sheepdogs” to protect our “lambs.” Warriors, not wimps guarding our children.

Train your SROs to respond effectively to a threat either alone or as a two-officer team, joining up with the first arriving patrol officer. Consider the controversial option of pre-positioning protective gear and a carbine for these officers in a secure on-site location. We owe these guardians the best survival odds we can provide.

Train Rapid Deployment techniques to the rest of your department. This training should be as stressful and realistic as possible including difficult surroundings, live role players and paintball-type gunfight simulations. Team training must be refreshed at least annually to maintain these perishable skills.

Train your first-line supervisors to quickly take command at a school violence incident. The supervisor’s first duty is to conduct a rapid problem assessment and sort through the confusing flood of initial intelligence. Their quick analysis of the situation will drive a hasty risk assessment to determine if a response by a single officer or Rapid Deployment team has a chance to reach and neutralize an active shooter. In most cases, we must take immediate action to stop the killing. However, if the on-scene commander identifies a situation like Beslan, with numerous, heavily armed attackers, a delaying action may be the best he can achieve with limited resources. Adding responder bodies to the pile in a noble, yet futile gesture may make the problem even worse.

Stay Vigilant

Once you scale up your school security preparations and response plans, keep them current. Motivate your people to stay sharp and be alert. School attacks, like other violent crimes, tend to ebb and flow in their frequency. We are all shocked back to a high state of awareness after an attack occurs, but the calm periods may require even more vigilance. Our enemies use the lulls to conduct reconnaissance and plan their moves. Remember the DETER and DETECT aspects of our Five “D”s.

The situation is very much like fire protection. The probability of a student being killed or seriously injured by violence is significantly greater than the probability of being killed or seriously injured by fire. No child has been killed by school fire in North America in over a quarter of a century, but in the 2004/2005 school year, 48 people were murdered in American schools. These are usually random acts of violence, or shootings by students as opposed to acts of terrorism, but the defense against terrorist attacks in our schools, as outlined in this article, is largely the same as the defense against school shootings.

Thus, our children are dozens of times more likely to be killed by violence than fire, and thousands of times more likely to be seriously injured by violence as compared to fire. Yet, in any school you can look around and see fire sprinklers, smoke alarms, fire exits, and fire extinguishers. If we can spend all that money and time preparing for fire (and we should, since every life is precious) shouldn't we spend time and money preparing for the thing that is far more likely to kill or injure a child?

The most negligent, unprofessional, obscene words anyone can ever say are: "It will never happen here." When someone asks, "Do you really think there will be a terrorist act or a school shooting here?" Just point to the fire exit and say, "Do you really think there will be a fire here?” No, we don't think there will ever be a fire here. But we would be morally, criminally negligent if we did not prepare for the possibility. And the same is far, far truer of school violence."

About a month after the 9-11 terrorist attacks Col. Grossman was training a group of special operations troops who were headed to Afghanistan. A Special Forces (Green Beret) sergeant came up during one of the breaks and said, "Colonel, we're going to Afghanistan, and we're gonna kick their tails. While we're over there, you tell all those folks you teach, don't let them come kill our kids."

Our servicemen are over there dying for us every day, trying to keep the terrorists on the defense, or as one Marine put it, "To keep it ta hell over there!" The troops believe in what they are doing, and they only ask one thing: "Watch my back and do your job ... don't let them come kill my kids." THAT is what this article is about, and THAT is what WE should be about.

Every day, millions of parents hug millions of kids, their most precious possessions, and send those kids to school, trusting US to keep them alive. So don't just read this article and the books recommended here(2), apply them! Be like the firefighter: put the risk in perspective, pray that it will never happen, know that it COULD happen, and work with all your heart and soul to prevent it from happening.

It could be YOUR child or grandchild's life that you save.

(1) Report: “Rapid Deployment as a response to an Active Shooter Incident,” Illinois State Police Academy, 2003.

(2) Michael and Chris Dorn's book "Innocent Targets" is required reading for those who would like more information on terrorist attacks on schools in many nations. For more in depth information about the most recent and horrific school massacre in Beslan, Russia, John Giduck's definitive book, "Terror at Beslan" is essential reading.

“Preventing Violence in Our Schools”
By Dave Grossman & Loren Christensen

Re-printed with permission from Lt. Col. Dave Grossman of Killology Research Group.

"To state the obvious, times have changed in our schools. In our day, we had to contend with a thrown egg in an assembly or the theft of the school mascot. Today, hit lists of teachers and classmates circulate at middle schools and deadly weapons are confiscated from book bags and lockers. What was once unimaginable, that a school, society’s ultimate sanctuary, could become a killing field is now a grim reality." (Tamara Jones, 1998)

Police Officer in the Halls
A key deterrent to preventing violence in our schools is to put a police officer in the halls. We know that a terrorist, whether he is a school shooter or an international terrorist, is not looking for a fair fight, because if he were, he would go to a police station where there are lots of armed officers perfectly willing to oblige him. While there are the occasional incidents where a gunman seeks out police officers in the hope that they will kill him, a terrorist wanting to garner an impressive body count in this new, international game will never go to a place populated by professional, armed warriors.

The same is true of the corrections community. We take the distilled essence of all the people no one else in America wants to live with, we pack them all in one place and we make our corrections officers live with them every day. These officers live in an environment that makes the post office look like nirvana, but they never go “postal.” No one ever tries to shoot their fellow corrections employees, and the obvious reason is because of all those other officers in the towers armed with heavy-duty firepower. Clearly, a police station and a prison are not places to try to butcher innocent people and rack up a high score, nor would a school be the place to go when there is an armed police officer present acting as a deterrent. The kind of pathetic losers who commit these acts seldom go to places where there are people present who can shoot back.

When we put an officer in the school, it becomes a key factor that makes it possible to keep our kids alive. At this writing, a panel of state legislators and legal officials in Virginia are recommending that a police officer or sheriff's deputy be posted at every middle and high school in the state (Christina Nuckols, 2001). It is not a failsafe and it is not a guarantee, but it is one of the most important things that we can do in this day and age. Here is one other advantage to having a police officer in our schools. Let’s say you are an educator and there is a kid with a gun in the hall. Unless it is an absolute emergency, unless shots are being fired and no one else can do it, as an unarmed educator you should not attempt to confiscate a gun, or any type of weapon. In that situation there exists what is called “force inequity.” When Mrs. Adams, walks up and says, “Jimmy, give me the gun,” he feels shame giving it to you. But when an armed, uniformed officer approaches the kid and asks for the weapon, there is no shame in handing the gun to a superior power.

There can be no doubt that a police presence in our schools deters violence. Case in point: In August of 1999, a 37-year-old neo-Nazi named Buford Furrow Jr. walked into the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Los Angels and fired 70 rounds from an AR-15 Bushmaster, hitting five children. During his escape, he killed a Filipino letter carrier. The objective in his twisted mind was to send out a wake-up call for America to kill Jews. In his search to find vulnerable targets, Furrow first scouted three other prominent Jewish institutions to attack, but he found that each of them had a security guard present. Later, when he left the freeway in search of a gas station, he inadvertently found the Valley Jewish Community Center. That one was unguarded.

What is the profile of a school shooter?
Say we have a police officer in every school and all the educators are watchful for problems. What is it that they need to look out for? One of our authors, Col. Grossman, was a co-trainer with the Secret Service when they released their interim report on the profile of a school killer. It was not extensive for the simple reason that there is no specific profile. The killers are white, Native American, African American, and Hispanic. They are upper class, middle class, and lower class. They are from broken families and intact families. While most are males, several are female. There is no profile--although the FBI research says that a "fascination with violent media" is a common factor with all the school shooters.

The Secret Service does say that are indicators that a kid is thinking about killing before he acts. And when a kid indicates that he is thinking about committing a violent act, and an adult does not take decisive action to stop him, the Secret Service says that the kid sees this as getting “permission to proceed.” In an attempted, but fortunately averted school massacre in New Bedford, Massachusetts, one of the kids arrested had written on his bedroom wall, "I hate the world," "Everyone must die," and "Kill everyone." Still, his mother continued to portray the charges as a misunderstanding that has targeted “great
kids.” It is the job of teachers, parents, and police officers to hone in on these indicators. Here are two other case studies.

Permission to Proceed
A Mississippi sheriff told me of a boy who wrote a school paper about a kid who poisoned everyone in his family. The boy included lots of details, such as how he would do it and how it would feel. When he finished, he turned in his writing for a grade, and the teacher gave him one, too; in fact, she gave him a good one. Sadly, the story does not end there. Shortly after he had turned in the paper, he stole cyanide from the school laboratory and used it to kill his entire family. By not taking action upon seeing the boy’s terrible paper, the teacher inadvertently gave him permission to proceed.

What if he had turned in a school paper full of sexual ideation, an intimate, detailed paper about having sex with everyone in his family? Do you think the teacher would have bought off on that? Teachers are required by law in most places to report such a thing. What if he had turned in a paper full of suicidal ideation, intimate detail about committing suicide and how he had given all of his possessions away? Do you think the teacher would have taken that to the counselor, and the counselor would have called the parents to inform them of a suicide risk with their child? Of course. So what is the lesson here? Suicidal ideation and sexual ideation by children are out, but homicidal ideation gets an “A.” That is the sick double, tragic standard that is hurting us.

Another example of kids getting permission to proceed occurred at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Two high school students were given an assignment to shoot a video, so they taped themselves wearing black trench coats as they walked through their school with toy guns pretending to shoot fellow students. Afterwards, they turned the video in for a grade and, you guessed it, the teacher gave them a good one. Afterwards, she wondered if there could be a problem, as thoughts of places like Pearl, Paducah, Jonesboro, and Springfield floated about in her mind. So she informed the principal, but still no action was taken, other than to give the boys a good grade. Shortly thereafter, the boys committed the largest school massacre in American history -- and the school had given them permission to proceed.