Receiving an anonymous message via phone or email that threatens a school’s safety can be unsettling.
Such messages are also disruptive, sometimes resulting in school evacuations, lockdowns, a large police response, or the closing of school altogether, all of which can affect students’ and staff members’ mental health and sense of safety.
But not every threat is created equal.
During a webinar hosted on Nov. 18 by AASA, The School Superintendents Association, two federal school safety leaders offered advice for school and district leaders about how to gauge the legitimacy of anonymous threats. Every threat should be taken seriously and reported to police, they said. But the police and school response can vary based on the severity of the threat and the likelihood it may be real.
Here are five factors school leaders can consider when assessing an anonymous threat and determining how to respond, based on information from Dan Hough, the deputy associate director of the School Safety Task Force of the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and Brian LeBlanc, a supervisory special agent for the FBI.
1. Always treat the threat as credible at first
First and foremost, Hough said, threats always need to be taken seriously, but context can inform the level of immediate response from police and school officials.
“We want to keep the community safe, but we want to begin to suss out how credible the threat is, then scale up or scale down our response,” Hough said. “If every time, we lock down or cancel school, unfortunately we’re going to have kids displaced from the classroom for significant amounts of time.”
2. The No. 1 indicator that it’s a hoax “is the warning”
In an analysis of more than 500 school shootings since 1764, the first instance of an officially recognized U.S. school shooting, the FBI found that none of the assailants “provided direct warning to the targeted location” by email, call, social media post, or other means “prior to committing the violent act,” said LeBlanc.
So, while every threat should be taken seriously, it’s important not to overreact, he said. “The No. 1 indicator that it’s a hoax is the warning. A bank robber’s not going to call the bank and say, ‘I’m going to rob you at 10 a.m. today.’”
While school shooters don’t tend to call their targets directly to give them a heads-up about their plan, they do often exhibit other warning signs.
3. Threats can happen at predictable times and in clusters
Oftentimes, threats toward schools happen in “clusters,” based on events and location, Hough said.
There is often a spike in anonymous threats toward schools following other high-profile mass shootings at schools, at times when there may be heightened fear and anxiety.
Reports also spike around standardized-testing season and when there is a new social media “trend” or “challenge.” It is common for several schools within a single district or state to receive similar threats either at the same time or within a short period, Hough said.
Suburban and urban high schools are the most common targets, and most anonymous threats are made by students enrolled in the targeted school.
4. Some threat characteristics should prompt additional precautions
There are a couple of factors that may prompt law enforcement and school leaders to take an anonymous threat more seriously and “scale up” their response, Hough said.
If the person making the threat includes personalized language, like saying that their mom works in the school, or if there is a history of serious threats at the school, the school and law enforcement should take additional precautions, Hough said.
5. Grand claims and “Call of Duty” speak tend to be hoaxes
When a threat includes very specific language about the type of firearm a shooter intends to use—such as when a caller says they’re armed with an AR-15, an act LeBlanc called “Call of Duty”-speak in reference to the popular video game—that’s a sign the call may be a hoax.
That’s because those are common details the caller could have gleaned from video games.
On the other hand, grandiose claims, like statements that all schools in a district or state are being targeted, is another indicator the call or message may be a hoax. Similarly, if the person making the threat cannot correctly pronounce or spell the names of the school or town, for example, they may not actually be familiar with the community—reducing the likelihood they pose a threat, LeBlanc said.
