From Columbine To Norway: Planning For Today's Active Shooter Events

Luke Simpson, Editor

It sounds like the worse-case scenario: A shooter dressed as a police officer on an island packed with teenagers.

The bombing and shootings in Norway on July 22, 2011 left 80 people dead and many in Europe asking the same questions that were asked in the U.S. following the Columbine shootings: How did this happen and what can we do to ensure that it doesn’t happen again?

A lot has changed since Columbine, but active shooter events still take place with some regularity. Through question and answer sessions with crisis experts, a disaster recovery practitioner and notification vendors, CI attempts to break down the events in Norway and compare them to recent active shooter events in the U.S., in order to extract lessons learned and explore ways that active shooter protocols and crisis communications can be improved.

Norway’s Nightmare

We start with Dennis Evers, author of How To Handle A Crisis, for insight into the profile of an active shooter, changes to active shooter protocols since Columbine and how the human mind can be trained to better handle a crisis.

Continuity Insights: How could the situation in Norway have been handled differently?

Dennis Evers: The police response was tragically delayed, allowing Breivik almost 90 uninterrupted minutes to perform his cowardly deed. The local first responders’ decision to wait for a special response team to handle Breivik, as opposed to an immediate dynamic assault of the island, was, in my opinion, poor judgment.

The Columbine massacre was a wake up call for us in the U.S. because of a similar protracted response. The first of several SWAT teams on scene was not allowed to enter the school for 47 minutes — the second team didn’t enter for two hours. That event changed the modern day response for active shooters.

CI: How was the shooter event in Norway different to what is usually encountered in an active shooter scenario in the U.S.?

DE: There are two types of active shooters: The lone wolf, which has been the predominant shooter here in the U.S., and multiple shooters, like we saw at Columbine. Some attackers target specific individuals while others wish to inflict pain and suffering on anyone who crosses their path.
Active shooters that go after specific individuals or groups are often driven by revenge and tend to target high school bullies, bosses or ex-girlfriends. Another type of shooter targets specific religious, political or ethnic groups, or uses religion, politics or ethnicity as a motive, as was seen with the Norway massacre.

Random shooters are just that, determined to simply kill as many people as possible. The Norway shooting was unusual in that Breivik was dressed as a trusted authority figure, which likely resulted in additional deaths.

CI: How did communications affect (for worse or better) the events in Norway?

DE: There are known instances of teens calling and text­ing their parents to advise them of the shooting. In one case, the mother was aware the shooter was dressed as a policeman from a news report and was able to pass that information on to her daughter in a text message.

CI: What organizations have the most robust, tried and tested plans in place for active shooter events? What makes them so effective?

DE: After Columbine, schools, universities, hospitals and countless other institutions aggressively implemented active shooter protocols. The protocols rely heavily on the victims concealing themselves or putting a barrier between them and the shooter while awaiting a rapid and effective police intervention. Law enforcement has improved its training and is, for the most part, much better prepared to end a dynamic active shooter event.

CI: In your book, you touch on the importance of leadership during an active shooter event. What are the hallmarks of an effective leader during a crisis?

DE: When confronted with an active shooter, the human mind goes into overdrive and might have a nanosecond to figure out whether to freeze, fight or flight. Thorough planning coupled with hands-on drills is essential, and imprints a “subliminal road map.”

While it may sound trite, those that fail to plan, plan to fail. A good leader knows what needs to be done and is willing to do whatever it takes.

Hospital Operations

On September 16, 2010, a gunman opened fire at the world-famous Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, injuring a doctor before killing himself and his mother. The shooter, 50-year-old Paul Warren Pardus, had just heard news of his mother’s deteriorating condition.

During a two-hour standoff, crisis plans were put to the test as a section of the hospital was locked down in order to allow the remaining section to operate. Bill Rider, Manager, Disaster Recovery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, reflects on the effectiveness of the hospital’s crisis planning, and the lessons learned from the event.

Continuity Insights: We often hear that planning is one thing, but when a crisis occurs, plans aren’t always practical. How useful were the hospital’s crisis management/business continuity plans that day? Was there any part of the event that stood out as something that was not/could not be planned for?

Bill Rider: Our crisis management plans were extremely useful. However, I need to emphasize that it is only because they were frequently reviewed, rehearsed and coordinated with local authorities in advance of any actual events. In other words, it is not the plans themselves, but the planning effort that you undertake to show competence in relation to the efficiency and effectiveness of a response.
As Dwight D. Eisenhower said, “Plans are worthless, planning is everything.”

In addition, it is not sufficient to develop an all hazards approach to response. It is also essential to develop specifics, since a response to a shooter is very different compared to a response to an H1N1 infectious disease outbreak and how your internal plans integrate with those first responders from the local jurisdictions.

CI: In terms of business continuity, crisis management, security and/or training, what changes or lessons learned came out of the event. How have they been incorporated into BC plans and exercises?

BR: I think the one item that really hit home was how communications really needed to keep up with a highly dynamic and fast moving event that went from identification to escalation to response to de-escalation to stand down in an amazingly short period of time. Any communications mechanisms (software, call trees, paging) need to be able to support a highly fluid situation and get information out in the most effective, efficient manner. And those mechanisms need to be aggressively tested and actively utilized.

For example, most of our updated instructions and messages occur in intervals of two to four hours. However, during an event like this that moves quickly, updates were sent out at 15 minute intervals to keep the constituency up-to-date.

Social Media Strategies

By effectively monitoring social media during a crisis, organizations can quickly gain situational awareness, gauge public sentiment and correct misinformation being propagated across the internet.
Jane Jordan-Meier, author of The Four Stages Of Highly Effective Crisis Management, talks about social media war rooms and best practices for using social media during a range of crises.

Continuity Insights: What are some best practices for using social media during a crisis?

Jane Jordan-Meier: Like with the traditional media, a crisis is not the time to engage your audience and make friends/followers — do that in advance. Establish listening posts, and start monitoring and measuring social media coverage about your industry, product and brand:

• What are the key words?
• What is the overall sentiment (positive, negative or neutral)?
• Is your target market engaged or passive?
• Who are the key influencers?

You need to understand the nuances of the marketplace before the crisis hits.

Also, a boilerplate doesn’t work too well in social media land — each platform deserves its own tailored response: Short and sweet for Twitter; a full statement on your company Facebook page; and a video clip for YouTube.

Real-time engagement is critical. Use real-time alerts to respond directly to any new activity and developments. Dead air, gaps or a vacuum will soon be filled by your opponents so be prepared to act swiftly.

And by swiftly, I mean within minutes. The golden rule today is to act within one hour of something happening. There must be a statement from the company inside 60 minutes.

Finally, best practice decrees that showing empathy and expressing concern is very important. Step into the shoes of your key constituents. What would they want and need to hear from you?

CI: How should these best practices be incorporated into business continuity plans?

JM: I recommend a horizontal cross-section of the organization get together to drill and exercise the plan. For example, Vodafone in New Zealand has an integrated team comprising corporate communication and business continuity who work together very closely to form a coordinated crisis response, both internally and externally.

For business continuity managers, I recommend that you get to know the media and marketing team, and work out a comprehensive approach that covers all the organizational assets — and that includes reputation as well as plant and property.

Whatever communication approach is taken, it needs to be seamless. It is very annoying, frustrating and, indeed, confusing for stakeholders to have multiple forms of communication. In a crisis, it is critical that there is a coordinated effort. Lives can be lost or saved with careful planning.

CI: How do social media best practices vary for different types of crises?

JM: A crisis is a crisis. It’s a show stopping moment, a single moment in time that brings the company into the intense glare of media spotlight. Whether it’s a shooter on the rampage when lives are at risk or a disgruntled employee spreading rumors, the key is to act fast — very fast — before someone else fills in the gaps.

CI: How does a social media war room differ from a conventional crisis war room? Who are the “players” in a social media war room?

JM: The principle is the same — that is, you want to have all key players in the crisis management team in the one place at the one time in order to make key decisions. The room will have all the key tools: whiteboard, TV monitors, laptops, extra cell phones (and batteries), refreshments, maps, fact sheets and a cot for naps.

However, a social media war room will have social media specialists who are monitoring and advising social media in real-time, namely Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, key blogs, and websites.

Gatorade, for example, has partnered with IBM to build a Mission Control Center in its Chicago headquarters to monitor the brand real-time. The room has six big monitors with five seats for the marketing team to track data including tweets, blogs and websites. They measure not only how “hot” a topic is across the blogosphere, but also what the overall sentiment is (positive, negative).

Knowing how people are reacting to a crisis is critical for effective and efficient messaging. To be able to accurately “pick the panic” is essential is crisis media management.

While Gatorade may have set the bar very high, all organizations should have someone that is accountable and responsible for social media in a crisis — someone with the authority to sign off on responses made in real-time. This person should be dedicated to monitoring and measuring not only the volume of activity on social media, but also the keywords and the overall sentiment.

Heightened Alert

Specialized notification and communication systems can provide employees and authorities with the means to gather information on a shooter’s whereabouts and the condition of colleagues. Ann Pickren, Vice President, Solutions at MIR3 and Suzanne Loughlin, Esq., EVP at Firestorm, discuss ways to promote effective communication and notification messaging during an active shooter event.

Continuity Insights: How does an active shooter notification differ from, say, a tornado notification?

Ann Pickren: There are many nuances between notifications for such acts of workplace violence versus notifications for critical weather events (be it tornado or hurricane). Weather-related events typically come with some early warning that provides you with time to plan your response.

Active shooter events come with no warning, giving no time whatsoever for preparation. Evacuation routes might change and shelter-in-place may or may not be an option. Crisis communications during an active shooter event are thus different than the communications during a tornado or weather event.

An intelligent (two-way) communications tool can serve a very important role in protecting employees and also providing valuable information to employees and first responders during an active shooting event. There is a slight differentiation between an active shooter event that is linked to the workplace (through a former employee, disgruntled employee or someone having a relationship with the targeted company) and a random act of terrorism or violence in a public environment. The use of an automated intelligent notification tool allows messaging to be sent to employees who are at their desk, as well as those who might be away from their desk or off-premise.

The notification process can then serve multiple uses during an active shooter event, including:

• Initial messages to all employees to make them aware of the active shooter.
• Responses to the notification that include any information from individuals inside the building who might hear or see something that can help pinpoint the shooter.
• Communication for those employees who might be away from the office to alert them to the situation and the danger of return.
• Targeted messages for information and communication while responders are trying to secure the shooter.

Suzanne Loughlin: Notification systems can play a vital role in a crisis communications strategy when it comes to both evacuation and shelter-in-place strategies. For example, an impending hurricane gives us plenty of time to prepare and communicate. A notification system can be used to issue instructions about safety procedures and recommendations long before the hurricane arrives.

For example, a text may go out before an event, saying: when you hear a siren, it means shelter in place for a tornado. The notification system can disseminate messages with specific details and updates about either evacuation or shelter in place strategies. When the timing is imminent, one hears the siren and acts. After the event, it plays a critical role in communicating steps needed for response and recovery. It is very useful in delivering clear instructions and reducing anxiety. During each phase of the crisis—pre, imminent, during and after—both the messaging and expected response will vary.

With the implementation of a notification system, it is critical to think about how it will be used during different phases of the event or disaster.

Let’s look at an example. At a southern university, a fire broke out in the chemistry building. The university had a new text messaging system. They sent out a text message to students “Evacuate. Fire” They then realized they had sent the message campus wide, and that the result would be the entire campus would evacuate from every building. They quickly sent a second message: “Ignore previous message.” They then realized that they still needed to evacuate the chemistry building, and quickly sent another message that said, “Ignore the last message.” They finally sent: “Evacuate chemistry building. Fire.”

Any message sent, regardless of the medium, requires planning and training. All messages should be pre-crafted, when the environment is safe and people are not under stress. When you think through a scenario, like a fire in the above example, it is important to think through what the message should say, who it needs to go to, and what the action is that you want people to take.

It is also important that people be trained on what the directive means. For example, if it says “evacuate”, do they know where to go? If not, the message is useless.

CI: There have been a number of false active shooter alerts being sent out. Can you provide any best practices or protocols for avoiding this situation and/or steps that should be taken when it does happen?

AP: Without addressing legal ramifications (which I am not qualified to do), I would recommend companies err on the side of caution. Federal authorities fined Virginia Tech $55,000 for waiting too long to issue notifications to students and employees during the 2007 rampage, and of course, lives were likely lost as a result of that delay. We must take every potential issue seriously to avoid catastrophic impacts.

Recently, there have been numerous false alerts regarding active shooters or people carrying guns in public environments. In the spring of this year, the University of Illinois sent out an alert, warning of an active shooter on campus. It turns out the alert was accidentally sent by someone who was trying to prepare and save a message in case of an actual event.

In August of this year, Virginia Tech issued a campus-wide alert of a reported gunman on campus. After an extensive lockdown and campus search, the lockdown was lifted with no substantiation of the reported sighting. Human error can always result in a false alert.

We must acknowledge this potential and act swiftly when a potential event is reported. My recommendation would be to focus on crafting your message very carefully (ask people to stay calm, be discreet, etc.). Ask for confirmation and response to help guide responders. One-way communication is clearly not enough in this kind of situation. Use your communication tool to ferret out the truth and to gather additional information.

CI: What lessons came out of the Norway shootings, in terms of more effective communications?

SL: Norway posed horrific challenges on many levels, the most significant of which was the location where the events unfolded. Even with the best of communication systems and procedures, the remoteness of the camp location resulted in an extensive delay in response by law enforcement.

There are many other examples where the timing of the response impacted the number of fatalities. At Columbine, many say the police waited too long before entering the building. At Northern Illinois University, the police were on the scene in less than one minute after the shooting started. Fatalities occurred in each scenario, notwithstanding the speed of the response.

In Binghamton, NY, a shooter entered a civic center through the front door, after chain locking the back door, and started shooting. The receptionist, feigning death, was then able to call 911.

While calling 911 helped alert authorities, perhaps with a text messaging system she would have been able to more widely circulate a message to others in the building so they could hide — like her colleagues that made it to the basement and locked the door. They survived.

Texting is fast and it is also silent — a great advantage over using a telephone in some circumstances.
There is no silver bullet for effective communication, nor is there any one single medium that works best in every scenario. The best hope of developing an effective strategy is through the establishment of rules, procedures, message mapping, training and testing.