Thinking About the Unthinkable: A Survey of Active Shooter Preparedness in Library Environments

There is limited aggregated data showing the amount and levels of preparedness training for active shooter situations in public, academic, and K-12 libraries in California and across the United States. The purpose of this research is to assess the state of preparedness of librarians, staff, and volunteers working in these libraries for active shooter situations. In 2018, the authors collected data from academic, public, and school library personnel about their attitudes and levels of preparedness for active shooter situations. It is hoped that this research will contribute to the development of best practices in raising safety awareness in academic and public libraries.


Introduction
With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the closure of academic libraries, the focus on campus safety has shifted to keeping students, staff, and faculty protected from the virus. With news that a vaccine is imminent, libraries will soon need to begin thinking about the logistics surrounding the return to on-site activities. While COVID safety measures will obviously be a focal point, it is important that attention to other safety issues are not overlooked. Active shooter situations and mass shootings are a regular occurrence in America. From 1999 to 2018 over 200 high school aged students were killed at the hands of an active shooter. This number does not reflect the number of people killed by an active shooter in settings outside of schools. According to a recent opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times 1 , approximately 20% of mass shootings in the United States since 1966 have occurred in the last five years. We are often reminded of the sobering reality that "libraries are one of the few public places anyone can walk in, unimpeded." 2 Determining how to respond to this new reality has been ambiguous at best. As librarians, our first step in problem solving is information. The result has led to a wave of active shooter training in libraries across the United States. While planning and training for active shooter events has become the norm, there is limited aggregated data showing the amount and levels of preparedness training for active shooter situations in public, academic, and K-12 libraries in California and across the United States. The purpose of this research is to assess the state of preparedness of librarians, staff, and volunteers working in these libraries for active shooter situations. It is hoped that this research will contribute to the development of best practices in raising safety awareness in academic and public libraries.

Background
The Department of Homeland Security defines of an active shooter as "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area." 3 Active shooter events and mass shootings are occurring more frequently in large public spaces, including colleges and universities; according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 24.4% of active shooter events between 2000 and 2013 occurred in education settings and 10% in government settings. 4 Libraries usually fall between these two environments. Health care environments saw the fewest occurrences in this same period, but practitioners in the field have some of the most rigorous and prescriptive procedures for handling these events outside law enforcement. 5 There are a variety of ways these environments approach training. The most common method of training for active shooter events is the "Run. Hide. Fight." protocol: survivors are advised to escape if possible, spread out and hide, or, as a last resort, attempt to subdue the shooter.

Literature Review
A review of the literature reveals very little scholarship about the levels of preparedness and attitudes of staff in public and academic libraries and focuses on planning, training, and preparedness. Indeed, planning and training are important first steps; failure to properly plan may have legal ramifications. Blythe and Stivarius outline the potential legal issues employers can face if they fail to properly plan for a workplace crisis. 6 While all employers in the United States are regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Act, they note that employers also face litigation for "negligent failure to plan," a relatively new legal concept. Proper planning and preparedness are not enough to avoid litigation; it is also important for employers to continuously review and revise their plan. While proper planning adds a level of protection from litigation, another, and perhaps more important benefit, is that it can boost and maintain employee morale. 7 Before beginning the planning process, it is important for planners to understand why mass violence happens in our society. As the title suggests, Levin and Madifs' "Mass Murder at School and Cumulative Strain: A Sequential Model" provides a five-stage model that explains how mass murderers (workplace and school shooters) result to violence. 8 Through comparing and contrasting adult killers with teen adolescent killers, the authors explain that in stage one ("Chronic Strain"), the potential mass killer experiences "chronic" stressors such as bullying, unstable relationships at home, or job stability issues. In stage two ("Uncontrolled Strain"), the potential mass killer finds themselves rejected socially and isolated. It is in stage three ("Acute Strain") where the potential mass killer experiences a loss that is perceived as a catastrophe (e.g. job loss or a change in academic status). It is in stage three where the potential mass killer is thrusted into stage four ("The Planning Stage"). This is where mass killers plan, usually two days before, to commit an act of mass violence. Stage five is the actual carrying out of the massacre at school or in the workplace and usually involves targets of opportunity. Levin and Madifs end by offering suggestions for preventing mass murder incidents in the workplace and schools but stress that prevention is a long-term process and must include changing student culture through programs that "promote peace and social justice." 9 When beginning the process planners need to also be cognizant of all students, not just undergraduates. Fox's article provides recommendations for academic professionals to consider for graduate programs including revising applicant screening to include applicant abilities to manage the challenges of graduate school, building students organizations that support students outside of the classroom, and ensuring that students have access to mental health care. 10 Building on the theme of prevention, Greenberg stresses that prevention, indeed, should be the top priority and that preparedness training be normalized, that is, it should be "an ongoing process." 11 Prevention strategies should incorporate trust building among the campus community beyond "simple information sharing." 12 Greenberg argues that campuses often fail by trying to provide too much information and give conflicting messages. Finally, he notes that information needs to be easily accessible as it is often difficult to find on campus websites.
Bullard notes "the need to protect the [library] and persons working there is only beginning to be realized." 13 In her article, she provides a primer for improving library security.
Steps that libraries should take, she argues, are evaluating security needs, developing security objectives, and assessing the library's environment.
Graham's book builds upon Bullard's suggestions and notes that the purpose of his book is "to empower [librarians] to be able to respond to a situation rather than simply react." 14 Indeed, his book is an excellent primer for libraries that are struggling with developing an effective security program or libraries that need to review their current security policies and procedures. Among his suggestions are gaining support and buy-in from administration, periodically reviewing security procedures, analyzing security successes and failures, and incorporating security training into monthly meetings. He also offers tips for confronting people who break library rules. These tips, which seem like common sense strategies, are important reminders for librarians about how to interact with the public they serve. Graham notes that by following these guidelines librarians will "seen an improvement in patron compliance and employee confidence." 15 He concludes his work with basic daily security procedures libraries should follow and a strategy for documenting library incidents. 16 Steel provides a summary, observations, and feedback about an active shooter incident that happened on the campus of UCLA in 2016. Although the incident was not in the library, lock down procedures were implemented. Steel's article is invaluable in that she shares unanticipated events such as not knowing whether to allow students to enter the library after the lockdown was initiated. 17 In 2011, Little and Kautzman compiled a list of books, reports, web pages, articles, and videos addressing a variety of aspects related to preparedness, best practices, and prevention. 18 Victor's article outlines the steps Eastern Washington University took in developing a training program in the library. 19 After overcoming resistance from the university administration, a robust training program was developed that included "safe environment" training to address library rule violations, self-defense training, reviews of security policies, and an active shooter training module that included reviewing training video and live scenario situational training with local first responders. 20 There are also numerous sources that address planning and response such as the best practices guides published by the Interagency Security Committee. While many libraries are taking the necessary steps to train their staff, assessment of this training is nonexistent.

Methods
Initially, this study was meant to compare the training and preparedness of libraries within the California State University (CSU) system and the University of California (UC) system. Given the familiarity of the researchers with local public libraries and their constituencies, the study was extended to include public and other academic libraries in the research study throughout California and the United States. 21 To assess preparedness, the researchers reviewed literature on active shooter events, best practices (in other professions and institutions), and investigated the training opportunities immediately available to them. They developed survey questions based upon the criteria to measure the types of training available, frequency of training, involved stakeholders and law enforcement agencies, and the staff members' perception of preparedness. As the survey instrument developed, questions regarding personal and professional experience were raised: are the respondents aware of the existing crime in their institution? Are the respondents familiar with the use and operation of firearms? Are political and/or religious affiliations indicative of a V o l u m e 3 5 , n u m b e r 1 Volume 29, number 3 level of perception related to the threat of or preparedness for an active shooter event. These questions were added to the survey instrument as well.
Researchers were aware that the subject of the study is highly controversial and likely to trigger sensitive groups and elucidate bias or very strong reactions from respondents. Accordingly, they sought assistance from members of the psychology department at the university to ensure adequate resources were provided for respondents in the event the survey triggered an adverse reaction. The survey instrument and study were approved by the Institutional Review Board with few modifications.
The survey instrument was input into an online survey tool and distributed to a few colleagues for review and input. Once the survey was tested and reviewed, researchers began distributing the survey instrument to their initial target population, holding off on distribution to their own campus library until sufficient results were collected as to protect the confidentiality of the respondents at their campus. The instrument was disseminated campus by campus throughout the California State University System (CSU), the University of California System (UC) and California Community College Consortia (CCCC). In addition, it was distributed via email and social media to statewide listservs, associations, and working groups.
The survey instrument was picked up by the Association of Rural and Small Libraries (ASRL) for distribution to their members, and it was posted to ALAConnect under Association for College and Research Libraries (ACRL) and other interest groups to facilitate wide distribution and participation. In addition, researchers distributed the instrument to administrators of school districts and superintendents and some state library and school library associations. Distribution to individual academic and public libraries outside of California continued until collection of data was terminated in December 2018.
Researchers analyzed and coded the data for statistical analysis where possible. Several of the Likert-scale questions were coded to three options instead of five. Free entry text was coded, for instance, under religious affiliation and gender, to reflect all the groups represented in a manageable set.

Findings & Discussion
To assess the preparedness of library workers for an active shooter event, the following issues related to policy and training need to be assessed: availability, frequency, delivery methods, perceived quality, and perceived efficacy. The survey yielded 1,812 recorded responses of which four were omitted, because respondents opted out to the survey, for a total of 1,808 responses. Of those who opted to participate, 51% (N=918) of respondents work in academic libraries, 18% (N=326) work in public libraries, and 6% (N=105) work in school libraries; the remaining respondents did not answer the question. As a result, the data in the survey more frequently presents issues and training practices in higher education which do not seem to be adapted to library environments. Likewise, public library respondents also indicate that training provided by city and/or county government is also not adapted to libraries. Respondents elaborated on some of these issues in questions eleven to thirteen.
Most respondents reported their institutions do have a readiness plan: 66% responded yes (N=1034), 12% responded no (N=193), 21% (N=333) did not know, and <1% (N=11) declined to state. At most of the respondents' institutions, their administrations provided both plans or policies and training. Due to an epidemic of mass shootings in recent years, it is not surprising that 74% of respondents reported that active shooter training is the most popular form of training (N=1168). Other types of training reported were disaster preparedness such as fire, flood, and earthquake (N=930 or 59%), self-defense (N=290 or 18%), and "other" (N=128 or 8%). Other training might include harassment, data security, or other human resources required training. Thirteen respondents (.83%) declined to state and one hundred and twenty-one respondents (7.72%) noted that training was not provided at their institution.
Most respondents review the training provided at their institutions (N=1091 or 81%) if it is offered. When asked about how recent the training was reviewed, a majority had done so within the last year (N=361 or 26.9%). Despite the recent review of training materials, the infrequency or irregularity of training offerings, specifically related to active shooter events was a common criticism and/or desire of respondents in questions eleven to thirteen. One respondent summed up their frustration with the scheduling and lack of mandatory requirements for the training in many institutions: "…while Data Security and Sexual Harassment training are mandatory EVERY SINGLE YEAR, Active Shooter training is optional." Thirty-six percent of the respondents (N=487) reported that training, irrespective of subject matter, is reviewed and/or drills are scheduled once a year and seventeen percent reported (N=232) twice a year. Few reported more frequency of review and/or scheduled drills, however, twenty-six percent (N=353) reported a frequency of less that once a year. By and large, respondents do not seek training outside of their institution, even if no training is offered by their institution.

Figure 1. Trsiunig Offered vs. Whether Training Was Reviewed
In conjunction with the disappointment in the frequency of available training, respondents are concerned by limited access to training for part-time, evening, weekend, volunteer, and new library workers. In some situations, respondents characterize their institutions' efforts as "vague" or demonstrating "lack of frequency or commitment." There is a great deal of apathy and disappointment in the written responses from library workers despite 56.04% (N=728) reporting, to some extent, their administrations are prepared for an active shooter event.
The delivery methods of the "training" also differ widely across institutions irrespective of their library type. Demonstrations (N=686 or 51%), online training (N=659 or 49%), and memorandums and policies (N=650 or 48%) make up the most common methods of "training" provided to library workers across the board. In some of the worst-case training scenarios, Insufficient training is, by far, the most common complaint from library workers in questions eleven to thirteen, but for very different reasons. In quite a few cases, respondents demonstrate continued apprehension toward active shooter training because they do not believe it is possible to be prepared or training is "about as much as one would expect." Many respondents address feelings of awareness and clarifying expectations, but this does not speak to preparedness or actionable plans. One respondent clarified the pedagogical issues with active shooter training best: "Any training should involve both active and passive learning methods. Demonstrate something then practice it right then. Use multiple types of collateral: watch videos, use handouts, online and in-person activities, etc. Follow up must be regular and frequent." Several respondents, in their free responses, report that being given a video, a policy, or a handout with very general information is not enough to prepare them for a real-world event. Although those respondents who call for more roleplay and simulation exercises tend to acknowledge the trauma this may have on some members of their institution, they assert that practicing for the event, with guidance derived from their specific environments, will better prepare them to face an active shooter event. That this is not widely understood and acknowledged seems rather ridiculous given that the majority of respondents to this survey work in higher education, and it is accepted in constructivism that connecting to and building upon a learner's experience and knowledge is the best way for them to learn and integrate new skills into their repertoire. No one learns to play the cello from a single page of information, a short YouTube video, or an hourlong lecture. Developing new skills requires time, practice, and clear direction.

Figure 2. Training Efficacy
There was a strong call for more realistic training and roleplaying in addition to walkthroughs and "run, hide, fight" strategies specifically tailored to the library environment. Despite the type of library or whether the trainers were from local or campus law enforcement, library workers report that there is insufficient training geared specifically toward their environments: whether it is a newer or remodeled, open, study commons or an historically significant building with too few points of egress.
Despite calls for more thoughtful training, when asked, 82.15% (N=980) of respondents generally agree the training is beneficial. Of those same respondents, 37% (N=363) are neutral about whether an active shooter event is likely at their intuition, and an additional 22% (N=217) respondents report feeling it is unlikely an event would occur in their institution.
Because most respondents work in academic libraries, there are several comments related to building marshal programs. Most multi-building complexes tend to have some sort of reporting structure for emergency situations, and building marshals are quite common in higher education and less so public or school libraries. Public and school libraries, likely due to their smaller size, adhere to the standard managerial chain of command in an emergency. In a public library, staff, volunteers, and librarians report to the senior librarian or manager on duty for orders, and they carry out their library's plan. A school librarian or media specialist often reports directly to the on-site administrator at their school and does not have independent emergency procedures. Academic libraries, however, must adapt campus-wide protocol for their more unique environments.
Training associated with natural disasters has been a regular part of education in the United States for decades. Students are sometimes trained with short taglines for most emergencies like fires (stop, drop, and roll) and earthquakes (duck and cover, or duck, cover, and hold). As training for active shooter events becomes more commonplace, the emerging tagline is "run, hide, fight." However, the availability and delivery methods of training provided to library workers is reportedly inconsistent.
Even the thought of active shooter events causes concern and anxiety in several of the respondents to the survey. The survey was attempted by just over 1,800 people, but complete responses were only received from nearly 1,300 people. After the informed consent question at the beginning of the survey, 13.5% of participants ended the survey (n=244). This could be due to time, but the authors believe it is more likely in response to the subject matter. Throughout the survey, participation continued to drop, leveling out at a loss of 27% of respondents who consented to participate in the survey (n=488). It may be beneficial to run an exit survey to assess why users quit the survey.

Further Research
The survey bears repeating to measure how attitudes toward and preparedness for active shooter events change over time. The goal is to repeat the survey with modifications in 2021. To do so, the authors need to build relationships with state library associations and regional superintendents' offices to help in disseminating the survey in the next round. Most of the respondents, approximately 32%, were from California (n=579); although responses were received from 48 states, Connecticut yielded the next largest number of responses with 66. The methods used to send out the survey this first time were time-intensive and required the authors to aggregate the mailing lists from data available on the open web. Further assessment needs to go into locating existing mailing lists and communities by which to disseminate the survey instrument. The language surrounding academic and public libraries also needs to be clarified so that community colleges are either in a category of their own or included with academic libraries. Many respondents from community college libraries identified as public library workers, which is not wrong in most cases, but made it difficult to extrapolate the data for both public and academic library types.
The demographic data was indicative of the overall trends in the profession: predominantly female and progressive or liberal. This may also be attributed to the states with the greatest number of respondents. More comprehensive demographic questions, including race, need to be added, and clarifying questions regarding attitudes need to be delivered via multiple choice rather just free answer. The most compelling data came from the qualitative elements of the survey, and it would have been more convenient, for respondents and researchers alike, if respondents could identify the attitudes or responses most closely aligning with their position and then further explain them via free answer. Additional consideration needs to be applied in how to quantify and characterize the level of apathy and/or neutrality expressed in the results of the first survey. Respondents need to be given the opportunity to explain why they have no particular opinion: is it because they had not thought on the issue or because they actively try not to think about the issue, or is there another reason?
By and large, the survey did demonstrate that safety measures are being taken within the profession, but they are not yet comprehensive enough to empower library workers. There is a need for a set of guiding principles from library administration and more authentic conversations between library workers and administrators, library workers or administrators and law enforcement, and within the library community itself.

Conclusion
Situational awareness is key because active shooter events are not the only situations in which library workers need to be aware and adept in responding to potential threats. Library workers want to feel their concerns are acknowledged, and they are prepared. Developing a set of skills or competencies that can be used for multiple types of emergencies may destigmatize the training necessary for these events and further empower library staff and faculty to take charge of their own safety. At the same time, it is important that staff and faculty regularly review the training they have received. In addition to training and defense, library administrators also need to look to designing for safety and defense in addition to visual aesthetics. One respondent clearly addressed this as an obstacle to feeling safe or prepared: "I feel like the library building…wasn't built for safety, but mainly for aesthetics." Public areas need clear egress for fire exits, places to duck, cover, and hold in an earthquake, and places to hide in the event of an active shooter event. In spaces that are not defensible, administrators need to consider retrofitting temporary and/or older structures to create more exits or safe spaces.
Furthermore, members of the profession need to be more open to discussing preparedness for an event at their local institutions, with their administrations and at conferences, like American Library Association Annual. The only way to prepare and dispel the stigma surrounding the event is to talk about what makes us fear it and how we can mitigate that fear with strategy and preparation.

Appendix A: Safety Preparedness Information Sheet
We are [Redacted] and [Redacted], and we are Senior Assistant Librarians at the [Redacted] Library at [Redacted]. We are conducting a preparedness assessment for active shooting situations in libraries.
You are being invited to participate in this study based on your employment or volunteer position at a library. If you choose to participate, you will be asked to complete a survey of 35 questions which should take 6-8 minutes to complete.
The survey includes questions about your awareness of policies and procedures for reacting to an active shooter situation at your facility or institution. It also includes questions regarding your training for such an event and demographic data related to your institution, personal and professional affiliations, firearms, and gun violence.
Aggregate and anonymized data will be used by the primary investigators for research, publication, and presentation to professional organizations. The aggregate and anonymized data may also be shared with administrators at [Redacted] for the purpose of developing internal protocols and preparedness.
This survey may be uncomfortable for people who have been exposed to domestic and/or gun violence. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You can choose to complete the survey or not and may choose to stop the survey and leave the study at any time. If you find yourself feeling uncomfortable, please seek assistance.