Training Considerations for Active Shooter Response Programs
Active shooter response training for utility professionals is a subject that shouldn’t be ignored. However, few subjects are as challenging or controversial.
For decades, active shooter response training has been touted as a one-size-fits-all remedy that instills long-lasting, actionable survival skills in one easy application. In reality, off-the-shelf training programs seldom deliver on promises. Training is often poorly delivered cookie-cutter sessions that focus on the wrong messaging and outcomes. Active shooter response programs are fraught with complications and issues that, if left unresolved, can make the training more of a hazard than a help.
You may think, “OK, so let’s just skip the training.” Sorry, but that’s not the answer either. Without practical and effective active shooter response training, your team may not have the skills needed to escape a lethal encounter.
Despite what you may believe, people are not naturally endowed with keen survival instincts and response skills that miraculously kick in when needed. Response skills must be learned and continually refreshed. Without a usable survival skill set, our fate – as an individual or a group – is ultimately left to chance. The bottom line is that not offering active shooter response training, or employing the wrong training, can have tragic results.
Let me be clear: I believe active shooter response training is a necessity and as important as any lifesaving safety skill being taught. The stakes are too high and the potential outcomes too catastrophic to depend on probability alone for protection. However, in any active shooter training discussion, the impacts of inadequate training and the consequences of not training must be considered.
Inadequate training produces inadequate results, including false assumptions and misguided outcome expectations. One poorly delivered active shooter response training session can simultaneously create debilitating anxiety in some attendees and lethal overconfidence in others; both are outcomes to be avoided.
Practical active shooter response training requires more than enthusiasm and a self-defense technique. It can’t rely on fixed procedures; disproportionately soft, G-rated (i.e., approved for general audiences) formats; or overly aggressive and gratuitous tactics. Effective training will address the unique circumstances faced by the audience using just enough tension to convey the gravity of the subject. For utility professionals, that means focusing on threats related to utility operations, work environments and hostile situations.
Training Customization is Essential
Active shooter response training requires a custom fit that addresses the trainees’ unique predicaments. This is especially true for those who work irregular hours in remote and nonsecure locations and regularly interact with hostile people, which is precisely what utility professionals do.
Beyond the conventional threats we’re all subject to, utility professionals also face distinct security threats and conditions. These include working in situations that often place them at a disadvantage. The job itself dictates the threats you face. Whether it’s working in an isolated location, on other people’s property or in a hostile community environment, you go where the job is.
A seldom recognized or understood conditional impact is the depth of emotion associated with access to utility services. Deep-seated emotions are tied to the resources that support our basic needs for lodging, water, sustenance and environmental control, and we’re quick to respond to any perceived threat to those resources. The response to a real or perceived threat can be violent and possibly lethal. Effective training will address hostility drivers, such as entrenched loss-of-service fear.
Practical active shooter response training will include scenarios faced by office and field personnel, either separately or in a comprehensive program that addresses both.
Program tailoring is critical to training success. Training that promotes responses and solutions that contradict the organization’s principles can create dilemmas for the utility and sets the stage for conflict; this must be avoided. Adjusting the training content and approach to an organization requires a little background work and conversations with key staff to ensure training alignment and alleviate any organizational concerns.
Typically, alignment adjustments are minor shifts or modifications. And while they may seem insignificant, they can drastically impact delivery and outcome. Untailored or misaligned training creates incongruencies between the information presented and operational reality. This incongruency can be significant if the trainer hasn’t recognized and filtered their personal biases from the training.
Addressing Training Bias
Two sources of bias must be addressed for active shooter response training to be effective: trainer bias and audience bias. Before we delve into these, let’s make sure we understand what “bias” actually means – because people are inclined to wield the word like a hammer. Merriam-Webster defines bias as “an inclination of temperament or outlook, especially a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment.”
Everyone has biases, and though some are harmful or downright hateful, most are simply commonly held beliefs about correlations between events or actions and expected outcomes. They’re decision-making shortcuts based on assumptions, previous experiences and beliefs without supporting evidence.
Overcoming trainer bias is the responsibility of the trainer. In practice, their training approach must complement the organization’s established standards and policies. Voicing unfiltered or contradictory biases and opinions during training is counterproductive and unprofessional. When conducting active shooter response training, the trainer must examine personal biases and filter any that do not align with the organization’s positions or policies.
Audience biases can be incredibly challenging problems. The audience of any active shooter response training will have an array of preconceived biases as diverse as the audience itself. These include biases about the subject, the content and the trainer. To illustrate, let’s examine subject matter biases.
Subject matter biases about active shooter response training will fall into three groups: those biased toward the training, those biased against it and those who think it’s a waste of time. Those biased toward the training are looking forward to it and will want to get as physical as possible. They’ll ask questions like, “Will this be a drill with weaponry?” or “Can we tackle the shooter?”
The second group is biased against the training. They become anxious at the very thought of the subject. Their go-to response is fear and anxiety. They’re the ones who ask, “Don’t you think this is too aggressive?” or state, “I don’t think I can do this.”
The third group has an indifference bias. They are predisposed to see the training as a colossal waste of time and money. They’re the ones who make comments such as, “Why is this such a big issue now?” and “This has never happened here and never will.”
The trainer’s problem is that they must train all three groups. For many trainers, not overcoming audience bias is their greatest point of failure.
Effective Implementation
Successfully implementing active shooter response training is a challenge. There are myriad details, moving parts and things that can go wrong. Let’s look at three common challenges: reaching the entire audience, implementing the wrong training and poor trainer selection. We can deal with all three in one example.
As I stated earlier, reaching the entire audience is the greatest point of failure for many trainers. These trainers often fail to comprehend the need to adjust the training to the audience. In a previous article, I used an example of a security colleague who fell into this trap. He was new to his position as security manager for a midsized electric distribution utility, but he had outstanding credentials as a military officer and experience at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Over coffee one morning, he began discussing his plan to conduct active shooter response training. As we talked, it became clear that the training had all the earmarks of a military exercise: intense, aggressive and graphic. I realized that he hadn’t considered his audience’s diversity and biases. I expressed concern about his approach and offered to help. However, he felt he had a handle on the situation, so I wished him well and asked him to let me know how it went.
His goal was to make a memorable and lasting impression on the trainees. He accomplished that. Unfortunately, the training was so graphic and intense that he alienated half the attendees, and the level of pushback after the training cost him his job. This example highlights two truths: Civilian training isn’t the same as military training, and scaring people isn’t the same as training them.
The simple truth is that we teach what we know. Military and law enforcement training focuses on tactical response, which is great for them but not very useful for our industry. Utility professionals need active shooter response training that focuses on defensive response and escaping lethal situations – and that’s not the forte of the military or law enforcement.
What about active shooter drills? Frankly, I’m not a big fan of them. Most are ill-timed, poorly designed and managed, and have negative consequences. Don’t get me wrong, we conduct successful active shooter drills for clients on a regular basis, but we spend a lot of upfront time and effort to get them right. Push the idea of a drill down the road and skip the trauma and litigation risks for now. Begin with training that introduces active shooter response concepts and focuses on overcoming biased perceptions. Get the group positively engaged and oriented, then consider upping the intensity with a drill.
The Bottom Line
In many ways, active shooter response training is a necessary evil. It is loaded with problems and pitfalls, but don’t ignore it. Just remember, doing it wrong can be as risky as not doing it at all. Take the time and put in the effort to do it right.
About the Author: Jim Willis, M.Sc., CMAS, CHS-V, is the CEO of InDev Tactical, a security training and consulting firm. He has years of global experience working with utilities and providing infrastructure security. Willis earned a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and a master’s in international development and security. He is a credentialed homeland security and antiterrorism specialist with expertise in training, security consulting, threat assessments and security operations. Reach him at jim.willis@indevtactical.net.
- What Tasks Can Lone Workers Perform?
- Grounding for Stringing in Energized Environments
- Dielectric Testing for Insulating Aerial Devices
- Assessing and Mitigating Risk in Helicopter Line Work
- Preventing SIFs with Above-the-Line Work Planning and Execution
- August-September 2024 Q&A
- Beyond the Physical Toll: The Collateral Damage of Safety Incidents
- Training Considerations for Active Shooter Response Programs
