ALICE Active Shooter Response Training criticism has resulted in some large-scale misconceptions spread online and through the media.
Some articles and posts made broad claims about school security’s effectiveness and the impact it has on students, resulting in a great deal of confusion and false conclusions. Ultimately, this controversy begs the question: Does ALICE Training work in schools?
Our experts have taken time to examine ALICE Training criticism and clear up some of the most popular misunderstandings. Below, we address these claims and provide factual information to paint a more accurate picture about school safety.
Misconception 1: The “School Security Industry” is ineffective.
According to this allegation, the “school security industry” consists of infrastructure, device companies and products, armed security, school resource officer policies and training programs. However, each of these programs is designed for different outcomes and addresses different school security issues. As a result, their effectiveness should be evaluated separately. It’s important to note that not all school security measures are created equal and each offers a different promise.
Rather than gauging these programs’ success as a whole, keep in mind what ALICE Training is really about. ALICE is a research-supported training program that can be used by anyone, anywhere. Unlike some of the security programs above, ALICE Training does not prevent violence. Instead, it prepares and empowers people with options-based strategies to increase chances of survival in the face of violence.
Misconception 2: Because school violence can’t be prevented, school security measures are an endless investment.
According toThe Washington Post, “No amount of investment in security can guarantee a school’s protection from gun violence.” This is partially correct – no training program, security device, or infrastructure improvement can guarantee complete safety and violence prevention. However, just because prevention is not guaranteed does not mean that security-enhancing measures aren’t worth it.
As with any investment, it’s fair to question the effectiveness of specific security measures before a large monetary investment is made. Schools using public funds for security must responsibly assess how they spend it. And when they do this, they must remember that safety is an ongoing process. Successful ALICE implementation requires repeated training to be effective.
One key factor many negative ALICE Training reviews overlook is that ALICE does not endorse specific security device purchases. Each device, technology and product has limitations. Investing in training individuals on how to respond when confronted with violence is a much more effective way to increase chances of survival.
Misconception 3: There is no evidence that ALICE Training makes schools safer.
In the past, ALICE Training has been used successfully over a dozen times to confront violence in and outside of schools. WithALICE strategies at work, the outcomes have proven to be very beneficial in schools across the nation. That’s because ALICE Training empowers individuals to participate in their own survival and has helped save lives.
Historically, federal agencies have recommended a lockdown-only approach that includes students hiding under desks or against walls. Some of these techniques originated during the cold-war as a method of protection from a nuclear threat.
Today, these agencies (including the US Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, and FEMA) have spent considerable resources researching active shooting events. Their findings have resulted in a change in guidance–a movement away from the lockdown-only approach. ALICE protocols are used almost exclusively in all new guidance.
The insurance industry sees the same benefit of investment. In 2018,AM Best awarded ALICE Trainingwith expert status. AM Best is the largest credit rating agency in the world. It rates insurance agencies as well as companies that provide services to the insurance industry, and these ratings are a prestigious standard of quality and strength for an organization. ALICE is the only active shooter response training on the list which speaks to a larger breadth of safety.
Misconception 4: Students are not capable of participating in all ALICE survival strategies.
ALICE Training’s “counter” strategy is what most critics attack first. Perhaps that’s true because ALICE is age- and ability-appropriate training. However, these misconceptions are the result of a lack of understanding behind what’s considered a counter.
When it comes to ALICE Training, a counter is known as distraction and control measures to be used as a last resort and only if you’re in immediate contact with the attacker. Counter strategies rely on strength in numbers to take back control of the situation from an attacker.
Despite what ALICE controversy might suggest, a counter strategy isnotfighting. In some instances, children have no other choice and do indeed counter the perpetrator. Control or “swarm” strategies, however, are not taught to young kids. Students and young children can react appropriately during frightening events switching quickly from passive victim to proactive survivor. This is achieved through consistent training throughout each stage of growth.
Additionally, ALICE Training criticism suggests that students cannot counter a gunman. In some instances, they have no other choice and do indeed counter the perpetrator. Students are capable of countering and can do what is necessary to survive.
Misconception 5: There is a general lack of understanding of the realities of active shooter events in school.
ALICE Training is based on research and analysis of actual active shooter events and therefore deals in reality, not hypotheticals. The following data is used in building ALICE strategies and applications of the training:
- According to theFBI, 3 of the 28 active shooter incidents in 2019 were ended by citizens.
- TheNational Sheriff’s Associationconcluded the average police response time is 18 minutes.
- Throughout 2019, 47% of attacks ended in less than 5 minutes, according to theUnited States Secret Service.
- The Washington Postreported the average school shooter is 16 years old.
- Of the nearly350 school shootingsbetween 2014 and 2019, 110 of them occurred in 2018. The volume increases steadily each decade.
- Education Weeksays 80 percent of school shooters get their guns from family members, most often parents and grandparents.
ALICE Training continues to rise above these misconceptions and remains committed to our mission of increasing the chances of survival by empowering individuals with proactive response options.
