Looking for ways to enhance your school's safety? Subscribe to our blog and podcast series to learn valuable industry insights.
Looking for ways to enhance your school's safety? Subscribe to our blog and podcast series to learn valuable industry insights.
Recent violent incidents connected to schools and youth events have reinforced an uncomfortable truth: school safety does not begin and end at the school doors.
In one case, tragedy unfolded within a school setting. In another, violence occurred at a youth sporting event held at a private venue. Different circumstances. Different environments. The same underlying issue.
Schools are not isolated institutions. They are part of communities. And when we treat safety as a responsibility owned solely by a school district, or solely by law enforcement, we create gaps that do not need to exist.
Those gaps cost time. And in an emergency, time matters.
Across the country, a familiar pattern emerges when safety coordination is discussed.
Schools often assume law enforcement will lead.
Law enforcement often assumes the district should initiate.
Both perspectives are understandable. Both are incomplete.
Effective safety strategy requires shared ownership. If a solution improves communication, coordination, and response for both schools and first responders, then both entities play a role in implementing it.
Too often, progress stalls not because of disagreement, but because of hesitation. No one wants to overstep. No one wants to assume responsibility that “belongs” to someone else.
Meanwhile, relationships remain underdeveloped.
Everyone agrees that seconds matter during an emergency.
What is less frequently discussed is how preparation determines how those seconds are used.
If agencies meet for the first time during a crisis, response will be slower and less coordinated. That is not a criticism. It is human nature. Trust and efficiency are built over time.
High-performing teams — whether in athletics, military operations, or incident management — do not assemble on game day. They practice together. They understand each other’s roles. They develop familiarity with strengths, limitations, and communication styles.
Emergency response is no different.
You do not want to spend critical moments clarifying titles, responsibilities, or terminology. You want clear direction and immediate execution. That clarity only exists when relationships are established long before anything goes wrong.
Even basic requirements illustrate how easily misalignment occurs.
Most states require schools to maintain updated maps. On paper, that sounds straightforward. In practice, it often is not.
Room numbers may not match how staff refer to spaces. The “Engineering Lab” might appear as Room 214 on the map. The old band room may have been converted but never updated. A gymnasium may be named after a donor but labeled differently in official documentation.
These discrepancies seem minor — until responders rely on that information during a time-sensitive situation.
Sitting down together and asking practical questions can prevent confusion:
These conversations do not require new mandates. They require collaboration.
Violence does not recognize geographic borders or institutional boundaries. It does not confine itself neatly within a campus perimeter. A school-sponsored event at an off-site location is still part of the broader safety landscape.
The pathway to violence has no nationality, no ethnicity, and no jurisdictional limitation. It manifests where vulnerabilities exist.
This is why school safety and community safety must be viewed as interconnected. When we treat them as separate systems, coordination becomes reactive instead of proactive.
Community stakeholders, law enforcement, fire services, EMS, hospitals, mental health professionals, and public works, all intersect with schools at some point during an incident. Yet many of these relationships remain informal or underdeveloped.
That is a vulnerability.
The solution does not require complexity.
It begins with a simple question: “Who is your point of contact for school safety?”
A school district can ask that question of its local police department. Law enforcement can ask it of the district. Fire and EMS agencies can do the same.
From there, a meeting is scheduled. Introductions are made. Roles are clarified. Expectations are discussed.
The first conversation may feel procedural. That is normal. Over time, familiarity develops. Trust builds and communication improves.
Eventually, the conversation expands beyond introductions and into scenario-based planning:
That discussion becomes the foundation of a tabletop exercise. And that exercise becomes the foundation of operational readiness.
Attempting to define roles and relationships during an active crisis is like assembling an aircraft while already airborne. It may stabilize eventually. But it introduces unnecessary risk at the worst possible time.
Preparedness is not only about tools, technology, or compliance. It is about human coordination.
It is about understanding who sits at the table before the table is needed.
It is about building familiarity so that when a call comes in, the response begins immediately.
Across the country, many districts and agencies are doing this work well. They are investing in relationships, holding joint exercises, reviewing protocols together, and identifying & closing gaps.
Others simply have not started yet.
If there is uncertainty about who owns coordination, that uncertainty itself is the gap.
Close it.
Make the call. Schedule the meeting. Bring the right people to the table.
Because when something happens, you do not want to exchange business cards.
You want coordination.
And coordination only comes from doing the work beforehand.
safety plan
CrisisGo Inc. 2025 ©
No Comments Yet
Let us know what you think