School Districts across the country are experiencing a troubling rise in both physical and digital threats against schools. From vague social media posts to serious warnings of violence, the volume and variety of these incidents continue to challenge educators, law enforcement officials, and mental health professionals alike. Although not every threat is credible, every threat must be taken seriously, assessed carefully, and responded to consistently.
In Navigate360’s recent webinar, “A Live Discussion on Threat Assessment Strategies & Best Practices,” Dr. Dewey Cornell, professor and author of the CSTAG model, and Theresa Campbell, Founder & CEO of Safer Schools Together, shared their expert insights on how schools can better assess and manage threats. Their on-demand discussion explores real-world cases, best practices for digital threat detection, and the consequences of mishandling threats.
This blog serves as a recap and extension of that critical conversation. We’ll walk through the most common types of threats on school grounds, how to evaluate and manage them using CSTAG (Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines), and how to integrate digital strategies and team collaboration for a safer school year.
What Are the Most Common Types of Threats Against Schools?
Threats at schools can take many forms—some fleeting and impulsive, others calculated and dangerous. The CSTAG model, developed by Dr. Cornell, helps schools distinguish between transient threats (those that are not serious and often made in anger or frustration) and substantive threats (which indicate an intent to harm and require further investigation).
Common types of threats include:
- Fights or physical altercations
- Bomb threats
- Gun violence or school shootings
- Social media posts implying violence
- Hoaxes and prank calls
One key challenge is the speed at which threats—especially false threats—can spread online. “In 2023, 92% of the threat assessments we were involved in originated from an online platform,” Theresa Campbell noted. Following a tragic high school shooting in Georgia, schools across 35 states reported violent threats, the vast majority of which were hoaxes. The rapid circulation of false threats often leads to unnecessary school closings, widespread panic, and drained resources.
How to Evaluate Threats at Schools with the CSTAG Model
The CSTAG model is a five-step decision tree designed to guide school administrators and threat assessment teams through the evaluation process. The steps include:
- Identify the threat.
- Evaluate the context and seriousness.
- Respond based on classification (transient or substantive).
- Implement safety measures if needed.
- Follow up and monitor.
Dr. Cornell emphasized, “We can’t see the future, but what we can do is see what’s right in front of us and take responsible action.”
When CSTAG is applied with fidelity, it allows schools to resolve approximately 80% of threat cases early and efficiently. Only about 5% of cases require a full safety plan, typically those involving substantive threats. This ensures that schools can focus their efforts where they matter most.
The context of a threat also matters. A comment made during recess at an elementary school carries different implications than one shared in a high school hallway or digital space. CSTAG empowers teams to evaluate these situations case-by-case with consistency and care.
The Legal Risks of Mishandling Threats on School Grounds
Failure to follow established threat assessment protocols can have devastating consequences—not just for school communities, but for staff and leadership. As Dr. Cornell shared, “Liability is not based on whether someone was injured, but whether you followed the standard of care.”
In the Parkland and Oxford school shootings, school officials and law enforcement were criticized for missing red flags. In Oxford, a student displayed disturbing drawings and written threats but was allowed to return to class. The school district did not search his belongings—where he had hidden a gun. Four students lost their lives.
These cases highlight how a lack of training, coordination, or documentation can lead to tragic outcomes and serious legal consequences. Documentation and information-sharing aren’t just best practices—they’re legal protections.
Integrating Digital Threat Assessment into Your Protocol
As threats increasingly originate from digital spaces, school safety efforts must expand beyond the school building. Theresa Campbell stressed the importance of reviewing students’ digital behavioral baseline and integrating Digital Threat Assessment (DTA) into every protocol.
Her team at Safer Schools Together uses publicly available open-source intelligence (OSINT) to assess student posts, search usernames, and identify reposted threats. Tools like reverse image searches and Boolean logic help distinguish between credible posts and stock images used in hoaxes.
“We found that students are more likely to report their friends being sextorted or bullied when they can upload screenshots anonymously,” she explained. As such, anonymous reporting tools are essential for modern threat response, especially when combined with student education on not resharing threats.
Campbell also warned of AI-generated images and videos, which can fuel misinformation and fear. Schools must prepare staff to identify and mitigate these risks.
Key Roles on the School Threat Assessment Team
No single person can manage threats of violence alone. Effective threat assessment requires a team-based approach:
- School administrators provide authority and coordination.
- Mental health staff (counselors, psychologists) offer emotional and behavioral insights.
- Law enforcement officials (including SROs, where available) assess legal risk and provide security.
- Special education staff ensure compliance with FAPE and help manage IEP-related complexities.
Dr. Cornell reminded viewers, “Threat assessment must be coordinated with special education. One team is in the safety lane, the other in the education lane. They must work together.”
Even in schools without full-time SROs, partnerships with local law enforcement are critical. Having a trained officer familiar with threat protocols—not just someone pulled in from patrol—makes all the difference.
Proactive Strategies for Preventing Future Threats
True school safety isn’t just about response—it’s about prevention. Proactive measures include:
- Promoting use of anonymous reporting systems like Navigate360’s or PSSTWorld
- Providing accessible mental health and behavioral supports
- Teaching students the difference between reporting and resharing
- Creating re-entry plans for students after a threat investigation
“Every post is a cry for help,” Theresa Campbell said. “Even hoax threats can be signs that something deeper is going on.”
These strategies help ensure that students feel supported, threats are taken seriously, and schools remain calm, prepared, and open for learning.
Moving Forward: Practical Steps for Safer Schools
Managing threats against schools requires more than good intentions—it demands a clear process, ongoing training, and the ability to assess both real and false threats with accuracy and care. Models like CSTAG help school leaders do exactly that.
Want to get started? Here are three action steps:
- Review your current threat assessment team structure and protocols.
- Explore tools and resources for threat assessment.
- Prioritize digital literacy training for staff and students.
In the words of Thom Jones, SVP of Detection & Prevention at Navigate360: “When you do have an incident that occurs—and everyone’s going to, we all get our turn in the soup—you are prepared, and your community knows that you are prepared.”
With the right preparation and team in place, your school or district can respond to threats with confidence and compassion—protecting lives while promoting a safe and supportive learning environment.
Want to strengthen your school or district’s approach to behavioral threat assessment?
Explore Navigate360’s training, digital tools, and expert-led services to build your team, manage cases effectively, and create a culture of safety rooted in compassion and prevention.
