REVIEW OF A JOURNAL ARTICLE: ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL:
TRADITIONAL LOCKDOWN VERSUS MULTI-OPTION RESPONSES TO SCHOOL
SHOOTINGS
o Bibliography
Jonson, C.L., Moon, M.M., & Hendry, J.A. (2018). One size does not fit all: Traditional lockdown
versus multi-option responses to school shootings. Journal of School Violence, 19(2), 1-14.
o Problem
There are two paradigms that inform responses when it comes to situations involving active shooters: a
traditional lockdown approach where an individual will find cover in a classroom and lock the door,
and a multi-option approach where individuals will evacuate the area, create barricades, and, in last
resort situations, actively resist the gunman (Jonson, Moon & Hendry, 2018). Traditional lockdowns
are typically what are used by schools however, there is little to be known about their effectiveness
(Jonson, Moon & Hendry, 2018). Active shooter situations are not something to be taken lightly. There
has to be an effective plan put into place so that officers on the scene are kept safe as well as those
civilians who are caught up in the active shooter situation. The problem with this is, what method is
more effective when it comes to handling an active shooter? The traditional method of finding cover
and locking the door or the multi-option approach where individuals will evacuate, barricade, and
actively resist the gunman in last resort situations.
Comments: The problem stated was accurate with the title and was educationally significant. The
problem was clear and concise making it easy for the reader to understand as to why this problem was
the problem of the article.
o Review of Literature
A review of the literature found that researchers looked at different active shooter situations, such as:
Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and Marjory Stoneman Douglas. Each of these active shooter
situations within these schools has one commonality: they experienced a school shooting (Jonson,
Moon & Hendry, 2018). In these four school shootings, 98 people were killed which launched the topic
of school safety to the forefront of the nation (Jonson, Moon & Hendry, 2018). In 2017, more than
70% of schools practiced drills specifically addressing active shooters and while these numbers had
shown that schools were increasingly training their students and teachers, little information is provided
on what type of drills were endorsed (Jonson, Moon & Hendry, 2018).
o Objectives
Specifically, the study sought to determine which approach would be safer for everyone when it came
to active shootings: (a) the traditional method of locking doors and finding cover; or (b) the multi-
option approach of evacuating the area, creating barricades, or in a last resort option, resisting the
gunman.
Comment: The author’s objectives were answerable and easy for the reader to comprehend. The
author’s explained a traditional lockdown very well and compared it to a multi-option response where
they looked at the ALICE approach (Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter and Evacuate) giving the
reader an idea of how a multi-option response would be carried out compared to a traditional way of
dealing with an active shooter situation.
o Hypothesis
This research tested hypotheses on which type of lockdown would be better in an active shooter
situation: a traditional form of lockdown, which is widely used across the United States, or a multi-
option approach which is a method that isn’t utilized as much as the traditional method is.
Comments: The hypothesis was clear and concise, making it simple for the reader to understand and
keep in mind while reading the article.
o Methodology
The methodology used by the researchers were used to determine which paradigm would lead to a
quicker resolution when it comes to an active shooter situation and which of the two paradigms results
in a greater survivability rate (Jonson, Moon & Hendry, 2018). Data was collected on active
simulations that emulated a school shooting where real guns were substituted with airsoft guns. The
sample they studied consisted of 326 individuals who voluntarily enrolled in a two-day ALICE
Instructor Certification Course a nd between June 2016 and April 2017, all participants were trained by
the same instructor from the National ALICE Training Team at 13 training sites across the United
States (Jonson, Moon & Hendry, 2018). For the purpose of the study, occupations were categorized
into two groups: law enforcement such as: local, state, federal and military, and non-law enforcement
such as: education, business, and healthcare workers (Jonson, Moon & Hendry, 2018). Participants
were permitted to hide under or behind objects in order to conceal themselves (Jonson, Moon &
Hendry, 2018). The shooter was permitted to “go into any/all of the rooms” and to “shoot for five
minutes or until all guns are empty” (Jonson, Moon & Hendry, 2018). Five minutes was considered the
cut off for this study because about 70% of mass shootings end in five minutes or less (Jonson, Moon
& Hendry, 2018).
Comments: The methods used to gather the data for this article were clearly explained. The researchers
explained why they chose who they did for the study, the time limit for the mass shootings as well as
the reasoning behind the ALICE Training very well, making it easy for the reader to understand from
simply reading the methodology.
o Findings
The simulations were designed closely approximates a school shooting situation in an ethical manner
(Jonson, Moon & Hendry, 2018). The data that was analyzed, was analyzed by site not the individual
level and included comparisons among the 13 training locations for; (a) the average length of time to
resolution (e.g. shooter ran out of ammunition, shooter was rendered in capable of shooting by the
participants, participants evacuated, five minute time limit was met) for traditional lock down versus
the multi-option simulations, (b) the percent of participants shot in traditional lock down versus the
multi-option simulations, and (c) linear regression analysis to determine if any factors influence the
percent of people shot in both the classroom and open-area multi-option simulations (Jonson, Moon &
Hendry, 2018).
It was found that traditional lockdown simulations ranged in time from 22 to 290 seconds, while the
multi option simulations ranged from 4 to 70 seconds (Jonson, Moon & Hendry, 2018). Researchers
found that when the traditional lockdown protocol was followed, the average time to resolution in the
classroom setting was 195.7 seven seconds (3 minutes 15.77 seconds) versus 16.31 seconds when
using multi-option responses. When it came to the larger, more open areas, a traditional lockdown
simulation ended in an average of 168.31 seconds (2 minutes 48.31 seconds) versus an average of 8
seconds when multi-option responses were utilized. These were paired in a t-test and conducted to
determine if the number of seconds to resolution was statistically difference between a traditional
lockdown in a multi-option simulation (Jonson, Moon & Hendry, 2018).
Researchers also looked at the percentage of victims shot. They listed in a table the percent of persons
at each site who reported they were shot during the simulation (Jonson, Moon & Hendry, 2018).
Columns 3 and 5 indicated the main number of person shot in the traditional lockdown simulations in
the classroom in the open area, and columns 4 and 6 list the main number person shot in the multi-
option simulations in the classroom and the open area (Jonson, Moon & Hendry, 2018). Researchers
found a reduction in the average percentage of individuals shot that occurred at every site (Jonson,
Moon & Hendry, 2018). When it came to the traditional lockdown classroom simulation, the main
number of individuals shot per site was 74% (range 36% to 97%) column whereas only 25% were shot
(range 0% to 48%) when the multi-option techniques were used (Jonson, Moon & Hendry, 2018).
When it came to the open-area simulations, the traditional lockdown protocol was used, and an average
of 68% (range 33% to 89%) were shot, why only 11% (range 0% to 31%) were shot when utilizing the
multi-option strategies (Jonson, Moon & Hendry, 2018).
Comments: The findings were well organized and explained very thoroughly where the reader was able
to understand the research easily without extended research into the article. Researchers compared both
a traditional way of reacting to an active shooter situation to a multi-option way of reacting to an active
shooter situation showing how effective one was compared to the other when it came to protecting
civilians and law enforcement and preventing injuries or death.
o Summary
The study provided readers a look into a comparison of two different responses to an active shooter
situation: a traditional lockdown approach which involved individuals finding cover in a classroom and
locking the door and a multi-option approach which involved individuals evacuating the area, creating
barricades and even in a last resort situation, actively resisting the gunman (Jonson, Moon & Hendry,
2018). Active shooter drills have become a norm in American schools and determining the type of drill
that can be most effective for students, staff, and faculty will potentially be giving them lifesaving
skills.
o Conclusions
The conclusion of the study found that one multi-option program called ALICE was more effective in
civilian response to an active shooter situation compared to the traditional lockdown response. When it
came to the time to resolution, the amount of time until the simulation end it has been greatly reduced
when the multi-option technique was used. The average time the resolution drops just shy of 3 minutes
in the classroom in over 2 ½ minutes in the open area simulations when moving from using a
traditional lockdown technique to the ALICE technique. It comes to school shootings time is critical,
the longer it takes to control the situation, the more fatalities and injuries there usually are. Columbine,
lasted approximately 15 minutes; Virginia Tech – Norris Hall, lasted roughly around 10 minutes; Sandy
Hook, lasted about 5 minutes; Marjory Stoneman Douglas, lasted around 7 minutes. This study proved
that time is of the essence and we must take measures that are going to control the situation in the
quickest manner possible in order to save as many lives as possible.
Comments: The conclusions were based on the findings and showed how one technique saves time
while the other doesn’t. The conclusion compared the different mass shootings that the United States
has had happened over the years and how long those shootings were carried out and compared them to
the simulation that was done. The conclusion showed that the multi-option program – ALICE – the
best program, proving to be quick and efficient.
o Recommendations
There were no recommendations mentioned in the article, however, there were some limitations to the
study. Results showed a clear distinction between the two paradigms, but the limitations that the
research had were mentioned in the method section. A quasi-experimental design was employed and
although ethical reasons prohibit ever conducting a true experiment, simulations have long been used
to study critical issues and criminal justice. Another limitation would be the testing effect; however,
strict instructions were provided in each of the scenarios. Final limitation is that this one study – the
first two empirically test these two paradigms, making the results suggestive, rather than definitive.
Policies and practices must be informed by more than one study. Replication of the study with larger
sample size, additional simulations, and varying populations (e.g., juveniles) is strongly encouraged
(Jonson, Moon & Hendry, 2018).
Comments: They pretty good point at the end by stating that replication of the study with a larger
sample size, additional simulations, and varying populations such as with juveniles, is strongly
encouraged. Well, we have seen a lot of school shootings happen in the past years throughout the
United States, we have seen a lot of mass shootings as well such as at movie theaters, concerts,
situations where large crowds are gathered making the crowds an easy target for the shooter to take out
a bunch of people at once. By providing simulations of larger crowds and varying populations we can
study different ways to handle a mass shooting in an effective manner just like with the school
shooting simulation showing that the multi option paradigm with the ALICE program proving to be the
most effective.
