Four years ago, a sixth grader in Rigby, Idaho, shot and injured two peers and a custodian at a middle school. The tragedy prompted school officials to reimagine what threat prevention looks like in the approximately 6,500-student district.
Now, student-run Hope Squads in Rigby schools uplift peers with homemade cards and assemblies. Volunteer fathers patrol hallways as part of Dads on Duty. A team of district staff, counselors, social workers and probation officers gathers to discuss and support struggling students. Thanks to a new cell phone ban, students are off screens and talking to each other. The positive results of these combined efforts have been measurable.
“We’ve helped change … lives,” says Brianna Vasquez, a senior at Rigby High and member of her school’s Hope Squad. “I’ve had friends who have been pulled out of the hole of depression and suicidal thoughts because of [the Hope Squad].”
Why We Wrote This
As more schools use technology to monitor student threats, educators weigh how to balance it with human-led solutions. Part 2 in a series.
School shootings like Rigby’s have driven America’s educators to try to prevent similar harm. Many districts in the U.S. have turned to technology – especially digital surveillance – as the antidote. Not everyone is sold on that approach, as there can be issues, including with privacy and security. Without broad agreement on which strategies do work best, some districts are trying a braided approach – using a combination of technology, on-the-ground threat assessment teams, and other mental health supports.
“If you’re sitting in the shoes of a district leader, taking a multi-pronged approach is probably very sensible,” says Jennifer DePaoli, a senior researcher at the Learning Policy Institute, who has studied school safety.
“It’s all about culture”
In Rigby, educators lean toward human interaction. Artificial intelligence and digital surveillance systems are perhaps less likely to identify who is eating alone at lunch or withdrawing from friends.
“It’s all about culture,” says Chad Martin, the superintendent of Jefferson County School District in Rigby. “It starts with that – just having a friend, having a group of friends, having a connection somewhere.”
Rigby school leaders use technology to detect threats, including an app, STOPit, which allows students to anonymously report safety concerns, and surveillance software that monitors students’ keystrokes and looks out for troubling terms. Mr. Martin says those are helpful, but must be used in concert with human-led initiatives.
The district’s version of a threat assessment team, which meets monthly, has been one of the most impactful tools, Mr. Martin says. In those group conversations, school staff may realize that a student who’s been missing class has a parent who was recently arrested, for example.
“Everybody has a little piece of information,” Mr. Martin says. “So the goal is to put those people in the same room and be able to paint a picture that can help us support kids.”
Although Idaho does not mandate the use of in-school threat assessment teams, 11 states in the U.S. do. In 2024, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that 71% of U.S. public schools have a threat assessment team in place.
A leading model, used by thousands of school districts, is the Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines (CSTAG). These were developed by forensic clinical psychologist Dewey Cornell after he spent years studying homicides committed by children or teens, including school shootings. He says digital surveillance technology can offer school districts “an illusion of safety and security.”
With CSTAG, school-based teams use a five-step process when threats emerge. The team includes a school administrator, a counselor or psychologist, a social worker, a staff member focused on special education, and a school resource officer. In serious situations, the group might suspend or move a student elsewhere while conducting mental health screenings, a law enforcement investigation, and development of a safety plan. Ultimately, that plan would be put into effect.
If implemented correctly, Dr. Cornell says, this type of approach is less punitive and more rooted in intervention. Instead of relying only on technology, Dr. Cornell and his threat assessment guidelines recommend adding humans who can make decisions with schools as situations emerge. He points to a recent study in Florida, one of the states where threat assessment teams are mandatory. Threats investigated by those teams “resulted in low rates of school removal and very low rates of law enforcement actions,” according to the report authored by Dr. Cornell and fellow University of Virginia researchers.
“If you’re a school counselor and you can work with a troubled kid and help get them on the right track, you’re not just preventing a school shooting, but you’re more likely to be preventing a shooting that would occur somewhere else and maybe years in the future,” he says.
Threat assessment teams – whether using the CSTAG model or another form – haven’t been immune from scrutiny. Complaints have emerged about them operating without student or parent knowledge, or without staff members to represent children with special needs. Criticism has also included concern about discrimination against Black and Hispanic students.
Dr. DePaoli, from the Learning Policy Institute, says more research is needed to determine whether they successfully identify threats and provide students with appropriate support. She suspects it boils down to implementation.
“If you are being required to do these, you need to be doing them with so much training and so much support,” she says.
“People are the solution”
The Jordan School District in Utah uses the CSTAG model. Travis Hamblin, director of student services, credits the “human connection” with strengthening the district’s approach to handling threats and, as a result, boosting student safety and well-being.
Earlier this school year, the district received an alert through Bark, a digital monitoring tool that scans students’ school-issued Google suite accounts. It flagged a middle schooler’s account, which contained a hand drawn picture of a gun that had been uploaded.
The notification mobilized the school’s threat assessment team. By using the CSTAG decision-making process, the team determined the student did not intend any harm, Mr. Hamblin says.
The school leaders didn’t unnecessarily escalate the situation, he says. After their assessment, they chalked it up to middle school immaturity and asked the student to avoid such drawings in the future.
“When you say, ‘Why did you do that?’ And they say, ‘I don’t know.’ That’s the truth, right? That’s the gospel truth,” Mr. Hamblin says.
He shares this example to illustrate how the district marries technology-related monitoring with human-led threat assessment. The district employs someone – a former school administrator and counselor – to field the Bark alerts and communicate with school staff. And administrators from every school in the district have undergone threat assessment training, along with select members of their staff.
“A digital tool for us is a tool. It’s not the solution,” Mr. Hamblin says. “We believe that people are the solution.”
Efforts in Idaho
In Rigby, one of those solution people is Ernie Chavez, whose height makes him stick out in a hallway streaming with middle schoolers. He’s part of Dads on Duty, a program that brings in parents to help monitor and interact with students during passing periods and lunch.
Throughout the school, students reach out to Mr. Chavez for high-fives. On one February afternoon, he was greeted with applause and cheers. “I don’t know what that was about,” he says with a smile.
Similarly, the district’s Hope Squads, in place since 2021, have become an active presence inside the school.
The student-led coalitions aim to foster connection and reduce the risk of suicide. Thousands of schools across the United States and in Canada have implemented Hope Squads, but in Rigby, the mission of violence prevention has become personal.
“We refer … students every year to counselors, and those students go from some of the worst moments in their life [to getting help],” Ms. Vasquez says. “We build the connection between adults and faculty to the student.”
Members of the Hope Squad notice peers who seem down or isolated and reach out with a greeting, or sometimes a handmade card.
“We just reach out and let them know that people in the community are there for them, just to show them that we care and they’re not alone,” says Dallas Waldron, a Rigby High senior and Hope Squad member.
The groups also plan assemblies and special events, including, for example, a week of activities themed around mental health awareness.
Emilie Raymond, a sophomore at Rigby High, says the shooting made it clear “that people need to feel included and they need to find that hope.”
Another change at Rigby schools is a cell phone ban that was put in place this school year.
Before the ban, students were “sitting in the corners, isolated, staring at a screen,” says Ryan Erikson, Principal at Rigby Middle School. Now, “they’re playing games, they’re goofing off … they’re actually conversing.”
While Jefferson County School District’s approach to stemming violence is robust, “it’s not perfect,” Mr. Martin, the superintendent, says. “It’s still life. That’s just the reality of it, we’re still going to have things come up that we haven’t prepared for or weren’t on our radar. But we address them and just try to do whatever we can to support kids.”
This story was reported by Idaho Education News and The Christian Science Monitor. The Education Reporting Collaborative, a coalition of eight newsrooms, is investigating the unintended consequences of AI-powered surveillance at schools. Members of the Collaborative are AL.com, The Associated Press, The Christian Science Monitor, The Dallas Morning News, The Hechinger Report, Idaho Education News, The Post and Courier in South Carolina, and The Seattle Times.
