By Richard J. Bonnie and Rebekah Hutton, Editors

Active shooter drills have become a standard practice in nearly all U.S. schools, yet their potential impact on students and educators has received limited attention. School Active Shooter Drills: Mitigating Risks to Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Health explores how these drills are conducted and how to reduce potential harm while supporting school safety. Developed by a committee of experts in education, school safety, public health, pediatrics, child and adolescent development, psychiatry, psychology, neuroscience, public policy, and criminology, this report provides an in-depth review of current practices and offers guidance. The report provides suggestions for implementing practices that promote prevention and preparedness while supporting well-being, and foster learning environments where students and staff feel safe, capable, and supported.

School Active Shooter Drills finds that while drills aim to enhance preparedness, they often vary dramatically in intensity and design, from simple safety walk-throughs to unannounced, high-simulation events. Such inconsistencies can heighten anxiety, distress, and confusion, especially among vulnerable student populations. The report underscores that developmentally appropriate, trauma-informed practices are essential, and drills involving realistic simulations or deception should be avoided entirely.

School Active Shooter Drills outlines actionable recommendations for state and local policymakers, school leaders, researchers, and federal agencies, including banning harmful practices, supporting staff training, ensuring equitable inclusion, and increasing access to mental health resources. This report also calls for national guidance and sustained research to strengthen the evidence base and help schools foster safe, inclusive, and supportive learning environments so that schools not only prepare students and staff for emergencies but also protect their mental, emotional, and behavioral well-being.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Board on Children, Youth, and Families; Committee on Law and Justice; Committee on the Impact of Active Shooter Drills on Student Health and Wellbeing. 2025. p253.

By TERESA FRASCA et al.

Sexual harassment continues to be a persistent problem in institutions of higher education, despite the creation of new resources, policies, and programs aimed at combatting high rates on campuses (NASEM, 2018). Historically, these institutions have focused sexual harassment 1 prevention and response efforts on complying with the requirements of the law (NASEM, 2018). Specifically, institutions in the United States have focused on responding to formal reports of sexual harassment through complying with Title IX and Title VII2 —which prohibit discrimination against employees, students, staff, and/or faculty on the basis of sex—rather than identifying what harm has been caused by the sexual harassment, who has been harmed, and how that harm can be repaired. Even when institutions provide resources to repair the harm caused by sexual harassment, the harm might extend beyond the conclusions of the institutional response process and provision of the required remedial measures and sanctions (when applicable) (e.g., Grossi, 2017; Karp and Frank, 2016; McMahon et al., 2019; NASEM, 2018; Smith and Freyd, 2014). Put simply, there is a lack of attention to remediating (or repairing and limiting) the damage caused by sexual harassment across the timeline of the institutional response process (see Box 1 and Figure 1).

National Academies of Sciences. 2025. 76p.

By Ellen R Gutowski, Lisa A Goodman

Intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors seeking safety and justice for themselves and their children through family court and other legal systems may instead encounter their partners' misuse of court processes to further enact coercive control. To illuminate this harmful process, this study sought to create a measure of legal abuse. We developed a list of 27 potential items on the basis of consultation with 23 experts, qualitative interviews, and existing literature. After piloting these items, we administered them to a sample of 222 survivor-mothers who had been involved in family law proceedings. We then used both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Rasch analysis (RA) to create a final measure. Analyses yielded the 14-item Legal Abuse Scale (LAS). Factor analysis supported two subscales: Harm to Self/Motherhood (i.e., using the court to harm the survivor as a person and a mother) and Harm to Finances (i.e., using the court to harm the survivor financially). The LAS is a tool that will enable systematic assessment of legal abuse in family court and other legal proceedings, an expansion of research on this form of coercive control, and further development of policy and practice that recognizes and responds to it.

J Fam Violence. 2023;38(3):527-542