Active Shooter Risk Assessment Methodology

Home General Methodology

Active Shooter Risk Assessment Framework

The active shooter risk assessment framework is designed to support public health and public safety planning by identifying environmental and social indicators correlated with elevated risk conditions. This framework evaluates risk across five domains to create a comprehensive assessment.

This methodology focuses on population-level risk factors and is intended for public health preparedness planning, not individual threat assessment.

Five-Domain Assessment Framework

Our active shooter risk assessment utilizes a multi-domain framework that produces a weighted risk score between 0.0 and 1.0, where higher scores indicate elevated risk. Each domain evaluates specific risk factors and contributes to the overall score based on its weight.

Domain Weight Description Primary Data Sources
Historical Incident Density 25% Analyzes patterns of past incidents to identify areas with higher historical risk, focusing on both frequency and severity of incidents
  • Gun Violence Archive (GVA)
  • FBI Crime Data API
School & Youth Vulnerability 20% Evaluates factors related to educational environments and youth populations, including security measures and disconnected youth
  • NCES School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) 2019-2020
  • Census American Community Survey (ACS)
  • CDC Social Vulnerability Index (SVI)
Social & Community Fragility 20% Assesses social cohesion factors that may contribute to community resilience or vulnerability
  • CDC Social Vulnerability Index (SVI)
  • Census American Community Survey (ACS)
Mental & Behavioral Health Risk 20% Examines mental health resource availability and population-level mental health indicators
  • HRSA Health Professional Shortage Areas
  • County Health Rankings
  • Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)
Access to Lethal Means 15% Assesses factors related to firearm availability and accessibility
  • Wisconsin state-level firearm laws
  • County-level firearm ownership estimates
  • Rural/urban firearm ownership patterns

School & Youth Vulnerability Domain Components

The School & Youth Vulnerability domain has been enhanced with data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) 2019-2020. This nationally representative survey of school principals provides detailed information on school safety measures, incidents, and security policies.

School Safety Measures (40%)

Evaluates the presence and effectiveness of security protocols and safety measures in schools:

  • Access Control: Controlled entry points, visitor management systems, locked exterior doors
  • Security Staffing: Presence of armed/trained security personnel
  • Active Shooter Drills: Frequency and quality of drills and training
  • Security Technology: Cameras, metal detectors, other security equipment
  • Threat Assessment: Formal protocols for identifying and addressing threats

Primary source: NCES SSOCS 2019-2020 survey variables including FR_CNTRL, FR_ARMED, FR_DRILL, THRTASS, and others.

Youth Disconnectedness (60%)

Assesses the percentage of youth (ages 16-24) not in school or working, a key risk factor associated with isolation and vulnerability:

  • Educational Disconnection: Youth not enrolled in educational institutions
  • Employment Disconnection: Youth not participating in the workforce
  • Geographic Patterns: County-level variation in disconnection rates
  • Socioeconomic Factors: Correlation with poverty and limited opportunity

Primary sources: Census American Community Survey (ACS) and CDC Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) data on socioeconomic status.

School Incident Data Analysis

The SSOCS survey captures critical incident data that helps identify patterns in school safety:

  • Weapons Possession: Incidents per 1,000 students
  • Violent Incidents: Physical attacks, fights, threats
  • Threat Reports: Documented threats of physical attack
  • Hate Crimes: Incidents motivated by bias
  • Gang Activities: Gang-related incidents in schools
  • Mental Health Services: Available diagnostic and treatment services

Note: School-level data is aggregated to create county-level estimates for risk assessment purposes.

Data Sources and Integration

Primary Data Sources
Gun Violence Archive (GVA)

Primary source for historical incident data, including mass shootings, active shooter events, and gun violence incidents.

FBI Crime Data API

Provides criminal incident reports, weapons offense data, and hate crime statistics.

NCES School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) 2019-2020

National survey providing detailed school safety metrics, security measures, and incident rates.

Census American Community Survey (ACS)

Provides youth disconnectedness data, demographic information, and socioeconomic indicators.

CDC Social Vulnerability Index (SVI)

Supplies social cohesion metrics and community vulnerability indicators.

HRSA Health Professional Shortage Areas

Identifies mental health provider shortages by county.

County Health Rankings

Provides county-level data on poor mental health days and health outcomes.

BRFSS (Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System)

Source for psychological distress prevalence and mental health metrics.

RAND Firearm Law Database

Information on state-level firearm laws and regulations.

CDC WISQARS (Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System)

Provides proxy estimates for firearm ownership and related statistics.

Data Integration Approach

The active shooter risk model integrates multiple data sources to create a comprehensive assessment:

  1. Primary & Secondary Sources: Each domain uses both primary data sources and secondary sources for validation
  2. Fallback Mechanisms: When primary data sources are unavailable:
    • GVA data → FBI Crime Data API → Score of 0.0 (no estimated data used)
    • NCES SSOCS data → Wisconsin state averages → National averages
  3. Data Quality Indicators: Each data point includes quality metadata:
    • Source attribution (authentic vs. estimated)
    • Quality rating (high, medium, low)
    • Contextual notes on limitations
  4. Geographic Mapping: City-to-county mapping ensures proper assignment of incidents to jurisdictions
Data Limitations
  • NCES SSOCS Limitations: School-level data is aggregated to county level; urban/rural adjustments are applied for county estimates
  • GVA Data Coverage: While comprehensive, GVA data may not capture all incidents; attribution to correct jurisdiction relies on city-county mapping
  • Temporal Limitations: Some datasets (like SSOCS) are updated on 2-4 year cycles rather than continuously
  • Provider Shortage Data: Mental health provider metrics represent designated shortage areas, not actual provider counts

Risk Score Interpretation

Active shooter risk scores are presented on a 0.0 to 1.0 scale, with higher values indicating increased risk. These scores are interpreted using the following tiers:

Risk Score Range Risk Level Interpretation Recommended Focus
0.0 - 0.3 Low Risk Lower than average risk indicators; strong protective factors present Maintenance of existing measures; prevention programs
0.3 - 0.6 Moderate Risk Average risk indicators; some protective factors need strengthening Enhancement of response capacity; targeted interventions
0.6 - 1.0 High Risk Elevated risk indicators; multiple vulnerability factors present Comprehensive intervention programs; resource prioritization
Important Note on Interpretation

These risk scores represent population-level risk factors for public health preparedness planning. They are not predictive of specific incidents and should not be used for individual-level threat assessment or specific location targeting. The purpose of this model is to guide resource allocation and support community-level prevention and preparedness efforts.

Last updated: February 2026 | Data sources: Gun Violence Archive (2023), FBI Crime Data API, NCES SSOCS (2019-2020), Census ACS, CDC SVI, HRSA HPSA, County Health Rankings, BRFSS, RAND Firearm Law Database, CDC WISQARS