Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chairman Dogget seeks $174,000 pilot of Homicide Zero threat‑assessment system for Tennessee schools
Summary
Chairman Dogget requested $174,000 (HA230) to pilot Homicide Zero, a threat‑assessment platform he said would standardize screening across districts at about $6 per student annually to identify students needing intervention before violent incidents occur.
Chairman Dogget asked the Finance, Ways and Means Appropriations Subcommittee on March 16 to fund a statewide pilot of Homicide Zero, describing the platform as an evidence‑based threat‑assessment system that would help schools identify and intervene with students at risk of violence.
"School safety is something that I care deeply about," Dogget said, recalling that he was a student during a 1995 school shooting and said that experience shaped his work in law enforcement and public service. He told the committee Tennessee has already invested more than $200 million in physical protections, school resource officers and infrastructure since the Covenant school shooting and that the next step is tools to spot threats earlier.
Dogget said Homicide Zero builds on threat‑assessment work from Lawrence County, where more than 400 assessments were used to identify students needing intervention, and that the platform offers standardized protocols, data‑driven screening tools and coordinated intervention strategies. He framed the request as cost‑effective, estimating about $6 per student annually, and asked for $174,000 to run the pilot (budget amendment HA230).
Why it matters: Dogget argued a shared statewide tool would reduce variation between districts and give threat‑assessment teams a consistent protocol and data to validate concerning behaviors and target interventions before a threat reaches a classroom.
What the committee was told and limitations: The presentation described prior investments in physical security and asserted the platform’s effectiveness based on Lawrence County’s experience; committee members did not vote on the request (the hearing was informational). No implementation timeline, procurement details, data‑privacy safeguards, or vendor contract language were provided during the presentation.
