Lumina Expands its Predictive Analytics and Risk Sensing Capabilities with  Radiance Launch

Lumina Expands its Predictive Analytics and Risk Sensing Capabilities with Radiance Launch

~~AI-powered technology helps organizations anticipate, understand,
manage and mitigate risk~~

Lumina announced today the launch of its new Radiance platform, which uses proprietary, deep-web listening algorithms to uncover risk, provide timely and actionable information and help prevent catastrophic loss. The Radiance platform brings the power of Open-Source Intelligence (OS-INT), Internet Intelligence (NET-INT) and the See Something Say Something app (HUM-INT) for edge-to-edge risk detection.

“The power of Radiance is two-fold – its ability to ingest massive amounts of unstructured, open source data and its real-time ability to analyze that information to predict and prevent organizational risks and threats,” said Allan Martin, CEO of Lumina. “Radiance is designed to help keep people and places safe and secure, and this AI-driven solution will immediately transform how organizations think about risk management and risk mitigation.”

Radiance’s purpose-built, best-in-class algorithms overcome the challenges of massive unstructured data ingestion and prioritization.  Radiance scours the web, prioritizing current behaviors to predict future action. This is an advantage over other technologies, which focus only on historical behavior, which can lead to bias in the results. Additionally, clients can integrate their own structured and unstructured data into Radiance, allowing for correlation of internal databases against open source, publicly available data.

Radiance is a Software-as-a-Service (Saas) platform that includes managed service capabilities. It is rapidly deployable, scalable, highly configurable and user-friendly, and is comprised of the following components:

  • Radiance Open Source Intelligence (OS-INT) is a deep-web listening tool that uses machine learning and artificial intelligence to assess and prioritize risk. Names entered into OS-INT are correlated with content related to 20 different risk factors, known as Behavioral Risk Profiles (BRPs) and cross-referenced with more than 1 million queries into Lumina’s proprietary databases of risk, known as ecosystems. One search across all BRPs equates to more than 465,000 deep web searches.  OS-INT delivers prioritized results in about 5 minutes. A manual search of this magnitude would take a person more than 3 1/2 years to complete.
  • Radiance Internet Intelligence (NET-INT) detects means, motivation and target for attack planning. Its proprietary algorithms continuously identify, monitor, capture and prioritize IP addresses exhibiting anomalous behavior across multiple risk dimensions. The platform collects and stores more than 1 million interactions every day and since its inception has recorded more than 623,000 IP addresses engaged with threat-related risk topics.
  • Radiance Human Intelligence (HUM-INT) is powered by the S4 app, a crowd-sourced, mobile application that allows users to confidentially report concerns in real time. A centralized management portal allows clients to access real-time threats to geo-fenced locations.

“We constantly hear people say, ‘We have so much data, but what can we do with it?’  Radiance solves that problem by ingesting, integrating, correlating and analyzing disparate datasets.  It takes data never designed to identify risk, and prioritizes it – giving our clients an unbiased and fully auditable understanding of human behavior and associated threats,” said Dr. Morten Middelfart, Chief Data Scientist at Lumina.

He added that Radiance’s BRPs solve for the “data noise” obstacle associated with other OS-INT SaaS solutions.  In addition, Radiance drastically outperform existing Natural Language Processing (NLP) approaches to identify names of persons or entities in unstructured data. Radiance performed at a 93.1 percent accuracy level on unstructured, improperly cased documents such as HTML, JSON or computer code and other so-called messy documents compared to 0 percent for Stanford Named Entity Recognizer (NER) and other popular open-source NLP software. Additionally, the BRPs generated with Lumina’s machine learning are “human readable,” making them fully auditable as well.

About Lumina

Lumina is a predictive analytics company founded on the idea that technology is a force for good.  The company’s optimized artificial intelligence capabilities help keep people and places safe and secure through active and early detection of high-risk behavior.  Lumina’s Radiance platform uses proprietary, deep web listening algorithms to uncover risk, provide timely, actionable information, and help prevent catastrophic loss.  Lumina is committed to protecting what matters most, and its Radiance platform is designed to help solve the world’s most challenging problems.

For more information contact Jill Kermes at 202-957-0715 or jill.kermes@luminaanalytics.com

Technology’s Impact on National Security

Introduction

Homegrown radical terrorism and mass casualty events such as active shooter incidents in public spaces and schools remain real, prevalent threats to national security, to the security of private entities and their employees, to the economy, and to the values of a democratic society. There have been over 30 successful or attempted radical Islamist terror attacks on U.S. soil since 2009, in addition to multiple terrorist incidents stemming from other ideological motivations. There have also been dozens of mass shootings and school shootings during that same period. These types of incidents have cost hundreds of Americans their lives just in the past year.

Being able to respond to attacks is not enough. Instead, we can best protect ourselves by proactively detecting and preventing these threats from being realized, integrating cutting edge technology into our efforts. Individuals looking to commit terrorist attacks or other acts of violence do not operate in isolation – they leave indicators in their discussions, their behaviors, and their online activities. Using technology to identify these indicators and find these individuals before they can commit heinous acts is of the utmost importance for ensuring the security of our society and of private entities that may be at risk.

PART ONE: 
Detecting Online Radicalization

Since 9/11, America has experienced a shift in the type of threat posed by radical Islamist terrorism to the homeland. While the country’s major concern was once highly coordinated terrorist plots emanating from and directed by terrorist groups abroad, recent events, such as the Boston Marathon Bombing and the Orlando and San Bernardino shootings, have proven that homegrown terrorism and attacks carried out by single individuals or small groups are the more pressing concern. The Internet and social media have enabled terrorist groups like ISIS to reach and radicalize individuals and direct or inspire attacks around the globe, including in America. As a result, we need better methods to detect online radicalization of potential homegrown terrorists in order to prevent further attacks.

As of 2015, the FBI had 900 active investigations into homegrown violent extremists in all 50 states. Additionally, over 250 Americans have tried or succeeded at travelling to Syria to join the conflict there. 4 28 States and the District of Columbia have brought ISIS-related charges against individuals, and since the first arrests in 2014, 157 individuals have been charged in the U.S. for ISIS-related offenses. 5 Yet perhaps the most important statistic is that the majority of people charged in the U.S. for ISIS-related offenses are U.S. citizens or permanent residents.  These individuals were mainly radicalized in America through terrorist groups’ adept use of the Internet and social media. Terrorist groups create online communities and propaganda that exploit and legitimize the grievances of isolated or angry individuals with radical leanings and push them towards full-fledged radicalization. Many of these individuals are searching for a purpose or for a way to avenge what they see as discrimination against or attacks on their community, religion, or homeland.  Terrorist groups are therefore quick to offer belonging, purpose, status, recognition, and a chance for revenge to those who join their ranks. 9

The majority of people charged in the U.S. for ISIS-related offenses are U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

Before the Internet age, terrorist groups used recruiters who physically travelled to find individuals sympathetic to their cause. However, they are now able to recruit and radicalize online through widespread dissemination of their propaganda and through a plethora of online extremist discussion forums where they target vulnerable individuals in the West. These individuals are mainly first or second-generation Muslims living in non-Muslim majority countries who may feel disconnected from both their cultural and current homelands. 10 The terrorist recruiters push an “us” versus “them” ideology that further isolates these susceptible individuals from their communities, and both the recruiters and other participants in online extremist discussion forums rationalize the use of violence by capitalizing on the grievances these individuals feel against their Western home, often due to experienced discrimination or opposition to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. 11

In the past, after becoming radicalized, individuals plotting terror attacks often met in person to plan, which helped law enforcement track their communications and meetings. Some also traveled abroad to receive training in the Middle East, which allowed the intelligence community to follow their movements and connections with foreign terrorist groups. However, the advent of encrypted communication technology, such as Telegram, and prevalent use of social media has enabled terrorists to conduct their communication, planning, and attack training online in mediums largely untraceable by law enforcement. Due to the changes in the threat posed by radical Islamist terrorism and in the process of radicalization, the key venue for identifying radicalized individuals who are planning to strike the U.S. is now online. As the terrorists shift to this platform, so must efforts to prevent terrorist attacks.

PART TWO: 
Clues to Far-Right Extremist Behavior

In addition to radical Islamist terrorism, right-wing terrorism remains a prevalent security threat in the U.S. From 9/11 through 2014, far-right extremists killed over twice as many people in the U.S. as radical Islamist extremists. Right-wing extremism not only poses a threat to civilians, but also to law enforcement as at least 57 officers have been killed in right-wing attacks since 1990. 14 The number of terrorist attacks in the U.S. attributed to right-wing extremism rather than to other ideological motivations has increased from 6% of total attacks in 2010 to 35% in 2016. Incidents in recent years include the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina that killed nine people, the Sikh temple attack in Wisconsin that killed six, and the killing of Heather Heyer during the Charlottesville rallies in Virginia. These attacks remind us that the threat of right-wing terrorism remains prevalent and must be taken as seriously as that of radical Islamist terrorism. And just like Islamist radicalization, right-wing radicalization has also moved to the Internet where individuals can become radicalized without attending group meetings or interacting in-person with other right-wing extremists in scenarios that are easier to monitor. Susceptible individuals can access discussion forums and a plethora of material about right-wing beliefs from their bedrooms.

The number of terrorist attacks in the U.S. attributed to right-wing extremism rather than to other ideological motivations has increased from 6% of total attacks in 2010 to 35% in 2016.

Both Keith Luke and Dylann Roof were radicalized online prior to their shooting sprees that targeted ethnic and religious minorities including African Americans and Jews. Widespread use of the Internet and social media means that this threat will persist. 17 One study on right-wing terrorism in America found that “right-wing terror incidents occur consistently because the movements from which they emanate are mature extremist movements with deep-seated roots. The Internet has made it easier for extremists to meet each other (and thus engage in plots), as well as to self-radicalize and become lone wolf offenders.”18 But like potential radical Islamist terrorists, potential right-wing terrorists leave clues about their radicalization and intentions in their online behaviors and discussions. The enhanced role of the Internet in radicalization and attack planning for both right-wing and radical Islamist terrorism emphasizes the necessity for technological innovation to combat these threats. Older methods of detecting and monitoring terrorist threats are no longer sufficient – the people looking to cause harm can be intelligent, cunning, and cautious. As the nature of these threat changes, so must our approach to fighting it. Only the use of threat-targeted technology will enable us to maintain public safety in this digital age.

PART THREE: 
Predicting Mass Casualty Events

In addition to terror attacks, the U.S. has witnessed a recent surge in mass casualty events such as mass shootings and school shootings. From 1966 to 2015, there were 146 mass shootings across 40 states and Washington D.C., resulting in 1,048 deaths. There have been 55 mass shootings since 2007 and 11 in 2017 alone. Statistical evidence shows that the frequency of mass shootings is increasing. Since 2011, the rate of mass shootings in the U.S. has tripled to an average of at least one event every 64 days. Yet, in many cases, the shooters have no connection to their victims or to their target locations that could provide a clue to their intentions. Over 71% of active shooter situations in the U.S. from 2000 to 2013 occurred in publicly accessible spaces including businesses, malls, schools, health care facilities, and houses of worship. 23

Furthermore, victims of U.S. mass shootings are of every age, gender, race, and religion with no clear patterns. 24

This lack of generalized predictive information regarding who may commit these violent acts, where they may do so, and who they may target means that we must find new ways to detect and prevent mass casualty planning behavior. Schools are implementing active shooter safety drills and commercial facilities and organizations have new security measures and training to prepare for these scenarios. However, many of these mass casualty events occur in less than five minutes, meaning that training may not be enough to avoid fatalities. 25 Stopping these attacks before they occur is key to averting mass casualties. Yet, mass shootings can be extremely difficult to predict or prevent due to the individualized nature of each attack, the relative ease of access to firearms in the U.S., and the minimal planning required.

Therefore, we need new technological capabilities that can identify specific indicators of these threats before they actualize. For example, it has come to light since the Parkland school shooting that the shooter had previously posted comments on social media about carrying out a school shooting and that his social media accounts contained pictures of guns, ammunition, and other violent or concerning content. We must deploy technology that senses the Internet for these types of threats and language as these may be readily available clues to a shooter’s intentions prior to an attack. Furthermore, school shooters often conduct extensive research into prior school shootings and often try to emulate components of previous attacks based on this research. Such topical investigations can and should be monitored and correlated with other online behavioral patterns to identify individuals who demonstrate attack-planning behavior and thus pose high-risk threats, distinguished from people conducting general research. This activity can also identify the particular web signatures of users engaging in attack-planning behavior. As a result, only users truly engaging in extreme, outlier behavior will be identified, making threat identification a fact-based process rather than one that could be biased on prior knowledge of a suspect individual. Similarly, this type of sensing can detect threats posed by individuals who may not be on law enforcement’s radar.

As new technologies and weapons are developed and more information becomes accessible online, the potential severity of threats to our country and its citizens increases. We must similarly change the way we approach detecting and preventing these violent threats in order to adequately address the enhanced capabilities and methods of those seeking to do us harm.

Many of these mass casualty events occur in less than five minutes, meaning that training may not be enough to avoid fatalities.

Summary

In today’s world, there are far too many Westminster and Nice vehicular attacks, Orlando shootings, Brussels airport bombings, Las Vegas massacres, Sandy Hook, and Parkland school shootings that occupy our news cycle and the front of our minds. The individuals who carry out these devastating and heinous acts seek to undermine our way of life, our sense of security, our freedoms, and our belief in our government. They also become increasingly hard to detect as they are radicalized through social media and carry out attack planning in online forums or encrypted apps where they are not easily identified or monitored. The UK Home Office found that in 2017, ISIS followers published propaganda on 400 different platforms, including 145 new ones between July and December alone. 27These terrorists and other violent actors must be met head on by the best possible tactics and tools to detect and prevent such threats before they are carried out. Indeed, both the public and private sectors are embracing the power of technology in this realm, particularly related to artificial intelligence and machine learning. At Lumina Analytics, we’re using these tools to understand threat-specific behavioral patterns and predicatively identify threats to society and national security, as well as to private corporations, venues, and events.

Mission LISA Announces Recommendations to Address Federal Funding Disparities in the Opioid Crisis


Analysis of Major Opioid Grants Shows More Populous States Get More Funding Per Victim, Leaving Smaller, More Impacted States Underfunded

TAMPA, Fla., April 30, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — State allocations of federal opioid grants are biased toward more populous states according to an analysis conducted by Mission LISA (Learning Indicators of Substance Addiction).  Disparities are based on current funding formulas which only address the absolute number of people affected.  To better fund the states most impacted by the crisis – regardless of size – Mission LISA recommends changing funding formulas to account for epidemic severity relative to state population.

“As a guidance to crisis mitigation efforts, Mission LISA recommends federal agencies optimize current opioid funding formulas by incorporating state prevalence as a significant factor,” said Vicky Liao, Director of Mission LISA.  “Smaller states are bearing the brunt of this crisis, and this updated formula would provide them the funds they need for prevention, treatment and intervention.”

She added that as a result of the analysis, Mission LISA developed an optimal formula for determining funding for states which incorporates both absolute numbers of victims as well as state prevalence.

Mission LISA reviewed major opioid grants, including grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the Department of Justice, comparing 2018 state-level funding distribution with the 2017 state ranking by prevalence of opioid misuse.  Results show some highly impacted states were underfunded and received funding that is disproportional to the epidemic prevalence in those states:

Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, Maryland, and West Virginia.

Incorporating prevalence into the determination of funding for SAMHSA’s State Targeted Response grant would result in an addition of approximately $108 million to at least 37 states and the District of Columbia.  The top five jurisdictions to receive more funding are:

Maine, the District of Columbia, Delaware, New Hampshire, and West Virginia.

About Mission LISA: 
Mission LISA is a data aggregation initiative surrounding America’s national opioid crisis. Using deep web mining and machine learning technology, Lumina Analytics is collecting, synthesizing, and analyzing massive amounts of publicly available data to provide policymakers and healthcare service providers with timely and relevant intelligence surrounding the current state of the crisis and how best to combat nationwide overdose death and addiction. This data drives production of evidence-based policy recommendations and patient-centric treatment pathways, yielding highly targeted solutions for the epidemic.

Mission LISA was launched by Lumina Analytics in 2017 to address the need for more robust and timely data surrounding the opioid crisis in America. Visit www.LuminaAnalytics.com to learn more about Mission LISA technology and data analysis. Follow Mission LISA on LinkedIn and Twitter for relevant intelligence and policy updates.

About the Mission LISA Foundation:  
The Mission LISA Foundation conducts educational meetings, prepares and distributes educational materials, and considers public policy issues in an educational manner, presenting materials and information on a non-biased, non-partisan basis for wholly educational purposes regarding the nation’s opioid epidemic. LISA is an acronym for Learning Indicators of Substance Addiction. Mission LISA Foundation’s Advisory Board is comprised of expert physicians, researchers, academics, policy veterans, and industry professionals.

The Threat of Vehicular Attacks is Growing. AI Can Help Stop Them.

The Threat of Vehicular Attacks is Growing. AI Can Help Stop Them.

In October 2017, Sayfullo Saipov carried out an ISIS-inspired vehicular attack in New York City that was the deadliest terror attack in NYC since 9/11. This attack was just one in a recent global pattern of vehicular attacks that have proven to be a growing threat worldwide, impacting countries such as the U.S., the U.K, Canada, Germany, Sweden, and Spain in 2017. Since 2009, 169 terror attacks have involved vehicles as a weapon, and since 2006, 194 people have been killed with 1,048 injured globally in vehicular terror attacks. Because of this, vehicular attacks have become one of the most dangerous forms or terror. The more we understand about what makes these attacks soft targets, what motivates would-be-attackers and how we can safeguard our communities from them in the future, the closer we get to mitigating these threats.

Soft Targets

Vehicular attacks are particularly concerning because they often strike “soft targets,” or easily accessible locations containing large numbers of people with little security measures to protect them. In fact, from 1968 to 2005, 73% of terrorist attacks worldwide struck soft targets while only 27% percent of attacks struck hard targets. In the U.S. alone, 90% of attacks were aimed at soft targets from 2001 to 2005.

The reason vehicular attacks occur so frequently is due to a lack of known prevention techniques. Three main factors make vehicular attacks particularly hard to prevent: the minimal preparations required make perpetrators hard to detect, the accessibility of vehicles, and the difficulty of fully securing open pedestrian areas close to roadways.

External Motivators

Perpetrators have used this style of attack for numerous reasons, including religious extremism, far-right extremism, anger, and one particular attack may have been linked to the influence of drugs. No matter the reason, these attacks can be deadly and have large implications.

Religious Extremism

Religious extremism is one of the most prominent reasons individuals are motivated to carry out a vehicular attack. In 2010, Al Qaeda’s magazine, Inspire called for followers to use vehicles to “mow down the enemies of Allah” in crowded locations. Similarly, In 2014, ISIS made a similar call to run over nonbelievers with vehicles. Since then, there has been a growing wave of vehicular attacks across Western Europe and the U.S., with 18 attacks since 2014, and 11 in 2017 alone. 

From January 2014 through May 2017, 7% of all radical religious extremism-related terror plots in Western Europe were vehicular, yet they caused 45% of injuries and 37% of deaths. While most of these attacks were claimed by ISIS or individuals inspired by radical extremism, other groups have been known to use this attack method.

Radical Beliefs

Far-right extremists have also utilized vehicular attacks. One of these instances included the white supremacist rallies in Charlottesville, Virginia. During this attack James Alex Fields, Jr. drove his car into pedestrians in a crowded street, killing one and injuring at least 35 others.

Anger, Drugs & More

Some of the other attackers in Houston and New York were motivated by anger, while Richard Rojas may have carried out his 2017 attack in Times Square under the influence of drugs. The media has hypothesized that Alek Minassian’s vehicular attack in Toronto may have been motivated by anti-female beliefs. These examples demonstrate that vehicular attacks are becoming an increasing threat to public safety from individuals inspired by a variety of ideologies.

Preventative Measures

Given the accessibility of vehicles and the lack of training needed to carry out a vehicular attack, these threats are incredibly hard to predict or prevent. The New York Police Department and the FBI have implemented programs to make owners of rental vehicle businesses aware of suspicious behaviors that could potentially be related to attack planning. In an effort to reduce the threat, the British government has considered checking names of individuals renting vehicles against terrorist watch lists. However, in the 11 vehicular attacks carried out in Western Europe since 2014, only five involved rented vehicles – the others were either owned or stolen.

Additionally, physical safety measures such as bollards or steel tire spikes in public places can stop a vehicular attack but may not entirely prevent one. The recent redesign of Times Square in New York City included 196 bollards, granite benches, and raised granite curb caps to protect the large pedestrian area. Even with the added security, these measures did not thwart an incident there in May 2017. In this attack one person was killed and 20 injured by a vehicle aimed at pedestrians. Officials do agree, though, that these barriers stopped the vehicle from continuing after it hit a bollard, likely saving more from being killed or injured.

Given that vehicular attacks are highly effective in terms of fatalities and injuries, new methods are needed to help identify these threats in advance, allowing law enforcement to thwart vehicular attacks before they occur.

Lumina’s risk sensing capabilities illuminate areas of emergent unrest by monitoring online behavioral patterns consistent with the means and motivation of attack planning. By predictively identifying these online behavioral patterns, Lumina empowers organizations and venues to identify and mitigate potential threats to their physical security.

What We Know About School Shooters Might Help Prevent the Next Attack

What We Know About School Shooters Might Help Prevent the Next Attack

Since 2011, the rate of mass shootings has more than tripled in the United States and schools have frequently been the target. While added physical security measures are a step towards preventing these attacks from happening on campuses, there is more we can do. Identifying a school shooter before their plans turn into action is the best method of prevention.

The FBI has found that for shooters under the age of 18, peers and teachers were more likely to observe concerning behavior than family members. To get more people to report concerning behavior, we have to know what to look out for. Here is what we know about school shooters from the data.

They experience high levels of stress.

A common characteristic found in high risk individuals was the failure to navigate major stressors in their lives. One of the top ranked stressors was mental health (not mental illness) in 62% of those analyzed.

When it comes to providing students with resources for their mental health, most schools are underfunded. Of those analyzed, only 53% of schools reported they provided training on referral strategies for students with signs of mental health disorders. This presents a great area for improvement and could prove to be more effective than physical security measures.

There are other stressors that can be an identified as well. Some of these included “conflict at school”, which was present in 22% of incidents, and conflict with friends or peers which was present in 29% of shooters.

They display concerning behavior.

Most schools fail to observe concerning behaviors or develop intervention strategies if noticed.

First Instance of Concerning Behavior

Figure 9: James Silver, Andre Simons, and Sarah Craun, “A Study of the Pre-Attack Behaviors of Active Shooters in The United States Between 2000 and 2013.

According to the most recent U.S. Department of Education’s Indicators of School Crime and Safety study, only 48% of schools reported providing training on the early warning signs of violent student behaviorYet teachers still observed concerning behavior 75% of the time. Sadly, however, 83% of the time the behavior was only communicated to the shooter, or nothing was done (54%).

These facts bring up many more questions than answers. How risk adverse should administrators be when reporting concerning behavior? How do you report behavior without creating further grievances?  Regardless of your unique approach for your institution and community, the time to be aware, alert, and prepared to act is before an attack not just during and after. 

They plan ahead.

The FBI’s study found that 77% of shooters will take a week or longer to plan their attack, and 46% spend a week or longer preparing. These activities can produce common identifiable behaviors and help raise the red flag.

Time Spent Planning

Figure 6: James Silver, Andre Simons, and Sarah Craun, “A Study of the Pre-Attack Behaviors of Active Shooters in The United States Between 2000 and 2013.

They leak information.

An information leak by the potential shooter is another commonly observed behavior. In fact, it was found that they leaked their intentions about 56% of the time.

A good majority of these information leaks take place in a student or employee’s digital lives. These online leaks often go unnoticed or unheard by those who could potentially intervene. This brings to light the importance of taking what individuals say, even if online, seriously.

Yet, only 6% of schools reported that staff resources were used to address cyberbullying. Shockingly, only 12% of schools reported that cyberbullying happened at least once a week at school or away, which either reflects underreporting, schools are under-resourced in monitoring and addressing the issue, or that many school are oblivious to the problem.

They target familiar places.

A known connection to the location of the attack is another factor that comes into play. In 73% of cases the shooter had a known connection to the location of attack. Almost all perpetrators under 18 (88%) targeted a school or a former school.

Venn diagram of relationship between random and targeted victims

Figure 6: James Silver, Andre Simons, and Sarah Craun, “A Study of the Pre-Attack Behaviors of Active Shooters in The United States Between 2000 and 2013.

Looking into this further, in 64% of cases, at least one victim was specifically targeted by the shooter. In cases where a primary grievance could be identified, the most common was adverse interpersonal action against the shooter. This means that shooters commonly target individuals they have grievances with: students, teacher, or administration.

Identifying a potential shooter before an incident can be the difference between a life and death situation. With the use of predictive analytics, the potential to identify these patterns is more advanced than ever. School shootings and school security have been under-researched for decades. Lumina Analytics has been building and perfecting these exact technological tools to help keep schools safe.