John Webb

Dear Members of the House Education Policy and Administration Committee, I respectfully oppose HB 1635, which would weaken New Hampshire’s existing suicide prevention education requirements for school employees. I speak as a public citizen of New Hampshire, a licensed high school counselor, and the professional responsible for all safety assessments and the annual “Signs of Suicide” (SOS) training for every student in my high school. My opposition is based on the following evidence- and practice-based concerns: 1. More Frequent and Structured Suicide Prevention Training Saves Lives Research and national standards emphasize the importance of regular, comprehensive training for school staff to recognize, respond to, and refer youth at risk of suicide or self-harm. Consistent training increases adult confidence in identifying warning signs and acting appropriately — which research shows improves referral and safety outcomes. Under existing policy, staff receive training regularly (currently with specified annual minimum hours). HB 1635 would eliminate the annual training requirement and instead spread training over an extended two-year cycle with no minimum hours. This dilutes the frequency and fidelity of suicide prevention education. With suicide now one of the leading causes of death among teens nationally, and youth in New Hampshire experiencing rates of self-harm ideation and attempts higher than many students nationwide, more—not less—educational preparation for staff is crucial. 2. Early Recognition and Response Is Essential In my role: I conduct safety risk assessments when students show signs of emotional distress, suicidal thoughts, or behavior changes. I lead evidence-based SOS training that teaches students to recognize and act upon warning signs in themselves and peers. I work directly with teachers and staff when students exhibit concerning behavior. Effective suicide prevention requires trained adults in every corner of the school environment, not just sporadic or minimal training every two years. With annual and consistent training, staff better retain knowledge and are more prepared to intervene during critical moments. HB 1635’s biennial requirement is insufficient for staff members who shoulder the responsibility of first identifying warning signs and referring students for support. 3. Delay in Training Increases Risk HB 1635 delays essential training to within 30 days of hire and then every two years. This is particularly problematic because: New staff (“within 30 days”) may already be working unsupervised before training, potentially encountering students in crisis without preparation. Suicide risk factors and patterns among youth can evolve rapidly; infrequent training interferes with maintaining current best practices. Annual training ensures up-to-date knowledge, reinforces skills, and aligns staff understanding across the school year. 4. Permitting Self-Training Materials Weakens Standards The bill allows districts to use self-training materials and gives broad discretion on how training is delivered and verified. Without uniform minimum training hours and quality standards: Training can be inconsistent across districts Key topics such as lethality assessment, safety planning, and post-intervention support may be omitted Staff may be unprepared to appropriately and safely respond to real-world risk situations It is not enough to offer training; it must be rigorous, interactive, and consistent with empirical best practices. 5. You Cannot Train Teachers Too Often on Suicide Prevention Schools face real safety challenges every year: Youth experience stressors that can precipitate crises Emotional well-being is deeply connected to academic success and personal safety Staff interact with students daily — often before counselors or mental health professionals By weakening training requirements, HB 1635 moves away from what evidence and suicide prevention experts recommend. Annual training helps adults refresh skills and remain attentive to evolving risk indicators in their students. For these reasons — grounded in both professional practice and student safety outcomes — I urge you to oppose HB 1635 as currently written. Instead, I recommend: ? Maintaining annual minimum training requirements ? Establishing measurable standards of training content ? Ensuring training includes best-practice models (e.g., SOS, QPR, SafeTALK) with evaluation components ? Requiring documentation of training completion and fidelity Ensuring New Hampshire’s school staff are well trained, frequently refreshed, and rigorously prepared is not only best practice — it is essential for protecting the lives and well-being of our students. Respectfully, John G. Webb, M. Ed ; CAGS in Educational Leadership School Assistance Professional Counselor for SAU 19 26 Walker Bungalow Road Portsmouth, NH 03801