A model for assessment and mitigation of threats on the college campus
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111102072 |
| Published date | 01 February 2011 |
| Date | 01 February 2011 |
| Pages | 76-94 |
| Author | Eileen Weisenbach Keller,Stephanie Hughes,Giles Hertz |
| Subject Matter | Education |
A model for assessment and
mitigation of threats on the
college campus
Eileen Weisenbach Keller and Stephanie Hughes
Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, Kentucky, USA, and
Giles Hertz
The University of Tampa, Tampa, Florida, USA
Abstract
Purpose – An increase in the number of disruptive and violent events on college and university
campuses instigated this review of the methods used to interrupt the trend, with the goal of identifying
a preliminary model for systematic management of such threats. The intent is to instigate research,
review and discussion in order to decrease the number and severity of threatening incidents on college
campuses.
Design/methodology/approach – Thorough review of plans from primary and secondary
education, plans in use in higher education, literature on risk and threat assessment, literature on
“whistle blowers”, and of violent events on college campuses was used to construct a model.
Findings – It was found that, in terms of managing and reducing threats to people who study, live
and work in post-secondary educational institutions, insufficient attention has been given to the
unique needs of this setting and therefore efforts to mitigate threats have been insufficient. The
investigation resulted in the development of a model of assessment and management of threats on
university and college campuses.
Research limitations/implications – College campus threat assessment research is very much in
its infancy and will certainly develop over time. This paper is the first step in an effort to develop and
ultimately test the plausibility of a model. Future research should be pursued to determinewhether the
model holds up under a majority of situations on college campuses. Those involved in threat
mitigation in university settings should be queried to determine their agreement with the proposed
framework and for assistance in refining it.
Originality/value – This paper presents suggestions for the systematic management of threats and
mitigation in university settings.
Keywords Violence, Individualbehaviour, Universities, Management techniques
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
There has been a surge of violent events on college campuses in recent years despite
efforts to incorporate more aggressive risk mitigation techniques such as background
checks, the hiring of additional campus police, and emergency notification tools. While
most university administrators will agree that these tools have certainly helped reduce
risk at some level, there is a general perception that these tools have done little to
reduce the volume of disruptive or potentially alarming behavior being reported to
campus administrators. In fact, many campus administrators believe that these
incidents are increasing due to a number of complex factors. These factors include the
increase in students with significant mental health issues who are now able to attend
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
JEA
49,1
76
Received January 2010
Revised March 2010
Accepted May 2010
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 49 No. 1, 2011
pp. 76-94
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/09578231111102072
college due to increases in pharmacological treatment and therapy, the issue of
returning veterans on campuses attempting to reintegrate into society, and the
increased pressures resulting from the difficult economic conditions being experienced
by students and their families along with the host of everyday pressures normally
experienced by this age demographic.
While student-initiated violence represents one end of the continuum, issues
involving faculty and staff are equally threatening to the wellbeing of the educational
environment. Cases implicating both faculty and staff members at educational
institutions ranging from sexual misconduct to murder suggest that the problem of
violent or inappropriate behavior is an organization-wide phenomenon going well
beyond the student population in both its reach and magnitude.
Despite the proliferation of guns and violence and the publicity surrounding violent
events in the USA, the issue of campus violence is not just an “American” matter. For
example, in 2007, a 20-year-old student shot and killed nine students at a vocational
college in Kauhajok, Finland (PoliceOne.com, 2007), while in 2008, a 22-year-old
student at another vocational school in Finland killed ten students before turning the
gun on himself (The Telegraph, 2008). In both of these assaults, the gunmen had
previously posted YouTube videos describing what they intended to do ahead of the
actual shootings. More recently, in 2009, a 17-year-old student in Winnedun, Germany
killed 16 fellow students and then killed himself after a shootout with police (Sky News,
2009). As these accounts demonstrate, crime occurs in a variety of educational
environments regardless of geography. The model proposed in this research is about
identifying a proactive approach to mitigating this type of risk going forward
regardless of location. Initiating the development and discussion of this model of how
teams proactively manage risk in their environments is designed to help prevent many
of these same tragedies on campuses in the future, whether the institutions are located
in the USA or abroad.
What appears to be lacking from this arsenal of tools is a process for both early
detection of individuals who engage in behavior that is either potentially alarming or
threatening and effective intervention before this behavior becomes a high profile,
full-blown crises. While complete analysis of specific accounts is outside the realm of
this paper, it is alleged that in all three instances mentioned above, the shooters had
provided advance warning of their murderous intent through postings on YouTube
and chat rooms. No one who saw those postings took action or tried to warn authorities
ahead of time. The inaction may have been motivated by fear of making a mistake
about the seriousness of the threat, fear of retaliation if identified as an informant or
simply not knowing how to report it or to whom.
On the other hand, in the case of the shootings at Virginia Tech, it is alleged that the
shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, had come to the attention of various authorities for different
types of disruptive behavior a total of 31 separate times before going on his murderous
rampage (Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2007). Recognizing that there is room for
schools to become more proactive in their efforts to uncover potentially disruptive or
disturbed individuals earlier in the investigative process, university and college
administrators have recently begun to implement “threat assessment” or “behavioral
intervention teams”. These teams are intended to address the gaps in communication
and crisis management among administrators that were so readily exposed in the
VirginiaTech tragedy. According tothe Director for the National Behavioral Intervention
Assessment and
mitigation of
threats
77
To continue reading
Request your trial