According to higher education policy experts, “Campus threat assessment is not merely a recommendation, but an emerging standard of care.” However, despite evidence of the emergence of this standard and the consistency of recommendations that comport with those made by the Virginia Tech Review Panel, college campuses continue to vary significantly in their approaches to threat-assessment protocols. This study examines the extent to which campuses in the state of Illinois do vary and seeks to understand better the reasons for that variation. This research also examines the status of threat-assessment policies and protocols being conducted on three campuses and how the implementation of recommendations that followed Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois shootings have contributed to the creation of more optimally safe campuses. The study also examines the prevalence and consistency of the barriers that impede institutional efforts to detect and mitigate campus threats of violence.
Research sites included Northern Illinois University, where an incident of violence occurred in 2008, and the University of Illinois–Chicago and Illinois State University, where an incident of such magnitude has not yet occurred. The findings suggest that in states where the implementation of threat-assessment protocols and policies has been mandated by state law, campus leaders perceive these required measures to increase the preparedness of the campus environment. The research also suggests that even in Illinois, a state where such policy schemes are mandated, variation in the application of these policies and protocols persists. Findings suggest that even in states where policies are legislatively mandated, campuses continue to experience barriers to full implementation of recommendations that might lead to greater preparedness, including ambiguity regarding how best to balance the obligation to protect individual privacy and community security and to address self-harming behaviors and suicidality, the limited utility in zero-tolerance standards, institutional constraints in policy adoption and participation by the campus community, and insufficient dedication of institutional funding and support. The most significant barrier, however, was the unrealistic expectation that campus personnel be able to predict future behavior and events.
|Commitee:||Armacost, Mary-Linda, LaBanc, Brandi H.|
|School:||University of Pennsylvania|
|Department:||Higher Education Management|
|School Location:||United States -- Pennsylvania|
|Source:||DAI-A 79/01(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Higher Education Administration, Educational administration|
|Keywords:||Mitigation, Prevention, Risk, Threat-assessment, Violence|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be