“What More Can We Do?”Meaningful Conversations on Crisis Preparation

SACSA Annual ConferenceHilton Head, South Carolina

November 2, 2008C. Ryan Akers, Ph.D.

School of Human SciencesMississippi State University

Goals of the Presentationp To provide a forum for discussing specific critical incident and crisis

preparation strategies and to share collegial advice.

p To illustrate research findings that suggest common and exemplary preparation strategies and initiatives.

p To promote a growing list of valuable critical incident and crisis preparation resources available to SA administrators.

p Disclaimer (New Program vs. Dissertation Program):

n To discuss the context, data collection/analysis, and findings of a mixed methods dissertation that analyzed components of institutional crisis response plans.

p Akers, C. R. (2008). Evolution of emergency operations strategies: Structure and process of crisis response in college student affairs. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68 (12). (UMI Proquest No. 1453185051).

Review of the Problemp Due to recent campus tragedies and a post-9/11 world, university officials

are reviewing and placing a stronger emphasis on how to develop and implement their crisis response procedures and protocols.

p Categories of Crises (Zdziarski, 2001).n Natural crises (abnormal weather patterns);n Facility crises (threats of damage or actual damage to campus buildings);n Criminal crises (violent acts or threats inflicted on an individual or property by

another individual or group of individuals);n Human crises (accidental injuries and deaths, substance abuse, simple campus

protests, natural deaths, etc.)

p All occur across our campuses each year, threatening the stability and mission of our institutions.

Recent Examplesp Texas A&M Universityp UNC - Chapel Hill (1996)p Seton Hall Universityp U. of Wyomingp U. of Georgiap U. of Pennsylvaniap U. of Arizonap Catawba Collegep U. of Floridap U. of Texasp Dartmouth Collegep Delaware Statep Union University p NYU, CUNY, St. John’sp GW, Georgetown, Howard

p Dawson Collegep Duquesne Universityp U. of Arkansasp U. of Idahop U. of Mississippip Harvard University, MITp Colorado State Universityp Cal State - Northridgep Tulane, Southern, UNO, Xavier, etc.p Virginia Techp Duke Universityp UNC - Chapel Hill (2008)p Auburn Universityp U. of Central Arkansas

Definition of Termsp Crisis:

n “a traumatic event that seriously disrupts our coping and problem-solving abilities. It is typically unpredicted, volatile in nature and may even threaten our survival. A crisis can present a drastic and tragic change in our environment. This change is generally unwanted and frightening, and may leave us with a sense of vulnerability and helplessness” (Lerner, Volpe, & Lindell, 2004, p. 9).

n Zdziarski (2006) defined crisis as “an event, often sudden or unexpected, that disrupts the normal operations of the institution or its educational mission and threatens the well-being of personnel, property, financial resources, and/or reputation of the institution” (p. 5).

Definition of Termsp Crisis Response Plan (CRP) - (Lerner, Volpe, & Lindell, 2004)

n Series of actions and protocols taken by an institution in preparation for and reaction to a crisis on campus.

p CRP Structure - (Lerner, Volpe, & Lindell, 2004)n Focuses on the structural elements of a CRP.n Provides the formal written plan, preparation, training, assessment, and

services/programs provided to constituents in times of crises.

p CRP Process - (Lerner, Volpe, & Lindell, 2004)n Focuses on the emotional effects of a crisis.n Provides immediate and continued assistance to those individuals involved in

the crisis.

Purpose of the Dissertation Studyp To analyze the crisis response policies, strategies, and programs of different

types of institutions and to explore which elements of structure and process are and are not being implemented across different types of institutions.

n 7 Dichotomies of Typen Analysis of Student Enrollment Sizen Analysis of Geographic Location

p The study was also developed to add to considerable gaps in research and empirical studies related to crisis response on college and university campuses.

Dissertation Research Questions 1-4p Definition: What constitutes a crisis from the perspective of the institution and

from the division of student affairs, according to institutional policy?

p Preparation: Who is involved in the development and process of crisis response protocols and how do institutions prepare themselves for crisis response?

p Needs Assessment/Response: Whose needs are being met in times of crisis and what are these needs? How are these needs being addressed?

p Evaluation: How are crisis response protocols evaluated and improved?

Dissertation Research Questions 5-7p Type Influence: Does type of institution influence crisis response on campus?

p Size Influence: Does the size of the institution based on student enrollment influence crisis response on campus?

p Location Influence: Does the geographic location of the institution influence crisis response on campus?

n Analyses:p Quantitative Analyses:

§ t-Tests of Independent Meansp Qualitative Analyses for Consistent Patterns and Themesp Horizontalization and Synthesis

RQ5: Findings (Institutional Type)

RQ6: Findings (Institutional Size)

RQ7: Findings (Geographic Location)

RQ7: Findings (Geographic Location)

Participating Institutions (n= 51)p The primary goal was to secure participation from a

manageable sample of institutions with the following characteristics:

n Public (32); Private (19)n Commuter (18); Residential (33)n Two-Year (3); Four-Year (48)n HBCU (4); PWI (47)n Liberal Arts (4); Non-Liberal Arts (47)n Land Grants (15); Non-Land Grants (36)n Religiously Affiliated (11); Non-Religiously Affiliated (40)n Very Small/Small (9); Medium (7); Large (14); Very Large (21)n Rural (6); Suburban (18); Urban (27)

Participant Demographics (n= 51)p Arkansas (1)p Arizona (1)p California (4)p Florida (9)p Georgia (8)p Iowa (1)p Kansas (1)p Louisiana (4)p Massachusetts (1)p Mississippi (5)p Nebraska (1)

p New Jersey (2)p New York (2)p North Carolina (3)p Ohio (1)p Oklahoma (1)p South Carolina (1)p Texas (2)p Washington (1)p Washington, DC (1)p Wyoming (1)

Participant Demographics (n= 51)

Data Collection – Mixed Methodsp 114-item Crisis Response Survey

n Definitionn Structure

p Organizationp Education, Preparation, Trainingp Assessment/Evaluationp Memorials

n Processp Response

n Structure and Processp Communication and

Collaboration

p Likert Scalep Return Rate: 94.44% (51 of 54)

p 51 Qualitative Interviewsn Conducted via telephone over 18

daysp Structure, Process, and

Structure/Processn Initial Point of Entry – CSAOn Average Interview - ~37 minutes

p 86 minutes – longest interviewp 16 minutes – shortest interview

n Data transcribed, coded, and analyzed

n Member checks, peer reviews

Research Question 1p What constitutes a crisis from the perspective of the institution

and from the division of student affairs, according to institutional policy?

n Analysis:p Qualitative Analysis for Consistent Patterns and Themesp Horizontalization and Synthesis

Research Question 1: Findings

Research Question 1: Discussionp Critical Points to Examine:

n Exceptions to the Rule: Very small/small institutions in many cases.

n Even minor student emergencies can escalate quickly without efficient recognition and response.

n Response to Primary victims AND Secondary victims

Research Question 2p Who is involved in the development and process of crisis

response protocols and how do institutions prepare themselves for crisis response?

n Analysis:p Qualitative Analysis for Consistent Patterns and Themesp Horizontalization and Synthesisp Surveys and Interviews

Research Question 2: Findings

Research Question 2: Findings

RQ2: “What More Can We Do?”p How are you preparing your campus and community for crises

and critical incidents? What strategies/initiatives/relationships have been beneficial? What more can we do?

p Membership and Preparation of CRT varies across institutionsn Each institution is unique and has its own needs (Coastal Institutions).

n Training is largely decentralized and varies from department to department.

n Majority suggested that this aspect of the CRP needed to be improved.p Frequent training exercises;p Opportunities and rewards for continuing education and enhanced communication

and collaboration;p Additional innovative technological advances;p Early preparation and organization

Research Question 3p Whose needs are being met in times of crisis and what are

these needs? How are these needs being addressed?

n Analysis:p Qualitative Analysis for Consistent Patterns and Themesp Horizontalization and Synthesis

Research Question 3: Findings

Research Question 3: Findings

Research Question 3: Findings

Research Question 3: Findings

Research Question 3: Findings

RQ3: “What More Can We Do?”p Are there additional stakeholder groups and/or needs? If so,

who are they, what are their needs, and how are you addressing them? What more can we do?

n In the future, this area will increase in importance.p Media awareness and societal expectations continue to grow in the face of

threats to safety and security.

n The population most often affected is the students.p The need for first responders who understand them is crucial. Who

understands the students the most? The answer is obvious.

n Additional Concerns:p How do institutions of different types, sizes, and locations generate the

funds and resources needed to reach ALL relevant constituent needs?

Research Question 4p How are crisis response protocols evaluated and improved?

n Analysis:p Qualitative Analysis for Consistent Patterns and Themesp Horizontalization and Synthesis

Research Question 4: Findings

RQ4: “What More Can We Do?”p How are your campuses evaluating response plans and efforts?

What more can we do?

n No CRP is complete without the evaluation phase.p Surprising numbers of participants indicated they needed much work.

p Just as evaluation and assessment is a priority in our daily work, so too should it be in the area of crisis response. The potential ramifications are unacceptable.

p Additional Concerns: § Does external evaluation open up the institution to liability concerns?

Beneficial Resourcesp Relevant Literature and Empirical Studies (Books, Reports, etc.)

n In Search of Safer Campuses: Emerging Practices for Student Affairs in Addressing Campus Violence (2008)

n Leadership Exchange: Is Your Campus Ready? Crisis Management in a New Era (2008)n Crisis Communication: A Casebook Approach (2007)n Campus Crisis Management: A Comprehensive Guide to Planning, Prevention,

Response, and Recovery (2007)n Crisis Management: Responding from the Heart (2006)n A Practical Guide for University Crisis Response (2004)n Instilling Principles of Risk Management into the Daily Practice of Student Affairs

(2001)n Campuses Respond to Violent Tragedy (1994)n Coping with the Disruptive College Student (1994)

p Empirical Studiesn Dissertation Studies – Akers (2007); Zdziarski (2001), Hartzog (1981)

Beneficial Resourcesp Professional Associations and Specialized Centers/Communities

n NASPA, ACPA, SACSA, ASJA, ICISF, NEMAn NIMH, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, The Jed Foundation, Ulifelinen National Center for Higher Education Risk Management, National Center for Crisis

Management, Compassion Fatigue Awareness Project, American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress

n College & University Disaster Assessment Research Center, US DOE Higher Education Center for Emergency Preparedness, FEMA, DHS

n NASPA Campus Safety Knowledge Community

p Specific Institutional Reports and Initiativesn Student Involvement: Ready Campusn Virginia Tech: Campus Shootings Report, Faculty/Staff Guidelines, Safe Watch n Tulane: Post Katrina Reportn Texas A&M: Bonfire Reportn Drills: UNC- Greensboro I, UNC-Greensboro II (Caution: Sensitive Nature)n Memorials: Virginia Tech, Texas A&M, Northern Illinois

Beneficial Resourcesp Daily Updates (Incidents, Legislation, Response)

n Chronicle, FEMA/EMI, CDC, Red Cross, Professional Association Listservs

p Conference Attendance and Past Presentationsn SACSA, NASPA, ACPA, ASJA, ICISF, College Security Central, National Student

Safety and Security, Emergency Management Higher Education Conference

p Certification Programs and Professional Development/Consultingn FEMA EMI ; FEMA/EMI Courses and Independent Study (ex. ICS)n Higher Education Degree and Certification Programs (ex. UNC-Chapel Hill)n Short Term Certification Programs (ex. Harvard University, ICISF) n Higher Ed Hero; Paper Clip Communications

p Annotated Bibliographies and Additional Referencesn Bibliography: Crisis in Higher Education and Student Affairs (Elkins & Pasque, 2008)n Additional Research Centers: (Harvard University; APA Help Center; National Center

for Disaster Preparedness; FEMA HE Articles; National Clearinghouse for Ed. Facilities)

Implications for Student Affairs (SA)p SA Must Respond to Institutional Needs AND Constituent Needs

n Zdziarski (2007) stated “the impact of crises on the facilities and the institutions’ ability to accomplish their educational mission must be addressed, but it is the human side of the equation that begs our attention as educators committed to serving our communities” (p. 3).

p SA Must Embrace New Responsibilitiesn In addition to traditional responsibilities, the increasing risk of terrorists threats,

inclement weather, and events similar to Virginia Tech, divisions of student affairs play significant roles in response and recovery efforts.

p SA Must Recognize Institutional Type, Size, and Location Influencen Administrators must recognize characteristics and develop plans accordingly.n Accentuate the positives and limit the negatives.

Implications for Student Affairs (SA)p SA Must Identify the Needs of Entire Community

n Student affairs practitioners, administrators, and faculty must recognize that they all have some degree of responsibility to address the needs of the entire campus community and even beyond if the situation warrants such a response.

p SA Must Understand Structure and Processn Communication and collaboration lapses can severely limit efficient responses.

p SA Must Practice Efficient Evaluationn An efficient and continuous evaluation of all crisis response protocols is an

absolute necessity in order for campuses to continue to provide the assistance that is expected and required of them.

Next? Areas of Future Researchp Specific Campus Safety Features; Evacuation, Lockdown, and Sheltering

p Real Time Communication, Technology/Communication Systems, ICS Use

p External Resource Allocation & Partnerships, Resource Management

p Mitigation, Preparation, Response, Recovery, Assessment; Drills

p Behavioral and Threat Assessment Teams, Coordination

p Information Disclosure, Media Relations

p Emergency Response Team Role Clarification, Training, Certification

p Student Volunteerism and Service Learning Opportunities

p Faculty Education and Workshops on Student Behavior

p Privacy vs. Duty to Warn – FERPA, HIPAA, College Application Scrutiny

Next? Contributions to the Fieldp Dynamic Threat Assessment Profile

n Campus Groundsn Computer Infrastructuren Students and Staffn Academic Buildingsn Residence Hallsn Sporting Venues

p “Ready Campus” or Related Organizationp Certification and Trainingp Crisis Management/Service Learning Course Developmentp Video Game Training/Virtual Simulationp Biological and Chemical Threat Assessment

Questions or Comments

p Thank You!!!

p C. Ryan Akers, Ph.D.School of Human SciencesMississippi State Universitycakers@humansci.msstate.edu