Chapter 2
Preparedness Triggers
What triggers a college or university to step up its emergency preparedness? Most colleges and universities have some sort of an emergency preparedness plan. It is safe to say that they are not all created equally. This chapter looks at areas that are sometimes overlooked when managing campus threats and crises.
Granted this is a developing area of practice due to the ever-increasing number of both human-made emergency events and natural disasters affecting colleges. And because of this, higher education administrators must include preparedness planning on their agendas. Why? Because parents and students expect the college to not only educate but also keep their children safe whether they are in a classroom, residence hall, library, office building— or anywhere on campus. The expectation of parents and students is that the highest level of safety and security is in place at the educational institution that their child is attending. Not only should educational institutions be concerned about maintaining a safe environment, but they also need to be concerned about legal action which can be taken against them by a victim or victim’s family.
Employees, too, expect their workplace to be a safe environment. If your campus cannot keep everyone safe, you will not be able to sustain your enrollment of students and retention of faculty, staff, and administrators. Adverse legal actions can alter the perception of any school’s environment and can affect its ability to recruit faculty, staff, and students. Trump (2000) proposes that the prevention of legal actions and fiscal repercussions should be motivators for engaging in emergency preparedness. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 2003) states, “losses could (be)… substantially reduced or eliminated through comprehensive pre-disaster planning and mitigation actions” (p. iii). So whether the impetus is safety, enrollment, fiscal soundness, being litigation-free, or continuity of business, attention must be stepped up in risk management and emergency preparedness at every campus across the nation.
Trump (2000) states that the “tendency to react rather than act is a national trait” (p. 29) and that “educators…tend to forget about the importance of security and crisis preparation until there is a high-profile incident or series of incidents” (p. XIV). As a result, after each high-profile event or series of incidents occurs, studies are done and papers are produced, each aiming to answer questions such as: Why did this event occur? And, what can we learn from this event to prevent it from occurring again or lessen its effects? This chapter looks at items from this body of knowledge to assist campus administrators examine some preparedness triggers and become more proactive in emergency preparedness.
Changes to Protocol and Procedure as a Result of Acts of Violence
The Virginia Tech tragedy of April 2007 left 32 people dead when one emotionally disturbed student went on a rampage and exposed problems in emergency response at that college campus. Following the Virginia Tech tragedy, President George W. Bush directed investigators to find out “how the federal government can help avoid such tragedies in the future” (p. 1). In June 2007, a coauthored “Report to the President—On Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy” was released by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Education. The research team investigated whether federal laws were an impediment for an institution to proactively conduct emergency and crisis operations. They spoke with educators, mental health providers, and law enforcement officials. Their key findings were as follows: critical information sharing faces substantial obstacles, accurate and complete information on individuals prohibited from possessing firearms is essential to keep guns out of the wrong hands, and improved awareness and communication are key to prevention and it is critical to get people with mental illness the services they need (Leavitt, Spellings, & Gonzales, 2007). We know what to do, we just have to be better at doing it.
The study also found flaws in the interpretation by college and university personnel of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which was intended to protect the privacy of PK–16 students, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which protects personal health information. As detailed in Balancing Student Privacy and School Safety: A Guide to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act for Colleges and Universities, the intention of FERPA, a federal law, is to protect the privacy of student education records. FERPA provides parents of children under the age of 18 the opportunity to review and correct their children’s education records. Once a student reaches the age of 18, he or she becomes responsible for monitoring their educational records. College and university officials typically only looked at the age of the student and often chose not to inform parents in fear of FERPA violations when a student infraction arose. However, FERPA does permit any college or university to contact parents to inform them of situations regarding the health and safety of their children, even if they are over the age of 18. Regarding HIPAA, as per the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the entities that must abide by HIPAA are health plans, health-care providers, and health-care clearinghouses, not schools, employers, or law enforcement agencies.
Not only did the study find that communication between colleges and universities and the home need to be improved, but there was also a need for improved communication between colleges/universities and medical facilities and law enforcement, especially in cases where it was indicated that particular students posed a threat to the community. A recommended federal action is that “the U.S. Department of Education should ensure that its emergency management grantees and state and local communities receive training through the program, and have clear guidance on the sharing of information as it relates to educational records and FERPA” (Leavitt et al., 2007, p. 8).
How does your campus manage information about campus community members involving mental health care and law enforcement? Has your faculty and staff had recent training on FERPA compliance?
Following the Virginia Tech tragedy, Rasmussen and Johnson (2008) conducted a nationwide survey of colleges and universities to assess how this event affected campus safety practices. Rasmussen and Johnson (2008) found that changes were made at colleges and universities across the country following the Virginia Tech incident in a number of areas, including emergency notification systems; training and protocols for identifying and reporting disturbing or threatening student behavior; fiscal and staff resources devoted to campus safety; security enhancement systems and equipment; screening of applicants for admission and employment; and policies and protocols related to student mental health.
Yet even after the studies and reports and the upgrades to procedures and protocols, the murders on campuses continue. Two murders have occurred at Virginia Tech since the April 16, 2007, massacre; in 2009, an international student was decapitated with a kitchen knife by another international student, and in 2011 a Virginia Tech police officer was shot to death by a student from another college in a parking lot of Virginia Tech. In 2011, two students were shot to death in a campus garage at San Jose State University by a fellow student who then killed himself. In 2008, 5 students were shot to death and another 17 wounded at Northern Illinois University; and at Louisiana Technical College, a student shot two classmates to death and then turned the gun on herself. In 2007, two students were shot and wounded at Delaware State University. The killers are not always students or former students. In 2010, at Ohio State University, an employee who received an unsatisfactory personnel performance shot and killed two fellow employees; and at the University of Alabama–Huntsville a professor shot and killed three colleagues and injured another three at a faculty meeting.
Which strategy should a campus employ to prevent these types of murders? While individually each emergency preparedness practice has value, the greatest value comes from a comprehensive integration of multiple strategies with more resources deployed on the front end for prevention and mitigation emergency preparedness. Brett Sokolow, JD, the founder of the National Council for Higher Education Risk Management (NCHERM), is a strong proponent of proactive prevention measures. He is in favor of criminal background checks and secondary screenings for college applicants. However, Sokolow, Lewis, and Schuster (2010) suggest that “most campus violence is perpetrated by individuals whose criminal backgrounds would not indicate a potential for the violence to come.” Recommendations include adding a list of questions to the Admissions Screening process. If an applicant answers “Yes” to any of the questions then the college/university should proceed with a criminal background check and secondary screening. Answering these questions falsely would be grounds for dismissal. Sokolow and Lewis (2009) recommend using “trained members of the campus Behavioral Intervention Team (BIT) proficient in assessment of the potential for violence and threat, and have the right skill set to determine who is an eligible applicant and what restrictions or conditions on admission should be imposed.” Rather than spending time and energy on the latest knee-jerk reaction to crime on campus, Sokolow’s team at NCHERM teaches campus administrators how to instill a campus culture of reporting with the institution of a campus BIT. The NCHERM team advises campuses on how to train all factions of the campus community and the community-at-large to look for red flags among campus community members and arm them with what should be reported, to whom, when, and how. Recommendations include tying training and reporting to compliance policies, procedures, and protocols that reflect the best practices.
What changes has your campus made to its emergency preparedness procedures as a result of the massacres at Virginia Tech in 2007? Does your campus perform student, staff, and faculty background checks? Is there a BIT in place?
Changes to Protocol and Procedure as a Result of Natural Events
In addition to murders, natural events need to be included in a college/university emergency preparedness plan. In October 2012, Hurricane Sandy struck the east coast of the United States. Colleges and universities were forced to remain closed after the storm passed due to flooding, structural damage to campus facilities, and loss of electricity on campus and throughout the region. Public transportation, including the New York City subway system, was seriously compromised due to flooding, which significantly affected transportation to and from New York City campuses. DeSantis (2012) reported that the timing of this storm affected the early application process. Early admission deadlines were postponed by many colleges to accommodate students, schools, and counselors affected by Hurricane Sandy. Additionally, campuses of the City University of New York as well as Rutgers University served as shelters for the homeless.
Social media played a significant role in colleges and universities keeping in contact with their students, staff, and faculty before, during, and after the storm. Some colleges and universities used the Internet to connect with students, faculty, and staff. Assignments, course materials, and other resources were accessible for those who had connectivity. Quite a different story than the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, which crippled colleges and universities across the Gulf Coast, displacing thousands of students, faculty, staff, and administrators at most institutions for at least the entire fall 2005 semester. Because of the long-term closures in 2005, colleges and universities additionally were dealing with breaches in faculty personnel policies. Robert O’Neill of the Association of Governing Boards recalls in Faculty Personnel Policies—Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Disaster in New Orleans, (2003) “The devastation that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita inflicted upon the universities of New Orleans in late August, 2005, is undoubtedly the most serious disruption of American higher education in the nation’s history.” This was not the first or last time that college facilities would be destroyed and academic programs halted for substantial periods. However, the difference with Katrina is that it “destroyed an entire community, not only depriving the affected institutions of usable facilities, but also depleting severely the student populations, leaving faculty and staff without homes, teaching hospitals without critical equipment and patients, and so on through an unprecedented litany of woes.” Just one of the many recommendations to come from the American Association of University Professors (AAUP, 2011) report was that “disaster plan(s) should specify the steps that might become prudent or even unavoidable in the event of a prolonged inability of the institution to function.”
In addition to your campus plans that address temporary loss of functionality of the campus, does your plan address long-term strategies? Does your campus plan address personnel policies, including contingencies for a long-term campus closure or termination of a program due to lack of students or facilities following a man-made or natural disaster?
Changes to Protocol and Procedure to Enhance Cyber Security
If your emergency management team has not considered data loss as a threat, it isn’t prepared. The purpose of a cyber attack is to disrupt your network. Cyber events can affect multiple areas of your campus not just what you typically think of as a computer event. Cyber events can be very fast moving. Sophisticated adversaries have the capability to change their attack plans multiple times a day.
If your university network is wide open, it is subject to hacking, making confidential student and employee records vulnerable. College and university mainframes host a myriad of data critical to maintaining the business aspects of education, including budgets, planning, financial and operational data, human resources, payroll, requisitions, and purchasing information. The mainframe holds student, staff, and faculty protected personal information, course schedules, grades, and information that falls under the HIPAA requirements. Social security numbers alone are highly sought after on the black market. All of these data are regulated to be securely stored.
You must consider that at some time your system is going to fail at some level. Security breaches originate from internal as well as from external sources. Savvy students have covertly installed programs to record keystrokes to gain access to user accounts to change grades and/or inserted code to corrupt data. Not only do these attacks need to be thwarted but mitigation strategies also need to be developed. Encoding can help to minimize these breaches; however, this should not be the only line of defense as a more sophisticated attack would need more sophisticated mitigation strategies in place.
While many colleges have the resources to provide a robust IT team to manage the ever-increasing responsibilities of the information systems, many do not. Many colleges have no security architecture, providing an open door for data to be compromised. Resources are not allocated to replace antiquated operating systems, and IT personnel are not trained in cyber security measures, nor are they included on the emergency planning team.
The IT team should allocate time to exercise the What ifs and devise strategies to overcome possible challenges. The purpose of an exercise is to test your plans, raise questions for discussion, and figure out how to continue your operation if a certain threat, hazard, or critical event occurs at your campus. Colleges and universities most frequently test their evacuation plans and most recently have added shelter-in-place and active shooter to their repertoire of exercises. Low on the exercise list but very high on the list of possible events is data loss.
If your campus does not have a cyber security coordinator on staff, find outside resources now to help your team think through the potential challenges and position your campus for a successful defense. The role of the cyber security coordinator is to protect your critical infrastructure by securing the network, be the lead in incident response and information sharing, engage the campus in shaping the future by providing training and exercises to ensure that your entire campus network is safeguarded.
As part of the emergency preparedness team, the cyber security coordinator should be positioned in the emergency operations center, not in a remote location! All emergency management team members need to know IT terminology, and all IT team members need to have command of Internet connection sharing (ICS) principles before an event occurs.
As for accessing critical data when the campus is uninhabitable, some institutions are using cloud services. Using the cloud is proving beneficial for not only e-mail storage but also for data security and meeting HIPAA requirements. Data can be accessed from remote locations, an asset when student records and employee payroll systems need to be retrieved.
Breakdowns in cyber security affect confidence in the college or university, which negatively affects student, staff, and faculty retention, as well as security, privacy, and other mandated regulatory requirements.
What safeguards does your campus have in place to mitigate a cyber event? Is there a cyber security coordinator on your emergency preparedness team? Is there training for students, staff, and faculty on best practices for keeping your network safe? Who has access to your computer labs, the network? Is a current student/staff/faculty ID required to gain access? Is it a card swipe system or just flash the card at the attendant? What is your communications system for alerting the campus that a cyber event has occurred?
Changes to Protocol and Procedure to Integrate Social Media
College campuses use a variety of methods to communicate emergency messages to the community. This may include mass emergency alert systems, sirens, public address, web pages, building captains, and residence hall assistants. However, if your emergency preparedness team is not keeping abreast of the latest social media platforms and integrating them into its communications strategies, it is missing an opportunity to reach a wider audience.
The old paradigm for information sharing was that it was received at specific intervals with an occasional special broadcast of breaking news. The morning and evening news, radio broadcasts, and daily newspapers were the mediums. On campuses, breaking news is released from a well-crafted statement by the administration after consultation with the public relations department via website postings and one-way mass broadcast systems. Today’s paradigm demands that information be shared as events are occurring and in the arena of emergency management, ample notification and preparedness be built into the communications system. Social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, provide opportunities to deliver news and information as it is occurring using a two-way model. Information that is hours old may not be accurate by the time it is received.
Most colleges have a webpage dedicated to emergency preparedness. It is often filled with facts, phone numbers, and protocols of what to do in the event of an emergency. It is normally static and very often has not been updated recently. If you look at college websites for emergency plans, you will discover that there is no universal format being used across the sites. At some locations, there are full emergency plans on the home page; others have an array of fact sheets with instructions of what to do should a particular event be occurring on campus. How many students actually read them? How many faculty and staff take the time to seek out this information? Unless there is an impending event and specific direction from administration telling the community to familiarize themselves with the information, what is the incentive to read it? As a society we tend to be more reactionary than proactive, especially in the area of emergency management. Why is there not full adaption of social media from colleges and universities? College administrators need to gain an understanding of these new technologies, how they work, and who is using them as this is critical for campus emergency planners. Social media as a component of the campus emergency preparedness plan needs to become a priority.
Following the Virginia Tech tragedy, federal law mandated that all campuses must have mass notification systems in place and that they be tested annually. Mass notification systems are used to announce and provide guidance in an emergency or critical incident and to communicate relevant updates. Mass notification systems push information regarding campus emergencies, natural disasters, and inclement weather closings to the campus community through landline phones, cell phones, text messages, and e-mail. Campuses use one of two methods for capturing contact information of students, staff, and faculty. Depending on the operating system and campus policies, students, staff, and faculty choose the opt-in and opt-out methods. The opt-in method relies on the student, staff, and faculty members to input their contact information into the mass notification system, while the second automatically inputs contact information such as name and campus e-mail and puts the onus of removing information from the system on the individual who chooses not to receive emergency messages. Both systems do require users to update their information as it changes, most frequently this will be cell phone numbers and non-campus e-mail addresses. Campuses are urged to use the mass notification system only to transmit critical information, not general news as this will dilute its effectiveness during an actual emergency.
During an emergency when multitudes of users are all trying to make phone calls at the same time, it can be difficult for mass notification phone messages to be delivered. Since texting uses less bandwidth than phone lines in such situations, it has proven to be the preferred method of communication. Such was the case in lower Manhattan following Hurricane Sandy in October 2012. Students, staff, and faculty from the Metropolitan College of New York (MCNY) were unable to return to campus for 1 week. The New York City subway system, the main transportation route to reach campus, was crippled by floodwaters that had filled the subway stations with over 12 feet of water and there was no electricity in downtown Manhattan, throughout the city, and in many surrounding towns in New York and New Jersey. MCNY had an emergency preparedness plan in place. It called for mass notification messages to be sent out to students. Texting emergency closure messages proved to be the only method that worked, and this was only after Vinton Thompson, president of the college, could locate a hot spot from which to transmit the message!
While mass notification systems have the ability to quickly pass on emergency information to a targeted group of individuals on campus, they are only as good as the people who manage their use. Notification delays have occurred because of a human factor. Perhaps there is confusion as to who has authority to release a mass notification message. Or there is a directive for a message to be crafted and there is confusion as to what should be said. Mass notification systems are important pieces of the campus emergency communications system; however, it must be recognized that they are one-way streets dependent on one person or a small team of administrators crafting and releasing a message for the community. How many campus emergency plans actually test the ability of the mass notification message to be constructed and released within a pre-determined acceptable time? And how many evaluate and take into consideration what is an acceptable notification lag time? Campus mass notification systems do not have the capacity to receive on the ground information from those across the campus with their ear to the ground.
Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook can manage the lag time of many campus cumbersome administrative processes for identifying what has occurred, verifying the event, crafting the message, and then releasing the message. It is probable that every person on your campus is carrying a portable mobile device prior to, during, and after an emergency event. It is entirely possible that most of them will be using these devices to capture some aspect of an emergency event with these devices. They may be sending photos, texting, Tweeting, Periscoping, and calling friends and family. By March 2, 2013, there were 1.06 billion active monthly users of Facebook, 680 million mobile users, and 500 million Twitter total users and more than 200 million active Twitter users. These widely used technologies stress the importance for college and university emergency planners to address how to best integrate social media into a campus emergency plan. Students, staff, and faculty triangulating events can capture eyewitness data, which ultimately results in validated data. Social media is about the community talking to each other to keep them up to date with what is occurring.
Social media can be used throughout the emergency management cycle. YouTube videos that demonstrate a safety practice are particularly useful in the preparation phase. Emergency managers can maximize utilization of social media by pushing out information to personal mobile devices via text messaging and Twitter during both the response and recovery phases. You can ask for assistance from your followers in identifying campus community needs. In the recovery phase, you could ask questions of your followers. How are they managing following whatever the event was that took place?
What if an emergency event occurs at your campus and there are folks there who are not connected to your emergency alert mass notification system and you need to get a message out to them? Did you know that they can receive your emergency procedures on their phone via Twitter Fast Follow without them actually being a Twitter account holder? Say for instance, an emergency occurred at a huge event where people who are not connected to the emergency alert system are attending. Maybe it is a graduation that was scheduled for the great lawn and a sudden thunderstorm is causing your ceremony to be delayed. An announcement is made from the podium regarding the rain delay, telling the guests to reconvene in an hour after the storm passes. The guests are asked to find shelter around campus in any open building. An hour passes but the storm has not. Administration makes a last minute decision to hold graduation in the gym. How do you get the message out to the guests who are scattered around the campus that the graduation location and start time have been changed? What if the message at the podium as the rain clouds were approaching included a Twitter Fast Follow direction that told the guests that if they texted “follow SCHOOL NAME” to 40404, they would be kept abreast of when and where the graduation would reconvene? Someone at the school designated as the Public Information Officer (PIO) would then manage messages to the guests regarding what to do, which would greatly decrease the anxiety and apprehension of parents, family, and other guests about the graduation ceremony. Twitter Fast Follow could be built into the emergency plans for sporting events or concerts or any gathering of people who are not connected to the campus emergency alert system. As part of the protocol, guests would know at the beginning of the event that should an emergency occur, they can text “follow SCHOOL NAME” to 40404 to be kept abreast of emergency directions. This information could be relayed to guests either from an announcement at the beginning of the event, a printed message in the event bulletin, or the instructions to text “follow SCHOOL NAME” to 40404 could even be printed on admission tickets.
Twitter, as well as Facebook, when integrated into a campus emergency management plan can add a vital component for open, continuous communication flow, which contributes to ongoing situational awareness. A quick search for usage of Twitter and Facebook in college emergency preparedness will show you that a number of colleges are already using these platforms to communicate with the campus community not only for emergency preparedness messages but also for a wide variety of topics, including marketing of educational programs and sporting events. The University of Texas at Tyler recently posted lightning and thunderstorm warnings. Winter weather driving tips can be found on the Indiana University Public Safety and Institutional Assurance Twitter page. On the Yale Twitter page a user is redirected via a link to the campus emergency preparedness website. The College of William & Mary uses Twitter with a link to Facebook to facilitate emergency management information at its campus. Another advantage of using Twitter or texting is that the information is date and time stamped with geo-locator data unless the individual has that feature turned off. This small sampling demonstrates the various adaptations of Twitter in an overall campus emergency plan.
The benefit to the campus emergency management team is even greater when they can hear what the members of the campus community are saying regarding an event. Why? Those around the campus may be in touch with a greater visibility of situation awareness of whatever is occurring whether it is an active shooter, a flood, or the effects of flu among the campus community. Crowdsourcing, or group contributions of situational awareness in this case, result in a more comprehensive picture of the event.
“Crowdsourcing is a type of participative online activity in which an individual, an institution, a non-profit organization, or company proposes to a group of individuals of varying knowledge, heterogeneity, and number, via a flexible open call, the voluntary undertaking of a task. The undertaking of the task, of variable complexity and modularity, and in which the crowd should participate bringing their work, money, knowledge, and/or experience always entails mutual benefit. The user will receive the satisfaction of a given type of need, be it economic, social recognition, self-esteem, or the development of individual skills, while the crowdsourcer will obtain and utilize to their advantage that what the user has brought to the venture, whose form will depend on the type of activity undertaken” (Estellés-Arolas, González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, 2012). If those participants feeding information to the campus emergency management team come from across the campus in positions such as residence life directors, building captains, and faculty, staff, and students selected to be part of the crowdsourcing team, the information is rich data from trusted sources.
College students use social media to communicate their activities more than any other population segment. Social media posts are increasingly generated from smart phones and other smart devices that attach geographic coordinates identifying the user’s location. It is no surprise to campus emergency professionals that many campus adversaries have had a social media presence prior to causing harm to themselves and/or others. As part of proactive campus emergency preparedness planning, institutions may choose to monitor the campus for chatter that could lead to illegal activities, or perhaps prevent a suicide. As campus administrators, you want to hear the messages so your team can react more appropriately. It also provides an opportunity to correct misinformation that may be circulating around campus.
Location-based social media listening and monitoring sites such as Monitter.com, Tweetgrid.com, and Twitterfall.com allow you to observe Twitter activity on anyone’s accounts. You can narrow your search to a specific location, like a campus and monitor for a set of keywords, thus allowing your preparedness team to get a pulse of campus activity. Taking it to the next level is Geofeedia.com that currently aggregates posts from five sources: Twitter, You Tube, and three photo-sharing sites—Instagram, Picasa, and Flickr. All five locations can be monitored on one screen. Future plans include a monitoring and analytics platform that will allow comprehensive data analysis. Currently, the user identifies the geographic area to be monitored, and the data is available to monitor instantly as it is gathered and archived. Data analysis can be performed by any number of filters, including keywords and author. These location-based social media listening and monitoring sites only collect publicly available information.
Used as part of a campus preparedness plan, this technology can be instrumental in assisting the emergency management team in recognizing emerging campus issues. This could prove beneficial in providing opportunities for intervention and, thereby, preventing a liability before it has an opportunity to develop. Think of the added security benefit this could provide at a large sporting or special event on campus.
Information is moving at an incredible speed across social networks as more and more people share their experiences during a disaster or critical event. Campuses must recognize the importance of social media as it relates to college and university emergency planning and build social media management tools into their emergency management plans. The emergency planning team needs to choose which social media strategy best meets the needs of the campus. Whether it be a one-way engagement with mass notification, a two-way engagement with social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook, or monitoring, campus emergency and disaster management teams can no longer ignore social media or neglect to include it in emergency planning.
What social media strategies are integrated in your campus emergency management plans?
In spite of the federal government’s best efforts, there are still problems with the state of preparedness of post-secondary educational organizations (Department of Education [DOE], 2007, 2009; FEMA, 2003; Graham, Shirm, Liggin, Aitken, & Dick, 2009; Mitroff, Diamond, & Alpaslan, 2006; Rasmussen & Johnson, 2008). As colleges and universities strive to improve emergency preparedness, they need to keep abreast of new mitigation strategies to be integrated into their underdeveloped and outdated plans.
What trigger will initiate a review of your campus emergency response plan and create an all-hazards strategy for all five phases of emergency preparedness?
References
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (2011). Ensuring academic freedom in politically controversial academic personnel. http://www.aaup.org/report/ensuring-academic-freedom-politically-controversial-academic-personnel-decisions
DeSantis, N. (2012). How colleges are responding to Hurricane Sandy. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/how-colleges-are-responding-to-hurricane-sandy/51262
Estellés-Arolas, E., & González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, F. (2012). Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information Science. 38(2), 189–200.
FEMA. (2003). Building a disaster-resistant university. Retrieved from http://www.fema.gov/institution/dru.shtm
Graham, J., Shirm, S., Liggin, R., Aitken, M. E., & Dick, R. (2006). Mass-casualty events at schools: A national preparedness survey. Pediatrics, 117, e8–e15.
HIPPA. (2011) Balancing student privacy and school safety: A guide to the family educational rights and privacy act for colleges and universities. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/brochures/postsec.pdf
Leavitt, M. O., Spellings, M., & Gonzales, A. R. (2007). Report to the President on issues raised by the Virginia Tech tragedy. Washington, DC: United States Government.
Mitroff, I. I., Diamond, M. A., & Alpaslan, C. M. (2006, January/February). How prepared are America’s colleges and universities for major crises? Change, 38(1), 60–67.
Number of active users at Facebook over the years—Yahoo. (May 1, 2013). Retrieved from news.yahoo.com/number-active-users-facebook-over-2304
O’Neill, R. M. (2013). Faculty personnel policies—Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Disaster in New Orleans.
Rasmussen, C., & Johnson, G. (2008). The ripple effect of Virginia Tech: Assessing the nationwide impact on campus safety and security policy and practice. Minneapolis, MN: Midwestern Higher Education Compact.
Sokolow, B. A., & Lewis, W. S. (2009). 2nd Generation behavioral intervention. Malvern, PA: National Council for Higher Education Risk Management (NCHERM). Retrieved from https://www.ncherm.org/resources/publications/#WhitePapers
Sokolow, B. A., Lewis, W. S., & Schuster, S. K. (2010). Murder at UVA: Preventing the preventable. Malvern, PA: National Council for Higher Education Risk Management (NCHERM). https://www.ncherm.org/resources/publications/#WhitePapers
Trump, K. S. (2000). Classroom killers? Hallway hostages? How schools can prevent and manage school crises. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Twitter Fast Follow. SMS follow. https://support.twitter.com/articles/20170004-fast-following-on-sms#
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Action guide for emergency management at institutions of higher education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/emergencyplan/remsactionguide.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Family educational rights and privacy act (FERPA). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/reg/ferpa/index.html