Reflective adj

University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange

Masters Theses Graduate School

5-2015

Student Perceptions of Institutional Crisis Management, Preparedness, and Response: The Case of the Active Shooter Jared Allen Grimsley University of Tennessee - Knoxville, [email protected]

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Recommended Citation Grimsley, Jared Allen, "Student Perceptions of Institutional Crisis Management, Preparedness, and Response: The Case of the Active Shooter. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2015. http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/3366

To the Graduate Council:

I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Jared Allen Grimsley entitled "Student Perceptions of Institutional Crisis Management, Preparedness, and Response: The Case of the Active Shooter." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in College Student Personnel.

J. Patrick Biddix, Major Professor

We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance:

Dorian L. McCoy, Karen D. Boyd, Martha C. Dagenhart

Accepted for the Council: Dixie L. Thompson

Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School

(Original signatures are on file with official student records.)

Student Perceptions of Institutional Crisis Management, Preparedness, and Response:

The Case of the Active Shooter

A Thesis Presented for the

Master of Science

Degree

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Jared Allen Grimsley

May 2015

ii

Acknowledgements

To Dr. J. Patrick Biddix, for chairing my thesis committee and being with me every step

of the way. You had faith this was something I could accomplish and you never backed down. I

look forward to the opportunity to continue learning from you.

To Dr. Dorian L. McCoy, Dr. Karen D. Boyd, and Dr. Martha C. Dagenhart, for

continuing to support me on my committee as well. You all have such unique educational

perspectives that allowed me to produce my best quality work.

To Brandon, for pushing me and encouraging me to write when I may not have otherwise

wanted to. You always checked in to see the progress I was making and have been continuously

supportive over the past year.

iii

Abstract

Institutional crisis management is becoming more relevant with every passing tragedy

and crisis event. This study utilized a modified existing survey to collect quantitative data from

students attending a large four-year public research institution located in the Southeastern region

of the United States. A stratified random sample of commuter students and non-commuter

students was analyzed to compare statistical similarities and differences between the groups.

The largest group of student respondents were full-time, freshmen, female, involved, and

currently live on campus. Students perceived their institutions to be moderately prepared to

respond to both general crises and active shooting situations, although a majority of students did

not know if written institutional plans were in place. Students perceived active shooter protocol

communication as less effective than communication of general crisis management protocol.

Students are generally satisfied with the text messages and emails used to notify students during

a crisis situation, but there are other communication mediums they also believed would be

effective. Analyzing data on students’ perceptions of their respective institutional crisis

management, preparedness, and response helps establish sound practices for extending protection

to the campus community from immediate threats during a campus crisis. While there are

numerous campus crises and forms of preparedness, this study focused on active shootings as the

crisis and emergency notification systems (ENS) as the response.

iv

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................1

Background/Context ............................................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................2

Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................3

Significance of the Study .....................................................................................................3

Research Questions ..............................................................................................................4

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework .....................................................................................4

Definitions............................................................................................................................5

Organization of Study ..........................................................................................................6

Chapter 2: Literature Review ...........................................................................................................7

Crisis Management Plans .....................................................................................................7

Perceptions of Preparedness ..............................................................................................10

Pre-Crisis Safety Strategies................................................................................................12

Emergency Notification Systems .......................................................................................14

Emergency Notification System Participation .......................................................14

Text Messaging and Cell Phone Usage .................................................................17

Social Media ..........................................................................................................18

Redundancy versus Urgency ..................................................................................18

Summary, Limitations, and Considerations for Future Research ......................................19

Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................................23

Overview and Research Questions ....................................................................................23

Research Design.................................................................................................................24

v

Research Methods ..............................................................................................................25

Site Selection .........................................................................................................25

Participant Selection ..............................................................................................25

Instrumentation ......................................................................................................26

Modifications to the CCMQ ......................................................................27

Procedure ...........................................................................................................................29

Data Collection ......................................................................................................29

Data Analysis .........................................................................................................30

Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................30

Summary ............................................................................................................................31

Chapter 4: Results ..........................................................................................................................33

Perceptions of Preparedness ..............................................................................................35

Institutional Preparedness to Respond ...................................................................35

Self-Preparedness to Protect ..................................................................................37

Communication of Crisis Management and Active Shooter Protocol ...............................40

Effective Protocol Communication........................................................................40

Protocol Communication Mediums .......................................................................42

Emergency Notification Satisfaction .................................................................................45

UT Alert System ....................................................................................................45

Quantity and Timeliness of Emergency Messages ................................................46

Effective Communication Strategies .................................................................................47

Effective Pre-Crisis Communication Mediums ...................................................47

Notification During Crisis ....................................................................................49

vi

Effective Notification During Crisis ....................................................................51

Additional Results ..............................................................................................................54

Chapter 5: Summary, Discussion, and Recommendations ............................................................55

Summary ............................................................................................................................55

Purpose of the Study ..............................................................................................55

Review of the Procedures ......................................................................................55

Summary of the Findings .......................................................................................56

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................59

Discussion ..........................................................................................................................60

Recommendations and Implications for Practice ..............................................................61

Directions for Further Research .........................................................................................64

References ......................................................................................................................................66

Appendices .....................................................................................................................................72

Appendix A: Original Zdziarski (2001) CCMQ Survey Packet ........................................73

Appendix B: CCMQ-S (Survey Modified from CCMQ) ..................................................80

Appendix C: Online Informed Consent for CCMQ-S .......................................................87

Appendix D: Recruitment Email .......................................................................................90

Appendix E: Additional Demographic Data ......................................................................92

Appendix F: Additional Raw Data ....................................................................................94

Appendix G: Demographic Analyses, Mean Responses, and Significance.....................104

Vita ...............................................................................................................................................109

vii

List of Tables

Table 4.1: Collegiate Residency of Student Respondents .............................................................34

Table 4.2: Self-Protection Based on Location of Active Shooter ..................................................38

Table 4.2.1: Self-Protection, Non-Commuter versus Commuter ..................................................38

Table 4.3: Crisis Management and Active Shooter Preparedness Communication Mediums ......43

Table 4.3.1: Crisis Management Plan Communication, Non-Commuter versus Commuter ........44

Table 4.3.2: Active Shooter Preparedness Communication, Non-Commuter versus Commuter ..44

Table 4.4: Student Satisfaction with UT Alert System ..................................................................46

Table 4.4.1: Student Satisfaction with UT Alert System, Non-Commuter versus Commuter ......46

Table 4.5: Perceptions of Quantity and Timeliness of Emergency Messages ...............................47

Table 4.5.1: Perceptions of Quantity and Timeliness of Emergency Messages,

Non-Commuter versus Commuter .........................................................................47

Table 4.6: Perceptions of Effective Pre-Crisis Communication Mediums ....................................48

Table 4.6.1: Perceptions of Effective Pre-Crisis Communication,

Non-Commuter versus Commuter .........................................................................49

Table 4.7: Student Notification of a Campus Crisis or Emergency ...............................................50

Table 4.7.1: Student Notification of Crisis, Non-Commuter versus Commuter ...........................51

Table 4.8: Perceptions of Effective Notification during Active Shooting .....................................52

Table 4.8.1: Perceptions of Effective Notification during Acting Shooting,

Non-Commuter versus Commuter .........................................................................53

Table E1: Additional Demographic Data ......................................................................................93

Table F1: Self-Protection from Active Shooter (Open-Ended Responses) ...................................95

Table F2: Reasons for Not Signing up for UT Alert ...................................................................103

viii

Table G1: Demographic Analyses by Gender .............................................................................105

Table G2: Demographic Analyses by Class ................................................................................106

Table G3: Demographic Analyses by Involvement .....................................................................107

Table G4: Demographic Analyses by Transfer Status .................................................................108

ix

List of Figures

Figure 4.1: Perceptions of Institutional Preparedness for Campus Crises .....................................36

Figure 4.2: Perceptions of Institutional Preparedness for Active Shooters ...................................36

Figure 4.3: Perceptions of Institutional Communication of Crisis Management Protocol ............41

Figure 4.4: Perceptions of Institutional Communication of Active Shooter Protocol ...................41

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Background/Context

Postsecondary leaders have had to deal with the topics of campus crisis and post-crisis

management for many years, and especially in the past two decades. The tragic events of

September 11, 2001 were a driving force for leading administrators to think more about the

critical events that potentially could happen on their respective campuses (Catullo, Walker, &

Floyd, 2009). More recently, the most prolific campus crisis has been the active shooter. The

ability to prevent a single active shooter crisis similar to the incident at Virginia Tech in 2007

saves multiple lives in the face of an ever-increasing national trend in student population growth

(Sulkowski & Lazarus, 2011).

Crisis management has grown rapidly in recent years, yet the topic of campus crisis is

largely ignored (Coombs, 1995). Numerous college campuses across the country have

experienced active shootings in the past few years, and institutional leaders have responded

differently to each situation. Fortunately, an exponentially greater number of universities have

not experienced the same crisis (Ferraro & McHugh, 2010), and even though active shooting

events are rare, a low—but significant—percentage of students potentially could be in danger or

experience distress associated with the event (Sulkowski & Lazarus, 2011).

One of the biggest criticisms from the handling of the Virginia Tech tragedy was the

institution’s use of emergency notification systems (ENS) and their failure to immediately warn

the campus community (Johnson, 2012; Rasmussen & Johnson, 2008; Schneider, 2010). Due to

the potential for an active shooter on campus, many institutions are looking to improve policies,

promote campus safety, and effectively handle emergency situations more efficiently. These

2

changes include the implementation of mass ENS (Butler & Lafreniere, 2010). It is critical the

immediate community be notified in the early minutes after a crisis or emergency (Johnson,

2012).

National legislation requires institutions immediately to notify students and employees

when an emergency happens on campus (H.R. 5806; Emergency Notification Deployment Act,

2008). Researchers found the two biggest issues driving ENS implementation at institutions

were recent incidents on other campuses and general public safety (Gulum & Murray, 2009;

Kaminski, Koons-Witt, Thompson, & Weiss, 2010; Staman, Katsouros, & Hach, 2009).

Statement of the Problem

Administrators, faculty, staff, but more importantly, students and their families, expect

that reasonable and effective measures be in place to respond more efficiently to a campus crisis,

minimizing student risk (Heilbrun, Dvoskin, & Heilbrun, 2009). Students’ expectations for

college matter; their expectations form a groundwork that begins to set the relationship students

have with their institution (Miller, Kuh, Paine, & Associates, 2006).

Perceptions and expectations are different, but they have the ability to inform each other.

A positive or negative expectation can lead to a positive or negative perception, which ultimately

forms their collegiate experience. Heilbrun and colleagues (2009) note that as changes in

policies and practices surrounding crisis management occur, it is important that these changes be

perceived as effective and responsive. Understanding perceptions is critical. The more informed

the campus community is with regards to emergency preparedness and effective response, the

more efficiently an institution can respond to campus crises, including active shootings.

3

Purpose of the Study

Postsecondary leaders report generally feeling prepared to handle a campus crisis

(Catullo et al., 2009), but there is a lack of similar data specific to active shootings and of general

student perceptions of campus safety. The purpose of this study was to consider student

perceptions of institutional active shooter preparedness and of the effectiveness of ENS used in

the event of an active shooter on campus.

Significance of the Study

Asking a random student what he or she would do if involved in an active shooting would

likely render a silent response, with an ultimate admission towards uncertainty. There has been

an increased occurrence of active shootings on college campuses in recent years, but a lack of

research about student’s fears of being a potential victim of any campus crime (Kaminski,

Koons-Witt, Thompson, & Weiss, 2010). Students make meaning of active shootings before,

during, and after the event, and terror management theory (TMT) looks at how it affects the

student’s perception of their institution (Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & Solomon, 1999). If

institutions are unaware of how students would act and respond pre-crisis, the lack of

understanding can affect the way an institution responds pre-crisis, mid-crisis, and post-crisis.

This can be applied toward any campus crisis with the potential for student death, not just active

shootings.

Emergency messages are in competition with a high volume of other messages—Twitter

messages, Facebook posts, text messages, general institutional and academic emails, etc.—to

break through the crowded communication medium that exists in student’s lives (Stephens,

Barrett, & Mahometa, 2013). Institutions must implement ENS systems in ways that maximize

4

understanding and compliance to ensure effective responses to horrific events such as school

shootings (Butler & Lafreniere, 2010; Gulum & Murray, 2009).

Research Questions

This study was designed to explore the following research questions specific to students,

rather than institutional or higher education administrators:

1) What are students perceptions toward their institutional active shooter preparedness

and effectiveness of ENS?

2) To what level do students perceive crisis management plans (i.e. active shooter

preparedness) being communicated effectively?

3) Do students have experience with their institutional ENS? If so, what are students’

levels of satisfaction with emergency notification and ENS used as a response to a

campus crisis or active shooting?

4) What suggestions do students have about effective communication strategies in the

event of an emergency or active shooting?

This knowledge hopefully can inform practices related to the implementation of pre- and

post-crisis management, preparedness, and response strategies that may or may not already exist.

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

Regardless if universities have policies and procedures in place, a student’s perception of

the institution is his or her reality. TMT, specifically the extension of the theory presented by

Pyszczynski, Greenberg, and Solomon (1999), serves as an additional framework that may help

explain a potential factor in student’s intentional or unintentional disregard to institutional active

shooter and campus crisis preparedness.

5

The research on TMT focuses on two basic hypotheses—the anxiety-buffer and mortality

salience (Pyszczynski et al., 1999). The anxiety-buffer hypothesis posits that self-esteem

provides protection against anxiety, thus, strengthening self-esteem makes one less susceptible to

anxiety-related behavior. The mortality salience hypothesis involves the intangible,

psychological structure that protects individuals against anxiety, and states that reminding people

of the cause of their anxiety increases the need for that structure. Individuals will have more

positive reactions to things that support structure and more negative reactions to things that

threaten it.

Students consciously and unconsciously avoid certain topics that might invoke anxiety or

the notion of death; the suppression of such thoughts allows them to leave death as something

that will happen in the distant future and allows them to live in the present, free of anxiety. TMT

helps makes sense of how certain crisis management, preparedness, and trainings may influence

a student’s thoughts, feelings, and perceptions as compared to a previous time.

Definitions

A campus crisis is defined as “an event that disrupts the orderly operation of the

institution or its educational mission, and threatens the well-being of personnel, property,

financial resources, or reputation of the institution” (Zdziarski, 2001, p. 5).

Crisis management refers to “the plans, protocols, procedures, and processes used by

institutions to manage a campus crisis” (Zdziarski, 2001, p. 5).

This study concerns three distinct phases of a crisis, defined as follows:

 Pre-crisis—actions taken prior to the onset of a crisis (Zdziarski, 2001, p. 6).

 Crisis—actions taken during a crisis event (Zdziarski, 2001, p. 6).

 Post-crisis—actions taken after the occurrence of a crisis (Zdziarski, 2001, p. 6).

6

While there are numerous campus crises and forms of preparedness, this study focused on

active shootings as the crisis and ENS as the response.

An active shooter, as defined by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2008), “is

an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated

area; in most cases, active shooters use firearm(s) and there is no pattern or method to their

selection of victims” (p. 2).

An Emergency Notification System (ENS) refers to a system organized for the primary

purpose of expediting the efficient one-way distribution or broadcast of messages during a time

of crisis. These messages are distributed through a variety of communication mediums.

Regarding the sample population and student demographic, the researcher created

definitions regarding residency to stratify distinct categories of students:

 Non-commuter student—a student currently living in university-owned housing

(does not include fraternity and sorority houses).

 Commuter student—a student not currently living in university-owned housing

and commutes to campus (includes fraternity and sorority houses).

Organization of the Study

This study is reported in five distinct chapters. Chapter One provided an introduction to

the topic of institutional crisis management, a purpose statement, a statement of the problem,

significance of the study, and the research questions posed. Chapter Two offers a literature

review on issues related to crisis management, with consideration of limitations in the research.

Chapter Three discusses the research design, research method and procedures for conducting the

study. Chapter Four presents the findings from the original research. Chapter Five discusses the

study and conclusions, along with implications for future practice and research.

7

Chapter 2

Literature Review

Crisis Management Plans

Two major events heightened the focus of campus safety and security to different levels:

the terrorist attacks on September 11 th

, 2001, (Catullo et al., 2009) and the mass shootings at

Virginia Tech on April 16 th

, 2007 (Rasmussen & Johnson, 2008). Both events had lasting

impacts on the way postsecondary leaders view and prepare for crises that happen on their

campuses (Catullo et al., 2009). The two periods of time analyzed— post-September 11 th

(2001)

and post-Virginia Tech (2007)—show varying levels of awareness and institutional preparedness

for campus crises not specific to just active shootings.

From 2005-2007, approximately 98% of colleges and universities reported having no

homicides (Ferraro & McHugh, 2010). The Virginia Tech massacre in 2007 created a ripple

effect that was felt throughout the higher education community. Of 331 institutions surveyed by

the Midwestern Higher Education Compact (MHEC), 87% responded that their institution

conducted a review of holistic campus safety and security (Rasmussen & Johnson, 2008). Of

this 87%, almost 90% indicated that positive change was implemented.

Handling institutional crisis situations was not something new that began happening post-

September 11 th

, but the events on that day accelerated the need to be more prepared than ever

(Catullo et al., 2009). In the Zdziarski (2001) study, 129 (88.4% of) participating institutions

reported having some sort of written crisis management plan. Of these institutions, 123 (85.4%)

reported having a specific plan for the university and 77 (53.1%) reported having a separate

student affairs plan. Covington (2013) conducted a study of smaller campuses (with less than

5,000 students) and found a completely different picture: about 93% had a university-specific

8

crisis management plan and only 27% had a crisis management plan specific to the division of

student affairs. Heiselt and Burrell (2012) found that among the responding Christian-affiliated

institutions of higher education (CIHE), 92% had some type of crisis management plan and 95%

reported reviewing these plans annually.

Mitroff, Diamond, and Alpalsan (2006) stated that crisis management does not simply

mean the existence of an emergency preparedness plan. It involves thinking about the types of

crises that may occur and planning for what happens next. Catullo et al. (2007), also modeled

after the Zdziarski (2001) study, show the differences in contingency plans that institutions have

in place from 2001 to 2007. Plans for campus and building evacuations, chemical leaks, loss of

computer data or utilities, terrorist threats, and infectious diseases were prepared at a statistically

significant higher rate than other campus crises (Catullo et al., 2009).

In 2001, the five crises most institutions reporting have plans for were fire, student death,

sexual assault, suicide, and campus disturbance and demonstration (Zdziarski, 2001). There

were no significant changes from 2001 to 2007 in contingency plans for homicide, student and

faculty death or injury, or campus disturbances (Catullo et al., 2009). Active shooting scenarios

are not specifically represented in either Zdziarki (2001) or Catullo et al. (2009) study, but

student deaths and campus disturbances are. According to the same survey, there were

additional statistically significant increases of various forms from 2001 to 2007. These increases

included the addressing of the pre-crisis phase, the existence of written crisis management plans,

and the accessibility of those plans on the internet.

Administrators tend to be reactive, instead of proactive, when dealing with crisis

management (Zdziarski, 2001). This is supported by the research that suggests that the pre-crisis

phase was not addressed nearly the same amount as the crisis and post-crisis phases, yet needed

9

to be (Catullo et al., 2009). Of the 129 reporting institutions in the Zdziarski (2001) study that

had written crisis management plans, only 82 (63.6%) indicated addressing the pre-crisis phase.

Covington (2013) found slightly increased percentages on campuses address the pre-crisis phase

on smaller campuses: 65.5% and 73.4% for the first and second administrations of the survey,

respectively. Heiselt and Burrell (2012) found that 90% of CIHEs with a crisis management plan

addressed the pre-crisis phase, which shows increased percentages from the previously

mentioned studies.

There were certain crises in which more institutions addressed the pre-crisis phase: fire,

sexual assault, sexual harassment, suicide, and evacuation of buildings (Zdziarski, 2001). Again,

active shootings have no specific category, but neither student deaths nor campus disturbances

were at the top of the list of institutional crises that addressed the pre-crisis phase. Catullo et al.

(2009) posed the following question: how does an educational institution prepare for the

unimaginable? Research indicates that while institutional administrators typically focus on crisis

events that are more likely to occur, they need to start looking for unexpected crisis with lower

probabilities of happening (i.e. active shootings). Mitroff et al. (2006) identified criminal acts

(i.e. murders and use of guns) as one of the potential crises that institutions might face.

The literature revealed several references to the crucial need for appropriate crisis

management teams (Mitroff et al., 2006; Sherwood & McKelfresh, 2007; Zdziarski, 2006). With

solid leadership and clearly defined operational plans, crisis management teams are seen as

effective tools in the crisis management process (Sherwood & McKelfresh, 2007); however,

Millet-Willet (2010) believes that many leaders on crisis management teams have not thought

much nor reflected about how their roles would change from daily institutional operations to

periods of crisis.

10

Zdziarski (2001), Catullo et al. (2009), and Covington (2013) suggested that crisis

management protocols—to be effective—must include plans within various divisions that

address different types of crises and ultimately relate back to the plan of the institution. Diligent

care must be taken to not strengthen misperceptions (Fox & Savage, 2009).

Perceptions of Preparedness

Differences in institution types may result in differences in perceptions of preparedness.

In 2001, of the 140 institutions that responded to the question of perceived preparedness, the

overall mean was 7.79 (out of 10) which indicates a high level of perceived preparedness to

respond to campus crisis (Zdziarski, 2001). Catullo et al. (2009) reported that public colleges

rated their level of preparedness somewhat lower than private colleges, and this also held true for

Zdziarski; in 2001, private institutions had a mean rating of 8.71 as opposed to a 7.63 for public

institutions.

The notion that private institutions perceived their campuses to be more prepared than

public institutions was supported by Covington (2013). Perceived preparedness from both types

of institutions increased from 2001 to 2007, but it was not statistically significant. In a different

survey, Rasmussen and Johnson (2008) found that larger universities were more likely to have

conducted a review of campus safety than smaller universities. Burkell (2009) looked at

perceived preparedness at CIHEs, and found that the presidents of participating CIHEs were

prepared to respond to crisis, overall. On the same scale from 1 to 10, 19.5% of CIHEs scored

their institution at 7/10, 35.1% at 8/10, 27.3% at 9/10, and 2.6% at 10/10. Research finds that

regardless of size or type of institution, most perceive their institutions to be prepared (Zdziarski,

2001; Rasmussen & Johnson, 2008; Catullo et al., 2009; Covington, 2013).

11

Similarities still exist in crisis preparedness and management between the two time

periods—2001 to 2007. Although responding institutions still perceive their divisions to be

prepared, Catullo et al. (2009) found no statistical difference in institutional perceptions of

preparedness from 2001 to 2007. Covington (2013) studied smaller institutions—one study in

early 2010 and the other in late 2012—and found that these smaller institutions showed about the

same level of perceived preparedness as the responding institutions in the Zdziarski (2001) and

Catullo et al. (2009) studies. Researchers suggest a need for studies on crisis preparedness to

focus on ways in which smaller, specialized postsecondary institutions are able to prepare for

crises (Catullo, 2008; Hartzog, 1981; Zdziarski, 2001). While researchers have examined

administrator, faculty, and staff perceptions of preparedness, little to no research has been

conducted to study student perceptions of preparedness.

Creation of crisis management plans and continuing to address the pre-crisis phase help

institutions alter public perceptions. Facilitation of different crisis situations can potentially

combat negative perceptions and ensure organizational leaders can positively influence how

outsiders perceive their organization after a crisis has occurred. Preventative policies designed to

protect students on campus and programs created to educate about crime on campus “should be

based on empirical realities rather than (mis)perceptions of risk” (Kaminski et al., 2010, p. 96).

The changes should not only be taking place, but also need to be perceived as being effective and

operational by those the changes are meant to protect (Heilbrun, Dvoskin, & Heilbrun, 2009).

These preventative policies to increase campus safety are one avenue institutions implement to

increase the overall levels of crisis management. Pre-crisis safety should not stop at simple

prevention.

12

Pre-Crisis Safety Strategies

Violence on campus is likely to be the defining moment when the life of that institution is

changed forever (LaBanc, Krepel, Johnson, & Hermann, 2010). The countless changes to

campus safety and crisis management demonstrate the effect that the events of Virginia Tech had

on campus culture and operations across the country.

The mass shootings of Virginia Tech began to shift the focus of campus crises to include

a slight emphasis on active shooter preparedness, instead of just general campus crises, as

previously described throughout this review. A big change in safety protocol implemented post-

Virginia Tech was text message emergency notification systems, especially since emergency

notification was an area for which Virginia Tech officials were criticized (Rasmussen &

Johnson, 2008). Almost 75% of respondents of the MHEC survey who reported not having such

systems stated their universities were in the process of obtaining some sort of similar system.

Postsecondary leaders and administrators began to implement (or considering

implementing) various initiatives that did not exist at their institutions prior to the Virginia Tech

tragedy. Approximately 14% of respondents to the MHEC survey reported that campus

buildings did not have all-call systems, but 1/3 of those institutions planned to change that

(Rasmussen & Johnson, 2008). Additionally, only 51% of institutions reported having

emergency telephones and panic buttons and only 38% reported having security cameras spread

throughout outdoor areas of campus prior to Virginia Tech. Twenty two percent of campuses

that did not have the capacity to lockdown classroom buildings were either planning to acquire

such a system or had already done so (Rasmussen & Johnson, 2008), although Fox and Savage

(2009) believe there is a significant disadvantage to locking down campus buildings during an

13

active shooting. Students, faculty and staff in sealed buildings are safe, but those left stranded

outside may be potential victims.

Zdziarski (2001) looked at how institutions communicate crisis management plans to the

campus community, with no specificity toward active shootings. Only 31% of institutions

communicated through the use of drills and exercises and 15.5% reported their crisis

management plans were not communicated. Twenty six (20.2%) institutions utilized optional

crisis management training sessions and only 21 (16.3%) utilized required crisis management

training sessions. Members of the campus community may view these pre-crisis trainings as a

suggestion of increased levels and threat of violent behavior (Fox & Savage, 2009).

Most surprising, only 36% of responding institutions to the MHEC survey in 2008 had

staged incidents to test their crisis management and emergency response systems in the event of

an active shooting, with larger institutions being more likely to have done so (Rasmussen &

Johnson, 2008). Most institutions of higher education have exercises for evacuations, fire drills,

and tornado and severe weather situations; however, far fewer practice similar exercises for

active shooters (Department of U.S. Education, Office and Elementary and Secondary

Education, & Office of Safe and Healthy Students, 2013).

This low statistic is supported by an extension of TMT, which states that students do

what they can to not think about death or dying (Pyszczynski et al., 1999). Fox and Savage

(2009) would agree with universities who choose not to conduct active shooter drills for that

very reason—to prevent placing students in a simulation where death is a potential outcome.

While the intent is there, staged scenarios have the potential to make students much more

anxious about feeling like walking targets; thus, only involving campus police and other

authorities is a more reasonable approach for some institutions.

14

Emergency Notification Systems

Institutions implement crisis management plans with perceived levels of preparedness

from administrators and institutional leaders. Included in some crisis management plans is the

addressing of the crisis before it happens. A large part of addressing the pre-crisis phase is the

institutional use of ENS. According to Staman et al. (2009), the most popular emergency

notification mediums among responding institutions were e-mail, text messages, and websites

(100%), landline phones (80%), cell phones (76%), televisions and video in residence halls

(56%), external sirens and speakers (44%), fire panel alarms with voice enunciation and digital

signage (28%), building public address systems (24%), and social media (20%). Prior to the

mass shootings at Virginia Tech, less than 10% of responding institutions utilized external

speakers, social networking sites, instant messaging, or text messaging as a part of their ENS

systems, according to the Midwestern Higher Education Compact (2008).

A study conducted at the University of Windsor in Southern Ontario, Canada, gauged

student, staff, and faculty perceptions of the use of various ENS technologies (Butler &

Lafreniere, 2010). An overwhelming majority of the participants reported checking their

university email account on a daily basis (Butler & Lafreniere, 2010); about 25% of responders

think campus police can encourage those on campus to regularly check their email by explaining

how important it is, and by advertising appropriately.

Emergency Notification System Participation. The main concern expressed by

students, faculty, and staff involves a need for privacy. A small sample from the University of

Windsor study would approve of such a system only if their privacy was guaranteed (Butler &

Lafreniere, 2010). A classification of emergencies that the ENS systems would be used for was

something students want before opting in. According to the Staman et al. (2009) survey, an

15

average of 40% of students opt-in to the system if given the option, but 92% of students remain a

part of the system if enrollment is required but are given the option to opt-out. Opt-out systems

retain more student participation than opt-in systems; Florida State University has an opt-out

system with 85% participation, whereas the University of California, Los Angeles has an opt-in

system with only 35% participation (Schneider, 2010).

Staman et al. (2009) states that subscription rates to notification services are not

consistently high. Forty percent (40%) of responders indicated high participation (>75% of

students), 12% had medium participation (from 50-75% of students), and an overwhelming 48%

had poor participation (<50% of students). A similar study of 500 campuses found that, on

average, only 40% of students had registered for the ENS system at their institution (Kaminski et

al., 2010).

The National Association of College and University Business Officers (2009)

administered a survey that found 70% of responding institutions offered opt-in ENS systems

where students have the choice to register; unfortunately, the response rate from students is still

unsatisfactory. Even Virginia Tech only had 56% of students registered for their ENS system in

the semester following the shooting (Davies, 2008).

The Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management suggests that a

successful marketing program is one avenue to address the issue of low student participation and

response; however, first-year students do not perceive a need to register for an emergency

notification system, so this approach may be problematic (Johnson, 2012). It is critical to know

how to encourage and motivate students to register because of the low concern for personal

safety that many students have.

16

A few participants wanted to ensure being a part of the system would not cost them any

money, would only be used for emergencies, and wanted to have input in the types of

technologies used to reach them in the event of an emergency (Butler & Lafreniere, 2010). The

concerns can all be successfully addressed if campus police increase their presence on campus

and develop stronger relationships with the community. Over 95% of participants in the

University of Windsor study favored the implementation of an ENS system, with improving

campus safety being one of the main reasons why (Butler & Lafreniere, 2010). Johnson’s (2012)

study found various themes that emerged as to why students did or did not register for the

system—attentiveness to information provided by their institution, personal motivation to

register, preferred methods of notification, and ease of registration.

To increase visibility of the ENS system, one regional southeastern public university

began presenting at first-year student orientation sessions in 2010 and printed information about

the emergency notification system on the hangtag parking permits (Johnson, 2012). The increase

of students who registered for the emergency notification system that year was statistically

significant (p < .05), but the total number of new system participants only represented 11% of

that year’s incoming class. While this study represents only one institution, others are likely

having the same struggles.

Missouri University of Science & Technology (Missouri S&T) ran a test of their ENS

system in 2008 with only a 51% confirmation rate (Gulum &Murray, 2009). The system is well-

designed, but still faces problems inevitable to an ENS system at any institution. Students may

ignore the messages, provide inaccurate information, or simply not be aware of the services

available. The low confirmation numbers from Missouri S&T—and likely from other

17

institutions—is considered unsafe. Low confirmation and participation rates can be attributed to

the issues surrounding text messages and cell phone usage.

Text Messaging and Cell Phone Usage. The infrastructure created for text messaging

was never intended to be used for widespread real-time notification for emergencies, but

realistically only for low-volume person-to-person communication (Latimer, 2008). Although

text message delivery is traditionally fast, delivery cannot be guaranteed; if some messages are

longer than 160 characters, the original messages may be broken up into multiple parts that may

arrive out of order or not at all (Latimer, 2008).

Many faculty members require students to turn off or silence their cell phones in class, so

the effectiveness of these ENS systems during peak academic periods comes into question (Fox

& Savage, 2009). Even if faculty have more liberal in-class cell phone policies, there are some

classrooms in the basements of buildings where cell phone reception is poor or nonexistent; this

lessens the effectiveness of the system if students are not receiving messages in a timely fashion

(Schneider, 2010).

Only 39.4% of students participating in the University of Windsor study indicated they

would be willing to provide their phone number to campus police for emergency notification

purposes and 42.8% of students were explicit in their unwillingness to do so (Butler &

Lafreniere, 2010). About 50% of unwilling participants indicated privacy as the reason, and 8%

said no for monetary reasons. Many students choose not to voluntarily subscribe to these

services, depriving them of essential information in the event of an emergency (Johnson, 2012).

If students choose not to enroll in their institutions ENS system, there is another technological

medium institutions can use to reach their students in times of crisis: social media.

18

Social Media. Social media has expanded access to resources with increased speeds at

which information can be sent and received (Hughes & Palen, 2012). Informal sources such as

social media accelerate the speed at which information is disseminated. This is essential in

urgent situations; however, these messages could spread out of control, creating panic,

contradicting official sources (unintentionally), and threatening the effectiveness of emergency

communication (Hughes & Palen, 2012; Stephens et al., 2013).

For social media to reach students during an emergency, students must have access to the

internet and know how to check the sites and which sites to check. The usage of general

university websites is widely implemented, but the sites can overload and offenders may be able

to see the warnings being broadcast against them (Schneider, 2010).

The public is much more involved with emergency notification and response and plays a

much more important role than ever before (Hughes & Palen, 2012). Individuals who may be

the first to witness a crisis may also be the first to break the news, prior to university officials

having the chance to respond. Since social media can reach larger audiences at faster rates, there

are new demands and expectations by the public as to how institutions respond to emergencies in

the future.

Researchers show that public information officers (PIOs) are still uncertain how to adapt

fully the use of social media outlets into the emergency notification response process (Hughes &

Palen, 2012). Zdziarski (2001) equates PIOs with those working in university relations.

Regardless of which institutional stakeholders have control over outgoing messages, issues of

redundancy and urgency must be taken into consideration.

Redundancy versus Urgency. Repetition of messages is a common way to convey

urgency (Mileti & Sorensen, 1990). “Without a sense of urgency, the awareness itself is not

19

enough” (Gulum & Murray, 2009, p. 1469). If institutions cannot find appropriate ways to send

emergency messages, people might create their own message filters, sending those messages

straight to the trash (Stephens et al., 2013).

While redundancy is inevitable, people begin to feel frustrated if the emergency messages

are overkill; however, if people receive these messages through various channels, they should be

more persuaded to examine the message and should experience less frustration (Stephens et al.,

2013). Stephens and colleagues found that if students receive three notifications, then the

communication channel no longer matters and students will begin to pay attention. This finding

is unique to campus crisis management literature, as no other similar findings have surfaced.

The overuse of drills and informational and test messages may affect the impact that

actual emergency notifications have; it is possible people will start to perceive the emergency

messages to be simply another drill (Schneider, 2010; Stephens et al., 2013). Human

communication as opposed to electronic communication would increase perceptions of urgency

(Staman et al., 2009; Stephens et al., 2013). A better understanding of student reactions to

redundant communication helps institutions more effectively capture student attention; it is

imperative to activate their sense of urgency as quickly as possible (Stephens et al., 2013).

Summary, Limitations, and Considerations for Future Research

There is long history of campus violence in this country (Smith, 1989), including the

shootings at the University of Texas (1966), South Carolina State University (1968), Kent State

University (1970), University of South Carolina (1978), Cornell University (1983), University of

Iowa (1991), Franciscan University (1999), and Arizona State University (2002) (Ferraro and

McHugh, 2010). The events of September 11 th

, 2001, however, coupled with the mass shootings

at Virginia Tech in 2007, ushered in major changes toward campus safety that had long-term

20

effects on institutions everywhere (LaBanc et al., 2010). A majority of responding institutions to

the surveys reviewed in this paper have written crisis management plans, some with a separate

specific student affairs plan that is different from the overall plan of the institution (Covington,

2013; Zdziarski, 2001).

Institutional perceived preparedness has shown no significant statistical increase over the

years, even though postsecondary leaders still perceive their institutions to be prepared to handle

campus crises, with private institutions generally feeling more prepared than public institutions

(Covington, 2013; Zdziarski, 2001). Research shows more institutions need to start addressing

the pre-crisis phase in addition to the crisis and post-crisis phases most are already addressing in

their written crisis management plans (Catullo et al., 2009; Covington, 2013; Zdziarski, 2001).

Pre-crisis preparation trends show the increased use of staged exercises, training sessions,

building all-call systems, emergency notification systems, and security cameras, especially after

the mass shooting at Virginia Tech (Rasmussen & Johnson, 2008).

The most commonly used mediums for emergency notification are e-mail, text messages,

and institutional websites, with an increased use of social media in recent years. Institutions are

struggling with getting high voluntary student participation rates in their ENS systems. The

systems that automatically include all enrolled students retain more students than those who must

opt-in for participation. Institutions continue struggling with understanding why students choose

not to participate in their respective ENS systems, but different tactics—including marketing the

system at orientation—are currently being used to combat student apathy.

Knowing the communication mediums students, faculty, and staff are frequently utilizing

and prefer, as well as knowing their concerns, can aid in the development and implementation of

efficient ENS systems (Butler & Lafreniere, 2012). Effective and successful communication is

21

more than simply inundating an audience with messages (Stephens et al., 2013). Effective

emergency notification is a process, and is not simply the act of buying the best ENS systems

(Gulum & Murray, 2009).

Limitations exist of the various studies included throughout this review. Zdziarski (2001)

focuses mainly on larger institutions (greater than 8,000 students) and only NASPA member

institutions. Covington (2013) focuses on smaller institutions (less than 5,000 students) and

again, only NASPA member institutions. Catullo et al. (2009) analyzes the status of crisis

management at NASPA institutions, exclusively, as well. These studies isolate those institutions

that are not affiliated with the national organization. Heiselt and Burrell (2012) and Burrell

(2009) looked only at institutions of higher education that are Christian-affiliated and the

Midwestern Higher Education Compact (2008) survey was more comprehensive in terms of

institutional size, but neither used NASPA affiliation as a factor. Important themes tend to

emerge from the research; however, the respondents may not be representative of all institutions

across the country due to the response rates across the various surveys and research conducted.

Researchers looked at institutional crisis management and crisis readiness from the

perspective of postsecondary leaders and administrators (Rasmussen et al., 2008; Zdziarski,

2001). However, little research on emergency notification exists within research on crisis

management; there is typically no overlap between the two topical areas.

Studies that analyze the use of ENS systems, cell phone usage, and social media are very

limited in their scope and generalizability, due to the lack of response and limited number of

institutions included. Future research on ENS should examine more institutions and broader

student perceptions and opinions to understand fully the emergency notification culture.

22

The literature on crisis preparedness at postsecondary institutions in the United States

needs continued expansion (Akers, 2007; Catullo, 2008; Hartzog, 1981; Mitroff et al., 2006;

Wilson, 1992; Zdziarski, 2001). Future research regarding overall crisis management should

focus on answering the following question: What are student’s perceptions toward their

institutions crisis management and active shooter preparedness? Perceptions are often reality,

thus, insight into student perception can be an additional resource institutions of higher education

can use to continue to increase crisis management and preparedness strategies to protect further

those in their immediate community.

23

Chapter 3

Methodology

Overview and Research Questions

This study aimed to gain a better understanding and knowledge of student perceptions of

crisis management at their institutions. Various researchers have studied perceptions of

preparedness among institutional leaders, administrators, and presidents (Burrell, 2009; Catullo

et al., 2009; Covington, 2013; Heiselt & Burrell, 2012; Zdziarski, 2001); however, little research

exists regarding student perceptions of preparedness, and little research on crisis management

addresses the use of emergency notification. Therefore, the following research questions were

posed:

1) What are students perceptions toward their institutional active shooter preparedness

and effectiveness of ENS?

2) To what level do students perceive crisis management plans (i.e. active shooter

preparedness) being communicated effectively?

3) Do students have experience with their institutional ENS? If so, what are students’

levels of satisfaction with emergency notification and ENS used as a response to a

campus crisis or active shooting?

4) What suggestions do students have about effective communication strategies in the

event of an emergency or active shooting?

This chapter describes the study’s research design and methodology. Additional topics

include site selection, participant selection, and sample population; instrumentation with original

survey instrument and modifications of original instrument to be used; procedures including data

collection and data analysis; and limitations and delimitations of the study.

24

Research Design

The research design is a descriptive study using survey research methodology. The

purpose of survey research is to generalize from a smaller sample to a larger population as a

means to infer about that population a specific characteristic, attitude, or behavior (Babbie,

1990). The current study employed the survey method to allow students to self-report their

responses on a modified data collection instrument; however, the reliability and value of

collected data depends on the truthfulness of respondents (Shaughnessy, Zechmeister, & Jeanne,

2011). Respondents may feel pressured to respond according to upheld societal beliefs (also

known as social desirability), but responses are accepted as truthful unless given reason to

believe otherwise (Shaughnessy et al., 2011).

Implementing a survey has many advantages. Surveys are well-suited to descriptive

studies, but are used also to explore different sides of a situation, or to explain and offer data for

testing potential hypotheses (Kelley, Clark, Brown, & Sitzia, 2003). As with most quantitative

methods, the turnaround for data collection is fast (Creswell, 2009), as compared with qualitative

methods. Surveys produce large amounts of data in limited amounts of time without incurring

much cost, if any (Kelley et al., 2003).

The nature of this survey is cross-sectional, with data collected at one single point in time

and only studied once (Shaughnessy et al., 2011). The present study could be performed

longitudinally, but currently is implemented as a cross-section of student perceptions at a

singular moment, and not a comparison at different points in time. Ultimately, the survey is the

preferred method of data collection because numerous institutional crisis management studies

have employed this method as well (Burrell, 2009; Catullo et al., 2009; Covington, 2013; Heiselt

& Burrell, 2012; Zdziarski, 2001).

25

Research Methods

Site Selection. The study was conducted at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville

(UTK), a large public four-year research institution. UTK is a land-grant institution and is the

flagship institution of the State of Tennessee. Undergraduate student enrollment is 20,916 and

there are 11 on-campus residence halls with a total capacity of approximately 7,400 students.

Selection of this institution was due to accessibility and current location of the researcher.

Participant Selection. The study enlisted a stratified random sample of undergraduate

students. The study targets both commuters and non-commuters, with a focused analysis to

compare students from those two groups. Commuters and non-commuters may differ on varying

levels: the amount of time spent on campus, exposure to campus crises, and motivation to

subscribe to an ENS, which may ultimately affect their perceptions. An equal random sample of

1000 commuter students and 1000 non-commuter students were selected for inclusion in the

study (for a total of 2000 students). Each student who fell into one of those groups had equal

access to the survey instrument. A small incentive—ten awards of $20 each—was advertised

and offered to students to help increase the number of responses. By Tennessee law, the

incentive has to be offered to all students receiving the recruitment email, even those who choose

not to complete the survey.

The sample size was calculated using a formula involving population size, desired

confidence level, and degree of accuracy (otherwise known as margin of error) (Krejcie &

Morgan, 1970). The approximate number of undergraduate students currently enrolled at UTK

for the fall 2014 semester is 21,000. The researcher chose a confidence level of 85%, with a

margin of error of 5%. According to the formula, the recommended sample size for a population

of 21,000, a confidence level of 85%, and a margin of error of 5% is 205. This represents the

26

total number of responses needed to adequately represent the undergraduate population; the

stratified samples of commuter and non-commuter students are present within the 205.

Instrumentation. The specific data collection instrument was an electronically self-

administered questionnaire modified from a previous study. Zdziarski (2001) designed the

Campus Crisis Management Questionnaire (CCMQ) to highlight critical indicators of

institutional crisis management: types of crises, phases of a crisis, crisis management plans, and

stakeholders. Zdziarski sent the CCMQ to administrators and colleagues at participating

NASPA institutions to assess the preparedness of their student affairs divisions. The current

study modified the CCMQ to account for student perceptions, and to include supplementary

questions with the intent of filling additional gaps in the literature (related to ENS).

The original CCMQ was divided into three parts (Zdziarski, 2001). Part 1 consisted of

14 questions (see Appendix A). Question 1 solicits a perceived perception rating on a scale of

one (unprepared) to ten (well-prepared), while the remaining 13 questions prompt responses

about crisis management plans. Part 2 assesses the existence and involvement of various

stakeholders. Respondents are asked to indicate on a four-point scale the involvement of 22

internal stakeholders and 20 external stakeholders; however; the modified survey for the present

study does not solicit information on crisis management stakeholders.

Part 3 of the CCMQ assesses types of crises for which institutions are prepared and

whether crisis management plans for those types are addressed with each phase of the crisis—

pre-crisis, crisis, and post-crisis (Zdziarski, 2001). Portions of Part 3 are used in the modified

survey, with questions related to emergency notification added to address each of the three

phases of crisis.

27

Fraenkel and Wallen (2003) stated that an instrument is considered valid if and when the

instrument measures what it was created to measure. To evaluate the CCMQ instrument,

Zdziarski (2001) used content and face validity. Content validity judges on the appropriateness

of content, whereas face validity judges based on face value of the facts (Fraenkel & Wallen,

2003). The CCMQ was validated in several ways:

1) Zdziarski (2001) used comprehensive research of literature to create survey items.

2) A panel of experts reviewed the instrument after items were developed.

3) A pilot study allowed the researcher to make modifications to the instrument.

4) It was posited that the crisis types (human, criminal, facility, and natural crises)

accurately reflects higher education crisis management planning (Catullo, 2008;

Zdziarski, 2001).

The CCMQ was developed and validated from various research and literature on crisis

management. Zdziarski’s (2001) doctoral committee helped to create a first draft of the

instrument before a small panel of experts reviewed its questions for validity and clarity. The

experts offered several changes to the original CCMQ. The questionnaire was then pilot-tested

at select four-year Texas colleges with enrollments less than 8,000 students.

Eight out of ten pilot participants responded to the CCMQ (Zdziarski, 2009). In addition

to the pertinent questions, participants were asked to provide feedback on clarity, organization,

and time it took to complete the survey. Based on responses from the pilot study participants,

various sections of the entire survey packet (questions, cover letter, and instruction sheet) were

revised and refined.

Modifications to the CCMQ. The Campus Crisis Management Questionnaire (Zdziarski,

2001) is the best tool to use as a basis for this research given that responses would provide a

28

transparent view into perceptions of institutional crisis management, preparedness, and response;

however, slight revisions were made to shift the focus of perceptions from institutional leaders to

students. The researcher used Zdziarski’s study and CCMQ solely for scholarship and research,

which, under copyright laws, constitutes fair use, so permission from the author was not needed.

The new survey instrument was given the name CCMQ-S, the Campus Crisis Management

Questionnaire for Students.

The first question of Part 1 of the CCMQ asked respondents to indicate how prepared

their student affairs divisions were to respond to campus crisis. The wording was revised to ask

about institutional preparedness, whereas the general student would perceive the student affairs

division and institution as the same, or might not understand what the student affairs division

includes. This change is visible throughout the entire modified CCMQ-S instrument.

The questions regarding institutional stakeholders from Part 3 of the CCMQ were

omitted, because the present study is not gauging student knowledge or perceptions of

stakeholders. As identified with previous research, there is a lack of synthesis between crisis

management research with that of emergency notification research, so similar questions were

duplicated from the CCMQ with “emergency notification system” replacing “crisis management

plan”.

Part 4 of the CCMQ asks for contingency plans that exist for five types of natural

disasters, seven types of facility crises, 10 types of criminal crises, and 11 types of human crises.

The CCMQ-S focuses on crises where students have the potential to be directly involved, with an

extreme focus on active shooters and active shooting situations. Overall, any portions of the

original CCMQ which are not pertinent to the present study and not relevant to students were not

included in the CCMQ-S.

29

Procedure

Prior to beginning the study, the modified survey instrument was retested for validity and

reliability, since original validity and reliability from the CCMQ may not hold true. The survey

was pilot-tested with a group of 25 Leadership and Service Ambassadors and a class of 40

Orientation Leaders at the University of Tennessee; the chair of the researcher’s thesis

committee also aided in the revision process. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at UTK

granted approval for the study on February 5 th

, 2015 (expedited review; UTK IRB-14-01900

XP). The electronic survey instrument was hosted through Campus Labs, a higher education

assessment service provider utilized by over 650 higher education institutions.

Data Collection. The study was conducted February 10 th

through February 24 th

, 2015.

Links to the electronic survey were sent to the email addresses collected from Strategic

Enrollment Reporting and Analysis (SERA) at UTK. This study targeted undergraduate

students, but a stratification of commuter versus non-commuter students was analyzed for

potential statistical significant similarities and differences.

The informed consent form, a text-version of the modified CCMQ-S as well a link to the

electronic version, and a recruitment email regarding the nature of the study encouraging

participation are included in the Appendix. The recruitment email explains the nature of the

research and the significance of the study, and was included in the body of the email sent to

student participants. The first email to students went out February 10 th

, with a reminder email

sent on February 17 th

indicating that the survey would close on February 24 th

.

258 students started the survey, for an overall response rate of 12.9%. Of these

respondents, only 204 completed the survey in its entirety (through the demographic questions),

30

for an adjusted completed response rate of 10.2%. The largest group of student respondents

were full-time freshmen females who are involved and live on campus.

Data Analysis. Zdziarski (2001) originally collected 146 usable questionnaires.

Responses were coded, entered in a spreadsheet, and imported in SPSS Version 10 for analysis.

Descriptive statistical analyses were performed throughout the population study, including

“frequency tables, cross tabulations, and comparisons of the means of different groupings”

(2001). The present study employed the same descriptive statistical analyses, including chi-

squared significance-testing for the quantitative data, and constant comparative coding for the

qualitative data.

Limitations and Delimitations

Similar to limitations from the literature, data collected may not be generalizable due to

the limited scope of the institutional demographics—only one Southeastern institution is

included in the study. In particular, the state where the study took place is considered politically

more conservative and because gun policy is a contentious issue, active shooter preparedness

may be approached differently than in other states and willingness to openly discuss the topic

may vary. Responses from students at smaller or private institutions, or institutions that have

experienced previous campus crises—like a natural disaster, campus disturbance, or active

shooter—may differ significantly. Any data collected may not be generalizable to the

perceptions of students at other institutions across the country.

Delivery of the survey instrument must be carefully implemented to limit issues of

misinterpretation. If participants are unsure of the meaning of a specific question, the nature of a

survey does not allow for communication with the researcher to clarify the question, potentially

resulting in an untrue and questionable response. Another limitation may be encountered if the

31

rates of survey participant return are low, which is a likely outcome if the survey is lengthy or if

students do not feel compelled by the subject matter, and decide not to complete the survey, or

complete it without giving careful thought.

Efficiency is the primary reason behind the selection of self-reported electronic surveys

as the instrument. They are cost-effective and easily implemented to large samples across a

variety of institutions not in the local vicinity. The conscious choice to use this instrument

comes with known disadvantages, including exaggeration of answers, social bias, and the

potential to represent only a person’s feelings at the time they completed the self-reported

survey.

The survey (CCMQ-S) was distributed to a stratified random sample of undergraduate

students at UTK, with analysis done to compare perceptions of commuter and non-commuter

students. Specific students may have had unique experiences with campus crises and unique

exposure to emergency notification atypical of other students, and similar to the selection of only

one university in one region of the United States, these students do not accurately represent the

entire student body at their respective institution.

The specific type of crisis in the present study was limited to active shootings, with other

crises lumped together as general campus crises. As students are answering questions regarding

preparedness and communication about campus crises, students may not be thinking about the

same types of crises. Care needs to be taken when generalizing student responses to specific

crises not related to active shooting situations since responses were generalized to all campus

crises. Therefore, results are limited to the interpretations and perceptions of the specific

individuals who completed the survey, which is not the institutional reality.

32

Summary

The study used a quantitative research design to gain insight into students’ perceptions of

institutional crisis management, preparedness, and response, specifically in regards to active

shooter preparedness. The research design is a descriptive study. The data collection instrument

was an electronically self-administered questionnaire modified from a previous study to gauge

the perceptions of students as opposed to institutional leaders. The study was conducted at UTK

and targets all undergraduate students, with an additional focus on the similarities and

differences between perceptions of commuter versus non-commuter students. Chapters 4 and 5

present the findings from the original research and discuss the study and conclusions, along with

implications for future practice and research.

33

Chapter 4

Results

The purpose of this study was to consider student perceptions of institutional crisis

management, preparedness, and response. More specifically, the study sought to examine

student perceptions of active shooter preparedness and of the effectiveness of ENS used in the

event of an active shooter on campus. An existing survey instrument was modified and sent to

2,000 students at UTK. Pairs of questions were developed to ascertain perceptions of

management and preparedness for both general crises and active shooting situations to analyze

differences.

Zdziarski (2001), in the original study with which this study is modified, focused on the

existence and type of written crisis management plan—either institutional, student affairs

specific, both, or neither—as a basis for analysis and comparison. The focus of the present study

was of overall student perceptions, including perceptions of the existence of those plans, instead

of existence as institutional reality. Because the study only took place at one institution, a

different quantifier delineates students and their responses. The data in the study were analyzed

based on student residency—on or off-campus—in addition to other demographic factors

(located in Appendix G), as well as an overall analysis of the general student respondent.

The survey asked respondents where they currently reside, on-campus (in a university-

owned residence hall) or off-campus, as well as the number of semesters lived on and off-

campus. Of the 204 students who completed the survey through the demographic questions, 121

(59.31%) currently lived on-campus (non-commuters) and 83 (40.69%) currently lived off-

campus (commuters). Table 4.1 provides additional residency information reported for student’s

34

entire undergraduate collegiate tenure, while additional demographic information is located in

various tables in Appendix E.

Table 4.1

Collegiate Residency of Student Respondents

On-campus (residence hall) Off-campus

# of Semesters Count % # of Semesters Count %

0 32 15.69 0 115 56.37

1 21 10.29 1 16 7.84

2 93 45.59 2 32 15.69

3 2 0.98 3 7 3.43

4 37 18.14 4 13 6.37

5 3 1.47 5 3 1.47

6 12 5.88 6 12 5.88

7 1 0.49 7 2 0.98

8 3 1.47 8 3 1.47

12 1 0.49

Chapter 4 reports the analysis of the responses to the survey and is organized into five

sections. The first four sections are based on the research questions that directed this study:

1) What are students perceptions toward their institutional active shooter preparedness

and effectiveness of ENS?

2) To what level do students perceive crisis management plans (i.e. active shooter

preparedness) being communicated effectively?

3) Do students have experience with their institutional ENS? If so, what are students’

levels of satisfaction with emergency notification and ENS used as a response to a

campus crisis or active shooting?

35

4) What suggestions do students have about effective communication strategies in the

event of an emergency or active shooting?

The final section discusses results from additional analyses that do not necessarily fit into

one of the previous sections from the initial research questions.

Perceptions of Preparedness

Institutional preparedness to respond. Students were asked to indicate their

perceptions of how prepared their institution is to respond to both general campus crises and

active shooters on a scale from 1 (unprepared) to 10 (well-prepared), as well as asking if their

institution has a written plan addressing both campuses crises and active shooters, specifically.

All 258 students responded to this section of questions.

As reported in Figure 4.1 regarding perceptions of institutional preparedness to respond

to campus crises, 50 students (19.38%) indicated a perceived preparedness level of 8/10, 53

(20.54%) indicated a 7/10, 51 (19.77%) indicated a 6/10, and 31 (12.02%) indicated a 5/10. The

mean response (μ) was 6.38 (σ = 1.99). Eighty-five students (32.95%) reported that their

institution had a written plan addressing campus crises, while 166 (64.34%) indicated they did

not know.

As reported in Figure 4.2 regarding perceptions of institutional preparedness to respond

to active shooters, 37 students (14.34%) indicated a preparedness level of 8/10, 52 (20.16%)

indicated 7/10, 37 (14.37%) indicated a 6/10, and 32 (12.4%) indicated a 5/10. The mean

response (μ) was 5.80 (σ = 2.32). Fifty-eight students (22.48%) reported that their institution had

a written plan addressing active shooters, while 197 (76.36%) indicated they did not know.

36

Figure 4.1

Perceptions of Institutional Preparedness for Campus Crises

Figure 4.2

Perceptions of Institutional Preparedness for Active Shooters

37

The distribution of responses between campus crises (μ = 6.34) and active shooters (μ =

5.80), respectively, indicated that students perceive their institution as being moderately prepared

to respond to both general campus crises and active shooters, even though an overwhelming

majority did not know if there are written crisis management plans in place for either general

campus crises or active shooters.

Specifically, non-commuters perceived their institution as being slightly more prepared to

respond to campus crises (μ = 6.54) and active shooters (μ = 5.96) than did commuter students

(campus crises, μ = 6.19; active shooters, μ = 5.53). There was no statistically significant

relationship between current residency and perceptions of institutional preparedness to respond

to either campus crises (p = 0.717) or active shooters (p = 0.823).

Self-preparedness to protect. As a shift from examining institutional preparedness and

moving specifically to active shooting situations, students were then prompted to respond to a set

of questions regarding perceived levels of preparedness to protect themselves in an active

shooting situation depending on the location of the active shooter—in their hometown, in the

areas surrounding campus, on the main campus (outdoors), in a campus building nearby (not

where you are), in the building where you are located, and in your classroom. The hometown

option, while not considered part of the institution, was used as a control to put proximity into

perspective. A total of 214 students responded to this set of questions.

Students reported feeling most prepared to protect themselves if the shooter is in their

hometown (μ = 7.32), and less prepared to protect themselves if the shooter is in their classroom

(μ = 3.72). Responses varied depending on proximity to the shooter, as shown in Table 4.2.

As reported in Table 4.2.1, non-commuters reported feeling more prepared than

commuters to protect themselves if the active shooter was on-campus; commuters reported

38

feeling more prepared than non-commuters to protect themselves if the active shooter was off-

campus. There was no statistically significant relationship between current residency and

preparedness to be able to protect yourself based on the location of the active shooter.

Table 4.2

Self-Protection Based on Location of Active Shooter

In your

hometown

Areas

surrounding

campus

Main

campus,

outdoors

Different

campus

building

In your

building on

campus

In your

classroom

# % # % # % # % # % # %

1 (unprepared) 9 4.2 26 12.1 26 12.1 17 7.9 45 21.0 81 37.9

2 2 0.9 10 4.7 11 5.1 9 4.2 14 6.5 13 6.1

3 3 1.4 14 6.5 16 7.5 13 6.1 12 5.6 19 8.9

4 20 9.3 25 11.7 31 14.5 28 13.1 24 11.2 22 10.3

5 18 8.4 32 15.0 31 14.5 26 12.1 30 14.0 19 8.9

6 16 7.5 28 13.1 26 12.1 21 9.8 18 8.4 22 10.3

7 26 12.1 28 13.1 24 11.2 35 16.4 26 12.1 13 6.1

8 38 17.8 25 11.7 26 12.1 29 13.6 16 7.5 8 3.7

9 27 12.6 12 5.6 15 7.0 16 7.5 13 6.1 8 3.7

10 (well prepared) 55 25.7 14 6.5 8 3.7 20 9.3 16 7.5 9 4.2

Mean 7.32 5.42 5.24 5.90 4.90 3.72

Standard Deviation 2.48 2.61 2.58 2.60 2.90 2.79

Table 4.2.1

Self-Protection, Non-Commuter versus Commuter

Location of Active Shooter

Significance

(p)

Non-commuter

Mean (μ)

Commuter

Mean (μ)

Overall

Mean (μ)

Hometown 0.203 7.11 7.63 7.32

Areas surrounding campus 0.157 5.33 5.61 5.42

Main campus, outdoors 0.328 5.37 4.99 5.24

Nearby campus building 0.242 6.06 5.55 5.90

Campus building where you are 0.100 5.22 4.41 4.91

Classroom 0.240 3.81 3.55 3.72

39

Additionally, students were given the opportunity to explain their level of preparedness to

protect themselves, given the previous situations, in an open-ended format. A total of 214

students provided an explanation and responses varied. After coding all valid responses, distinct

themes emerged from both sides of the preparedness spectrum. Twelve responses were

unusable, leaving 202 valid responses.

For the 22 students who provided a response indicating a positive level of preparedness,

many had previously thought about what to do if an active shooting situation were to occur.

They had some experience with training and past drills. They indicated being resourceful, aware

of their surroundings, and knowing where to run and hide if they needed to.

For the 168 students who provided a response indicating a more negative level of

preparedness, many simply did not know how to protect themselves. Students think they would

panic and be terrified if confronted, especially since they did not think there was anywhere to

hide. Twenty-four students reported not being able to carry weapons as their reason for feeling

unprepared, leading to them and others to now know how to protect themselves. A few students

perceived a lack of police presence, a lack of timely and valid alert messages, and an “unsafe”

campus as their reasoning. The largest emergent theme from this question, as indicated by 61

students, was a response that not enough information was given to students about what to do in

an active shooting situation; they indicated they have not been trained, do not know protocol, and

that it was not communicated.

Responses from 12 students indicated a mixed level of preparedness. These students

reported that proximity of the shooter to the student was another emergent theme that dictated

self-perceived levels of preparedness and how safe they would feel. Students reported feeling

more prepared if the shooter was farther away, but less prepared if the shooter was in their

40

classroom or out in public where they might be at the time, which aligned with the quantitative

data from the previous questions regarding self-protection. The comprehensive list of open-

ended responses to this question is located in Table F1 in Appendix F.

Communication of Crisis Management and Active Shooter Protocol

Effective protocol communication. Students were asked to indicate their perceptions of

how effective both crisis management and active shooter protocol were communicated to

students on a scale from 1 (not effective) to 10 (very effective). Similarly, they were asked how

crisis management and active shooter preparedness plans were actually communicated to

students. A total of 239 students responded to this section of questions.

Figure 4.3 illustrates the distribution of responses to the question regarding perceptions of

effective communication of crisis management protocol. While the top responses were 4/10 (36

students; 15.06%), 5/10 (31 students; 12.97%), 6/10 (29 students; 12.13%), and 7/10 (29

students; 12.13%), there were similar frequency counts that spanned the effectiveness spectrum,

suggesting that there was no clear consensus or majority of student perceptions (μ = 5.58; σ =

2.61).

Figure 4.4 continues to illustrate the distribution of responses to the question regarding

perceptions of effective communication, but of active shooter protocol, specifically. The top

responses were 1/10 (40 students; 16.74%), 4/10 (35 students; 14.64%), and 7/10 (33 students;

13.81%). There were also similar frequency counts throughout the range; however, the

distributions show that students perceived active shooter protocol (μ = 4.90; σ = 2.71) as

communicated less than general crisis management protocol.

41

Figure 4.3

Perceptions of Institutional Communication of Crisis Management Protocol

Figure 4.4

Perceptions of Institutional Communication of Active Shooter Protocol

42

Non-commuters perceived crisis management protocol (μ = 5.67) and active shooter

protocol (μ = 4.84) as communicated just as effectively as commuter students (campus

management protocol, μ = 5.51; active shooter preparedness plans, μ = 4.76). There was no

statistically significant relationship between current residency and perceptions of either effective

communication of crisis management protocol (p = 0.793) or active shooter protocol (p = 0.737).

Protocol communication mediums. In combination with the previous questions,

students were asked to indicate how they believed both crisis management and active shooter

preparedness plans are communicated to students. Ten communication mediums were listed, as

well as an option for “not communicated” and an “other” option allowing students to input their

own responses. A total of 239 students responded to these questions, most with multiple

responses.

As reported in Table 4.3, the communication mediums for crisis management plans with

the highest frequencies for which students reported their institution using were: email sent to all

students (162 students; 67.78%); plan accessible on UTK website (103 students; 43.1%); new

student orientation (78 students; 32.64%); and copy of plan available upon request (66 students;

27.62%). A total of 651 total responses were recorded. Table 4.3.1 illustrates the differences

between non-commuters and commuters in terms of communication of crisis management plans.

A higher percentage of non-commuter students believed crisis management plans were

communicated through drills, exercises, and simulations as compared to commuter students.

Higher percentages of commuter students believed crisis management plans were communicated

through new student orientation and social media as compared to non-commuter students.

For communication mediums of active shooter preparedness plans, also reported in Table

4.3, the responses with the highest frequencies were: email sent to all students (116 students;

43

48.54%); not communicated (84 students; 35.15%); plan accessible on UTK website (65

students; 27.20%); and copy of plan available upon request (43 students; 17.99%). A total of

473 total responses were recorded, as compared to 651 for crisis management plans, indicating

that students believed active shooter preparedness plans were communicated less than general

crisis management plans. Table 4.3.2 illustrates the differences between non-commuters and

commuters in terms of communication of active shooter preparedness plans. Higher percentages

of commuter students believed active shooter preparedness plans were communicated through

social media and “a copy available upon request” than non-commuter students.

Table 4.3

Crisis Management and Active Shooter Preparedness Communication Mediums

Crisis Management

Plans

Active Shooter

Preparedness Plans

Count % Count %

Not communicated 43 17.99 84 35.15

Copy of plan available upon request 66 27.62 43 17.99

Plan accessible on UTK website 103 43.10 65 27.20

Annual notification 42 17.57 19 7.95

New employee orientation 21 8.79 12 5.02

New student orientation 78 32.64 37 15.48

Optional crisis management training sessions 16 6.69 20 8.37

Required crisis management training sessions 4 1.67 7 2.93

Drills, exercises, and simulations 61 25.52 20 8.37

Email sent to all students 162 67.78 116 48.54

Social media 42 17.57 33 13.81

Other (please specify) 13 5.44 17 7.11

Total Responses 651 473

Total Respondents 239 239

44

Table 4.3.1

Crisis Management Plan Communication, Non-Commuter versus Commuter

Non-Commuter Commuter

Count % Count %

Not communicated 23 19.01 13 15.66

Copy of plan available upon request 27 22.31 25 30.12

Plan accessible on UTK website 51 42.15 36 43.37

Annual notification 19 15.70 15 18.07

New employee orientation 3 2.48 13 15.66

New student orientation 36 29.75 30 36.14

Optional crisis management training sessions 6 4.96 6 7.23

Required crisis management training sessions 1 0.83 2 2.41

Drills, exercises, and simulations 38 31.40 13 15.66

Email sent to all students 79 65.29 59 71.08

Social media 16 13.22 20 24.10

Other (please specify) 6 4.96 5 6.02

Total Responses 305 237

Total Respondents 121 83

Table 4.3.2

Active Shooter Preparedness Communication, Non-Commuter versus Commuter

Non-Commuter Commuter

Count % Count %

Not communicated 43 35.54 30 36.14

Copy of plan available upon request 18 14.88 18 21.69

Plan accessible on UTK website 34 28.10 20 24.10

Annual notification 5 4.13 7 8.43

New employee orientation 2 1.65 5 6.02

New student orientation 16 13.22 13 15.66

Optional crisis management training sessions 4 3.31 8 9.64

Required crisis management training sessions 2 1.65 2 2.41

Drills, exercises, and simulations 7 5.79 7 8.43

Email sent to all students 58 47.93 40 48.19

Social media 12 9.92 14 16.87

Other (please specify) 6 4.96 7 8.43

Total Responses 207 171

Total Respondents 121 83

45

Emergency Notification Satisfaction

UT Alert system. Of 213 students, 198 (92.96%) reported being registered for the UT

Alert system, and there were a variety of reasons for signing up. A total of 177 (83.10%)

registered for the system because they wanted to know when something happens on campus; 98

(46.01%) indicated safety as their main concern; 76 (35.68%) reported that somebody told them

to register; and 37 (17.37%) thought registration for the UT Alert system was required. Those

students who were not signed up were able to indicate their reasons for not doing so.

If the UTK automatically signed up every student for the UT Alert system but gave

students the option to remain signed-up or remove themselves from the system, an overwhelming

201 of 206 students (97.57%) indicated they would remain a part of the system.

Students were asked to respond with levels of satisfaction toward various components of

the UT Alert system. Table 4.4 demonstrates the frequencies and percentages with which

students are satisfied or very satisfied with: text message alerts (156 students; 74.29%); email

notifications (156 students; 74.29%); and the overall UT Alert system (147 students; 70.68%).

Table 4.4.1 reports student satisfaction with the UT Alert system in terms of residency.

The differences in means between non-commuters and commuters over all three areas of

satisfaction were relatively minimal, indicating that all students were equally satisfied with the

UT Alert system. There was no statistically significant relationship between residency and

student satisfaction with the UT Alert system.

46

Table 4.4

Student Satisfaction with UT Alert System

Text message alerts Email notifications Overall UT Alert

system

# % # % # %

Very Satisfied (5) 77 36.67 72 34.29 62 29.81

Satisfied (4) 79 37.62 84 40.00 85 40.87

Neutral (3) 28 13.33 34 16.19 42 20.19

Unsatisfied (2) 18 8.57 19 9.05 15 7.21

Very Unsatisfied (1) 8 3.81 1 0.48 4 1.92

Mean 3.9476 3.9857 3.8942

Standard Deviation 1.09024 .95586 .97721

Table 4.4.1

Student Satisfaction with UT Alert System, Non-Commuter versus Commuter

Significance (p)

Non-commuter

Mean (μ)

Commuter

Mean (μ)

Overall

Mean (μ)

Text message alerts 0.369 3.95 3.94 3.95

Email notification 0.453 4.01 3.95 3.99

Overall UT Alert system 0.512 3.85 3.9 3.89

Quantity and timeliness of emergency messages. Students were then asked to rate their

levels of agreement of six statements regarding quantity and timeliness of emergency messages.

A total of 213 students responded to this matrix of questions, and the results are located below in

Table 4.5. Eighty-four students (39.44%) strongly disagreed that their institution sends out too

many emergency messages and 116 students (54.46%) agreed and strongly agreed that their

institution sends out emergency messages in a timely manner. When given the statement “my

institution does not send out emergency messages,” 173 students (81.22%) strongly disagreed.

Table 4.5.1 demonstrates that the reported means for non-commuters and commuters in

terms of quantity and timeliness of messages are aligned very closely with each other, and with

47

the overall mean for the overall student sample. There was no statistically significant

relationship between residency and perceptions of quantity and timeliness of messages.

Table 4.5

Perceptions of Quantity and Timeliness of Emergency Messages

Too

many

Right

amount

Not

enough

Timely Not

timely

No

messages

# % # % # % # % # % # %

5 (Strongly agree) 11 5.16 60 28.17 19 8.92 42 19.72 22 10.33 2 0.94

4 21 9.86 71 33.33 17 7.98 74 34.74 29 13.62 4 1.88

3 37 17.37 48 22.54 45 21.13 52 24.41 26 12.21 15 7.04

2 60 28.17 20 9.39 64 30.05 27 12.68 72 33.80 19 8.92

1 (Strongly disagree) 84 39.44 14 6.57 68 31.92 18 8.45 64 30.05 173 81.22

Mean 2.1315 3.6714 2.3192 3.4460 2.4038 1.3239

Standard Deviation 1.19021 1.17159 1.24819 1.18686 1.31980 .76679

Table 4.5.1

Perceptions of Quantity and Timeliness of Emergency Messages,

Non-Commuter versus Commuter

Significance (p)

Non-commuter

Mean (μ)

Commuter

Mean (μ)

Overall

Mean (μ)

Too many messages 0.938 2.17 2.06 2.13

Right amount of messages 0.874 3.69 3.66 3.67

Not enough messages 0.234 2.34 2.27 2.32

Messages are timely 0.161 3.52 3.37 3.45

Messages are not timely 0.278 2.38 2.42 2.4

No messages are sent 0.917 1.32 1.31 1.32

Effective Communication Strategies

Effective pre-crisis communication mediums. Similar to previous questions regarding

perceptions of communication mediums actually used, this set of questions asked students to

48

select the same communication mediums they believed would be effective to communicate crisis

management and active shooter preparedness plans (pre-crisis), regardless of the existence of

those mediums at their institution. The same ten communication mediums were listed, as well as

“other” for students to input their own responses. A total of 239 students responded with 1078

total responses.

As reported in Table 4.6, the mediums indicated as being most effective for

communicating crisis management and active shooter preparedness plans were: email sent to all

students (192 students; 80.33%); new student orientation (133 students; 55.65%); plan accessible

on UTK website (125 students; 52.30%); drills, exercises, and simulations (107 students;

44.77%); and social media (104 students; 43.51%). The communication mediums students

perceived as being most effective were some of the same ones indicated as already being in place

at their institution, with the exception of drills, exercises, and simulations.

Table 4.6

Perceptions of Effective Pre-Crisis Communication Mediums

Count %

Copy of plan available upon request 88 36.82

Plan accessible on UTK website 125 52.30

Annual notification 100 41.84

New employee orientation 83 34.73

New student orientation 133 55.65

Optional crisis management training sessions 82 34.31

Required crisis management training sessions 51 21.34

Drills, exercises, and simulations 107 44.77

Email sent to all students 192 80.33

Social media 104 43.51

Other (please specify) 13 5.44

Total Responses 1078

Total Respondents 239

49

Table 4.6.1 indicates the differences between non-commuters and commuters in terms of

which pre-crisis communication mediums they perceive would be most effective. Non-

commuters perceived a “plan accessible on UTK website” to be more effective than commuters

do. Commuters perceived new student orientation, new employee orientation, required crisis

management training sessions, and social media to be more effective than non-commuters do.

Table 4.6.1

Perceptions of Effective Pre-Crisis Communication, Non-Commuter versus Commuter

Non-Commuter Commuter

Count % Count %

Copy of plan available upon request 42 34.71 31 37.35

Plan accessible on UTK website 69 57.02 42 50.60

Annual notification 50 41.32 35 42.17

New employee orientation 33 27.27 37 44.58

New student orientation 63 52.07 54 65.06

Optional crisis management training sessions 41 33.88 27 32.53

Required crisis management training sessions 18 14.88 23 27.71

Drills, exercises, and simulations 52 42.98 41 49.40

Email sent to all students 96 79.34 70 84.34

Social media 48 39.67 42 50.60

Other (please specify) 6 4.96 5 6.02

Total Responses 518 407

Total Respondents 121 83

Notification during crisis. The focus of the questions on the instrument shifted from a

pre-crisis preparedness communication towards notification during a live crisis or emergency

situation. Eleven means of communication were listed as options, as well as “none of the

above”, “I don’t know”, and “other.” When asked how students are notified of a campus crisis

or emergency, the top responses, as shown in Table 4.7, were text message alerts (196 students;

50

95.15%), email notification (195 students; 94.66%), social media (69 students; 33.50%), fire

panel alarms with voice enunciation (22 students; 10.68%), and posting on the homepage of the

institutional website (21 students; 10.19%). A total of 206 students responded with 558 total

responses.

Table 4.7.1 indicates the differences between non-commuters and commuters in terms of

how they believe students are notified during a campus crisis or emergency. The reported

percentages for non-commuters and commuters were aligned very closely with each other, and

with the overall percentages of the overall student sample.

Table 4.7

Student Notification of Campus Crisis or Emergency

Count %

Text message alerts 196 95.15

Email notification 195 94.66

Automated phone calls 3 1.46

Posting on the homepage of the institutional website 21 10.19

Social media 69 33.50

Outdoor sirens 14 6.80

Outdoor-broadcast messages 3 1.46

Radio-broadcast messages 5 2.43

Fire panel alarms with voice enunciation 22 10.68

Digital signage 3 1.46

Indoor building public address systems 12 5.83

None of the above. 1 0.49

I don't know. 13 6.31

Other (please specify) 1 0.49

Total Responses 558

Total Respondents 206

51

Table 4.7.1

Student Notification of Crisis, Non-Commuter versus Commuter

Non-commuter Commuter

Count % Count %

Text message alerts 113 93.39 82 98.80

Email notification 114 94.21 79 95.18

Automated phone calls 1 0.83 1 1.20

Posting on the homepage of the institutional website 10 8.26 11 13.25

Social media 41 33.88 27 32.53

Outdoor sirens 5 4.13 9 10.84

Outdoor-broadcast messages 0 0.00 3 3.61

Radio-broadcast messages 1 0.83 4 4.82

Fire panel alarms with voice enunciation 15 12.40 7 8.43

Digital signage 1 0.83 1 1.20

Indoor building public address systems 9 7.44 3 3.61

None of the above. 1 0.83 0 0.00

I don't know. 4 3.31 9 10.84

Other (please specify) 0 0.00 1 1.20

Total Responses 315 237

Total Respondents 121 83

Effective notification during crisis. The final matrix of questions on the instrument

prompted students to rate each of the previous 11 means of communication in terms of possible

effectiveness in the event of an emergency, but only in the specific event of an active shooting

situation. Table 4.8 shows that students perceived the most effective means to be text message

alerts (μ = 9.04), outdoor sirens (μ = 8.09), and outdoor-broadcast messages (μ = 7.58); students

perceived posting on the homepage of the institutional website (μ = 4.44) and radio-broadcast

messages (μ = 4.91) to be the least effective means to notify students during an active shooting.

Table 4.8.1 demonstrates that the reported means for non-commuters and commuters in

terms of perceptions of effective notification during an active shooting were aligned very closely

with each other, and with the mean for the overall student sample. There was no statistically

52

significant relationship between residency and perceptions of quantity and timeliness of

emergency messages.

Table 4.8

Perceptions of Effective Notification during Active Shooting

Text message

alerts

Email

notification

Automated

phone calls

Posting on

institutional

homepage

# % # % # % # %

10 (very effective) 124 60.19 53 25.73 36 17.48 16 7.77

9 30 14.56 26 12.62 17 8.25 12 5.83

8 31 15.05 32 15.53 25 12.14 16 7.77

7 7 3.40 20 9.71 28 13.59 10 4.85

6 2 0.97 19 9.22 14 6.80 25 12.14

5 5 2.43 22 10.68 16 7.77 14 6.80

4 2 0.97 10 4.85 15 7.28 17 8.25

3 3 1.46 9 4.37 15 7.28 21 10.19

2 0 0.00 4 1.94 8 3.88 22 10.68

1 (not effective) 2 0.97 11 5.34 32 15.53 53 25.73

Mean 9.04 7.13 5.95 4.44

Standard Deviation 1.66 2.66 3.12 3.03

Social media Outdoor sirens

Outdoor-

broadcast

messages

Radio-broadcast

messages

# % # % # % # %

10 (very effective) 53 25.73 81 39.32 70 33.98 15 7.28

9 22 10.68 39 18.93 29 14.08 12 5.83

8 34 16.50 29 14.08 30 14.56 19 9.22

7 20 9.71 20 9.71 25 12.14 20 9.71

6 7 3.40 9 4.37 10 4.85 24 11.65

5 25 12.14 9 4.37 11 5.34 24 11.65

4 10 4.85 3 1.46 7 3.40 15 7.28

3 7 3.40 2 0.97 8 3.88 24 11.65

2 6 2.91 2 0.97 3 1.46 13 6.31

1 (not effective) 22 10.68 12 5.83 13 6.31 40 19.42

Mean 6.80 8.09 7.58 4.91

Standard Deviation 3.00 2.48 2.70 2.89

53

Table 4.8 (continued)

Fire panel alarms

with voice

enunciation

Digital signage

Indoor building

public address

systems

# % # % # %

10 (very effective) 65 31.55 29 14.08 61 29.61

9 32 15.53 16 7.77 29 14.08

8 35 16.99 22 10.68 41 19.90

7 19 9.22 30 14.56 20 9.71

6 14 6.80 19 9.22 15 7.28

5 11 5.34 28 13.59 14 6.80

4 7 3.40 14 6.80 1 0.49

3 5 2.43 14 6.80 6 2.91

2 4 1.94 2 0.97 4 1.94

1 (not effective) 14 6.80 32 15.53 15 7.28

Mean 7.55 5.86 7.50

Standard Deviation 2.70 2.93 2.70

Table 4.8.1

Perceptions of Effective Notification during Active Shooting,

Non-Commuter versus Commuter

Significance (p)

Non-commuter

Mean (μ)

Commuter

Mean (μ)

Overall

Mean (μ)

Text message alerts 0.381 9.02 9.07 9.04

Email notification 0.223 7.06 7.28 7.14

Automated phone calls 0.819 5.97 5.94 5.95

Posting on the homepage of the

institutional website 0.522 4.07 4.99 4.44

Social media 0.195 6.56 7.12 6.81

Outdoor sirens 0.985 8.11 8.01 8.09

Outdoor-broadcast messages 0.393 7.64 7.46 7.58

Radio-broadcast messages 0.941 4.73 5.1 4.91

Fire panel alarms with voice

enunciation 0.829 7.52 7.54 7.55

Digital signage 0.745 5.69 6.05 5.86

Indoor building

public address systems 0188 7.37 7.65 7.50

54

Additional Results

In addition to gauging student perceptions about crisis management, preparedness, and

response, students were asked if being informed about the previous information was important.

Fifty-eight students (27.1%) agreed and 141 students (65.89%) strongly agreed that being

informed about how to protect themselves during campus crises was important to them.

Similarly and more specifically, 41 students (19.16%) agreed and 157 students (73.36%)

strongly agreed that being informed about how to protect themselves during active shooting

situations was important.

55

Chapter 5

Summary, Discussion, and Recommendations

This chapter provides a brief summary of the purpose, procedures and major findings,

conclusions and discussion, limitations of the study, implications for practice, and directions for

further research.

Summary

Purpose of the Study. The purpose of this study was to consider student perceptions of

institutional crisis management, preparedness, and response. More specifically, the study sought

to examine student perceptions of active shooter preparedness and of the effectiveness of

emergency notification systems (ENS) used in the event of an active shooter on campus. This

study was designed to explore the following research questions specific to students, rather than

institutional or higher education administrators:

1) What are students perceptions toward their institutional active shooter preparedness

and effectiveness of ENS?

2) To what level do students perceive crisis management plans (i.e. active shooter

preparedness) being communicated effectively?

3) Do students have experience with their institutional ENS? If so, what are students’

levels of satisfaction with emergency notification and ENS used as a response to a

campus crisis or active shooting?

4) What suggestions do students have about effective communication strategies in the

event of an emergency or active shooting?

Review of the Procedures. The research design was a descriptive study using survey

research methodology. The nature of this survey was cross-sectional, with data collected at one

56

single point in time and only studied once (Shaughnessy et al., 2011). The study was conducted

at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK), a large public four-year research institution,

and enlisted a stratified random sample of undergraduate students—an equal random sample of

1000 commuter students and 1000 non-commuter students were selected for inclusion in the

study (for a total of 2000 students). This study targeted undergraduate students, but a

stratification of commuter versus non-commuter students was analyzed for potential statistical

significant similarities and differences using the chi-squared significance test.

The specific data collection instrument was an electronically self-administered

questionnaire modified from a previous study (Zdziarski, 2001) to fit the needs of the present

study. After pilot-testing with two groups of students at UTK, the instrument was sent to the

2,000 undergraduate students in the sample on February 10 th

, 2015. A total of 258 students

began the survey, for an overall response rate of 12.9%. Of these responses, only 204 completed

the survey in its entirety (through the demographic questions), for an adjusted completed

response rate of 10.2%.

Summary of the Findings.

1) What are student’s perceptions toward their institutional active shooter preparedness and

effectiveness of ENS?

For campus crises, UTK students perceived their institution to be moderately prepared to

respond to general campus crises, even though an overwhelming majority did not know if there

was a written plan in place. For active shooting situations, the same results held—perceptions of

moderate institutional preparedness, even though the majority of students did not know if a

written plan was in place.

57

Students reported feeling more prepared to protect themselves against an active shooter

as the distance between them and the active shooter increased. When asked to explain their level

of preparedness to protect themselves, responses varied on both ends of the preparedness

spectrum. The majority of students provided a response indicating a negative level of

preparedness. The most common responses attributing to feeling unprepared were simply

students not knowing what they would do, not being able to have a gun on campus, and protocol

not being communicated.

2) To what level do students perceive crisis management plans (i.e. active shooter

preparedness) being communicated effectively?

There was no clear consensus of student perceptions regarding effective institutional

communication of crisis management protocol (μ = 5.58; σ = 2.61) or active shooter protocol (μ

= 4.90; σ = 2.71). This suggested that students perceived active shooter protocol communication

as less effective than communication of general crisis management protocol; however, the

distribution of responses and standard deviations were excessively high, bringing the validity of

the results from this section, as well as other sections with high standard deviations, into

question.

Analyses of data showed that the mediums used most to communicate crisis management

plans were: email sent to all students, plan accessible on UTK website, new student orientation,

and drills, exercises, and simulations. For communication of active shooter preparedness plans,

the most used mediums according to the data were: email sent to all students, “not

communicated,” plan accessible on UTK website, and copy of plan available upon request. It

follows that students believe active shooter preparedness plans were communicated less than

general crisis management plans.

58

3) Do students have experience with their institutional ENS? If so, what are students’ levels

of satisfaction with emergency notification and ENS used as a response to a campus crisis or

active shooting?

Students reported signing up for the UT Alert system for a variety of reasons: because

they wanted to know when something happened on campus; safety is a main concern; somebody

told them to register; and many thought it was required to register. Overall, students were

satisfied with the text message alerts (μ = 3.95), email notification (μ = 3.99), and the overall UT

Alert system (μ = 3.89).

The majority of students: strongly disagreed that their institution sends out too many

emergency messages; agreed that their institution sends out emergency messages in a timely

manner; and strongly disagreed to the statement “my institution does not send out emergency

messages.”

4) What suggestions do students have about effective communication strategies in the event of

an emergency or active shooting?

The most effective communication mediums, as reported by students, for communicating

crisis management and active shooter preparedness plans (pre-crisis) were: email sent to all

students; new student orientation; plan accessible on UTK website; drills, exercises, and

simulations; and annual notification. These were some of the same ones students indicated as

actually being in place.

Students indicated that, during an emergency on campus, they were notified most often

by text message alerts, emails, social media, and fire panel alarms with voice enunciation. The

final question asked students which means of communication would be most effective to notify

students of an active shooting during the incident. The responses listed as most effective were

59

text message alerts, outdoor sirens, and outdoor-broadcast messages, while the least effective

were posting on the homepage of the institutional website and radio-broadcast messages.

In addition, students generally agreed that being informed about how to protect

themselves during general campus crises and during active shooting situations was important to

them.

Overall, there was no statistically significant relationship between where a student

currently resides (on-campus or off-campus) and any of the perception, preparedness,

communication, or response variables presented in the study.

Conclusions

1. Students at UTK generally believe their institutions are prepared to respond to active

shooters (although less than general campus crises), even though the students do not feel as

prepared to protect themselves.

2. Regardless if crisis management or active shooter preparedness plans are

communicated to students, students do not usually know if these plans exist. They believe that

drills, exercises, and simulations are one method that would be effective to communicate active

shooter protocol that they do not perceive to currently be in place.

3. Text messages and emails are used most frequently to notify students of a campus

crisis or emergency, but there are additional ways students perceive to be effective means to

communicate emergency messages including outdoor sirens and outdoor broadcast messages.

4. Students want to be informed about how to protect themselves during campus crises,

specifically, active shooting situations. Many of these students have never previously thought

about the possibility of being involved in this sort of incident, and similarly, have never thought

about the existence of written institutional protocol.

60

5. There is no relationship between where a student resides and their perceptions of

institutional crisis management, preparedness, and response, even though there were some slight

differences in average responses with this specific sample population.

Discussion

The results of this study suggest students had moderate to high perceptions of

institutional preparedness, which closely aligns with previous research (Burrell, 2009; Catullo et

al., 2009; Covington, 2013; Heiselt & Burrell, 2012; Zdziarski, 2001) regarding perceptions of

administrators and leaders of postsecondary institutions.

Viewing the results through the Terror Management Theory (TMT) framework begins to

explain the incongruence between the first set of questions answered—if students perceived their

institutions to be prepared to respond to campus crises and active shooters, and if written crises

management and active shooter preparedness plans exist. Students generally perceived their

institutions to be prepared, but an overwhelming percentage of students did not know if written

plans are in place. According to TMT, there are two hypotheses—the anxiety-buffer hypothesis

posits that self-esteem protects individuals against anxiety, thus strengthening self-esteem makes

one less susceptible to anxiety-related behavior; and the mortality salience hypothesis relates to

the psychological structure that intangibly protects individuals against anxiety, thus, reminding

people of the cause of their anxiety increases the need for that structure (Pyszczynski et al., 1999).

To increase their levels of self-esteem and lessen their anxiety, students may report positive

perceptions of institutional preparedness; the alternative of believing the institution is unprepared

may invoke anxiety and the thoughts of what may happen during campus crises should the institution

not respond appropriately. When asked questions regarding emergency notification, the

communication mediums reported as being in place to notify students were the same communication

mediums reported as having the potential to be most effective, should a campus crisis or active

61

shooting occur. The TMT framework would suggest that having these positive perceptions of

effectiveness allows students to have positive reactions that support the psychological structure that,

again, lessens anxiety and dispels any notions of feeling unsafe.

Students, overall, did not know if there was written protocol to respond to campus crises

or active shooters is in place, which aligns with the extent of open-ended responses indicating

that students did not know protocol because it is not communicated to them. Because students

generally perceived their institutions to be prepared, they may have never had to consider nor

think about the actual plans the institution has in place to activate during these situations; thus,

when prompted with the question, the overwhelming realization was one of uncertainty, with a

handful of students reporting open-endedly that they now want to know the protocol. A link to

institutional protocol was included at the end of the survey. Exposure to the survey and study

prompted some students to begin to think more about this topic and the possibility of a similar

incident happening.

Non-commuter students and commuter-students had similar responses and distributions

across the entire survey instrument. The initial sample was stratified (1000 non-commuters and

1000 commuters) to analyze if there were significant differences between the two populations,

but descriptive statistics and chi-squared significance-testing posit that a significant relationship

did not exist.

Recommendations and Implications for Practice

This study represented an initial effort to identify student perceptions regarding crisis

management, active shooter preparedness, and emergency notification. The following are

recommendations and implications for practice based on student responses.

First, institutions should be intentional about communicating crisis management plans—

specifically active shooter preparedness plans—to students. An overwhelming majority of

62

students—64.34% for campus crises and 76.36% for active shooters—did not know if a written

plan exists within the institution, so ensuring students have easy access to and are aware of these

plans would shift student perceptions of preparedness and communication of preparedness plans

in a more positive and effective direction. Crisis management plans that administrators and

postsecondary leaders note as being effective and in place (Zdziarski, 2001) are less effective if

students are not aware of their existence.

Second, institutions should begin to use additional mediums to communicate crisis

management and active shooter preparedness plans in the pre-crisis stage. Students were asked

two different questions regarding pre-crisis communication: which communication mediums

were used and which they perceived would be effective to use. Aside from those with high

frequencies from both perspectives—email, plan accessible on UTK website, and copy available

upon request—students reported at a much higher frequency additional communication mediums

that would be effective even though less students reported those specific communication

mediums actually being in place. Those mediums include social media, new student orientation,

optional training sessions, and drills, exercises, and simulations.

Third, institutions should consider implementing an active shooter training session that

additionally serves as both a drill and a simulation. When asked how active shooter

preparedness plans were communicated to students pre-crisis, only 20 students (8.37%) indicated

optional training sessions and only 20 students (8.37%) indicated drills, exercises, and

simulations, even though UTK did not currently offer those resources to students. However,

when asked which communication mediums students perceived would be effective to

communicate active shooter preparedness plans, 82 students (34.31%) indicated optional training

sessions and 107 students (44.77%) indicated drills, exercises, and simulations. This has the

63

potential to address the low reported levels of students feeling prepared to protect themselves and

may start combating the “I don’t know” culture regarding what to do during an active shooting

situation.

Fourth, institutions should begin to use additional communication mediums to notify

students during an active shooting situation. Students were asked two different questions

regarding active shooter emergency notification: which communication mediums were used and

which they perceived would be effective to use. Aside from those with high frequencies from

both effective and existence perspectives—text message alerts, email notification, and social

media—students reported additional communication mediums being effective at a much higher

frequency as compared to mere existence. Those mediums included outdoor sirens, outdoor-

broadcast messages, fire panel alarms with voice enunciation, and indoor building public address

systems. In addition, consider evaluating the content of messages and how much information

should be given.

Finally, all students should automatically be enrolled and registered for the UT Alert

system. Once students are initially registered for the UT Alert system, they should be given

options either to remain registered or unsubscribe (opt-out) if they choose. When asked the

question regarding the option students would choose in that scenario, 97.57% of students

indicated that they would remain registered. This recommendation is supported by previous

research at different institutions that implemented a similar policy, where an average of 92% of

students remained a part of the system if enrollment was required, given the option to opt-out

after the mandatory registration (Staman et al., 2009). Although students reported not wanting to

offer up their cell phone number, privacy as a concern, and living off-campus as the main

64

reasons for not wanting to sign up, the UT Alert system is most effective when the messages

reach as many students as possible.

Directions for Further Research

This study was proposed as preliminary research into student perceptions of crisis

management, active shooter preparedness, and emergency notification. Several directions for

future research were apparent, taking results and limitations into consideration.

First, this study should be replicated longitudinally to track changes in perceptions over

time, including before and after potential events that may alter student perceptions. This study

analyzed student perceptions at one institution at one moment in time. A longitudinal study

could begin to validate results, particularly if students from multiple institutions were involved.

Some design changes should be considered in the survey, including reducing the length to insure

that as many students complete it as possible.

Second, other demographic questions should be asked to allow for further statistical

analysis and cross-tabulation of results. This study used residency (on-campus versus off-

campus) as a factor to compare perceptions (with additional demographic analyses located in

Appendix G), but other factors could be useful to understand the culture of student perceptions.

Some of these factors to be considered for use in future research include adding both graduate

student and international student status as options with which to self-identify and asking for

levels of past experience or exposure to specific crises. In addition, consider asking students for

both general residency, but also proximity to campus, as some residence halls are farther away

from campus than are sorority and fraternity houses and off-campus apartments.

Third, care needs to be taken to avoid leading questions and redundancy in the instrument

used. Wordy and leading questions can lead students to feel the need to respond in a specific

65

way. Redundant questions may confuse students and can skew results if their answers between

similar questions are not consistent. With the nature of the topic, student responses may indicate

false misguided hope as opposed to realistic perception.

Fourth, increasing the sample size will expectedly increase the total number of responses,

which could continue to increase the statistical significance of results. Broadening the scope to

include all students—graduate, doctoral, non-degree seeking, law school, medical school, etc.—

while increasing the total number of students who receive your survey will continue to validate

the results.

Fifth, specific types of crisis should be delineated instead of asking about perceptions of

general campus crises. Different types of crises are more common and others vary in severity.

As students are answering questions regarding preparedness and communication about campus

crises, students may not be thinking about the same types of crises. Focusing future studies on

specific crises, including active shootings, may improve accuracy where crisis generalization is

lacking. If the intent is to solely understand perceptions of active shootings, utilizing other crises

in unnecessary; however, including too many crises as means for comparison can be

overwhelming and confusing.

Lastly, this study focused on student perceptions. To assess institutional preparedness

accurately, future studies should include all constituencies, including faculty, staff, and

administrators, while also focusing on both perceptions and expectations. Previous studies solely

focus on perceptions of administrators and postsecondary leaders, but combining perspectives

may begin to give insight and understanding into the overall culture and perceptions of campus

safety and crisis management.

66

References

67

Akers, C. R. (2007). Evolution of emergency operations strategies: Structure and process of

crisis response in college student affairs. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68, 12.

(UMI No. AAT 3292920)

Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods (2 nd

ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bambenek, J., & Klus, A. (2008). Do emergency text messaging systems put students in more

danger? Educause Quarterly, 3, 12-15.

Burrell, S. M. (2009). An examination of crisis preparedness at Christian-affiliated institutions

of higher education. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Mississippi State University,

Starkville, MS.

Butler, A. M., & Lafreniere, K. D. (2010). Campus reactions to mass notification. Journal of

College Student Development, 51(4), 436-439.

Catullo, L. A., Walker, D. A., & Floyd, D. L. (2009). The status of crisis management at NASPA

member institutions. NASPA Journal, 46(2), 301-324.

Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the

selection of “appropriate” crisis-response strategies. Management Communication

Quarterly, 8(4), 447-476.

Covington, P. D. (2013). Institutional crisis readiness as perceived by small college and

university senior student affairs officers at NASPA member institutions. (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska—Lincoln.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (3 rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Davies, G. (2008). Connecting the dots: Lessons from the Virginia Tech shootings. Change,

40(1), 8-16.

68

Ferarro, R. J., & McHugh, B. (2010). Violence in the shadow of the ivory tower: Murder at the

university. In B. O. Hemphill & B H. LaBanc (Eds.), Enough is enough: A student affairs

perspective on preparedness and response to a campus shooting (pp 1-38). Sterling, VA:

Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Fox, J. A., & Savage, J. (2009). Mass murder goes to college: An examination of changes on

college campuses following Virginia Tech. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(10), 1465-

1485.

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education (5 th

ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Gulum, M. S., & Murray, S. L. (2009). Evaluation of the effectiveness of a mass emergency

notification system. Paper presented at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Annual Meeting. doi:10.1177/154193120905301863

Hartzog, A. B. (1981). A national descriptive study of emergency management planning at

selected institutions of higher education. Dissertations Abstract International,42(3),

1024. (UMI No. AAT 8118520)

Heilbrun, K., Dvoskin, J., & Heilbrum, A. (2009). Toward preventing future tragedies: Mass

killings on college campuses, public health, and threat/risk assessment. Psychological

Injury and Law, 2, 93-99.

Heiselt, A. K., & Burrell, S. M. (2012). Presidential perspectives of crisis preparedness at

Christian higher education institutions. Christian Higher Education, 11(4), 260-271.

Hughes, A. L., & Palen, L. (2012). The evolving role of the public information officer: An

examination of social media in emergency management. Journal of Homeland Security

and Emergency Management, 9(1), 1-20.

69

Johnson, T. (2012). Effect of a marketing program on freshman student registration for an

emergency notification system. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency

Management, 9(1), 1-16.

Kaminski, R. J., Koons-Witt, B. A., Thompson, N. S., & Weiss, D. (2010). The impacts of the

Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shootings on fear of crime on campus.

Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 88-98.

Kelley, K., Clark, B., Brown, V., & Sitzia, J. (2003. Good practice in the conduct and reporting

of survey research. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 15(3), 261-266.

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.

LaBanc, B. H., Krepel, T. L., Johnson, B. J., & Herrmann, L. V. (2010). Managing the

whirlwind: Planning and responding to a campus in crisis. In B. O. Hemphill & B H.

LaBanc (Eds.), Enough is enough: A student affairs perspective on preparedness and

response to a campus shooting (pp. 53-82). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Latimer, D. (2008). Text messaging as emergency communication superstar? Nt so gr8 (sic).

EDUCAUSE Review,43(3), 84-85.

Mileti, D. S., & Sorensen, J. S. (1990). Communication of emergency public warnings: A social

science perspective and state-of-the-art assessment. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National

Laboratory.

Miller, T., Kuh, G. D., Paine, D., & Associates. (2006). Taking student expectations seriously: A

guide for campus applications. Washington, D.C.: NASPA.

70

Mitroff, I. I., Diamond, M. A., & Alpaslan, C. M. (2006). How prepared are America’s colleges

and universities for major crises? Assessing the state of crisis management. Change: The

Magazine of Higher Learning, 38(1), 61-67.

Muffet-Willet, S. (2010).Waiting for a crisis: Case studies of crisis leaders in higher education.

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Akron, Akron, OH.

National Association of College and University Business Officers. (2009). Results of the

National Campus Safety and Security Project Survey. Retrieved November, 14, 2013

from http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/Initiatives/CSSPSurveyResults.pdf

Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (1999). A dual-process model of defense against

conscious and unconscious thoughts: An extension of Terror Management Theory.

Psychological Review, 106(4), 835-835.

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.

Schneider, T. (2010). Mass notification for Higher Education. National Clearinghouse for

Educational Facilities at the National Institute of Building Sciences. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Education.

Shaughnessy, J, Zechmeister, E, & Jeanne, Z. (2011). Research methods in psychology (9th ed.).

New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Sherwood, G. P., & McKelfresh, D. (2007). Crisis management teams. In E. L. Zdziarski, J. M.

Rollo, N. W. Dunkel, & Associates (Eds.), Campus crisis management: A comprehensive

guide to planning, prevention, response, and recovery (pp. 55-71). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

71

Smith, M. C. (1989). The ancestry of campus violence. New Directions for Student Services, 47,

5-11.

Staman, E. M., Katsouros, M., & Hach, R. (2009). The multi-dimensional nature of emergency

communications management. EDUCAUSE Review, 44(1), 49-63.

Stephens, K. K., Barrett, A. K., & Mahometa, M. J. (2010). Organizational communication in

emergencies: Using multiple channels and sources to combat noise and capture attention.

Human Communication Research, 39, 230-251.

Sulkowski, M. L., & Lazarus, P. J. (2011). Contemporary responses to violent attacks on college

campuses. Journal of School Violence, 10, 338-354.

Text of H.R. 5806 [110 th

]: School Emergency Notification Deployment Act.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, & Office of Safe

and Healthy Students. (2013). Guide for developing high-quality emergency operations

plans for institutions of higher education. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2008). Active shooter: How to respond. Washington,

DC.

Wilson, B. G. (1992). Crisis management: A case study of three American universities.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 9. (UMI No. AAT 9304269)

Zdziarski, E. (2001). Institutional preparedness to respond to campus crises as perceived by

student affairs administrators in selected NASPA member institutions. (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Zdziarski, E. (2006). Crisis in the context of higher education. In K. Harper, B. Paterson, & E.

Zdziarski (Eds.), Crisis management: Responding from the heart (pp. 3-24). Washington,

DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.

72

Appendices

73

Appendix A:

Original Zdziarski (2001) CCMQ Survey Packet

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

Appendix B:

CCMQ-S (Survey Modified from CCMQ)

81

CCMQ-S (Survey Modified from CCMQ)

<ONLINE SURVEY CONSENT FORM>

<Title> Crisis Management and Active Shooter Preparedness

The survey will begin by defining three terms that occur throughout.

A campus crisis is defined as an event that disrupts the orderly operation of the institution or its

educational mission, and threatens the well-being of personnel, property, financial resources, or

reputation of the institution.

Crisis management refers to the plans, protocols, procedures, and processes used by institutions

to manage a campus crisis.

An active shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a

confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearm(s) and there is no pattern

or method to their selection of victims.

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is unprepared and 10 is well prepared, please indicate your

perceptions about how prepared your university is to respond to campus crises.

Does your university have a written plan addressing campus crises?

Yes

No

I don’t know.

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is unprepared and 10 is well prepared, please indicate your

perceptions about how prepared your university is to respond to active shooters.

Does your university have a separate, written plan addressing active shooters?

Yes

No

I don’t know.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not effective and 10 being very effective, how well do you

perceive crisis management protocol being communicated to students?

How are crisis management plans communicated to students? (Please check all that apply.)

Not communicated

Copy of plan available upon request

Plan accessible on UTK website

Annual notification

New employee orientation

New student orientation

82

Optional crisis management training sessions

Required crisis management training sessions

Drills, exercises, and simulations

Email sent to all students

Social Media

Other (please specify) __________

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not effective and 10 being very effective, how well do you

perceive active shooter protocol being communicated to students?

How are active shooter preparedness plans communicated to students? (Please check all that

apply.)

Not communicated

Copy of plan available upon request

Plan accessible on UTK website

Annual notification

New employee orientation

New student orientation

Optional active shooter preparedness training sessions

Required active shooter preparedness training sessions

Drills, exercises, and simulations

Email sent to all students

Social Media

Other (please specify) __________

Which of the following do you perceive to be effective to communicate crisis management and

active shooter preparedness plans to students? (Please check all that apply.)

Copy of plan available upon request

Plan accessible on UTK website

Annual notification

New employee orientation

New student orientation

Optional training sessions

Required training sessions

Drills, exercises, and simulations

Email sent to all students

Social Media

Other (please specify) __________

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not prepared and 10 being very prepared, how prepared are

you to be able to protect yourself during an active shooting situation if the alleged shooter is:

In your hometown

In the areas surrounding campus

On the main campus, outdoors

In a campus building nearby, not where you are

In the building where you are located

83

In your classroom

From the above question, please briefly explain why you do or do not feel prepared to protect

yourself in the given situations.

On a scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree, please indicate your level of agreement of

the following statements:

Being informed about how to protect myself during campus crises is important to me.

Being informed about how to protect myself during an active shooting situation is important

to me.

<Title> Emergency Notification

Are you registered for the UT Alert system?

Yes

No

I am not sure.

I don’t know what the UT Alert system is.

If you are signed up for the UT Alert system, please indicate your reason for signing up. (Please

select all that apply.)

Somebody told me to.

I want to know when something happens on campus.

Safety is my main concern.

I thought it was required.

I signed up at orientation.

Other (please specify) ________

If you are signed up (or have been signed up in the past) for the UT Alert system, on a scale of

very unsatisfied to very satisfied, how satisfied are you with the use of the following to notify

students:

Text message alerts

Email notifications

The overall UT Alert system

If you are not signed up for the UT Alert system, please indicate why. (Please select all that

apply.)

I don’t see the need to receive alerts.

I would prefer to not offer up my cell phone number.

Privacy is my main concern.

I don’t have a cell phone to receive notifications.

I live off-campus.

I have never heard of this service until now.

I do not know how to sign up.

Other (specify) _______

84

On a scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree, please indicate your level of agreement of

the following messages regarding perceptions of emergency messages.

My institution sends out too many emergency messages for the same situation.

My institution sends out the right amount of emergency messages for the same situation.

My institution does not send out enough emergency messages for the same situation.

My institution sends out emergency messages in a timely manner.

My institution does not send out emergency messages in a timely manner.

My institution does not send out emergency messages.

If the University of Tennessee automatically signed up every student for the UT Alert system but

gave students the option to remain signed up or remove themselves from the system, which

option would you choose?

Remain a part of the UT Alert system

Voluntarily remove myself from the UT Alert System

I don’t know what I would do.

How are students notified of a campus crisis or emergency? (Please select all that apply.)

Text message alerts

Email notification

Automated phone calls

Posting on the homepage of the institutional website

Social media

Outdoor sirens

Outdoor-broadcast messages

Radio-broadcast messages

Fire panel alarms with voice enunciation

Digital signage

Indoor building public address systems

None of the above.

I don’t know.

Other (please specify) ________

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not effective and 10 being very effective, please indicate how

effective you perceive each of the following methods of notification would be in the event of an

active shooter. (Please select all that apply.)

Text message alerts

Email notification

Automated phone calls

Posting on the homepage of the institutional website

Social media

Outdoor sirens

Outdoor-broadcast messages

Radio-broadcast messages

Fire panel alarms with voice enunciation

85

Digital signage

Indoor building public address systems

Other (please specify) ________

Do you have additional comments regarding any of the previous questions?

<Title> Please answer the following demographic questions about yourself.

What is your age?

-(enter your age)

I prefer not to respond.

Which best describes your gender identity? (Select all that apply)

Female

Male

Transgender

Other (please specify) ______________

I prefer not to respond.

Class level:

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

Which best describes where you are CURRENTLY living?

On-campus (residence hall)

Off-campus

Please indicate the number of semesters you have lived on-campus and off-campus (including

Spring 2015):

On-campus (residence hall): _____

Off-campus: _____

Student status:

Part-time undergraduate student (1-11 credit hours)

Full-time undergraduate student (12 or more credit hours)

Are you involved in at least one registered student organization on campus?

Yes

No

Did you transfer to UT from another college or university?

Yes

No

86

<Title> Additional Information

Thank you for your participation in this study and for your contributions to the body of

knowledge on the topics of active shooter preparedness and emergency notification. If you like

more information on emergency preparedness protocol that the University of Tennessee

currently has in place, please click the following link: http://safety.utk.edu/emergency-

preparedness/. If you would like more information on active shooter preparedness information

provided by the University of Tennessee, please click the following link:

http://safety.utk.edu/emergency-preparedness/active-shooter/.

If you experience adverse effects as a result of participating in this study, you may contact the

University of Tennessee’s Student Counseling Center by phone (865-974-2196), email

([email protected]), or by visiting the Student Counseling Center on the 2nd floor of the

Student Health Building, Monday-Friday from 8am-5pm (9am-5pm on Wednesdays).

If you have any questions about your rights as a participant, contact the Office of Research

Compliance Officer at (865) 974-3466.

Thank you for your participation in this research study, and have a great day.

Sincerely,

Jared Grimsley

Assistant Hall Director | Apartment Residence Hall

Department of University Housing | Division of Student Life

THE UNIVERSITY of TENNESSEE

2117 Andy Holt Ave

Knoxville, TN 37916

(865) 974-2426

[email protected]

87

Appendix C:

Online Informed Consent for CCMQ-S

88

ONLINE SURVEY CONSENT FORM

Master’s Thesis

Student Perceptions of Institutional Crisis Management, Preparedness, and Response:

The Case of the Active Shooter

INTRODUCTION

You are invited to participate in a research study. Postsecondary leaders report generally feeling prepared

to handle a campus crisis, but there is a lack of similar data specific to active shootings and of general

student perceptions of campus safety. The purpose of this study is to consider student perceptions of

institutional active shooter preparedness and of the effectiveness of emergency notifications used in the

event of an active shooter on campus.

INFORMATION ABOUT PARTICIPANTS' INVOLVEMENT IN THE STUDY

You will complete an online survey regarding their perceptions of institutional active shooter

preparedness and emergency notification. The survey takes approximately 5-10 minutes to complete.

RISKS

There are no more than minimal foreseeable risks. However, you may be subject to adverse effects

(emotional/psychological) due to the nature of the topic. If you experience these effects during

completion of the survey, you may withdraw from completion at any time. The final screen on the survey

will display contact information for the Student Counseling Center as well as a link to the University’s

current response plan in the event of an active shooter.

BENEFITS

By participating in the study, you are contributing to the body of knowledge on active shooter

preparedness and emergency notification. It could also result in recommendations for policy regarding

how to inform students more effectively in the event of a campus emergency.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Information collected from the study will be kept anonymous (i.e. void of personal identifiers). Data will

be stored securely and only directly available to the researcher, but will be made available in various

forms in the final thesis report. No reference will be made in oral or written reports that could link you to

the study.

COMPENSATION/INCENTIVES

You are not compensated for participation in this study. There will, however, be 10 awards of $20 each

randomly given to students who submit their netID in the participation link. This includes both students

who completed the survey and students that did not. Every student sent the recruitment email and survey

link can be entered into the raffle regardless of participation in or completion of the survey.

89

CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have questions at any time about the study or the procedures, you may contact the researcher, Jared

Grimsley by email at [email protected].

If you experience adverse effects as a result of participating in this study, you may contact the University

of Tennessee’s Student Counseling Center by phone (865-974-2196), email ([email protected]),

or by visiting the Student Counseling Center on the 2 nd

floor of the Student Health Building, Monday-

Friday from 8am-5pm (9am-5pm on Wednesdays). If you have questions about your rights as a

participant, contact the Office of Research Compliance Officer at (865) 974-3466.

PARTICIPATION

Your participation in this study is voluntary; you may decline to participate without penalty. If you

decide to participate, you may stop completing the survey at any time without penalty.

CONSENT

By clicking “I agree” below, you are indicating that you have read and understood this consent form and

agree to participate in this research study.

( ) I Agree.

( ) I Do Not Agree. (Please exit survey at this time.)

90

Appendix D:

Recruitment Email

91

Recruitment Email

Hello, University of Tennessee student!

You have been selected to participate in a research study. Campus safety is becoming more and

more important of an issue at colleges and universities across the country. Postsecondary leaders

report generally feeling prepared to handle a campus crisis, but there is a lack of similar data

specific to active shootings and of general student perceptions of campus safety.

The purpose of this study is to consider student perceptions of institutional active shooter

preparedness and of the effectiveness of emergency notifications used in the event of an active

shooter on campus. The survey takes approximately 5 minutes to complete. Your

participation in this study is voluntary; you may decline to participate without penalty.

As an incentive, there will be 10 cash prizes of $20 awarded to students.

To access the survey, please click here.

To enter into the raffle for the incentive, please click here. (Every student sent this recruitment

email and survey link can be entered into the raffle regardless of participation in or completion of

the survey.) By participating in the study, you are contributing to the body of knowledge on

active shooter preparedness and emergency notification. It could also result in recommendations

for policy regarding how to inform students more effectively in the event of a campus

emergency.

If you have any initial questions, please reply to this email to contact myself, Jared Grimsley, the

Principal Investigator. Thank you for your participation and have a great day.

Sincerely,

Jared Grimsley

Assistant Hall Director | Apartment Residence Hall

Department of University Housing | Division of Student Life

THE UNIVERSITY of TENNESSEE

2117 Andy Holt Ave

Knoxville, TN 37916

(865) 974-2426

[email protected]

92

Appendix E:

Additional Demographic Data

93

Table E1

Additional Demographic Data

Count %

Age

18 35 18.62

19 49 26.06

20 43 22.87

21 30 15.96

22 11 5.85

23 8 4.26

24 2 1.06

25 4 2.13

26 1 0.53

27 1 0.53

28 2 1.06

30 1 0.53

54 1 0.53

Gender Identity

Female 133 65.20

Male 68 33.33

Transgender 0 0.00

Nonbinary/genderqueer 1 0.49

I prefer not to respond. 3 1.47

Class Level

Freshman 70 34.31

Sophomore 48 23.53

Junior 42 20.59

Senior 44 21.57

Status

Part-time undergraduate student (1-11 credit hours) 7 3.43

Full-time undergraduate student (12 or more credit hours) 197 96.57

Involved

Yes 139 68.14

No 65 31.86

Transfer Student

Yes 38 18.63

No 166 81.37

94

Appendix F:

Additional Raw Data

95

Table F1

Self-Protection from Active Shooter (Open-Ended Responses)

Areas around campus are unsafe

At home, I know my surroundings so I can defend my self. At school, not so much.

Because

Because I am tough and would would go out like a champ if someone tried something.

Because there is no layout for this. We are not told what to do if this happens

Being from a family who not only learns, but teaches self defense, I think I could be

somewhat prepared but barehandedly fighting someone with a firearm does not sound

pleasant and I feel as though many people would not know what to do, making the situation

worse.

Decline to answer

Detailed instructions have not been given to us as students.

dont have enough information, no practice

Due to the nature of "gun free campus" policy, I feel it's pretty near impossible to feel

comfortable in an active shooter situation. In my place of residence and my hometown, I

know where a firearm is located and how to use it.

For a shooter being in a classroom, it is very hard to mentally prepare yourself for an event

like that.

good

Guns hurt, never been subjected to thinking about such measures until now

Haven't drilled or experienced, but have trust on the UT Police.

How do you even protect yourself from bullets like it just the luck of the draw

I always knox KPD will help.

I am a small person and the only protection I carry with me is mace and my phone

I am calm in dire cidcumstances

I am not aware of all the places one should go in the case of a dangerous situation

I am not sure how I would protect myself if the alleged shooter was in my classroom or the

building I am in. If the shooter was around campus I would lock all of my doors and hide in

my apartment to protect myself.

I am not sure what I would do or what I should do.

I am unsure what to do - I would be pretty defenseless.

I do not carry personal protection

I do not feel I have the proper training. I don't understand what the situation could look like

and how I could respond to it.

I do not feel prepared because I am not exactly sure what ideal protection is in a situation

like an active shooting. Panic would set in and I wouldn't be able to think clearly and act

appropriately without being told how in a predatory course.

I do not feel prepared because I do not know the protocol.

I do not know any way I could protect myself in a classroom setting, or in a campus building

like the library. The only thing I could think to do is hide, and when its safe vacate the

premises. There haven't been any tips here that I have gotten or seen that would help me

during such a situation.

96

I do not know how to defend myself in the instance of being in a classroom with an active

shooter

I do not know of an emergency plan or protocol issued by the university. I do no think that

students would know where to go if a shooter were to be in a campus building or classroom.

I do not know what can happen in matter of seconds. The University hasn't really released a

plan for the given situation.

I do not know where I could hide in certain buildings.

i don't carry a neutralizing weapon

I don't feel I can do much.

I don't feel prepared because I have no idea where to go it there was a crises. In grade school

we would have drills where "Sammy green" would be called to the office and we would

know that was a intruder alert drill.

I don't have any way to protect myself

I don't have any weapons

I don't know how I would protect my self except to hide or run

i don't know how I would respond because I've never practiced.

I don't know specifically what I would do, but I think it would involve running away and/or

hiding, unless I was close enough to the person to attempt to tackle them. Therefore, it

wouldn't really vary by location.

I don't know the correct protocol

I don't know the protocol for locking the door, where to hide, how to escape, etc

I don't know the protocol or the laws for self defense and whether or not I would be taken to

jail so I would be less likely to act.

I don't know what procedures are in place if a shooter were to come. All i know is that I

would get a text message saying he/she was there.

I don't know what the procedure is because this situation has never happened. The university

only communicates policies in an email after events like these actually happen.

I don't know what to do

I don't posses the proper knowledge needed.

I don't really feel like I'd actually be able to protect myself if I encountered and active

shooter. It's mainly luck whether you get hit or missed.

I don't really know how to explain it, sorry.

I don't think I'll be in danger in places like classroom.

I don't usually carry protective items on me and if someone came at me quickly in any

random place I would be under prepared.

I feel as if this campus is too big to really focus on the preparedness of individuals. It has to

be an initiative one takes on their own.

I feel as though I would not be able to defend myself or escape in any of these situations.

I feel like campus is a safe environment for the most part.

I feel like I have no protection

I feel like I haven't been given enough information about the areas on and around campus to

deal with this situation.

I feel like ut provides a good plan for these types of situations. They have police calling

97

stations that are always visible, as well as people and officers always around.

I feel like UTK has failed at giving us preparation methods for these situations.

I feel prepared because I know how to protect myself

I feel prepared because I've had training on it. And think about an escape plan almost

everywhere I go.

I feel prepared in my hometwon, in a building where I am located (my apartment), and in a

campus building nearby because I am most familiar with these locations, where the locks are

and the best place to hide. In the area around campus, outside, and in my classroom, I don't

know where to go, where to hide, who to call, what to do, etc.

I feel prepared to deal with these situations only if I have the opportunity to stay locked in

my dorm.

I feel safer in places where I can readily defend myself or others, and know how to do it

(home or close to home). I would feel utterly defenseless in a public place against a shooter.

I feel that the closer I am to the shooter the less prepared I am because it is a more critical

situation whereas if it's someone near my building I can just lock my door and stay inside to

be protected.

I feel unprepared to protect myself from an active shooter on campus because I am not

allowed to lawfully carry a concealed handgun. I would be much more prepared and able to

defend myself in an active shooter situation if this rule were not in effect.

I feel very prepared if the shooter is farther away but unsure how the situation would play

out if I was close to them.

I graduated the police academy. I dont work for a department. Im trained in firearms no guns

on campus so i cant protect myself from active shooter

I guess I would be moderately prepared but I've never been in that type of situation. I don't

think I've ever talked about what I would do if something like that happened.

I have a severe panic disorder, and shooters are one of my triggers.

I have been told some of what to do but I think in the actual situation I might be too scared to

remember exactly (for the in same building or room one)

I have had personal safety classes

I have never been addressed about this situation and would not know what to do if this ever

happened.

I have never been in a situation like the ones above or have been told how to react.

I have never been in specified areas of crisis.

I have never been informed on how to handle a shooter situation.

I have never been told

I have never been told of an official procedure.

I have never received any training or protocol information about active shooter situations.

I have never received training on the proper ways to respond to this crisis.

I have never seen UT police patrol campus, and how can you react that fast if you do not

send out multiple patrols. Also students should be able to carry, and protect themselves when

and if UT police cannot respond fast enough.

I have no idea what I would do or what I should do. I would think if that you should stay in

place and hide instead of trying to move around (kind of like the whole hug a tree when

you're lost type thing) but I really don't know.

98

I have no idea what to do if there was an active shooter in a building or classroom that I was

in. Otherwise I could stay where I was or try to hide.

I have no knowledge in what to do in such a situation.

I have not been told what to do

I have not read any protocol that has been communicated.

I have nothing to defend my self with. The guy will probably have a weapon, what am I

suppose to use to defend my self? My towel?

I have received no training for active shooter situations in any life scenario.

I haven't been trained or informed on what to do

I haven't ever received information or drills to prepare for such an event.

I know how to hide but that doesn't help if there's no where to hide

I know how to run. If there was something in my classroom however.... I don't know how I'd

act.

I know how to use the blue lights on campus, but don't know what to do inside.

I know to hide.

I know what to do but I've never been in that situation so I do not know how I would react

I know what to do.

I only know the very basic of what you should do if something like this happened.

I react well during crisis situations

I remain in a constant awareness of my surroundings and know what to do in such situations

I think I just have no education or proper training on how to respond really.

I think there aren't many policemen standing around us.

I would be in shock, if there was ever to be a assin in my view.

I would be incredibly terrified if a shooter was in my building or my classroom.

I would have no idea what to do if a shooter was in the vicinity. I would probably just call

911 and my mom.

I would just run. I'm not sure what else there is to do. None of the doors lock in the building

and there is very little equipment to baracade the doors.

I would not know exactly what to do in those situations

I would not know what to do

I would panic

I wouldn't know what to do if they were in the same room as me

I wouldn't know what to do, I wouldn't know what the school wanted me to do. At home, I

would feel slightly more confident, but here, not so much.

I'm comfortable handling myself in most situations.

I'm don't know what to do.

I'm not trained in any martial art, and am only slightly proficient in the idea of strategizing

counterattacks against any active danger. I feel as if I'd only put students in greater danger if

I tried to incapacitate the attacker if he/she ever entered the environment I was in (if I was

ever forced into that situation)

I'm pretty resourceful and I feel like in a life or death situation I could find a place to hide.

But in situations like outside, it's kind of questionable.

99

I'm unable to carry a firearm. Even with a carry permit UTK doesn't allow it.

I've never been in this type of situation so I don't know how I would react but I feel like all

the drills we did in elementary/middle/high school have given be basic knowledge on how to

react.

I've never encountered active shooting situation before.

idk

If a person starts shooting I do not have any weapon to protect myself, so I am just out of

luck.

If he/she has a gun and I do not, I'm obviously not prepared.

If I am indoors, I would go to a room and hide like we did all through grade school. If I were

outdoors, I would not know how much time I would have to react.

If I didn't have time to reach the police or get somewhere safe before a shoot reached me, I

would feel very unprepared.

If I get nervous in an area, I make mental notes of what I would do in the event of an

unforeseen circumstances. Furthermore, I avoid what I could be considered bad areas and am

not usually outdoors at night when these things tend to occur. During the day however, I try

to be aware of what is happening to be prepared for the next step.

If I were outside on campus I feel like I would be taken by surprise, which would result in

me not being able to respond quickly enough to protect myself.

If outside the buildings on campus I am not sure where anyone could go.....and if you needed

to notify anyone the blue light phones are spread out quite a bit. I do not feel confident that I

would be alerted by our UT Alert System. I don't always get the alerts even though I have

been signed up for a long time and have checked on it a few times.

If someone is in my town or surrounding area I just would not go outside or probably be

aware of what was happening. However I have absolutely no idea what to do about a shooter

in the same building or classroom I would think I would panic.

If students with valid handgun carry permits were allowed to carry on campus I would feel

better prepared to protect myself.

If the shooter is not in my immediate vicinity it does not effect me. If the shooter were in my

presence I would know what to do.

If the shooter was near me I would not know what to so but if I was in a different building I

would lock up

If there was an active shooter present, the only logical response for me would be to evacuate

a building discreetly or leave an area. However, that would prove more difficult in a

classroom full of other students.

If there were to be an active shooter in a near by area, I would feel comfortable in trusting

the authorities to take care of the situation immediately. But if there is a shooter in the same

building or room I was in, I would not know what to do.

If they're not near me, I feel I can simply lock myself in a room and stay away from

windows; if they're in the same building or classroom, what can I do but duck and maybe

pretend to be dead? What can you do?

In areas closer to me (I.e. On campus, in classroom), I feel less prepared because the shooter

would be closer to me and taking shelter would be hard to do since the shooter would be

close. In the classroom, I feel completely unprepared because I don't think you can prepare

for something tragic like that. Plus, I feel like guidelines for what to do in that situation are

100

not very clear or communicated well/openly enough.

In my hometown, I would have a gun to protect me. Here, I have to wait on police to come.

In the higher prepared situations, I feel adequately prepared to avoid the shooter and protect

myself from harm. In the lower, I feel not as safe and prepared to handle a situation in the

areas around campus. However, in the same classroom situation all I would do/ probably be

capable of would be to take cover and hope to spared. That situation has never been

addressed in any orientation or email I have been sent.

It all has to do with proximity to safe places.

It has not been addressed in individual classrooms and colleges, I feel this is absolutely

necessary to address.

It has not been properly discussed.

It is really hard to answer this question, depends on the situation.

It would be unexpected and I would have to think on my feet.

It's easy to think that I would know what to do in a hypothetical active shooting situation, but

in reality, there is no way to determine how I would actually respond if my life was in

danger.

It's never talked about and it's a shooting. Not much you can do. If he/she wants to shoot

you, you're done for.

Just because I have never been in that type of situation before and I feel as if I might panic

Most of the places I frequent, there are a lot of students and I think a lot of people wouldn't

know how to respond to a shooter in a crowded area. In addition, these places mostly are

open areas and there is no where to run or hide.

Most people aren't proficient with a firearm to hit moving targets at a certain range, making

it logical to flee. In a classroom situation, it is much more difficult to escape without risking

being targeted.

My old high school had drills related to active shooters. Also, I live in a military family and

my father has prepared me will.

My parents have talked with me quite a bit about situations like this and what would be good

ways for me to respond, but I don't know how well our campus would handle a situation with

a gunman. I think a lot of people (especially girls) are unaware of their surroundings a lot of

the time so it may not end well.

n/a

N/a

NA

Never been discussed

Never been taught what to do other than just follow his orders and hide...

Never heard any protocol about it whatsoever

Never heard of any plans from the university in the event

Never thought about it despite these instances becoming more apparent in our society.

No one can truly know if they are prepared for a situation until they are tHurst into it.

no places to hide

No protection

No way to protect myself if the shooter is in my classroom or building.

101

No where to hide safely

none

Not being allowed the rights of the United States Constitution. The second amendment

allows me to carry a gun. The university takes my right to self protection away and does a

really poor job at protecting me. The reason I carry a gun is because i cant carry a cop.

Not enough information

Not explained very detailed

Not informed

Not notice

On campus all students are unarmed. Our only protection is the limited amount of school

police on campus. If an active shooter came into a class I was in I would be completely

defenseless. History tells us that the police would arrive only in time to put us all in body

bags. I feel much more prepared at home because I have the means to defend myself as a last

resort.

scary situation, unsure what to do

Since I have not been in these situations it is hard to say how prepared I would be. I have not

had any information given to me about how to handle such situations. I feel as if I would be

more unprepared.

Since the carry of concealed firearms is not permitted on university campus. If an active

shooter was to attack UT, I would be defenseless and my safety would depend on UT Police.

So many people were drunk when there was a football game. It's not easy to protect in that

situation

Some certain rooms are laid out where there is not a very good escape route or means of

hiding.

Some of the classrooms don't seem to be set up in the best way to allow for protecting

oneself in an active shooter situation. That, and I'm not completely aware of UTK's specific

protocol or plan for a situation like this.

Some situations I do not know the area, so I would not be able to hide and protect myself

sufficiently.

The amount of areas I can run to

The closer an active shooter is, the less likely I will be able to react in time to protect myself

The closer it is to me the less prepared I feel I would be...there's no name on a bullet.

The closer the shooter is, the less prepared I will feel because of the possibility of them

finding me increases.

The closer the shooter the less prepared I feel. Decisions would be made more rashly the

closer to me the shooter is located.

The instructions given to us via email were very helpful.

The mode of communication (text message/email) does not come in a timely manner.

Sometimes the text is not received until up to thirty minutes after the email was sent out. The

texting system needs to be more immediate.

The more isolated the event, the less likely I'll feel prepared.

The only way to protect myself would be to hide and get out of the line of the shooter. I don't

think there would be much else to do, so if it was close by such as in my classroom there

wouldn't be many places to run to and hide.

102

THE POLICE CANT PROTECT EVERYONE AT THE SAME TIME, THE ONLY WAY

TO BE PROTECTED IS FOR RESPONISBLE AND WELL TRAINED PEOPLE TO BE

CARRYING FIREARMS FOR PROTECTION OF THEMSELVES AND THE

INDIVIDUALS AROUND THEM.

The procedure for protecting ourselves on campus is not widely communicated to students.

Only briefly in a UTPD alert once there is an active shooter.

The university doesn't offer any help in learning to protect myself.

The UTPD has failed to find those who have carried firearms on campus

There are many exits in the buiding where I live and, in addition, keycard swipes on each

floor, on the elevator, and before the door to my side of the building, I feel reasonably safe

and confident that the presence of these things would atleast hinder a shooter's ability to

access most of the building.

There has been no procedure

There have not been any drills or scenarios to help prepare myself for such a situation.

There is no separation between campus and everyday pedestrians and drivers. Anyone can

walk or drive through campus and begin shooting people or other terrible things.

There is not any activities or lessons given to students beforehand.

There is not very much you are able to do to prepare yourself for an act such as this. Trusting

in the Lord to protect our campus and students is the best way. Some things are out of our

hands, but living without fear of these things will enhance our experiences.

they have a gun and i dont

They really don't talk about it

To be perfectly honest, I think there should be a member of the staff in every building with a

firearm. Knowing that there isn't and knowing how large and busy the campus is has made

me felt unsafe before.

too much space

UTPD sends out mistakenly alerts atleast 2-3 times a month. So you can never really know if

it's real or not. I feel like people read the stuff on social media and kind of blow it off bc they

are so occupied with everything else going on. I dot feel like we've had a real enough threat

to really trigger everyone to take it seriously. Which is great, but maybe some simulation or

more in depth importance as to why we should be concerned and prepared to do so.

We have not been trained and we do not have proper methods to defend ourselves on campus

because campus police can only do so much.

We have not been trained to handle situations such as shooters. We have mandatory fire

drills, I believe we should have mandatory lock down drills for shooters as well. Shooting

are on the rise, and I would like to know how to better protect myself and others in the case

of an emergency.

We haven't really went over anything about it.

We only receive instruction on how to respond when an incident has occurred. Even then,

most of the instructions are fairly vague and explain how to act during future events.

We've never really had instructions on what to do in a crisis.

Well I can't stop someone with a gun. Obviously I will not have one on campus, so my only

option would be to run.

Well if a shooting is happening in a known building, and I know about it, my protection plan

103

is simply to stay away from that building and let the police work. If the shooter is in my

building, I would guess that the best bet is to stay in a room if you are in a room or if you are

out of a room than to exit teh building if you are close to an exit or to enter a room if you are

not. If there is a shooter in my classroom, then I'm fairly sure I would just be trying to avoid

being in the line of fire, but I certainly would not be thinking about how prepared I am.

What am I suppose to do in those situations?

Where am i going to go in a classroom? So, I can't hide and we can't have weapons so I don't

see how I'm supposed to protect myself.

Wouldn't know what to do

Wouldn't know what to do.

Table F2

Reasons for Not Signing up for UT Alert

Count %

I don't see the need to receive alerts. 4 12.90%

I would prefer to not offer up my cell phone number. 5 16.13%

Privacy is my main concern. 5 16.13%

I don't have a cell phone to receive notifications. 4 12.90%

I live off-campus. 8 25.81%

I have never heard of this service until now. 3 9.68%

I do not know how to sign up. 1 3.23%

104

Appendix G:

Demographic Analyses, Mean Responses, and Significance

105

Table G1

Demographic Analyses by Gender

Male

Mean (µ)

Female

Mean (µ)

Significance

(p)

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is unprepared and 10 is well prepared,

please indicate your perceptions about how prepared your university is to respond to:

Campus Crises 6.7941 6.2180 0.010

Active Shooters 6.1618 5.6316 0.864

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not prepared and 10 being very prepared, how prepared

are you to be able to protect yourself during an active shooting situation if the alleged shooter is:

In your hometown 8.1176 6.9098 0.076

In the areas surrounding campus 5.6765 5.3308 0.555

On the main campus, outdoors 5.7059 4.9925 0.277

In a campus building nearby, not where you are 6.2794 5.6842 0.207

In the building where you are located 5.6324 4.5639 0.242

In your classroom 4.3971 3.3910 0.138

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not effective and 10 being very effective, how well

do you perceive crisis management and active shooter protocol being communicated to students?

Crisis management protocol 5.7206 5.5940 0.877

Active shooter protocol 5.1765 4.6917 0.046

If you are signed up (or have been signed up in the past) for the UT Alert system, on a scale of very

unsatisfied to very satisfied, how satisfied are you with the use of the following to notify students:

Text message alerts 3.9412 3.9538 0.567

Email notification 4.0588 3.9538 0.069

The overall UT Alert system 4.0147 3.8372 0.789

On a scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), please indicate your level

of agreement of the following messages regarding perceptions of emergency messages.

My institution sends out the right amount

of emergency messages for the same situation. 3.8529 3.5940 0.619

My institution sends out emergency

messages in a timely manner. 3.5735 3.4060 0.723

My institution does not send out emergency messages. 1.3235 1.3158 0.354

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not effective and 10 being very effective,

please indicate how effective you perceive each of the following methods

of notification would be in the event of an active shooter.

Text message alerts 8.9118 9.0977 0.392

Email notification 6.7941 7.3083 0.259

Outdoor sirens 8.1471 8.0376 0.891

Outdoor-broadcast messages 7.4853 7.6316 0.797

Radio-broadcast messages 4.5735 5.0150 0.707

Posting on the UTK homepage 4.7353 4.2932 0.646

106

Table G2

Demographic Analyses by Class

Freshmen

Mean (µ)

Sophomore

Mean (µ)

Junior

Mean (µ)

Senior

Mean (µ)

Significance

(p)

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is unprepared and 10 is well prepared,

please indicate your perceptions about how prepared your university is to respond to:

Campus Crises 6.5571 5.8750 6.7143 6.4318 0.127

Active Shooters 5.8714 5.3333 6.2857 5.6591 0.524

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not prepared and 10 being very prepared, how prepared

are you to be able to protect yourself during an active shooting situation if the alleged shooter is:

In your hometown 7.1714 7.1875 7.8095 7.2273 0.820

In the areas surrounding campus 5.4286 4.4375 6.1905 5.8636 0.184

On the main campus, outdoors 5.5143 4.1250 6.0238 5.1591 0.261

In a campus building nearby, not

where you are 6.1286 4.8958 6.8095 5.5455 0.044

In the building where you are located 5.0571 4.2083 5.5952 4.7045 0.504

In your classroom 3.6429 3.3125 3.9762 3.9773 0.254

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not effective and 10 being very effective, how well

do you perceive crisis management and active shooter protocol being communicated to students?

Crisis management protocol 5.8857 4.9375 6.0952 5.4318 0.598

Active shooter protocol 5.0714 4.1875 4.6190 5.2500 0.323

If you are signed up (or have been signed up in the past) for the UT Alert system, on a scale of very

unsatisfied to very satisfied, how satisfied are you with the use of the following to notify students:

Text message alerts 4.0429 3.9375 3.8810 3.8537 0.978

Email notification 4.0857 4.0000 3.8571 3.9268 0.486

The overall UT Alert system 4.0000 3.7708 3.7857 3.9756 0.756

On a scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), please indicate your level

of agreement of the following messages regarding perceptions of emergency messages.

My institution sends out the right

amount of emergency messages

for the same situation. 3.6143 3.6250 3.8810 3.6364 0.875

My institution sends out emergency

messages in a timely manner. 3.6000 3.2292 3.2857 3.6591 0.502

My institution does not send out

emergency messages. 1.2143 1.3333 1.3333 1.4545 0.682

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not effective and 10 being very effective,

please indicate how effective you perceive each of the following methods

of notification would be in the event of an active shooter.

Text message alerts 9.3000 9.0833 8.8095 8.8182 0.936

Email notification 7.2714 6.9167 6.4576 7.7727 0.435

Outdoor sirens 8.2714 8.1250 8.1667 7.6136 0.729

Outdoor-broadcast messages 7.5714 7.2917 7.9524 7.5000 0.166

Radio-broadcast messages 4.6286 4.2708 5.5952 5.2500 0.303

Posting on the UTK homepage 4.3571 3.7917 4.8095 4.9545 0.943

107

Table G3

Demographic Analyses by Involvement Status

“Yes”

Mean (µ)

“No”

Mean (µ)

Significance

(p)

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is unprepared and 10 is well prepared,

please indicate your perceptions about how prepared your university is to respond to:

Campus Crises 6.3957 6.4154 0.021

Active Shooters 5.8561 5.6308 0.799

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not prepared and 10 being very prepared, how prepared

are you to be able to protect yourself during an active shooting situation if the alleged shooter is:

In your hometown 7.1942 7.5846 0.112

In the areas surrounding campus 3.3453 5.6615 0.404

On the main campus, outdoors 5.1583 5.3385 0.837

In a campus building nearby, not where you are 5.7986 5.9692 0.233

In the building where you are located 4.6547 5.4000 0.191

In your classroom 3.6403 3.8462 0.884

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not effective and 10 being very effective, how well

do you perceive crisis management and active shooter protocol being communicated to students?

Crisis management protocol 5.5180 5.8000 0.303

Active shooter protocol 4.6906 5.0615 0.289

If you are signed up (or have been signed up in the past) for the UT Alert system, on a scale of very

unsatisfied to very satisfied, how satisfied are you with the use of the following to notify students:

Text message alerts 3.9783 3.8730 0.845

Email notification 4.0000 3.9524 0.448

The overall UT Alert system 3.9197 3.8413 0.932

On a scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), please indicate your level

of agreement of the following messages regarding perceptions of emergency messages.

My institution sends out the right amount

of emergency messages for the same situation. 3.6906 3.6462 0.990

My institution sends out emergency

messages in a timely manner. 3.4676 3.4462 0.824

My institution does not send out emergency messages. 1.3597 1.2308 0.316

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not effective and 10 being very effective,

please indicate how effective you perceive each of the following methods

of notification would be in the event of an active shooter.

Text message alerts 9.1439 8.8308 0.891

Email notification 7.3022 6.8154 0.075

Outdoor sirens 7.9712 8.2923 0.820

Outdoor-broadcast messages 7.4892 7.7385 0.937

Radio-broadcast messages 4.7770 5.0923 0.788

Posting on the UTK homepage 4.4748 4.3846 0.783

108

Table G4

Demographic Analyses by Transfer Status

“Yes”

Mean (µ)

“No”

Mean (µ)

Significance

(p)

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is unprepared and 10 is well prepared,

please indicate your perceptions about how prepared your university is to respond to:

Campus Crises 6.4737 6.3855 0.130

Active Shooters 5.8158 5.7771 0.354

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not prepared and 10 being very prepared, how prepared

are you to be able to protect yourself during an active shooting situation if the alleged shooter is:

In your hometown 7.8947 7.1867 0.002

In the areas surrounding campus 5.4737 5.4398 0.373

On the main campus, outdoors 5.1053 5.2410 0.324

In a campus building nearby, not where you are 5.4211 5.9518 0.000

In the building where you are located 5.2632 4.8072 0.317

In your classroom 4.1316 3.6084 0.583

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not effective and 10 being very effective, how well

do you perceive crisis management and active shooter protocol being communicated to students?

Crisis management protocol 6.0789 5.5000 0.607

Active shooter protocol 5.5263 4.6446 0.289

If you are signed up (or have been signed up in the past) for the UT Alert system, on a scale of very

unsatisfied to very satisfied, how satisfied are you with the use of the following to notify students:

Text message alerts 3.9189 3.9512 0.526

Email notification 3.9730 3.9878 0.582

The overall UT Alert system 3.9189 3.8896 0.511

On a scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), please indicate your level

of agreement of the following messages regarding perceptions of emergency messages.

My institution sends out the right amount

of emergency messages for the same situation. 3.4211 3.7349 0.304

My institution sends out emergency

messages in a timely manner. 3.6579 3.4157 0.029

My institution does not send out emergency messages. 1.3947 1.3012 0.402

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not effective and 10 being very effective,

please indicate how effective you perceive each of the following methods

of notification would be in the event of an active shooter.

Text message alerts 9.1053 9.0301 0.749

Email notification 7.4737 7.0723 0.499

Outdoor sirens 8.1316 8.0602 0.775

Outdoor-broadcast messages 7.3421 7.6205 0.213

Radio-broadcast messages 5.1579 4.8133 0.503

Posting on the UTK homepage 5.2105 4.2711 0.035

109

Vita

Jared Grimsley received a Bachelor of Science in General Mathematics and

Organizational Communication from Missouri State University in December, 2011. He will

graduate from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville in May 2015 with a Master of Science in

College Student Personnel. Jared will begin in the Higher Education Administration Ph.D.

program at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville in August 2015. He currently works as an

Assistant Hall Director in the Department of University Housing at UTK, but has experience in

housing and residential life, orientation, fraternity and sorority life, academic advising, and first-

year programming. His research interests include campus safety and assessment.