Special section editor: Lisa J. Warren
In 2007, the choices of one deeply distressed, disgruntled and disengaged student resulted in irrevocable damages at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. The student perpetrated a mass shooting that left 32 people dead, 27 physically injured, and many more psychologically traumatized. The subsequent investigation revealed the student fired 174 bullets before taking his own life, with more than 200 rounds of ammunition remaining.
To reflect the 10-year anniversary of this horrific event, the Journal of Threat Assessment and Management has published a multi-part special section on the global developments in campus threat management over the past 10 years.
In 2017, the safety of those attending tertiary education has never been more pertinent. Gun violence, sexual assaults and the abuses of social media are among the challenges educators face when considering how they will proactively and reactively promote campus safety. Practices within the United States have arisen in a more consensus-driven and collaborative approach with legislation, as seen in the state of Virginia, providing the impetus to implement well regarded programs.
In other regions of the world, campus safety has grown organically and without the legislative imperative from government or uniform consensus of national bodies on best practice. This has resulted in patchwork practice with pockets of excellence and areas where well intentioned staff struggle to gather the resources and training they need to recognize and effectively manage staff and students who pose a risk.
The Virginia Tech mass shooting has proven a catalyst for a review of campus safety practices. This special section on campus threat assessment features papers from the United States, Australia and Canada on campus threat management with an additional perspective from Europe that will be published in the journal's next issue.
The first part of the special section (Volume 3, Issue 3–4) features two papers from the United States and one from Australia.
The paper by Gene Deisinger and Andre Simons serves as the foundation for this part of the special section. The paper examines the impact of the Virginia Tech massacre, including the direct cost of the incident, estimated at $48 million. This extraordinary figure did not include the indirect costs, such as lowered enrollments from reputational damage. The authors summarize the findings of the many reviews that ensued and how the already strong safety protocols at the University were strengthened. The creation of their threat management processes from early 2008 strengthened their ability to systematize their processes and create stronger outreach throughout the campus.
The second paper from the United States, by Gene Deisinger and Mario Scalora, notes that an outcome of the Virginia Tech massacre was the structuring of the American education system's approach to identifying, assessing and managing those exhibiting problem behaviors. The approach adopted is campus threat management with threat management teams being formed in educational settings at every level across the U.S. There is much to be done to evaluate the approach, benchmark it, and define gold standard practice; efforts are underway as new practices (such as the Assessment-Intervention of Student Problems (AISP) Model (Delworth, 2009)), are tested and new research is produced, with an unwavering enthusiasm from those in the field.
In the third paper, Ken Grime and Lisa Warren writes about the Australian experience. While this includes two incidents of campus shootings, the paper focuses on the range of aggressive acts ranging from subtle psychological force (as seen in bullying) to homicide. Australia has no uniform approach and no legislation or governing body around threat management in the education sector. Despite this, many universities have developed threat management programs and are mindful of the learnings and guidance of universities around the world. The paper examines Australian gun laws, awareness of mental health challenges and the impact of privacy laws. The authors review a spate of targeted violence against international students as well as the mentioned inconsistencies in practices across the nation.
The second part of the special section (Volume 4, Issue 1) features reflections from Canada. Much like in Australia, campuses in Canada have fortunately endured few mass shooting events. Both have, however, seen cases of other forms of aggression and the legacy of the lasting damage on those targeted. Threat management teams in Canada have evolved heterogeneously across the country and are broadly accepted to address the risks of future violence from persons of concern. The teams take a practical approach to addressing those assessed as posing a threat, rather than a scientifically rigorous methodology.
Kelly Watt sets out some of the challenges of this deficit by presenting the views and concerns expressed by those in higher education who described the need for threat management teams in campuses without them, policy and procedure development in those with such teams and ongoing training and support for the teams. Watt advocates ongoing training and support for the team members to better identify and resolve the tensions they faced. She sets out eloquently the nature of some of the tensions as well as her views on their resolution, and makes the important observation that campus threat management leads the threat management field in Canada despite needing greater resourcing and research examining its efficacy.
Pending is a paper, authored by Jens Hoffman, that rounds out the special section by examining campus threat management in Germany and Switzerland. In Europe, the massacre became a slow burning catalyst, with the focus and resources diverted to the management of all problem behaviors, particularly stalking and threatening communications. Hoffman noted that this process did not develop with the same urgency as in the U.S. as, until recently, there were no reports of such cases in Central Europe.
Considered collectively, an extraordinary amount has been achieved over the past 10 years in understanding how violence on campus occurs, recognizing warning signs, and establishing preventive measures. The editors of the Journal of Threat Assessment and Management are delighted to share this collection of reflections on several countries' campus threat management practices.Special Section Tables of Contents
Note: This article is in the Forensic Psychology topic area. View more articles in the Forensic Psychology topic area.