Collaboration
Identify the response plan to your case study.
•Analyze the political, social, economic, and legal issues surrounding the incident you
chose.
•Assess the roles of the various agencies and governments in your case study.
•Discuss how the organizations can collaborate to provide an effective response to your
chosen incident.
Abstract
Collaboration means the interaction between several parties that are working together for a
common goal. Working simultaneously without any associated connection, however, is not
considered collaboration. Collaboration may occur at different levels where different organs are
working together towards a certain common purpose. Inter-organizational collaborations when
dealing with incidents or emergencies can be described as a process where different involved
organization work together and come up with a plan that is mutually beneficial to all the
involved parties. These of work together towards the common goals of saving the day and
coming up with solutions. This paper seeks to analyze the process of collaboration that involves
federal and state governments, non-governmental organizations, institutions and schools,
communities and individuals in the response to an emergency or an incident that involves a
school or educational facility. The response and eventual collaboration of these organizations
will include both response and cover coupled with protection and prevention of the incident at
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 2
hand. It seeks to understand the role of the whole community when preparing and responding to
such incidents. This analysis will involve a full dissection of the University of Texas shooting,
and how the response and collaboration of all the involved parties took place. The work also tries
to clarify the role of professionals in emergency management, criminal justice, public safety
management and how they work together to avert such a crisis
Introduction
On the first day of August 1966, the second fatal school shooting in the US occurred. The
shooting was at the University of Texas, Austin campus. The shooter, Mr. Charles Joseph
Whitman, was a student studying in the college. The shooting resulted in the deaths of fourteen
people. The horrifying incident lasted for about ninety-six minutes. The shooter wounded about
thirty-six others. Of the fourteen dead, three were shot dead in the tower in the middle of the
campus. Another ten were killed by the shooter who was then on the twenty-ninth floor of the
campus’s administration building that acted as an observation deck. One more of the shooting
victims succumbed seven days later from the wounds obtained from the August First shooting at
the University of Texas (Barr, 2011). The mass killing in the campus followed another set of
killings perpetrated by Mr. Whitman. Mr. Whitman had before the massacre murdered both his
wife and mother at their respective homes. The shooter was after about one and a half hour shot
dead by a police officer Houston McCoy, who was accompanied by his colleague Ramiro
Martinez. Mr. Whitman first fired shots at pedestrians walking the campus grounds below the
tower. Being in the middle of the relatively small campus, the shooting covered approximately a
radius of five blocks. Many university personnel and students including professors, workers and
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 3
even visitors all around the college witnessed the incident. Some of these people were hiding in
different places to avoid being hit by the ferocious bullets from Whitman’s guns. Those who had
been shot had to play dead to avoid being shot again. This incident was at the time the worst ever
shooting to have occurred in a learning institution. The fatality of this incident was, however, in
2007 overtaken by the shooting in Virginia Tech (Barr, 2011).
The term collaboration is used in this paper to mean the interaction between several
parties that are working together for a common goal. Working simultaneously without any
associated connection, however, is not considered collaboration. Collaboration may occur at
different levels where different organs are working together towards a certain common purpose.
The term collaboration has also been termed as a process where actors who are either
autonomous or semi-autonomous interact formally or informally in a negotiation, and in the
process come up with laws and guidelines that guide their relationships. It also governs them on
ways to act when facing an issue that affects and brings them together. It can, therefore, in that
collaboration is a process that involves shared norms and interactions that are mutually beneficial
to all the involved parties (Thomson, Perry, & Miller, 2011).
Inter-organizational collaborations when dealing with incidents or emergencies can be
described as a process where different involved organization work together and come up with a
plan that is mutually beneficial to all the involved parties. These of work together towards the
common goals of saving the day and coming up with solutions. The mutual agreement means
that the interaction has less friction and more beneficial results(Akbulut et al., 2009). This paper
seeks to analyze the process of collaboration that involves federal and state governments, non-
governmental organizations, institutions and schools, communities and individuals in the
response to an emergency or an incident that involves a school or educational facility. The
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 4
response and eventual collaboration of these organizations will include both response and cover
coupled with protection and prevention of the incident at hand. It seeks to understand the role of
the whole community when preparing and responding to such incidents. This analysis will
involve a full dissection of the University of Texas shooting, and how the response and
collaboration of all the involved parties took place. The work also tries to clarify the role of
professionals in emergency management, criminal justice, public safety management and how
they work together to avert such a crisis (BJS, 2007).
Literature review
Charles Joseph Whitman was born on June 24, 1941. He was an engineering student at
the University of Texas. Whitman was an ex-marine and thus his high accuracy even when
shooting from a long distance (Barr, 2011).
On the dawn of August 1, 1966, Whitman murdered his wife and later his mother in their
homes before proceeding to the campus where he would shoot dead fourteen people and injure
scores more. The shooter has several guns including handguns, a shotgun, and a rifle when
executing the killings at the University. The shooting that took ninety-six minutes occurred
around the tower in the middle of the campus. He shot and killed three individuals who were
inside the university tower. He later shot dead eleven more through random shootings in the in
and around the tower. He did all the shootings while on the 28th-floor observation deck of the
administration building. His marine training was visible from his pinpoint accuracy where he
shot most of his victims near the heart and his neglect to those shot and fallen to the floor. The
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 5
later was thought to be as a result of the “one shot one kill” strategy used by the military. These
killings were regarded by many as a new style of violence. The comments were due to the
relations to a previous shooting by Richard Speck, who had previously shot and killed eight
student nurses (Barr, 2011).
His earliest victims were his wife and his mother who he murdered hours before the
killing spree in the University of Texas. He is understood to have killed them to spare them from
the pain and shame in their lives that they would face after his deeds later in the day become
known. During the almost three-hour massacre, Whitman shot an expectant woman known as
Claire Wilson. The woman survived the shooting but her unborn child did not. The bullet hit the
unborn child in the womb rendering Mrs. Wilson barren from that point onwards. The child in
many articles is not counted among the victims of the shooting. Another death was witnessed
after seventeen years when David Gunby a survivor of the 1966 shooting succumbed to injuries
to his kidneys that he sustained from Whitman’s bullets. Mr. Gunby had lived a life of pain and
dialysis before his death in 2001. Kathy Whitman, the first victim, was stabbed to death by her
husband in her sleep. Whitman then proceeded to his mother’s penthouse where the aging
woman initially introduced him to the guard at the door. It is understood that he attacked his
mother immediately after entering the house by beating her brutally. He then strangled and
stabbed her to death using a big knife used for hunting. The night guard later testified to have
seen Whitman carrying a large attaché case that was black in color(Chen, 2009).
Other victims were Edna Townsley, who was a receptionist at the observation tower and
Marguerite Lamport, who succumbed to a gunshot wound in the stairs that led to the observation
room in the tower. A shotgun in the same place as Lamport also killed Mark Gabour. Thomas
Eckman died in the mall from a wound on his shoulder. Thomas Karr, a Spanish student, was
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 6
shot in the spine. Billy Speed was shot in the shoulder, but the damage reached his chest. He was
a police officer. Paul Sonntag and Claudia Rutt were both eighteen years and were shot while
together. Others are Roy Schmidt, Karen Griffith aged seventeen, Thomas Ashton and Robert
Boyer, a University professor. Officers who made their way to the deck later killed Whitman by
fired at him. McCoy is credited to have shot the shooter in the head. Officer McCoy lived to
seventy-two years before his death(Clark, 2011).
An autopsy on Whitman’s body revealed a brain tumor and doctors’ reports said that he
had been complaining of headaches. The same coupled with mental complications were also
noted in his suicide note. The tumor was pressing on the section of the brain controlling
emotions and thus his violent non-remorseful actions (Cornell, 2010).
There had been no precedent for any tragedy like this and thus no measure to prevent,
protect or respond had been in place. By the time the shooter was neutralized, he had already
shot at forty-three people killing thirteen of them on the spot. The shooting was widely covered,
and stories were told globally(Akbulut et al., 2009). From the incident, SWAT teams across the
country were created to deal with such incidents in the future. As there had been no such
tactically trained forces before the incident, brave students and freelance police officers were
tasked to fire back at Whitman. There were also volunteers who helped the wounded to safety or
by offering first-aid.
The incident showed the unpreparedness of all the stakeholders tasked with the
responsibility of giving security to students and staff at academic institutions. The university has
tried to come up with measures to prevent such an incident from occurring again in the future by
calling together security stakeholders to come up with long-term solutions to such incidents.
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 7
Security agencies have come up with strategies to prevent and protect students from shootings in
the future. Emergency personnel have also been involved in their response to such emergencies.
Both the state and federal governments have been tasked with the responsibility of making laws
and policies that will provide guidelines for the response, protection, and prevention of shooting
incident in schools from happening again. The collaboration of all these organizations with
institutions is an integral part of the success of any of the measures put in place in case of such a
shooting.
Inter-organizational collaborations
The term collaboration as used refers the interaction between several parties that are
working together for a common goal. Working simultaneously without any associated
connection, however, is not considered collaboration. Collaboration may occur at different levels
where different organs are working together towards a certain common purpose. The term
collaboration has also been termed as a process where actors who are either autonomous or semi-
autonomous interact formally or informally in a negotiation, and in the process come up with
laws and guidelines that guide their relationships. It also governs them on ways to act when
facing an issue that affects and brings them together. It can, therefore, be said that collaboration
is a process that involves shared norms and interactions that are mutually beneficial to all the
involved parties (Thomson et al., 2011).
Inter-organizational collaborations when dealing with incidents or emergencies can be
described as a process where different involved organization work together and come up with a
plan that is mutually beneficial to all the involved parties. These organizations work together
towards the common goals of saving the day and coming up with solutions. The mutual
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 8
agreement means that the interaction has less friction and more beneficial results. Analyzing the
process of collaboration that involves federal and state governments, non-governmental
organizations, institutions, and schools, communities and individuals in the response to an
emergency or an incident that involves a school or educational facility is integral to success in
emergency operations. The response and eventual collaboration of these organizations should
include both response and cover coupled with protection and prevention of the incident at hand.
There should be a clear understanding of the role of the whole community when preparing and
responding to such incidents. A full dissection of the University of Texas shooting and how the
response and collaboration of all the involved parties took place shows how the lack of these
collaborations causes havoc. The should also be an understanding of the roles played by
professionals in emergency management, criminal justice, public safety management and how
they work together to avert such a crisis (Aldridge, 2013)
Lack and inadequacy of emergency response and preparedness in active shooting
incidents in institutions of learning results in panic and many casualties(Akbulut et al., 2009).If
the students and staff are not trained to handle such situations, the result is also the same.
Increased cases of casualties, damaged property and the general disruption of normal activities in
academic institutions is credited to poor training to emergency situations of the victims and
uncoordinated responses from the security and emergency personnel. The shooting at the
University of Texas shows the result of the inability of response organizations to build working
relationships with each other. It also shows what the lack of proper communication between the
involved organizations can lead to uncoordinated and at times concurrent operations that could
have been more effective if done in collaboration. Lack of training for civilians in dealing with
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 9
emergencies may result in unnecessary drills and actions that may lead to further casualties
(Blair, 2014).
The collaboration of the concerned organizations first has to be on the sharing of
information. The first responders have to have the correct information before they swing into
action. If the information is wrong, it may lead to a full cycle of inaccurate news on the
emergency leading to chaos. The first responders then share the information with other agencies
to mutually work together and avert further injuries, deaths, and confusion. Information has to be
shared through the preferred emergency radio frequencies for faster and more informed
responses (BJS, 2011).
Inadequacies like relations between agencies and training of potential victims can lead to
devastating consequences as demonstrated in the UT shootings. For management of shooting
incidents to be efficient, a holistic approach has to be adopted. Managing such a disaster is a
multi-agency responsibility. The incident command system has to prepare the training of all
agencies together for them to understand their weaknesses and strengths when dealing with such
incidents. They are also made aware of the available resources that they can utilize to counter the
emergency. If these organizations’’ staff train together, they forge a relationship based on mutual
understanding and are therefore better when dealing with emergencies. Training should
frequently be done on-site and off-site (Barr, 2011).
As witnessed at the UT shooting, institutions that have no training and do not have clear-
cut emergency plans to a shooting scenario are recipients of horrific consequences. First
responders have to be knowledgeable enough about the steps to take to rescue the victims. They
also have to know the correct channels to use to contact emergency centers and organizations. It
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 10
is observed in later incidents from the one at the University of Texas that collaborated rescue
efforts can achieve high levels of success when dealing with emergencies (Aldridge, 2013).
Trained staff will know where to refer their students to hide and not be in the line of fire.
Lockdown and shelters have to be in collaboration with the responders who will know how and
where the shooter/s is and the location of the shelter. Medical units will move towards the shelter
whereas security teams are divided into all the locations. The tactical team is tasked in reiteration
efforts. Another security team protects the medical staff as the rescue the victims. Collaboration
in such measures means that there is a smooth rescue effort that minimizes the number of
victims. A smooth running response will also have faster medical attention to the victims
(Buerger &Buerger, 2010).
Reports from the Texas shootings indicate that some of the casualties died from wounds
that had medical attention been sought immediately would have been less severe. All the active
members of law enforcement agencies rushed to the site. Off-duty, officers were also drawn to
the site. After several minutes of the first shots by the shooter, return shots were heard. The shots
were from civilians with guns or the police officers. The reiteration activities were, however,
uncoordinated and resulted in minimum results for around three hours before the shooter was
shot dead. Had the return fires been coordinated the shooter would have been killed sooner and
many lives would have been saved. However, despite the civilians’ efforts to return fire, their
poor shooting experience was highly exposed. Lack of tactical training meant that they had to
shoot aimlessly rather than on the target(Akbulut et al., 2009).
Inter-organizational responses can be very effective when collaborated. An emergency
drill that is coordinated and supervised by all the agencies involved creates a better
understanding of both the civilians and the agencies on the strengths and weaknesses of the
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 11
situation management. The civilians can know how to respond to shooting incident by finding
shelters that are not in the line of fire. The emergency agencies can understand the layout of the
facility and the location of useful resources they can use. They also develop a good working
relationship with each other. The civilians with guns are trained to shoot back and to make
tactical and informed decisions when dealing with an active shooter. The collaboration in drills
and training programs can then be translated into a real-time shooting incident with much
success(Clark, 2011).
The University of Texas shooting exposed the mistrust and misunderstanding between all
the involved parties with catastrophic effects. The number fatally injured people would have
been lower had there been a laid out plan on how to deal with such a situation. The students and
staff were unaware of where and how to hide and thus exposed to the shooter. Police officers on
site acted in uncoordinated teams leading to wastage of bullets and time in an attempt to shoot at
the shooter. Medical teams were afraid to save victims as they were also exposed to the line of
fire. The response by medical teams was also slow leading to otherwise non-fatal injuries
causing deaths of the victims (Cornell, 2010).
Political, social, economic and legal issues
Before the shootings in 1966, there were no laws in place that governed the response to
emergencies in shooting incidents. There had been no laws in the state of Texas on the handling
and possession of guns by civilians. However, after the incident, lawmakers rushed and came up
with bills that had an effect on the handling and possession of firearms and the collaboration of
emergency responses to shooting incidents (Buerger & Buerger, 2010). Today there is a new
law that will allow licensed gun holders to carry concealed guns to buildings and hostels of the
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 12
University of Texas. The new law is expected to take effect on the fiftieth anniversary of the
Texas University shooting. The Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed the new law in August 2014
(Blair, 2014). However, there has been a wave of disapproval mainly from the university’s dons.
Many of the professors have signed petition forms against the law that allows guns in lecture
halls. A professor has reportedly since resigned citing security concerns due to the possibility of
an unhappy student firing at him. The law has designated certain areas within the college as gun-
free. However, these zones must be reasonable and do not extensively ban the presence of
firearms. Recommendations for the new law have to be forwarded to the governor’s office. The
governor together with the university administration, have to come up with a plan to be effected
within the campus premises. The recommendations can come up with reasonable changes as
sought by the university before its implementation (Aldridge, 2013).
After the shooting at UT, the society came together to grief with the victims. The tragedy
united the people of Texas, the United States and the entire world. There was a worldwide
condemnation of the act. Activist groups condemned the government agencies in charge of
security for failing to neutralize the situation in time. The society all joined in the burials of all
the victims(Akbulut et al., 2009). A sense of understanding was spread among the mourners once
they learned of the mental condition of the shooter. Whitman was buried on the same place and
next to his mother. He was buried with full military honors with his casket covered with the
national flag. His brother was later buried next to the two graves. This phenomenon showed that
the community still considered the importance of family after death even for a person like
Whitman. Interviews with witnesses showed that some of the victims were shot while trying to
rescue their friends and colleagues that had been shot. This gesture showed that the community
showed compassion, humanity and unity in times of tragedy. The off-duty officers showed their
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 13
patriotism and duty by actively being involved in the whole shooting incident where one of them
shot dead the shooter(Akbulut et al., 2009).
The government now spends more money when training all agencies to tackle shooting
incidents. SWAT teams were established and fully financed by the government to tactically and
efficiently respond to such emergencies. There has been an increase of funding for emergency
response teams from the government and non-governmental organizations. Most people and
institutions had to turn to insurance firms to cover for damages and losses that can be
experienced from shootings like the one experienced at the University of Texas (Chen, 2009).
Areas that are prone to shootings have a slower economic growth. After the shooting in
1966, some businesses were closed for months as their workers or owners were victims of the
shooting. Other had to sell their businesses to cater for the medical expenses after the shooting.
Other entrepreneurs migrated from the state entirely(Akbulut et al., 2009). All these scenarios
had severe economic consequences to the individuals, state and federal governments. In addition
to reduced taxes, the government had to pay some of the medical bills of the victims. The also
had to offer compensation to injuries and losses of both lives and property related to the
shooting. Resources were used in the subsequent investigations after the shooting(BJS, 2007).
Some politicians used the incident as a stepping-stone towards their journey to top
political seats. Those actively involved in criticizing the government for the incident got a
favorite vote by the citizens. They used this avenue to oust those who had been in office during
the time of the shooting. Some victims of the shooting sought college, local and national political
positions after the incident seeking sympathy votes from the citizens (Aldridge, 2013).
Conclusion
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 14
The shooting at the University of Texas was a fatal incident to happen in learning
institutions at the time. This position has only been overtaken by the recent shootings at Virginia
Tech in 2007. As there had been no such tactically trained forces before the incident, brave
students and freelance police officers were tasked to fire back at Whitman. From the incident,
SWAT teams across the country were created to deal with such incidents in the future. The
incident also exposed the unpreparedness of emergency response teams when dealing with a
shooting incident. Poor training was also an influencing factor in the fatalities experienced that
day. The University of Texas shooting exposed the mistrust and misunderstanding between all
the involved parties with catastrophic effects. The number of casualties would have been lower
had there been a laid out plan on how to deal with such a situation.
However, inter-organizational responses can be very effective when collaborated. An
emergency drill that is coordinated and supervised by all the agencies involved creates a better
understanding for both the civilians and the agencies on the strengths and weaknesses of the
situation management. The civilians can know how to respond to shooting incident by finding
shelters that are not in the line of fire. The emergency agencies can understand the layout of the
facility and the location of useful resources they can use. They also develop a good working
relationship with each other. The civilians with guns are trained to shoot back and to make
tactical and informed decisions when dealing with an active shooter. The collaboration in drills
and training programs can then be translated into a real-time shooting incident with much
success
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 15
References
Akbulut, A., Kelle, P., Pawlowski, S., Schneider, H., & Looney, C. (2009).To share or not to
share?Examining the factors influencing local agency electronic information
sharing.International Journal of Business Information Systems 4, no. 2: 143 – 172.
doi:10.1504/IJBIS.2009.022821.
Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for” lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market
mechanism.The quarterly journal of economics, 84(3), 488-500.
Aldridge, J. (2013, January 22). Lone Star College on lockdown following school shooting.San
Antonio Business Journal. Retrieved from
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 16
lockdown.html
Barr, J. L., Peddicord, A. M. .,Burtner, E. R., &Mahy, H. A. (2011). Current Domain Challenges
in the Emergency Response Community.Proceedings of the 8 th International ISCRAM
Conference–Lisbon (Vol. 1).
BJS. (2007). US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Law Enforcement
Statistics, August 8, 2007.
BJS.(2011). US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).Census of State and
Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2008.July 26, 2011, NCJ
233982
Bureau of Investigation.
events-from-2000-to-2012
Buerger, M., &Buerger, G. (2010, September).Those terrible first few minutes.FBI.
Chen, Q. (2009). Cognitive gateway design to promote interoperability, coverage, and
throughput in heterogeneous communications systems.PhD dissertation, Department
ofElectrical and Computer Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 17
Clark, S. (2011). The role of law enforcement in schools: The Virginia experience— A
practitioner report. New Direction for Youth Development, 129, 89–102. doi:10.1002/yd
Cornell, B. D. (2010). Threat assessment in college settings.Change: The Magazine of Higher
Learning, 42(1), 8-15. Department of Defense. (2012). Task force report: Predicting
violent behavior. Defense Science Board Task Force Report.Department of Defense.
Currion, P., de Silva, C., & Van de Walle, B. (2007).“Open source software for disaster
management,” Communications of the ACM 50, no. 3: 61-65.
Douglas, J. E., Burgess, A. W., & Burgess, A. G. (2013).Crime classification manual: A
standard system for investigating and classifying violent crime
Thompson, A. M., Perry, J. L., & Miller, T. K. (2008).Linking Collaboration Processes and
Outcomes; Foundation for Advancing Empirical Theory.In: Big Ideas in
CollaborativePublic Management. Edited by Lisa Blomgren Bingham and Rosemary O’
Leary. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe Inc.
Thomson, A. M., Perry, J. L., & Miller, T. K. (2009). “Conceptualizing and measuring
collaboration.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(1):23-56.
