The purpose of this study was to contextualize, understand, and interpret the dynamics related to the advances of campus safety policy following the Virginia Tech tragedy. Florida's community colleges are an integral part of Florida's educational system and are expected to do more for less. The question of whether campuses are actually safer based on the number of warning tiers they offer or officers they employ opposed to a campus' ability to avoid dangerous situations by improving communication pathways and monitoring the progress of at risk students was left open. Four areas structured the study: mental health considerations, Clery Act considerations, litigation concerns, and privacy concerns. Themes emerged from content analyses that included administrator interviews, the Virginia Tech Report, Florida's Task Force Report on University Campus Safety, and newspaper articles.

Grounded theory allowed for the explication of multiple factors. The theoretical framework provided a deeper understanding of campus safety planning. Overall, campus safety has focused on an institution's ability to deal with hazard scenarios (back end responses) rather than strategies for the prevention of tragedies (front end avoidance). Failing to connect the dots in proactive dangerous situation avoidance on a campus portends the potential for increased harm to the campus community, in addition to increased liability for the institution. The data revealed several areas that warrant policymaker attention. Guidelines as to what it means for a student to be identified by a campus as at risk were nonexistent and in need of development. Recommendations included training for faculty and staff that ranged from the reporting of bomb threats and troubling behavior to an appreciation of how employee actions create special relationships that impart legal duties. By identifying multiple themes relevant to safety planning, the study contributed to the design of more considered campus safety policies.