A Case Study: Clery Act Policy and Implementation Strategies

The Clery Act was created as a consumer protection law to inform prospective students and their families about the safety of the campuses they consider. The law requires that post–secondary institutions participating in Title IV federal financial assistance programs remain compliant with Clery Act regulations to maintain the ability to offer financial aid funds to students. Noncompliance with the Clery Act can result in disqualification from Title IV programming and damaging institutional fines. These consequences warrant a deeper examination of the law and ways that Clery Act facilitators effectively implement compliance strategies and affect campus safety. This intrinsic case study examined how higher education administrators at a multicampus public university implement strategies to facilitate Clery Act compliance. Participants in this study were individuals employed at a multicampus institution located in the upper Midwest; 24 people were invited, and nine agreed to participate. Participants in this study included Clery officials, Title IX coordinators, and campus security authorities. Data was collected via interview, and then triangulated with artifacts and observational notes. The results of this study determined that at the site institution participants worked collaboratively between campuses and with outside stakeholders to remain in compliance with Clery Act requirements. Additional findings demonstrated that innovative approaches were being employed to improve compliance strategies and heighten campus safety efforts. Participants’ rich descriptions and narratives also evinced unanticipated findings that can serve as a springboard for future research and points of discussion to further conversations regarding campus safety and the mitigation of campus violence

Abuse Under the Big Top: Seeking Legal Protection for Circus Elephants after ASPCA v. Ringling Brothers

The Asian elephants featured in the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus are theoretically guaranteed humane treatment by the Animal Welfare Act, which ostensibly protects animals in exhibition, and by the Endangered Species Act, which covers the treatment of animals designated endangered species, including Asian elephants. Nevertheless, circus elephants have suffered extensive abuse because the agencies responsible for implementing the laws--the United States Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, respectively--have not done so aggressively, and because animal advocates have been unable to compel their enforcement or to establish standing to sue private parties. In 2000, animal welfare organizations, including the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, invoked the citizen-suit provision of the Endangered Species Act to sue Ringling for alleged violations of the Act. Joined by former Ringling barn man Tom Rider, the plaintiffs survived the defendant\u27s motion to dismiss for lack of constitutional standing by claiming that Ringling\u27s treatment of its elephants caused Rider emotional harm. Ultimately, nine years after the plaintiffs filed their complaint, the court dismissed the case without reaching the merits of the abuse claims. Characterizing Rider as a paid plaintiff, the court determined he could not prove an emotional attachment to Ringling\u27s elephants or that the court could redress his alleged injury. This Note examines the statutory enforcement gaps highlighted by the Ringling litigation and proposes strategies for closing those gaps with legislation and litigation. After exploring the statutory backdrop against which the Ringling case arose and evaluating the successes and failures of the lawsuit, this Note suggests amending the Animal Welfare Act to ensure its diligent enforcement. Proposed changes include adding guidelines that would constrain the broad enforcement discretion the Secretary of Agriculture currently exercises and supplementing the Act with a limited citizen-suit provision. This Note also recommends the enactment of state anti-cruelty laws that would prohibit certain circus training tools--such as the bull hook. As the Ringling litigation demonstrated, animal advocates face a formidable hurdle--constitutional standing--when suing on behalf of animals. As such, this Note advocates further strategic litigation, implementing two promising standing theories: informational injury and economic harm to an organization

Electrical cardioversion algorithm (not in arrest)

This issue of eMedRef provides information to clinicians on electrical cardioversion algorithm in patients not in arrest

Bradycardia algorithm with a pulse

This issue of eMedRef provides information to clinicians on bradycardia algorithm with a pulse

Tachycardia algorithm

This issue of eMedRef provides information to clinicians on tachycardia algorithm