Josephine Rizzo '25

Josephine Rizzo ’25 | Honors Politics major

Josephine Rizzo ’25 recognized her passion for actionable change after observing the lack of resources schools generally have, but specifically regarding shooting prevention methods. As an undergraduate student, Rizzo researched policies that were created in response to school shootings to understand how politics influence certain prevention approaches. Today, the Politics major is making her mark on education in the Massachusetts public school system. 

Did you conduct any research during your time at Saint Anselm College? 

As an Honors Research fellow, I worked with Professor Jennifer Lucas in the Politics Department to look at the effects that political parties, affiliations, and media discourse have on school shooting prevention.

Where did the idea for this research originate?

Going into college, I initially wanted to work in politics and develop education policy. My mom is a teacher, so during the pandemic I listened in on her union calls. Just in doing that, I realized that one of the main things that schools lack is resources, and making those resources accessible to those they would benefit. I knew I wanted to research school shooting prevention methods when I began my thesis process. 

What did your research entail? 

I studied tens of thousands of pieces of legislation from the 115th and 118th Congress while I analyzed three different analyses on three school shootings. The ones I focused on were Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas, and the Santa Fe High School shooting in Santa Fe, Texas. 

What were you hoping to learn?

I wanted to see what kinds of legislation these tragedies brought about and which party proposed it, given the location. There were about 12 different prevention methods that I looked at to see what type of legislation was brought about after each shooting. There’s obviously a huge discussion about gun control—but there's also mental health legislation, and physical and infrastructure prevention methods, metal detectors, locking doors to only have one entrance and exit, etc. There are also zero-tolerance policies, which have to do with assessment and punishment regarding threats made in schools. Republicans and Democrats often prefer different shooting prevention methods, so I focused on studying the types of legislation that were created. 

What did you determine? 

There were only two or three laws that were passed out of the 156 bills, resolutions, and different pieces of legislation that I researched. The two major laws that were passed after the Parkland and Uvalde shootings generated lots of media attention, so that’s why I also wanted to look at those conversations that were happening surrounding new legislation.

What was that legislation?

Before building out a new law, lawmakers typically reference past laws and see if they can improve upon them. After the Uvalde shooting, they looked to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and the 1994 assault weapon ban, which they turned into the Bipartisan Safer Community Act. This focuses on more community-led gun prevention and violence prevention, but includes mental health legislation, like tele health accessibility through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). It also includes increasing school-based support with more mental health training for nurses, counselors, and teachers. With the Prevention Act, lawmakers upped the age from 18 to 21 for purchases of firearms and instated intervention programs to help prevent the illegal trading of firearms. They also developed a large database for schools and organizations to visit and find federal research information about possible prevention methods to implement.

Was it hard to for lawmakers to reach an agreement and cross party lines?

With the Bipartisan Safer Community Act, Democrats had to convince 14 Republicans for it to be able to pass. All the Democrats voted yay, and there were only 14 Republicans who voted in favor of passing the bill.

Was this controversial? 

Yes, it was very difficult for them to reach that consensus. Republicans are more party-focused and not as willing to stray from their point of view. There’s this whole thing about “keeping the Republican ideal” or vision and not moving from that extreme so Republicans can continue to appeal to the farther right, more traditionally conversative Republicans as opposed to the more moderate or central Republicans party. 

Did a similar thing happen in Florida after the Parkland shooting?

Similarly to Texas, lawmakers worked to improve upon an existing law, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. This was initially focused on preventing violence in communities, so lawmakers moved to introduce the Stop Act, which would then become the STOP School Violence Act. This amends the Omnibus Act and increases funding for evidence-based school safety programs. It centered around training school resource officers and teachers on what prevention methods work, how to manage incidences, and developing an anonymous reporting and threat assessment system (the process of hearing a threat, making a report, and dealing with the situation.)

What was one of your biggest takeaways from this project? 

It's all about starting where you are and then moving up. Start by seeing if you you can enact small change in your schools or communities, ask yourself what’s happening, if there’s a policy on it, and if there is someone you can talk to about making a change. That perspective emerged out of working with Access Academy, where I worked for three years teaching courses on youth advocacy, how youth can look at their schools, get involved in their communities, and encourage others to do the same. 

Did anything about your findings surprise you? 

There’s a big call for the federal government to focus more on threat assessment as a prevention method. However, when I looked through the legislation and discussions about it, there was rarely any mention of it compared to gun control and mental health legislation. I think that has to do a lot with the media discussion and lack of information or knowledge about what threat assessment is. It seems more complicated than it is, but when you say, “mental health” and “gun control,” people know exactly what you’re talking about. I would say I was very surprised that threat assessment wasn’t brought up more in those documents, seeing as the federal government really pushes for it. 

Why do you think threat assessment isn’t as prevalent in media discussions? 

I think a lot of it has to do with the bystander effect. Even though it’s an anonymous reporting system, the person who is often considering reporting something that they saw doesn’t want to get in trouble for saying anything. In many cases, the shooter will say something online or to another student, and a lot of the time someone knows their plan or their plan has been shared in some way with another person. There should be more encouragement around the “see something, say something,” especially when shootings are such a widely discussed, anxiety-inducing topic. 

What do you think is the best approach to handling this? 

Every school functions differently, but if there is a basis—whether it's at a state, federal, or local level—of educating students, parents, and teachers about threat assessment, it could prevent a lot of anxiety. Since school shootings are something, students worry about now, having threat assessment policies will make them more comfortable having these discussions and feeling like school is a safe environment.