Crisis Management unit 1 - Case Study Example

Crisis Management Penn Child Sex Abuse The Penn child sex abuse is a scandal that began back in 2001at Pennsylvania State University. The former University’s assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky, was alleged to have sexually molested at least eight underage boys sexually around the school’s premises. The school officials have been alleged to have been covering up such scandals, the fact that has been enabling more such cases. During the in-depth investigation of the scandal in2001, Sandusky was found to have inducted on 52 counts of child molestation which happened between 1994 and 2009.

These cases led to several senior school officials being charged with perjury, some of them suspended while others dismissed for having covered the cases or failing to notify the authorities. For example, the school president, Graham Spanier, resigned while the head coach, Joe Paterno and the director of athletics, Tim Curley, were fired. As the case proceeded in court, Sandusky pleaded and maintained his innocence (CBS, 2012). Jerry’s trial began in June, 11 2012, at the Centre County Courthouse, which is at Bellefonte.

Amongst the 52 count charges, four were dropped leaving the remaining 48 cases. Sandusky was found guilty of 45 out of 48 cases of sexual abuse on June, 22 2012, and was sentenced to between 30 and 60 years in prison on October, 9 2012. The Sandusky scandal alone has seen the Penn State receive corrective and punitive sanctions issued by Emmert from the powers awarded to him by the NCAA Board. These sanctions against Penn State were together with; five years probation, a four-year postseason ban, all wins were to be vacated from 1998 to 201, all the 112 wins.

This would mean that the Nittany Lions would be stripped of their shared Big Ten titles between 2005 and 2008. 111 wins were withdrawn from the Paterno’s record that made him drop from the first position to 12th in the NCAA’s all times win list. A $60 million fine was set against Penn State to go towards efforts to prevent further child abuse. The school scholarship program was also affected, where a total of 40 scholarships were all lost for between 2013 and 2017. During this period again, the Penn state will only be limited to 65.

There was also a recommendation for reform in the Freeh report that the Penn State was forced to adopt. The Penn State was also required to enter into an ‘’athletics integrity agreement’’ together with NCAA’s Big ten. In addition, they were required to appoint a University-wide athletic compliance officer and council to be regulating and monitoring such activities in the University. They were also forced to accept an NCAA’s appointed personnel to monitor the athletics integrity during the time the probation was on course.

All these sanctions were forced on the Penn State and any right to anyone to appeal such sanctions was waived. Any players who wished to transfer to other schools were given the permission to do so without any loss of eligibility. Several organizational functions were affected in the Penn State. Some of these include management functions, motivational functions, administrative functions, human resource functions and others. Several management functions were affected in that several senior positioned management at the Penn State University were forced to lose their jobs while others were suspended hence interfering with the already established management system.

The Penn State had to be given new management which then would affect the management system, the culture and tradition of the university. The university is hence expected to change in performance in all sectors as they try to adjust to new management. Many school players are also expected to transfer by the change of the management to other schools. This can also see the school drop in performance as far as sports is concerned. Administrative functions were also affected as the school’s top administrator was forced to resign.

The perception of the parents of the school administration has changed as far as Sandusky’s scandal is concerned. The parents will now not trust the school administration with their children as they aid in covering sexual abuse acts to the children. The human resource functions have been affected also as the Penn State has to replace its lost employees but it cannot do so on through its human resource department. The NCAA has to impose some staff at the university. The internal stakeholders include the school management and the students.

The external stakeholders include the parents and the governing body, NCAA. The school management suffered a blow by losing some of their employees and the students were the victims of sex abuse. The parents were affected in that their children were the victims and feared that more of their children may fall victims of sexual abuse. Being a risk consultant, I would, immediately the scandal took place, deal with it on the spot by reporting the case to the authorities to eliminate such kind of employees and also to sound as a warning to the remaining employees that in case one was involved, they would follow suit.

This would contain the situation and give all the stakeholder confidence in the school management. The university’s reputation would remain that the administration sues child molesters hence the management would be applauded. This would be for the consideration that, if such cases are not reported, and only dealt with indoors, it would burst at one time and sweeps the whole management team. Therefore, the best move is to act appropriately and on the spot to such acts when they occur. Reference CBS.

(2012, October 9). The Penn State Scandal. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from CBSNEWS.com: http://www.cbsnews.com/feature/the-penn-state-scandal/