College campuses by their very nature are open and public places. In fact, today’s college and university campuses are far more similar to small cities than they are to elementary or secondary schools. This openness poses a significant challenge when balanced against an increasing need for safety and security in our ever more mobile world. Creating a safe environment that provides for a rich academic experience is a responsibility that must be shared by the entire community.
College and university campuses, as a whole, remain relatively safe places where instances of serious crime are infrequent. As a result, students and others frequently feel like they are in a “bubble,” immune from bad things happening. Part of the challenge becomes involving all members of the community in sharing in the responsibility for their own and overall campus safety and security.
Clearly, given the diverse nature of our campuses, there is no one size fits all answer. An organized safety and security program unique to the special needs of each campus is of key importance. However, there are some “best practices” and recommendations that should be considered when developing or evaluating campus safety and security efforts. The information at this site is intended to provide access to resources that may help individual campuses in reviewing their campus safety and security functions.
In August of 2007, in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA) sought to develop a set of recommendations for institutions of higher education through a public safety lens. A high level task force reviewed various reports and made recommendations resulting in the release of “The IACLEA Blueprint for Safer Campuses.” The report is divided into three parts:
Campus Security Task Force Survey
Statistics from the Campus Security Task Force Survey
As of June 1, 2007, there were 36 respondents to the survey that was sent out.
*Metro Business College only responded to question 1
Summary of findings are in bold type.
1. Institutions with an all-hazard emergency response plan.
Yes – 86% (31/36)
No – 6% (2/36)
Institutions that have a plan in progress – 8% (3/36)
2. Situations emergency plans address:
A. Fire – 97% (35/36)
B. Tornado - 97% (35/36)
C. Pandemic – 36% (13/36)
D. Major protracted power outage – 64% (23/36)
E. Other significant health issue (e.g. mass food poisoning, virus, etc.) – 47% (17/36)
F. Bomb threat – 92% (33/36)
G. Armed intruder - 69% (25/36)
H. Earthquake – 94% (34/36)
I. Post-trauma counseling – 50% (18/36)
J. Identification and intercession of potential threats - 47% (17/36)
K. Other - 39% (14/36) - Including: Mass Casualty, Civil Disorder, Hostage Situation, Suicide/Suicide Attempt
3. For each plan provided, please provide the following information:
A. Plan name ______Various___________________________________
B. Year initially adopted____1990-2007___________
C. Personnel involved in development of the plan:
1. Senior Administration Executives (please specify by title of positions) - 83% (30/36) - Some responses include: Presidents and Vice Presidents across campus
2. Chief of Campus Police Department – 64% (23/36)
3. Chief of Campus Fire Department - 8% (3/36)
4. Local community police department. – 28% (10/36) Does the police department maintain an updated copy of your plan? Yes – 28% (10/36) No – 72% (26/36)
5. Local community fire department. – 25% (9/36) Does the fire department maintain an updated copy of your plans? Yes – 25% (9/36) No – 75% (27/36)
6. Mental health professional - 36% (13/36)
7. Health professional – 36% (13/36)
8. Public information office – 47% (17/36)
9. Other – 56% (20/36) - Including: Other Campus Security, Local Emergency Services, Personnel in each campus building
4. Please describe the processes used in developing your plan:
Response varied: most formed cross-campus committees to develop plans, some assigned a senior staff member to develop, many cooperated with local agencies, and researched plans at other higher education institutions.
5. Plan reviewed and updated? - Annually - 64% (23/36); Periodically – 28% (10/36); No Response – 8% (3/36)
By who? ____ Most common responses include: Directory of Security or Developers of plan
6. Modes of communication to communicate the plan:
A. Employee manual for faculty and staff - 56% (20/36)
B. Student manual - 33% (12/36)
C. Web-site - 58% (21/36)
D. Other ___50% (18/36) - Responses include but are not limited to: Campus meetings, distribute plan to emergency committee, provided to all employees, posted in classrooms
7. Simulations:
A. Annually for faculty and staff only - 11% (4/36)
B. Annually for faculty, staff, and students – 36% (13/36)
C. Never - 17% (6/36)
D. Other - 53% (19/36) -Most common responses include: Multiple drills throughout the year
8. Greatest challenges faced requiring implementation? (Circle all that apply to your institution)
A. Notifying faculty and staff of the emergency - 81% (29/36)
B. Notifying students of the emergency - 92% (33/36)
C. Notifying local authorities of the emergency - 6% (2/36)
D. Activating your command center/emergency operations center - 17% (6/36)
E. Handling the media - 8% (3/36)
F. Having adequately trained personnel on staff to handle the emergency - 33% (12/36)
G. Other - 25% (9/36) - Responses include but are not limited to: Funding and limited resources, contacting off-duty personnel who are not on call, adequate training of staff and students, insufficient personnel
9. Most important provisions to include in plan?
Most common responses include: communication, establishing a chain of command, processes for quick decisions, involvement of local first responders
10. Process for identifying and assessing distressed students, faculty, and staff who potentially pose a threat to themselves or others?
Yes – 64% (23/36)
No – 33% (12/36)
No Response – 3% (1/36)
11. Does your institution have a policy and process for communicating with and involving parents/guardians of potential distressed students?
Yes – 58% (21/36)
No – 36% (13/36)
In Progress – 3% (1/36)
No Response – 3% (1/36)
12. All applicable modes of communication used in an emergency:
A. E-mail - 81% (29/36)
B. Text-messaging - 8% (3/36)
C. Use of a phone-tree for verbal notification - 64% (23/36)
D. Public Address system in buildings - 17% (6/36)
E. Public Address/siren system outside of buildings - 25% (9/36)
F. Notification to local broadcast media - 58% (21/36)
G. Web-site - 72% (26/36)
H. Hotline - 8% (3/36)
I. Other - 28% (10/36) - Responses include but are not limited to: Intranet, word of mouth, campus cable TV system, voicemail to campus phone
13. Level of training your emergency response “decision makers” have attained:
A. Introduction to the Incident Command System – ICS 100 - 39% (14/36)
B. Basic Incident Command System - ICS 200 - 36% (13/36)
C. National Incident Management System (NIMS) - ICS 700 - 39% (14/36)
D. National Response Plan - ICS 800 - 22% (8/36)
E. Other - 36% (13/36) - Responses include but are not limited to: ICS 300 and 400, FEMA/SEMA Training, Local responders are trained, but not campus personnel
14. If had no training, would you be interested in having the Missouri Department of Public Safety to provide?
Yes – 69% (25/36)
No – 8% (3/36)
N/A – 11% (4/36)
No Response – 11% (4/36)
15. Indicate your Incident Command or emergency response “decision makers”:
A. President of the institution - 75% (27/36)
B. Provost - 25% (9/36)
C. Campus Chief of Police - 42% (15/36)
D. Others (list) - 64% (23/36) - Responses include but are not limited to: Crisis management teams/committees, deans across campus directors of security
16. If you have a campus police department, are your officers armed?
Yes – 36% (13/36)
No – 31% (11/36)
N/A – 25% (9/36)
No Response – 8% (3/36)
17. If you have a campus fire department, is it HAZMAT certified?
Yes – 3% (1/36)
No – 3% (1/36)
N/A – 78% (28/36)
No Response – 16% (6/36)
In the N/A responses, 4 universities responded that although they do not have a campus fire department, they do have a department on campus that is HAZMAT certified.
18. For bomb threats on your campus, what bomb squad do you call to respond?
Responses included: Local Law Enforcement, State Highway Patrol, and/or resources from FT. Leonard Wood
19. Please identify anything else you would like the Task Force to address that has not been mentioned in this survey.
28% (10/36) of institutions that responded documented additional responses.
Responses included:
· Greater communication with local and state resources
· Training in hostage situations
· Legal issues including FERPA and HIPPA restrictions on the ability to address troublesome students and employees – state should look into legislation that would protect “good Samaritans” from lawsuits should they report distressed students
· Standards (benchmarks) for campus security
· Allow private universities to have commissioned campus police departments
· Expand campus police jurisdiction to encompass streets adjacent to campus property Funding for training and development
· On-campus communication and mass communication equipment
· Technologies necessary for campus-wide notification
· Look for grant opportunities to fund public address systems and text messaging technology Training for campus personnel in a variety of potential situations
· Assist campuses in developing or refining a plan