Campus Security Task Force Survey
Submitted by rebekah.enzler on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 6:28pm.
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
