W.

Campus Public Safety 

PS.USDOJ.GOV WWW.COPS.USDOJ.GOV WWW.COPS.USDOJ.GOV WWW.COPS.USDOJ.GOV WW 

Campus Public Safety 

es in a Homeland Security Environment 

WWW.COPS.USDOJ.GOV 

02CKWXK052 by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of 

nions contained in this document are those of the author and do 

the U.S. Department of Justice. 

ment Summit Report 

III 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

1 

MARCPI) acknowledges the time, commitment, and skill of the 

 Summit on Campus Public Safety: Strategies for Colleges and 

dedication and perseverance led to the summit's success and 

ollowing people and organizations for their contributions and 

Oriented Policing Services (COPS), for its understanding of 

mit. Special recognition is given to Director Carl Peed for his 

ject, and for his guidance and involvement. MARCPI extends 

project manager, and other participating COPS staff. 

e commitment and drive to make the summit a success went 

on of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators. 

of Chiefs of Police. 
 of MARCPI and the Johns Hopkins University Staff. 

fety Leadership, Johns Hopkins University, who wrote this 

mmit. 

and Preparedness, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

HS special advisor to the FBI, for his dedication to the field, 

ecurity needs of campuses, and his support in shaping the 

 make it a success. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

3 

mination of the nation's defenses and vulnerabilities in light 

who protect the well being of communities, required change. 

d university campuses are no exception. 

ulture, and expectation, epitomize the open and accessible 

ough, colleges and universities are among society's most 

anizations seeking to cause harm and fear. 

e of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), 

onal Community Policing Institute (MARCPI) to assess and 

ges and universities. Based on input from focus groups held 

 the project, the scope was expanded to include a national 

blish direction and recommendations to serve as a basis for 

ation sharing, funding, and other initiatives. 

conferences and workshops on matters related to campus 

ous constituents and target critical issues had not been held. 
ovember 29 to December 1, 2004 in Baltimore, Maryland. 

ndor and collaboration in dealing with more than 20 k

ey 

g committee and the COPS Office selected the delegates 

xcellence in campus safety. The delegates provided a 

mpus police and security agencies, major professional 

nt organizations, and federal agencies. 

prolonged discussion and ultimately led to consensus 

ation, partnerships, and professionalism in the field of 

nizations or professional associations that represent the 

r a collective interagency/interjurisdictional approach to 

ety to guide relevant future endeavors of government 

ustry, and professional associations. 

support information sharing, policy development, model 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

5 

are grouped into three categories: 

ns. 

require a shift in culture and long-standing thought processes 

ounty chiefs of police and sheriffs, and others. Implementing 

and enhancing partnerships, developing quality educational 

endations require no funding or additional resources. Several 

others, implementation will be a lengthy process. 

cannot and should not be passed to federal agencies or 

uld share in the effort and serve as catalysts for change, the 

ven by leaders within the colleges and universities. 

 a conclusive effort. The collective spirit and candor of the 

ort to enhance and sustain safety and security on college and 

ey serve and the nation. 

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

7 

 Details are included later in this report. 

genda, and promote cooperation and collaboration. 

 

ns. 

a, and promote cooperation and collaboration. 

short-term and long-term direction, should be developed and 

he Department of Homeland Security, and other federal and 

 to the safety and well-being of the nation's college and 

ablished to support the field, foster collaboration and lasting 

rovide quality education. 

Homeland Security should establish and sustain a National 

ould be convened immediately to lead the effort to draft the 

he Department of Justice and Department of Homeland 

NS 
d to the safety and well-being of the nation's college and 

l to overcome fragmentation by elevating professionalism 

easing internal and external awareness, creating a sense of 

grams that foster consistency and collaboration. 

 other funding to public safety agencies should be expanded 

police and security departments. 

hould be a viable part of the nation's intelligence gathering, 

es and should be incorporated into all regional and national 

k. 

on campus public safety should be a priority of college and 

n and funding agencies, professional associations, private 

and universities in prevention and response planning and 

ity chiefs of police and security directors should be in

volved 

, state, and national response to homeland security. 

Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, 

mplemented to guide campus police and security operations 
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

9 

 in local and regional evacuation plans. In evacuation 

iversities should be represented in emergency command 

should provide all personnel who work in areas (beats, 

es are located with an orientation to the characteristics, 

 

agreements and memoranda of understanding between 

ic safety organizations should be developed and made 

nts should be collected. 

 involved in all local, state, and regional activity dressing 

 

ore than one major college or university, meetings should 

prevention and response strategies, and consistency in 

s. 

nclude campus public safety agencies in their efforts to 

ns, develop partnerships, and build capacity. 
s, and government agencies serving campus safety should 

gional Community Policing Institutes (RCPI) to deliver 

policies and best practices, and foster consistency and 

ommunity Oriented Policing Services should require that 

s a priority. 

and security agencies should adopt and implement the 

orcement Administrators (IACLEA) Threat Assessment 

rofessional associations to assist colleges and universities 

echnology, research, promising practices) to deal with the 

s environments with the increased security required in the 

zards approach to preventing and managing crises and 
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

11 

opt common policies, procedures, and incident response 

mum qualifications for hiring campus police and security 

shing parity in salary and benefits with surrounding law 

ecruitment and retention of campus police and security 

ould have access to and meet with college and university 

cises, and related activities should be designed to reflect 

university campus. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 

13 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 

mote cooperation and collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 


BACKGROUND ON CAMPUS PUBLIC SAFETY 

17 

education system, a complex set of institutions including 

leges, comprehensive universities, and world-renowned 

Monahan 

ate Uni ver sity -Boz eman 

University: 

asure or Endangered Species? 

Cornell Uni ver sity P ress,1 997) 

LIC SAFETY 
Security (Campus Public Safety: Weapons of Mass Destruction 

estic Preparedness, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, April 

cation Act of 1995) institutions of post-secondary education in the 

eral million faculty, staff, and visitors. Title IV institutions are those 

dent financial aid programs. Community colleges represent the 

ation. Currently, 1,173 community colleges serve the nation, of 

. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, more than 20,000 

e nation's largest campuses, those with student populations of 

Agencies, 1995, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

er 1996). Precise figures on the total number of law enforcement 

 universities are not available. 

ex task. Heightened debate centers on tightening access to 

ntaining an open campus environment. This debate over the need 

oblem-solving challenges for public safety personnel. 

s, with permanent and transient populations that often exceed 

California, Los Angeles; University of Maryland, College Park; and 

ge residential populations, shops, recreational facilities, and full

cated within major metropolitan centers. Cities such as Lawrence, 

 on local university campuses for their economic survival. Smaller 

 2-year institutions (community colleges, technical colleges, junior 
ce myriad problems and issues related to sustaining a 

nd others. In addition, new issues related to terrorist 

ollege and university campuses. In some jurisdictions, 

ntial primary targets of terrorist activity, while in other 

ning and activities. 

nd sponsor activities and events that increase their 

ple and establish facilities dedicated to research in the 

ng 

ication 

fety 

ation 

ce 

e 

cuments. They also serve as homes to scholars and 

 intellectual talent. Major universities also serve as 

of Defense, Department of Justice, National Security 

onautics and Space Administration, as well as to the 

19 
ternational connections. Many have a substantial number of 

es account for up to half of the full-time student body. They enter 

eir education. 

n campuses overseas and have close ties with countries in Eastern 

t, and Latin America. Campuses abroad include small enclaves 

demic study to large multipurpose centers serving hundreds or 

ited States are open environments in which students, faculty, and 

trictions. Freedom of movement is encouraged. 

Restrictions are 

st universities, which generally embodies an environment of 

mpuses, libraries, laboratories, and student lounges remain open 

several major cities, the university is the largest nongovernment 

 live and work on campuses assume that they are safe and give 

nt is closely linked to the freedom of expression and the freedom 

 environments. For generations, college and university campuses 

expressed without interference, fear, or retaliation. 
urity, safety, and problem solving on college and 

campus each semester and few universities have 

nicipal, county, or state police officers and security 

ome cases, there is little or no cross training among 

 of the same university. 

 college and university campuses vary considerably. 

cy development, training, and other activities, and 

ng four primary types of security and police services 

nctions as part of the university. Officers have full 


that functions as part of the university. Security


nicipal, county, or state police for support in criminal


21 
cted to provide security services to the university. The firm relies 

 support in criminal matters. 

unty, or state police agency that provides police operations or 

 agreement. 

ons may be provided by a combination of the above services, with 

while others are maintained as the responsibility of the campus 

tions rely heavily on the use of off-duty police officers from local 

to supplement university personnel. 

y vary within the same university system. Among major state 

vania, and Texas, for example) the police or security operation 

ent of the university system may have its own police department, 

ons, and policies. There may be little or no support or sharing of 

e officials attending the summit stated that this is driven by the 

dividual identity, the need to maintain flexibility in serving specific 

radition and unwarranted parochialism as driving the disparity of 

ns are responsible for patrolling areas that surround campuses 

e law enforcement authority and/or legislation. In one jurisdiction, 
, private businesses, and residential dwellings in an 

e city police department provides no primary patrol 

 by variations in the university or college's oversight 

ector of security often reports to a member of the 

and grounds, vice president for academic affairs, or 

 operations. 

d by the competing interests of their chief executive 

aramount. However, time constraints and other 

icult for them to devote time to security and safety 

eaknesses within universities ... They require bold, 

management of resources ... a new commitment to 

willingness to come to terms with new expectations, 

 

s 

 

23 
reats 

mpuses are varied, in part, because of the different approaches to 

ragency task forces, and permanent offices to analyze potential 

e threats. They have pulled together their internal resources to 

t all entities of the university are working together. On many of 

thers have been well informed about these activities and have 

reparedness loosely or disjointedly. Response and preparedness 

rtments, and units. The police or security operation responds 

iversity. As such, there is little consistency or collaboration. 

ne almost nothing. They have relinquished responsibility for 

m contracted to provide security services, or others. 

nse of college and university campuses to the threat of terrorist 

es as a clearinghouse for research, policy development, and 
ampus Crime Statistics Act (the Clery Act), a 1990 

eges and universities to disclose information about 

after Lehigh University freshman Jeanne Clery who 

annual report no later than October 1 of every year, 

with descriptions of certain security policies. Reports 

ospective students and employees must be notified 

participating in federal student aid programs must 

was collected haphazardly, with individual schools 

25 

BACKGROUND OF THE NATIONAL SUMMIT 

27 

taxes the resources of the municipalities and county, the 

quake and 9/11, we had issues on the campuses and there 

because they were spread too thin. We had chemical spills 

the fire department to respond. Our department went on 

ce Laura L orman 

Mission (California) Community College District 

L SUMMIT 
evolved from the interest of several professional associations and 

of a number of endeavors. The Office of Community Oriented 

nt of Justice sponsored a project led by the Mid-Atlantic Regional 

olved taking an in-depth look at current activities and future needs 

us groups and officials representing the International Association 

CLEA), International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)–College 

hiefs Association, U.S. Department of Education, and others. The 

 of 2- and 4-year, public and private, and large and small colleges 

 sought input from municipal, county, and state police officials 

mpuses are located. 

the same time as the MARCPI project. The U.S. Department of 

ouncil on Education (ACE), held a series of meetings on campus 

sponsored a major national project, led by IACLEA, to provide 

ction and incident command for campus public safety officers. The 

y Business Officers and the IACP were among the professional 

mpus Safety Health and Environmental Management Association 
tional conference. Shortly after the project began, 

meetings and conferences on the subject of campus 

need for another one, a notion reinforced by officials 

at no group, organization, or agency had established 

enda to address campus safety. For this purpose, a 

et past talking heads and move to action. There is a 

y and its importance in ensuring national security. 

pt of the summit. A summit brings together a group 

of interest by establishing or recommending broad 

equals toward a common goal. Many summits are 

workshops, to allow delegates the time to focus on 

mit because it had gathered extensive information, 

s. To take full advantage of the work being done by 

ual conference, IACP conference, and the Terrorism 

ffice for Domestic Preparedness in conjunction with 

29 
sity public safety sector with an unprecedented opportunity for 

t has never been done before and it has been a great opportunity 

rtance and significance of campus public safety. 

oel C. March 

rector, Department of Public Safety 

niversity of Maine 

s Public Safety was presented to the delegates as follows: 

nation's colleges and universities. To this end, the summit brings 

uthorities to develop and propose a national agenda on campus 

ows: 

cerns, issues, and needs challenging those responsible for safety 

rsity campuses. 
 how they may be replicated. 

ncing safety and security on the nation's college and 

sues and concerns facing the nation's colleges and 

d yet to be addressed. 

endations designed to address the identified issues. 

nning committee, members of the MARCPI project 

ing campus safety and college and university 

e working on issues, the planning committee was 

would be no formal presentations or length

y plenary 

31 
ng in groups immediately to meet the objectives. The opening 

o the delegates, and time was allotted at the end of the sessions 

planning committee, and the COPS Office selected the delegates. 

from campus police and security agencies, the major professional 

 the Department of Homeland Security, MARCPI, and others. The 

eport. 

legates into work groups based on the four guiding principles or 

owing a review of the key issues: 

 

ect (described in the next section of this report) were grouped 

nted to the summit delegates for discussion and debate. 
pecific issues, its members had the opportunity to 

note takers supported each group, protocols were 

 ample opportunity to participate. Following group 

oal of the forum was to achieve consensus on the 

uring the summit and were not intended to restrict 

hey were not intended to serve as an outline for the 

d presented their findings in order of priority and 

e delegates' discussion and debate. 

33 

KEY ISSUES IN CAMPUS PUBLIC SAFETY 

35 

ned arenas in this war on terror. 

ker Mayes 

Security Cultural Bureau 

 of Homeland Security 

004 

here was no concise summary of the key issues facing the 

nternational Association of Campus Law Enforcement 

Policing Services, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Community 

original tasks and undertook compiling such a summary. 

ssion at the national summit. 

erature and interviews with campus police and security 

s departments, college and university administrators, fire 

 minority and special populations), and others. 

SAFETY 
ntly or were deemed most important. 

Priorities varied according 

versity, size of the student population, proximity to urban and 

ents, relationship to local or state police, relationship to other 

within the college or university. The 20 key issues with discussion 

ation between senior e

xecutives (president, pr

o

vost, vice 

) within colleges and univ

ersities and those charged with 

rity practices (police and security officials) remains weak. 

rist acts, harden targets, respond to crises, and share intelligence 

ontline. Supervisors, in particular, cite that activities are the same 

the events of S

eptember 11, with the exception of accessibility to 

iversities have done a great deal to effect significant change, but 

 response to terrorist threat is not a concern because they do not 

They are more concerned about campus administrators creating 

perations are unable to meet. The lack of change in activity since 

 small 4-year and community college campuses. 
olice and security agencies creates instability 

o effective pre

vention, problem solving, and 

campus police and security officials identify attrition 

ong campus police and security personnel results in 

ployees. Loss of experienced employees diminishes 

e, crises, and special events. 

Vulnerability increases 

police agencies rarely consider college and 

s environments and populations in their resource 

and employees on campuses are a large part of a 

 the presence of a college campus has little influence 

 beat. 

ts, memoranda of understanding (MOU), and 

ual aid agreements or MOUs detailing relationships 

e law enforcement agencies. A few memoranda of 

37 
y address prevention and response to terrorist threats. A central 

nsistency and quality and encourage more agencies to engage in 

n and response strategies when more than one college or 

re universities and colleges— public, nonprofit, and profit—to be 

mber of campuses may be far greater. Each college or university 

 local and state enforcement agencies. There are few collective 

prevention, and response strategies may differ significantly. 

mber, role, structure, and professionalism of security and 

ege and university campuses. One-size-fits-all programs, 

ork. 

all, urban, rural, residential, transient, 2-year, 4-year, public, and 

ure, authority, and operations among campus police and security 

ms and policies impractical. Grants, policies, and laws need to 

arious types of colleges and universities and their security and 
ny local and regional e

vacuation plans and are 

 or cited minimally in the evacuation plans of local 

on and transportation dilemmas in a crisis. This is a 

centage of residential and, particularly, international 

students and employees who, if not considered in 

ss and egress in a crisis. Campuses, too, are well 

d from other locales. 

th small campuses and student populations, are not 

urity planning. 

edge and understanding of the potential risks, 

ot oriented to the needs of university and college 

l. There is little or no training or briefing for officers, 

Fe

w, if an

y, police academies instruct patrol officers 

d university campuses. A survey of police academy 

more colleges and universities within its borders, 

to officers or deputies on how to patrol on or near a 

39 
cies do not give adequate attention to community colleges 

em solving, and response strategies. 

art of the nation's system of higher education. 

Yet community and 

mprehensive 2-year institutions of higher education) are included 

ate institutions in research, planning, and operational activities 

hreat, and responding to crises. By the nature of the programming 

n maintain a closer working relationship with police, fire, and 

eir 4-year and graduate counterparts. 

local police attention. 

centralized, with small, remote centers and facilities. Off-campus 

 experimentation, and data and off-campus residences house 

versities, juniors and seniors are required to live off campus. 

n the college or university's policing or security jurisdiction. This 

ional dilemmas in preventing and responding to crime, solving 

 cannot cover all jurisdictional issues posed by off-campus sites. 
nment to support ongoing research, movement 

ctivity that maintain and foster open, unrestricted 

ent of people and materials. Target hardening of 

s, administrators, and students oppose a restricted 

osition on personal freedom. 

terials in an accessible environment, 24 hours 

urity concerns and compounds risk. 

on dictate that some laboratories and other facilities 

ssible 24 hours a day. While technology such as card 

ntrol, protecting these sites, particularly with limited 

on's largest college and university systems are 

ent police and security operations, each with its own 

cies and procedures, and contractual services. One 

ses located within a 45-minute radius. It maintains 

 chief of police who, in turn, reports to a separate 

41 
n for personnel, inconsistencies in policy, wasteful procurement, 

m among campus administrators often inhibits coordination, 

arents, faculty, administrators, and staff regarding safety 

tion, and managing their fear requires planning, analysis, 

g the campus culture to embrace pre

vention and response 

with brochures, fliers, and a web site. 

onse, and fear management is limited to brochures, posters, and 

these things alone do not necessarily effect change. Few campus 

managing change; few have marketing plans or are provided with 

w maintain interactive electronic communities. As such, outreach 

ghouse providing information, guidance, or model practices on 

aduation) occur frequentl

y, draw thousands of people to 

 

uming for many campus police and security officials. One major 

re than 1,200 special events annually. Planning, threat and 

nagement, and interjurisdictional response strategies are part of 

. 
t. In the past, campuses have relied heavily on the 

tions. 

Today, the number of officers willing to work 

ned dramatically and the cost of paying officers to 

n the East Coast exceeds $40 per hour, is prohibitive 

t defining and demonstrating the value and 

safety and security are measured b

y statistical 

bsence of problems. 

 activities can be shown in many ways, far beyond 

nd security environment, students, parents, faculty, 

 their fears and provide a sense of safety and well 

unding will improve if new approaches are taken to 

ess to high-quality, affordable education and 

urity personnel are small. High-quality, affordable 

 of campus safety and security personnel is lacking, 

 security agencies. 

43 
 is particularly difficult for campuses in remote regions. Few 

rt training for front-line personnel and few state training providers 

 boards and training commissions) develop and implement 

us police and security personnel. 

ecurity personnel are cross-trained in fire and public health; yet, 

safety network have particular relevance to campus police and 

en slow to accept and incorporate the cost of homeland 

ojecting needs, preparing personnel, and budgeting appropriately 

 evolve on the nation's college and university campuses. Beyond 

sential protective equipment, colleges and universities have not 

urity. This is particularly evident among smaller universities and 
 of the Commission on 

Accreditation for L

aw 

mpus police and security operations. 

 accreditation, certain characteristics and functions 

e broader police standards. 

Well-crafted standards 

rity agencies to enhance services and demonstrate 

 parents, and other stakeholders. 

o serving campus police and security agencies 

university police and security e

xecutives, 

ot have the following resources to serve and help 

se, or center for model practices; a research center 

institution committed to campus safety and security 

(comparable to the FBI National Academ

y, Senior 

e, or Police Executive Leadership Program) designed 

cational center or institute dedicated to developing 

s, supervisors, and front-line personnel. As a result, 

ms designed for municipal, county, and state law 

se programs do not address the unique issues and 

45 

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NATIONAL SUMMIT 

47 

on this tightrope in the post-September 11 world. On the 

irely supportive of national security. On the other hand, 

gue and diversity. 

mley 

of Vermont 

ns and action steps produced by the summit. Because of 

safety and security, many recommendations emerged. To 

grouped into five categories. As stated earlier, these 

sented to the summit delegates. Instead, they are based 

TIONAL SUMMIT 
 the following three categories: 

national agenda, and promote cooperation and collaboration. 

ion and response. 

ve functions. 

blish a national agenda, and promote cooperation and 

y, setting forth short-term and long-term direction, should 

tly by the Department of Justice, the Department of 

al and nonprofit agencies and organizations committed to 

tion's college and university campuses. 

us safety and security. In spite of numerous attempts to bring 

issues, none has resulted in a national call for action and none of 

as established such an agenda or call for action. 

es to strengthening campus safety and security will remain 

ms important will be relegated to a lesser concern or ignored as 

d security. Associations, professional organizations, foundations, 

e to function independently, at times duplicating their efforts or 
ssociations may commit is a complex and deliberate


ummit. The task of establishing a national agenda,


mmon principles embraced by the various agencies


ct document, suggesting strategic targets, points of


It should provide a road map for enhancing and


by political leaders, the Department of Justice, the


tion, state and local agencies, college and university


to guide discussion, develop plans, and initiate


 the national agenda should briefly reference this


s related to campus public safety. (An advisory panel


owing section of this report.)


be established to support the field, foster 

te information sharing, and pr

ovide quality 

t the summit was the need for a national center


ges faced by colleges and universities. 


49 
campus public safety initiatives being undertaken nationwide or 

n needs. There was discussion throughout the summit about the 

hich campus public safety services are being provided. With the 

the need to embed homeland security into the campus culture, 

reater competition for qualified personnel, the complexity of the 

et few new resources are available to assist campus public safety 

ngs together professional associations, advocacy organizations, 

rove and expand services to those who use and depend on the 

following are suggested priorities for the center: 

ices provided by police, security, and public safety personnel to 

parents, business professionals, and others who use and depend 

s. 

nd consistency in prevention, response, and problem-solving 

ons serving the nation's colleges and universities. 

nformation on public safety related to the nation's colleges and 

ich they are located. 
se responsible for or who have a vested interest in


planning among the various public safety, security,


safety of the nation's colleges and universities.


of Homeland Security should establish and 

lic Safety. 

should be used as consultants to assist in defining


he field, and maintaining standards of excellence in


alled on to conduct reviews and prepare reports on


hould reflect the diversity of organizations that have 


play a lead role in advising representatives of the


 information exchange, and outreach. 


afety should be con

vened immediately to lead 

pus safety to present to the Department of 

ould convene to draft a national agenda on campus 

51 
d identify challenges and suggest direction for both the near and 

 the draft national agenda to appropriate federal and professional 

ation. If these agencies and organizations agree with the agenda, 

el for consideration in refining the statement. 

mitted to the safety and well–being of the nation's college 

adopt a goal to o

vercome fragmentation b

y ele

vating 

d security operations, increasing internal and external 

mmunity, and implementing quality programs that foster 

d entire university systems, as well as a number of government 

nd associations, are working to improve campus safety. These 

nd man

y have resulted in positive change; however, there is little 

s and their efforts. As such, there is unnecessary duplication and 

agmented system. 

ecurity are to receive appropriate attention, coordination among 

mount. There is a need to bring together government agencies, 

ganizations and associations, community leaders, and others to 

on, share efforts and expertise, develop a national agenda, and 

ld. The Office of Community Oriented P

olicing Services has the 

t this need. 
ty Policing Institutes (RCPI), established by the COPS


on, provides education and training, and facilitates


ng partnerships with public safety agencies, college


er a needed foundation on which to build a cohesive


 advantage of this existing network, the COPS Office


mandating that it be considered in future sponsored 


 elevate the visability of campus public safety by


d to improve service, solve problems, explore best


 funding to public safety agencies should be 

us police and security departments. 

ecurity, the Department of Justice, and state criminal


ways recognize and, therefore, do not allow college


ete for funds. Campus police departments serving


unity to obtain funds than do their counterparts in


evel of eligibility as municipal, county, and state law


, needs to be given to the role, responsibilities, and


etermining eligibility for federal and state funding.


53 
tions should be a viable part of the nation's intelligence 

pplication processes and should be incorporated into all 

pr

o

ve the intelligence network. 

 must have access to intelligence information, including Law 

S

ecurity Information Network. They also should be included more 

n activities such as those of the Regional Joint 

Terrorism 

Task 

curity officials should play a greater role in planning and 

ems for improving the collection, analysis, and dissemination of 

esearch on campus public safety should be a priority of 

ors, state education and funding agencies, professional 

and the federal go

vernment. 

 on campus safety and security. An extensive literature review 

 Community Policing Institute showed that research on campus 

cking or dated. 

encies such as the Department of Justice and the Department of 

research on campus safety and security as a priority. This is 

 of meaningful information on which to build plans and make 

eld of campus public safety. 
conjunction with the national center, should guide 

cted. The intent of the partnership is to prevent 

 resources, and maximize funding. 

versities in pre

vention and response planning 

 chiefs of police and security directors should 

ocal, state, and national response to homeland 

with small campuses and student populations, are 

curity planning. 

nal associations that represent them, should engage 

es addressing local, state, and regional planning, 

mission on 

Accreditation for L

aw Enforcement 

d implemented to guide campus police and 

LEA, while others meet a variety of certifications by 

merican Society for Industrial Security). 

55 
 recognized set of standards that applies to the unique needs and 

. At the time of this summit report, the International Association 

ators (IACLEA) had begun to develop such standards, with grant 

worked with CALEA and participates in the commission's Alliance 

campus safety and security agencies, including those functioning 

uld proceed as a priority. 

s republic—not just by imparting knowledge—but by fighting for 

t our democratic experiment, freedoms that simultaneously give 

ontemporary challenge is even broader. We must secure our free 

 threaten not just our liberties, but also our lives. And universities 

ormer Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge 

o the Association of American Universities, April 14, 2003 
 in local and regional e

vacuation plans. In 

eges and universities should be represented In 

n or cited minimally in the evacuation plans of local 

on and transportation dilemmas in a crisis. This is a 

rge percentage of students (particularly international 

uation plans, may have an adverse effect on ingress 

ned to serve as centers to house people evacuated 

der colleges and universities as contributors to and 

y management. 

ould pr

ovide all personnel who w

ork in areas 

ersities are located with an orientation to the 

ds of a campus. 

an orientation on campus public safety. Officers, 

in the characteristics of the campuses in their 

ce operations, response tactics, evacuation plans, 

re. 

cer standards and training boards and commissions, 

w enforcement personnel in serving and interacting 

57 
 mutual aid agreements and memoranda of understanding 

gencies and other public safety organizations should be 

 the field. 

Samples of quality agreements should be 

ong agencies, standardized or model mutual aid agreements and 

e identified and/or developed by the National Center for Campus 

nd state officials will be more receptive to enter into formal 

ments are standardized and widely accepted within the field of 

minars should be held to bring together executives from federal, 

and their counterparts from campus police and security agencies 

nt to and impro

ving cooperation and collaboration. The National 

 develop and sponsor the series. 

m police, fire, emergency medicine, public health, transportation, 

ngs should serve as a catalyst to follow-up activities focusing on 

ssed at the regional sessions may include mutual aid, emergency 

rograms and funding proposals, necessary legislation, shared 
be in

v

olved in all local, state, and regional 

plans, and activities. 

n's youth and adult population. In many areas, they 

he communities they serve in matters such as 

ng public education, and public safety. Their faculty 

government, health care, elder care, nonprofit 

 community and agency executives, and political 

eater in

v

olvement of community college officials in 

ment efforts is necessary and will prove beneficial. 

ome to more than one major college or 

formation sharing, common pre

vention and 

with local and state public safety agencies. 

have far greater value than a series of individual 

 health officers, and transportation directors benefit 

mon need or interest. A college or university; local 

rgency management agency should take the lead in 

59 
 common jurisdiction or region should join together to coordinate 

resources so that they may collectively influence local and state 

cies should include campus public safety agencies in their 

ordination, create coalitions, de

velop partnerships, and 

have much to offer to and learn from emergency management 

ponsibility for a major segment of the population and community 

mation. Critical incident response, evacuation, and recovery are 

s they are to any community. State, regional, and local emergency 

clude representatives from campus police and security agencies. 

al organizations, and go

vernment agencies serving campus 

the national network of Regional Community P

olicing 

on and training, promote recommended policies and best 

and quality regionally and nationall

y. The COPS Office 

race campus safety and security as a priority. 
cing Institutes 

nded the creation of a national network of Regional 

e and innovative community policing education and 

The RCPIs focus on issues of importance to public 

e capability to move quickly to develop and deliver 

partnership of public safety agencies, community 

law enforcement issues. Topics addressed by RCPIs 

hool violence, cultural diversity, domestic violence, 

d prevention of and response to terror. Training is 

ernment officials, business leaders, and community 

ployees, clergy, elected officials, and social service 

nd community members can discuss important and 

 Each year the national network of RCPIs provides 

nd government leaders. 

on, discussion, debate, innovation, and research on 

ge or university partner because they are in locales 

e based. RCPIs are experienced in developing and 

e working relationship with local, state, and regional 

61 
by other means, all of the nation's RCPIs should be encouraged to 

s safety. For example, the RCPIs should work closely with the 

ublic Safety to develop and deliver curricula on problem solving, 

artnerships that reflect campus environments. As education and 

tools to enhance campus safety and security are developed, they 

etwork. 

s developed a support infrastructure inside the U.S. that would 

st attack on U.S. soil. Multiple small-scale attacks against soft 

markets, apartment buildings, schools and universities, churches, 

would be easier to execute. 

BI Director Robert Mueller, February 11, 2003 

estimony before the S

elect Committee on Intelligence 

 the United States Senate 

prevention and response 

campus police and security agencies should adopt and 

ssment Instrument. 

 campus risk assessment instrument with the National Emergency 

nd the Department of Homeland Security. When completed, the 
olleges and universities. The instrument is designed


han rely on external resources. As it evolves and is


nal threats, strengths and weaknesses in readiness


rofessional associations to assist colleges and 

s, processes, technology, research, promising 

ncing traditional open campus environments 

ath of September 11. 

colleges and university campuses should sustain


e and material. For some, this issue cuts to the heart


ion, thoughts and ideas, debate—inextricably linked


practical matter of providing for the security of the


e to enjoy these freedoms.


t practices to determine if increased security, in any 


nce in higher education. 


n continuing dialogue and learning among the k

ey


fficials, administrators, funders of research, and 


63 
A series of national and regional forums resulting in a series of 

ensus paper or report would be of considerable value. 

opt an all-hazards approach to pre

venting and managing 

re than terrorist threat and attack when developing prevention, 

egies. 

s such as weather (hurricanes, ice storms, tornadoes), blackouts, 

uch more. An all-hazards approach to crisis prevention, response, 

all coordination of activities among responding organizations, 

on, allows for improved and continued assessment of potential 

f operations during and after a crisis. 

as subsequently become a pressing issue in virtually all parts of 

ology and in the national and international regulatory framework, 

n industries, allows less opportunity for learning by trial and error, 

and management's operating procedures right the first time. 

ifford B. Purcell 

merican Society of Safety Engineers 

ternational Conference on Campus Safety 

une 14, 1992 
tions 

pt common policies, procedures, and incident 

puses. 

units, such as research centers, institutes, libraries, 

 common policy for responding to crises. Deans, 

nstitutions cling to their independence and disavow 

 director, or other authority establishing prevention 

 independence can be harmful. During the MARCPI 

ver decentralized decision making and discrepancies 

ting quality, consistent critical incident response 

on policy and prevent or limit independent units from 

resenting those who lead the nation's academic 

imum qualifications for hiring campus police 

ues such as salary and benefits, parity, and retention 

ust be established on standards or qualifications for 

 IACP can initiate such dialogue and tak

e the lead in 

65 
ed, the National Center for Campus Public Safety can play a lead 

tions. 

standards or qualifications is essential to raising the level of 

safety. For campus public safety officers, the standards should 

 central to their role, going beyond the minimum qualifications 

cer status. 

 to enhance the field. They may lead to the following: 

s, students, faculty, grant funders, and others of the capabilities of 

g practices across campuses and universities in the same system. 

benefits. 

encies serving the region. 

 on ways to increase the professionalism of campus safety. 

alified candidates for employment. 
 diversity in campus safety operations may require


ion of officials representing these varied operations


n in the field. 


blishing parity in salary and benefits with 

ans to improve recruitment and retention of 

encies serving within a region is a goal only a few


ty is difficult to justify. Parity in salary and benefits


accountability, and other criteria. 


67 
ty directors should have access to and meet with college 

r key decision makers. 

s of police and sheriffs who have regular contact with mayors and 

administrators may have minimal contact with their institution's 

 security cannot be managed as an add-on task or unit or function 

nteraction at the highest level between the CEO and police and 

new prevention and response issues emerge. 

e a direct reporting relationship. Rather, ongoing, face-to-face 

ents, provosts, and their police and security professionals should 

are essential to understanding the culture and nuances of safety

nstitution. Criticality, confidentiality, and liability are among what 

 safety-related matters through third-party administrators. 

ns, tabletop exercises, and related activities should be 

the culture and type of college or university campus. 

endors are providing myriad products to enhance campus safety, 

ment. This is problematic when only one product is available and 

rent environments. 
f little value to the field of campus public safety. 

ecurity services is one inhibitor to applying single

all schools, single-campus versus multicampus 

nificantly affect the relevance of these programs. 

iding training and support systems to colleges and 

ve to the varied nature of colleges and universities. 

69 

APPENDIX 

71 

Clark, Oliver J. Chief University of Illinois Police Department University of Illinois 1110 West Springfield Avenue Urbana, IL 61801 Dillard, Robert C. Chief University of Richmond Police Department University of Richmond 29 Westhampton Way Richmond, VA 23173 
Goodwin, Ken Director of Public Safety Portland Community College 12000 SW 49th Avenue Portland, OR 97219-7132 Healy, Steven Director of Public Safety Princeton University Stanhope Hall Princeton, NJ 08544 
APPENDIX 

Keller, Rosi Associate Vice President The University of Montana-Missoula 32 Campus Drive Missoula, MT 59812 Krouse, Kenneth W. Chief of Police University of Maryland Department of Public Safety Route 1, Building 003 College Park, MD 20742 

73 
March, Noel Director of Public Safety University of Maine Department of Public Safety 5794 Public Safety Way Orono, Maine 04469-5794 McBride, Bruce Associate Professor & Director of Criminal Justice Utica College/International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA) Faculty Center Room 209 Utica, NY 13502 
APPENDIX 

75 

Riseling, Sue Associate Vice President/Chancellor of Public Safety University of Wisconsin Public Safety Madison, WI 53711 Robinson, Robert Vice President for Public Safety & EM University of the District of Columbia 4200 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20008 
Steinbach, Sheldon General Counsel/Vice President American Council on Education 1 Dupont Circle, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Thomas, Dave Director, Johns Hopkins University Domestic Violence Program 6716 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 200 Columbia, MD 21046 
APPENDIX 

77 

Zdziarski, Eugene Dean of Students University of Florida P202 Peabody Hall P.O. Box 114275 Gainesville, FL 32611 
ation of Chiefs of Police, Research Center, 

 Public Safety Leadership Program, 

ness and Education, Division of Public Safety Leadership, 

ness and Education, Division of Public Safety Leadership, 

on of Public Safety Leadership, Johns Hopkins University 

OPS

FOR 

MORE INFORMATION: 

U.S. Department of Justice 

f Community Oriented Policing Services 

1100 Vermont 

Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20530 

btain details on COPS programs, call the 

Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 

Created Date: July 2005 

ISBN: 1-932582-56-8