Prevention-Preparedness

Mitigation

Prevention-Mitigation

Recovery

Preparedness

Response

Recovery Response

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Action Guide for Emergency 

Management at Institutions of 

Higher Education
Action Guide for Emergency Management 

At Institutions of Higher Education

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools

2009
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract 

No. ED-04-CO-0091 with EMT Associates, Inc. and Macro International Inc. 

Tara Hill served as the contracting officer’s technical representative and 

project manager. 

U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings

Secretary

Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools

Deborah A. Price

Assistant Deputy Secretary

William Modzeleski

Associate Assistant Deputy Secretary

January 2009

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in 

whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication 

is not necessary, the citation for the publication should be:

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, 

Action Guide for Emergency Management at Institutions of Higher 

Education, Washington, D.C., 2009. 

This guide is available on the Department’s Web site at 

http://www.ed.gov/emergencyplan.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as 

Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For more information, please 

contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 

202-260-0818.
iii

Contents

List of Figures and Tables .................................................................iv

List of Abbreviations .......................................................................v

Acknowledgments...........................................................................vii

Introduction: The Need for Emergency Management on College Campuses....1 

The Framework: The Four Phases of Emergency Management....................7

Step 1: Get Organized .....................................................................19

Step 2: Identify Hazards, Vulnerabilities, and Threats by Conducting a 

Risk Assessment .............................................................................29

Step 3: Developing or Updating an Emergency Management Plan ...............43

Step 4: Adopting and Implementing an Emergency Management Plan ...........49

Conclusion....................................................................................57

Bibliography...................................................................................59
iv

Figures and TABLES

Figure 1. Example of an Emergency Management Risk Matrix.....................37

Figure 2. NIMS Organizational Chart, Modified for a College Campus ............39

Table 1. Illustrative Key Responsibilities During an Emergency by 

 Organization Entity and Position Within Entity ..........................11

Table 2. IHE Emergency Management Planning: Selected Departments and 

Illustrative Contributions .....................................................21
v

Abbreviations

BCP Business Continuity Plan

CDC Centers for Disease Control 

COOP Continuity of Operations Plan

CPTED Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 

DAT Damage Assessment Team 

DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

EOC Emergency Operations Center 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FERPA Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act 

HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

IACLEA International Association of Campus Law Enforcement 

 Administrators 

ICS Incident Command System

IHEs Institutions of Higher Education

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NCEF National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities 

NIC National Integration Center

NIMS National Incident Management System

PIO Public Information Officer
vi
vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Expert Panel Participants*

John Beach

Director, Physical Plant Operations

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University

Stephen E. Brock

Associate Professor 

California State University, Sacramento

Department of Special Education, 

Rehabilitation, School Psychology, and Deaf 

Studies

Tod A. Burnett

Vice Chancellor 

California Community Colleges

Kay Goss

Director, Emergency Management and Crisis 

Communications

Systems Research and Applications Corporation 

Steven J. Healy

Director of Public Safety & Chief of Police

Princeton University

Thomasine Johnson

Director, Department of Public Safety

The Catholic University of America

Linda Langford

Associate Center Director

U.S. Department of Education’s Higher 

Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug 

Abuse and Violence Prevention

Lauri Rush

Director

Mental Health Center at Gallaudet University

Dolores A. Stafford

Chief of Police

The George Washington University

Terri Ae. Stewart

Director for Public Safety

Trinity University

Vicky M. Stormo

Retired Chief of Police 

University of Washington Police Department

Gregory A. Thomas

Former Deputy Director of Planning and 

Response 

National Center for Disaster Preparedness

Columbia University Mailman School of Public 

Health

Katrin A. Wesner

Director, Abrons Student Health Center

University of North Carolina Wilmington

Eugene L. Zdziarski, II

Former Assistant Vice President & Dean of 

Students

University of Florida

External Reviewers

Meloyde Batten-Mickens

Executive Director, Facilities/Department of 

Public Safety

Gallaudet University 

*On Nov. 27, 2007, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools convened the Expert Panel on 

Emergency Management in Higher Education in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the panel was to discuss current resources and 

tools in the field of emergency management for colleges and universities, and other materials that may be needed. This action 

guide is one of the key products developed in response to information gathered during this meeting.
viii

Kay Goss

Director, Emergency Management and Crisis 

Communications

Systems Research and Applications Corporation 

(SRA International) 

Steven J. Healy

Director of Public Safety & Chief of Police

Princeton University

Eugene L. Zdziarski, II

Former Assistant Vice President & Dean of 

Students

University of Florida

Institutional Resources

LaRue Williams

Director 

Brian Lauffer

Instructional Designer 

VMC/Homeland Security Programs

West Virginia University 

Sally Logue Post

Associate Director

Office of Communications and Marketing 

Texas Tech University

Yvette M. Jones

Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice 

President for External Affairs

Tulane University

Terrance G. Alexander

Executive Director

Occupational Safety & Environmental Health

University of Michigan

Steven J. Charvat 

Director

UW Emergency Management

A Division of the Facilities Services Department

University of Washington
1

introduction

THE NEED FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ON 

COLLEGE CAMPUSES 

There are over 4,000 two-and four-year public and private institutions of higher 

education (IHEs) in the United States totaling over 15 million students and 

several million staff, faculty, and visitors (U.S. Department of Education, National 

Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2006). Each of these 

institutions has a commitment to ensure the safety and general welfare of those on 

their campuses and to provide appropriate policies, procedures, and strategies to 

maintain a safe campus. Because of recent violent crimes, natural disasters, and other 

emergencies or crises, colleges and universities are convening committees and task 

forces to reexamine or conduct a comprehensive review of policies, procedures, and 

systems related to campus safety and security. As with many critical areas on the 

agendas of administrators, campus safety requires building support and conducting a 

thorough and systematic process to produce a quality plan to prepare for and manage 

emergencies on campus.

Distinct Characteristics of Emergency Planning at Institutions of Higher 

Education 

IHEs have many challenges in practicing emergency management that are related 

to the distinctive structure and environment of higher education. College and 

university campuses often cover large geographic areas, and sometimes even 

resemble small towns with the full extent of services in their vicinity (i.e., medical 

centers, sports complexes, residential centers, businesses). The campus population 

changes from day to day, semester to semester, and year to year. Many IHEs 

operate complex enterprises in addition to their academic programs. Hospitals, 

research and development facilities, performing arts venues, athletic complexes, 

agriculture centers, residential complexes, food services, and transportation systems 

all present a unique set of circumstances that must be considered when designing 

emergency management plans. These structural and environmental characteristics 

pose challenges for access control, monitoring movements, defining boundaries for 

facilities and grounds, standardizing procedures and decision-making processes, and 

prioritizing resource allocations. 
2

IHE governance is also highly varied, complex, and often widely dispersed. 

Decentralized organizational structures and academic departments may be located 

in different buildings and have differing decision-making methods. The nature of 

higher education institutions, with faculty involvement in the governance process, is 

much different than the hierarchical structure of corporate entities or governmental 

agencies. Decision-making in such an environment can be slow, and hinder campus 

response to a crisis. The need for clear lines of authority and decision-making 

are all the more important at IHEs. Responsibility for developing, testing, and 

implementing an emergency management plan should be shared and communicated 

across all departments and functions. 

Most IHEs have open access and often are geographically integrated in the 

surrounding community. Autonomy is encouraged and fostered for both students and 

faculty; at any one time, students, faculty, and staff are dispersed around the campus 

in classrooms, common areas, cafeterias, offices, dormitories, and numerous other 

facilities. 

The population served by IHEs is distinct, as well. Most students are over 18 years of 

age—the age of majority in most states—and therefore are considered adults capable 

of making decisions on their own. This can present challenges and opportunities. It 

creates the need for a different set of roles and responsibilities for students during an 

emergency event (especially compared to the K–12 population of mostly minors). 

Another characteristic of IHEs is that they do not operate under 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

typical business-hour schedules. A college campus is alive and engaged with activity 

almost around the clock. From the opening of food service operations and recreation 

facilities in the early morning to evening activities and late night studying in the 

library, the campus is constantly in motion. Unlike secondary education, most college 

campuses include residential facilities in which students live throughout the year. 

Even when classes are not in session these facilities are home to many out-of-state, 

international, and married students. These additional factors impact how an IHE 

plans, responds to, and recovers from a campus emergency.
3

Purpose and Uses of This Action Guide

This Action Guide for Emergency Management at Higher Education Institutions has 

been developed to give higher education institutions a useful resource in the field of 

emergency management. It is intended for community colleges, four-year colleges 

and universities, graduate schools, and research institutions associated with higher 

education entities, both public and private. This action guide may be used in a variety 

of ways:

 As a starting point in researching the topic of emergency management for 

those needing an overview of the subject;

 As a resource for an initiative to develop and implement an emergency 

management plan at a higher education institution; or

 As a reference and resource for colleges and universities looking to evaluate 

their emergency management programs to identify potential areas needing 

enhancement.

Many other resources are referenced in this document that can and should be used 

in conjunction with the contents of this guide. Specifically, the Practical Information 

on Crisis Planning: A Guide for Schools and Communities published by the U.S. 

Department of Education (revised January 2007) and Building a Disaster-Resistant 

University published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, 

(August 2003) offer companion resources to help in an emergency management 

initiative. This action guide is not meant to prescribe exactly how emergency 

management should be practiced; rather, each higher education institution should 

decide for itself the best way to prepare to meet its own unique set of needs. 

Key Principles in Emergency Management 

Nine key principles serve as the foundation for the content of this action guide. 

•	 Effective emergency management begins with senior leadership on campus. 

The IHE president, chancellor, or provost must initiate and support emergency 

management efforts to ensure engagement from the entire campus community. 

This “champion” administrator will have decision-making power and the 

authority to devote resources to implementing the initiative and subsequently 

put into action the emergency management plan. Since budgetary realities may 

force campus administrators to make decisions within select fiscal parameters, it 
4

is important to have high-level support to provide both political and financial 

backing to the effort. 

•	 An IHE emergency management initiative requires partnerships and 

collaboration. Every department responsible for creating a safe environment 

and enhancing campus functions must be involved in planning efforts. IHEs 

should identify and engage internal and external partners, and ensure that all 

planning tasks are performed within a collaborative and integrated approach. 

This means involving a variety of departments and functions across the campus 

and reaching out to community partners in the public, nonprofit, and private 

sectors. Partnerships with such community groups as law enforcement, fire 

safety, homeland security, emergency medical services, health and mental health 

organizations, media, and volunteer groups are integral to developing and 

implementing a comprehensive emergency management plan. 

•	 An IHE emergency management plan must adopt an “all-hazards” approach 

to account for the full range of hazards that threaten or may threaten the 

campus. All-hazards planning is a more efficient and effective way to prepare for 

emergencies. Rather than managing planning initiatives for a multitude of threat 

scenarios, all-hazard planning develops capacities and capabilities that are critical 

to prepare for a full spectrum of emergencies or disasters, including natural 

hazards and severe weather, biological hazards, and violence and terrorism. As 

defined by FEMA, all-hazard planning “encourages emergency managers to 

address all of the hazards that threaten their jurisdiction in a single emergency 

operations plan, instead of relying on stand-alone plans” (FEMA’s State and Local 

Guide SLG 101: Guide for All-Hazards Emergency Operations Planning; September 

1996). An all-hazards plan should be flexible and specific to the campus and its 

needs. 

•	 An IHE emergency management plan should use the four phases of 

emergency management to effectively prepare and respond to emergencies. 

Emergency plans at higher education institutions should use the four phases of 

emergency management as the framework for planning and implementation. 

Part of the founding principles of comprehensive emergency management 

when FEMA was created in 1979 is the four phases of emergency management: 

Prevention-Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. FEMA prescribes 

“to treat each action as one phase of a comprehensive process, with each phase 

building on the accomplishments of the preceding one. The overall goal is to 

minimize the impact caused by an emergency in the jurisdiction” (FEMA’s State 

and Local Guide SLG 101: Guide for All-Hazards Emergency Operations Planning; 

September 1996).

•	 The IHE emergency management plan must be based on a comprehensive 

design, while also providing for staff, students, faculty, and visitors with 

special needs. Every aspect of an emergency plan also should incorporate 

provisions for vulnerable populations, those of which can have a wide range of 

needs, including: language barriers, disabilities, or other special conditions. Thus, 
5

any procedures, products, and protocols created to prevent, prepare, respond, 

and recover from an emergency also must accommodate people with various 

levels of cognitive ability, knowledge, physical capabilities and life experience. 

•	 Campuses should engage in a comprehensive planning process that addresses 

the particular circumstances and environment of their institution. A 

high-quality emergency management plan does not simply duplicate another 

institution’s specific model. Rather, the plan must be based on the unique 

aspects of the campus, such as the academic programs offered, size, geographic 

location of the campus, number and type of buildings, such as athletic venues 

and research labs, availability of campus and community resources, and student 

demographics. 

•	 An IHE should conduct trainings based on the institution’s prevention 

and preparedness efforts, prioritized threats, and issues highlighted from 

assessments. Routine, multi-hazard training should be conducted with faculty, 

staff, and other support personnel, focusing on the protocols and procedures in 

the emergency management plan. Training should be conducted in conjunction 

with community partners, as well as integrated with responders’ expertise, to 

ensure consistent learning. 

•	 Higher education institutions should conduct tabletop exercises prior to 

fully adopting and implementing the emergency management plan. These 

exercises should cover a range of scenarios that may occur on the campus, and 

should be conducted with a variety of partners and stakeholders from the campus 

and the community. It is important for emergency planners also to evaluate and 

document lessons learned from the exercise(s) in an after-action review and an 

after-action report, and to modify the main emergency plan, as needed. 

•	 After adoption, disseminate information about the plan to students, staff, 

faculty, community partners, and families. Dissemination efforts should 

include the conveyance of certain plan components to specific audiences, such 

as relaying shelter-in-place procedures to faculty members, or relaying campus 

evacuation information to the transportation department. General plans and 

procedures can be posted around campus or displayed on a Web site. Students, 

staff, faculty, and all of the varied campus support personnel should familiarize 

themselves with the plan and its components so they are prepared to respond in 

an emergency. 

These key principles of emergency management are reflected throughout the four 

steps recommended in this action guide for developing and implementing a plan. 

Before discussing in-depth each of the four steps in developing and implementing or 

updating a plan, it is important to cover an organizational framework relevant to the 

success of any emergency management planning effort: the four phases of emergency 

management that FEMA created and that is recognized in all relevant sectors. 
6
7

the framework: the four phases

of emergency management

A comprehensive emergency management plan is based on the framework of the four 

phases of emergency management: prevention-mitigation, preparedness, response, 

and recovery. All phases are highly interconnected; that is, each phase influences the 

other three phases. The cycle as a whole is an ongoing process, just as the plan is a 

dynamic document that requires continuous updating. 

Prevention-Mitigation

The first phase in the emergency management cycle is Prevention-Mitigation.

Prevention is the action colleges and universities take to decrease the likelihood that 

an event or crisis will occur.

Mitigation is the action colleges and universities take to eliminate or reduce the 

loss of life and property damage related to an event or crisis, particularly those that 

cannot be prevented.

The hazards the institution is seeking to prevent, diminish, or mitigate will be defined 

specifically through a process of hazards identification and risk assessment (see U.S. 

Department of Education’s A Guide to School Vulnerability Assessments: Key Principles 

for Safe Schools available at: http://rems.ed.gov). In the assessment, the campus 

representatives and community partners identify virtually all the hazards that could 

cause risks and subsequently a crisis. Prevention-Mitigation of hazards is not a new 

concept for IHEs because each campus historically has been involved in creating 

safe learning environments. However, in the context of comprehensive emergency 

management, prevention and mitigation efforts become more structured, formalized, 

and purposeful. Key steps in Prevention-Mitigation include:
8

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a tool to assess campus grounds 

and structures. The three principles of the CPTED program are:

•	 Natural surveillance – the ability to easily see what is occurring in a particular setting;

•	 Natural access control – the ability to restrict who enters or exits an environment; and

•	 Territoriality maintenance – the ability to demonstrate ownership of and respect for property.

More information on CPTED is available at the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities 

at: http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/cpted.cfm.

•	 Reviewing existing campus and community data. The first step in the 

Prevention-Mitigation phase is to obtain such data as: previous community 

vulnerability assessments (i.e., vulnerability assessments conducted in the 

past by the institution or surrounding community), facility assessments (i.e., 

vulnerability assessments conducted on a particular structure or operation), 

recent community and campus specific crime data (e.g., Clery data1), and 

weather- or natural hazard-related data, such as flood, tornado, hurricane, or 

earthquake probabilities. 

•	 Assessing facilities and grounds. An assessment of facilities and grounds 

involves the selection and use of a tool to assess campus vulnerabilities (see A 

Guide to Vulnerability Assessments: Key Principles for Safe Schools, U.S. Department 

of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, 2008), as well as the 

application of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) 

assessments. Improving surveillance capabilities and access controls may mitigate 

some emergencies. In considering natural disasters that are common in the 

geographic locality of the campus, structural modifications and enhancements 

will help minimize damage. 

•	 Assessing culture and climate. Prevention of violence, accidents, and harm in 

colleges and universities is enhanced by nurturing a healthy campus community. 

The challenge is to foster healthy societal relationships among students and 

to support the goal of students to feel connected to the institution and the 

surrounding community. In addition to supporting the learning environment, 

healthy relationships and connectedness are key hazard-prevention factors in 

that they make it less likely for violence to occur. High rates of alcohol or other 

drug use, for example, can bring a host of problems to a campus environment, 

including the increased likelihood of violence, accidents, or even poisoning 

or overdose. An assessment of the culture and climate at the institution is 

often a major aspect of an initiative for making improvements in this area and 

preventing such incidents from occurring.

1 The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, codified as part of the 

Higher Education Act of 1965, is a federal law that requires colleges and universities to disclose certain timely and 

annual information about campus crime and security policies. All public and private institutions of postsecondary 

education participating in federal student aid programs are subject to it. (More information available at: http://www.

securityoncampus.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=271&Itemid=60.)
9

Preparedness

The Preparedness phase designs strategies, processes, and protocols to prepare the 

college or university for potential emergencies. Preparedness activities may include:

•	 Establishing an incident command system (ICS) consistent with the National 

Incident Management System (NIMS) for organizing personnel and services to 

respond in the event of an emergency. 

National Incident Management System and the Incident Command System

The National Incident Management System (NIMS) offers a set of concepts, principles, 

procedures, processes, terminology, and standards that agencies of all different types can utilize 

in emergency management. The Incident Command System (ICS) is a key component of NIMS 

and consists of five functional areas: Command, Operations, Planning, Logistics, and Finance/

Administration. The incident commander’s staff includes public information officer (PIO), safety 

officer, liaison officer, and campus liaison. It is important that campus administrators understand 

how campus personnel will perform under the ICS with local partners and agencies when 

responding to and managing an emergency. 

The National Integration Center (NIC) Incident Management Systems Integration Division 

(http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims) contains interagency tools for establishing partnerships 

and for adopting NIMS within a jurisdiction or organization. At the FEMA Emergency 

Management Institute Web site (http://training.fema.gov), online courses on NIMS are available, 

including NIMS: An Introduction (IS-700), National Response Framework (IS-800.B), 

Introduction to the Incident Command System (IS-100), and ICS for Single Resource and Initial 

Action Incidents (IS-200).

•	 Developing all-hazard policies, procedures, and protocols with input from such 

key community partners as law enforcement, medical services, public health, fire 

services, and mental health. 

•	 Collaborating with community partners to establish mutual aid agreements 

that will establish formal interdisciplinary, intergovernmental, and interagency 

relationships among all the community partners and campus departments. 

•	 Negotiating contracts that will provide the campus with resources (e.g., food, 

transportation, medical services, and volunteers) needed during an emergency.

•	 Assigning personnel to manage each ICS function and defining lines of 

succession in emergency plan as to who is in charge when key leaders are 

not available.
10

•	 Developing a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) and Business Continuity 

Plan (BCP) for all campus operations functions. The COOP plan ensures 

that the campus has the capability to continue essential functions (e.g., 

transportation, housing, food service). The BCP identifies systems needed to 

conduct all administrative functions (e.g., payroll, and communication) so that 

operations can be continued after the emergency (see Table 1).

•	 Developing plans to unify students, staff, and faculty with their families.

•	 Defining protocols and procedures for each type of response strategy, e.g., 

shelter-in-place, lockdown (if and where appropriate), or evacuation. 

•	 Establishing an emergency notification system using multiple modes of 

communication to alert persons on campus that an emergency is approaching 

or occurred. 

•	 Working with the media in the community and campus public relations office 

to develop a campus emergency communication plan that may include drafting 

template messages for communicating with the media, students, faculty, staff, 

community, and families prior to, during, and after an emergency. The campus 

public information officer (PIO) often coordinates these tasks. 

•	 Coordinating campus emergency management plans with those of state and local 

agencies to avoid unnecessary duplication. 

•	 Outlining schedules and plans for marketing emergency procedures and training 

staff, faculty, and students about the emergency plan procedures. 

•	 Working with campus and community mental health professionals to establish a 

behavioral threat assessment process that involves mental health professionals for 

evaluating persons who are at-risk of causing harm to themselves or others. 

Example of Business Continuity Planning: The University of Michigan

In 2006 the University of Michigan charged all campus deans, directors, and department heads to 

prepare a Business Continuity Plan (BCP) identifying critical functions, assigning key staff, and 

preparing contingency plans to keep essential functions operating during emergency operations. 

All campus units developed plans using a comprehensive guideline available at: http://www.oseh.

umich.edu/buscont/index.html. 

While the guideline focuses primarily on pandemic disease, it is adaptable to all hazards. In 

addition to a mock scenario to help analyze the impacts of a pandemic on university operations, 

the guideline provides checklists and templates to assist departments and units in developing 

specific continuity plans applicable to each unit’s mission. Using this information, the units 

developed specific strategies for recovering business operations and undertook extensive 

preparation to execute those strategies.
11

Entity Position Within Entity Responsibilities

Local •	 Law Enforcement

•	 Fire Department

•	 Emergency Medical Services

•	 Emergency Preparedness 

Office

•	 Public Works Office

•	 Public Information Officer

•	 City or County Attorney

•	 Conduct criminal investigations 

(sometimes, together with campus law 

enforcement)

•	 Ensure that the perimeter is controlled 

•	 Provide personnel, equipment and other 

resources, and specialized personnel or 

equipment

•	 Coordinate emergency communications

•	 Coordinate with campus PIO

State and Regional 

Organizations

•	 National Guard

•	 Civil Support Team

•	 HazMat Personnel

•	 State Emergency 

Management Agencies

•	 State Patrol 

•	 Public Health

•	 Provide personnel, equipment, supplies, 

and specialized resources 

•	 Conduct field assessments

•	 Determine Declaration of Emergency

•	 Seek federal assistance

Federal 

Organizations

•	 Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI)

•	 Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA)

•	 Center for Disease Control 

(CDC)

•	 Lead criminal investigations

•	 Provide federal recovery assistance

•	 Provide specialized resources 

Campus •	 Campus Executive Leadership 

•	 Campus Public Safety 

Officers

•	 Emergency Management 

Team

•	 Campus Public Information 

Officer (PIO)

•	 Provide leadership on campus during an 

emergency

•	 Institute the campus emergency 

management plan

•	 Coordinate and support with partners

•	 Serve as incident commander to establish 

the incident command system (sometimes, 

until partners arrive to take over ICS)

Table 1. Illustrative Key Responsibilities During an Emergency by Organization 

Entity and Position Within Entity

Source: Adapted from Homeland Security Planning for Campus Executives workshop, developed by VMC/West Virginia 

University for DHS/ FEMA under the agency’s Training and Education Integration (TEI) Secretariat, available at http://vmc.

wvu.edu/projects.htm.
12

•	 Ensuring that a process is in place for complying with the Health Insurance 

Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Family Educational Rights 

and Privacy Act (FERPA) for revealing information about a student or staff 

member. For additional information on FERPA and HIPAA restrictions on 

communication relating to campus safety see NACUA NOTES on FERPA and 

Campus Safety (Vol. 5, No. 4, August 2007) available at: http://www.nacua.org/

documents/ferpa2.pdf. 

Balancing Student Privacy and School Safety

The U.S. Department of Education offers a brochure Balancing Student Privacy and 

School Safety: A Guide to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act for Colleges and 

Universities. It provides guidance pertaining to FERPA, disciplinary records, the Clery Act, law 

enforcement units, disclosure to parents, and other information that will help campus officials 

make decisions quickly when confronted with issues about privacy and safety. The brochure can be 

found at: http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/brochures/postsec.pdf.

Response

Response is taking action to effectively contain and resolve an emergency. Responses 

to emergencies are enhanced by thorough and effective collaboration and planning 

during the Prevention-Mitigation and Preparedness phases. During the response 

phase, campus officials activate the emergency management plan. Responses to 

emergencies vary greatly depending upon the severity, magnitude, duration, and 

intensity of the event. This is the phase of emergency management covered most 

intensely by the press and media, as well. Effective response requires informed 

decision-making and identification of clear lines of decision authority. Selected 

Response activities include:

•	 Activating the Incident Command System;

•	 Dialoguing with first responders and other community partners (as articulated in 

memorandums of understanding [MOUs] or other formal agreements) to make 

informed decisions and deploy resources; and 

•	 Establishing an Emergency Operation Center (EOC). 
13

Emergency Operations Center (EOC)

The EOC serves as a centralized management center for emergency operations. Here, decisions 

are made by emergency managers based upon information provided by the incident commander 

and other personnel. The EOC should be located in an area not likely to be involved in an 

incident (e.g., security department, emergency manager’s office, or training center). An alternate 

EOC should be designated in the event that the primary location is not usable due to emergency 

consequences. Ideally, the EOC is a dedicated area equipped with communications equipment, 

reference materials, activity logs, and all the tools necessary to respond quickly and appropriately to 

an emergency, including:

•	 Communications equipment;

•	 A copy of the emergency management plan and EOC procedures;

•	 Blueprints, maps, and status boards;

•	 A list of EOC personnel and descriptions of their duties;

•	 Technical information and data for advising responders;

•	 Building security system information;

•	 Information and data management capabilities;

•	 Telephone directories;

•	 Backup power, communications, and lighting; and

•	 Emergency supplies.

Source: FEMA Emergency Management Guide for Business & Industry, available at: 

http://www.fema.gov/business/guide/toc.shtm).

•	 Activating communication plans using multiple modalities (e.g., e-mail, text 

message, phone).

•	 Determining and executing the appropriate response strategy. 

•	 Accounting for students, faculty, and staff.

•	 Conducting an after-action report as a tool for modifying and improving the 

emergency management plan.

Example of Proactive Response: Texas Tech University

In the year following the tragedy at Virginia Tech, then university president of Texas Tech 

University (TTU) Jon Whitmore sent students and families a letter. He assured this community 

that TTU had a plan to respond to a variety of emergencies, and that the safety and security of the 

campus community was a high priority concern. He discussed recent updates to the TTU campus 

emergency notification system, which utilizes outdoor sirens, broadcast e-mails, text messaging, 

and phone calls as well as Web site postings. He invited everyone to view TTU’s emergency 

response Web site to obtain additional information and urged faculty, staff, and students to sign up 

for emergency information alerts. Because emergency management is an ongoing process at TTU, 

he was able to reassure students and their families that the university was making a concerted effort 

to ensure safety and security.
14

Recovery

The Recovery phase establishes procedures, resources, and policies to assist an 

institution and its members’ return to functioning after an emergency. Recovery is 

an ongoing process. The type and breadth of recovery activities will vary based on 

the nature and scope of the emergency. However, the goal of the recovery phase is to 

restore the learning environment. Planning for Recovery begins in the Preparedness 

phase, and requires support from campus leaders to ensure that decisions contribute 

to implementation and resolution of all four components of recovery. All decisions 

should be made in conjunction with local and perhaps state officials and partners. 

Recovery includes:

•	 Physical and Structural Recovery. Depending on the scope of the emergency, 

a key step to recovery can be the creation of a Damage Assessment Team (DAT). 

This team would likely consist of campus personnel (e.g., safety and security, 

facility management, risk management, budget office, transportation, food 

services, technology services, etc.) and community partners. This assessment 

will evaluate physical and structural damage, assess the availability of housing, 

transportation, and food services, and determine the degree to which equipment 

(e.g., computers, lab equipment) is functional. The major goal of the assessment 

is to determine the extent of the effects of the incident on campus and 

community physical assets and newly created vulnerabilities. Data from the 

assessment results will facilitate decision-making about repairs and timelines to 

resume learning activities. 

•	 Business Recovery. IHEs can restore administrative and business function by 

activating the COOP and BCP plans. The plans also should identify who has 

the responsibility to cancel or postpone classes or to use alternative locations. 

Additionally, there should be a succession plan in place for each function 

identified in the plans, as well as strategies for accepting donations for goods and 

services following the emergency.

•	 Restoration of the Academic-learning Environment. Restoring the learning 

environment may involve housing students and conducting classes in offsite locations, implementing online learning, and implementing temporary 

procedures about assignments, grading, attendance, and tuition and housing 

payments. Campus administrators must make swift decisions about changes to 

class schedules and academic calendars and graduation requirements. Moreover, 

it is important to communicate the decisions and next steps to the media, 

faculty, staff, students, and families in an expedient fashion. Establishing such 

communication venues as a Web site or call center to manage inquiries will 

facilitate the communication process. 
15

•	 Psychological and Emotional Recovery. It is critical to identify the mental 

health resources in collaboration with partners to promote psychological and 

emotional recovery. Through this collaboration students, faculty, and staff will 

have the opportunity to receive short- and long-term mental health services on 

and off campus, or obtain referrals for more long-term counseling. As part of 

the preparedness plan, campus mental health personnel may want to establish 

a prescreening and approval process for mental health personnel who could 

help during and after an emergency. In addition to providing mental health 

services for students, it is important to offer such services to workers who may 

be cleaning and restoring the physical and structural facilities; faculty; and staff 

involved in the recovery effort; as well as public safety, medical, and mental 

health professionals. 

Hurricane Katrina and Tulane University: Recovery Set in Motion

On Aug. 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused massive destruction in New Orleans and a broad 

expanse of the Gulf Coast region. Tulane University, located in the heart of New Orleans, suffered 

major property damage and losses—estimated at more than $600 million. University functions 

were brought to a standstill. Following Hurricane Katrina, Tulane University had to contend 

with the aftermath of the disaster, an inaccessible city, few functioning technologies, and no 

operational communication mechanisms. Moreover, the university had to close its doors for the 

fall semester and spend weeks attempting to locate faculty, staff, and students who had evacuated 

around the country. The university responded by establishing a Web site, call center, and remote 

offices to provide regular and accurate updates to the entire campus community. The university 

president and his staff identified several elements that needed immediate attention, including 

student housing and food services, parking and transportation, administrative and classroom 

space, media relations, and financial solvency. He set up a series of task forces with representatives 

from each department and asked them to develop solutions to the major issues. The university 

also established a policy that students would receive credit for the semester’s courses taken at other 

universities with a passing grade. An online registration system for employees helped regain lost 

contact information, alleviating disruption to the payroll system. University staff read blogs to 

monitor the discussions circulating, including the issues of concern to families, students, and 

staff, in order to alleviate concerns and facilitate the return of campus community members.

The devastation of Katrina forced the university to undertake a major reorganization, 

which resulted in the layoff of hundreds of faculty and staff members, elimination of several 

undergraduate majors, removal of men’s and women’s sports programs, and significant changes to 

its school of medicine and other graduate programs. The university swiftly developed a renewal 

plan, approved by the Board of Tulane on Dec. 8, 2005. For Tulane University, the challenges 

of emergency management became a way of life and a constant struggle. However, from their 

experiences in this tragedy, they “gathered once again and are now called to be the architects of 

and witnesses to the renewal of a great American university and a great American city” (Tulane 

University—A Plan for Renewal, December 2005, available at: http://renewal.tulane.edu/

renewalplan.pdf).
16

This section introduced the four phases of emergency management. These four 

phases provide an organizing framework for the development of an emergency 

management plan. 

The remaining sections of this action guide cover the four recommended steps for 

developing and implementing a plan: 

Step 1: Get Organized 

Step 2: Identify Hazards and Conduct a Risk Assessment

Step 3: Develop or Update the Emergency Management Plan 

Step 4: Adopt and Implement the Emergency Management Plan

This four-step process can be used in either developing a new plan or updating an 

existing plan.

Four-step Process for Emergency Management and Implementation

This action guide offers a four-step process2 for developing and implementing an 

emergency management plan at higher education institutions. For each step, the 

guide identifies a set of tasks that must be covered in order to thoroughly address 

that step.

Step 1: Get Organized 

•	 Build support by getting institutional commitment and leadership for emergency 

management work.

•	 Identify, access, and use available resources, from both inside and outside the 

institution.

•	 Formulate a project organizational structure [that consists of an advisory 

committee, a planning team, a project manager, or other structural components.

•	 Develop a project work plan that has tasks and milestones.
17

Step 2: Identify Hazards, Vulnerabilities, and Threats by Conducting 

a Risk Assessment

•	 Identify a vulnerability assessment tool, which assists an institution in the 

ongoing process of identifying and prioritizing risks. 

•	 Identify and profile potential hazards, threats, and vulnerabilities.

•	 Assess vulnerabilities to potential hazards and the institution’s capabilities in 

responding to an event.

•	 Assess potential consequences and impacts of various emergency events.

•	 Identify actions that can be taken to prevent, mitigate, or prepare for hazards and 

potential hazards.

Step 3: Develop or Update the Emergency Management Plan 

•	 Ensure that the plan incorporates the nine key principles in emergency 

management that contribute to a successful plan. 

•	 Incorporate the results of work done in step 2, including identification of 

hazards, threats, and vulnerabilities through a risk assessment.

•	 Address planning elements associated with each of the four phases of emergency 

management: Prevention and Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. 

Step 4: Adopt and Implement the Emergency Management Plan

•	 Subject the draft plan to a thorough review and approval process.

•	 Communicate and distribute the plan in various forms (e.g., via the campus 

Web site, on posters in classrooms, in pull-out guides for specific audiences and 

responders) to a full range of involved parties.

•	 Test and practice the plan in training sessions, drills, and exercises.

•	 Implement action items related to prevention, mitigation, and preparedness.

2 The planning process outlined in this guide closely parallels the process advocated by the FEMA for both institutions of 

higher education and communities as a whole. FEMA’s label for this process is mitigation planning, drawing from the title of 

the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. While the FEMA process focuses heavily on natural disasters, it is fully portable in applying 

to an all-hazards approach.
18

•	 Monitor and update the plan on an ongoing and regular basis, with assistance 

from after-action reports that are compiled following exercises and corrective 

action reports that are compiled following actual emergencies, and using lessons 

learned from both.

In the process of planning and implementation, success is achieved by working 

carefully through each step in the process. An investment of time and energy in the 

plan development stage (step 3 in the four-step process) will pay dividends at the 

implementation stage and to an actual emergency when actions become intuitive 

based on ongoing training and regular exercising. Consider each of these steps and 

their corollary tasks in more detail. 
19

step 1: get organized

The first step in emergency management planning is to get organized. Tasks to be 

accomplished in getting organized are:

•	 Build support and get institutional commitment and leadership for the project.

•	 Identify, access, and use available resources, both inside and outside the 

institution.

•	 Formulate a project organizational structure with an advisory committee, a 

planning team, a project manager, or other structural components. 

•	 Develop a project work plan with tasking and milestones.

These preparatory tasks are all essential to the success of the planning project.

Build Support, Commitment, and Leadership

Launching an emergency management initiative emerges from a decision to develop 

a plan or update an existing plan. Implementing and sustaining an emergency 

management planning initiative requires a considerable investment of institutional 

time, energy, and resources. It is important to obtain a firm commitment from 

numerous stakeholders to engage in a substantive planning effort. Thus, the 

institution’s president or provost must assume strong leadership and assign someone 

to lead the effort who has decision-making power and the authority to use campus 

resources to manage the planning initiative. It is helpful to issue an administrative 

directive or resolution that defines the broad objectives of the initiative and describes 

the general approach to achieve the activities. The objectives should incorporate the 

guiding principles for emergency management and should rely on the four phases of 

emergency management. 
20

Identify, Access, and Use Available Resources

When beginning the emergency management planning process it is important 

to identify what assets and resources are available both on campus and in the 

community. This task is challenging because there are so many groups and 

individuals to consider. Ideally, a college or university should have an office of 

senior management, or at a minimum, a staff position, dedicated to emergency 

management as a primary function. If so, this office or staff position would play a 

lead role in the planning. Institutions vary greatly with regard to the presence of 

departments and functions with a direct responsibility for emergency management; 

for example, many institutions have their own police and fire operations, and others 

do not. A first order of business is to identify those departments that must play a 

significant role in preparing for, responding to, and recovering from an emergency. 

On the campus, a major challenge is to achieve a cohesive and integrated planning 

initiative. The process is an opportunity to create linkage and constructive 

communication across a large number of potential participants. In doing so, the 

objective is to generate buy-in, participation, and enthusiasm for the initiative. 

Table 2 provides a list of on-campus resources and their potential contributions. 

Determining the extent of resources, knowledge, and expertise that each department 

brings to the initiative will be helpful throughout the process. 
21

Table 2. IHE Emergency Management Planning: Selected Departments and Illustrative 

Contributions

College or University 

Department*

Illustrative Department Contributions

Academic Affairs •	 Develop procedures to communicate with and account for teaching faculty 

in an emergency situation. 

•	 Develop plans to identify alternate facilities where institution activities can 

be conducted in the event of the destruction, disablement, or denial or lack 

of access to existing facilities

•	 Identify and prioritize critical support services and systems

•	 Identify and ensure recovery of critical assets

Business Office •	 Develop the processes and procedures for tracking employees’ time and 

issuing paychecks during disaster operations

•	 Develop procedures for procuring emergency resources for responding to 

and recovering from emergencies

•	 Develop the process for documenting the financial cost of emergency 

response and recovery operations 

•	 Develop a Business Continuity Plan (BCP)

Central Administration

or Designee 

•	 Provide resources and leadership support to drive the initiative 

•	 Develop procedures for declaring an emergency

•	 Identify alternate administrative facilities

•	 Develop procedures for increasing public information efforts

•	 Develop and coordinate procedures for recruiting volunteers and additional 

staff

•	 Develop procedures to coordinate and approve volunteers and manage 

donations during an emergency 

•	 Develop a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)

Counseling and Mental 

Health Services

•	 Identify and train appropriate staff to provide developmentally and 

culturally appropriate mental health services 

•	 Train mental health staff on specific interventions

•	 Provide basic training on available resources and common reactions to 

trauma for all staff (including administrators)

•	 Train teachers and other staff on early warning signs of potentially 

dangerous individuals

•	 Assemble and train crisis recovery teams

•	 Identify both internal and external partners (consider local mental health 

agencies who may be able to assist, and develop a structure for support) and 

develop partnership agreements

•	 Develop template letters (that can be tailored) for alerting students, parents, 

families, staff, and the community to emergencies 

Emergency Medical 

Services

•	 Develop and coordinate procedures for mobilizing resources needed for 

significant, longer-term emergencies 

•	 Identify sources for mutual aid agreements and assistance

Environmental Health 

and Safety

•	 Participate in vulnerability and hazard assessments 

•	 Review and update office standard operating procedures to align with the 

campus emergency management plan 

•	 Develop procedures for pre-positioning resources and equipment

•	 Review and update processes and procedures for state and federal disaster 

declaration requests

•	 Develop, review, and update state and federally required environmental 

emergency response plans, including management procedures for the plans 

•	 Coordinate with public safety operations (see next entry) to develop process 

and procedures for increasing public information 

•	 Provide warning system information 

* Across varying types of institutions of higher education these departments are key to university functioning.
22

Facilities and Operations •	 Participate in vulnerability and hazard assessments 

•	 Provide floor plans with room layout, electrical sources, and entrance and 

exit points for all campus buildings

•	 Develop procedures for pre-positioning resources and equipment 

•	 Identify sources for mutual aid agreements and assistance 

Food Services •	 Identify possible threats and mitigation strategies relating to food safety

•	 Develop procedures for providing food to students, staff, faculty, and 

community partners during a major emergency

•	 Develop mutual aid agreements for obtaining, preparing, and distributing 

food 

Health Services •	 Develop procedures to determine if there are adequate supplies and 

equipment to triage for an emergency and to support community health 

partners

•	 Develop procedures for mobilizing personnel on campus and at external 

sites

•	 Develop procedures for developing mutual aid agreements

•	 Develop pandemic flu and infectious disease plans 

•	 Develop system for disease surveillance and tracking

•	 Coordinate with local and state public health partners

Human Resources •	 Develop plans to maintain the continuity of payroll, together with the 

business office (see above), during an emergency

•	 Develop plans to maintain employee benefit services during an emergency

•	 Develop plans to hire or replace staff with temporary employees, if needed

•	 Develop plans to serve as the liaison, or organizer, or both, of volunteer 

assistance in the event of an emergency

•	 Prepare to execute components of the COOP relating to staffing, including 

assessing faculty and staff availability, appropriation of personnel, and 

assisting employees with work-recovery needs (e.g., psychological help, time 

off for personal needs). 

Information Technology •	 Develop procedures and systems for checking critical information and alert 

systems to disseminate emergency information via Web site, cell phone, 

e-mail, and other mechanisms.

•	 Identify IT resources needed to facilitate the emergency operations of all 

campus departments 

•	 Identify need for and sources of emergency communication devices (e.g., 

ham radios, cell phones)

•	 Develop plans to continue academic programs that significantly use 

technology for teaching purposes 

Legal Counsel •	 Provide legal counsel on campus liability to key decision makers

•	 Coordinate investigations completed by community partners

•	 Review messages drafted by PIO

•	 Ensure that all campus and community actions are documented with a 

rationale for the action

Public Information Office 

(PIO) 

•	 Develop procedures for coordinating with all departments to provide 

unified and factual messages to students, staff, faculty, families, and the 

media using multiple modalities

•	 Develop pre-agreements with the media concerning debriefings and media 

holding areas during an emergency 

•	 Designate a campus spokesperson 

Table 2. (Cont’d)
23

Public Safety Operations •	 Develop procedures for reviewing and updating emergency management 

plan

•	 Develop procedures for facilities and equipment, including testing systems

•	 Develop procedures for mobilizing department of public safety personnel 

and pre-positioning resources and equipment 

•	 Develop a process for managing incidents at the field level using the 

Incident Command System 

•	 Develop a process for communicating with and directing the central 

dispatch center, including the activation of the Emergency Contact List 

•	 Develop procedures to warn threatened elements of the population 

•	 Ensure that hazardous material procedures are consistent with the state and 

local environmental safety hazardous materials plans 

Residential Life •	 Develop procedures to coordinate the need for on-campus housing, 

temporary shelters, and temporary off-campus housing locations 

•	 Develop procedures for mobilizing residential life personnel and prepositioning resources 

•	 Develop an on-call staffing system to ensure staff are available at all times

•	 Develop procedures for identifying resident students in need of emergency 

evacuation assistance

•	 Develop procedures for the evacuation and temporary shelter 

accommodations for resident students 

•	 Develop procedures for checking residential facilities and equipment 

Student Affairs •	 Develop procedures for checking student affairs facilities and equipment, 

including those relating to on-campus recreation, student organizations, oncampus employment, community service, and volunteerism

•	 Develop procedures for addressing the needs of students living in Greek 

housing or off-campus facilities

•	 Develop procedures for pre-positioning resources to maintain functioning of 

such campus elements as career services and student government 

•	 Develop mutual aid agreements and pre-negotiate services for goods and 

services in the event of an emergency

•	 Ensure that all items under the Americans with Disabilities Act are 

considered throughout the planning and implementation of the emergency 

management plan

•	 Ensure that the plan is accessible to students whose primary language is not 

English

•	 Develop parent or family notification procedures 

Transportation •	 Develop procedures for mobilizing campus wide transportation for an 

emergency and for maintaining control of traffic from private vehicles 

•	 Develop evacuation procedures from various campus locales

Table 2. (Cont’d)

Source: Adapted from the University of Maryland Emergency Operations Plan (2006) available at: http://

www.umd.edu/emergencypreparedness/umeop/pdfs/sop_dev.pdf [last accessed on Sept. 30, 2008] and the 

University of Florida Emergency Management Plan (2005), available at: http://www.ehs.ufl.edu/disasterplan/

UFEMP.pdf [last accessed on Sept. 30, 2008.]
24

Collaboration with community partners should support all planning efforts as well 

as ensure coordinated response and recovery plans. Outside the college or university 

system, the planning effort also should involve other community collaborators, such 

as organizations in government, the nonprofit sector, and the private sector in the 

community. Consider involving the following: 

•	 Local emergency management offices and planning committees;

•	 First responders in law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical 

services;

•	 911 communications centers;

•	 Ambulance services;

•	 City and county government planning agencies, including regional planning 

agencies;

•	 City, county, and state government public works departments;

•	 Special districts with responsibilities for infrastructure, transportation, or flood 

control;

•	 Public health agencies;

•	 Mental health agencies;

•	 Hospitals;

•	 State government offices with responsibilities related to emergency management 

(especially the state office of emergency management and the state hazards 

mitigation officer);

•	 FEMA, specifically the regional office;

•	 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), regional office;

•	 Nonprofit organizations related to emergency and human services, such as the 

American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and United Way; and

•	 Media organizations.

The objective in contacting these groups is to generate interest in planning, enlist 

support and participation, and determine how each stakeholder might best become 

involved. The magnitude and intensity of the involvement of these organizations will 

depend on their expertise, time, and resources. In some cases, it will be sufficient for 

the stakeholder to simply be aware of the planning and know that a new or updated 

emergency management plan is forthcoming from the IHE. Additionally, these 

stakeholders will be key participants in all exercises. 
25

Formulate a Project Organizational Structure 

Once the campus and community resources are identified, a structure for 

implementing the planning initiative is needed. This structure will be different from 

campus to campus, depending on size, location, and campus facilities (e.g., research 

facilities), and buildings and events (e.g., athletic, performing arts) organized by the 

institution. It may be appropriate to form an advisory committee or task force with 

a representative drawn from the campus as well as each of the community partners 

to formulate this structure. Another option is to form a core planning team with 

members having expertise in emergency management and such related disciplines 

as public safety, risk management, and public communications. Core members 

should consistently participate in any planning efforts to minimize information 

inconsistencies and provide for fluid decision-making. 

While some individuals will be active participants, other stakeholders’ participation 

in the effort may take the form of submitting information and providing feedback. 

For example, the core planning team may include the head of each department. The 

department head and his or her designated staff would collaborate to develop an allhazards department operations plan that will help with accountability and unity of 

command. Components of the all-hazards plan should include: 

•	 Data about threat and hazard assessments, department statistics, relevant campus 

data, and any relevant regulations or guidelines that apply to the department 

functions.

•	 A mission statement that outlines the broad objectives and general approach to 

preparing for, responding to, and recovering from emergencies and hazards. 

•	 Mechanisms to trigger readiness activities and illustrative readiness activities, 

response activities, extended response activities, and recovery activities. 

•	 An emergency team leader and alternative team leaders who will coordinate the 

resources and functions of each department during an emergency. Each person 

must provide contact information, such as campus, cell, and home phone 

numbers. 

•	 An Emergency Operations Center (EOC) representative who will be at the EOC 

and serve as a liaison between the departments and the EOC.

•	 The primary location where emergency operations will be coordinated and an 

alternative location for backup.
26

•	 Procedures that the departments will use to contact personnel and ask them to 

report to the campus or an alternative location.

•	 Designation of groups of employees to perform specific functions. Each group 

should be assigned a group leader and members (two to seven people) and 

designate a location on campus or alternative location if the campus is not 

accessible where employees in this group will meet. This component also should 

include assignment configuration that will list shifts and periods of days on and 

off. 

•	 Resources, materials, and equipment needed to perform each task before, during, 

and after the emergency. The plan also should include multiple locations on 

campus for the materials. The primary location may be the place where similar 

routine tasks are performed or where materials and equipment are routinely 

stored.

•	 Summary of available resources not available on campus, which may necessitate 

developing mutual aid agreements, memorandums of understanding (MOUs) or 

pre-emergency contracts for equipment, materials, or services. 

•	 Summary of timelines and milestones for ensuring that all components are fully 

in place according to a schedule.

For some responsibilities and data collection efforts, there may be a decision to 

collaborate across departments. For example, it may be more efficient and costeffective to predetermine whether to have each department conduct hazard and risk 

assessments or make this a campuswide activity. Regardless of the option selected, 

one entity should analyze all the data and develop one hazard matrix for the 

entire campus. 

Develop a Work Plan

To formulate a work plan, it is first necessary to consider scope and approach. A first 

task might be to gather existing information related to emergency management at the 

institution, such as:

•	 Previous risk assessments and campus climate assessments as they pertain to 

potential hazards and vulnerabilities;

•	 Incident data, culture and climate data, and community hazard profiles;

•	 Any existing emergency management plans for the campus; and 

•	 Previous media coverage (such as newspaper articles) of campus emergencies.
27

It always helps to know what has gone on before and what is currently in place 

pertaining to emergency management. It is important to identify what is working 

well and where there are major gaps in existing plans or procedures. 

All assessment and planning efforts should be aligned with federal, state, and local 

requirements and guidelines (see U.S. Department of Education’s A Guide to School 

Vulnerability Assessments: Key Principles for Safe Schools available at: https://rems.

ed.gov). Campus emergency management teams should obtain key information from 

resource agencies, such as documentation on the National Incident Management 

System (NIMS) from the Department of Homeland Security. Information on how 

to access local agencies can be obtained from FEMA. Leaders also should understand 

any relevant regulations or guidelines that apply, such as policies related to safety and 

security for the college or university system. Local emergency planning committees 

or emergency management agencies can be a good source of information about 

regulations and requirements promulgated in the local community.

The work plan should identify specific timelines and milestones. Leaders should set 

a target date for completing a first draft of the plan. The schedule should consider, 

as well, what needs to happen for the plan to be officially adopted and should allow 

time for stakeholder review, discussion, and approval processes. If a core planning 

team is in place, the team should be actively involved in planning—the team as a 

group may construct a work plan that designates specific tasks, when they will be 

accomplished, and who has the lead responsibility for getting each task done.

Completing the tasks necessary to get organized requires considerable effort. 

A concerted effort will help launch the planning work successfully, including a 

transition to the next major step in the process—identifying hazards and conducting 

a risk assessment.
28
29

step 2: identify hazards, 

vulnerabilities, and threats by

conducting a risk management

assessment

After getting organized, the next step in developing an emergency management plan 

is to identify potential hazards and conduct a risk assessment. It is important to take 

an all-hazards approach, considering a full range of risks and threats to the college 

or university. The hazards identification and risk assessment will prioritize among 

possible hazards so that a focus can be placed on the top priority hazards, while still 

addressing lower priority hazards. The assessment should be comprehensive with 

regard to settings, encompassing the campus, the surrounding neighborhoods, and 

the greater community.

This step of the process typically involves five distinct tasks:

 Identify a Vulnerability Assessment tool. 

 Identify and profile potential hazards, threats, and vulnerabilities.

 Assess vulnerabilities to potential hazards and the institution’s capabilities in 

responding to an event.

 Assess potential consequences/impacts of various emergency events.

 Identify actions that can be taken to prevent, mitigate or prepare for hazards 

and potential hazards.
30

Identify a Vulnerability Assessment Tool 

Vulnerability assessment is the ongoing process through which colleges and 

universities identify potential risks and areas of weakness that could have adverse 

consequences for institutions and their systems. Vulnerability assessments are an 

important and vital part of emergency management planning for examining risks, 

needs, and threats. A vulnerability assessment focuses on an institution’s susceptibility 

to specific threats or hazards and how those weaknesses or threats might be mitigated 

through emergency management. Vulnerability assessments should be used to inform 

the prevention-mitigation phases of emergency management and help institutions 

decide which areas should be priorities of focus.

Initial emergency management planning can be a daunting task for many reasons, 

not the least of which is learning the numerous terms associated with various 

phases of the planning. Many other terms are used in relation to assessment, such 

as needs assessment, threat assessment, risk analysis, safety and security audit, 

hazard assessment, and facility assessment. Each one of these terms can have its 

own meaning depending on the context in which it is used. Some of these types of 

assessments, such as safety and security audits and facilities assessments, focus only 

on specific aspects or areas of vulnerability. Some examples of the interchangeable 

terminology follow. 

FEMA Publications on Mitigation Planning

In August 2003, FEMA published Building a Disaster-Resistant University, a 42-page technical 

assistance document with eight worksheets in an appendix. This document contains detailed 

information on FEMA’s mitigation planning methods, including details on estimating losses from 

a disaster (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2003). The contents of Building a DisasterResistant University are based on a series of FEMA publications on mitigation planning at the state 

and local levels. There are four publications in this series (publication numbers 386-1 through 4): 

386-1: Getting Started: Building Support for Mitigation Planning

386-2: Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses

386-3: Developing the Mitigation Plan: Identifying Mitigation Actions and

Implementation Strategies

386-4: Bringing the Plan to Life: Implementing the Hazard Mitigation Plan

Although the guides are written for communities, many of the steps and procedures represented in 

these documents are relevant to IHEs and their planning efforts. All of these publications can be 

found at the FEMA Web site, www.fema.gov. Click on “Forms and Publications” and search for 

the documents by publication number.
31

•	 A needs assessment, often used interchangeably with vulnerability assessment, 

commonly refers to an assessment done to identify gaps or areas needing 

improvement and to determine unmet needs, but not necessarily all 

vulnerabilities or potential threats. 

•	 A hazards assessment focuses on general hazards and determining which hazards 

an institution might be prone to. A threat assessment also focuses on hazards that 

could potentially threaten the institution, but the term has generally been used 

in assessing students or outsiders who may post a violent threat to other students 

within the campus.

•	 A risk analysis usually focuses on the calculation of specific risk levels to 

determine how vulnerable institutions would be to specific threats or what 

specific consequences institutions could face in the event of emergency-related 

crises. Generally a risk analysis is conducted after specific hazards are identified.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Guide to School Vulnerability Assessments: Key 

Principles for Safe Schools (2008) encompasses all of these areas of assessment and 

uses vulnerability assessment as an inclusive term. It also provides several sample 

assessment tools for use by institutions in an assessment process. Additional 

resources can be found at the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement 

Administrators (IACLEA) Campus Preparedness Resource Center (available at: 

http://www.iaclea.org/visitors/wmdcpt/cprc/aboutcprc.cfm) 

Identify and Profile Hazards, Threats, and Vulnerabilities 

There are many different categories of hazards that could potentially affect higher 

education institutions. Vulnerability assessments should take into consideration all 

hazards and threats that could potentially affect the institution instead of limiting 

assessments to only specific categories of hazards and threats. A hazards assessment 

and risk analysis often are conducted by a team of participants with expertise in 

various aspects of the assessment process. First, the team engages in a hazards 

assessment to identify and prioritize hazards. 
32

Hazards can be described in several categories:

Natural Hazards, Including Severe Weather

Natural hazards refer to what are commonly called natural disasters as well as various 

types of severe weather. Examples of these types of hazards are:

•	 Earthquakes;

•	 Tornadoes;

•	 Lightening;

•	 Severe wind;

•	 Hurricanes;

•	 Floods;

•	 Wildfires;

•	 Extreme temperatures (hot or cold);

•	 Landslides and mudslides;

•	 Tsunamis;

•	 Volcanic eruptions; and 

•	 Winter precipitation (ice or snow).

Biological Hazards

Biological hazards that could affect colleges and universities include:

•	 Infectious diseases, such as pandemic influenza, XDR (extensively drugresistant tuberculosis), Staphylococcus aureus (“Staph”), and meningitis; 

•	 Contaminated food outbreaks, including salmonella, botulism, and E. coli; and

•	 Toxic materials present in campus laboratories, such as chemical, radioactive, 

or other potentially harmful substances.

Additionally, DHS advises that colleges and universities consider how such existing 

biological or medical conditions of students as allergies, diabetes, or asthma could 

affect students in the event of an emergency. For example, because of the stress 

caused by a crisis, students with asthma may have greater difficulty breathing and 

may need access to medications or inhalers during a shelter-in-place situation. 
33

Similarly, diabetic students may need access to insulin or snacks during a shelter-inplace scenario. Meeting the special needs of more vulnerable students and staff is a 

key component in any emergency management plan. 

Violence

Threats of violence at colleges and universities involve:

•	 Weapons on campus and school shootings;

•	 Fights;

•	 Criminal or gang violence; and

•	 Bomb threats.

Such factors as crime rates in the area, known gang activity, and drug use in the 

community and on campus may contribute to the potential for acts of violence 

on campus.

In situations where a student or faculty may pose a threat to the institution, as 

manifested through actions, or words, colleges and universities should have available 

a specific process for early intervention, usually called a threat assessment. Threat 

assessments are used in response to the identification of a person who is at risk of 

causing harm to self or others. The purpose of the threat assessment is to prevent acts 

of violence by responding to early warning signs and taking appropriate measures.

Climate and Culture 

The climate and culture of the institution can contribute to or even cause hazards. 

Issues of climate and culture both in the institution and in the community that 

could influence hazards include:

•	 Drug usage and trafficking;

•	 Crimes, both minor and serious;

•	 Sexual misconduct;

•	 Suicide; 

•	 Hostile environments (i.e., an environment where individuals or groups of 

individuals feel unsafe or threatened, such as in instances of racial or religious 

discrimination);
34

•	 Students, personnel, or intruders that may pose a danger to others; and

•	 Political protests or demonstrations.

Hazards Present in the Community 

There are many possible threats associated with the physical community surrounding 

a campus. Examples are:

 

•	 If the campus is located near an industrial plant, this poses a potential hazard to 

the campus in the event of an explosion or accidental release of toxins.

•	 If the campus is near an airport or major highway, there is a risk of a plane crash 

on campus grounds or a nearby vehicle crash that releases hazardous material.

•	 If railways run through or near campus, accidents involving cargo transportation 

may pose risks of fire, explosion, or hazardous material release. 

•	 If the campus is near waterways with a major dam, dam failure could pose a risk. 

•	 Nearby prisons could pose a threat if convicts were to escape. 

Hazards Related to the Physical Campus Environment

Many hazards or risks associated with hazards within the physical campus 

environment have potentially serious impacts, including structural-, maintenance-, 

and grounds-related issues. Examples of such hazards include: 

•	 Building fires;

•	 Power outages; and

•	 Structural failures.

These are discussed in greater detail in the following section. 

Hazards Created by Terrorism and Military Conflict

Such events as Sept. 11, 2001, have prompted new concern regarding the potential 

for terrorist threats. Incidents associated with terrorism and subsequent military 

conflict could occur on campuses. According to FEMA (2006), terrorism-related 

threats include the following:
35

•	 Explosions;

•	 Bioterrorism or biological warfare threats;

•	 Chemical threats;

•	 Nuclear blasts;

•	 Radiological threats that could be dispersed through a bomb or radiological 

dispersion device (RDD), or “dirty bomb.” 

Certain locale also may be a target for terrorism:

•	 Military installations;

•	 Nearby dams; 

•	 Campus facilities conducting animal research;

•	 Nuclear reactors on campuses; and

•	 Nearby sites of mass transportation, such as airports, railroads, ports, rail transits, 

major highways, and bus stations.

Bioterrorism threats include proliferation of hazardous bacteria, viruses, and related 

toxins that could be released into the air. Chemical threats could be in the form of 

toxic vapors, aerosols, liquids, or solids. Nuclear events would similarly involve some 

sort of bomb or explosion; however, the use of an RDD would be far more likely. 

In the event of terrorist threats such as these, colleges and universities may need to 

evaluate how prepared they would be to evacuate or shelter-in-place based on the 

type and proximity of the threat, and the campus location and structure itself.

Mapping of Area Targeted for Emergency Management

As hazards relevant to the institution are identified, the emergency management team would 

benefit greatly from the creation of a map supporting emergency management purposes. The base 

map created ideally would be GIS-based, offering multiple layers of spatial information features 

and the ability to associate attribute information with those spatial features. Mapping layers might 

include:

•	 All buildings and facilities on campus;

•	 The location of key resources related to emergency management, such as police, fire, and 

emergency medical services; 

•	 The location of hazardous materials;

•	 Boundaries related to specific hazards such as floodplain topography and earthquake fault 

zones; and

•	 Campus infrastructure showing roads, water lines, power lines, and telecommunications 

systems.

The scope of the mapping system may extend beyond campus boundaries to include the 

surrounding community, hazards present in the community, and infrastructure in the community 

critical to the emergency management program of the college or university. 
36

Hazard Identification: First Steps 

A first order of business for the assessment team is to consider the list of potential 

hazards and begin to identify those that pose the greatest risk to the college or 

university. In the case of natural disasters, it may be fairly easy to determine those 

that are of greatest concern. Other hazard categories, however, may take some 

research and analysis to uncover.

It is likely that the community in which the college or university is located has 

conducted a hazards assessment that could be helpful to this effort. Talk to 

emergency management or public safety agencies in the community to find out 

what has been done in identifying potential hazards. A community-based hazards 

assessment likely will have considered many of the same hazards that a college or 

university is concerned with, including natural disasters, community facilities and 

plants, hazardous materials from industrial and chemical accidents, and susceptibility 

to terrorism. 

After identifying a list of hazards, it is helpful to develop hazard profiles. For each 

type of hazard, answer the related profile questions:

•	 Frequency of occurrence – How often is it likely to occur?

•	 Magnitude and potential intensity – How bad could it get?

•	 Location – Where is it likely to strike?

•	 Probable geographical extent – How large of an area will be affected?

•	 Duration – How long could it last?

•	 Seasonal pattern – What time of year is it more likely to occur?

•	 Speed of onset – How fast will it occur?

•	 Availability of warnings – Does a warning system exist and how much warning 

time will there be?

After completing hazard profiles, a prioritization analysis can be created using a 

risk matrix. A risk matrix is used to rate probability and severity on a scale of low, 

medium, or high. Obviously, hazards with high probability and high severity are at 

the top of the priorities list, and those with low probability and low severity are at 

the bottom. The hard part may be prioritizing hazards that get medium ratings or 

those that are high probability-low severity or low probability-high severity. Once 

an institution has determined which hazards are at the top of the list as well as those 

that fall in descending order following those at the top, it can prioritize planning, 

training, and drill efforts to focus on the hazards most likely to occur and most likely 

to cause significant repercussions to the campus. 
37

Figure 1. Example of an Emergency Management Risk Matrix

Assess Vulnerabilities and Response Capabilities

The next task for the team is an assessment of vulnerabilities and response 

capabilities. This entails determining the characteristics of the campus setting that 

contribute to susceptibility to hazards and the ability of the institution to respond 

to an event. As discussed previously (see p. 30), a vulnerability assessment identifies 

areas of weakness that could result in undesirable consequences for the campus or 

community. For colleges and universities, these areas of weakness could include 

particular aspects of an institution’s structure, procedures, equipment, systems, 

grounds, and surroundings. As noted earlier, many campuses have open access to 

buildings and grounds, which increases vulnerability. Some vulnerabilities can be 

identified through an inspection of buildings and grounds:

•	 Structural hazards refer to actual structural issues within the building, such 

as weak roofs or trusses, building susceptibility to high winds or floods, 

unreinforced masonry, and unsecured or unsafe windows. 

•	 Maintenance-related hazards could include unstable bookshelves, exposed 

wiring, wet floors, unsafe practices in science labs or with chemical elements, 

exposure to asbestos, unsecured appliances and vending machines, malfunction 

of heating and ventilation systems, blocked exits, and general fire hazards.

•	 Grounds hazards include such issues as unsafe landscaping, poorly maintained 

outdoor equipment, exposed electrical wires or gas lines, exposed nails, or 

unsecured storage structures. 

Source: Akers, J. & Lassiter, B. Prevention-Mitigation. (April 2008). Presentation at the U.S. 

Department of Education Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools’ Emergency Management for Schools

Training, New Orleans.

P

RO

BABILITY

SEVERITY

 LOW MED HIGH

HIGH

MED

LOW

Hurricane

Tornado

Flood Violence

Hazmat Spill
38

A vulnerability assessment also is supported by applying the principles of Crime 

Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED): 

•	 Natural surveillance – ability to see what is occurring in a particular setting;

•	 Natural access control – ability to restrict who enters or exits an environment; 

and

•	 Territorial maintenance – ability to demonstrate ownership of and respect for 

property.

The assessment should identify instances where these features could be improved.

Another key component of vulnerability assessment is perhaps the most 

challenging—assessing campus culture and climate. Colleges and universities should 

foster a culture of respect and create an environment that lessens the chance of 

a violent incident. To do this, institutions pursue a number of strategies, such as 

creating connections between faculty and students and encouraging an environment 

of openness and disclosure. There are a number of assessment tools available to 

colleges and universities to evaluate their culture and climate. These tools can help 

point to areas that need attention. Obviously, improving culture and climate is an 

ongoing and long-term endeavor.

Leadership in an Emergency Situation

The incident command system, as described earlier (see p. 9), is a standardized, on-scene, all-hazard management 

structure that allows its users—higher education institutions and first responders—to operate together to 

meet the demands of emergency situations without encountering barriers in functioning due to jurisdictional 

boundaries. As FEMA explains in their ICS-100 course, Introduction to the Incident Command System, the 

basic organization of the incident command system entails several key elements relating to the organization of 

command. 

For one, having a unified command establishes a single command structure for all respective agencies to work 

under (e.g., fire, police, SWAT). It includes common response objectives and strategies and the ability for agency 

incident commanders to work together in joint decision-making. 

Transfer of command also ensures the emergency is handled effectively by always placing control of the 

situation in the hands of the best-equipped entity. Transfer of command occurs in the following circumstances: 

•	 When a more qualified entity assumes command;

•	 When the incident changes so as to legally require a change in command;

•	 When personnel change shifts during a prolonged incident; or

•	 When the incident response is concluded and control is returned to the home agency (here, the higher 

education institution). 

An emergency plan for higher education institutions will entail an incident command system made up of 

campus personnel, including a designated incident commander. When first responders arrive on campus to 

respond to an emergency, the higher education incident commander will typically transfer command to the first 

responders’ incident commander, who will operate response efforts from a unified command structure.
39

If an emergency were to occur, how prepared would the institution be to respond? 

A major purpose for conducting an assessment and developing an emergency 

management plan is to improve preparedness and response capability. Ask key 

questions that pertain to the Preparedness and Response phases of emergency 

management: 

•	 How well defined are campus policies and procedures for responding to 

emergencies? 

•	 How well established are relationships with first responders and other community 

partners?

•	 Would it be clear who is in charge when responding to an emergency and how 

leadership responsibility will be handled as the emergency evolves (see Figure 2.)? 

Figure 2. NIMS Organizational Chart, Modified for a College Campus

Source: Chart courtesy of Gallaudet University, adapted from Director Harry Aziz’s presentation at ACAP’s 

Crisis Management – Protecting our Students Workshop, Oct. 30, 2007, Baltimore, Md.
40

Example of NIMS Training: California Systemwide Community Colleges

In 2007, the California College Systems Office began offering systemwide training for all 

California community college districts and colleges on NIMS and the state Standardized 

Emergency Management System (SEMS) as a result of funding from the Governor’s Office of 

Homeland Security. Initial training opportunities were held for two types of college personnel: 

chief executive officers, and emergency and safety personnel. The CEOs received training from 

the University of West Virginia’s VMC/Homeland Security Programs and a SEMS executive 

course that fulfills one of the requirements for CEO training under NIMS and SEMS, while the 

emergency and safety personnel received training on college risk assessment planning. Trainings 

also included time to network with other community college personnel. Chancellor Mark 

Drummond encouraged all district and college CEOs and emergency and safety personnel to 

attend a training to ensure their colleges and communities are prepared in the area of emergency 

management. More information on this effort is available at: http://emergency.cccco.edu.

•	 Is there a defined procedure for communicating with students and others on the 

campus to alert them of the emergency? Are multiple modes of communication 

available, including cell phone broadcasts, Web site postings, notification 

through media outlets, and campus warning alarm systems?

•	 Are radio systems of campus police or security personnel interoperable with local 

law enforcement first responders? 

•	 Are there plans in place for communicating with the media?

Thinking through these questions will help determine where the most work in 

developing an emergency management plan needs to be done.

Assess Potential Consequences and Impacts of Emergency Events 

The assessment of consequences measures the range of loss or damage that would 

occur from the impact of an incident. For colleges and universities, this should 

include the disruption of the social and physical learning environment—whether 

short or long term—as well as subsequent psychological impact on the college 

community. Estimating the potential for death and injury is a critical aspect of 

consequences assessment. Another key component is estimation of financial losses, 

such as liability for death or injury, repairs to buildings and grounds, and loss of 

revenue due to disruption of operations. 

To accurately estimate potential losses from an emergency event, it is necessary to 

take inventory of assets at the institution. For buildings, the inventory should include 

square footage, construction materials, contents and equipment inside of buildings, 

uses of the building, and occupancy levels at different points in time during the 

year The inventory should address infrastructure as well—utilities, communications 

systems, and transportation systems. An assets inventory is critical when estimating 

potential losses from specific events, such as a flood, earthquake, or fire.
41

The estimation of losses from an emergency event is conventionally organized in 

broad categories of life, property, and function. For IHEs, losses may be estimated in 

terms of harm to persons (often measured in numbers of injuries or deaths), financial 

costs related to buildings and equipment, lost revenues, and other conventional 

measures. Other measures of loss are particular to the college and university setting—

e.g., loss of instructional time, research data, and unique historical artifacts or other 

valuable assets present on campus.

Identifying Prevention, Mitigation, and Preparation Action Items

From the tasks performed by the assessment team, a list of action items should be 

compiled. These action items could include the following:

•	 Install access controls for selected buildings and campus areas; 

•	 Make structural improvements to buildings;

•	 Conduct maintenance projects, such as securing bookshelves and display cases to 

walls and securing lab equipment;

•	 Make improvements in landscaping, such as removing objects that might impair 

visibility through windows to the outside;

•	 Install systems for communicating with students and others on campus to notify 

them of an emergency;

•	 Enhance radio systems to ensure interoperability with local law enforcement;

•	 Improve security technology, such as security cameras, access control, and alarm 

systems; and

•	 Update structural design as applied to new construction or the retrofitting of 

existing structures.

National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities

Each type of campus facility has unique safety and security needs. The National Clearinghouse for 

Educational Facilities (NCEF) has created assessment questions and checklists for virtually every 

type of facility or area on a campus. The Web site also offers articles on prevention and mitigation 

actions that are appropriate for indoors and outside on campus grounds. The NCEF assessment 

tools and articles can be found at www.ncef.org. 
42

These action items will eventually be incorporated into the emergency management 

plan document. The items identified should be subjected to a costs-benefit analysis. 

Some items can be accomplished at little cost. Others may be very costly, requiring 

the identification of funding sources and an analysis of budgetary impact. A 

prioritization of items on the list can be established using criteria of cost, benefits 

accrued from risk reduction, and estimated frequency of occurrence for the 

hazard involved.

This section discussed the second step in a four-step process for developing and 

implementing an emergency management plan at the IHE level. In identifying 

hazards and conducting a risk assessment, an IHE positions itself to write a plan 

based on relevant facts and systematic analysis. A thorough effort in identifying 

hazards and conducting risk assessment makes the job of writing a plan considerably 

easier and leads to a higher-quality product.
43

step 3: developing or updating 

an emergency management plan

The third step in developing and implementing an emergency management plan is to 

draft—or review and update—the emergency management plan. Using campus and 

community data and resources and the departmental plans, an all-hazard, campusbased emergency management plan can be developed, modified, or updated. Much 

of the work done during assessment (see step 2) will carry over and serve as the basis 

for the plan. 

It is important to remember that the campus and relevant partners should collaborate 

to develop the comprehensive plan. In addition, certain campus entities may require 

separate plans of their own, such as an athletic stadium or university hospital. These 

plans should be stand-alone with respect to that specific entity, but also should be 

rolled into the campuswide emergency plan. 

The tasks to be accomplished in this step are: 

 Ensure that the plan incorporates the key principles that will contribute to 

successful emergency management operations. 

 Consider the results of work done in step 2, including identification of 

hazards, threats, and vulnerabilities indicated by conducting a risk assessment.

 Act on planning elements emerging from each of the four phases of 

emergency management: Prevention-Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and 

Recovery. 

Incorporate Key Principles

Every plan should incorporate several general components. The plan should:

•	 Establish points of responsibility consistent with the National Incident 

Management System (NIMS) (see http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims for 

more information on NIMS).
44

•	 Demonstrate meaningful collaboration with community partners.

•	 Reflect an all-hazards approach to emergency management. 

•	 Address elements within the boundaries of the four phases of emergency 

management framework.

•	 Document approval of the plan by the appropriate authorities.

•	 Show alignment with federal, state, and local emergency management plans and 

guidelines. 

•	 Specify accommodation for people with disabilities or other special needs.

•	 Provide a timeline for maintaining and updating the plan.

Consider Hazards, Threats, and Vulnerabilities Identification From 

Risk Assessment

When developing the plan, the results of step 2—identification of hazards and risk 

assessment—should be considered. Step 2 results could include:

•	 Results on research as to past occurrences of hazards at the college or university, 

covering all hazard types. 

•	 Profiling and prioritization of hazards resulting from an assessment of frequency 

and severity of potential hazards.

•	 Summary information on vulnerabilities of the institution to potential hazards as 

identified in a facilities and grounds assessment, surveys of campus culture and 

climate, or other sources; also, conclusions on the ability of the institution to 

respond to various hazards. 

•	 Information on the potential consequences of hazards likely to occur, including 

estimates of loss. 

National Incident Management System and Higher Education Institutions

Are colleges and universities required to implement NIMS? Any colleges or universities that 

receive federal preparedness funds are required to adopt NIMS. In addition, Homeland Security 

Presidential Directive/HSPD-5 requires all federal agencies to adopt NIMS, and requires state 

and local jurisdictions to adopt NIMS to receive federal preparedness funding. While colleges and 

universities do not qualify as first responders, it is similarly recommended that these institutions 

work with the community on emergency preparedness activities. This includes the collaboration 

of college and university emergency preparedness personnel with the community’s emergency 

response personnel and the use of NIMS and ICS. 

See National Incident Management System at the Board of Regents of the University System of 

Georgia at: http://www.usg.edu/publicsafety/resources/index.phtml?res=5. 
45

These findings should inform all components of an institution’s emergency 

management plan, shaping the strategies, procedures, and practices implemented in 

each of a plan’s four phases of emergency management. 

Address the Four Phases of Emergency Management 

Next, the plan should include a section on elements related to each of the four phases 

of emergency management, as earlier described. Building on the risk assessment, 

the plan should describe the decisions, activities, and programs that pertain to 

Prevention-Mitigation of emergencies, addressing such questions as:

•	 What actions have been taken and will be taken to prevent campus violence?

•	 What actions have been taken and will be taken to mitigate the impacts of an 

unavoidable natural disaster?

•	 Who is responsible and involved in crisis prevention and mitigation at the college 

or university? How are community partners involved in this?

•	 What training and practice has been conducted or will be conducted to support 

prevention and mitigation activities?

To address Preparedness, the plan should adopt and endorse the incident command 

system and acknowledge how ICS will be applied during a crisis. To the extent this 

can be done ahead of time, specific roles and responsibilities should be assigned to 

individuals or position types in the institutional system. If possible, the plan should 

describe how coordination with community partners will take place and what roles 

community partners will play in different types of emergencies. If MOUs have been 

developed in this regard, these MOUs can be incorporated into the plan document.

Example of Coordinated Response: Stanford University Emergency Event 

Classification System

The Stanford University Campus Emergency Plan calls for triaging an emergency in a three-level 

classification system. Level 1 is a minor incident that is quickly resolved with internal resources 

or limited help. Level 2 is a more significant emergency that impacts critical infrastructure, 

a building, or multiple buildings and that may potentially affect life safety or mission-critical 

functions. For level 2, the emergency plan is activated, and an operational subset of a larger 

emergency management team, the Situation Triage and Assessment Team (STAT), determines 

the magnitude of the emergency and coordinates its resolution or, if the emergency continues 

to develop, activates level 3 response. Level 3 is a disaster that involves the entire campus and 

surrounding community. At Level 3, the emergency plan is activated, and the entire emergency 

management organization across the campus mobilizes.
46

Other factors to consider in Preparedness: 

•	 Articulate policies, protocols, and guidelines in the plan that directly prepare the 

college or university for an emergency. Examples include guidelines for when 

evacuation or a shelter-in-place response should be invoked, what emergency 

supplies need to be available, where building floor plans are to be maintained 

and made available, and how transportation-related issues will be handled. 

If contracts have been negotiated to provide supplies or transportation in an 

emergency, these should be identified in the plan.

•	 Incorporate a communications plan—one that covers communications with 

the campus community, the surrounding community, the media, parents and 

families of students, and other stakeholders. 

•	 Outline the training and practice to be conducted. This should include a full 

range of training and drills, from simple orientation to full-scale simulation 

drills. Training and practice requirements vary greatly by role and position 

within the college or university. It takes some work, but it is important to think 

through and specify a training plan for each type of position.

If a thorough job has been done in addressing Preparedness in the plan, the job of 

addressing the Response phase will be relatively straightforward. In the Response

section, the plan could:

•	 Articulate specifically how mobilization and activation of the plans and 

protocols—those that pertain to the incident command system and 

communications, for example—will take place.

•	 Articulate distinct criteria for activating an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) 

in response to a crisis of moderate or severe intensity. Activation of the EOC 

is often accompanied by designation of a particular individual or position as 

incident commander.

•	 Specify how documentation of the event will occur and who is responsible for 

doing this. This documentation is necessary for after-event debriefing session. 

The debriefing is also important for reviewing with the involved emergency 

responders both what went right and what went wrong.

In the plan, all the components of the Recovery phase should be 

addressed—physical and structural recovery, business and administrative continuity, 

resumption of academic learning, and emotional and mental recovery of those 

involved. The plan might discuss:
47

•	 Conducting a physical and structural damage assessment and making decisions 

about building closures. The plan should articulate guidelines for decisions for 

both closures and reopenings.

•	 Documenting procedures for how physical and structural repairs are to be 

initiated.

•	 Drafting a continuity of operations plan (COOP) that describes how to handle 

payroll and other key aspects of doing business in the college or university.

•	 Designing guidelines for how resumption of learning activities will be 

accomplished. Will there need to be alternative sites for parts of or the 

institution’s entire learning program? Flexibility and innovation may be the keys 

here.

•	 Recognizing that the emotional and mental health of students, faculty, staff, or 

other involved parties is a paramount concern. Post-traumatic stress disorder 

(PTSD) is a serious health concern. The early stages of Recovery are the best 

opportunity to mitigate the impacts of this. Resources for mental health 

counseling at the institution and in the surrounding community should be 

identified ahead of time.

•	 Anticipating certain practical matters that could become logistical issues, for 

example, procedures for receiving donations and procedures for screening 

volunteers to help with recovery efforts.

Drafting an emergency management plan is step 3 in the four-step process. 

Completing a draft of the plan is a major milestone in planning, but there is more 

work to be done. In step 4, the plan enters the phase of implementation, monitoring, 

and updating.
48
49

step 4: adopting and

implementing an emergency

management plan

Once an emergency management plan has been drafted, attention can shift to 

getting the plan adopted and implemented. Plans need to be dynamic and adaptable, 

not documents that sit on a shelf and are never used or consulted. How does 

implementation happen? The tasks in this final step of the process are: 

 Subject the draft plan to a thorough review and approval process.

 Communicate and distribute the plan in various forms to a full range of 

involved parties.

 Test and practice the plan in training sessions, drills, and exercises. 

 Implement the action items outlined related to prevention, mitigation, and 

preparedness.

 Monitor and update the plan on an ongoing and regular basis, with assistance 

from after-action reports following exercises and corrective action reports 

following actual emergencies, and using lessons learned.

Review and Adopt the Plan

Early in the planning process, provision should have been made for review and 

approval of the plan document. Review and approval processes are an opportunity 

to communicate the contents of the plan to planning committee team members and 

community partners, improve upon it by incorporating review feedback, and build 

support for the plan with governing boards and senior administrative officials. 

The campus emergency management committee, advisory board, or task force should 

review all documentation in collaboration with community partners. This review 

serves multiple purposes:

•	 Ensure that campus plans are aligned with and integrated into local, state, and 

federal law enforcement and emergency management guidelines and policies; 
50

•	 Identify and resolve any inconsistencies or overlaps among departmental actions; 

•	 Ensure that all responsibilities and procedures are consistent with NIMS and ICS 

functions; and 

•	 Ensure that the campus is not subject to any legal liability. 

After this review, the emergency management plan should be finalized, modified, or 

updated on a regular basis. 

Of course, approval processes vary depending upon the structure and policies of the 

institution. Whatever is required, the plan should receive a formal approval and 

become an official policy document for the institution. 

The adoption of the plan also can reflect the endorsement of several stakeholders. 

In addition to the approval of a chancellor or president and a governing board, 

endorsements can be sought from the business and administrative departments 

of the institution, from local emergency management agencies, local public safety 

agencies, and local political jurisdictions. This is also an opportunity to include 

student groups, for example, by obtaining an endorsement from the student 

government body.

Communicate and Distribute the Plan

The emergency management plan must be disseminated, communicated, and 

marketed to a variety of involved parties and stakeholders, including faculty, staff, 

students, parents, community partners, and the media. Each distinct stakeholder will 

receive a different part of the emergency plan—only the component most relevant 

to their respective roles in emergencies. For example, food service workers should 

receive information about food safety and infectious diseases. For maintenance and 

custodial staff, the emphasis may be on floor plans about campus buildings and the 

importance of regularly updating the floor plans and having the plans accessible 

in various formats (e.g., paper, electronic copies). All entities should know that a 

complete plan exists, but that for security reasons, the details of the master plan are 

not publicized. Few stakeholders will receive the complete plan. 
51

Developing a marketing and dissemination plan of the various components will 

involve collaboration among campus administration, department heads, the public 

information officer, student affairs, community partners, and the media. Each 

stakeholder may require a different type of marketing strategy and a variety of 

communication modalities. 

It is likely the full plan will be a large document organized in a notebook or posted 

on a secure campus Web site. For students and families, the campus Web site is the 

most effective communication mechanism. Faculty and staff may want to access 

publicly viewable parts of the plan via an Intranet Web site. Summary components 

tailored to stakeholders’ interests and perspectives also can be presented in laminated 

one-page documents able to be posted and readily accessible for periodic review. 

Quick reference guides, or “pocket guides,” may be an important format for 

communicating the essential components of the plan and making its contents more 

accessible during an emergency event. 

Partnerships with the media should be strategic and ongoing. Developing a media 

communication plan with various media outlets will result in a collaborative effort 

to disseminate timely and accurate information to the public. The media can be 

sent press releases about the emergency plan and any exercises that the campus may 

conduct. Asking media outlets to be active participants in exercises will emphasize 

the importance of a strong working relationship between the campus and media. 

Test and Practice the Plan

Higher education institutions have come to expect the unexpected. The more the 

plan is practiced and people are trained on the plan, the better the campus responds 

to emergencies in a comprehensive and effective manner. The ability to do this comes 

from practice. Exercises are an effective way to identify gaps and weaknesses in the 

plan and to train students, staff, faculty, and campus administrators in the emergency 

management procedures. All practicing and training must be done in conjunction 

with relevant community partners and should focus on the key procedures and 

strategies outlined in the plan. There are five types of exercises; each requires different 

levels of planning, time, people involved, and resources: 

•	 Orientation meetings will increase awareness among all stakeholders about why 

and how the plan was developed and provide an overview of the plan’s contents. 

These meetings should include campus administration, department heads, the 

public information officer, student affairs, community partners, first responders, 

and the media. 
52

•	 Tabletop exercises are discussions about a scenario and how the campus or 

a department will prepare for, respond to, or recover from an emergency. 

Participants, from faculty and staff to department heads, campus administrators, 

and emergency planners, discuss potential challenges, and identify solutions. 

•	 Drills involve one or only a few community partners (e.g., law enforcement, fire) 

and relevant campus staff that use the actual campus grounds and buildings to 

drill on how to respond to a scenario. 

•	 Functional exercises are similar to drills but will likely involve multiple partners 

and campus staff. Participants react to realistic simulated events (e.g., a bomb 

in a residence hall and an intruder with a gun in a classroom). Participants 

implement the plan and procedures using the Incident Command System (ICS) 

protocol. 

•	 Full-scale exercises are the most time-consuming activity in the exercise 

continuum and are a multiagency, multi-jurisdiction effort in which all resources 

are deployed. This type of exercise tests collaboration among the agencies 

and participants, public information systems, communications systems, and 

equipment. An EOC is established, and the ICS is activated. 

Before making a decision about which type of exercise to facilitate, a higher 

education institution should consider varying factors, including the amount of time 

and resources and collaborative support required to execute the activity balanced 

against the outcome of the experience. For example, while a tabletop exercise may be 

cheaper and less time-consuming to run, a full-scale exercise provides a more realistic 

context for the simulated response to an emergency situation, thus providing more 

constructive feedback to implement into plans. 

What Is a Tabletop Exercise?

Tabletop exercises analyze an emergency event in an informal, stress-free environment. They 

provide participants with an emergency scenario to analyze and increase their awareness of the 

roles and responsibilities of individuals who need to respond, stabilize, terminate, and help others 

recover from emergencies. They are designed to prompt a constructive discussion about existing 

emergency response plans as participants identify, investigate, and resolve issues. (“Emergency 

Exercises: An Effective Way to Validate School Safety Plans,” ERCM Express Newsletter, Vol.2, Issue 

3, 2006) 

For example, a tabletop exercise might bring together campus emergency planners and local first 

responders to discuss planning and response efforts to any number of emergencies that might occur 

on campus, including an active shooter or a pandemic outbreak. Together, the institution and their 

partners review preventive abilities, preparedness for such a situation, and capacities for responding 

and recovering from the emergency to determine areas for improvement and possible revisions to 

the institution’s emergency plan. 
53

To successfully execute any type of exercise, consider the following: 

•	 Involve students, faculty, and staff in the exercise to provide a different 

perspective about the plan. 

•	 Communicate information in advance to avoid panic and concern. 

•	 Develop and practice a wide range of scenarios, based on the risk, threat, and 

hazard assessments of the campus. 

- Identify or try to identify the most likely event(s) the campus might 

encounter by consulting risk assessment data. 

- Include a variety of response procedures. 

- Practice and train under different conditions (e.g., time of day, 

weather, points in the academic calendar, and various campus events). 

•	 Be consistent with common emergency management terminology, such as ICS. 

•	 Debrief after each exercise and develop an after-action report. The report 

should evaluate and document results, identify lessons learned, and discuss how 

the emergency management plan and procedures will be modified, if needed. 

Designation of responsibility for modifying the plan should be specified. 

It is important to remember that the emergency management plan is a dynamic 

document and should be practiced, modified, and updated on a yearly basis. The 

emergency management plan should include timelines for updating and should 

describe how campus staff will ensure that the plan aligns with current best practices 

for emergency management on campuses. 
54

Implement Emergency Management Plan Action Items

As the emergency management plan was developed, a number of action items were 

identified, many related to prevention, mitigation, and preparedness. The risk 

assessment process identified areas of weakness with respect to vulnerabilities and 

response capabilities, coupled with specific action items for improvement in these 

areas. In the implementation phase, these action items are addressed one-by-one. 

Some may require approval and scheduling through capital improvement programs, 

maintenance programs, or other established systems. Some items will require the 

identification of funding sources and inclusion in budgets for the organization. For 

all items, points of responsibility and a specific schedule for implementation should 

be identified.

Emergency Management Plans of Institutions of Higher Education: 

Site-specific Documents 

As mentioned earlier, there is no template or model emergency management plan that will 

suit every higher education institution. A strong emergency plan addresses the four phases of 

emergency management, defines key issues and vulnerabilities, capitalizes on institutional and 

community resources, and describes the roles and responsibilities of designated school officials as 

they integrate with community agencies. Plans should be developed based upon site-specific issues 

and validated through a number of collaborative exercises: site assessments, needs assessments (see 

page 31), inventories, meetings, and emergency exercises, including drills and tabletops. 

The broad array of personnel and providers; the range of available resources; the scope and type 

of facilities, equipment, and structures; and the vast diversity in geographical, cultural, and social 

climates of an institution invariably will make plans very different from one locale to the next. 

As such, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools advocates 

that IHEs engage in a thorough and inclusive emergency plan development process, as opposed 

to adapting or tailoring a preexisting plan from another institution. Only an institution that 

has undergone all of the aforementioned steps can know what is necessary to include in their 

individualized emergency plan. In addition, a plan is not only unique but also private to an 

institution. That is, a security interest exists in keeping aspects of an emergency management plans 

protected from public access.

Lest sharing of existing or sample plans be construed as prescriptive, no links or excerpts from 

sample or existing higher education institution emergency management plans are provided 

within this section of the document. However, valuable lessons from the field of emergency 

management relating to IHEs are eminently appropriate for distribution. In spring of 2008, the 

U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, in partnership with Health 

and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), 

launched the Emergency Management for Higher Education grant program to support emergency 

preparedness planning for higher education institutions. In the future, important lessons learned 

from the subsidized efforts of these institutions will likely be shared with the field to supplement 

this guide and elucidate recommendations and key practices. 
55

In many college and university systems, emergency management does not have a 

distinct or separate program budget. Institutions may want to establish a separate 

budget for emergency management as a means of emphasizing its support of 

emergency management objectives and facilitating the achievement of those 

objectives. A separate budget is one way to clarify what resources are needed for the 

emergency management program and sustain a level of commitment to the program 

over time. 

Another type of action item in emergency management is the implementation 

of programs related to prevention and mitigation of hazards. For example, the 

institution may determine that it needs to conduct a campus culture and climate 

assessment (see page 33) and follow up with programs aimed at reducing the risk 

of violence on campus. The institution may not have a thorough threat assessment 

process in place in which case the development of such a process becomes a clear 

action item.

Monitor and Update the Plan

There are several ways to keep an emergency management plan fresh and subject 

to continuous improvement. Every time a training session or drill is conducted, 

there is an opportunity to identify weaknesses in the plan—things that need to be 

changed or added. Every time there is an actual emergency, be it minor or major, 

there is an opportunity to improve the plan based upon an after-action debriefing. 

After-action reports that follow exercises and corrective action reports that follow 

actual emergencies can provide important insights for plan improvements based on 

lessons learned. Over time, it is possible to identify more effective ways to prevent 

and mitigate emergencies, better ways to prepare for and respond to emergencies, 

and better ways to recover from them. Certainly, problems that surface in responding 

to an emergency will lead directly to ways to improve preparation. All of these 

improvements should be reflected in updates to the emergency management plan.

Suggestions for improvement can come from many sources. Emergency first 

responders in the local community are a great resource in this regard. As conditions 

in the community change, the plan may need to adapt. As the profession of 

emergency management evolves, new ideas and practices will come to light that can 

lead to plan updates. Suggestions for improvement also can come from faculty, staff, 

and others who are involved in training sessions and drills. Emergency management 

is everyone’s concern.
56

As a general rule, the emergency management plan should undergo a relatively 

thorough review on an annual basis. It may be necessary to update the risk 

assessment work in the original plan and incorporate new information or changing 

conditions. As with all planning and implementation initiatives, there is a danger 

that enthusiasm will wane as time passes. An annual review and update process 

is a way to combat this problem and renew enthusiasm for a vigorous emergency 

management program. Another tactic for sustaining interest is to publicize the 

successes and accomplishments of the program to campus and community members, 

such as the completion of building structural improvements or the launching of an 

improved communications and notification system on campus. 

After-action Reporting: Part of the Homeland Security Exercise and 

Evaluation Program

FEMA’s Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) provides standardized 

policy, methodology, and terminology for exercise design, development, conduct, evaluation, and 

improvement planning. HSEEP recommends four performance requirements: 

1. Conducting an annual training and exercise plan workshop and developing and maintaining a 

Multi-Year Training and Exercise Plan. 

2. Planning and conducting exercises in accordance with the guidelines set forth in HSEEP, vols. 

I–III. 

3. Developing and submitting a properly formatted After-Action Report/Improvement Plan 

(AAR/IP). The format for the AAR/IP is found in HSEEP, vol. III. 

4. Tracking and implementing corrective actions identified in the AAR/IP.

After-action report templates, along with other information on conducting and evaluating 

drills and exercises, are available online at FEMA’s HSEEP Web site at: https://hseep.dhs.gov/

pages/1001_HSEEP7.aspx. 
57

conclusion

This action guide has offered many suggestions for developing and implementing 

an emergency management plan for institutions of higher education. The plan 

should address all four phases of emergency management—Prevention-Mitigation, 

Preparation, Response, and Recovery. It should take an all-hazards approach, which 

means not only should it consider a full range of potential hazards, but it should 

recognize as well that there are commonalities across hazard types in practicing 

emergency management throughout the four phases. Leadership support within the 

institution is critical to the success of an emergency management planning effort. As 

noted, colleges and universities present unique characteristics relevant to emergency 

management. For these reasons, emergency management planning at each institution 

must be individualized and take into account the circumstances and characteristics at 

each specific campus. Also, as noted, a collaborative approach building partnerships 

both inside and outside the institutional system is a key success factor in emergency 

management planning.

Colleges and universities are places of learning. It is only appropriate that a spirit of 

learning and information sharing should be reflected in the emergency management 

planning process. Recent events are keen reminders of the need to be ready in the 

event that immediate activation of a comprehensive campuswide emergency plan 

with procedures for coordinating responses and recovery activities, regardless of the 

emergency, is warranted. All institutions of higher education undoubtedly see their 

obligations in this critical endeavor, and it is hoped that this guide provides helpful 

information towards improving and strengthening the broader field of emergency 

management for higher education
58

FEMA’s Emergency Management Higher Education Project Principles to 

Guide Emergency Management Plan Development

1. Comprehensive—emergency managers consider and take into account all hazards, all phases, 

all stakeholders, and all impacts relevant to disasters. 

2. Progressive—emergency managers anticipate future disasters and take preventive and 

preparatory measures to build disaster-resistant and disaster-resilient communities. 

3. Risk-driven—emergency managers use sound risk management principles (hazard 

identification, risk analysis, and impact analysis) in assigning priorities and resources. 

4. Integrated—emergency managers ensure unity of effort among all levels of government and all 

elements of a community. 

5. Collaborative—emergency managers create and sustain broad and sincere relationships 

among individuals and organizations to encourage trust, advocate a team atmosphere, build 

consensus, and facilitate communication. 

6. Coordinated—emergency managers synchronize the activities of all relevant stakeholders to 

achieve a common purpose. 

7. Flexible—emergency managers use creative and innovative approaches in solving disaster 

challenges. 

8. Professional—emergency managers value a science and knowledge-based approach based 

on education, training, experience, ethical practice, public stewardship, and continuous 

improvement. 

More information on these principles and the Higher Education Project is available at FEMA’s 

Emergency Management Institute at: http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/emprinciples.asp.
59

bibliography

This bibliography provides useful resources for further information on 

emergency management regarding IHEs.

61

bibliography 

Akers, J. & Lassiter, B. Prevention-Mitigation. (April 2008). Presentation at the U.S. 

Department of Education Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools’ Emergency Management 

for Schools Training, New Orleans.

Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. National Incident Management 

System. (2006). Available at http://www.usg.edu/publicsafety/resources/index.

phtml?res=5 (accessed Jan. 1, 2009).

International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA). 

Campus Preparedness Resource Center. (2008). Available at http://www.iaclea.org/

visitors/wmdcpt/cprc/aboutcprc.cfm (accessed Jan. 1, 2009).

Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act. (2008). 

Available at http://www.securityoncampus.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=art

icle&id=271&Itemid=60 (accessed Jan. 1, 2009).

National Association of College and University Attorneys. NOTES on FERPA and 

Campus Safety. (Vol. 5, No. 4, August 2007). Available at http://www.nacua.org/

documents/ferpa2.pdf (accessed Jan. 1, 2009).

National Integration Center (NIC) Incident Management Systems Integration Division. 

(2008). Available at http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims (accessed Jan. 1, 2009).

Suttell, Robin. “Security: A Blueprint for Reducing Risk.” Buildings, Feb. 2006, v100 n2, 

p. 34–39.

Tulane University. A Plan for Renewal. (Dec. 2005). Available at http://renewal.tulane.

edu/renewalplan.pdf (accessed Jan. 1, 2009).

U.S. Department of Education. Balancing Student Privacy and School Safety: A Guide 

to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act for Colleges and Universities. (2008). 

Available at http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/brochures/postsec.pdf (accessed Jan. 

1, 2009).

U.S. Department of Education. “Emergency Exercises: An Effective Way to Validate 

School Safety Plans,” ERCM Express Newsletter, Vol.2, Issue 3, (2006). Available at http://

rems.ed.gov/views/documents/Emergency_NewsletterV213.pdf (accessed Jan. 1, 2009).

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of 

Education Statistics. (2006). Available at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/ (accessed Jan. 

1, 2009).

U.S. Department of Education. A Guide to Vulnerability Assessments: Key Principles for Safe 

Schools. (2008). Available at http://www.ed.gov/emergencyplan (accessed Jan. 1, 2009).
62

U.S. Department of Education. Practical Information on Crisis Planning: A Guide for 

Schools and Communities. (Revised January 2007). Available at http://www.ed.gov/

emergencyplan (accessed Jan. 1, 2009).

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

Building a Disaster-Resistant University. (2003). Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/

viewRecord.do?id=1565 (accessed Jan. 1, 2009).

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

Emergency Management Institute. (2008). Available at http://training.fema.gov (accessed 

Jan. 1, 2009).

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

Emergency Management Guide for Business & Industry. (2006). Available at http://www.

fema.gov/business/guide/toc.shtm (accessed Jan. 1, 2009).

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program. (2008). Available at https://hseep.

dhs.gov/pages/1001_HSEEP7.aspx (accessed Jan. 1, 2009).

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. State 

and Local Guide SLG 101: Guide for All-Hazards Emergency Operations Planning. (Sept. 

1996). Available at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/plan/slg101.pdf (accessed Jan. 1, 2009).

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

Higher Education Program Emergency Management Principles documents. (2008). 

Available at http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/emprinciples.asp (accessed Jan. 1, 

2009).

University of Florida. University of Florida Emergency Management Plan. (2005). Available 

at http://www.ehs.ufl.edu/disasterplan/UFEMP.pdf (accessed Jan. 1, 2009).

University of Maryland. University of Maryland Emergency, Operations Plan Standard 

Operating Procedures Development. (2006). Available at http://www.umd.edu/

emergencypreparedness/umeop/pdfs/sop_dev.pdf (accessed Jan. 1, 2009).

University of Michigan. Occupational Safety and Environmental Health Business 

Continuity Planning—Pandemic Disease. (2006). Available at http://www.oseh.umich.

edu/buscont/index.html (accessed Jan. 1, 2009).

Virtual Medical Campus/West Virginia University Homeland Security Planning for 

Campus Executives workshop. (2005). Available at http://vmc.wvu.edu/projects.htm

(accessed Jan. 1, 2009).

Bibliography (Cont’d)
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation 

for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. 

www.ed.gov