Volume 36, No. 1 - January/ February 2006 Campus Law

Transcription

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006 / 37
38 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
Vol. 36, No. 1
2005-2006 Board of Directors
January/February 2006
Contents
President
Priscilla Stevens
College of Southern Maryland
Valencia Community College Welcomes IACLEA ................................................. 16
President Elect
Steven J. Healy
Princeton University
NIMS/ICS Instructor Training Program Complete, Instructors Are Ready to Roll .. 19
IACLEA’s 2006 Annual Conference and Exposition to be held at Disney’s Coronado Springs
Resort in Orlando, Florida
By Robert Mueck, IACLEA ICS Trainer
Sixteen IACLEA members spend two weeks in the first Critical Incident Management train-thetrainer program
Treasurer
Lisa A. Sprague
Florida State University
Examining Campus Crime at American Colleges and Universities ........................ 21
Immediate Past President
Kenneth A. Willett
University of Montana
By Giuseppe M. Fazari, Ph.D.
Research design provides more comprehensive understanding of campus crime
Customer Service and the Fear of Crime ............................................................... 27
Directors
Daniel Hutt
University of Toronto
Canada
By Richard Parfitt, Lieutenant, University of Pittsburgh Police Department
Customer service is vital to success of any business and public safety departments are no
exception
Jean Luc Mahieu
University of Brussels
International
Raymond H. Thrower, Jr.
Gustavus Adolphus College
Mid-America
By Dan Korem
Distinguish between protest groups that commit non-lethal incidents and Random Actors in a
group who might kill
Mid-Atlantic
Reality Based Campus Security ............................................................................. 34
James J. Bonner, Jr.
Arcadia University
Steven J. Rittereiser
Mountain Pacific
Central Washington University
Paul L. Ominsky
Mount Holyoke College
North Atlantic
Jasper Cooke
Augusta State University
Southeast
Robert K. Bratten
Southwest
University of Texas Health Science Ctr.
Phillip A. Johnson
University of Notre Dame
At-Large
Marlon C. Lynch
Vanderbilt University
At-Large
David M. Worden
At-Large
San Diego Community College District
Chief Staff Officer/Editor in Chief
Peter J. Berry, CAE
Managing Editor
Karen E. Breseman
Production Director
Gene Mandish
Advertising Coordinator
Karen E. Breseman
Profiling Random Actors and Averting Campus Incidents ..................................... 30
By Jack F. Dowling, CPP, PSP, JD Security Consultants, LLC
Creating an atmosphere both conducive to learning and secure enough to deter criminal
activity
Departments
President’s Message ................................................................................................. 2
Association News ..................................................................................................... 5
Member News ........................................................................................................ 13
On the Cover
Valencia Community College welcomes IACLEA to Orlando as it hosts IACLEA’s
48th Annual Conference and Exposition June 24-27, 2006. (See article on page
16).
Campus Law Enforcement Journal is the official publication of the International Association of Campus
Law Enforcement Administrators. It is published bimonthly and dedicated to the promotion of professional ideals and standards for law enforcement, security and public safety so as to better serve institutions of higher education.
Single copy: $5; subscription: $30 annually in U.S. currency to nonmembers in U.S., Canada, Mexico. All
other countries: $35. Manuscripts, correspondence, and all contributed materials are welcome; however,
publication is subject to editing and rewrite if deemed necessary to conform to editorial policy and style.
Opinions expressed by contributing authors and advertisers are independent of IACLEA Journal policies
or views. Authors must provide proper credit for information sources and assume responsibility for
permission to reprint statements or wording regardless of the originating organ. ©2006 International
Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators. All rights reserved. Business and Publication
Office: 342 North Main Street, West Hartford, CT 06117-2507; (860) 586-7517; Fax (860) 586-7550.
Printed in the U.S. by Sundance Press. This publication is available in microform from University
Microfilms International, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 USA.
P
resident’s Message
Exciting Times Ahead for IACLEA
By Priscilla Stevens, President
This is an exciting
time for IACLEA and
I would like to share
with you several
major initiatives in
progress:
• We are developing new training
and planning resources under
our federal homeland security grants:
• In the month of December, IACLEA
held the first class for Incident Command System (ICS) instructors — a
two-week train-the-trainer course. The
first three-day ICS classes are scheduled in January and February 2006 at
the University of Nevada at Las Vegas and the University of Maryland.
• A new Threat & Risk Assessment tool
is now available on the IACLEA Web
site to assist you in conducting a risk
assessment for terrorism and a needs
assessment and implementing solutions based on your findings.
• As part of our strategic plan to develop in-depth relationship and partnership opportunities, IACLEA and
NACUBO held a Web seminar on the
Threat and Risk Assessment Tool.
Sixty-nine sites registered for the
seminar.
• IACLEA has held more than 150 WMD
Awareness classes in the past two
years. The classes will resume in February 2006 with 75 classes planned.
• IACLEA is developing guides to Best
Practices in Campus Counterterrorism,
Enhanced Communication with First
Responders, and a Strategic Vision for
WMD/All Hazards Campus Preparedness Training for campus public safety
departments.
• IACLEA has received a grant from the
U.S. Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS) to develop a
strategic plan and a business plan for
the creation of a National Center for
Campus Public Safety. This center will
serve as a focal point for the development of a national agenda for campus public safety and as a clearinghouse for research and best practices.
• IACLEA’s accreditation program is proceeding and we are getting closer to
being ready to offer the program to
our members.
• IACLEA has forged strong partnerships
with the federal government, including IACLEA representation on the
U.S. Department of Justice’s
Counterterrorism Training Working
Group and the National Center for
State and Local Law Enforcement
Training.
IACLEA was invited to speak at the
National Native American Law Enforcement Association’s National Conference
in November in Las Vegas, Nevada. Since
I was attending the IACLEA board meeting at the same time, I asked Chief José
Elique from the University of Nevada, Las
Vegas to represent IACLEA. Thank you,
José, for being willing to volunteer your
time to represent all of us. This is yet
another way that IACLEA is working
towards fulfilling our goal of being the
widely recognized voice for campus public safety and developing relationships
with other organizations.
President-Elect Steven Healy with
Princeton University hosted the 4th
IACLEA Executive Development Institute
in November. It was once again a success. The board is looking at potential
changes to the Institute and may ask each
of you to participate in a survey so that
the programming can continue to reflect
the needs of the membership.
Regarding the development of a plan
for a government relations representative
in Washington, D.C., Dolores Stafford and
the committee continue to work hard. The
board discussed details regarding responsibilities for the representative and believes the person we are looking for
should have a “deep understanding of
IACLEA as well as experience working
with government relations.” I believe we
are on target with this issue.
I attended the TACUPA and IACLEA
Southwest Region Conference in San Antonio, Texas in December. It was an outstanding conference and I would like to
give special recognition to the following
people for working hard to see that there
was outstanding programming as well as
time to relax and unwind:
Host Robert Bratten, Chief at the University of Texas Health Science Center
at San Antonio and his staff, Joanne
Continued on page 3
President’s Message
Continued from page 2
Sanchez, Chris Coleman, Capt. Ron
Davidson, Capt. Celeste Mussey, Lt. Alfred
Cooke, Sgt. Michael Bleier, Sgt. Robert
Austin, Cpl. Deborah Van Horn, Cpl.
Karen Tucker, Cpl. Carlos Marmolejo
(thanks for the ride; he was also a member of one of the Mariachi bands that performed), Teresa Cooke, and Officer Steve
Bernstein. Thank you to Chief Donna
Spinato, president of TACUPA. The hospitality in Texas was the true essence of
“Southern Hospitality”! It was all fabulous!
Finally thanks to Jeff Allison with the
Department of Homeland Security, who
spoke at the banquet, for his continued
encouragement and passionate support
for campus safety.
I have had the privilege of serving as
Chief or Director at both public and private four-year residential campuses and
have found those experiences to be truly
rewarding. Now that I am on a community college campus, I feel I have been
able to see the true meaning or essence
of the “town/gown” relationship and have
been rewarded with seeing the excellence
of the educational process in a different
setting.
Community colleges have an outreach
to the community in building partnerships
with business and industry. The students
who attend community colleges are extremely dedicated to pursuing their educational goals: this could encompass reaching a promotion in a current working field,
preparing to continue meeting the goal
of a four-year degree while meeting the
demands of raising a family, fulfilling military obligations, and the opportunity for
higher education at a price they can afford. Some students have a goal that requires technical training specifically found
at community colleges. The students all
seem to have the same goal as those who
attend four-year institutions — to better
themselves in order to strive to meet lifetime goals.
Community colleges are often the leaders and innovators in meeting society’s
demands for programs such as in nursing,
culinary arts, drama, athletics, business,
law, technology and the list goes on. The
community college gives a tremendous
opportunity for the community to have
impact on lives as well as the college it-
self, to encourage people not only to
imagine what they can do but to achieve
it. For many, a community college is the
first most important step in pursuing an
education.
IACLEA recognizes the importance of
the involvement of two-year institutions
within the association. The Board of Directors has voted to change the two-year
institution task force to a standing committee, which means that the goals and
planning are no longer short term but long
term. The immediate objective for the
committee is to develop and recommend
to the Board of Directors new programs
and services designed specifically for twoyear institutions and encourage non-member, two-year institutions to join the association. I want to thank the “pioneers” of
the two-year institution task force. Being
the first is often the hardest and the work
is not always appreciated or noticed.
Thank you to former board member Mac
Holden, Bronx Community College, who
coordinated the two-year institution focus group in 2000 and was the first board
liaison. Thank you to Hal Swindell from
Beaufort County Community College and
to Ronald Labatzky from Sinclair Community College. Due to their commitment
we are able to continue to move forward.
I have now appointed two people to cochair the committee: Julee Cope, Owens
Community College in Ohio, and J.R.
Grijalva, El Paso Community College Po-
lice Department in Texas. They have put
together an excellent working group and
are striving to meet the needs of not only
the two-year institutions but the association as a whole.
Please help the two-year committee
identify community colleges that are not
members of IACLEA and let them know
either through an email or phone call.
Contact community colleges in your area
and invite them to participate with IACLEA
as well as with programming you may
have on your own campus for your department. We need to all work together
in order to be the true voice for campus
public safety.
In closing, please plan to attend
IACLEA’s 48th Annual Conference June
24-27, 2006 at the Disney Coronado
Springs Resort in Orlando, Florida, USA.
The conference is being hosted by
Valencia Community College (see article
page 16). Ray Thrower, Mid-America Region Director and board liaison for the
Professional Development committee,
with Kimberly Wible, John Pack, Jim
Schumann and others have put together
what will be an incredible program. Thomas Lopez, Director of Safety and Security, and Keith Mizelle with Valencia Community College are working very hard to
see that our time in Florida is beyond
imagining!
See you at Disney!
Plan Now
for Future
IACLEA Conferences
2006
June 24-27
Orlando, Florida
2007
June 26-29
Las Vegas, Nevada
2008
June 28-July 1
Hartford, Connecticut
International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators
Standards for
Campus Public Safety Departments
The IACLEA Standards Manual is now available to campus public safety departments as a way to compare their practices and
procedures to the highest professional standards for campus law enforcement and public safety services. IACLEA Standards apply
to both sworn and non-sworn public safety departments for all sizes and types of higher education institutions.
The IACLEA Standards Manual contains standards and commentary arranged in 27 chapters that cover topics such as: Agency
Jurisdiction and Mutual Aid—Organization and Administration—Recruitment—Training and Career Development—Communications—Records—Disciplinary Procedures—Crime Prevention—Traffic—Clery Act Compliance.
The IACLEA Standards Manual is published with the permission of and in cooperation with the Commission on Accreditation for
Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). Most of the standards in the IACLEA Manual correspond to CALEA Standards. IACLEA
acknowledges the CALEA copyright on all standards derived from CALEA Standards and expresses appreciation to CALEA for its
assistance.
The IACLEA Standards are the standards on which the IACLEA Accreditation Program—now being developed—will be based. The
IACLEA Accreditation is currently in the pilot stage and will be open to all applicants in 2006.
How to Order: The IACLEA Standards Manual is available in looseleaf notebook format. Updates will be provided at no cost to
the original purchaser for a period of three years following purchase. Cost of the Manual is $230 each.
To order online, go to Publications on the IACLEA Web site: www.iaclea.org and click on the Publication Order form. To order by
fax, print the Publication Order form from the IACLEA Web site and fax to (860) 586-7550. To order by U.S. mail, print the
Publication Order form from the IACLEA Web site and mail to:
IACLEA, Attn: Publication Order, 342 North Main Street, W. Hartford, CT 06117-2507 or use the form below.
IACLEA – Standards Manual Order
Name: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Institution: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Address: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
City: _______________________________________________ State: ______________________ Zip Code: _______________
Telephone: ___________________________________________ Email: _____________________________________________
Send check payable to IACLEA or Charge to: MasterCard VISA American Express
Card Number: _____________________________________________ Expiration Date: ________________________________
Name on Card: _______________________________________________ Today’s Date: ________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
A
ssociation News
Federal Official Notes Progress in Campus
Anti-Terrorism Initiatives
By Christopher G. Blake, CAE, Associate Director
The federal government and the campus
public safety profession have produced
“remarkable results” in protecting U.S. colleges and universities during the four years
since the 9-11 terrorist attacks, a federal
official said.
Jeff Allison, senior law enforcement
advisor for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, made this observation during his keynote speech at the awards dinner held on December 7, during the combined meeting of the IACLEA Southwest
Region and the Texas Association of College and University Police Administrators
(TACUPA). Nearly 70 campus public safety
leaders from 40 institutions attended the
combined meeting from December 6-8,
2005, in San Antonio. Chief Robert K.
Bratten and the University of Texas
Health Science Center at San Antonio
Police Department hosted the meeting.
Allison’s speech centered on providing a national perspective on campus
public safety in a homeland security environment. “Campus public safety is a
very critical sector of law enforcement,”
Allison said. Campus public safety officials are charged with protecting the
4,000 Title IV institutions of post-secondary education in the U.S., which serve
some 15 million students, faculty and staff.
Many colleges and universities have laboratories housing sensitive research projects
and materials, large stadiums that draw as
Accreditation Program Update
By John Leonard, Accreditation Coordinator
The IACLEA Standards Manual, Standards for Campus Public Safety Departments, is once again available to the
IACLEA membership. Cost of the looseleaf formatted manual is $230. Updates
to the manual will be provided to the
original purchasers for a period of three
years, without cost.
To order online, simply go to
www.iaclea.org and click on “Professional Development and Accreditation”
and then the “Accreditation Program
Standards Manual.” You can then directly
access the publications order form. You
can also access the publications order
form directly from the “What’s New”
column on the right hand margin of
IACLEA’s home page. To order by fax,
print the publication order form from
the Web site and fax it to (860) 5867550. To order by U.S. mail, print the
publication order form and mail it to
IACLEA, Attn: Publication Order, 342
North Main Street, West Hartford, CT
06117-2507. (Please note: Payment
must accompany all publication orders.
We regret that we cannot accept purchase orders for publications.)
Thank you for your patience and interest. I look forward to working with
you as IACLEA continues to develop
its Accreditation Program. I can be contacted by phone, (860) 586-7517 Ext.
558, or by email, [email protected].
many as 100,000 fans, and some institutions house nuclear reactors.
Following the terrorist attacks, Allison
was instrumental in securing federal funding for IACLEA to initiate programs to
strengthen campus preparedness. He
contacted then IACLEA President Oliver
J. Clark of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a grant award was
established for planning and training programs for campus public safety departments.
Progress made by the federal government and campus public safety profession includes:
• The $3.5 million DHS grant to IACLEA,
which supports WMD Awareness
courses throughout the U.S., Incident
Command System (ICS) training for
command-level staff, development of
a Threat & Risk Assessment Tool for
campuses, creation of a strategic vision for WMD/campus preparedness
training, and development of guides
to best practices in campus counterterrorism and strengthened communications with emergency responders.
• A National Summit on Campus Public
Safety, held in December 2004 in
Baltimore, MD, and sponsored by the
U.S. Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS). This summit brought together 40 campus public safety leaders and resulted in a recommendation to establish a national
center for campus public safety “to
support information sharing, policy
Continued on page 6
Federal Official Notes Progress in Campus Anti-Terrorism Initiatives
development, model practices, operations, and research.”
• A grant from the COPS Office to
IACLEA to support a one-year fellowship to develop a strategic plan and a
business plan for the development of
a national center for campus public
safety.
• The appointment of a representative
of IACLEA and the International Association of Chiefs of Police’s college
and university policing section to the
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Assistance’s Counter-Terrorism
Training Coordination Working Group.
Paul F. Glowacki, police chief at St.
Mary’s University in San Antonio, is
serving on that working group.
• The creation by FBI Director Robert
Mueller of a National Security Higher
Education Advisory Board. This board,
comprised of representatives of twelve
major research universities, is tasked
with assisting in the protection of federally funded research conducted at
these universities.
• Authorization by the FBI for a campus public safety official to join the
Bureau’s Police Executive Leadership
Fellowship program.
Recently, the FBI invited IACLEA President Priscilla A. Stevens to become a
member of the Director’s Law Enforcement Advisory Group, which is charged
with developing a vision for what the FBI
should look like in the year 2010. “This is
IACLEA STORE
NOW OPEN FOR BUSINESS
IACLEA Logo Apparel
and Accessories
Now available to IACLEA members
online, http://www.iaclea.org, in the
Members Only area.
a huge step for campus public safety,”
he said.
While progress has been made, there
are still challenges for IACLEA and the
campus public safety profession, he
noted. The recent suicide bomber incident at Oklahoma University, an incident
at Georgia Tech involving hot water
bottle bombs, and a recent ABC News
Primetime segment critical of campus
public safety underscore the need for the
profession to continue moving forward.
Allison pointed to three future initiatives that will keep the momentum going for campus public safety. The first is
IACLEA’s decision to hire a representative to work with federal agencies in
Washington, D.C. The second is a “listening session” that IACLEA and campus
public safety departments in the Gulf
Coast region will be sponsoring in the
spring of 2006 to gain insights into lessons learned in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the OU and
Georgia Tech incidents. The third is the
National Summit and the continuing effort to establish a National Center for Campus Public Safety.
“IACLEA is to be commended for your
hard work and commitment,” he said.
Allison challenged IACLEA to become
the leading advocate for campus preparedness. “We need you to inform your
members today about tomorrow’s challenges,” he said. “We need your vision,
commitment, and energy, as individuals
and collectively, if we are to succeed in
moving the ball forward.”
Keep Your Membership
Information Up-to-Date!
Check it out on the IACLEA
Members Only Area Online
Directory.
Update membership information by
completing the Members Only Online
Directory Change of Address Form.
Update your institutional information by
submitting the online Institution
Demographic Survey located in the
Membership section of the IACLEA Web
site, www.iaclea.org
American
Whistle defense
pu last page 10
A
ssociation News
Connecticut Association of Campus Law Enforcement
Administrators Elects Officers
Throughout his more than four decades in law enforcement and public safety, Western Connecticut
State University Chief of Police
Neil McLaughlin Jr. has seen the
benefit of professional organizations. He’s been active in such
groups during his career and is continuing his involvement to advance
security here and on campuses
across the state.
In December McLaughlin was
elected president of the newly
formed Connecticut Association of WCSU Chief of Police Neil McLaughlin Jr. and Wesleyan
Campus Law Enforcement Admin- University Director of Public Safety Maryann Wiggin talk
istrators, and WCSU University Po- during the Connecticut Association of Campus Law
lice Sgt. Ron Ferrante was elected Enforcement Administrators’ fall meeting. (WCSU Photo/
Peggy Stewart)
treasurer of the organization. The
group began meeting two years ago to IACLEA Board of Directors approved it
review investigations and security issues during a late November meeting.
on campuses in Connecticut. Various
“The benefits of professional organimembers, including McLaughlin, Ferrante zations are boundless; the professional
and others have worked to organize the development, networking, mentoring,
association and to apply for IACLEA affili- and the ability to discuss common probate organization status, McLaughlin ex- lems and solutions help today’s managplained. “There are 38 affiliate or related ers provide the best mix of campus safety
chapters throughout the United States, but and security to their communities,”
Connecticut has never had a chapter,” McLaughlin said. “I always have
McLaughlin said.
been proud of my affiliation and particiThe newly organized association’s 42 pation with the International Association
members include all four of the Connecti- of Campus Law Enforcement Administracut State University System campuses; tors and the expertise they bring to camUniversity of Connecticut; University of pus law enforcement.”
Hartford; Yale, Wesleyan, Quinnipiac and
The Connecticut group meets quarterly;
Sacred Heart universities; University of most recently, they held their fall meeting
New Haven; and a number of commu- in WCSU Alumni Hall. Representatives of
nity colleges.
IACLEA and the North East College and
The association submitted its request Universities Security Association attended
to become an IACLEA affiliate, and the and made remarks. IACLEA Associate Di-
rector Christopher Blake was supportive of the Connecticut group’s
request for affiliate membership in
the international organization.
In addition to official remarks
and a business meeting, each quarterly session includes a professional
development segment. The fall
meeting focused on “Compliance
with the Clery Act,” which requires
all postsecondary institutions participating in federal student aid
programs to disclose campus crime
statistics and security information.
Wesleyan University Director of
Public Safety Maryann Wiggin said
the organization and its development sessions are necessary to advance safety on university campuses
across the Nutmeg State. “We need the
association to share information, network
and work together to problem solve, particularly to solve some of the common
issues and problems facing us on our campuses,” Wiggin said. “This organization is
a tremendous resource.”
McLaughlin knows about the value of
the professional organization first-hand.
He reactivated and organized the Alabama chapter of IACLEA when he was at
Tuskegee University in the 1990s. He
was the first African-American elected to
the presidency of that group, he said.
“Our active participation in this local chapter will further our ability to continue advancing the professionalism of our department, increasing our ability to bring
true community policing to the university,” McLaughlin said.
A
ssociation News
November 18-19, 2005
Board Meeting Highlights
By Peter J. Berry, CAE, Chief Staff Officer
The Board of Directors held its fall meeting November 18-19, 2005 in Hartford,
Connecticut. Board Members present
were: Priscilla Stevens, Ken Willett, Lisa
Sprague, James Bonner, Paul Ominsky,
Robert Bratten, Ray Thrower, Steve
Rittereiser, Dan Hutt, Jasper Cooke,
Steven Healy, Dave Worden, and Marlon
Lynch. Staff: Peter Berry, Karen Breseman,
Tom Hogarty, Jack Leonard and Christopher Blake. Absent: Jean Luc Mahieu and
Phillip Johnson. Guests: John O’Neill, President of Kinetic Media, Dolores Stafford
and members of the Accreditation Committee.
The following are highlights of that
meeting:
C. Blake reported that staff has developed an area on the IACLEA Web site
directly accessible from the IACLEA Home
Page through a new button called “WMD/
Campus Preparedness Tools” where all
of the resources, training opportunities
and reference materials developed under the homeland security grant will be
accessible to campus public safety departments.
IACLEA and Gall’s are promoting the
endorsed purchasing plan agreement to
provide members with discounts on public safety uniforms and equipment. The
Gall’s logo has been placed on the IACLEA
Home Page with a link to a special Web
page announcing details of the purchasing plan and instructions on how members can access the program.
A customized Web site to promote the
2006 IACLEA Annual Conference is being
developed in cooperation with the Orlando
The Connecticut Association of Campus Law
Enforcement Administrators was approved
for recognition as an Affiliate Organization.
Convention and Visitors Bureau. It will feature information about housing, registration,
attractions, sports and recreation, dining,
transportation, maps and more.
Sixty-nine sites registered for the November 3 Web seminar at NACUBO on
the Threat and Risk Assessment Tools.
NACUBO is going to archive the seminar
and send a link. IACLEA members and
non-members will be able to access this
seminar by clicking on the link. NACUBO
will be supplying IACLEA with the seminar evaluation forms, which will be made
available to the E-Learning Task Force.
C. Blake and S. Rittereiser have been
working to enhance the relationship between IACLEA and its affiliate and chapter organizations. During the meeting at
the Annual Conference in Kansas City, the
need was identified to facilitate the exchange of ideas and information. One
method is an online survey. The need to
organize a workshop at the 2006 Annual
Conference for incoming presidents to
help them prepare to lead their organizations was also discussed. The focus
would be leadership development and
effective governance.
The Connecticut Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators was
approved for recognition as an Affiliate
Organization.
IACLEA has registered 159 WMD
Awareness classes on the Web site and
143 have been delivered. There have
been 4,724 students trained to date. A
new contract with LSU has been signed
for an additional 75 classes at a cost of
$150,000 with class size reduced to 30
participants. The remainder of the funds
originally budgeted for the WMD Awareness courses — $1,000,000 — is being
moved to fund the Incident Command
training initiative. The WMD Awareness
course is undergoing a curriculum update
and it is anticipated that deliveries should
begin again early in January 2006. The
active instructors will receive updated
materials and training directly from LSU.
A copy of the Campus Preparedness
Assessment was given to each board
member. The original grant proposal was
to produce a training video on how to
complete the threat and risk assessment.
But the tool is so user-friendly that it does
not need a lot of introduction so the Committee decided to expand the video to
showcase all of the products made available under the grant. The approximately
10-minute video will be designed to give
members and non-members a good overall perspective of what IACLEA is doing
with the grant funding to help prepare
campus public safety. DVD copies will
be sent to non-members and the program
will run on the Web site.
Kinetic Media in Glastonbury, Connecticut, is under contract with IACLEA to produce the brief but informative video. The
rough cut of the ICS training portion of
the video was done in early October. John
O’Neill, president of Kinetic Media, preContinued on page 9
November 18-19, 2005 Board Meeting Highlights
viewed the ICS portion for the Board, discussed the script and the concept for the
finished product, which will use a fastpaced documentary style and a variety
of production techniques. The board discussed who the target audience for the
video will be: IACLEA members vs. nonmembers, administrators, etc. who may
not be familiar with ICS. S. Healy cautioned that since the audience would be
both sworn and non-sworn, they should
be careful to use campus language, not
municipal language such as facilities/physical plant instead of public works, and not
to emphasize police/law enforcement but
use campus public safety. The projected
video completion date is spring 2006.
The centerpiece of the Best Practices
subcommittee’s work — the model EOP
and related Emergency Support Functions
(ESFs) — has been produced by IACLEA
Research Analyst Anthony Vitale. This
model will be made available to campus
public safety departments as a guide to
developing their own plan. Vitale is also
working on a synopsis of the stadium security plan used by the University of
Florida to serve as a resource to departments. The EOP will include a guide to
appropriate campus responses to changes
in the national threat alert level. A best
practices guide to campus counter-terrorism, which will include the EOP, the stadium security plan, a summary of other
best practices and a document listing reference resources and model plans, is also
being developed. The subcommittee is
now reviewing these work products.
The Enhanced Communications with
Emergency Responders subcommittee
heard presentations from the following
subject matter experts: Cecil Ware, National Emergency Response and Rescue
Training Center; James L. Moore, Director of Public Safety, Drexel University;
Eugene C. Janda, Deputy Chief of Fire
and Emergency Services, University of
Pennsylvania; Adam Garcia, Chief of Police, University of Nevada-Reno; Harald
Pietz, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Chuck Cannarella, Atlanta-Fulton
County Emergency Management Agency;
and Robert F. Lang, Director of Homeland Security, Georgia Tech University.
IACLEA staff has developed several
model Mutual Aid Agreements and
IACLEA staff has developed several model
Mutual Aid Agreements and Memoranda of
Understanding to serve as guides for
campus departments and local and state
emergency response agencies.
Memoranda of Understanding to serve as
guides for campus departments and local
and state emergency response agencies.
Recommendations from experts centered
on developing a community approach to
emergency response, establishing mutual
aid agreements, communications equipment interoperability and standards, federal training standards and guidelines
(NIMS), meeting with local health departments or health districts to learn about
public health emergency protocols and
training, and planning and training with
other emergency response agencies.
Vitale has collected and analyzed research
on communications. This research and the
information gained at the workshop will
be used to develop a recommendations
guide for enhancing communications
among campus public safety agencies and
federal, state and local emergency response agencies. The guide should take
six to eight weeks to complete and will
then be sent to the subcommittee for review and revision.
The Strategic Planning Subcommittee
held a facilitated focus group meeting on
September 8-9, 2005 in Washington, D.C.
to gain in-depth feedback on WMD/campus preparedness training needs and resources from a broad cross-section representing various types of institutions, ranging from large public to small private and
including sworn and non-sworn departments. The focus group report will be
integrated into a strategic vision for campus WMD/domestic preparedness training document that has been under development since the spring of 2005. The
subcommittee is scheduled to review the
vision document and focus group report.
There were 70 applicants for the first
Incident Command System Training held in
Virginia in October.
C. Blake said that all subcommittee
work products will be ready for the board
to review and approve at the spring 2006
meeting.
IACLEA has received authorization to
transfer $25,000 of the grant to hold a
workshop in the Gulf Coast area focusing
on lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina.
There were 70 applicants for the first
Incident Command System Training held
in Virginia in October. Staff reduced the
pool to 55 and then the committee chose
27 to attend. The goal is to have up to
one-half of the participants of each ICS
training course come from outside campus public safety.
On June 28, President-Elect S. Healy
and P. Berry met with Tim Quinn and
Cindy Pappas from the COPS office and
Jeff Allison regarding the National Center
for Campus Public Safety and grant funding for establishing the center. That meeting was important to lay the groundwork
for the $181,000 grant for the fellowship
that IACLEA has received. On July 14,
Healy participated in a conference call
with the COPS office regarding the grant
program.
On July 9, he co-presented with Jeff
Allison and Rusty Russell, VMC, for the
Homeland Security for Campus Executives pilot program at the NACUBO National Conference in Baltimore, Maryland.
On August 10, Healy met with P. Berry,
D. Stafford and Pamela Hayes in Washington, D.C. to finalize arrangements for
the IACLEA 50th Anniversary Corporate
Sponsorship Program. On August 10 -12,
he represented IACLEA as a member of
the Department of Education’s Review
Group for the Higher Education Center
for Alcohol, Drug and Other Violence Prevention.
In October, Healy participated in a
conference call with Accreditation Committee member Aaron Graves and CALEA
commissioner Patrick Oliver to discuss the
IACLEA Accreditation Program. He presented Clery Act training for New York
City colleges and universities. He also
participated in the first conference call of
the Security Technologies Task Force.
In compliance with the board policy
that all work groups be examined at the
fall board meeting to determine the neContinued on page 10
cessity to continue the committee/task
force into the next fiscal year, S. Healy
led a discussion of the work groups with
comments from the board liaisons.
S. Rittereiser told the board that the
Executive Institute Advisory Group needs
to exist. John King has become the chair
this year, replacing Bruce McBride. The
4th session was just completed at
Princeton University with S. Healy as the
host. The report received from J. King
recommends lengthening the next session to at least 3 ½ days after a review of
the budget. He also suggests a survey of
the membership to determine what they
see as important content and the projected demand over the next three years.
The list of potential presenters needs to
be expanded. The location of the next
session will be in the southeast.
The E-Learning and Domestic Preparedness committees and their progress
had already been discussed in-depth earlier in the meeting and there was no further discussion. An in-depth discussion of
the 50th Anniversary Committee was post-
IACLEA needs to consider whether it needs a
public relations person to respond to media
requests and write press releases.
poned until chair Dolores Stafford joined
the board later in the afternoon.
Dolores Stafford presented a chart detailing the duties of the IACLEA Government Relations Committee and the
IACLEA Director of Government and External Affairs. Both will need to communicate but not work on the same things.
A Director of Government and External
Affairs Search Committee Evaluation Form
has been drafted. The board agreed on
the tasks of the timeline and the date
changes as presented by Stafford with the
goal of having the director start work prior
to the 2006 Annual Conference. The committee will develop a plan for advertising
the job.
D. Stafford outlined the goals and committee composition of the 50th Anniversary Committee. One goal is to raise
PU for MITI
pu last issue page 10
$200,000 through the Corporate Sponsorship Program. S. Healy recommends
appointing a small team to fundraise.
Stafford will forward a list of vendors to
the board members so that they can sign
up to contact any vendor they know personally. Everyone needs to fully understand the program before reaching out to
vendors. Form letters, brochures, etc. will
be available so that IACLEA presents a
consistent effort. The motion by S.
Rittereiser and seconded by D. Hutt to
approve the recommendation of the 50th
Anniversary Committee as presented was
approved.
IACLEA received a letter dated September 19, 2005 from Cynthia Pappas of
the COPS office confirming that IACLEA
has received a grant in the amount of
$181,340. This will fund a part-time person to develop a strategic and business
plan for a national center. A Search Committee has been appointed and needs to
move quickly due to the time constraints
of the grant. S. Healy will chair with members D. Worden, P. Stevens, James Perrotti
of Yale University and Linda Langford.
There will be an advisory board of 12-15
people and will have more people from
outside of IACLEA.
IACLEA needs to consider whether it
needs a public relations person to respond
to media requests and write press releases. L. Sprague responded that although
she agreed with what had been said a
budget would need to be considered. This
was a part of the strategic plan and there
is a process that the Board needs to follow. K. Willett added that it is the responsibility of the president to act as a spokesperson to the public, press, etc. S.
Rittereiser suggested that the CSO and
President continue to issue the statements, as needed.
S. Rittereiser presented a status report
on the Bureau of Justice Statistics survey
last completed in 1995 saying that 400
out of 4,000 institutions have not responded. Brian Reeves of BJS would like
to take one more shot at the 400 before
the end of this year and then they will
compile and publish the results.
At the 2006 Annual Conference, there
will be a split opening session with a proContinued on page 11
gram presented by Disney and the business meeting moved to Monday. P. Berry
cautioned the board not to schedule too
many evening programs/activities. Only
one night with scheduled conference programming has been planned. The goal is
to have Sunday and Monday evenings
free for the delegates. On the evening of
opening day, the host social event will
be at the hotel instead of the host’s campus with the Silent Auction to follow.
R. Thrower added that post-conference either Tuesday afternoon or
Wednesday afternoon, a half-day behindthe-scenes tour of Disney security would
be available to conference attendees for
a fee of $99. Several board members protested the price but were told that Disney
would not discount the tour but had discounted the general session on quality
service, Disney style.
IACLEA was notified by letter from
Barbara Wisniewski Biehn, Acting Director, Training Division, Office of State and
Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, that the application for a CERT
grant had not been approved.
There was agreement on the concept
of mobile model city units for ICS training and the Domestic Preparedness Committee was asked to develop a working
plan and budget to be submitted to the
board.
Chair D. Stafford and the Accreditation
Committee were present to discuss the
status of the IACLEA Accreditation Program with the board. Stafford reported
that she had attended a meeting in Pennsylvania of AccredNet — a loose collection of state organizations that meets once
a year to talk about state programs. The
meeting was beneficial in that it gave an
opportunity to hear what states are doing about accreditation.
Stafford said the committee wants to
go into negotiations with CALEA in good
faith, keeping in mind the best interests
of IACLEA. IACLEA needs to be very clear
about what it wants so that there are no
changes later. J. Leonard added that the
most troublesome change is the plan to
limit the use of the standards to 99 core
standards affecting life, health, and safety
issues. The committee felt that it was
important to have a broader range of stan-
dards because non-sworn departments
cannot go onto full CALEA accreditation.
Stafford said that IACLEA must negotiate from the viewpoint that it has some
non-negotiable items that it needs and
that we are willing to pay a fair price to
compensate CALEA for their work. Committee member Scott Shelton added that
IACLEA is going in from the position of
independence and strength. We have to
be prepared to go forward without any
assistance from CALEA.
There was agreement to accept the
Accreditation Committee’s plan to move
forward with negotiations with CALEA. P.
Berry recommended that the board give
Stafford the autonomy to choose her own
negotiating team and to discuss with other
state organizations their rationale for continuing to use the standards. The board
agreed.
R. Thrower has been negotiating with
Gall’s to host the spring 2006 board meeting in Lexington, Kentucky. The meeting would include a tour of the Gall’s facility and a presentation by Gall’s, with
Gall’s paying a portion of the cost of the
meeting.
Historical Law Enforcement
Items Wanted
By Fred Behr, Chair of the Media and Conference Displays 50th Anniversary
Committee
In 2008, IACLEA will be celebrating our
50th Anniversary at the Annual Conference in Hartford, Connecticut. The Media and Conference Displays Committee is planning to provide a historical
look at the progress of IACLEA and a
mini-museum containing a historical
look at campus law enforcement in
general.
We will assemble the history of
IACLEA including a year by year look
at the Association, conference site information, significant events impacting
campus law enforcement, the evolution
of membership services offered as well
as items produced by IACLEA for their
members.
The mini-museum will contain “tools
of the trade” used in campus law enFred Behr
Ben Gollotti
John Pack
David Reagan
forcement such as old uniforms, time
clocks, leather gear, hats, badges, flashlights, watchman’s ring of keys, old
photos of patrol cars, motorcycle units,
saps, billie clubs, handcuffs, etc. (sorry,
no firearms) — virtually any item that
depicts the origins of campus law enforcement from 1958 (or earlier) up to
the technology we use today. If you
have items that you feel fit the spirit of
this venture and are willing to loan the
items to the museum, please contact
one of the committee members listed
below. We would like the items by January 1, 2008 to begin setting up the
museum. They will be returned
promptly after the conference in Hartford.
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
(507)
(215)
(612)
(972)
646-3636
895-1550
330-1644
860-4191
The success of the museum depends on membership support.
I hope we can count on you!
Fourth Executive
Development Institute
Hosted by
Princeton University
November 13-16, 2005
M
In Memoriam
ember News
Florida State University Names
New Chief of Police
David L. Perry, deputy director of police operations at Clemson University, has been appointed chief of police at Florida State University. Perry
will be only the third chief in the FSU department’s 45-year history. He
was selected after a national search for a chief to succeed Carey Drayton,
who resigned in September.
“David Perry is highly respected in law enforcement circles, and he had
all the qualities we were looking for in a chief,” said Paul Strouts, associate
vice president of finance and administration at FSU. “He is a strong leader
with experience in the university environment. He is an advocate for students and is known for his professionalism in working with the public and
all the constituents of a campus community.”
As FSU’s police chief, Perry, 34, will oversee a department with 61
sworn officers and 27 support staffers and an operating budget of $5 million. He assumes his new position in February 2006. “I’m extremely excited to be joining the FSU community,” Perry said. “It’s a good fit and a
wonderful career opportunity. My family and I are looking forward to a
positive move in the new year.”
As deputy director of police operations at Clemson in Clemson, S.C.,
Perry is responsible for special operations within the department, including
all sporting event security, concerts and other large-venue events. Among
other duties, he develops, plans and conducts training and employee development activities for department personnel and has oversight of 45 employees in the Auxiliary Student Patrol. He has held that position since June 2003.
Perry also serves as an instructor of criminal justice at Albany Technical
College in Albany, Ga., and an adjunct instructor of criminal justice at Tri
County Technical College in Pendleton, S.C., providing online instruction in
criminal procedure, constitutional law and other subjects. He previously
served as director of public safety and chief of police for Albany State
University in Albany, Ga., from 1997 until 2003. In that capacity, he formulated policies and regulations governing activities of the department, coordinated all security for sporting events, concerts and large events, and had
oversight over department expenditures.
Before that, he worked as an investigator for the Albany-Dougherty
Drug Unit from 1994 to 1997. He began his career as a police officer for
the Albany Police Department, where he worked from 1993 to 1994. Perry
earned a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice from Albany State College in
1993 and a master’s of public administration from Albany State University
in 2002. He is a member of the International Association of Campus Law
Enforcement Administrators; the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators; the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives; and the South
Carolina Law Enforcement Administrators Association.
Douglas Bailey
Vanderbilt University police officer Douglas
Bailey was killed in an automobile accident
December 14, 2005. Bailey, 49, died after losing control of his vehicle while driving to work.
“He was on Interstate 24 westbound making
the connection to I-440 westbound when he
lost control of the vehicle on the slick surface
and hit a tree,” said Marlon Lynch, assistant police chief at Vanderbilt.
Bailey had been with VUPD since August
2002. “He was extremely well liked,” Lynch
said. “He always had a smile for you, and was a
model for new officers that came in.” Bailey is
survived by his wife, Carol Bailey, and his parents. Funeral services were December 18 with
burial at Mapleview Cemetery in Smyrna, Tennessee. About 100 people attended a memorial service held at Vanderbilt’s Benton Chapel
on December 20.
The Douglas Bailey Memorial Fund has been
established at AmSouth Bank. All money will
go to his family to help cover costs related to
the funeral and other expenses. Anyone wishing to donate can do so at any branch of
AmSouth Bank. Contact Marlon Lynch, assistant
police chief at Vanderbilt University, for more
information.
Cy Abdo
On Saturday, November 26, 2005, Cy Abdo,
retired Chief of Police/Director of Public Safety,
Lansing Community College Police Department
and longtime IACLEA member, passed away
from an apparent heart attack. Abdo was born
July 15, 1942 in Toledo, Ohio.
A graduate of Northwood University, he
worked for the Lansing Police Department for
eight years, and retired from Lansing Community College public safety as director. He served
in the U.S. Navy on a submarine for seven years
and was also a Vietnam veteran. Funeral services were held November 29 at EstesLeadley Greater Lansing Chapel. Interment followed in Dimondale
Cemetery.
The family has requested that
memorial contributions
be made to the
charity of one’s
choice or the
American Heart
Association.
M
ember News
New Members – November/December
Institutional Membership
Acadia University
Don Holmesdale
Alabama at Birmingham, University of
Jimmy L. Nordan
Baker College of Muskegon
Jesus J.R. Rosales
Boston University
Robert E. Molloy
Bowie State University
John Thompson
Brenau University
Pamela D. Anyanwu
Butler Community College
Miles Erpelding
California State University at Chico
Leslie J. Deniz
Cecil Community College
William F. Woolston
Cedar Crest College
Mark A. Vitalos
Columbus State University
Jason Youngblood
Cornell University
Curtis Ostrander
Dallas Baptist University
Don Kabetzke
Daniel Webster College
Jamie J. Provencher
Eckerd College
Sylvia Chillcott
Endicott College
Rick Gilbert
Fisk University
Jacqueline Y. Bumpas
Fresno Pacific University
Gary L. Mejia
Gadsden State Community College
Sam W. Ledbetter
Grant Police Department
Bill Roberts
Indiana University/
Purdue University-Indianapolis
Paul Norris
King College
Benny L. Berry, Jr.
LaSalle University
Arthur Grover
Long Island University –
C.W. Post Campus
Dianna M. Pennetti
Marygrove College
Horace Dandridge
Mohawk College
Alan Hayward
Morton College
Leonard S. Rutk
New College of Florida
Wesley K. Walker
North Dakota State University
Virgil Mueller
North Lake College
Chris Drake
Northeastern Illinois University
James C. Lyon, Jr.
Ocean County College
Katie Grofik
Ottawa, University of
Claude Giroux
Pima County Community College
Barbara J. Harris
Salisbury University
Edwin L. Lashley
San Juan College
Billy G. Newton
Springfield Technical
Community College
Shawn Bavieri
Southeastern Louisiana University
Michael L. Prescott
St. Thomas, University of
Daryl M. Bissett
Texas Health Center –
Tyler, University of
Robert Cromley
Texas Southern University
Thaddeus Seals
Virginia, University of
Michael A. Gibson
Weatherford College
Paul Stone
Wisconsin at River Falls, University of
Mark Kimball
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Cheryl Martunas
York Technical College
Michael T. Turney
Professional Membership
Adelphi University
Eugene Palma
American University
Robert Bauer
Borough of Manhattan Community
College – City University of New York
Scott Anderson
Glenville McLarty
Mir Mohiuddin
College Misericordia
Robert Cragle
Concordia University
Michael Mulso
Cornell University
Kathy R. Zoner
Delaware State University
Stephanie Smith
Georgia State University
Anthony Coleman
Gonzaga University
Robert Cepeda
Illinois Institute of Technology
Michael Gardiner
Heidi Green
Continued on page 15
New Members
M
ember News
Oliver J. Clark Honored at
Retirement Reception
Praise and affection for
Oliver J. “OJ” Clark
flowed freely at a retirement reception in his
honor December 15 at
the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign.
Chief Clark retired in
December after 10
years as chief of police
and executive director
of public safety at UIUC. About 120 people
attended the reception at the Illini Union,
including a friend who flew in from California, Champaign Mayor Gerald
Schweighart, Urbana Police Chief Eddie
Adair, and colleagues from area law enforcement agencies.
UIUC Chancellor Richard Herman saluted Clark for his integrity and leadership, calling the department he shaped
“outstanding.” Dr. Herman cited Chief
Clark’s work after 9/11 with the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA), noting that
Chief Clark gained international stature for
his role in ensuring that “the citadels of
free thought, our universities, are free of
fear” in an age of terrorism. “Your legacy
with us is as secure as the campus you
served so proudly, so well,” Chancellor
Herman told Chief Clark. He also thanked
the chief’s wife, Dorleen, for giving up
time with her husband when duty called.
Chief Adair joked that “had it not been
for me,” Chief Clark might not be at the
university, as Chief Adair had contributed
to the selection of Chief Clark in 1995.
He described his friend as “extremely capable” and easy to work with. “He is truly
a credit to law enforcement,” Chief Adair
concluded.
UIUC Assistant Chief
of Police Kris Fitzpatrick
read a letter from the
local FBI office, thanking Chief Clark “for your
commitment to serving
the nation’s colleges” at
a time they have become potential targets
for attack. “Thank you
for educating us to the
critical role that campus police play,” the
letter said. “You have been unflagging in
your advocacy.” Chief Fitzpatrick recalled
Chief Clark’s arrival in 1995. “OJ has always
been about teams,” she said, which explained the strength of community-based
policing Chief Clark instituted at UIUC, and
the national and international recognition
given the department. “He never gave
up on how good we could be,” she said.
Chief Clark accepted several gifts, including a wristwatch, cheesecake, green
visor and tokens for the legal “one-armed
bandit” in his basement. He thanked
Chancellor Herman for his “unwavering
support,” and stressed his pride in “working as one team to reach many goals” as
chief. He called his tenure a privilege he
found personally and professionally rewarding. Touched by the sendoff, Chief
Clark said he was excited to cross “new
horizons” in retirement. “Finding things
to do is not going to be an issue,” he said,
ticking off a list of planned activities including work for Louisiana State University, Western Illinois University and
IACLEA. One focus of his new work will
be to prepare instructors to train police
with anti-terrorism tactics. He and his wife
will continue to live in Champaign-Urbana.
Johnson & Wales University
Harvey DuPerry
Darrell Johnston
John Sexton
Long Island University –
C.W. Post Campus
Paul Rapess
Marquette University
Paul Mascari
Maryland, University of
Jason Volk
Massachusetts – Lowell, University of
Steven Eramo
Linda M. Thomas
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Thomas W. Komola
Missouri State University
Susie Wecker
Nevada – Las Vegas, University of
Soila G. McKay
Nevada – Reno, University of
Adam Garcia
Ottawa, University of
Steve Bernique
Point Loma Nazarene University
George Hickman
Quincy University
Steve Patterson
Roanoke College
John S. Grisetti
Rutgers, The State University
Stephen J. Molinelli
St. Cloud State University
Jennifer Furan
St. Thomas, University of
Wells Farnham
Toronto, University of
Steve Cox
Mark Prance
Affiliate Membership
New York State Police
Thomas P. Kelly, Jr.
Retired Membership
Gary McCormack
Terry Roebuck
Supporting Membership
IPC Command Systems Inc.
Lisa Wrigley
Valencia Community College Welcomes IACLEA
The 2006 IACLEA Conference and
Exposition will be held at Disney’s
Coronado Springs Resort, June 2427. Located in the heart of Central Florida, Valencia Community
College will serve as the host for
this event and is honored to be
the first community college to
serve IACLEA in this role. Recognized as an innovative leader in
higher education with a national
reputation for teaching excellence, Valencia faculty and staff
are dedicated to making this year’s
conference experience memorable.
Left to right: Officer Derrick Hilton, Keith Mizelle, Collegewide Access Control Administrator and Security Manager for
Valencia Community College and president of the Florida
Association of Campus Safety and Security Administrators, and
Officer Pete Rivera.
Valencia Community College
With four campuses and two centers in the Orlando area, Valencia is a
publicly supported, comprehensive community college that continually identifies
and addresses the needs of the communities it serves. As the second largest of
Florida’s 28 community colleges, Valencia
serves nearly 60,000 students a year. In
2005, Valencia awarded more than 4,600
degrees and certificates and currently
ranks first in the nation in the total number of associate’s degrees awarded.
Valencia’s Criminal
Justice Programs
As the population of Florida increases, the
need for qualified law enforcement and
correctional officers must correspondingly
increase. In Florida, those who choose to
enter criminal justice as a career field must
successfully complete a training program
mandated by the State. Valencia’s Crimi16 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
nal Justice Institute — one of the oldest
and most recognized criminal justice academies in the state — is designed to provide the best possible education for students preparing for challenging careers
in law enforcement, corrections, private/
industry security, and other criminal justice fields.
Valencia currently offers the following
training programs: Correctional Officer,
Law Enforcement Officer, Crossover: Corrections to Law Enforcement, and Auxiliary Law Enforcement Officer. These programs offer a broad background in the
history and philosophy of criminal justice;
the organization, management and operation of modern criminal agencies; the
social, psychological, and cultural aspects
of society; and the laws impacting criminal justice functions. Programs afford ex-
tensive training in communications, human interaction, first aid,
defensive tactics, use of weapons,
investigations, and tactical applications.
The Criminal Justice Institute
also conducts advanced and specialized training for certified law
enforcement and correctional officers throughout Central Florida.
Upon successful completion of
law enforcement or correctional
officer training, the State of
Florida requires passage of a certification examination prior to being eligible for employment.
Valencia’s Security
Department
Valencia Community College is dedicated
not only to the advancement of knowledge and learning but also has a concern
for the development of responsible personal and safety conduct. Valencia’s Security Department provides a full range
of services including crime prevention
services, traffic/parking enforcement, and
assisting in crowd control for special
events. The department maintains a close
liaison with local, state and federal law
enforcement agencies in implementing
and coordinating campus security operations.
Valencia’s Security Department is committed to supporting the educational mission of the college. This is accomplished
by offering a maximum personal safety
program, which serves to enhance the
Valencia Community College – IACLEA Partnership
quality of life for all members of the
college’s learning centered environment.
• Emergency Evacuations Procedures
Jurisdiction, Structure and Authority
The Valencia Security Department is organized as a department of 90 security
officers under the auspices of the Office
of the Vice President for Administrative
Services. All officers are trained and licensed under the State of Florida Statutes Chapter 493 and receive in-service
training in the following areas:
• CPR – all full-time career service employees are certified
Valencia’s security operations are
supplemented with local law enforcement officers who are contracted for specific hours and locations. The Security
Department is overseen by a Director of
Safety and Security/Risk Manager with college-wide authority. This individual is responsible for the direction and supervision of all security personnel.
• First Aid – all full-time career service
employees are certified
fun. Orlando is full of exciting things to
see and do. Enjoy the area’s endless premier shopping or sit down to a fine culinary surprise. For something a little more
exciting, there are world-class attractions
that put Orlando on the map. The city is
also home to challenging golf courses,
exciting nightlife, and rejuvenating spa
experiences. Whatever your desire,
Orlando offers the perfect escape. For
more detailed area information visit
www.orlandoinfo.com.
Please come and join your colleagues
from around the world for rich dialogue,
a valuable exchange of resources, and a
memorable trip. We look forward to welcoming you in Orlando!
• Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
Welcome to Central Florida
After the conference day is over, it is time
to explore Central Florida and have some
• AED-certified
Commencement at Valencia (VCC President
is featured in the photo.)
Our Winter Park Campus – situated in a
bedroom community outside Orlando.
Campus population is about 6,000. Degree
and non-degree programs are offered as well
as CEU programs.
Commencement for Disney Institute of Culinary
Arts. The building is housed on the West Campus
of Valencia and is a co-ventured program.
East Campus interior of the library building.
West Campus library building.
Grand mall area at East Campus. The exterior of
the library is featured in the photo.
NIMS/ICS Instructor Training Program Complete,
Instructors Are Ready to Roll
By Robert Mueck, IACLEA ICS Trainer
Incident Command Course now available.
Learn an “All Hazards” approach to handle incidents on your campus.
One of your officers is asStudents of this course
sisting federal agents in
should consist of superviserving a warrant. Out of
sory and executive personcuriosity, you drive toward
nel from multi-disciplinary
the scene to see what is
and multi-jurisdictional
happening. To your horror,
emergency response deyou hear your officer yell
partments from campuses
into the radio, “I have shots
and surrounding communifired! Officer needs help!”
ties.
What do you do next?
In addition to focusing
Where do you put your
on campus public safety,
people? How do you
the program provides the
evacuate citizens from the Photos by Rosemary Naughton, Chief of Campus Police, Worcester State
non-public safety elements
area? What will you do to College
of the campus or municistabilize the scene? Who do
pality with a working
you call for help?
ment of Homeland Security to enhance knowledge of the National Incident ManSound like a bad day? Thankfully, this campus preparedness for a terrorist event. agement System. This course trains paris only a table-top exercise that deals with
Now that the class is over and the in- ticipants in the application of both the
handling critical incidents. But make no structors are certified, they are ready to Incident Command and Unified Command
mistake; the participants are as over- teach. In a unique approach to this effort, Systems. Its a multi-disciplinary approach
whelmed as can be expected. The table- IACLEA has developed two permanent to incident management is certified by
top exercise allows participants to expe- training sites at the University of Nevada, the U.S. Office of Domestic Preparedness
rience high-stress decision making in a Las Vegas, and the University of Mary- as conforming to the National Incident
crisis and learn the tasks needed to handle land, College Park.
Management System.
them.
In the classroom instruction portion of
The simulation-based training is a naSixteen members of IACLEA spent two tionally recognized program designed to this course, participants will learn reweeks in Lansdowne, Virginia at the Na- standardize the response of campus po- sponse stage strategies, application of the
tional Conference Center with BowMac lice and security, and their mutual aid Incident Command System and of the
Educational Services, Inc. In that time, partners, to all types of serious incidents. National Incident Management System.
BowMac took them through an intensive This training presents all stages of the Case studies reviewed in the course proCritical Incident Management train-the- National Incident Management System vide an in-depth examination of past retrainer program.
(NIMS) prevention, preparedness, response strategies in major events. In the
The training program is supported by sponse, recovery and mitigation, using the simulation exercise, participants receive
a grant to IACLEA from the U.S. Depart- dynamic style of this hands-on course.
NIMS/ICS Instructor Training Program Complete, Instructors Are Ready to Roll
hands-on experience in the response
stage as well as incident management
using ICS. Participants practice the three
phases of the Response Stage (crisis,
scene management, and executive).
The true advantage of Simulation Based
Training is that it provides a realistic experience for students to refer to when
responding to critical incidents. It brings
the classroom instruction to life, which provides a working knowledge of the subject matter. For over 20 years, BowMac
has used this method of training to provide first responder, supervisory, and administrative personnel with a first-hand
application of lessons learned in the classroom.
It is valuable for those considered traditional responders — police, fire and EMS
disciplines — as well as for those considered non-traditional responders but who
will inevitably be involved in the response
stage (i.e., elected and appointed officials,
university administrators, public health,
facility management, etc.).
The first four training dates have been
announced. The University of Nevada, Las
Vegas dates are January 11-13, 2006, and
January 23-25, 2006. The University of
Maryland, College Park dates are February 7-9, 2006, and February 21-23, 2006.
There is no fee for this training. Students or their departments are respon-
sible for transportation and lodging costs,
if applicable. Registration and further information can be obtained by checking
the IACLEA Web site. Remember, the new
instructors are anxiously waiting to teach
this vital information, so register as soon
as possible.
The new instructors also want to thank
the members of BowMac who provided
this outstanding training: Vinnie Faggiano,
John McNall, and Barbara Harris. Thank
you for an outstanding class. And from all
of us… “Tally Ho!”
About the Author
Robert Mueck is a lieutenant in the
University of Maryland Department of
Public Safety. Bob was one of 16 Incident Command trainers who went
through the first-ever ICS train-thetrainer course and is now certified to
teach the three-day course.
Examining Campus Crime at
American Colleges and Universities
By Giuseppe M. Fazari, Ph.D.
Introduction
A number of high profile crimes committed on college campuses during the 1980s
put to rest the traditional perception of
post-secondary institutions as safe havens.
As a result of burgeoning public concern,
the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus
Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act was enacted to publicize information pertaining to the criminal activity
occurring on American college campuses.
The Clery Act generally requires that each
college and university participating in federal student aid programs “…prepare,
publish and distribute…” to current and
prospective students and employees
upon request an annual campus crime
report. The benefit of such legislation is
that, prior to the law’s enactment, few
administrations compiled statistical data
with regard to campus crime, and less
than five percent submitted the crime
data to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Jacobs and Bayen 2001).
One of the primary objectives of the
Clery Act is to ensure that students and
employees of institutions of higher education are aware of the policies and procedures in preventing and reporting crime
on their campus (U.S. Department of
Education 2001). Fisher and others (1998)
claimed, “research into student victimization is still in the infancy stages of scholarly development and thus has many
theoretical and empirical gaps.” Indeed,
a review of the literature showed few
methods practiced by campus law enforcement administrators in extensively
analyzing crime data; while crime data is
A number of high profile crimes committed
on college campuses during the 1980s put
to rest the traditional perception of postsecondary institutions as safe havens.
justifiably disseminated to the public,
there remains two unanswered questions.
First, apart from the raw data, what other
related factors should administrators collect in examining campus crime occurrences? Second, what process should administrators implement to forecast, recommend, monitor, and evaluate policies
and procedures aimed at reducing victimizations of a particular nature or group?
The purpose of the following methodology is to provide administrators with
a research design, which examines campus crime trends, measures the correlation and impact of victimization among
campus groups, and incorporates a policy
and procedure paradigm to assess strategies in reducing the crime rate. Without
such analysis, university administrations
can only superficially address victimization at best and, at worst, fail to integrate
preventative approaches altogether
(Lively 1998; Sloan 1994; Seng 1996).
More simply, annual data reported, tabulated, and promulgated to the wider community is limited without further analysis
and does little to benefit administrators in
addressing their particular crime trends.
Mustaine and Tewksbury (1998) found
that scholars have addressed the predictors and consequences of campus crime
on undergraduate populations, however
only through single variable correlates.
Fisher and associates (1998) found that
previous research lacks “theoretical
grounding” and has often attempted to
explain victimizations with unrefined
crime data. Conclusions, therefore, should
be drawn from multivariate data that is
inclusive of raw data. Analysis should include factors such as victim demography,
ecology, victim/offender activity, experiences, and perceptions. Recommendations based on multivariable associations
are more beneficial than univariable methods in that they pinpoint the rate of campus crime in addition to equally important behavior patterns, lifestyle issues, and
environmental factors that may be contributing to the problem (Cohen and
Felson 1979; Hindelang et al. 1978). The
described method is specifically useful in
that it unifies various theories, policy, and
practice of higher education administration as it relates to the study of criminology. Together, this framework demonstrates the efficacy of synthesizing multiple approaches in examining campus
crime.
Research Design
Figure 1 illustrates each research module
comprising the design. The on-campus
crime problem serves as the criterion for
the ex ante part of the model and as a
predictor for the ex post facto segment
of the design. The ex ante portion of the
research delineates the causes of on-campus victimization among the campus
group. For instance, the research for this
Examining Campus Crime at American Colleges and Universities
Figure 1. Research Design Model
Cause – Determinants
(Independent Variable)
-
Phenomenon
(Dependent/ 2nd Order
Independent Variable)
Demography
Routine
Activities
Ecology
Lifestyle
Effects – Consequences
(2nd Order Dependent Variable)
Perceptions:
- Perceived Risk and
Fear
- Perception of
Prevention and
Deterrence
- Satisfaction with the
College Campus
Experience
On-Campus
Victimization
Policy, Practice, and Theoretical Implications
The results of the above-mentioned are utilized to
formulate future policy and practice and inform
established theories and models.
Problem Centered Policy Analysis (Dunn 1994)
Retrospective Analysis
Problem
Performance
Evaluation
Forecasting
Problem
Structuring
Problem Finding
Policy
Outcomes
Prospective Analysis
Problem
Structuring
Policy
Problem
Problem
Structuring
Policy
Futures
Problem Solving
Problem
Structuring
Monitoring
Policy
Actions
Recommendations
study examined the causes of theft victimization among undergraduate students.
The predictor variables for the ex ante
portion of the design included the victim’s
demographic characteristics, routine activities, university ecology, and collegiate
lifestyle. The ex post facto aspect explains the consequences of this on-campus victimization. The criterion for the ex
post facto module included perception
measured through their perceived risk
and fear of on-campus crimes, perceptions of institutional effectiveness in preventing and deterring on-campus crime,
and satisfaction with their college campus experience. Finally, individually and
jointly, these former two segments are
used to substantiate and refute previous
research, thereby providing the institution with policy and practice implications.
As university officials establish policy on
the basis of these results, they will be able
to monitor its development through the
problem-centered analysis noted by Dunn
(1994). Together, the results allow for the
reformulation of the hypotheses and inform future research of how these findings can be infused into the policy analysis framework. The interconnections of
the problem are brought to bear in an
integrative policy analysis. Dunn (1994)
stated that integrated analysis is “…continuous, iterative, and unlimited…” and
“…has all the methodological advantages
of prospective and retrospective analysis
but none of their weaknesses.”
The “within” and “conditional college
effects” concepts noted by Pascarella and
Terenzini (1991) were integrated into the
data results to articulate the impact of a
victimization experience on undergraduate students. The within college effects
refer to the influence that different college experiences (on-campus victimization or non-victimization) have on undergraduate outcomes (perceptions). Conditional effects examine the impact of similar experiences on different undergraduate groups (such as gender, on-campus
residential status, enrollment status, etc.)
outcomes. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate these
effects.
Data Collection
Disparities in classification systems, regional settings, population, and depart-
The data collection was conducted through
the distribution of a survey. This research
employed a proportionate stratified
sampling procedure to select
undergraduate students
mental proceedings challenge and continue to defy administrative efforts in examining and reaching a comprehensive
understanding of the campus crime problem. Research has suggested that campus crime, much like other societal crime,
requires in-depth analysis in order to furnish accurate results. In light of these findings, this research applied the said
method as a case study analysis.
The data collection was conducted
through the distribution of a survey. This
research employed a proportionate stratified sampling procedure to select undergraduate students. The focus of the research was an undergraduate population
primarily for two reasons. First, the Clery
Act was principally enacted over concerns
about the safety and security of college
students. Second, students in American
colleges and universities outnumber faculty and staff by a ratio of six to one (Sloan
et al. 1997). The specific victimization
analyzed was on-campus theft. Several
scholars have shown that theft victimizations are the most prevalent crime on
college campuses (Fisher, Lu, and Sloan
1998; Sloan 1994; Lively 1998; Seng 1996;
Sloan, Fisher, and Wilkins 1996).
The percentage of all undergraduates
enrolled in each of the colleges was the
variable used for stratification. For instance,
45 percent of the undergraduate population is enrolled in the College of Arts and
Science; consequently, 13 Arts and Science program areas/courses, comprising
approximately 45 percent of the 29 program areas/courses to be selected, were
randomly drawn. Table 1 demonstrates
the distribution of program areas/courses
selected based on the percentage of all
undergraduates enrolled in the specified
colleges.
Due to its comparatively small undergraduate enrollment, School of Theology
program areas/courses were eliminated
from selection. The remaining five colleges comprised the following: Arts and
Science, 42 programs of study; Business,
13 programs; Education, 4 programs;
Nursing, 1 program; and Diplomacy, 1
program. Thirteen program areas were
randomly selected from the College of
Arts and Science; 8 from Business; and 5
from Education (1 program was selected
twice). The Schools of Nursing and Diplomacy did not require a random selection of programs due to their singular program offering. Twenty-nine courses were
subsequently chosen at random from the
selected program areas. With the exception of the Schools of Nursing and Education, where two courses were selected
from a single program, one course from
each program area was drawn using a
simple random sample. In conducting the
simple random sample, each program area
was assigned a number. A table of random numbers reproduced by FrankfortNachmias (1999) was then used to randomly select program areas in each of
the five colleges. The table was read with
IACLEA Virtual Exhibition Center
Is Open for Business
24 Hours a Day • 7 Days a Week
www.iaclea.org
Figure 2. Within College Effects Diagram
Student
S1
S2
College Life
Outcome
U1
Different On-campus
Experience (victimized vs.
non-victimized)
U2
Figure 3. Conditional College Effects Diagram
Student Typology
S1
S2
College Life
U1
Similar On-campus
Victimization Experience
consistency until 29 programs
Table 1
were drawn. The same
Distribution of Sample Population by Academic College
method of selection was subUniversity College
Percent of All Enrolled Undergraduates
sequently used to collect a
random sample of courses.
The survey instrument
Arts & Science
45
used in this study was developed logically from both the
Business
27
statement of the problem and
Education
17
from empirical findings of
previous research. This quesNursing
7
tionnaire consisted of 48
questions regarding the
Diplomacy
3
student’s demographic charTheology
1
acteristics, routine activities,
university ecology, collegiate
Total
100
lifestyle, and perceptions as
they relate to on-campus
theft victimization. Data pertaining to un- Data Analysis
dergraduate perceptions was elicited Survey results indicated if particular varithrough a series of Likert scale questions ables (demography, routine activities,
(five degree differential). Depending on ecology, and lifestyle characteristics) prethe undergraduate’s response to the theft dispose undergraduates to theft victimvictimization question, the survey provided ization. The data showed the results of
data on between 45 and 54 variables. The the independent variable (theft victiminstrument was piloted to a nonrandom ization) and its impact on the dependent
group of undergraduates in order to sub- variable (student perception). Collecstantiate the efficacy of the question de- tively, these results were used to develop
sign, sampling procedures, and adminis- and ultimately evaluate policies and protration protocol as well as refine any am- cedures aimed at reducing theft victimbiguities therein. The reliability of the in- ization among undergraduates. Data was
strument was established through the pi- analyzed using four statistical methods
lot test.
including cross-tabulation, Chi Square,
correlation, and regression.
Outcome
U2
Number of Program Areas/Courses
Selected
13
8
5
2
1
0
29
Undergraduate on-campus theft victimization was cross tabulated with routine
activity and ecological variables. The Chi
Square method was used for the ex ante
portion of the research design to test for
existent patterns among the causal determinants of theft victimization relative
to demography and lifestyle characteristics. The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (Pearson r) was computed to determine the relationship between undergraduate lifestyles (academic
and social culture variables) and theft victimization. A two-tailed test was employed
whereby the region of rejection is located
The survey instrument used in this study was
developed logically from both the statement
of the problem and from empirical findings
of previous research.
on both sides of the sampling distribution. There were no significant relationships supporting the research hypothesis
observed; therefore, a partial correlation
analysis was not needed.
The research employed, where applicable, the simple regression as well as
the multiple regression techniques of
analysis. For instance, theft victimization
(victims compared to non-victims) was
tested against student perceptions. By
doing so, findings demonstrate that each
additional theft crime endured by the
undergraduate (X variable) results in a Y
increase or decrease in perceived feelings and beliefs. The standard error of
estimate was also examined to determine
the standard deviation for the estimated
prediction. Multiple regression models
were used to predict the Y variable (theft
victimization or student perception) from
multiple predictor scores (X1, X2, X3).
These regression tests enable one to observe and analyze the predictability of X
on Y. More specifically, it outlined the
significant variables and the amount of
variance. For instance, how good is the
combination of X1 and X2 in determining
Y or which of the variables is the stronger or weaker predictor?
Data Results
The method described herein introduces
a holistic approach in examining the campus crime problem. As noted in the literature, scholars have generally analyzed
the problem with limited focus and have
done so in a linear fashion. Considering
the inherent weaknesses of the Clery Act,
research that thoroughly studies campus
crime among college students seems
warranted. These methods tested, where
applicable, 10 research hypotheses that
were derived primarily from empirical
research. The specific research hypotheses were separated into the following
three, more general, domains: 1) General research hypothesis A compared the
rate of on-campus theft to crimes man-
dated for reporting by the Clery Act. In
addition, it analyzed the reporting rate
among undergraduate on-campus theft
victims by comparing survey results to
incidents reported to the Public Safety and
Security Department. The differential is
referred to as the “dark figure” of campus crime; 2) General research hypothesis B tested the questions related to the
causation (demographic characteristics,
routine activities, ecology, and lifestyle)
of undergraduate on-campus theft victimization; and 3) General research hypothesis C tested the impact (perceived risk,
fear, prevention, deterrence, and satisfaction) that on-campus theft has on direct
and indirect victims.
The findings drawn from the research
design provided a more comprehensive
understanding of campus crime, in this
case theft among undergraduates, plaguing the university. For instance, the data
showed inter alia that theft crimes comparative to offenses stipulated by the
Jeanne Clery Act are overwhelmingly the
most prevalent type of victimization and
corroborated the notion of a dark figure
in that less than two-fifths of undergraduate theft victims reported the crime to
institutional officials. With respect to causation, the data revealed that residents
are more prone to victimization due to
the number of valuables (suitable targets)
they bring with them to campus in addition to their increased exposure to motivated offenders. First-year students had a
dependent relationship with theft victimization due to their inexperience with
college life. Athletes also showed a dependent relationship with being victimized by theft suggesting that they are
more inclined than non-athletes to have
behaviors that impel theft victimization
or that members of sport teams have an
increased exposure to theft offenders
because of the concentration of these individuals within those affiliations. Property that was not secured was more ofThe findings drawn from the research
design provided a more comprehensive
understanding of campus crime, in this case
theft among undergraduates, plaguing the
university.
ten stolen than well-guarded items and
most items had redeemable value. Most
of the thefts occurred indoors and on the
campus property with the largest proportion taking place in residence halls. Undergraduates enduring a theft outdoors
were most often victimized in parking
areas. Thefts were more likely to occur
during the afternoon hours when the
greatest numbers of potential victims
were present on campus. A direct experience with theft victimization was significant in determining perceptions of risk,
prevention, and satisfaction. Finally, an
indirect experience with theft victimization was shown to be significant in determining perceptions of risk, prevention,
satisfaction, and deterrence.
In accordance with recommendations
cited by the literature in its suggested
further research, as well as the need to
address campus crime in a more wideranging manner, the objective here was
to take a multifaceted approach in explaining a particular type of victimization
among a specific campus group. The results support the contention of theft as a
prevalent problem, but more importantly
identified variables that increase the likelihood of victimization. The effects of victimization on student perception also had
a compelling outcome. This methodology clarified for administrators the patterns and consequences of victimization
thus enabling them to more appropriately
gauge resources in adopting and developing programs that are focused on the
campus crime problem.
References
Cohen, L., and M. Felson. 1979. Social change
and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review 44:
588-608.
Dunn, W. N. 1994. Public policy analysis: An
introduction. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fisher, B. S., C. Lu, and J. J. Sloan. 1998. Crime
in the ivory tower: The level and sources
of student victimization. Criminology 36
(3): 671-710.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C. 1999. Social statistics for
a diverse society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine
Forge Press.
Hindelang, M. J., M. R. Gottfredson, and J.
Garofalo. 1978. Victims of personal crime:
An empirical foundation for a theory of
personal victimization. Cambridge, UK:
Ballinger.
Examining Campus Crime at American
Colleges and Universities
Lively, K. 1998. Alcohol arrests on campuses
jumped 10% in 1996. Drug arrests increased
by 5%. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
May 8.
Mustaine, E. E., and R. Tewksbury. 1998. Predicting risks of larceny theft victimization:
A routine activity analysis using refined
lifestyle measures. Criminology 36 (4): 829857.
Jacobs, R. K., and G. J. Bayen. 2001. Campus
crime data: The need to collect simple assault statistics. Campus Law Enforcement
Journal 31 (4): 23-26.
Pascarella, E. T., and P. T. Terenzini. 1991. How
college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Seng, M. 1996. Theft on campus: An analysis of
larceny-theft at an urban university. Journal of Crime and Justice 19 (1): 33-44.
Sloan, J. J. 1994. The correlates of campus crime:
An analysis of reported crimes on college
and university campuses. Journal of Criminal Justice 22 (1): 51-60.
Sloan, J. J., Fisher, B. S., and Wilkins, D. L.
(1996). Reducing perceived risk and fear
of victimization on campus: A panel study
of faculty members, staff, and students. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 12,
(1), 81-108.
Sloan, J. J., Fisher, B. S., and Cullen, F. T. (1997).
Assessing the Student Right-to-Know and
Campus Security Act of 1990: An analysis
of the victim reporting practices of college
and university students. Crime and Delinquency, 43, (2), 148-168.
U.S. Department of Education. 2001. The incidence of crime on the campuses of U.S.
postsecondary education institutions.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
About the Author
Giuseppe M. Fazari, Ph.D. was the Assistant Director and later promoted to Senior Manager of Public Safety and Security at Seton Hall University between 1998
and 2002. He is currently a Court Executive for the Superior Court of New Jersey –
Essex Vicinage and an Adjunct Faculty
member in the Sociology Department at
Union County College. He has a B.A. in
Criminal Justice with a minor in Sociology, an M.P.A. with a concentration in
Criminal Justice Management, and a Ph.D.
in Higher Education Administration —
Policy and Research. The research and
recommendations expressed in this article
are those of the author and do not reflect
the views of any of the noted institutions.
Register Now
for
IACLEA’s 48th Annual Conference
Visit the IACLEA Web site: www.iaclea.org
For complete up-to-date Conference information:
• Workshop schedule
• Special events
• Exhibitor information
• Registration forms
• Hotel information
• Orlando information
Palma auto boot pu last page 27
Customer Service and the Fear of Crime
By Richard Parfitt, Lieutenant, University of Pittsburgh Police Department
From farmer’s markets to Walmart, customer service is vital to the success of
any business and our public safety departments are no exception. Being in the
business of safety and security we provide a service even though our customers may not describe themselves as such.
No matter how large or small your agencies are customers expect a certain level
of service. The question is, are your officers meeting (or exceeding) that level?
With all of the varied duties that are expected and assumed officers may not be
meeting all of our customer service needs.
Some of the deficiencies in service may
not be from the officer’s lack of effort,
but the result of limited finances; others
may be from misinformation or lack of
current facts and technology.
According to Customer Service for
Dummies there are six basic needs necessary for maintaining a level of service
that customers expect and may not even
realize. You will see that these needs are
easily applied to public safety. The first
and surely one of the most important
needs is that customers expect us to be
friendly, or what Webster describes as
showing kindly interest and goodwill.
Public safety officers are in constant contact with citizens and most of those contacts have them providing information or
seeking of information, which they may
not get if their approach is unfriendly. Who
among us would approach a grouch to
give information, especially particulars
about criminal activity? In the same vein
we know that most complaints received
about officers is that they were rude. Be-
According to Customer Service for Dummies
there are six basic needs necessary for
maintaining a level of service that
customers expect and may not even realize.
ing friendly is a quality most people in
retail sales understand but may not be
stressed enough in public safety and policing.
Customers may not specifically realize it, but they find that officers who display understanding and empathy, not only
with complainants, witnesses and victims
of crimes, but in daily contacts with students, faculty and staff as well are the
goodwill ambassadors their institution
needs. This understanding and empathy
will be especially important with the largest segment of our customer population,
that of young adults. To be successful our
officers must understand young adult behavior and be tolerant to the extent that
even though the law may consider them
adults the students we deal with are still
maturing. The most understanding officers get the most cooperation.
A third need very high on the list is
that customers expect to be treated fairly
and in the educational settings we work,
this sometimes subjective concept is not
lost on our young, idealistic customers of
knowledge; they understand and expect
this. Possibly best described as legal and
unbiased, fairness and equality are rooted
in our system of law and the colleges or
universities we serve.
Most people need to feel that they
have some impact on the way things they
are involved in turn out, in other words
having a hand in their destiny, and this is
why control is a fourth need of customers. Criminologists and victim rights advocates have long understood that crime
victims must regain control over their
lives in order to mentally survive, but
control is important to others on campus
as well. Students living on their own for
the first time test this control until they
settle on what they find to be a suitable
lifestyle.
The resourceful public safety officer
will be able to provide options and alternatives to customers, not only in enforcing the law or rules of their particular institution, but in the many contacts for
advice. All of the citizens we serve and
students in particular find this fifth need
important: to discover diverse avenues
for accomplishing, not only the educational, but life’s works as well.
Lastly, customers need information,
especially about all of the myriad laws,
policies, rules, regulations and procedures
when they deal with our officers. Information may simply be directions to buildings and classrooms or of activities in and
around our campus community. Information is vital to new students and their parents so officers must be completely familiar with their campus facilities and services. Like all public safety personnel,
officers must be aware of events and activities in their communities and what resources are available to their customers.
The six basic needs provide the
groundwork for customer service, but it
is necessary for officers to apply them in
all that they do. Applying the tenets of
customer service is not a difficult or foreign venture. Serious thought began in
the 1960s with police-community relations programs and developed into today’s
popular schools of thought like problemoriented policing and especially community-oriented policing programs many
departments have adopted. Even though
there may not be a consensus on a definition, community-oriented policing encompasses programs that build partnerships between police and the community they serve. We cannot afford to
have our departments viewed as occupying armies if they want to be effective. There must be problem-solving approaches to crime and disorder as we have
all learned that the police alone cannot
solve a crime problem; most crimes are
solved by information from victims and
witnesses. Community-oriented policing
places emphasis on proactive crime control like the various crime prevention programs we use on our campuses today.
One of the most important aspects of
community-oriented policing is for departments to recognize that there are other
public concerns besides crime that are
important for promoting trust in our
agency. Some of these other concerns
may be quality of life issues; for many
the most serious crime problem may be
panhandling, juveniles on a corner, or
public urination; another long-time concern has been the fear of crime.
Public safety must be responsive to
the concerns of their community and
crime prevention is an important customer service concern; not just the physical protection of persons, but the peace
of mind or feeling of being secure. The
fear of crime or a person’s perception of
crime is just as important as the actual
occurrence of criminal acts. Remember
the adage that perception is reality because a person’s perception can affect
their quality of life and the trust and support of our security efforts, along with faith
in our institutions. A person’s fear of crime
often exceeds the actual risk of being victimized and this abstract crime problem
Our crime prevention efforts encourage the
use of hardware, like locks, alarms, lights,
etc. and commonsense advice, like avoiding
dark alleys, to travel in pairs, not drinking to
excess and others. A crime prevention
mindset is positive, not paranoid.
is difficult to overcome. How many times
have we heard witnesses refuse to cooperate for fear of retaliation? Officers need
to be trained to allay those fears, to redirect the unwarranted fears and to channel those that are necessary to protect
the person. Remember, not all fear of
crime is bad; a healthy fear encourages
people to take certain crime prevention
measures to protect themselves and their
property.
Our crime prevention efforts encourage the use of hardware, like locks, alarms,
lights, etc. and commonsense advice, like
avoiding dark alleys, to travel in pairs, not
drinking to excess and others. A crime
prevention mindset is positive, not paranoid. The Jeanne Clery act requires us to
make certain timely warnings when a
crime poses an ongoing threat to students
and employees. These crime alerts are
necessary to warn our customers of a
potentially dangerous crime or criminal,
but this prevention campaign should raise
awareness, not instill unnecessary fear.
Officers must understand that their
public support is influenced by many factors; some they have little control over
but many they have a tremendous control over. We have all heard stories of
places, including colleges that are dangerous or have particular crime problems,
but how much of what we know is based
on fact? Some of this anecdotal information can be harmful to the reputations of
our neighborhoods or campuses. For example, officers may inadvertently provide
information, with good intentions, but
without factual basis, of the dangerousness of a particular area. Their intention
may be to warn students to be alert, but
the result may cause unwarranted fear.
Studies and statistics reveal that fear
of crime is not evenly distributed across
the population. As can be expected, those
who feel most vulnerable are the most
fearful. The distribution of fear among age
and sex category groups shows that elderly women in particular and women in
general are the most fearful of crime and
young men are reportedly least afraid.
Ironically those most fearful are not necessarily the most victimized. Even though
elderly women are the most fearful,
young men are the most victimized
group. Other variables, including race,
class, and place of residence are important to factor in. Officers need to provide
the most factually correct information to
our customers. Professor David Altheide
of Arizona State University has written
about the overuse of the language of fear,
saying that reasonable concern is healthy,
but much of the use of fear is unwarranted. “It boils down to overuse of the
language of fear and an overeager media
and entertainment industry attempting to
strike an emotional chord.”
Criminologists and police officers believed that if crime victimization was reduced, fear would naturally decrease;
unfortunately this has not been the case.
Historically police response to crime has
been to increase motorized patrol, quickly
respond to calls for service and to conduct retrospective criminal investigations,
which lead to the belief that these actions would reduce crime. In order to increase funding some police officers and
departments capitalized on the fear of
crime—they emphasized the risk of crime
and postulated that more or better paid
police could solve a particular crime problem. These beliefs have continued and
remain part of the police culture in some
respects. Instead of reducing fear this
strategy uses the fear of crime for political or financial reasons.
Research has found that the public
safety programs that increase an officer’s
contact with the public and improve the
quality of those contacts have been successful in reducing the fear of crime. Many
campus public safety departments have
adopted community-oriented policing
strategies and attempted to increase the
quantity and quality of contacts with their
officers, for example, by increasing foot
and bike patrols.
If we accept the definition of community-oriented policing from the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services,
U.S. Department of Justice, many of our
programs embrace their definition. Our
programs have a “policing philosophy
designed to reduce crime and disorder in
our communities by fostering trust, respect
and collaboration” between our officers
and the customers we serve.
This trust, respect and collaboration are
being tested by a new threat our officers
and agencies are dealing with. Today,
largely because of media coverage, the
fear that we are confronted with is that of
terrorism. Terrorism is a term that can
mean different things in different situations. We became familiar with domestic
terrorism on the bombing of the federal
building in Oklahoma City and learned
that we could be victims of international
terrorism on 9/11. Today terrorism is a
term broadly applied to the criminal acts
of many groups and individuals, for example the crimes committed by animal
rights activists have been described as
terrorism. So how does an officer come
up with a working definition? Because of
its uniformity, I believe we should accept
the FBI definition that domestic terrorism, which most of us would deal with,
refers to “activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States
or of any state, and appear to be intended
to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and occur primarily
within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.”
So when the FBI speaks about college
campuses as “soft targets” they could be
referring to domestic or international terrorists and groups like al Qaeda. College
campuses are possible targets because
campuses, like most places in the U.S.
cannot be completely guarded; not for
lack of our efforts, but because of the freedoms necessary in our educational system. This fear of terrorism can be felt on
all campuses, large and small, but we cannot allow this fear to hamper the basic
mission of our institutions. Today the fear
of terrorism is real and public safety officers are the officials likely to be the influential voice people listen to; our officers’
responses should not unnecessarily increase fear.
As a department we must assess and
evaluate the potential threats of terrorism to our campuses while keeping in
mind that we should not foster or perpetuate unreasonable fear. That is not to
say that we should not have emergency
response plans in place and constantly
update them.
Come learn some new tricks…
… at the 16th Annual IPMBA Conference
An international event for public safety personnel on bikes
Mayy 6-13, 2006 ~ Dayton,
Day
Ohio, USA
www.ipmba.org
Call: 410-744-2400 ~ Email: [email protected] ~ Visit: www.ipmba.org
The evaluations and assessments may
show us that some campuses are more
likely targets because of circumstances.
Universities with large student populations, those with nuclear reactors, those
with certain chemical and biological research facilities and possibly those with
government contracts to develop weapons systems may be potential targets.
Even though each college campus is
unique, that does not mean that some
generalizations can’t be made; for example, those in urban areas have greater
potential for certain crimes, like robbery
than suburban or rural campuses. The more
populous a campus the more opportunities exist for criminals to operate and remain anonymous. Before we espouse these
and other generalizations as fact we must
remember that we should be providing
the most factual information to our customers. Our officers should not have to
create crises or be “bogeymen” in order
to do their job; they should remember
the six basic needs of customer service.
References
Campbell, G. (2005). Altheide says media driving “discourse of fear.” www.asu.edu/feature/includes/spring05/readmore/
altheide.html
Foster, R. E. (2005). Defining terrorism for law
enforcement.
www.policeone.com/
pc_print.asp?vid=107553
Moore, M. H. & Trojanowicz, R. C. (1988). Policing and the fear of crime. Perspectives
on policing, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Nicholl, C. G. (1999). Community policing, community justice, and restorative justice: exploring the links for the delivery of a balanced approach to public safety. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of C.O.P. Services.
Roberts, J. V. (2001). Fear of crime and attitudes to criminal justice in Canada: A review of recent trends. (User Report 200102). Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada.
www.crimereduction.gov.uk (2005). Why are
people fearful?
www.policefoundation.org/docs/citizenfear.html
(2005). Police Foundation: Research in
Brief. Police strategies to reduce citizen
fear of crime.
www.paper-clip.com/pdf/anxiety.pdf. (2005).
Terror threats and anxiety.
www.paper-clip.com/audioconference/8.html.
(2005). FBI warns: colleges could be terror targets.
www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/
id-598.html. (2005). Expanding your concept of service.
Profiling Random Actors and
Averting Campus Incidents
By Dan Korem
Behavioral profiling expert and the author of a new book Rage of the Random
Actor— Disarming Catastrophic Acts and
Restoring Lives Dan Korem warned attendees of the General Session at
IACLEA’s 47th Annual Conference in Kansas City, Kansas last year that student-led
suicide attacks were imminent. He added
that campuses in the statistically safest
communities—small towns and suburbs—
are the highest risk targets for mass shooting/bombings and suicide attacks committed by students and staff.
Ninety-seven days after his presentation, on October 1, a University of Oklahoma student became the first U.S. college student suicide bomber in the precise locale he predicted—a statistically
safe small town community. And the student had the Random Actor profile.
Thankfully, only the student died.
Korem’s twenty-plus years of research
identifies that most mass school shooters,
suicide attackers, and postal/company
shooters have the Random Actor profile
(originally identified and published in his
1997 book The Art of Profiling—Reading People Right the First Time). The following questions and answers about the
Random Actor profile and preventing
campus incidents are adapted from Rage
of the Random Actor.
What exactly is the Random Actor
profile?
People with the extreme Random Actor
profile possess two core behavioral traits.
The first trait is the high FEARFUL trait—
they make decisions out of extreme fear
Behavioral profiling expert and the author
of a new book Rage of the Random Actor—
Disarming Catastrophic Acts and Restoring
Lives Dan Korem warned attendees of the
General Session at IACLEA’s 47th Annual
Conference in Kansas City, Kansas last year
that student-led suicide attacks were
imminent.
(paranoia). Their paranoia might manifest
itself in a diagnosable condition, like
schizophrenia, or a person might have
paranoia with a “small p”—despondent,
sense of hopelessness, etc. It is from this
trait that their neuroticism and irrational
acts arise. They will do whatever is necessary to protect assets against real or
imagined threats to their personal identity and what they want. They may talk
confidently, but when called upon to
make daily decisions, they operate out
of extreme fear. Their second trait is the
preference to operate unconventionally
or out-of-the-box to the extreme—what
is called the UNPREDICTABLE trait. It
doesn’t mean this person is hard to predict, rather that they prefer to operate
outside of convention. This trait by itself
isn’t harmful. Bill Gates, for example,
Random Actors who kill always display the
two traits to the extreme, and there is
always a behavioral paper trail.
possesses this trait and positively applied
it to build a software empire. Random
Actors, however, possess the dark side of
this trait: anarchistic and reckless.
How difficult is it to identify
someone with the Random Actor
Traits?
Random Actors who kill always display
the two traits to the extreme, and there is
always a behavioral paper trail. We have
trained over 20,000 education and law
enforcement professionals and there has
never even been a letter of complaint in
application where someone was
misidentified. In 2002, a major university
had over 24 bomb threats, several which
were not pranks.
How does the Random Actor profile
relate to college and university
campuses?
Virtually every secondary or collegiate
school shooter/bomber since 1997 had
the Random Actor profile, from the 1999
Columbine attackers . . . to Al Joseph
DeGuzman (21) at DeAnza College who
was caught in January 2001 with a cache
of bombs . . . to Robert Flores (41) who
murdered three professors in 2002 at the
University of Arizona College of Nursing.
Additionally, up to 50 to 75 times a day,
secondary school campus students across
the United States are found with bombs,
weapons, and plots to take out their
schools. As students graduate, a portion
of this threat potential transfers to college and university campuses.
Profiling Random Actors and Averting Campus Incidents
How likely is it that colleges will
continue to experience these
incidents?
Like other education institutions, the number of threats has significantly increased
every year since the mid-1990s. In 1997,
the first mass school shooting that established the school shooting/bombing trend
occurred in the Jackson, Mississippi suburb of Pearl where three died and seven
were wounded. The ring leader was an
18-year-old college student who recruited
local teens at a high school, and one of
the teens carried out the school slayings,
including his mother. In the future, look
for recruitment by domestic and international terrorist groups to commit suicide
attacks, as well as killer cells like the “DC
Sniper.” Behaviorally, Random Actors
when cornered often commit suicide and
most U.S. mass school shooters planned
to commit suicide as a part of their attack.
Why do you emphasize that higher
education security should stay in
touch with their secondary school
counterparts?
Because we expect to see more recruitment of high school students to commit
Random Actor incidents by college and
university students. It gives an insecure
student a false sense of power to have
younger ones in his cadre . . . and they
are easy to deceive and direct to commit
an attack.
Your research indicates that suburbs
and small towns are the most likely
locale for a Random Actor incident.
This seems odd because they are
the statistically safest locales.
First, virtually every mass school shooting in North America and Europe since
1997 has occurred in suburbs and small
towns. Rarely is there a similar type of
incident in the inner-city. Second, suburbs
and small towns have the opposite behavioral profile in the eyes of a Random
Actor. If you look at a chart of the Random Actor traits you can see that suburbs
and small towns have the MANAGER profile. In suburbs there is the predictability
of neatly cut lawns and immaculate malls,
and people are affluent, feel safe and are
confident. This is why the Muhammad-
Malvo sniper duo took aim on the Washington, DC and Maryland suburbs. Small
towns also represent the MANAGER quadrant, but for different reasons. First, there
is little change and variety. Second,
people feel safe and confident, don’t lock
their doors, and Random Actors suspiciously feel excluded from their community.
How does this correlate with suicide
terrorists?
First, the average age of a suicide attacker
for the last twenty years is 17–24 and
students are the preferred recruit. Second, most suicide attackers are affluent
and educated. In February 2003, for example, I warned British industry leaders
that they must keep a watch on their suburban teenagers—not their lower income
areas. Two of the July 6, 2005, London
subway suicide attackers were suburban
teenagers and a third was just 22 and
known to be immature. The recruiter of
the cell was educated, a youth mentor,
and even featured in a Times of London
magazine piece. All four—like our U.S.
school shooters and most Palestinian suicide attackers—had the Random Actor
profile.
Who really ticks off the Random
Actor?
In the early 1990s, I asked the question:
Why are there random shooters at the
US Post Office but not at UPS or FedEx?
They all are in the delivery business. If
you look at the grid of the Random Actor
traits, you see that the MANAGER quad-
rant is the opposite behavioral profile.
People, organizations, institutions, and
communities that represent the two MANAGER traits inherently tick-off the Random Actor. If you appear predictable/
conventional/traditional and you have the
façade of confidence, these are the opposite traits of the Random Actor and you
are a higher at risk for an incident.
In the postal example, the Post Office, which has 850,000 employees, represents extreme predictability. And, when
combined with arrogant and dismissive
management styles, you have the recipe
for disaster—and over 36 slayings. UPS
and FedEx, which employ over 500,000
staff, historically have had more change
and variability, more inclusive and responsive management styles. The net result?
Only 1 shooting.
Similarly, most company shootings
occur in the accounting department or
assembly line but not the art department.
In local communities, alternative education schools, which by definition educate
at-risk students, rarely if ever have authentic bomb or mass shooting threats directed at them by their students. After 911, for example, while nearly 10,000
North American schools experienced
threats, there were virtually no threats on
alternative campuses. In effect, they were
the safest education locales. Without
knowing it, they were intuitively applying a three-point intervention strategy that
I identified in the mid-1990s.
Where should campuses pay closest
attention where staff might commit
Random Actor incidents?
Anyplace that has repetitive work tasks,
like accounting, delivery, mail room, etc.
These types of locales are where most
Random Actor workplace incidents occur.
What campuses are at highest risk
for a student or staff Random Actor
incident?
Campuses that have the two MANAGER
traits and are in suburbs and small towns.
Have you used this predictive grid?
Yes. In August of 2002, I made a list of
35 “high risk” campuses and systems and
called senior officials and informed them
of the threat assessment. Within 6 weeks,
First U.S. College Student Suicide Bomber
Matches Random Actor Profile
On Saturday evening, October 1, 2005, Joel Hinrichs III, a 21-year-old engineering student at the University of Oklahoma became America’s first student
suicide bomber. Strapped to an explosive device, he committed suicide by
detonating the device about 100 yards from the university football stadium
about 10 minutes before the half-time of the game in progress. (He apparently tried to enter the stadium but was turned back when he wouldn’t allow
his bag to be inspected.) Fans could not exit stadium at half-time. A cache of
explosives was found in his apartment near campus, and he attempted to
purchase ammonium nitrate to make a fertilizer bomb, like the one used by
Timothy McVeigh.
A prized student from Colorado Springs, Hinrichs had the Random Actor
traits and other common attributes of students who have committed Random
Actor attacks:
1. (High Fearful trait) Suffered severe despondency. Hinrichs’s father said,
“He was a very intelligent, very private individual who somehow lost the
confidence that his life would be a good one.”
2. (High Unpredictable trait) Described as “different,” obsessed with guns
and ammunition. It may never be known if he only decided to commit
suicide or his device prematurely detonated before he could maneuver
next to others. The nature of the act, though, was extremely UNPREDICTABLE.
3. Parents were going through a divorce
4. Affluent and educated
5. Intellectually bright
University of Oklahoma as a campus represents the MANAGER quadrant:
1. Small town environment
2. State school
3. Statistically safe
4. Extremely traditional environment
Hinrichs was like Finland’s first suicide bomber college student
Petri Gerdt, a twenty-one-year-old chemistry student, became the world’s first
student suicide bomber without a cause. On October 11, 2002, he strapped 20
pounds of explosives to his body and blew himself up in an affluent suburban
Helsinki mall. Finland, while statistically safe, has all the attributes as a country
of the MANAGER quadrant and it has one of the world’s highest suicide rates
per capita. Similar to Hinrichs, both were affluent and extremely bright. It
won’t be long before terrorist or criminal cells recruit these students and give
them a cause to make it easier for them to detonate.
Should families send their kids to University of Oklahoma?
That the University of Oklahoma represents the MANAGER quadrant to the
Random Actor doesn’t mean that families shouldn’t send their sons and daughters to this outstanding educational institution. Rather, campuses that are regarded as the MANAGER quadrant by Random Actors should have staff in
strategic places who can identify the Random Actor traits and how to apply the
three-point intervention. Like other student Random Actor cases, Hinrichs was
known by campus professionals to have problems, yet none could connect
the dots regarding the significance of what they observed as it related to the
Random Actor traits and the threat potential.
Dan Korem
one of those campuses, the University of
Arizona, Tucson had the first mass shooting of the 2002-2003 school year. Within
3 months, another one of the 35 campuses had the first student arrested who
wanted to be a suicide bomber (University of Texas at Arlington, Feb. 2003). A
third campus had the first U.S. college student suicide bomber (University of Oklahoma, October 1, 2005).
What are the three intervention
themes you’ve identified that stop
incidents and how can campuses
apply them to stop attacks and
guide a student or staff member out
of the Random Actor profile?
Theme 1: Provide change and variability. This accommodates the UNPREDICTABLE trait through more flexibility, avoiding autocratic directives, etc.
After 9-11, the only region in the United
States that did not experience Random Actor
threats in schools was a region where over
2,500 educators applied these strategies.
Theme 2: Provide protective factors.
This reduces paranoia, an us-against-them
mentality. Examples are sensible responses to students being bullied or
picked on; counseling for students facing
sudden reversals/failures, etc.; promote
inclusiveness especially amongst staff and
student leadership directed at the student
body.
Theme 3: Mentor how to make confident decisions outside area of expertise/
giftedness. This not only reduces fearful
decision making, but over time a student/
staff moves out of the Random Actor profile and into the Innovator profile. The
idea is to help someone in small bite-sized
steps learn to make decisions out of confidence and most will respond literally
within weeks.
Where have these interventions
produced results?
After 9-11, the only region in the United
States that did not experience Random
Actor threats in schools was a region where
over 2,500 educators applied these strategies. In addition to hundreds of small
individual cases, it has been used in combat. Captain Pedro Rosario and his unit
made over fifty arrests of suicidal-led insurgents over a period of several months
in 2004 and without firing a shot. He was
awarded the Bronze Star with Valor for
his service. In effect, he not only saved
the lives of Iraqis and his troops, but also
those who he said, “wanted to kill and be
killed.” And, most of his arrests were those
who were young, affluent, and educated
from other countries outside of Iraq.
Who on a campus is best suited to
apply these interventions?
What community colleges have going for
them is that they are responsive to their
communities. They also have a threat
potential, though, because it’s more likely
that a local community college student
might recruit secondary schools students,
which is why the two institutions should
work together to lower the potential for
incidents. On campus, staff and students
that can apply the three interventions
include:
Department heads
(who can guide staff)
Student assisted services
Career counselors
RAs when there are dorms
Student leadership
Campus security
Human resource professionals
Senior management
Is there another useful perspective
campus security should consider?
Staff must be able to distinguish between
protest groups that commit non-lethal incidents (like vandalism) and Random Ac-
tors in a group who might kill. Just because someone commits a criminal act
during a protest doesn’t make them a
Random Actor.
About the Author
Dan Korem, also the
author of The Art of
Profiling—Reading
People Right the First
Time, is the president of
Korem & Associates,
which has provided behavioral profile training
to over 25,000 professionals—more than
any firm in the world—
for education, law enforcement, military, leadership, sales,
and human resource applications. You
can read the first two chapters of Rage
of the Random Actor at: www.ipfinc.com.
Reality Based Campus Security
By Jack F. Dowling, CPP, PSP, President/Principal Consultant, JD Security Consultants, LLC
Many articles have been written about
adequate and reasonable security for campuses. The challenge is to create an atmosphere that is both conducive to learning and secure enough to deter criminal
activity. Getting to that level is not easy.
Each campus is different and implementing a security program used at another
institution may or may not work. Unfortunately, the “off the shelf” approach
might not work due to the unique characteristics of each campus, i.e., size, location, population, etc. To get a degree of
confidence that your security program is
appropriate for your campus, you should
begin with a security/crime risk analysis.
Before you can develop a security plan
that is efficient and effective, you should
determine “what you are protecting from
whom” and the crime/security risk analysis can be the necessary beginning. The
objective to blocking paths to the target
is how the protection costs relate to performance. Identification of crime risks and
developing a comprehensive strategy to
manage them is the ultimate purpose of
a security system. Throughout this article,
crime analysis will be used in place of
security analysis but both measure the
same phenomena.
Just as there are many articles written
about campus security, there are numerous articles published and methods described of conducting a campus risk analysis/assessment and different names are
used for the processes. Basically, risk is
the product of the three factors of probability of attack, probability of criminal
success (security system failure), and con34 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
The crime statistics published by the city,
county, state and national level will give a
general overview of the crime situation that
can be used for comparison and/or support
for area and campus data.
sequences of a successful attack. An excellent recent document describing this
process is the General Security Risk Assessment Guideline, published by ASIS
International, 1625 Prince Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-2818, www.asisonline.org.
The sources of information for a reasonable crime analysis are derived from
four major databases:
• Campus incident/crime reports
• Area incident/crime reports
• City, county, state and national crime
statistics
• Campus trends
Due mainly to the Clery Act, almost
every campus will have access to at least
seven years of prior crime data and a daily
crime log. The various software programs
and records management systems created
to simplify compliance with the Clery Act
and other federal/state reporting requirements can produce relevant information
in a very short time. This data can be analyzed to see trends and patterns for various crime threats. Also, the crime data
can be analyzed by type, location, day,
time, victim, etc. to aid in developing
sufficient safeguards and countermeasures.
Most large municipalities have incident/crime reports broken down into different sectors, beats and precincts. The
requirement for publication of public
property crimes as stated in the Clery Act
should provide a good starting point.
Depending on the location (urban or rural), natural barriers and transportation issues (streets, interstates, public transit,
etc.), a reasonable distance can be established to gather area incident/crime reports. Again, this information will be helpful in establishing adequate preventive
actions. Attendance at local police workshops, regular formal and informal meetings or crime prevention seminars will
bring up-to-date and valuable knowledge
to develop adequate security actions.
The crime statistics published by the
city, county, state and national level will
give a general overview of the crime situation that can be used for comparison
and/or support for area and campus data.
Campus trends are very important and
articles written in the various professional
publications, especially the Campus Law
Enforcement Journal, published by
IACLEA, and Northeast College and Universities Security Association’s (NECUSA)
Clipboard are very helpful. Just as important in gathering pertinent information
is attendance at national and local college/
university meetings and conferences and
participation in professional security interactive Web sites.
After all the data has been collected,
an examination of the results should show
a particular pattern and specific priority
for any protective efforts. This detailed
study will ensure that the security program initiated will be supported by reality. In proposing changes to the security
program, the security administrator will
have the necessary ammunition to justify
and rationalize the recommendations. The
suggestions will be “need based” and
enable the college/university administration to consult crucial documentation for
allocating limited funds and resources for
the security enhancements.
After the real threats have been identified and prior to presenting the needs
to the administration, the current campus
protection system should be viewed in
light of the crime threats to determine
risks. Using a layered approach to security with depth of protection should be a
beneficial method. Security features, real
or perceived, can add to the protection
of the campus. To illustrate, suppose the
greatest crime threat to the campus is theft
of ceiling mounted LCD projectors. The
security administrator should view the
campus as a potential thief would. The
first zone of security evaluated would be
the perimeter of campus and some questions to ask are as follows:
• How bright is the campus?
• Is the lighting even and uniform?
• Does the level of lighting meet current guidelines? (recent Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America
[IESNA] security guidelines have significantly raised the minimum footcandles)
As is well documented, lighting is considered the most cost effective crime
deterrent available and is a major factor
in selecting a target by a criminal. If the
criminal perceives that he/she will be seen
and identified, the target may appear less
attractive and not worth the risk. Once
the criminal has made a decision to enter
your campus, the possibility of criminal
activity increases substantially and the
campus community is at a greater risk of
victimization.
Next, the barriers and access controls
to the campus should be appraised from
the point of view of a potential thief.
Some questions to ask in this regard are
as follows:
• Do the barriers (fencing, shrubbery,
etc.) around campus prevent unauthorized entry?
• Do these barriers present concealment or hiding places?
• Are legitimate entry/exit points kept
to a minimum and well marked?
• Is the public aware that the campus
is private property via signs or
changes in the environment?
Again, using the theft of ceiling
mounted projectors as the highest risk,
the buildings containing the projectors
should be inspected. Some questions to
answer about the buildings are as follows:
• Does the illumination of the buildings
meet current guidelines?
• Are primary ingress/egress points kept
to a minimum?
• Are doors, windows and other potential entry breaches properly secured
and sturdy?
• Is unauthorized entry to the roof prohibited?
• Are the buildings protected by electronic security systems?
Once inside the building, the evaluation of the interior, especially the room(s)
containing the projectors, should be evaluated. Some building interior questions to
answer are as follows:
• Are the interior room doors locked?
• Are the room doors sturdy in construction?
• Are the computers locked down and/
or electronically alarmed?
· Staffing Analysis
· Clery ActCompliance
· CrimePreventionPrograms
· ResidenceHallSecurityMeasures
· Development/ReviewofProcedures
www.fogadvisors.com
· SecuritySystem Assessments/UpgradePlanning
· SecurityMeasuresforInternationalStudyPrograms
· Post-IncidentSecurity Assessment/LitigationSupport
FOG Advisors, LLC, Security Management Consultants (630) 563-9701
Of course, this is a cursory example
and a much more detailed appraisal should
be made and many more questions asked
and answered. Once the threat has been
identified, the vulnerabilities disclosed,
and the impact of the loss determined, a
security plan can be developed to adequately protect against real risks that
have been disclosed. The security program should look to deter, detect, delay,
deny and respond to criminal acts and
the aftermath.
Obviously, blocking the criminal at the
perimeter of the campus is more important than dealing with him/her on the
campus. In this regard, lighting and illumination levels are likely the greatest
psychological and physical deterrents to
rational criminal activity. As mentioned
earlier, the recommended measurements
of illumination have been set much higher
for security purposes.
In this example about the theft of projectors, after lighting concerns have been
met, it may become necessary to limit
entry/exit to only one point at the buildings and alarm the emergency exits with
delayed egress hardware. Inside the buildings, patrols may need to be increased,
policies established to restrict access to
the buildings/rooms, and card access control systems installed at the buildings and/
or rooms.
Inside the rooms, the projectors may
need to be supervised by new smart/intelligence security video systems that signal when an object is moved. Also, the
projector can be protected with a security enclosure, sonic alarm, and/or a local
or silent theft detection sensor.
The layers of security, level of sophistication, type of technology and other
countermeasures should be based on the
identified risk, ensuring the proper allocation of funds and resources. Some tradeoffs among safeguards will need to take
place and a cost/benefit study may accompany the recommendations. Looking
at this example, each ceiling mounted
projector could easily cost in excess of
$5,000 per unit with both direct and indirect costs included. However, it would
not be prudent to spend $10,000 in security measures for one projector. After
these rings of protection are placed between the criminal and the target, the task
for a successful theft should be more difficult and time consuming and increase
the chance of apprehension.
After the projector issue has been addressed, the next in priority target can be
examined in the same manner following
the same steps. It should be noted that
the security protocols utilized to control
the first priority threat (projectors) could
be effective in preventing the next priority target, whether a violent or property crime. So there could be some dual
benefits derived from one or more countermeasures. For example, appropriate
lighting could deter a projector thief and
a rapist.
Ever since 9/11, there has been a tendency of colleges/universities to overre36 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
The benefits of creating a campus security
program based on realistic crime/security
risks cannot be overemphasized.
act to certain situations. Although understanding the concept of “err on the side
of caution,” the negative results of these
responses do not appear to serve a practical purpose, except to act as a training
session or disaster drill. However, once a
precedent has been established for a certain circumstance, the expectation may
be that the same response will occur every time. This policy can be costly and
disruptive. For example, if you evacuate
a building for every bomb threat, you
could conceivably evacuate a building
everyday. Nevertheless, each bomb threat
should be evaluated individually before a
specific response is initiated, which may
or may not include an evacuation.
Crime is not a static situation but dynamic. The changes in crime patterns and
trends can vary on a daily basis. Those
campus security/law enforcement agencies that have the staffing levels can practically assign an individual to conduct
regular crime analyses. Those agencies
that do not have the resources or have
not performed a crime/security risk analysis may need to seek external or outside
assistance. Obtaining assistance from independent security consultants can provide the needed support and documentation for the security recommendations
that should convince the administration
to act, committing scarce resources and
funds. The benefits of creating a campus
security program based on realistic crime/
security risks cannot be overemphasized.
In addition to furnishing a safer campus
with effective and efficient security precautions, liability for negligent or inadequate security lawsuits will be lessened
or eliminated. If litigation is initiated, welldocumented records and evidence will
clearly demonstrate the steps taken to
identify and prevent foreseeable crimes
in a reasonable manner. The security program can be defensible and available for
court purposes.
About the Author
Jack F. Dowling, CPP, PSP is President/Principal Consultant at JD Security
Consultants, LLC, Downingtown, PA. He
has over 25 years of experience in campus law enforcement at three universities. Mr. Dowling has been active in
IACLEA for over 20 years and was a member of the Board of Directors, Regional
Director, and chairperson for IACLEA
committees. Currently, he is a LEMAP
Team Leader. Mr. Dowling has served as
a security consultant to over 30 colleges,
universities and other entities and is a
court qualified security expert witness.
He possesses an M.A. in Criminal Justice, has presented to numerous groups,
conducted training programs and has
authored articles in various professional
security publications, including the Campus Law Enforcement Journal. He currently
teaches in the Criminal Justice Administration Program at the University of
Phoenix.
GOT NEWS?
Have you received an award, been interviewed by the media, moved into new
office space, retired, accepted a new job, received a promotion, received
accreditation for your department, or anything else that might interest other
IACLEA members?
We want to hear about it and tell your colleagues about it.
Mail the information (and photos) to: Karen E. Breseman, Managing Editor,
Campus Law Enforcement Journal, IACLEA, 342 North Main Street, West
Hartford, CT 06117-2507 or email to [email protected]
SECURE IT—
REPEAT
IBC
NONPROFIT ORG.
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
TUCSON, AZ
PERMIT NO. 541
International Association
of Campus Law
Enforcement Administrators
342 North Main Street
W. Hartford, CT 06117-2507
WELDON, WILLIAMS &
LICK
REPEAT AD FROM
LAST
OBC WITH

Volume 36, No. 1 - January/ February 2006 Campus Law

Transcription

Similar documents

Vital Signs week 2 - Love God

A Whole New World: Welcome to Michigan Tech

LPU Batangas vicinity map - Lyceum of the Philippines University

Campus SBB

open space master plan, university of toronto, st. george campus

this is a school worth visiting because james madison high school

MOTLOW STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Teach Responsibility One Day at a Time

930 winter street

File - Indus International School, Hyderabad