Thanks to congressional
action—and new notification technology—now nearly
every college will be working toward common security
standards and keeping students informed.
On Feb. 14, a former
graduate student of Northern Illinois University
entered a large lecture hall and opened fire on
students in a class with a shotgun, then a handgun.
He shot 22 people, killing five. Then he shot
himself.
Within minutes,
campus police responded. In a short time, they had
sent out an alert via the college’s website, e-mail
and voice mail, as well as alerting the news media
and setting off alarms.
Despite the tragedy,
the university handled the emergency response
appropriately, according to experts, deploying first
responders rapidly and effectively alerting students
and faculty.
In August, Illinois
Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) signed a law requiring
campus police forces to drill for such situations
and quickly end such threats. It will take effect on
Jan. 1.
Federal response
On Aug. 14,
President Bush signed into law the reauthorization
of the Higher Education Act—the first
reauthorization in nearly 10 years. The law contains
provisions that require college campuses to step up
security measures if they receive federal
funding—which applies to nearly every institute of
higher learning in the United States since most
participate in federal student loan programs.
The law requires
educational institutions to establish emergency
response and evacuation procedures if they do not
yet have them, including means to “immediately
notify the campus community” of any threat occurring
on campus, Jane Glickman, a spokesperson for the US
Department of Education (DoEd), told HSToday.
Campuses also are going to be required to test their
emergency response and evacuation procedures
annually.
The law expands
reporting requirements for institutions of higher
education as well, compelling them to include more
incidents under “hate crimes” in their updates to
federal authorities. Colleges and universities must
produce a fire safety report each year and send it
to the Secretary of Education to detail fire safety
practices at their schools and to report all fire
incidents that occurred there in the past year.
Institutions also must report drug violations and
develop missing persons procedures.
These provisions
modify the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus
Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act,
incorporated into the Higher Education Act by
Congress in 1990 to promote campus security
standards under federal law. Jeanne Clery was a
19-year-old student at Lehigh University in
Pennsylvania when she was raped and murdered in her
dormitory room in 1986.
Her parents, Howard
and Connie Clery, were so outraged that the
university underreported violent crimes on campus
that they founded the non-profit Security On Campus
Inc., based in King of Prussia, Pa., to lobby for
federal campus security standards.
Clery Act
“A lot is still
shaking out” on what the new Clery Act provisions
will require campuses to do, Jonathan Kassa,
executive director of Security On Campus, told
HSToday.
Security On Campus
made contributions to the new campus security laws,
and Kassa was particularly proud of a provision for
a model memorandum of understanding that schools
should negotiate with outside law enforcement
agencies before crises occur.
“This follows
through on one of the goals of the Clery Act, which
is that parents and students—as well as faculty or
anyone visiting the campus—should have the ability
to look at the data to see if those arrangements are
in place ahead of time at their fingertips, just as
they should know what the crime statistics are and
that there should be an honest representation of
those crime statistics,” Kassa explained.
Particularly
important is language in the Act requiring college
campuses to “immediately notify” students of any
developing situation that threatens their health and
safety, Kassa noted.
In October, DoEd
officials began meeting with various college
organizations and other groups to begin formulating
a federal rule implementing the new provisions of
the Higher Education Reauthorization Act, including
the campus security provisions.
“It’s going to be
interesting to see in the negotiated rulemaking what
Congress really meant by that,” Kassa said. “That’s
an important aspect to highlight because it places
significance on not just a timely warning but on
broadcasting information as soon as possible when
something threatening like a tornado or an active
shooter requires law enforcement to act.”
To fulfill that
requirement, Security On Campus is advising school
administrators to send alerts to students and
faculty via multiple modes—just as Northern Illinois
University did—to avoid the failure of a single
system notifying everyone of a threat.
As an advocacy
organization for students and their families,
Security On Campus has developed other guidelines
for school administrators, as well. Security experts
at the nonprofit organization conduct trainings on
Clery Act requirements and best practices for
college administrators. Initially, the training was
provided through a grant from the Department of
Justice. To date, more than 1,500 college and
university administrators have attended training
sessions with the organization, which offers its
next class in November at the University of
Kentucky.
|
The classes
might hold
100 to 200
campus
personnel,
including
public
safety
officers,
risk
assessment
personnel,
student
affairs
administrators,
lawyers and
deans, Kassa
said. In the
meantime,
college
officials
and students
alike can
contact
Security On
Campus for
guidance on
campus
security
requirements.
“We are the
organization
that people
come to for
clarification
and help on
that
information,”
Kassa
stated.
“That
happens on
both sides.
Parents and
students
might call
us to see if
schools are
in violation
or find out
what their
rights are.”
Intent of
Congress
The campus
security
provisions
of the
Higher
Education
Act
Reauthorization
of 2008
instruct
colleges to
build upon
security
plans that
they already
have in
order to act
decisively
in the event
of a threat
on a campus.
The law does
not
specifically
require
colleges and
universities
to install
automatic or
electronic
alert
systems, but
choosing to
do so would
be a way of
fulfilling
the law’s
mandate. The
law tasks
institutes
of higher
learning
with
establishing
a
notification
procedure,
but it does
not
prescribe
exactly what
that should
be.
Should an
institute of
higher
learning
determine
that an
electronic
alert system
is the best
technology
for its
campus, it
could apply
for a new
competitive
matching
grant under
the Higher
Education
Act to fund
that system.
Colleges and
universities
can use the
grants to
pay for up
to half the
development
of a
campus-wide
emergency
communications
system or
communications
with local
response
authorities
and
services.
While
winding its
way through
Congress,
the bill had
included a
provision
that
campuses
alert
students
within 30
minutes of
discovering
an
emergency,
but that
requirement
was dropped
from the
final bill
before Bush
signed it, a
Democratic
aide at the
House
Committee on
Education
and Labor,
who would
not speak
for
attribution,
told
HSToday.
Members of
Congress
were
impressed
with the
response
time in the
Northern
Illinois
University
shootings,
but sought
ways to
improve
reactions to
that kind of
threat. By
contrast,
many were
disappointed
by the
response to
the shooter
at Virginia
Polytechnic
Institute
and State
University
(Virginia
Tech) on
April 16,
2007, when
he
systematically
killed 32
people and
then
himself. It
was the
single worst
shooting
incident on
a college
campus in
history.
Both
incidents
illustrated
the
importance
of instantly
communicating
and
collaborating
not only
with
students and
faculty but
with
off-campus
authorities
as well, the
aide said.
Members of
the House
committee
were
satisfied
that the
final bill
struck a
good balance
between
setting up
response
policies and
providing
flexibility
in response
on campuses,
according to
the aide.
The final
law requires
campuses to
develop
statements
of policy on
emergency
response and
evacuation
procedures,
but
administrators
can
determine
how to carry
out those
responsibilities
in a way
that works
best for
their
institutions.
Analysis
At Virginia
Tech,
Seung-Hui
Cho first
shot two
people
around 7
a.m. He then
traveled
across
campus to
kill 30
others more
than two
hours later.
The
university
finally sent
an e-mail
alert to
students and
faculty at
9:26 am.
A review
panel later
reported to
Virginia
Gov. Tim
Kaine (D)
that campus
authorities
should have
alerted
students
immediately
of the first
shootings
and should
have taken
appropriate
actions to
protect the
safety of
other
students on
campus.
“The
Virginia
Tech Police
Department
erred in not
requesting
that
[administrators]
issue a
campus-wide
notification
that two
persons had
been killed
and that all
students and
staff should
be cautious
and alert,”
the report
concluded.
But Virginia
Tech had
policies on
paper that
directed
campus
officials to
alert
students via
multiple
modes of
communication
promptly
when threats
like Cho
were
identified
on campus.
The testing
and drilling
provisions
of the new
laws in the
Higher
Education
Act should
go some way
toward
filling the
gap between
just having
written
policies and
actually
implementing
them.
But there is
more that
can be done.
On Aug. 21,
the Missouri
Campus
Security
Task Force,
a blue
ribbon panel
appointed by
Gov. Matt
Blunt (R),
issued its
findings and
recommendations,
titled,
Securing Our
Future:
Making
colleges and
universities
safe places
to learn and
grow.
Among its
recommendations
was one that
DoEd go
further than
it has and
require
campus first
responders
to receive
training in
the National
Incident
Management
System and
to adopt
standardized
procedures
and a common
language for
responding
to campus
threats.
It’s a sage
suggestion
and one that
will make
college
campuses
even safer
than they’ve
become since
the
shootings at
Virginia
Tech and
Northern
Illinois.
Multiple
modes
of
communication
Several
major
universities
have
recently
adopted
multi-modal
alert
systems
to
improve
their
communications
with
students
in
the
event
of a
crisis.
The
need
for
multi-modal
communications
was
highlighted
in a
report
issued
by
3G
Americas
LLC,
a
corporation
lobbying
for
expanded
use
of
GSM,
the
Global
System
for
Mobile
communications,
an
international
standard
for
mobile
communications.
In
the
report,
Patrick
Traynor,
an
assistant
professor
of
computer
science
at
the
Georgia
Institute
of
Technology,
found
that
text
messaging
could
be
overwhelmed
in
the
event
of a
threat
scenario,
particularly
one
requiring
constant
updates
(“Characterizing
the
Limitations
of
Third-Party
EAS
Over
Cellular
Text
Messaging
Services”).
Text
messages
alone
also
may
miss
their
intended
audience,
Traynor
stated.
“Students
traveling
across
the
country
will
receive
the
same
alerts
as
those
on
campus,”
Traynor
wrote.
“Moreover,
such
alerts
will
fail
to
reach
visitors
and
neighboring
citizens,
even
though
the
information
contained
within
these
messages
may
be
pertinent
to
everyone
in
the
area.”
To
boost
awareness
of
college
alert
systems,
the
US
House
of
Representatives
declared
September
to
be
National
Campus
Safety
Month,
a
proposal
by
the
nonprofit
Security
On
Campus.
Los
Angeles-based
3n
Global,
an
emergency
alert
business,
sponsored
activities
in
support
of
the
month.
Institutions
of
higher
learning
that
use
services
from
3n
Global
include
the
Rochester
Institute
of
Technology,
Pepperdine
University,
the
University
of
Michigan,
the
University
of
Miami
and
Virginia
Tech,
among
others.
Virginia
Tech
supports
a
system
that
uses
a
variety
of
means
to
communicate
with
its
students
through
its
VT
Alerts
network.
Subscribers
to
VT
Alerts
can
sign
up
on a
website
to
receive
text
messages
from
mobile
devices,
instant
messages
via
messaging
software,
phone
calls
to
any
number,
e-mail
messages
to
any
e-mail
address
and
notices
on
electronic
message
boards
in
classrooms.
In
fact,
Virginia
Tech
installed
electronic
display
screens
in
200
classrooms,
contracting
Inova
Solutions
of
Charlottesville,
Va.,
to
install
its
OnAlert
boards.
Virginia
Tech
administrators
ensure
they
actually
reach
students
who
might
be
in
danger
while
they
are
in
class.
"Many
professors
don't
normally
allow
students
to
have
their
cell
phones
on
in
class
and
get
e-mail,”
said
Larry
Hincker,
Virginia
Tech’s
vice
president
of
University
Relations.
The
Washington
Area
Metropolitan
Transit
Authority
used
the
OnAlert
screens
to
update
DC-area
commuters
of
emergency
information
during
the
terrorist
attacks
on
Sept.
11,
2001.
After
receiving
a
bomb
scare
last
year,
the
University
of
Iowa
turned
to
The
NTI
Group
of
Sherman
Oaks,
Calif.,
for
installation
of
the
company’s
Connect-ED
system.
The
university
sent
a
mass
e-mail
alert
to
students,
but
the
mass
e-mail
was
too
slow
to
reach
most
of
them
before
the
crisis
was
resolved.
The
university’s
new
Hawk
Alert
system
sends
emergency
voice,
text
and
e-mail
messages
to
students,
using
a
faster
communications
platform.
The
NTI
Group,
a
subsidiary
of
Blackboard
Inc.,
says
its
Connect-ED
solution
allows
universities
to
target
a
specific
group
or
geographic
region
within
its
student
database.
It
can
even
facilitate
two-way
communication
between
the
alert
system
and
students,
enabling
them
to
answer
poll
questions
about
their
current
status.
Many
campuses
of
the
University
of
Arkansas
also
adopted
emergency
alert
systems
in
2007.
The
most
recent
campus
to
do
so,
the
University
of
Arkansas
at
Fayetteville,
announced
Sept.
25
that
it
had
rolled
out
its
RazAlert
system,
which
notifies
students
with
multiple
message
services
and
phone
calls
when
an
emergency
occurs.
Students
and
faculty
are
automatically
enrolled
in
the
system,
but
they
can
opt
out
via
the
RazAlert
website.
It,
too,
is
based
on
the
Connect-ED
solution
from
NTI
Group.
|
Mickey McCarter |
| |
About the author: |
| |
eNewsletter Editor/Senior Washington Correspondent, is a journalist with more than a decade of experience in reporting on military affairs and information technology. |
| |
|
|
|
|
