Perceptions of Campus Safety – Are You Helping Your Students Feel Safe?
Posted In Emergency Management, Incident Reporting, School Safety on August 3rd, 2010 Tags: Active Shooter, Campus Safety, Campus Security, columbine, incident prevention, Incident Reporting, public safety training, Virginia Tech
While tragic incidents like Columbine and Virginia Tech have created an increased awareness of campus safety and security, most college students reveal they still feel fairly safe on campus. A recent study by three Southern Illinois University scholars has revealed most students are not particularly worried about encountering an active shooter on campus.
The survey of more than 5000 students discusses attitudes towards on-campus crime, perceptions of risk and safety, personal experiences and understanding of campus safety measures.
What was perhaps most interesting 
about the report was the recommendations by the students to reinforce public safety training and communicate emergency procedures with students, faculty and third-parties. One safety director revealed that although students may understand their school has safety plans in place, they don’t really know what the plans are. It is critical for colleges and universities to implement and communicate emergency response plans, safety policies, evacuation routes, call lists, etc. to all appropriate personnel and students.
Several other recommendations include:
- Educating students on public safety components during orientation
- Making public safety training ongoing (not just annually)
It is critical for administrators to ensure all individuals (faculty, administration, staff, students, parents, first responders, mental health, campus law enforcement, etc.) understand and have acknowledged their individual roles and responsibilities. Many colleges have emergency plans tucked away in binders on dusty shelves or posted to an intranet site, but how can administrators ensure these plans have been read, understood, or updated as risks, threats, regulations, etc. change? Colleges must utilize effective tools for sharing, communicating, implementing and updating plans, policies and procedures on an ongoing basis. Once-a-year general training is not enough and students agree.
The study also suggests students are in favor of campus counseling staff sharing concerns about specific students with campus public safety personnel, and indicated that students believe both they and faculty have “a responsibility to report dangerous students.”
Schools must provide students and faculty with the tools needed to report suspicious incidents, threats, bullying harassment, violence, etc. so red flags do not continue to fall through the gaps. By documenting incidents across all campus departments (HR, IT, Mental Health, Campus Safety, etc.) campus administrators can connect the dots and take actions to prevent violent, expensive, embarrassing and tragic incidents from occurring.
As students are voicing their concerns…how is your campus planning to respond?
“Perceptions of Campus Safety Initiatives: Assessing Views of Critical Incident Prevention and Response” is available online at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/index.cfm?metaSection=Publications&metapage=campuscrimehome
Comment (1)
Email This Post
Improving Campus Safety – Prevention and Intervention – Part 2
Posted In Emergency Management, Incident Reporting, School Safety, Workplace Violence on June 23rd, 2010
If you did not read Part 1…you may want to do so before reading Part 2.
During my EduComm presentation, I identified numerous school related incidents and lessons learned and multiple new ways to improve campus safety, reduce costs, protect reputations and save lives.
Then after reviewing multiple lessons learned I asked the group another question:
What does each of these well-documented incidents have in common?
- Columbine
- Virginia Tech
- Fort Hood
- University of Alabama-Huntsville
According to expert reviews and reports, each of these incidents could have been prevented.
Let me repeat….each of these incidents could have been prevented.
Each of these incidents could have been prevented had the organizations implemented Prevention and Intervention Plans with tools/systems to ensure incident reporting, red flag management, proactive action teams (prevention, intervention, behavior analysis, threat assessment, etc.) and documentation resources were accessible on-demand.
If your goal is to improve safety on your campus or within your organization or across your community, isn’t it better to prevent incidents from happening at all?
Based on lessons learned and based on costs, lawsuits, reputation damage, emotional damages and loss of lives, my guess is that if each of these organizations (and numerous others) had the opportunity for a do over, they would all vote for preventing their incident rather than reliving their incident.
Does your organization have the right tools to connect the dots and prevent incidents from happening?
No Comments
Email This Post
Improving Campus Safety – Prevention and Intervention – Part 1
Posted In Emergency Management, Incident Reporting, Risk Management, School Safety, Workplace Violence on June 21st, 2010 Tags: Campus Safety, crisis management, EduComm, Intervention, Prevention, Virginia Tech
Just recently, I had the honor of presenting at the EduComm 2010 conference in Las Vegas. The title of my presentation was ‘Connecting the Dots to Improve Campus Safety’ and was selected as a featured presentation.
Presenting at conferences is definitely one of my favorite things to do. I get to share ideas, successes and lessons learned with other people who are coming from many different locations and I have the unique opportunity to ask questions and learn what challenges other people face.
During my presentation I asked the following questions:
How many of your organizations have a Crisis Management Plan?
(Everyone raised their hand)
How many of your organization have an Emergency Management Plan?
(Everyone raised their hand)
How many of your organizations have a Prevention/Intervention Plan?
(Only a couple people raised their hand)
WOW! You should have seen the faces of the attendees…and probably mine too.
This quick survey along with hundreds of other lessons learned continue to show that organizations are too focused on ‘reactive response plans’ rather than ‘proactive prevention actions’.
Maybe this explains why so many schools rushed out and purchased mass notification response systems after the Virginia Tech tragedy?
What do you think?
Should more schools invest in tools and systems for prevention and intervention efforts?
Stay tuned for Part 2…
No Comments
Email This Post
You Have an Emergency Notification System…OK, Then What?
Posted In Emergency Management, Incident Reporting, Risk Management, School Safety on June 17th, 2010 Tags: crisis management, Emergency Management, mass notification system, Social Networking
I recently came across a blog in Emergency Management Magazine discussing the need to use multiple forms of emergency notifications. Lessons learned and recent studies reveal that the public won’t likely take action unless they receive their directions from at least two trusted sources. A study on evacuations during the San Diego wildfires found that residents generally wouldn’t leave their homes until they had received confirmation from a second source (like the news or a personal contact).
Thankfully, in today’s networked environment, people have information coming at them from all sides (friends, media, online news, social networking sites, etc.) and will most likely be able to verify a threat if they receive initial notification. However, there is always that risk that an employee, friend, neighbor, student, etc. was not notified. Or their source was not credible or trusted? How can you ensure all individuals have received and verified an emergency notification?
And, once an individual does understand there is a threat (violence, natural disaster, etc.), then what? Where should they go? What do they need to do? Should they notify others?
Emergency mass notification systems are only effective if each and every individual sending and receiving the alert is fully aware of specific policies, procedures, roles and responsibilities – people must understand what they HAVE TO DO and NEED TO DO if an incident occurs.
Lessons learned have shown that many safety and security programs do not put enough emphasis on the implementation of crisis management plans, emergency plans, code of conduct manuals, staff procedures manuals, SOPs and other processes after organizations have spent time and money performing assessments, performing general training, purchasing mass notification technologies and developing their plans, procedures and policies.
It is critical for organizations to implement Lessons Learned at the individual-level to prevent and prepare for future incidents. Organizations need to ensure that all procedures, plans, guidelines, etc. have been assigned to all appropriate personnel (faculty, students, employees, law enforcement, board members, vendors, contractors, third-parties, etc.) and that all personnel have acknowledged and understand their roles and responsibilities before, during and after an incident occurs.
No Comments
Email This Post
Study Finds Rise in Lone Wolf Terrorism – Empowering Individuals to Identify Red Flags
Posted In Emergency Management, Incident Reporting, Risk Management, School Safety, Workplace Violence on April 28th, 2010 Tags: Bystanders, Fort Hood, Lone Wolf, Red Flags, START, Terrorism, University of Maryland, Virginia Tech
A recent report from the University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) has revealed that since 1995, a much higher percentage (33%) of terrorist attacks in the United States were conducted by unaffiliated individuals, rather than by organized groups.
From the Oklahoma City bombing to more recent attacks like Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, and the University of Alabama, another commonality has also been revealed; in 80% of the incidents, red flags and warning signs exist, but are often not identified.
There are many reasons red flags go unreported. Victims or bystanders may fear retaliation or they may feel like their report will be ignored or they might think they are just being overly suspicious. And sometimes victims or bystanders make reports but the person receiving the report decides it is not serious or forgets or other.
However, in order to save lives and prevent incidents like this from occurring in the future, suspicious activities and other red flags must be reported to the appropriate personnel immediately and ongoing. By providing employees, victims, bystanders, responders and third-parties the ability to confidentially report suspicious behaviors, they will feel more comfortable and more likely to move from bystander to hero.
Many times one single behavior might not constitute a genuine threat, but when all of the dots are connected, a serious problem may be revealed. For example, maybe one employee hears that John Doe has threatened to “make everyone pay”. A different employee learns that John recently broke up with his girlfriend. A third employee sees John putting a suspicious bag in his locker. Each of these events separately may not be reason for concern, but when connected….
Organizations must ensure they are “connecting the dots” at the individual level and sharing the right information with the right people at the right time. And lessons learned show the right tools can help make the shift from “lone wolf” terrorists to “lone wolf” heroes.
Comment (1)
Email This Post
$800,000 – Will Your School be the Next to Face a Bullying Lawsuit?
Posted In Emergency Management, Legal, Risk Management, School Safety, Workplace Violence on March 12th, 2010 Tags: bullying, cyber-bullying, education, Incident Reporting, michigan school district, Red Flags, threat assessment team, Virginia Tech
I blogged a few weeks ago about the parent suing the Ottawa Catholic School Bard for $325,000, alleging the school failed to protect her child from repeated acts of bullying. Two more lawsuits have recently made the headlines and school leaders are probably wondering, “Will we be next?”
In Australia, a teenage girl was awarded $290,000 in compensation by the Education Department after years of harassment and bullying at school left her a physical and emotional wreck. The girl’s parents had pleaded with the school principal to protect their daughter, and held regular discussions with teachers and the school chaplain. But the school failed to respond to the complaints and did not have established procedures to deal with bullying. The parents claim the girl’s injuries included psychological disturbance, panic disorder, insomnia, an eating disorder, stress-related psoriasis and suicidal thoughts.
In a landmark U.S. decision, a Michigan school district has been ordered to pay $800,000 to a student who claimed the school did not do enough to protect him from years of bullying.
This case makes it clear that just having an anti-bullying policy will not be enough to protect schools from future lawsuits. School officials must take a more proactive and preventative approach to ensure bullying and harassment incidents are identified, addressed and prevented ongoing.
It is critical for schools to provide all faculty, staff and students with training to identify red flags and provide tools to confidentially report suspicious behaviors (threats, bullying, discrimination, harassment, etc.) and tools for threat assessment teams to manage incident reports and red flags.
- Do your schools have Threat Assessment Team tools to ensure Red Flags are not falling through the cracks?
- Have your schools implemented the 93 recommendations from Virginia Tech Review Panel?
- Do your students, faculty, employees, and third-parties understand their responsibilities to report and document suspicious incidents before and actions during and after an emergency situation occurs (meeting Clery Act and other regulatory requirements)?
- Have your schools’ emergency plans, crisis management procedures, lockdown procedures, etc. been communicated, to appropriate personnel, acknowledged and documented?
Lessons learned clearly show schools will see expensive lawsuits, embarrassing headlines and damaged reputations if they fail to connect-the-dots and manage red flags.
Comments (3)
Email This Post
Identifying Red Flags, Warning Signs and Indicators
Posted In Emergency Management, Risk Management, School Safety, Workplace Violence on March 4th, 2010 Tags: Fort Hood, Red Flags, University of Alabama, Virginia Tech, Workplace Violence
Have you noticed recently how the media, safety experts and government leaders are focusing on the failure of organizations to connect-the-dots and the failure to identify red flags prior to emergency and crisis situations occurring?
And have you noticed these failures have been going on for years? Virginia Tech administrators received warnings of Cho’s mental instability prior to the tragic shooting that left 23 students dead. The Fort Hood shooter revealed multiple red flags ignored in a failure to share critical information. Most recently, the University of Alabama professor revealed a past full of violent tendencies, mental illness and criminal activities.
Why are so many red flags ignored and missed? Is it easier for the media to point them out in hindsight than it is for organizations to identify and address them proactively before an incident occurs?
A study done by the USA Today revealed that over 80% of violent incidents have clear warning signs…so why aren’t bystanders reporting red flags and why aren’t threat assessment teams identifying red flags? According to the study, in an average week, one employee is killed and 25 are seriously injured in violent assaults by current or former co-workers. In 8 of 10 cases analyzed, killers revealed clear warning signs, such as:
- Showing guns to co-workers
- Threatening their bosses
- Talking about their plans to attack
- And many others…
But in the majority of cases, employers missed, ignored, downplayed or misjudged the threat.
So how can organizations encourage their employees and third-parties to pay attention to red flags and report them to the appropriate personnel before it is too late?
Organizations should establish, communicate and implement a workplace violence prevention policy at the individual-level and provide ongoing situational awareness updates for all appropriate individuals on the warning signs of aggressive or violent behavior. Employees, third-parties, students, faculty, etc. need to look for early indicators – behaviors and warning signs – that can lead to escalation (bullying, intimidation, threats, harassment, targeted violence, etc.).
By establishing and maintaining an ongoing workplace violence prevention program, organizations can improve awareness of red flags and encourage individuals to report suspicious behaviors, threats, etc. By proactively addressing red flags, organizations can take steps to prevent incidents from occurring – saving time, money, reputations and people’s lives.
Additional information and resources:
Awareity Slideshow – Red Flags, Warning Signs and Indicators
Psychology Today David Swink – Connecting the Dots: Information Sharing to Prevent Violence
Awareity’s Incident Reporting Tools – Secure and Confidential Online Reporting
Felix Nater – Nater Associates
No Comments
Email This Post
Safety and Security Programs: Right Information vs. General Information
Posted In Emergency Management, Incident Reporting, Risk Management, School Safety, Workplace Violence on March 2nd, 2010 Tags: FBI, Mass Notification, Missouri School Board Association, School Safety, security program
Safety and security programs depend on getting the right information to the right people in the right place at the right time so individuals can make better decisions.
Recently, a story involving several schools in Missouri provided multiple lessons learned involving safety.
The situation started when a national alert from the FBI was sent out to law enforcement on a tip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
The Missouri School Board Association, who operates the Missouri Alert Network, then issued an alert to schools at 11:50am saying the national alert targeted a Missouri School and as a result three schools in Missouri went into lock down. The Missouri Alert Network sent a second alert less than an hour later saying there was no threat.
A couple lessons learned:
- General information is not necessarily the right information. General information does not usually provide the type of specific details that individuals will need to make better decisions.
- Mass notifications should be accurate or they should clearly be a test because we as human beings will learn to disregard future mass notifications if initial notifications are perceived to be general information that does not apply to our organization or our safety.
A local police chief said they decided to be proactive and sent the alert message to “make sure the students, and the staff and the parents and everybody knew that we were aware of the issue and were on top of it”. Perhaps another lesson learned here is there is no need to cause parents, students and staff the unnecessary stress and concern just to make sure they know law enforcement is on top of a situation.
Safety and security is complex and difficult and requires a lot of work and trust, so making sure the right information gets to the right people in the right place at the right time is critical to ensure people take the right actions.
No Comments
Email This Post
Lessons Learned from WMD Proliferation and Terrorism Report Card
Posted In Business Continuity, Emergency Management, Risk Management on January 28th, 2010 Tags: Government Reform, Mass Destruction, National Security, Terrorism, Weapons
Reviewing the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism report card reveals lessons learned have not become lessons implemented.
The report card included an ‘F’ grade in Biological Risks due to the nation’s capabilities lacking to:
- Coordinate and deploy rapid response to prevent biological attacks causing mass casualties
Under Government Reform, the report card included two more ‘F’ grades for:
- Reform congressional oversight to better address intelligence, homeland security, and crosscutting 21st century national security missions
- Implement education and training programs to recruit and retain the next generation of national security experts
The two ‘F’ grades in Government Reform point out alarming disconnects and widening gaps that exist in oversight and awareness. And Senator Talent commented:
“We are also enormously frustrated about the failure of Congress to reform homeland security oversight”. The Department can’t do its job, if it is responding to more than 80 congressional committees and sub-committees. This fragmentation guarantees that much of what Congress does is duplicative and disjointed.”
If terrorists acquire weapons of mass destruction, will your organization be prepared? Is your organization prepared even if the government is not coordinated and ready to respond?
No Comments
Email This Post
National Transportation Safety Board Installing Cameras – “We need to nip this in the bud”??
Posted In Emergency Management, Incident Reporting, Risk Management on January 25th, 2010 Tags: National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, USA Today
I re-read this NTSB story a couple times and it still left me scratching my head…installing cameras will prevent what?
The USA Today article stated:
The NTSB found that the Sept. 12, 2008, crash between commuter and freight trains that killed 25 people was caused by an engineer who sped through a stop signal as he was texting. The engineer, who died in the crash, had been warned about cell phone use on the job twice before.
Accident investigators uncovered such egregious behavior by train operators in the fatal 2008 accident near Los Angeles that they suggested Thursday that all railroads monitor crews with video surveillance.
So the NTSB is suggesting that railroads have “people” monitor “crews” with video surveillance to improve safety? Cameras would have prevented this?
Safety is about people. Managers need to ensure crews understand situational awareness, safety and risks on an ongoing basis. Managers need to ensure crews understand and accept accountability for their roles and responsibilities on an ongoing basis. Managers need to respond to “red flags” and enforce consequences for safety violations to prevent expensive, embarrassing and fatal incidents.
In this situation, this train engineer had been warned about cell phone use twice making this train engineer a risk that managers should have addressed as part of their roles and responsibilities.
More technology is not the solution. Hundreds and hundreds of lessons learned reveal that “people” with situational awareness and accountability are more effective than more “devices”.
No Comments
Email This Post
