The Evolution of School and College Campus Security - Research Paper Example

 The Evolution of School and College Campus Security History of Campus Security Among the most general problems that a university or campus is required to address is Campus Security. Security management’s concern is protection of a building and its assets. It entails the recognition of an institution’s information assets on top of implementation, documentation and development of standards, guidelines, policies, and procedures. Security is a critical issue for many organizations such as commercial, private, educational or government institution. Therefore, the security personnel in campuses such as university security guards and university security officers must strongly understand campus security. Campus security is necessary so as to keep the staff and their material possessions secure. All students and other members of the university community are encouraged to be conversant with security issues on campus and report inappropriate and illegal activities. Personal awareness is the basis of a secure community. Pursuant to Campus Security Act, universities should manage criminal actions and publish the safety report. In addition, universities should distribute news concerning the report to employees and students. Upon request, a copy of this report is issued to employees and prospective students (Robers, Zhang, and Truman, 2010). As a result of the general civil disturbances and domestic violence that occurred all over the country in 1960s to 1970s, campus security was rendered unproductive when it came to forceful civil demonstrations and riots, which often resulted in having both the officers and the students severely injured. The university security officers received poor training most of the time. In addition to that, they were not properly led and were unprepared to competently deal with unanticipated and turbulent circumstances (Keston, 2011). Therefore, a better solution for campus security was required, hence the birth of university police departments all over the country. Laws were passed, and regulations were enacted, which gave officers the required statutory authorization to carry out their increased functions. University police officers were obliged to join the police academy and consequently meet greater educational and training standards, especially when faced with campus-specific problems such as riot training and non-violent crisis management (Bean & Friedman, 2013). On the other hand, some universities’ sworn police officers function along university security officers, carry out the same duties, and help one another often. Although some colleges and universities only hire campus security officers, in the United States a leading university normally has a police force of its own. In most of the universities, the police hire students to play the role of escorts for students who are against walking solo at night. This gives the avowed police officers an opportunity to concentrate fully on other duties relating to law enforcement (Robers, Zhang, and Truman, 2010). University policing started in 1894 with the development of the Yale Campus Police Department. Yale initiated an understanding with the Police Department of New Haven to have two of their police officers allotted exclusively to Yale University as a way of improving student-police relations, as well as discouraging violence on campus. After a short period, the two officers got hired by Yale to maintain law and order in the university. It was after 73 years when a lot of universities and colleges security departments transformed to police departments. With the incident of Kent State, the Vietnam War protest, and crime rates rising on colleges and campuses across America, majority of the 50 states’ law did not allow colleges to own a campus police department till the late 1960's. September of 1967 is when Old Dominion College employed its first police officer and further established a police academy within the campus (Bean and Friedman, 2013). By December of 1977, majority of states and the Virginia Commonwealth finally authorized state universities and colleges to own a campus police department, and ensure campus police officers completed similar police academy training like did the local police. In late 1970's, a lot of privately owned colleges and universities’ public security departments were still categorized as campus security. The1977 laws strictly allowed only state controlled and owned universities and colleges to run a campus police department. It took many years for most states to recognize private university policing. In Virginia, the Hampton University Police Department was among the initial private campus police departments. Like other private universities, Hampton University maintained the title campus police or institutional police. In1987 many private college campus police eventually turned into state certified campus police (Robers, Zhang, and Truman, 2010). The first Old Dominion College police officer was the retired Chief Ralph Davis. Ralph’s former station was Fort Monroe in Hampton, Virginia, where he served as a military police sergeant. In September 1967, the college employed him to carry out a study alongside Old Dominion College Professor Ronald G. In late 1960's Chief Davis as the sole campus police officer at the time policed the campus and ensured the buildings’ safety at night. However, Virginia Department of Criminal Justice did not certify Davis as a police officer. In 1971 more officers; Officers James Crossan, George Low, and Tommie Hogge, were hired by Old Dominion University Police. The three police officers became the first at Old Dominion University to complete training at a police academy, and become certified as professional law enforcement officers by the Criminal Justice Department (Bean & Friedman, 2013). Officer Hogge helped in the formation of the one and only university K9 unit, in Virginia, in 1972. However, because of financial constraints, the unit was terminated after four years. The department purchased a 400Mhz radio system in 1973 and put their repeater system on the roof top of new Letters and Batten Arts Building. During the mid 1970's, Officers Ronnie York, Richard Grogewski, and James Thompson were ranked as a police force. To date, the Old Dominion University Police Department is among the biggest university police departments in the Virginia Commonwealth, hiring more than eighty security officers and forty police officers (Fennelly, 2012). Rise of violence and crime on campus The cases of college campus violence have drastically risen in the last 20 years. The violence is growing at unacceptable and alarming rates recently. Mass murder or any other high caliber crimes that take place on college campuses normally become known to the public with the help of the media. Most attacks happen in April and October, probably periods when students are stressed or simply the period an assailant feels most comfortable to strike. Although murder, particularly on a college campus tends to shock many people, there exist other equally fundamental personal crimes such as assaults and rape. For instance, one out of five females who join college normally ends up being a sexual assault victim in her four years, in the university. Mostly, alcohol abuse contributes to the possibility of an individual becoming a victim, because of their impaired judgment, which makes them unaware of their new surroundings and the imminent risk in which they could find themselves. Every year, more than 1,700 campus students die because of alcohol associated scenarios. Others get badly injured or become date rape victims (Bean & Friedman, 2013). Violence against females is on the rise. In the last five years, violence towards females has grown120 %, and the rate of growth in violence directed towards teenagers went up to 400%. Such increases represent graphic examples of torture, rapes, murder, and beatings. The Campus Attacks Report associates the increased on-campus violence with the increased enrollments, more requirements before a person can report crimes on college campuses and the increased coverage by the media (Peterson, 2006). 75% of all of the crimes on campuses are committed by the killers using knives and firearms while others involve blunt instruments, poison, bombs, and strangulation. 45% of the killers are students, and others could be former or current college staff, former students, or any other person associated with the campus. Most aggressors (particularly rapists) find colleges and any nearby related regions to be the perfect hunting and stalking grounds. This happened to Dru Sjodin, a 22-year-old student at the University of North Dakota who was killed in November 2003 by a 50-year-old sex offender. The same happened to Brianna Denison, a 19-year-old student who was killed by a rapist near University of Nevada in January 2008 (Fennelly, 2012). The degree of violent crimes related to university and college communities is rising rapidly, making it incomparable to the general rate of crime. Investigators are still looking for ways of foretelling violent behavior. Meanwhile, staff, faculty, students, and members of the nearby communities should figure out ways of reducing their probability of becoming victims to such violence (Peterson, 2006). Effectiveness of School and Campus Security A campus and school security plan can be regarded as a requirement of each school’s administration in order to have a secure and safe environment. In a majority of states, campus police officers have similar authority to that of the state or local police. The Commonwealth of Virginia requires all state controlled or owned universities and colleges to be authorized to possess a campus police department. The officers are required to undergo and finish similar training to that of the local police. The moment the campus police officers finish their basic training, they automatically possess similar powers to those of the local police (Fisher & Sloan, 2007). The most vital step to achieving an effective school security is to establish a written security and loss avoidance plan for the district. The said plan should be made with the help of security professionals starting with an assessment, distinguishing deficiencies, suggesting improvements, and lastly coming up with an action plan for the implementation. Campus Security Assessments must be conducted to recognize crime risks, and vulnerabilities, so as to ascertain the degree of vulnerability of campus and its users (Peterson, 2006). Assessments should be done by a trained security specialist and should aim at addressing open spaces, immediate neighborhoods, building interior, campus boundaries, and any significant recommendations for safety improvements. Data Collection and Analysis should be carried out to review crimes happening in the nearby area, to re-examine the history of school security or safety cases, to gain knowledge of patterns of crime in the nearby area which will enable the development of a proactive prevention planning, to examine the current safety practices, determine whether the adjacent properties agree with educational uses, and to review the existing procedures and policies (Dempsey, 2010). Further, the assessment should ensure that campus boundaries are clearly identified, there is limited entry to the campus and the bordering properties, which might be harmful to educational use, are separated by barriers or even screening. The assessment should also ensure that the campus is designed in such a way that it is possible to enable motor vehicle movements around buildings for police patrols or safety and other emergency cars. It should also ensure that materials used in fencing allow for natural surveillance and visibility that the building surrounding grounds and exteriors are properly illuminated, that crime-preventative landscaping is used and that the campus is posted with a “No Trespassing” signage. In addition, the assessment should determine whether the parking lots are monitored, whether common keys or access devices used for building and gates locks do allow for quick entry; whether the parking lots are designed to discourage driving; whether the students and the faculty share parking lots; whether speed bumps and other obstructions are normally used to prevent speeding and whether the students have access to their cars during school hours (Sloan & Fisher, 2010). Building Exterior should see to it that entering is authorized through as few doors as possible and that all doors are posted with visitor notice, inspection, and “No Trespassing” decals or signs. On the other hand, Building Interior should ensure that there are signs openly posted telling visitors that upon entering the building, they must report to the Building Office, that the entry and the movement of persons in the building are limited and controlled and that visitor’s passes are given. In addition, the interior should ensure that the Tardy Passes or the Hall Passes are needed for students who are in hallways or tardy when classes are continuing that CCTV is used in cafeterias, halls, as well as stairways and that multi-purpose areas, cafeterias, science labs, offices, shops, music rooms, library or media centers, supply rooms, locker rooms, pools, and gyms are always locked and secured whenever they are not in use (Bean & Friedman, 2013). The risks should be identified, and the degree of vulnerability determined. Further, real and perceived problems should be distinguished. Depending on the information acquired and established during the process of assessment, the Security advisers must give a series of suggestions to enhance safety pursuant to proximate needs, as well as provide recommendations for mid and long-term planning (Keston, 2011). References Bean, L., & Friedman, R. (2013). School safety in the twenty-first century: Adapting to new security challenges post-9/11. Homeland security: Protecting America’s targets. Retrieved From: http://psi.praeger.com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/doc.aspx? Dempsey, J. S. (2010). Introduction to private security. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Fennelly, L. (2012). Handbook of Loss Prevention and Crime Prevention. Burlington: Elsevier Science. Fisher, B. S., & Sloan, J. J. (2007). Campus Crime: Legal, Social, and Policy Perspectives. Springfield: Charles C Thomas Publisher, LTD. Keston, G. (2011). School security. In Security management practices. Retrieved From: http://www.faulkner.com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/products/securitymgt/ Peterson, M. (2006). Peterson's guide to two-year colleges. Princeton, N.J: Peterson's Guides. Robers, S., Zhang, J., and Truman, J. (2010). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2010 (NCES 2011-002/NCJ 230812). Washington, D.C. : National Centre for Education Statistics. Sloan, J. J., & Fisher, B. (2010). The dark side of the ivory tower: Campus crime as a social problem. New York: Cambridge University Press. Read More