Campus Safety: The Board’s Role

Campus safety is about creating living and learning environments that allow everyone to thrive. Sadly, however, threats to the safety of students, faculty members, staff, campus visitors, and other institutional stakeholders are real. Considering the growing incidence of tragic events on campuses, the current moment demands that higher education board members step back, refocus on their existing policies and risk management protocols, and refresh them.

In other words, now is the time for trustees to pause, review their policies, and rethink their campus safety needs. Although administrators, security staff, and other campus professionals are best equipped to manage the technical aspects of emergency response, governing boards are responsible for ensuring that the right people, plans, and resources are in place. They must provide informed oversight and foster a culture of preparedness and continuous improvement within their campus communities. This means leading by example, asking tough questions, supporting ongoing planning and training, and ensuring that all members of the campus community know their roles in keeping the campus safe.

How to Get Started: Understand the Risks on Campus

AGB’s publication Risk Management: An Accountability Guide for University and College Boards explains that enterprise risk management (ERM) should be part of every institution’s strategic and operational planning. ERM begins with understanding the current and potential risk environment. This initial process normally produces a document called a risk register that lists the most important risks facing the institution.

Most effective governing boards start small with a group of senior-level, knowledgeable administrators to “identify, assess, mitigate, and monitor their own top risks.”¹ Reports of accidents, serious injuries, and deaths on their own campus and their peer institutions’ campuses are potential starting points to identify common causes of problems and develop appropriate responses to mitigate risks. This approach helps reduce recurring incidents, which demonstrates a commitment to continuous improvement.

Responding to a Crisis: Board Alignment and Preparation

When a crisis occurs, alignment between the board and the president is critical. Governing boards should already have clear communication procedures as part of their ERM strategy to help support the institution without overstepping or micromanaging the administration. Board members should understand who speaks for the institution (normally the president but sometimes the board chair, if necessary) and ensure plans exist for leadership succession if a crisis affects the president or board chair. Additionally, business-continuity planning is essential for resuming instruction and research if core assets—such as facilities, information-technology infrastructure, or key personnel—are compromised.

Regular “What would we do if…?” discussions, stress testing for vulnerabilities, and integrity audits help boards prepare for both anticipated and novel crises. These exercises foster a culture of readiness and highlight areas for improvement. For example, Virginia Tech’s risk, crisis, and emergency management program includes regular tabletop exercises that include faculty members and staff, fostering adaptability and preparedness throughout the campus. For more in-depth guidance, consider AGB’s publication Crisis Leadership for Boards and Presidents: Anticipating, Managing, and Leading Beyond Pandemics, Disruptions, and Ethical Failures.

Other Considerations: Legal and Regulatory Issues

Governing boards must be aware of and ensure that the campus administration meets the legal and regulatory safety requirements that apply to their institution. For example, the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act) is one of the most important legal frameworks governing campus safety. Campus security and administrators should receive regular training concerning Clery Act reporting requirements. This federal law requires institutions that receive federal funds to:

• Maintain a publicly accessible crime log;
• Warn campus communities of immediate threats;
• Release an annual report detailing crime statistics for the prior three years; and
• Have written procedures for emergency response, evacuation, notification regarding missing students (for on-campus housing), and fire safety.

Beyond federal requirements, governing boards should recognize that there is a patchwork of state laws regarding whether firearms and other weapons are allowed on campus, so the circumstances and regulations in each state might be unique. Governing boards must ensure that their institution has a clear, well-communicated policy on weapons, coordinates with campus security and local law enforcement, and provides training on safe practices where this is permissible by law.

There is also no one-size-fits-all answer to whether to arm campus security officers. Each campus must consider its unique context, including internal security department issues, local police and community considerations, budget support, and past incidents involving weapons. If a decision is made to arm officers, best practices include:

• Conducting extensive background checks on security personnel;
• Establishing clear use-of-force policies and providing regular training concerning these rules;
• Ensuring campus administrators and security personnel are aware of state laws regarding armed guards and their legal responsibilities;
• Coordinating security responsibilities with local law enforcement and emergency response agencies; and
• For institutions that contract with outside security companies, being sure to include risk-transfer language in contracts and ensuring the institution’s standards are enforced.

Key Questions for Boards

Effective ERM oversight involves governing boards asking questions of themselves and campus leaders. Regarding safety, this may include:

• Which board committee oversees campus safety? How often does the administration report on campus safety to the board? Do those reports include statistics on crime and fire safety?
• Has the institution submitted the required annual security report to the U.S. Department of Education for each of the past three years? When is our next report due? Who from our institution submits that report?
• Are emergency plans clear, accessible, and regularly tested? Do these plans address communications and business continuity during an emergency?
• Do we have plans for event safety (athletics, speakers, protests, and so forth)? Do we have plans for an active shooter? Who reviews the plans? How often do we update them?
• When was the last time we did a tabletop exercise (or other practice scenario) related to campus safety?
• Who is the executive in charge of security? What credentials does that person have?
• Does our response team have experience managing campus safety crises? What resources does the team have? What does the team still need?
• Who are our external emergency partners? What are our relationships with them?
• What protocols are in place for the board during an on-campus emergency? Are these instructions clear and reviewed regularly with all board members?

Conclusion

Now is the time for higher education board members to reevaluate their ERM policies and ensure that they are providing strategic oversight of campus safety. Governing boards play a critical role in fostering a culture of safety, trust, and preparedness. Board members must ask the right questions, prepare for a wide range of scenarios, and ensure that their institutions comply with legal and regulatory requirements. After all, boards and campus administrators share responsibility for campus safety.

AGB used AGB Board Bot^TM in the development of this blog post to help summarize recommendations from our extensive library of content.