Stetson University College of Law
21st Annual National Conference on LAW and HIGHER EDUCATION
Criminal Intrusions and Tort Liability -How the Modern University Can Protect the Campus Community and Itself
Steven J. Healy
Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police, Wellesley College
Introduction
The landmark case, Mullins vs. Pine Manor College (389 Mass, 47, 449 N.E. 2d
331,1983), and several other high profile successful civil suits in the past two decades
against colleges and universities have significantly altered the liability landscape for the
higher education community. These cases show a direct link between the need for
colleges and universities to maintain a professionally managed crime prevention
program and the ability of an institution to protect its students and successfully reduce its
liability for student victimization.
Other events, too, have converged simultaneously on the field of institutional tort
liability to drastically alter how campus administrators should view the security posture
and programming of their institution. First is the increased willingness of victims (or their
estates) of violent crimes to seek redress through the civil court system.1 According to a
National Institute of Justice/Office for Victims of Crime bulletin, crime victims are turning
more often to civil litigation as a "financial means for recovering from the ill effects of
crime."2 Civil litigation is often viewed as an important tool for victims of crime because it
provides them with a chance to vindicate their rights, thus re-empowering them.3 Often,
as a result of a criminal act, a victim's life seems out of control. A civil court action can
help a victim re-gain control of their life and assist them in putting their life back in
balance.
1
Ben Clery, "Commercial Insurance Carriers Write Disclaimers for Crime, Campus Watch
Newsletter, Volume 1, No. 1, p. 1.
2 Civil Legal Remedies for Crime Victims Bulletin, Office for Victims of Crime, National Institute of
Justice, p. 1.
Civil litigation can also serve as a de facto crime prevention effort. When
criminals or other negligent third parties (such as malls, colleges or universities) realize
that they will be made to pay for their action (or inaction in the case of third parties),
these acts are often not repeated.4 A successful civil lawsuit sends a strong message to
criminals that "crime doesn't pay." Likewise, the message of "indifference to safety does
not pay" is equally strong to third parties, such as colleges and universities that may be
named in a tort liability case.
The Federal Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policies and Campus
Crime Statistics Act has also served as a wakeup call for many institutions. The Federal
law, which has been amended three times since its original passage in 1990, serves to
assist students, their families and employees make informed choices about the safety of
a particular college or university before electing to attend or work at that institution. The
law mandates institutions that receive federal funds to disclose specified security policies
and crime statistics to current and prospective students and employees. The law also
requires these institutions to provide "timely warnings" to members of the campus
community when certain crimes occur. Armed with this information, consumers, it is
believed, can then make informed choices about the schools to attend and how to better
protect themselves against potential victimization. Because the law carries with it the
threat of severe penalties for non-compliance, most colleges and universities take
serious the task of complying with the requirements of the statue.
It is both tragic and unfortunate that this important Federal law emerged from a
brutal rape and murder. In 1986, Jeanne Ann Clery, a first year student at Lehigh
University, was tortured, raped, and murdered in her dormitory room on the Lehigh
University campus. Subsequent to Jeanne Clery's murder, the Clery family successfully
sued the university for negligence in failing to take reasonable action to protect Jeanne
from foreseeable harm. The Clery family used the proceeds from the lawsuit to form a
campus crime advocacy organization, Security on Campus. It is through the work of the
Clery family and Security on Campus that most state and Federal campus crime laws
has emerged.
3
2
Ibid. p. 3.
In response to these three convergent issues, many colleges and universities are
becoming quite sophisticated with their efforts to provide for the safety and security of
campus communities. These same institutions are also serious in their efforts to give
current and prospective students and employers a true picture of the campus safety
landscape. In a 1998 testimony to Congress, Dolores Stafford, a representative of the
International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA), stated
that most institutions have taken considerable measures to comply with the provisions of
the Clery Act. According to Stafford “there seems to be an underlying belief by some
that institutions are hiding crime or purposely under-reporting crime. This is simply not
the norm. The people responsible for security on college campuses have a great deal of
integrity and many even feel personally responsible for reporting crime accurately. My
colleagues and I in the campus security business want to work closely with the members
of the Department of Education and the members of this committee to ensure that all
students and their families are provided with accurate, meaningful information about
campus security.”5 Professional organizations, too, such as IACLEA and the Association
of College and University Housing Officers – International (ACUHO-I), have taken a
more proactive role developing professional standards for campus law enforcement and
residence hall security. IACLEA and other law enforcement groups have been
instrumental in developing industry-wide standards, conducting national and regional
training, and advocating for campus law enforcement on both the state and federal
levels.
In spite of the significant strides made in campus law enforcement and security,
especially within the past 10 years, crime remains a reality on college campuses. Gone
are the days when campuses were viewed as "safe, bucolic havens, academic groves
where the pursuit of knowledge and the cultivation of fellowship shut out many of the
threats and fears of everyday life.6 While crime on campus has only slightly risen over
the past few years, colleges and universities are experiencing increased reporting of
crime, in part due to Federal and state laws mandating the disclosure of crime
4
Office for Victims of Crime, 1997 National Victim Assistance Academy, Chapter 5, "Civil
Remedies for Victims of Crime, p. 2.
5
Dolores A. Stafford, Director of University Police, in her statement to Subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services Educations and Related Agencies of the United States Senate
Committee on Appropriations, March 5, 1998
3
statistics.7&8 Campus crime, today, more than ever, attracts widespread media attention
and scrutiny. For example, during this past fall semester, several female students at the
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, reported being attacked on the Amherst campus.
One of those students was also sexually assaulted. These events garnered national
media attention, with several large newspapers carrying the stories. When there is a
crime, there is the possibility of violence and the tragedy of victims. And as victims turn
more often to civil litigation, the modern university will be faced with the complex
challenge of limiting its exposure to claims of negligence and the resulting liability. I
submit that a paradigm shift is in order. If higher education administrators approach this
task, not as a challenge to their financial stability and image, but as an opportunity to
make their campuses safer for their communities, they will, in effect, also limit their
exposure.
This paper will address the one area that is most problematic for campus safety
and has wide implications for potential liability: residential security. This is a
practitioner's guide to avoiding liability in this area. It is not the intent of this paper to
fully examine each and every plausible scenario that may create potential vulnerability.
It will however discuss safety inadequacies that may exist in residence halls and suggest
strategies to avoid risk management nightmares. If campus administrators examine
these practices, from a risk management viewpoint, they can make their campuses safer
places and possibly avoid costly litigation and embarrassment.
Back to Basics
Following a violent criminal act on a college campus, a victim (or the victim's
estate) may elect to pursue a civil remedy against the institution. In bringing such an
action, the plaintiff must show that: 1) the university owed a duty to the plaintiff; 2) the
university breached that duty; 3) the plaintiff was injured; and 4) the university was the
6
Todd S. Purdum, The Reality of Crime on Campus, N.Y. Times, April 10, 1988.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Report, 1998 "Crime in the United States,"
and Security on Campus News Journal Article "Violent Crimes Reported on Campus Increase
Slightly in 1998." Although this article cites crime statistics from the UCR, only a small portion of
colleges and universities report their statistics to the UCR, as the system is voluntary.
7
4
proximate cause of the injury.9 In order for a college or university to be held liable for a
criminal act, the court must determine whether the institution had a "duty" to protect the
victim from the criminal act, and if it, by some action or inaction, breached that "duty."10
Generally, the courts will use one, both or all of the following theories of liability to
determine the relationship between the plaintiff and institution, thereby proving or
disproving a "duty."
 Special Relationship. Based on an expectation that the institution has a
commitment to the safety of its students. In acknowledging this commitment,
colleges and universities undertake to provide certain levels of protection and
security for the student population. Students, according to this theory, rely on
the institution's provision of basic safety and security measures.
 Landowner-Business Invitee. Much like landowners owe invitees a degree of
reasonable care in inspecting and correcting dangerous conditions on its
land, so does the university. This obligation includes the duty to warn
invitees about certain foreseeable dangers on the property.
 Landlord-Tenant. In some jurisdictions, a landlord must warn tenants of
potential dangers existing in properties controlled by the landlord. In the
college setting, the institution serves as a landlord to resident students;
therefore, the college must make efforts to warn resident students about
foreseeable dangers and take action to mitigate those dangers.11
From a layman’s point of view, “duty” is essentially an obligation on the part of
the institution to create an environment that is reasonably safe. Safety on campus is, of
course, a multi-dimensional issue. Colleges and universities must not only take steps to
protect students and employees from foreseeable internal crime, but also from potential
8
Steve W. Batson, Minimizing Liability for the College Administrator: Female Student Protection,
School Law Update, 1986.
9 Philip Burling, Crime on Campus: Analyzing and Managing the Increasing Risk of Institutional
Liability, National Association of College and University Attorneys, January 1991.
10 Anita Raddatz, Crime on Campus: Institutional Tort Liability for the Criminal Acts of Third
Parties, National Association of College and University Attorneys, 1988.
11 Burling, p. 5.
5
foreseeable criminal intrusions. A criminal intrusion occurs when an individual not
directly associated with the campus community enters the campus and commits a crime.
Both the landowner-invitee and landowner-tenant theories dictate efforts on part of the
institution to correct foreseeable dangers, such as an inoperative locking mechanism.
The theories also require the landlord to warn students about dangerous conditions or
defects directly under the control of the landlord.12
One positive consequence of the Clery Act is that it directly supports the case
law in two respects. First, by requiring institutions to disclose its crime statistics, the law
in effect forces colleges and universities to draw a picture of the crime problems on
campus. Secondly, the law also requires institutions to provide “timely warning reports”
to members of the campus community regarding specific crimes that represent a threat
to students and employees.13 While the law does not mandate specific security
procedures, it does require institutions to publish their respective policies relating to the
security of campus facilities. This requirement, in essence, creates a requirement for the
institution to develop substantive policies and procedures.
According to Lake, the Courts, in deciding several university tort cases, have
closely weighed and evaluated the following factors:14

Foreseeability. According to Smith, institutions have: a "a duty to be
forthcoming about risks; a duty to warn about risks; and a duty to provide
adequate protection."15 The mere knowledge (foreseeability) about a
particular crime or type of crime may create a duty. Colleges and universities
have a duty to disclose crime information to current and prospective students
and employees, as established by the Campus Security Act. Additionally,
failure to disclose crime statistics may subject the institution to other liabilities,
including an audit by the Department of Education, the implementing agency
12
Ibid., p. 5.
The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act.
14 This is taken in part from an article by Peter F. Lake, "The Rise and Fall of In Loco Parentis
and Other Protective Tort Defenses in Higher Education Law," page 23.
15 Michael Clay Smith, Institutional Liability Resulting From Campus Crime: an Analysis of
Recovery, 55 W. EDUC. L. Report. 361
13
6
for the Campus Security Act.16 Institutions likewise have a "duty to warn"
about potential dangers, when those dangers are foreseeable.17 This theory
was established in Peterson vs. San Francisco Community College District
(Cal. 1984). In this case, the court stated that the college had breached its
duty to the victim because it had prior knowledge of similar incidents that had
occurred in the same location, as had the crime against the victim. Finally,
the courts view colleges and universities much the same as they do other
premise owners when determining whether or not the institution has a
responsible to provide adequate security. The Mullins vs. Pine Manor
College (Mass. 1982) case established the college's responsibility to provide
adequate security in light of foreseeable dangers.18

Nature/type of risk/harm. Lake points to the tendency of the courts to be
particularly sensitive to the type of crime that is committed. Sexual assaults
may receive more concern then would an assault arising from an alcoholinduced brawl.19 It is important to note that most of the current case law
involving sexual assaults, the assaults occurred in residential facilities
provided by the college or university. This fact underscores the importance of
sound residential security procedures and practices.

Closeness. The theory of closeness refers to the scope of the relationship
between the institution and the victim during the time of the crime. If the
crime occurs in a residential facility, the relationship is considered extremely
close.20

Moral blame and responsibility. Moral blame and responsibility. Lake feels
that this factor is important in developing safety and security strategies. The
proper relationship, according to Lake, is one of "shared responsibility,"
16
To date, the Department of Education has conducted 6 audits of colleges and universities.
While none of the institutions have been penalized financially, there are considerable costs
associated with the conduct of an audit.
17 Michael C. Griffaton, "Forewarned is Forearmed: The Crime Awareness and Campus Security
Action of 1990 and the Future of Institutional Liability for Student Victimization," p. 16.
18 Ibid., p. 17.
19 Lake, p. 24.
20 Ibid., p. 24.
7
where both the student and institution recognizes and accepts its role in
providing for the safety of the community. The turning point in this equation is
whether both parties recognize their responsibilities. The institution must
ensure that they widely publicize the need for students and employees to
participate in the process of ensuring a safe community.

Preventing future harm. Preventing future harm. Institutions cannot run away
from their responsibilities to address student or employee behaviors that are
potentially dangerous to individuals or the wider community. Once
administrators recognize these behaviors, they must initiate some type of
action to positively affect a change.

Burden on university and the larger community. Burden. In considering
burden, the courts must strike a balance between what is reasonable and
affordable for colleges and universities. The institution has a responsibility to
implement measure that provide for the public safety, yet allows them to
continue their primary mission of educating students. This does not mean
that institutions should use the mantra of cost-prohibition to avoid providing
adequate security.

Insurance. Lake suggest that courts consider insurance as "collateral
sources" of compensation for some tort injuries resulting from criminal acts
on campus.
These factors should assist the modern university in understanding the
landscape through which courts will consider tort cases involving institutions of higher
education. It is important for administrators to take a systems approach with deciding
whether or not to implement a particular safety initiative on campus. This approach
dictates understanding the culture of the student population, the competency level of the
campus law enforcement unit (CLEU), the relationship between the CLEU and the
student affairs component, and the campus infrastructure, especially relating to the
master plan (for building modifications, high-speed network installation, etc.). All of
these components play a major role in determining the overall security posture of the
8
campus. All of these components are essential in a strong comprehensive residential
security program.
9
Residential Facility Security
Current case law is replete with cases involving violent crimes that occurred in
residential facilities owned or controlled by colleges and universities. As mentioned
above, the "relationship" factor weighs heavily when the courts hear cases that occurred
in residence halls or apartments. In these campus crime liability cases, the courts
openly acknowledged the relative "dependent" nature of the relationship between
students and their institutions.21 In many cases, students have little choice concerning
the nature and type of housing supplied by the institution. Many institutions have
policies that make it mandatory for first and second-year students to live in residential
spaces provided by the institution. These policies, in effect, create a greater
responsibility on the part of the institution to provide a safe environment for those
resident students.
Students often have little say in the types of security procedures and physical
security equipment used to protect them. The types of locking mechanisms used on
residence room doors and the card access systems (if used) used for entry control are
often chosen in isolation from the student body. This is not to imply that students should
necessarily become involved in these decisions or that involving them lessens the
liability faced by colleges and universities. The point here is that because the institution
chooses unilaterally to provide one system or implement one policy as opposed to
another, the evolving relationship is one of dependency for safety and security.
Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 323 (1965) further amplifies this point:
"One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to
another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other's
person or things, is subject to liability to the other for physical harm resulting from
his failure to exercise reasonable care to perform his undertaking, if (a) his failure
to exercise such care increase the risk of such harm, or (b) the harm is suffered
because of the other's reliance upon the undertaking."22
21
22
Griffaton, p. 13.
Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 323 (1965).
10
The court, in Mullins vs. Pine Manor College, further stated, that "it must also be
shown that either (a) the failure to exercise due care increased the risk of harm, or (b)
the harm is suffered because of the students' reliance on the undertaking."23 Where it
can be shown that students or employees rely on the institution to provide a level of
security that a reasonable person would expect, the scales tip favorably to the side of a
plaintiff.
In Miller vs. New York State (478 N.Y.S.2d 829, NY 1984) the courts also
reaffirmed the notion that colleges have a similar duty to students as do landlords to their
tenants.24 The courts found that the State University of New York at Stony Brook had
"breached in duty to protect its 'tenants' from reasonably foreseeable criminal assaults
by failing to lock the outer doors" in a residential facility. In Miller, a stranger who had
entered the hall through an unlocked door raped a student in the residence hall. The
issue of foreseeability was also an important factor in the Miller case. The plaintiff
offered substantial evidence that pointed to "a reasonably foreseeable likelihood of
criminal intrusion" into the residence hall.25 The New York Court of Appeal found
sufficient evidence that the state was a proximate cause of the sexual assault and
remitted the case.
Institutions must be willing to recognize the very close link between foreseeability
and its willingness to strictly adhere to the provisions of the Clery Act. Colleges and
universities should accept the Federal law as a tool to assist in its mission to analyze
crime in residence halls and initiate appropriate crime prevention and reduction
strategies. A strong crime and risk analysis effort is paramount to reducing an
institution's liability exposure. The ability to show a concerted effort to prevent and
reduce crime and a corresponding willingness to warn residents of potential dangerous
situations is evidence of "preventing future harm."
Against this backdrop, institutions would be advised to exercise prudence in its
very serious duty to provide adequate campus security. While each case will obviously
be determined on its own merit, institutions must determine what it considers sufficient,
in light of the available case history and professional standards, to satisfy its duty to
23
24
Mullins vs. Pine Manor College (389 Mass. 47, 449 N.E.2d 331)
Miller v. New York, 467 N.E.2d 493 (NY 1984)
11
protect against foreseeable crime. As a minimum, if institutions are uncertain as to what
security measures should be implemented, it should consult with professional
organizations that can provide a security audit with recommendation for improved
security measures. The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement
Administrators (IACLEA) offers a Loaned Executive Management Assistance Program
(LEMAP) to review campus security programs and make recommendations for
improvement.
An institution cannot isolate one or two primary variables in establishing an
effective residential security system. To the contrary, an effective system will be
comprised of several coordinated variables to produce a sound security posture.
Colleges and universities must implement the right mix of administrative procedures,
crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) measures, technology, and the
appropriate staffs, when and where necessary. When addressing staffing concerns and
applicable training, it is important to note that a proactive security posture seeks to deter
and prevent crime before it occurs. Too often, administrators fail to recognize that a
campus police or security unit must develop both a capacity for proactive programming
and a capacity for traditional policing methods.
What Works in Residential Security
The following diagram offers a useful model to assist college and university
administrators manage their crime prevention efforts. Using this model, administrators
can recognize that the environment (residence halls) is just one of the key variables that
must be affected in order to reduce the overall liability exposure.
Environment
Potential
Victims
25
Batson, p. 5.
12
Institution’s
Exposure to
Liability
Potential
Criminals
Likewise, potential victims (students) should be targets for continuous crime prevention
education and training. Crime prevention is a cost-effective way to make residence halls
safer. Crime prevention can benefit a residential community in three ways: 1) it can
deter specific kinds of crime, such as unauthorized entries into residence halls; 2) it often
mobilizes residents; and 3) it develops physical and social environments inhospitable to
crime.26 This programming should be well designed with the assistance of student affairs
representatives and faculty members. Too often, campus law enforcement
administrators fail to take advantage of the vast knowledge and assistance that faculty
members can bring to the development of an effective program. The overall focus of the
institution's efforts should be on those variables that they can directly impact, such as
the environment and student.
Campus law enforcement administrators should take advantage of best practices
and models being used elsewhere in policing, such as Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design, to improve the safety posture of the residential facilities.
 CPTED: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design has proven to be a
valuable tool in preventing and deterring crime. Institutions need not wait
until they build new facilities to use the elements of CPTED. Renovations
and building modifications allow colleges and universities to review the
CPTED elements and implement them, when possible. A high impact/low
cost matrix analysis also provides a list of those measures that campuses
may elect to implement, as funding becomes available.
 Access control, an important element of CPTED, should be of primary
concern for colleges and universities. Access control encompasses not only
how students enter residence halls, but also how exterior doors channel
people in a particular direction, how secondary access doors are controlled,
and what methods are in place to inform the CLEU or residents if doors are
propped open.
26
Bureau of Justice Assistance Monograph, Crime Prevention and Community Policing: A Vital
Partnership, p. 8.
13
 As part of access control, institutions should conduct a through review of key
control procedures. This should include tracking when locks are changed
and who has copies of specific keys. If a card access system is used,
institutions should ensure that only those persons who should have access to
particular buildings have that access.
 Augmenting the automated entry control system. Electronic access systems
are not foolproof. Planners should consider the inherent risks in electronic
systems. Students may prop doors to avoid having to use their cards, and
may allow unauthorized individuals to "piggyback" behind an authorized
individual. While these are known vulnerabilities in electronic access
systems, there are many measures that can be put in place to compensate
for these problems. Some colleges elect to use paid student security
members who monitor doors, while others use a communitybuilding/community-service model which mandates all residents to monitor
doors on a pre-determined schedule. Whatever method is used, institutions
must realize that there are inherent risks present in any system.
 Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS). Intrusion Detection Systems or entry
alarms can be used in a variety of ways to bolster the security posture of a
residential facility. Alarms can warn of unauthorized entries into secondary
doors, they can signify doors that have been left open for extended periods of
time, and can be used as a panic or duress alarms for people who need
assistance. Institutions that elect to employ IDS must ensure that they have
the infrastructure in place to maintain the system in working order. High rates
of nuisance or false alarms tend to negate the effective of the system by
creating a system that is often ignored or not taken seriously.
 Police presence. Many institutions tend to limit the places and frequency with
which campus law enforcement officers enter residence halls. Some officers
are often limited to only visiting common areas within the halls. While there is
no consistent data that shows whether or not officer presence in residence
halls have an impact on crimes committed by third parties, institutions should
develop their policies based on informed decisions and not merely on past
14
practices. Institutions should review, for example, data from other high rise
apartment complexes, subsidized housing areas, and hospitals to determine
whether a law enforcement presence impacts the rate of crime in those
facilities.
 Problem-Solving Analysis. Campus law enforcement units have long used
the principles of community-oriented policing and problem solving to address
specific crime and disorder related problems. Institutions should rely more
heavily on this multi-disciplinary and community-based approach to reduce
victimization.
 Community Meetings to set Priorities. These meetings could focus on the
collaborative, community approach to deterring and preventing crimes on the
campus. During these sessions, administrators could explain the institution
and student's responsibility for preventing crime.
Conclusion
Whatever methods administrators choose to implement, the overall goal is to
create a safer residential environment, where students can live and study, relatively free
from the fear of crime. Of course, no campus will ever be totally free from crime.
Institutions must balance the need to maintain safety and the imperative of reducing
exposure to liability with the ideal of an open academic environment. The middle ground
then, is a campus that is reasonably safe and comfortably open.
15
IACLEA Recommended Crime Prevention and Campus Protection Practices for
Colleges and Universities
Residence Hall Security –
General Issues
1. A written visitation policy should be in place and well publicized within the residential
community. Visitation policies should require all visitors to be escorted by a resident.
In addition, residents should be held accountable for the actions of their visitors.
2. All residents should be exposed to an annual crime prevention and awareness
orientation presentation. During this presentation, issues of personal safety and
security should be addressed, including topics relating to loaning and duplication of
keys, propping of doors, visitation issues, admitting of strangers, alcohol and drug
policy, weapons policy, etc.
3. All residence hall staff should receive an annual crime prevention and awareness
orientation. Building security issues (i.e. keys, door problems, maintenance reporting,
etc.) and crisis intervention techniques, among other topics, should be addressed
during this program.
4. Housing contracts should be provided with language specifically addressing security
issues related to the building (i.e., door propping, key control, tampering with security
hardware, weapons policy, etc.).
5. The organization supplying maintenance service to residence halls should develop a
written procedure regarding the work order process. This procedure should place the
highest of priorities on security-related repairs if the repair degrades the security
conditions of a residence hall facility.
6. Reasonably accessible perimeter windows should be secured from casual exterior
entry at all times. Where ventilation is required, a means should be provided to
secure the window from entry while still permitting ventilation. In highly concealed
locations, security screens or grills should be installed. Similar screens are
recommended for locations where codes require windows to remain accessible for
escape even though the windows may not be concealed.
7. Residents should be provided with keys or access cards that provide access only to
that which is required to enter their living unit.
8. Signs should be posted at the building entrances warning against trespassers and
unauthorized solicitors. Signs should also direct non-residents to the most
appropriate location of entry.
9. Student room doors should be equipped with ANSI (American National Standards
Institute) Grade 1 locksets with key or card entry and a door viewer. Latch bolts
employed with such devices should be equipped with a dead latch. Deadbolt
functions should be employed where living units open directly to the exterior. If the
lockset used is equipped with lever trim, interlocking or stop-type (with a return
installed on the door bottom) thresholds should be provided. If hinge knuckles are
visible on the exterior of the door, special precautions should be taken to ensure the
door cannot be removed from the frame by removal of the hinge pins.
10. Room doors should be solid core wood or hollow metal (ANSI Grade II minimum)
construction. If wood frames are used, reinforced strikes are recommended.
11. Keys used for residence hall entry doors and resident room doors should be of such
design that key blanks are not readily obtainable; and a specialized machine is
required for cutting the key.
12. A policy should exist requiring lost room door keys to be replaced within two
business days or less under special circumstances (i.e. keys stolen) after reporting
16
the key loss. The policy should also indicate the institutional response to other lost
keys where the impact of the loss is more substantial, i.e. master keys or main entry
door keys.
13. All secured doors in residence halls should be inspected at least annually to insure
they close and properly latch when released from a one-inch open position without
any external pressure applied.
14. The campus-housing department should develop a policies and procedures manual
to direct routine activities related to security personnel in both routine and emergency
conditions.
Additional Requirements for Multi-Unit Facilities
15. Residential space should be segregated from non-residential space with the
residential space secured on a 24-hour basis. A telephone or intercom system
should be provided at one or more select entry points to accommodate visitors and
delivery persons.
16. The campus-housing department and the campus protection agency should review
entry requirements of each residence hall and determine the feasibility or necessity
of a staffed desk position located within the hall. The deliberation should consider
both internal and external risk factors with staffing hours ranging from a 24-hour
position to part time. Consideration should also be afforded to the role this position
takes in the access control process.
17. Electronic access control should be considered for one or more entry doors in each
dorm style residence hall. The system should require an individually coded card or
key for entry. Upon loss, only the individual card or key need be removed or voided
from the system without the need to change other cards or keys in the system.
18. All secured doors forming a perimeter into the residential space (including those
equipped with card readers) should be equipped with an alarm to indicate a propped
door condition. This alarm should indicate that the door is unlocked or unlatched
rather than simply closed.
19. Resident rooms should be equipped with telephones that can be used to
communicate with visitors at the entry doors.
17