Creating a safe haven for university students: How are we doing?
Too frequently and often too late, academic librarians learn of patron experiences involving
problem patrons, misdemeanor criminal activity, or poorly secured areas. Regrettably, these
experiences can irrevocably diminish perceptions of access to the vibrant learning spaces and
services offered by our institutions. This article assesses the current state of security personnel
staffing and patron security issues at 25 public, four-year universities in two southeastern states.
KEYWORDS: academic libraries, access services, circulation services, library as place,
organizational models, security, staffing, problem patrons
Mark Sanders
Assistant Director for Public Services
Joyner Library-Mail Stop 516
East Carolina University
sandersm@ecu.edu
The author would like to than Justin Kingery, graduate assistant at East Carolina University, for
his research aid.
1
INTRODUCTION
The role of access services is constantly shifting along with our patrons’ evolving
expectations regarding learning spaces, technology and services. Too frequently and often too
late, academic librarians learn of user experiences involving problem patrons, misdemeanor
criminal activity, or poorly secured areas. Regrettably, these experiences can irrevocably
diminish the perception of access to the vibrant learning spaces and services offered by our
institutions. Most libraries already work hard at outreach to bring in users. Once inside,
establishing a haven of safety for patrons must be of paramount importance to libraries.
Although no library is completely free of security concerns, serious crime in academic
libraries in the United States is rare overall. Given the millions of visits they receive annually,
academic libraries are very safe spaces. The extent of criminal activity in academic libraries
tends to be primarily misdemeanor in nature -- larceny, vandalism, disturbance of the peace,
and various forms of misdemeanor indecency. However, these incidents can combine to create
an atmosphere of insecurity. As Shuman noted, people have a basic need to feel safe and
secure. If they do not, they will go elsewhere to satisfy their information needs (1999). Libraries
are already experiencing students’ exclusive reliance on free, online information of dubious
quality. Taking proper inventory of security and proactive care can help libraries avoid further
erosion of their user base.
This article presents the results of a survey of the current state of library patron security
at the 25 public, four-year universities in North Carolina and South Carolina. How are the
libraries served by security personnel? How are patrons made aware of potential dangers and
ways to protect their persons and property? How do patrons report security issues when they
encounter them? What are the common patron security incidents which have been reported
recently in our university libraries? Lastly, what changes have recently been made or should be
made in the future?
2
LITERATURE REVIEW
In his article, “The Correct Mindset,” Charles Reed points out that libraries are no longer
“simply quiet places to study and to read” (2008). Changes include 24/7 access, cafes, exhibits,
and a proliferation of collaborative and individual learning spaces. These changes present
challenges for those who must secure the facilities and their users. Reed’s article suggests
solutions based in architectural design, access control, and video surveillance, suggesting that
library administrators take full advantage of developments that have occurred in the security
systems field since 2001.
Betty Braaksma describes the ways in which the Thunder Bay Public Library in Ontario
handled increasing security concerns by forming the Thunder Bay Public Library's Security Task
Force (1998). Although the impetus for this was an increase in serious and frightening
encounters with patrons in a public library, the article was important to all types of libraries
because, prior to this, most writings on library security concentrated largely on the security of
the collections rather than staff and user safety. Herbert McGuin’s case study of security at
Sims Memorial Library at Southeastern Louisiana University emphasizes the helpfulness of a
visible, uniformed, full-time security officer. He also discusses the importance of administrative
support and engagement of library staff in improving security (2010). Senyah and Lamptey’s
case study of personal security and safety in Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah University of Science
and Technology Library echoes McGuin and emphasizes the need to deploy security personnel
to patrol both inside the library and outside the building, not merely guard the library’s entrance
and exit (2011).
Raffensperger explores whether urban academic libraries are more dangerous than their
less urban counterparts (2010). The author uses data gathered under the Jeanne Clery
Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act or “Clery Act”, as well
as Federal Bureau of Investigation data on crime reported on college and university campuses.
As he notes libraries do not consistently collect or report incident data. Nevertheless, the
3
campus-level data can provide a foundation for a broad framework for risk assessment.
Raffensperger concludes that “local conditions vary significantly.”
Guidelines for best practices in patron security are ample and readily available. Many
handbooks have been developed and published by professional organizations such as the
American Library Association (ALA) and Association of Research Libraries (ARL). A good
starting point is the SPEC (Systems and Procedures Exchange Center) survey conducted by
ARL in which 45 institutions responded to questions about how they assure the safety and
security of their patrons and collections (1999). The kit contains the survey results and
representative documents, including general policy statements, rules, emergency manuals,
incident forms, and training aids. Somewhat surprisingly, the majority of libraries were not
happy with their current security programs and most planned future changes. One would think
that such an important campus consideration as security programs would be satisfactorily
addressed as among the most fundamental concerns.
Shuman’s previously cited “Library security and safety handbook” remains refreshingly
relevant despite being published a little more than ten years ago (1999). It provides valuable
checklists for addressing expectations of patron behavior, establishing security procedures,
training staff, and managing legal issues. Rich, practical examples of both real and hypothetical
situations are presented to highlight specific issues, as well as text boxes, sample policies, a
glossary and extensive bibliography from the 1980s and 1990s. Future issues such as
subliminal warning messages and biometric passwords have not materialized yet, but are topics
that persist in consideration (however dystopian they appear at first glance). Both of these texts
are good introductions to methods for approaching a general security framework.
A similar overview of the issues can be found in “Protecting library staff, users,
collections, and facilities”, which was published in the series “How-to-do-it manual for libraries”
(2001). Within its coverage of such a broad subject are useful chapters on environmental scans
and patron security. This work is unique in two ways. It includes a short chapter dedicated to
4
security planning during special events located adjacent to libraries such as cultural
celebrations, sporting events, VIP visits, concerts, and conventions. It also gives information
about personal safety, not just building and collections safety, during emergencies and
disasters. This is timely information given the snowstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and
other extreme weather events experienced across the United States since 2010 (Tigay, 2011).
Solutions to patron security issues are provided according to an intensity scale ranging from low
to medium to high. At the low end are policy statements, which should anchor any security
framework, and staff training. At the other, more expensive end, are security professionals and
electronic surveillance systems. The most critical factors for framing a patron security
ecosystem are summarized as: location, budget, governance and the size/type of library.
One of the most recently published guides to ensuring patron security is “The library
security and safety guide to prevention, planning, and response” (Kahn, 2008). Divided into
three major sections, the publication examines building security, collections and equipment
security, and patron and staff safety. The recommendations for staff behavioral guidelines when
confronting problem patrons, and suggested sequence of reporting problems to the appropriate
personnel, are helpful for establishing clearly defined procedures. Equally valuable are the
layouts of recommended library security personnel qualifications and the process for cultivating
relationships with community public safety offices such as the police and fire departments. The
appendices provide a generous sample of resource organizations and checklists, with a
particular focus on insurance aspects.
Overall, the existing literature on patron security provides an abundant source of
baseline recommendations for a security framework to address the common issues confronting
libraries in the area of security personnel staffing, problem patron behavior, and procedures to
create a safe environment. The Buildings and Equipment Section of the Library Leadership and
Management Association (LLAMA) of ALA recently published a “Library Security Guidelines
Document”, which suggests industry standards and recommends best practices from experts in
5
the field of library security (2010). A distillation of considerations and questions for university
libraries are:
1. How are the surveyed university libraries served by security personnel? Are there librarybased security personnel or an exclusive reliance on campus police or law enforcement external
to the library?
2. What are the types of written documentation related to patron security?
3. What guidance is provided to students to protect their persons and property?
4. What are the most common student security issues that security personnel encounter?
5. What changes have recently been made or are desired?
METHODOLOGY
The considerations and questions distilled from the literature provide a useful approach
to survey the current state of security in our university libraries. To take a small measure of how
we are doing, the authors researched the answers to these questions at the public, four-year
university libraries of two southeastern states. Data was collected from representatives of 25
institutions in North Carolina and South Carolina (See: Appendix 1). These states contain a
total of 27 public, four year institutions; however, data was unavailable for two institutions which
did not respond to inquiries for information. For the purposes of this research, classification as
four-year, public university and total FTE is taken from the 38th edition of The College Blue Book
(2011). Security personnel are defined as employees whose duties consist solely of ensuring
security and do not perform any other service or work within the library. It does not count staff
members who are designated as security supervisors or liaisons in addition to their regular
library duties.
Surveys were conducted by phone or email with the person judged to be in the best
position to speak to the library’s security issues, which often depends upon whether the library
6
has library-based security staffing or relies exclusively on campus police or law enforcement
external to the library. In the case of library-based security staffing, the security supervisor was
usually contacted. In cases where the library relies exclusively on external security, the
appropriate contact was usually someone in Access Services/Circulation, Facilities or Library
Administration. The collected data includes: the categories of security staffing; documentation
related to patron security; guidance given to patrons (mostly students) about potential dangers
and ways to report incidents; common issues and concerns for patron safety; and recently made
or desired changes to improve security. Although some of the surveyed institutions have one or
more departmental libraries, for the purposes of this research the questions concerned the
facility considered to be the main library on campus. A list of the survey questions appears in
Appendix 2.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The first question concerning the composition and organization of personnel providing
security for the library yields answers which are strongly correlated to the university’s enrollment
(see Table 1). Student enrollment at the 25 universities can be neatly subdivided into three
ranges based upon full-time equivalent (FTE): 0 – 5,000 FTE (9 institutions); 5,000 – 10,000
FTE (6 institutions); and 10,000 – 30,000 FTE (10 institutions). Table 1 shows the composition
of library-based security personnel staffing during at least part of the regular semester operating
hours, not necessarily all of the operating hours. It is important to note that library-based
security staffing in some libraries only covers the late-shift hours.
Of the ten institutions with more than 10,000 FTE, nine report having library-based
security personnel during at least part of the regular semester operating hours. Out of the nine
libraries, six report maintaining library-based staffing during all regular semester operating
hours. Interestingly, the three largest institutions based upon FTE do not provide library-based
security during daytime hours. At first glance, it would seem that the largest institutions would
7
have the most comprehensive security coverage. Instead, they only provide library-based
security personnel during the early evening and late-shift operating hours. At all other times
these three universities rely exclusively upon campus police external to the library.
One large university library with no regular library-based security reports that it does
employ private security based within the library for the late-shift during the two weeks prior to
exams. The decision to provide late-night on-site security only during exams was made in
recent years due to budget cuts. Among these ten largest institutions, only three report having
library-employed security. Two of these libraries combined library-employed security with
private security during the late-shift. One library relies exclusively upon library-employed
security, having two guards on-duty during all operating hours.
Three of the 15 libraries with an enrollment fewer than 10,000 FTE report having librarybased security personnel during any of the operating hours. Among these libraries: one has
campus police based in the library during all operating hours; one relies upon a patrolling private
security guard from 5:00 p.m. until closing; and one relies upon a patrolling campus police
officer after service desks have closed. All other institutions rely exclusively upon campus
police or law enforcement external to the library during all operating hours.
Several libraries who have no library-based security report that staff and/or students are
charged with making periodic patrols of the building to monitor activity. This effort is most often
applied to make a library security presence known throughout the building. One library reports
that there are designated security supervisors within the circulation department who perform
scheduled rounds. The Head of Circulation at this institution noted an advantage library staff
members have over security personnel. Library staff can recognize suspicious behavior and
anomalies that would otherwise appear innocuous to a layperson. A real life example cited was
a young patron who appeared to be browsing the stacks, but was actually spying on females.
He was discovered when it was noticed his browsing included an aged set of foreign language
chemistry journals which were not indexed online.
8
Libraries report that security personnel are frequently charged with miscellaneous duties
in addition to their primary job responsibilities. Maintaining a master key to open doors as
needed is frequently mentioned, but only two of the libraries with dedicated library-employed
security report having security personnel maintain full responsibility for control and issuance of
keys to staff. More often it is the responsibility of campus police or a Facilities or Administration
unit within the library. Similarly, most lost and found procedures and inventory are maintained
by staff in Access Services. Two libraries report that they give to campus police any valuable
items turned in to lost and found. However, the security personnel assume full responsibility for
the operation of a lost and found service in two of the libraries with library-employed security.
In response to the question about the types of written documentation related to patron
security, 18 of the 25 surveyed institutions have policies proscribing behavior guidelines for
patrons. These guidelines describe permissible and impermissible conduct, noise levels,
hygiene, age requirements, and other user expectations. Security may refer to these
documented policies when incidents arise that disrupt the library environment and address the
situation appropriately.
Inappropriate computer use is another area of concern for academic
libraries since viewing obscene material can create a hostile environment for many library
patrons and is a concern for both administrators and parents. Although this issue is more acute
in public libraries, academic libraries are not immune. In fact, given the delicate balance
between academic freedom and patently offensive material, it is even more important to
precisely outline what is acceptable and unacceptable in the university library environment.
Somewhat surprisingly, even more libraries have separate policies proscribing appropriate
computer use than those with a policy of generally appropriate behavior. Of the 25 libraries
surveyed, 21 provide a specific policy which addresses appropriate computer use.
All libraries report that an incident report is created when serious security incidents arise
which require a response. However, the way in which incident reports are disseminated varies.
Incidents documented by library-employed security or private security are always sent to the
9
library’s administration and may be forwarded to campus police. Conversely, incident reports
documented by campus police always become part of the department’s records, and may be
forwarded to library administration. There appears to be no common best practice among the
libraries surveyed, but instead the dissemination of incident reports varies depending upon the
security staffing framework of the institution and institutional guidelines. Consistency is noted
among all libraries that employ private security. These libraries report that they provide
documentation which falls under the umbrella of “post orders”. In other words, the library
provides a checklist of expectations for the security firm’s execution of job responsibilities and
response to security incidents.
Guidance provided to students includes ways to protect their persons and property, as
well as how to report security concerns. Warning signage such as flyers and table tents are
widespread in libraries. These physical items are among the cheapest and easiest to
implement. However, in this age of over-signage and signage pollution, their meaningful impact
is debatable. Several libraries surveyed report additional innovative ways in which to warn
students to not leave their belongings unattended and raise awareness of their surroundings.
These include images of unsecured laptops on screensavers and plasma screens, as well as
friendly reminder notes left on unattended belongings. Similarly, patrons most often report
security concerns in person. Yet another innovative way which takes advantage of popular
technology is Instant Message (IM). Nearly a quarter of libraries surveyed report that students
have used IM to notify library staff of concerns, either directly to security personnel or via an IM
to a reference librarian. A noted advantage is not only the ease and anonymity of this
communication method, but also the avoidance of having to physically leave an area and/or
personal belongings to notify security in person.
Libraries were asked to list the most common student security issues that security
personnel encounter (see Table 2). Predictably, theft and simple larceny is cited most often. It
is mentioned by 16 of the 25 libraries surveyed. The issues immediately following theft are
10
perennial concerns for libraries: graffiti, suspicious persons/trespass, and noise. Interestingly,
although 21 libraries confirm having a computer use policy, only three libraries mentioned
inappropriate computer use as a common security issue. However, several noted that it had
been a past problem that was successfully addressed by reconfiguration of computer seating
arrangements and access permissions for non-university affiliates. Perhaps these strategies,
coupled with the widespread establishment of computer policy documentation, have
successfully prevented greater frequency of the problem. Another surprising finding was the
mention of medical issues by three libraries as a common security concern. Security personnel
are often first responders to libraries when there is a medical emergency. Although security is
often classified in the category of enforcement, it nevertheless also deals with health related
issues. American Heart Association certification of proficiency in performing cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillator (AED) application is practically a
necessity for security personnel. Credentialing as an emergency medical technician (EMT) at
the basic level is highly desirable.
The final question posed to libraries asked what changes have recently been made or
are desired in the area of security. The most popular response was the installation of video
surveillance cameras. Eight libraries reported that effective deployment of cameras had
recently been successfully implemented or is highly desired. Cameras are noted to be not only
a deterrent to crime, but also a great help in recovery of stolen items and conviction of
perpetrators. The proliferation of video surveillance in university public areas, not just in
libraries, appears to be a trend that will only increase in the near future. Cultivating a stronger
relationship with security personnel was cited by seven libraries as a desired change. Stronger
relationships are judged likely to foster greater connections and engagement between security
personnel and library stakeholders. Specific areas mentioned are clarifying security duties,
library involvement in the selection and hiring of security personnel, and requesting increased
11
patrols and security presence within the libraries. Only two libraries report that no changes
have been recently made or are desired.
CONCLUSION
As Braaksma notes, “the public retains a vision of the library as the kind of genteel
Victorian institution that Sherlock Holmes would have enjoyed” (1998). While this is a quaint
sentiment, it is not entirely accurate. Unfortunately, libraries must face very real and serious
issues regarding the provision of security at their institutions. This article has provided an
general overview of the current environment at libraries in 25 public, four-year universities in two
southeastern states and found that security issues are indeed being competently addressed.
Only relatively minor infractions were cited as common security concerns. All surveyed libraries
report formal coordination with security divisions at their institutions and procedures for incident
documentation. Nearly 75% of libraries report having formal guidelines for patron behavior and
appropriate computer use. Efforts are made at all libraries to provide patron guidance to protect
their persons and property. While a stronger relationship with security personnel is desired at
more than a quarter of surveyed libraries, none report serious shortcomings in security efforts.
Some directions for future research are to measure four year public university patrons’
perception of safety and security and/or apply the survey to community colleges, which have a
different patron group than universities and therefore likely need different security frameworks.
Another is to examine university crime log statistics required by the Clery Act to discover any
correlation between reported criminal activity within and adjacent to university libraries and
whether or not the library has library-based security personnel.
12
REFERENCES
American Library Association, LLAMA BES Safety & Security of Library Buildings Committee:.
(2010). Library security guidelines document. Retrieved from website:
http://www.ala.org/llama/sites/ala.org.llama/files/content/publications/LibrarySecurityGuide.pdf
Braaksma, E. B. (1998). Zero tolerance at the library: The work of the Thunder Bay public
library's security task force. Library & Archival Security, 14(2), 43-49.
College blue book (2011). (38th ed.). Detroit: Gale/Cengage Learning.
Cravey, P. J. (2001). Protecting library staff, users, collections, and facilities : A how-to-do-it
manual. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.
Intner, S. S., Johnson, P., Morrison, A. M., & Kahn, M. (2009). Studies in library and information
science. New Delhi: Pentagon Press.
Kahn, M. B. (2008). The library security and safety guide to prevention, planning, and response.
Chicago: American Library Association.
McGuin, H. (2010). The evolution of security at Sims Memorial Library: A case study. Library &
Archival Security, 23(2), 105-115. doi:10.1080/01960075.2010.495328
Raffensperger, T. E. (2010). Safety and security in urban academic libraries: A risk assessment
approach to emergency preparedness. Urban Library Journal, 16(1). Retrieved from
http://ojs.cunylibraries.org/index.php/ulj/article/view/16
Reed, C. (2008). The correct mindset. Library & Archival Security, 21(2), 59-67.
doi:10.1080/01960070802201334
Senyah, Y., & Lamptey, R. B. (2011). Personal security and safety in academic libraries: A case
study of the Kwame Nkrumah University of science and technology library, Kumasi,
Ghana. Library & Archival Security, 24(2), 83-102. doi:10.1080/01960075.2011.604642
Shuman, B. A. (1999). Library security and safety handbook : Prevention, policies, and
procedures. Chicago: American Library Association.
13
Soete, G. J., Zimmerman, G., Association of Research Libraries, & Office of Leadership and
Management Services. (1999). Management of library security : A SPEC kit.
Washington, DC: Systems and Procedures Exchange Center, Office of Leadership and
Management Services, Association of Research Libraries.
Tigay, C. (2011, September 9). Extreme weather. CQ Researcher, 21, 733-756. Retrieved from
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/
14
APPENDIX 1: INSTITUTIONS SURVEYED
More than 10,000 FTE
Appalachian State University
Clemson University
College of Charleston
East Carolina University
North Carolina State University
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
University of South Carolina
5,000 to 10,000 FTE
North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University
Western Carolina University
North Carolina Central University
Winthrop University
University of South Carolina Upstate
University of North Carolina at Pembroke
5,000 to 10,000 FTE
The Citadel
Elizabeth City State University
Fayetteville State University
Francis Marion University
Lander University
University of North Carolina at Asheville
University of South Carolina Aiken
University of South Carolina Beaufort
Winston Salem State University
15
APPENDIX 2: SURVEY QUESTIONS
1. How are the surveyed university libraries served by security personnel? Are there librarybased security personnel or an exclusive reliance on campus police or law enforcement external
to the library?
2. What are the types of written documentation related to patron security?
3. What guidance is provided to students to protect their persons and property?
4. What are the most common student security issues that security personnel encounter?
5. What changes have recently been made or are desired?
16
Table 1: Library security staffing at university libraries (n=25)
Both libraryemployed and
private security
based in the
library
University enrollment
in FTE
No security
based in the
library
Campus police
based in the
library only
Library-employed
security based in
the library only
Private security
based in the
library only
10,000 - 30,000
5,000 - 10,000
0 - 5,000
1
4
8
4
2
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
Total
13
6
1
3
2
Table 2: Most frequently cited security issues at university libraries
Larceny/Theft
Graffiti
Suspicious person/trespass
Noise/Loud behavior
Vandalism
Inappropriate computer viewing
Medical
16
7
6
5
3
3
3