MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 43
Vol. 35, No. 2
2004-2005 Board of Directors
President
Kenneth A. Willett
University of Montana
Treasurer
Lisa A. Sprague
Florida State University
Canada
Jean Luc Mahieu
University of Brussels
International
Raymond H. Thrower, Jr.
Gustavus Adolphus College
Mid-America
Mid-Atlantic
Steven J. Rittereiser
Mountain Pacific
Central Washington University
North Atlantic
Robert K. Bratten
Southwestern
University of Texas Health Science Center
Jasper Cooke
Augusta State University
At-Large
Steven J. Healy
Princeton University
At-Large
David M. Worden
At-Large
San Diego Community College District
Chief Staff Officer/Editor in Chief
Peter J. Berry, CAE
Advertising Coordinator
Karen E. Breseman
By Richard W. Lee, Program Specialist, University of Massachusetts – Boston
Training offers opportunity for campus law enforcement to be proactive protectors of their
community
The Use of Electro-Magnetic Disruption Devices (EMDs)
in Higher Education Law Enforcement .................................................................. 29
By Randy Mingo, University of Central Florida; Ross Wolf, University of Central Florida; Charles
Mesloh, Florida Gulf Coast University; Tina Kelchner, University of Central Florida
Less-than-lethal alternative can have positive impact on officer injuries, suspect injuries and
the reduced use of deadly force
IACLEA’s Annual Conference in Kansas City — Everything You Expect
and More ................................................................................................................ 33
Preview of Scheduled Workshops
Departments
Michael Young
Southeastern
Washington & Lee University
Production Director
Gene Mandish
The New Era of Campus Public Safety .................................................................. 21
Awareness of Weapons of Mass Destruction ......................................................... 27
Directors
Daniel Hutt
University of Toronto
Managing Editor
Karen E. Breseman
By Henry Christensen, Director, Department of Public Safety, University of Miami and William
Gerlach, Department of Public Safety, University of Miami
Studying data in detail through projects and tasks in a Continuous Improvement environment
By C. Suzanne Mencer, Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness; Michael Lynch, Chief
of Police at George Mason University; and Jeff Allison, Assistant Director for Training in the
Office for Domestic Preparedness.
Reality that while terrorism is a low frequency event, it is one of extremely high consequences
Immediate Past President
Dolores Stafford
George Washington University
Ernest H. Leffler
Bentley College
Contents
Dashboard Management, A Public Safety Application ........................................... 16
President Elect
Priscilla Stevens
University of Wisconsin at River Falls
James J. Bonner, Jr.
Arcadia University
March/April 2005
President’s Message ................................................................................................. 2
Association News ..................................................................................................... 3
Member News .......................................................................................................... 9
On the Cover
On the Cover: University of Miami uses “dashboard management” information tools
to measure and monitor the organization’s status and ability to reach goals. (See
article on page 16)
Campus Law Enforcement Journal is the official publication of the International Association of Campus
Law Enforcement Administrators. It is published bimonthly and dedicated to the promotion of professional ideals and standards for law enforcement, security and public safety so as to better serve institutions of higher education.
Single copy: $5; subscription: $30 annually in U.S. currency to nonmembers in U.S., Canada, Mexico. All
other countries: $35. Manuscripts, correspondence, and all contributed materials are welcome; however,
publication is subject to editing and rewrite if deemed necessary to conform to editorial policy and style.
Opinions expressed by contributing authors and advertisers are independent of IACLEA Journal policies
or views. Authors must provide proper credit for information sources and assume responsibility for
permission to reprint statements or wording regardless of the originating organ. ©2005 International
Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators. All rights reserved. Business and Publication
Office: 342 North Main Street, West Hartford, CT 06117-2507 (860) 586-7517; Fax (860) 586-7550.
Printed in the U.S. by Sundance Press. This publication is available in microform from University
Microfilms International, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 USA.
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 1
P
resident’s Message
See You in Kansas City!
By Kenneth A. Willett, President
Here we are at the
midway point of
my term and I
would like to congratulate the newest members of the
IACLEA Board of
Directors. Director
at-Large Steven
Healy has been elected President-Elect.
Lisa Sprague has been re-elected Treasurer. Marlon Lynch will be the new Director at-Large and Phil Johnson will take
over the remainder of Steven Healy’s
unexpired term as Director at-Large.
In July 2003, then President Dolores
Stafford appointed a Dues Restructuring
Task Force, chaired by board member
Steve Rittereiser. Their charge was to “develop options for changing the dues structure that will leave the organization financially whole.” Another compelling reason was to address our objective of having a government relations presence in
Washington, D.C. President Stafford distributed a membership survey to each of
the regional meetings. Over 75% attending the meetings supported the increase
and the presence in Washington, D.C.
At the June Board of Directors meeting, the dues restructuring task force proposal was fine tuned and made part of
the proposed bylaw amendment document. The resulting ballot was submitted
to the membership with the following
results: more than 50% of the voting
membership returned their ballots voting
almost 4 to 1 in favor of the dues restructuring. The success of this effort goes to
2 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
all who worked on the task force and to
every Board Member who discussed the
issues with their regional members. Great
communication of the issue and the goals
of our Association were successfully conveyed to the members.
IACLEA dues renewal notices will be
going out to all members in early May.
Members other than Institutional Members will see no change in their invoices.
Institutional Members will receive a revised format invoice that incorporates the
recent dues restructuring approved by
IACLEA members. Institutional dues will
now be based on full-time enrollment,
type of institution and location. I am confident the variable fee schedule will bring
additional small 4-year schools on board,
attract the 2-year colleges and increase
our international membership.
With the Annual IACLEA Conference only weeks away, there is some
serious planning that we as members
need to start considering. (1) Have you
made your conference and hotel reservations yet? (2) Have you been online
to the IACLEA home page to see how
easy it is to do all that? (3) Have you
decided what you will bring to the 2005
Silent Auction? The original McGovern
Scholarship Fund is now self-supporting
and we are attempting to accomplish the
same thing for the Voswinkel Scholarship
Fund. The more we bring and the more
we buy, the sooner we will have the second scholarship self-funded. You can also
make a donation using the online form
on the IACLEA Web site.
You will hear more about it at the Annual Conference; however, I wanted to
get you started in thinking about it. You
should have received your hard copy of
the Annual Conference registration form
by mail. Note the excellent programs that
have been secured this year. Start thinking about which sessions you want to attend (see preview page 33).
The deadline for early registration for
the IACLEA Annual Conference is nearly
here — save money by registering early!
This conference is going to have one of
the best programs ever with workshops,
accreditation workshops on Wednesday
afternoon, a WMD awareness workshop,
and Clery Act Compliance training. If you
have not yet looked at the conference
schedule, Dolores Stafford will conduct a
Clery Act Compliance Workshop on Tuesday. It will be based on the new compliance handbook of the Department of
Education which they have promised to
provide for each pre-registered attendee.
Stafford has also been working behind
the scenes to have U.S. Department of
Education officials come to the conference to participate in that workshop and
is 90%+ sure that someone from the Department of Education will be attending
the Annual Conference in Kansas City to
conduct the training session with her.
So, if you have not yet registered for
the Annual Conference, you may want to
consider doing so! In addition, if you have
a staff member who is responsible for
Clery Act compliance on your campus,
this would be the perfect conference to
Continued on page 38
2005 IACLEA
Election Results
A
ssociation News
By Dolores A. Stafford, Immediate
Past President and Leadership
Development Committee Chair
IACLEA Southeast and Southwest Regions
Combine for a Successful Conference
in New Orleans
The IACLEA Southeast and Southwest
Regions recently held a successful conference in New Orleans hosted by Chief
Ken Dupaquier of Tulane University.
There were 54 attendees from Texas to
Florida, Louisiana to Virginia. President Ken
Willett, Southeast Regional Director Mike
Young, and Chief Dupaquier opened the
Conference. Tom Hogarty, IACLEA Project
Director, gave a presentation explaining
the ongoing training initiatives. FBI and
Homeland Security instructors also conducted training sessions.
Over three days, attendees were
treated to the fine hospitality of Tulane
University and Chief Dupaquier. The
Hotel St. Marie on Toulouse did a superb
job with making everyone comfortable
and at reasonable rates. There were socials all three nights. Cindy Butler and
numerous other university employees
collected goodies for the bags distributed
at conference registration.
Butler and Stanley Cosper graciously
volunteered to set up and run the registration table in addition to transporting
everything to the hotel with Olive Daw’s
able-bodied assistance. Seslie Davis and
Cathy Osborne gave impromptu tours to
some of the group who took the streetcar uptown to see our campus. Programs
offered included interview techniques,
identity theft, leadership and a presentation on the IACLEA Domestic Preparedness Grant Initiative among others.
IACLEA Regional Director Mike Young
said that the conference was a complete
success. The Tulane University Police
Department strives for an excellent reputation in the organization and the conference cemented good relationships.
Lt. Stanley Cosper (on left) and AP Cindy
Butler (on right) check in conference
attendees at the St. Marie Hotel in New
Orleans at the Southeast/Southwest
Regional Conference.
Left to right: Conference Host Ken Dupaquier,
IACLEA president Kenneth A. Willett, and Tulane
Capt. Reid Noble outside the conference center.
The deadline to declare candidacy for
President Elect, Treasurer and Director at-Large was January 28, 2005. The
sole declaration of intent received for
President Elect was from current Director at-Large Steven Healy, Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police,
Princeton University, Princeton, New
Jersey. The sole declaration of intent
for Treasurer was from current Treasurer Lisa Sprague, Associate Director,
Florida State University, Tallahassee,
Florida. There were two declarations of
intent for the position of Director atLarge: Marlon C. Lynch, Chief of Police,
University of North Carolina - Charlotte,
Charlotte, North Carolina and Phillip A.
Johnson, Assistant Director, University
of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana.
Steven Healy is clearly qualified for
the post of President Elect, pursuant
to the IACLEA bylaws, and has met
the filing requirements established by
the Leadership Development Committee. Lisa Sprague is clearly qualified
for the post of Treasurer, pursuant to
the IACLEA bylaws, and has met the
filing requirements established by the
Leadership Development Committee.
On behalf of the IACLEA Leadership Development Committee, I am
pleased to cast one vote each for
Steven Healy and Lisa Sprague thereby
electing Steven Healy as President
Elect and Lisa Sprague as Treasurer.
Since the election of Steven Healy
to the post of President Elect leaves
an unexpired portion of his Director
at-Large Term, I am pleased to cast
one vote for Marlon Lynch for Director at-Large and one vote for Phillip
Johnson to complete the unexpired
portion of Steven Healy’s term as
Director at-Large.
Congratulations, Steven, Lisa,
Marlon and Phil, and on behalf of your
colleagues, thank you for your continued commitment to serve IACLEA as
members of the Board of Directors.
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 3
Letter to the Editor
A
ssociation News
Ohio Regional Meeting
By Tom Hogarty, WMD Project Director
Members of the Ohio Association of Campus
Law Enforcement Administrators gathered on
February 25 at Capitol University in
Columbus. The group meets twice a year.
Topics for this meeting included a
presentation by the Advisory Services
Committee for the Ohio Chiefs of Police
Association, a presentation by Alvin
Thompson of Tomahawk Technologies on
parking solutions, a program by Ohio Deputy
Attorney General Alice Robinson-Bonds as
well as a presentation by IACLEA Domestic
Preparedness Grant Director Tom Hogarty
on the status of Homeland Security funding
to campus law enforcement around
the country. For information about the
Ohio Association contact Chief Julee
Cope of Owens Community College at
jcope@owens.edu.
Howard Korn, Chief of Police/
Director of Campus Services,
Marietta College.
OACLEA meeting attendees.
Keep Your Membership
Information Up-to-Date!
Check it out on the IACLEA
Members Only Area Online
Directory.
4 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
Update membership information by
completing the Members Only Online
Directory Change of Address Form.
Update your institutional information by
submitting the online Institution Demographic Survey located in the Membership
section of the IACLEA Web site,
www.iaclea.org
A recent email from Karen Breseman,
IACLEA Administrator, to all who are on
the Association’s mailing list, coupled with
freezing temperatures ruling the coastal
southeastern area of North Carolina,
prompts this attempt to put into words a
few of my many great memories related
to the development of campus public
safety and IACLEA. These observations
come from a “has been” of advanced
years who has been retired for 16 years
following a 27-year career at Rutgers, The
State University of New Jersey, as its first
Director of Public Safety.
IACLEA was not yet born when I attended my first meeting of campus security directors in 1962 at the University of
Minnesota. Assuming my memory is reasonably on target, Ray Vernes was the
host and the organization was known as
The Campus Parking and Security Association. Pioneers in this then fledgling profession like Leonard Christensen (BYU),
Sterling Baker (Houston), Frank Andrews
(Northwestern), Doug Paxton (Arizona),
and Charlie Ray (Pitt) had organized the
first conference at Arizona State University in 1958. There were no more than
25 schools at the 1962 conference. As
the “new boy on the block” it was an
opportunity to learn the business of campus public safety and to meet “old pros”
who rapidly became career friends.
In 1966 I had the pleasure of being
elected to the Board of Directors at the
conference held at the University of Maryland, and two years later had the privilege of becoming the 10th president of
IACLEA. My conference was held at the
University of Houston under the guidance
of Sterling Baker and a flock of his Texas
rascals. We had proudly doubled the
Association’s membership to 200 over the
span of a year, and the conference faced
its first demonstration — a small group
protested having a vendor on campus
displaying firearms in the exhibitors area.
Over 26 years I regrettably missed five
conferences due to personal reasons. I
became convinced early on that to keep
abreast of the constantly increasing challenges and demands placed on campus
public safety, and to share the knowledge,
experiences and warm friendship offered
by colleagues from all parts of the counContinued on page 40
A
ssociation News
Three IACLEA Subcommittees Launch
Domestic Preparedness Research Projects
By Chris Blake, WMD Project Coordinator
Three subcommittees organized under a
phase II federal grant awarded to IACLEA
are launching research projects that will
culminate with the development of model
plans and policies to assist U.S. college
and university campus public safety departments in training for and preventing
acts of terrorism.
These subcommittees are:
• Best Practices and Recommendations for Response to Changes in the
National Threat Alert, chaired by Ken
Goodwin, director of public safety at
Portland (Oregon) Community College, and Noel C. March, director of
public safety at the University of
Maine in Orono, Maine.
•
•
Recommendations for Enhanced
Communications Between Campus
Public Safety Departments and Federal/State/Local Emergency Response
Agencies, chaired by Marlon C.
Lynch, Chief of Police at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte.
Strategic Planning, chaired by Thomas P. Carey, director of security and
campus safety at Bates College in
Lewiston, Maine.
These three subcommittees report to
IACLEA’s Domestic Preparedness Committee, chaired by Oliver J. Clark, chief of
police and executive director of public
safety at the University of Illinois in
Champaign, Illinois.
The subcommittee and committee
chairs met at a workshop in January in
Baltimore, Maryland, to begin planning
their activities under the grant awarded
by the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security. The workshop also provided an
opportunity for the chairs to meet with
representatives of the Johns Hopkins
University Division of Public Safety Leadership, which is conducting research on
the state of campus public safety in
America under a separate grant from the
U.S. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Discussions with Johns
Hopkins representatives centered on the
possibility of collaborative efforts involving the sharing of research and resources
involving the two grant projects.
The major focus of all three subcommittees in the initial phase will be to collect research both from IACLEA member
institutions and the public domain.
Research among IACLEA members will
involve electronic surveys of members
to solicit copies of existing plans that have
already been developed to protect campuses against terrorist threats. This research will assist IACLEA to achieve the
following goals under its grant award:
• To create a Best Practices Guide for
campus public safety personnel to
use to develop emergency operations plans or a Terrorist Incident
Annex (TIA). IACLEA will develop
this guide by: analyzing existing TIAs,
reviewing publications relating to
TIAs that exist in the public domain,
and by consulting with experts to
develop such plans
•
To develop a Promising Practices
Guide to highlight appropriate model
campus responses to the changing
levels of the National Terrorist Alert
System
•
To produce recommendations to
strengthen effective communication between campus public safety
officials and appropriate federal,
state, and local emergency responders
•
To identify existing antiterrorist
training programs and current and
future training needs. A Strategic
Planning Group, or “Think Tank,”
will: incorporate all research results,
determine current and future
training needs, and attempt to
formulate a strategic vision of the
training that campus public safety
departments will need in the next
three to five years to address future
terrorist threats.
The subcommittees will achieve these
goals not only by reviewing research generated from IACLEA members and other
sources, but also will supplement this material through workshops with subject matter experts. Subcommittees and staff will
identify subject matter experts who are
qualified to serve as consultants and invite these consultants to attend workshops or focus groups to share their
knowledge and expertise as it relates to
the development of model plans and
policies for campus public safety departments to counter terrorism.
Anthony A. Vitale, IACLEA research
consultant, will assist the subcommittees
Continued on page 6
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 5
A
ssociation News
Incident Command Training
to Be Offered
ing the need for and effectiveness of such
training.
Anticipating complete success the pilot sites should lead to ten more sites located around the country.
Soon, recruitment for instructors for
the pilot sites will begin. The selection
process will be extensive as will the training. Prospective trainers must be at the
command level for their agencies and will
have to demonstrate exceptional ability
as a trainer.
The first cut will see candidates participate in the three-day “Critical Incident
Management, Command Post Training,”
that they will eventually be trained to
deliver. Top performers in the class will
be invited to move up to a two-week
“Command Post Facilitator Training.”
Graduates will then do direct deliveries of the three-day course in teams of
four instructors and receive mentoring
from a Master Instructor.
The result will be a team of top notch,
well trained instructors. Many agencies
around the country have
used this training model.
Provided by IACLEA supporting members BowMac
Educational Services, Inc.
the training has received
high praise from first responders and administrators
across the country.
To learn more about this
exciting opportunity conMembers of the Board of Directors and the Domestic
Preparedness Committee gathered at the Spring 2004 Board
tact Tom Hogarty at
Meeting in Chicago to evaluate the Incident Command training. thogarty@iaclea.org.
The IACLEA Domestic Preparedness
Committee has received approval from
the Office for Domestic Preparedness to
conduct two pilot test sites for a unique
and powerful Incident Command training program.
The cornerstone of the training is the
use of a model city simulator. The simulator is used to run scenarios in real time
with each student taking a turn as the
incident commander. The scenarios range
for a call for service all the way to a fullblown incident command/unified command exercise.
The two sites selected are the University of Maryland at College Park and the
Washington State Criminal Justice Training Center in Burien, WA. The locations
were selected from over forty institutions
that submitted proposals to become
IACLEA Regional Training Centers.
IACLEA’s mentor in the domestic preparedness grant process, Jeff Allison, suggested pilot sites as a way of demonstrat-
Bring the Weapons of Mass Destruction Awareness Training to your
campus. Visit the IACLEA Web site, http://www.iaclea.org/wmd/login/
login.cfm or contact Project Director Tom Hogarty, thogarty@iaclea.org.
6 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
Three IACLEA Subcommittees
Launch Domestic Preparedness
Research Projects
Continued from page 5
by collecting and analyzing available research and drafting model plans and policies. Vitale has more than 15 years of experience in drafting policies for the Connecticut State Police.
The research projects will culminate
in the submission of written reports and
recommendations to the Domestic Preparedness Committee in the fall. The
Committee in turn will submit a final
grant report to the IACLEA Board of Directors for review.
The three research projects are just
one component of the DHS continuation
grant. Staff and volunteers working under the direction of Project Director Tom
Hogarty are developing an Incident Command training program with the assistance
of a curriculum development company.
This two-week course will train public
safety supervisors, who will then go out
and give two-day Incident Command
courses in their regions.
As part of the Incident Command training, IACLEA will establish regional training centers that will be sites for Incident
Command training and will house tabletop model city simulators. IACLEA is reviewing applications for regional training
center sites in each region.
The grant will also fund the development of a threat and risk assessment tool
for use by campus public safety departments in developing written plans identifying terrorist threats and preventive
measures. IACLEA is working with the
National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center (NERRTC) at Texas
A&M University to develop this instrument. A training DVD will also be developed with instructions for completing the
threat and risk assessment instrument.
A final report on the grant is due in
Spring 2006.
If you would like to offer your
institution’s emergency operations plans
or terrorist annexes to your plans as part
of this project, please contact Anthony
Vitale at avitale@iaclea.org.
If you are interested in learning more
about Incident Command training or
the threat and risk assessment project,
please contact Tom Hogarty at
thogarty@iaclea.org.
A
ssociation News
Conference Update on Accreditation Workshops
By Jack Leonard, IACLEA Accreditation Coordinator
If you have ever thought about accreditation, you should also be thinking about
training. Training is an essential component of a successful accreditation effort.
The accreditation process is not overly
difficult or complex. However, in order
to accomplish it in an efficient and timely
manner, department personnel require a
thorough understanding of its concepts
and procedures. Agency administrators
should be familiar with the requirements
of the program to allocate sufficient resources, delegate essential tasks, and
implement required strategies. Similarly,
staff members who coordinate the accreditation project, particularly the Accreditation
Manager, need to understand the specific
steps necessary to comply with standards,
document their compliance, and prepare
for the agency’s review by assessors.
While procedural manuals will direct
program implementation and provide
useful guidance, participation in training
sessions can accelerate and expand the
understanding of concepts and procedures. The accreditation instructor will
clarify, illuminate and spark enthusiasm
during the training process. Training paves
the way for a fuller and more comprehensive understanding of the principles
contained in procedural guidebooks.
IACLEA will be ready to start accepting applications for the accreditation program in January 2006. In preparation for
fully implementing the program, a series
of workshops has been planned during
the Annual Conference in Kansas City. If
you expect to participate in the accreditation program, this will be an excellent
opportunity to learn about the process.
You may also get a head start by bringing any staff members who may be involved in implementing your program.
On Monday, June 27, 2005, Bob
Dillard, Chair of the IACLEA Accreditation
Committee, will present a workshop entitled Accreditation Overview. Whether
you are committed to pursuing accreditation or simply considering it, this comprehensive examination of the IACLEA
Accreditation Program will be informative
and beneficial. The workshop will review
the history of IACLEA’s accreditation efforts, summarize the features and requirements of the accreditation program, and
explain the partnership with the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). Specific attention will be given to the IACLEA standards,
how they were developed, and their application to sworn and non-sworn departments. The procedures for application,
self-assessment, on-site assessment, and
review will also be discussed, as well as
the fee schedule. Time will be allocated
to respond to questions from participants
about the accreditation process.
The orientation program will continue
on Wednesday, June 29, the final day of
the Conference. Immediately following the
Closing General Session and Breakfast, a
CEO Panel on Accreditation will be
convened. A group of Chief Executive
Officers from CALEA-accredited campus
departments will be assembled to discuss
their experiences in the accreditation process. They will answer frequently asked
questions and address areas of concern for
department chiefs and directors who may
be considering accreditation. Topics of discussion are likely to include the benefits of
accreditation, how to manage the accreditation process, and common problems or
pitfalls and how to avoid them. This will
be an invaluable forum for any CEO who
intends to seek IACLEA accreditation.
Finally, Steve Mitchell, the former Accreditation Manager of the Fairfax, Virginia
Police Department and long-time CALEA
Program Manager, will close the program
on the 29th by offering a four-hour presentation on Accreditation Management. Designed to provide an overview
of the critical steps to achieving accreditation, this presentation will identify and
explain the principal duties of an Accreditation Manager. Modified from CALEA’s
New Accreditation/Recognition Manager
Training, this important and informative
training session covers topics including:
writing effective directives; preparing a
self-assessment plan; and organizing accreditation files. While the instruction is
principally designed for prospective Accreditation Managers, it is highly recommended for CEOs and senior managers,
those responsible for overseeing the accreditation process. Participation in the
training session will provide an enhanced
understanding of the accreditation process, as well as an awareness and appreciation of the functions and responsibilities of an Accreditation Manager.
Plan to extend your stay in Kansas City
by a few hours and reap the benefits of these
informational sessions to jump-start the
IACLEA accreditation of your department.
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 7
A
ssociation News
Strategic Planning Group Focuses on
Domestic Preparedness Training Needs
By Christopher Blake, WMD Project Coordinator
Interagency and multidiscipline cooperation, planning, and training are critical
components in preparing for a potential
WMD or terrorist incident on a college or
university campus, a counter-terrorism
expert told members of an IACLEA subcommittee that is developing a strategic
plan for campus domestic preparedness
training.
“The next significant area of emphasis
in domestic preparedness training for campus law enforcement should be cooperation,” Byron A. Sage told members of the
IACLEA Domestic Preparedness
Committee’s strategic planning subcommittee. “The nature of a WMD event will
immediately impact multiple jurisdictions
and agencies within the region. You will
need a multi-disciplinary, coordinated response that plans for multiple ‘shifts’ over
the course of several days, weeks or even
months,” said Sage, who is president of
International Crisis Management, Inc., of
Austin, Texas.
Sage, a former FBI agent with 34 years
of law enforcement experience, was one
of four presenters who addressed the subcommittee during a two-day workshop
March 1-3, 2005, at George Washington
University in Washington, D.C. Workshop
presentations included: the current state
of domestic preparedness in the U.S., the
emerging training needs of campus public safety in domestic preparedness, a foreign perspective on Israel’s planning and
training in an active terrorist environment,
and views on the future focus of domestic preparedness training.
8 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
Members of the IACLEA
Domestic Preparedness
Committee’s strategic
planning subcommittee
attended a workshop March 13, 2005 at George Washington
University in Washington, D.C.
Seated, left to right: Krystal
Fitzpatrick, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;
Bernard C. Alex, Whittier
College; Thomas P. Carey, Bates College; Tex B. Martin, University of Texas System; Bruce E.
Boucher, Bowdoin College; Toni Rinaldi, Naugatuck Valley Community-Technical College.
Standing, left to right: Reid B. Noble, Tulane University; Paul F. Glowacki, St. Mary’s University;
Phillip A. Johnson, University of Notre Dame; Raymond H. Thrower Jr., Gustavus Adolphus
College; Susan Riseling, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Thomas P. Carey, chair of the IACLEA Domestic
Preparedness Committee’s strategic planning
subcommittee, poses with Byron A. Sage,
president of International Crisis Management,
Inc., during a break in the subcommittee’s
workshop, March 1-3, 2005.
IACLEA organized the strategic planning subcommittee under a grant from
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to build a systematic program
to assist campus public safety departments and personnel to access available
training and to develop plans to prevent,
prepare for, and respond to WMD/terrorist incidents. The strategic planning subcommittee is charged with developing a
strategic vision of the kinds of training
that campus public safety officers will
need to adequately confront terrorist
threats against U.S. college or university
campuses in the next three to five years.
The subcommittee is also charged with
informing campus public safety departments of the many federally-funded and
other training opportunities that now exist.
Sage spoke to the subcommittee about
the current state of domestic preparedness, emerging training needs, and what
he perceived as the future focus of domestic preparedness training. Highlights
included:
• Recognizing the need for interagency cooperation and coordination
is critical before an incident occurs.
Continued on page 39
M
ember News
Chiefly Speaking, Hall’s Paid Her Dues at EMU
New top cop on campus, Cindy Hall has spent 25 years with the department
By Janet Miller, News Staff Reporter
Reprinted with permission from The Ann
Arbor News, 11/8/2004 .
Cindy Hall still hasn’t moved most of her
belongings into her new office, and the
title of chief still seems foreign. But in
some ways, Hall has spent 25 years preparing to head the Department of Public
Safety at Eastern Michigan University.
Hall, 47, was recently named chief,
becoming the first woman to head the
EMU department and the only female to
lead a police department in Washtenaw
County, although the State Police Post in
Ypsilanti has a woman commander.
Hall, who joined Eastern’s department
as a patrol officer in 1979, oversees a staff
of 25 sworn officers and is in charge of
the university’s parking and health-andsafety operations.
Hall worked as a security guard while
attending Washtenaw Community College after she graduated from Huron High
School in the 1970s, never dreaming that
she would someday be a police chief.
But when the post became vacant last
summer with the retirement of John
McAuliffe, Hall applied.
“I knew I had the education, the skills
and the dedication,” she said. “It seemed
like the natural progression.”
Things looked different earlier in her
career at EMU. After working a few years
with the department, Hall thought there
was little hope to move up the ranks.
She decided to attend law school at night,
with an eye on becoming a lawyer. But
midway through law school at the Uni-
Police Chief Cindy Hall with EMU Officer
Hardesty. Photo courtesy of The Ann Arbor
News.
versity of Toledo, she was promoted to
sergeant, and was given the chance to
develop crime prevention programs.
She started the SEEUS – Student Eyes
and Ears for University Safety – where
two-member teams of students escort
other students around campus in the
evening. Today, 40 students work for
SEEUS, wearing bright yellow jackets
emblazoned with a large eye logo, escorting students from between 6 p.m. and
3 a.m.
Eventually, Hall was made lieutenant
and then captain. She has served as associate director of public safety since 1989.
Hall’s long service and solid record
made her a good choice for chief, said
John Beaghan, interim vice president for
business and finance. “She has the credentials, the experience and really campus-wide support,” he said.
Hall works well with students, said Jim
Vick, vice president for student affairs.
“She has a style and demeanor that are
terrific. She’s calm and rational, and she’s
very cognizant of the ramifications of
decisions. ... And she understands our students.”
Working in campus law enforcement
for more than two decades, Hall has witnessed a parade of highs and lows. While
there was never a homicide, there have
been suicides, she said. She’s responded
to large and unruly parties, broken up
fights and sat watch in dark parking structures, keeping an eye out for trouble.
She’s also offered police protection to
President Bill Clinton, U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Clarence Thomas and Michigan
Gov. Jennifer Granholm.
Policing the 24,000-student campus is
like policing a city, she said.
“We have the same issues as a municipality – we have larcenies and sexual
assaults and aggravated assaults,” she said.
“But there’s also more of an opportunity
to do community police work and crime
prevention.”
Janet Miller can be reached at
jmiller@annarbornews.com or (734) 9946827.
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 9
M
ember News
Campus Police Department Wins First Quarter
Employee Recognition Award at WestConn
The Western Connecticut State University Police Department received the Employee Recognition Award for
the first quarter of the 2004-05 academic year. In presenting the award, WestConn President Dr. James W.
Schmotter praised the department’s two dozen employees for their dedication and professionalism. Pictured at
the ceremony are (l-r): Police Officer Richard McGrath
of Waterbury; Police Sergeant Ron Ferrante of Danbury;
Chief of Police Neil McLaughlin of Terryville; WestConn
President Dr. James W. Schmotter of Bethel; Processing
Technician William Strickland of Danbury; Clerk Typist
Shirley Hatch of New Fairfield; and Building and Grounds Patrol Officer Mauro Ongaro of Danbury.
IACLEA Members from the Illinois State University Police Department
Awarded Distinguished Service Medal
IACLEA members from the
Illinois State University Police Department were recently decorated with the
Illinois State University Police Department “Distinguished Service Medal” during ceremonies in the
President’s Conference
Room at Illinois State University on Wednesday, December 15, 2004.
The “Distinguished Service Medal” was awarded to Captain Keith Gehrand and Sergeant Bonnie Devore “in recognition
of their many accomplishments, dedicated and distinguished service to the Illinois State University Police Department.”
Captain Gehrand is in his twenty-forth year of service and Sergeant Devore is in her twenty-second year of police service.
The medals were presented by Dr. C. Alvin Bowman, President of Illinois State University.
From left to right: Vice President Steve Bragg, Officer Patrick Burke, Life Saving Medal; Marabeth Clapp, Vice President.
Behind Ms. Clapp, Detective Tony Hosey, Chief’s Award of Merit — Meritorious Service Medal; Mr. Michael Williams,
President, Bloomington/Normal Branch NAACP, Chief’s Award of Merit — Meritorious Service Medal; Mr. John H. Elliott, Vice
President, Bloomington/Normal Branch NAACP, Chief’s Award of Merit — Meritorious Service Medal; Ms. Margie MeeganJordan, McLean County State’s Attorney’s Office; Captain Donald W. Knapp, Distinguished Service Medal; Ms. Samantha
Stegall, Student Intern, Certificate of Appreciation; Behind Samantha is Chief Ronald D. Swan; Captain Keith Gehrand,
Distinguished Service Medal; Sergeant Bonnie Devore, Distinguished Service Medal; Officer Eric Lutz, Certificate of Appreciation; Mr. Dan Simmons, Crime Stoppers TV Executive Producer, Certificate of Appreciation; Sergeant Derek Ronnfeldt,
Excellence in Firearms Training; Sergeant Charlie Summers, Excellence in Firearms Training, Sergeant Tommy Kiper, Excellence in Firearms Training and Dr. C. Alvin Bowman, President, Illinois State University.
10 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
M
ember News
Mount Holyoke College Department of Public Safety
Awarded Accreditation
On January 28, 2005 the Mount Holyoke
College Department of Public Safety became the first college or university in the
state to receive accreditation status from
the Massachusetts Police Accreditation Commission, Inc., and is one of only fifteen
agencies statewide to achieve this status.
Accreditation is a self-initiated evaluation process by which law enforcement
departments strive to meet and maintain
standards that have been established for
the profession, by the profession. These
carefully selected standards reflect critical areas of police management, operations, and technical support activities.
They cover areas such as policy development, emergency response planning,
training, communications, property and
evidence handling, use of force, and prisoner transport. The program not only sets
standards for the law enforcement profession within the Commonwealth, but
also for the delivery of police services to
the community.
Achieving accreditation from the commission is the highest award given, and is
a recognition that is highly regarded by
the law enforcement community. Participating in the program and achieving accreditation status allows departments to
demonstrate that they are among the finest in the state. The status of accreditation is granted for a period of three years.
Participation in the program is strictly
voluntary.
Under the leadership of Director Paul
Ominsky, the Mount Holyoke College
Department of Public Safety underwent
a two-day assessment in December by a
team of commission-appointed assessors.
The Assessment Team found the Department to be “in compliance with all 103
Mandatory Standards.” And although the
department was required to meet 60
percent of the 121 Optional Standards, it
was found to be in compliance with 68
percent of those standards, exceeding the
required minimum.
Going through the process initially requires intense self-scrutiny, and ultimately
provides a quality assurance review of the
agency. In 1999, Director Ominsky appointed Barbara Arrighi and Jeanne Tripp
to serve as the Department’s Accreditation Managers. The Department achieved
certification, a halfway point to accreditation, in June 2003. This involved meeting 151 mandatory standards. The Department was also the first college or university to attain that status. The Accreditation Managers were aided greatly in this
effort by three Mount Holyoke College
student administrative Fellows, Sarah E.
Hayes ’05, Kirkley B. Strand ’04, and
Stephanie M. Liotta ’03.
Although the Director’s goal for the
Department has been achieved, Arrighi’s
and Tripp’s job is not done. Their focus
will now shift to monitoring and maintaining compliance with these standards
and preparing for scheduled reviews by
the commission as they continue as the
department’s Accreditation Managers.
To date, only 15 police agencies in
the Commonwealth have achieved the
distinction of accreditation: Amesbury,
Amherst, Danvers, Massachusetts Bay
Transit Authority, Mendon, Mount Holyoke
College, Northampton, Northborough,
Peabody, Rowley, Sturbridge, Truro,
Waltham, Watertown, and Weston.
Origin and Composition of the
Commission
The mission of the Accreditation Commission is to ensure that the delivery of
police services within the Commonwealth
is at the highest level of professionalism
and integrity.
The Massachusetts Accreditation Commission was originally established in 1996
through the combined efforts of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, the
Massachusetts Police Accreditation Coalition and the Executive Office of Public
Safety. In February 2004 the Commission
transitioned from a state agency into a
private non-profit organization. The Massachusetts Police Accreditation Commission, Inc. maintained the same standards,
and recognized certification and accreditation status awarded by the state agency.
The Commission is composed of
eleven members appointed through the
Massachusetts Chiefs of Police, the Massachusetts Police Association, the Massachusetts Municipal Association and the
Massachusetts Police Accreditation Coalition, as well as a representative from an
academic institution with demonstrated
expertise in deliverance of law enforcement and public safety services.
Benefits of Accreditation
The standards for accreditation impact
officer and public safety, address high liability/risk management issues, and proContinued on page 12
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 11
M
Mount Holyoke College Department of
Public Safety Awarded Accreditation
Continued from page 11
ember News
January/February New Members
Institutional Membership
Berklee College of Music
Richard N. Michaud, CPP
California at Davis, University of
Rita Spaur
Charleston, College of
Paul V. Verrecchia
Cornell College
Michael Williamson
Dubuque, University of
Lori Olson
Georgia, The University of
Opal D. Haley
Grambling State University
Garry Williams
Grand Rapids Community College
Cindy C. Kennell
Guelph, University of
Don Hawkins
Illinois Institute of Technology
Steven H. Rubin, PCI
Lee University
Ashley R. Mew
Los Angeles Community College District
Roosevelt Blow
Millikin University
John R. Mickler
North Carolina Central University
McDonald Vick
Pacific - McGeorge School of Law,
University of
Alan J. Smith
St. Francis, University of
Perry Plarski
St. Paul’s School
George J. Pangakis
St. Lawrence University
Patrick W. Gagnon
12 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
Siena Heights College
Cindy Birdwell
Smith College
Scott Graham
Sullivan University
Ken Adair
Trent University
Louise Fish
York University
Anne-Marie Mair
Professional Membership
Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine
at Peoria, University of
Wayne Holly
Massachusetts – Boston, University of
Richard W. Lee
Mills College
Daniel Brown
Northwest Arkansas Community
College
Walter Middleton
Oakland Community College
Mark Seder
San Jose State University
Jim Renelle
Villanova University
John Shuter
Wisconsin – Madison, University of
Peter Ystenes
Yale University
George R. Aylward
Supporting Membership
Kings III Emergency Communications
Kyle Hamilton
LRP Publications
Cynthia Brodrick
Zetron, Inc.
Mark Musick
mote operational efficiency throughout
the agency. The benefits of accreditation
are many and will vary among participating departments based on the state of
the department when it enters the process. In other words, the benefits will be
better known when the department
quantifies the changes that it had to make
as a direct result of achieving accreditation. Generally, these changes involve
policy writing, facility improvements and
equipment purchases. Listed below are
some of the more common benefits of
accreditation status:
• provides a norm for an agency to
judge its performance.
•
provides a basis to correct deficiencies before they become public problems.
•
requires agencies to commit policies
and procedures to writing.
•
promotes accountability among
agency personnel and the evenhanded application of policies.
•
provides a means of independent
evaluation of agency operations.
•
minimizes an agency’s exposure to
liability, builds a stronger defense
against lawsuits and citizen complaints, and has the potential to reduce liability insurance costs
•
enhances the reputation of the
agency and increases the public’s confidence in it.
Recent events in the U.S. and throughout the world underscore the need to reassure the general public that the law
enforcement profession is prepared,
trained, and ready to handle future emergencies and calls for service. Agency preparedness begins with having a formal
written directive system that incorporates
professional state-of-the-art standards into
agency policy, rules, procedures and
plans. By achieving accreditation, the
Mount Holyoke College Department of
Public Safety demonstrates its capabilities
to respond to the public safety needs of
the community.
M
ember News
Mock Terrorist Attacks
Nicholls State University Police Department
By Rachelle Hitt, Student Public Information Officer
Nicholls State University in Thibodaux,
Louisiana is the safest university in the
state. But for one day on October 6, a
person driving past the university would
have thought otherwise.
In a mock terrorist attack orchestrated
by the U.S. Department of Defense, students were scattered across the pavement
of the John L. Guidry stadium. The students and other fans were awaiting a football game. Some mock victims were
passed out under the release of sarin gas
after a car chase across the stadium parking lot and others were victims of an explosion from a detonated bomb attached
to a female terrorist. The students would
undergo decontamination.
The students were protected by the
same police force that protects them everyday — University Police Officers. Police restrained the crowd as paramedics
attended to the mock victims. The goal
of the mock terrorist training exercises is
to enable first responders such as local
police agencies, ambulances and fire departments to act more quickly and efficiently.
“One of the things they discovered
during 9/11 while all that was going on
was the first responders didn’t have an
effective way to communicate with each
other,” Charles Gaiennie, public relations
specialist for the project told the student
media. “That condition still exists today
to some degree. What we’re trying to do
is help address all these different things.
It is designed to help all agencies be able
The government is also expected to
put in place a civil alert system so that the
schools can receive notices during
emergency incidents.
to talk to one another, monitor things as
they begin to happen and see events as
they become a pattern.”
Nicholls State University was the first
in the state of Louisiana to be part of an
18-month program called the Louisiana
Regional Emergency Command and Operations Network (LA RECON) led by the
Department of Defense to test new communication concepts that could be used
during terrorist attacks.
Prior to the mock attacks, University
Police Officers were given over $15,000
worth of equipment including laptops for
their units and palm pilots and were
trained by the Department of Defense
on how to protect the community during
a terrorist attack. All equipment will remain at Nicholls State University.
During the mock attacks, officers were
able to get descriptions of suspicious characters through the use of a palm pilot.
Normally, the officers would have to report to the station or their squad car to
obtain the information.
The government is also expected to
put in place a civil alert system so that
the schools can receive notices during
emergency incidents.
In Betsy Cheramie Ayo Hall, identified
as the “white cell,” emergency responders and operators of critical infrastructure
from the Department of Defense were
evaluating the latest in new communications capabilities—including a federal alert
system, a civil alert system and an online
message system that is part of a federal
Web-based system, Homeland Security
Services.
Congressman Billy Tauzin (R-La.) was
instrumental in securing funding for the
program and suggested that it be tested
at Nicholls.
“The intent is to train Nicholls staff and
provide ongoing assistance in that area,”
Bob Bremmer, project manager said. “I
believe this program will provide good,
tangible benefits to the University and
community.”
University Police Chief Craig Jaccuzzo
agrees. “This operation benefited the
university not only in obtaining training
and equipment but it was a true evaluation of how we would react to a situation
if it occurred to that extent. It made us
look at new ventures and ideas.”
Chief Jaccuzzo believes this event was
another way to train his officers in handling high-risk situations. “They have been
introduced to training and technology and
it gave them an opportunity to realize
that things can happen here,” he said. “I
have the confidence that we are making
great strides to handle extreme situations.
It’s a growing importance that we never
become complacent.”
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 13
M
ember News
University of Central Florida Police Department
Receives Donation
By Sergeant Troy Williamson
On January 17, 2005, Deputy Chief Mike Zelanes on behalf of the UCF Police
Department received a $5,000 check for their canine program. UCFPD currently
has one bomb dog and one drug dog. UCFPD will retire Bailey (the drug dog) and
intend to use the donation for two new drug dogs. The University of Central Florida
appreciates the generosity of both Albertsons and Milk-Bone for their contribution.
American
Whistle defense
pu last page 24
Sergeant Dale Dennany UCFPD
with customers.
Left to right: Ed Enix from
Kraft/Milk-Bone, Shane
McEntariffer from Albertsons,
Andrew Linehan from
Albertsons, Deputy Chief Mike
Zelanes UCFPD, Randy Mingo
UCFPD, Jerry Emert UCFPD.
IACLEA Virtual
Exhibition Center
Is Open for Business
24 Hours a Day • 7 Days a Week
www.iaclea.org
14 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
It’s More Than Just a Torch Run…
Many of you have already supported the Law Enforcement Torch Run® for Special Olympics. But what really is the Torch
Run? Most if not all of us are aware of the annual Final Leg Run where officers from around your area carry the “Flame of
Hope” to light the cauldron for your Opening Ceremonies of the Special Olympics Summer Games. But it doesn’t end there.
Throughout the year the Law Enforcement Torch Run® for Special Olympics organizes numerous other fundraising activities.
These activities include Motorcycle Runs, Fire Truck and Semi Pulls, Polar Plunges, Snowmobile Rides, Building Sits, Golf
Tournaments and Tip-a-Cop to name a few. This year will be the second year for the newest LETR organized event in
Wisconsin. It’s the 25th Anniversary Charter Communications Tinman Triathlon. The triathlon is a fully sanctioned USA
Triathlon ½ Ironman and International Tri course that draws participants from throughout the United States to Menomonie,
Wisconsin.
The Menomonie Tinman Triathlon officially partnered with the LETR in 2004 and created the official “Charter Communications Tinman Triathlon” benefiting the Law Enforcement Torch Run for Special Olympics Wisconsin. In 2004 the race
was looking for leadership and a race director and the volunteers of the LETR were looking for a different type of fundraiser
in the Indianhead Area. Participation in the Charter Communications Tinman Triathlon will not only help the Indianhead
Area Special Olympics, but will support your agency’s commitment to a healthier lifestyle.
Charter Communications
Menomonie Tinman Triathlon
Sunday, June 12, 2005 8:30 Long Start, 9:30 Int’l Start • Wakanda Park, Menomonie, WI
Brief Description:
International Course: ¾M swim, 32.9M bike, 10K run
Long Course: 1.5M Swim, 58.5M bike, 20K run
Prices:
Individual Entry: $70
Relay Entry (3 Person Team): $165
Relay Entry (2 Person Team): $110
Online Reg. Closes:
May 31, 2005 11:59 PM Pacific Time
Age limits:
Long course participants must be 18 years of age by day of event. Relay participants must be
14 years of age by day of event.
Proceeds:
Proceeds benefit Indianhead Area Special Olympics and the Dunn Co Food Pantry
Race on your own or as a team, just like “Code Blue,” a team of three lieutenants from the Menomonie Police Department.
“There is no better way to challenge yourself and to have a goal in your personal physical fitness. Working toward this goal
as a team was fun, and it gave me the peer encouragement and the support that I needed.” said Lt. Wendy Stelter,
Menomonie Police Department.
As this year’s race director, I am challenging members of the Law Enforcement community to commit to participating in
the 25th Charter Communications Tinman Triathlon. For more information on the race, go to http://www.tinmantriathlon.org
Lisa Walter, Chief of Police, UW-Stout PD
Race Director, Charter Communications Tinman Triathlon
Chair, IACLEA – LETR Committee
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 15
Dashboard Management,
A PPublic
ublic Safety Application
By Henry L. Christensen, Director, University of Miami Department of Public Safety and
Lt. William Gerlach, M.P.A., University of Miami Department of Public Safety
If you drove anywhere today, you probably started the car and glanced at the
gas gauge, temperature, oil pressure and
check engine lights. Chances are you
were making sure you had the fuel to
get to your destination, and the car was
mechanically capable of getting you
there. Car dashboards are becoming
loaded with impressive new technology
such as global tracking, electronic notification of air pressure, electronic driving
help desk and more. The information presented to you on the car’s dashboard
quickly gives you the insight to decide if
the vehicle will take you where you want
to go without opening the hood and
checking the various fluids and components. On the way home from work you
want to know your car is running at top
performance; if not, you need to get your
car repaired.
Managers, like drivers, need to have a
dashboard for their organization. You must
have information tools for quickly measuring and monitoring the organization’s
status and ability to reach the desired
destination or goal. You must be able to
receive help in time of need. You need
to know where the organization is going,
where it presently is and if it has the
gas, oil and spark to get it there. You also
need to know and understand the
organization’s place in a larger organization, how it supplies other organizations,
and how it consumes the resources of
others. Like an automobile you can look
under the hood of your organization, but
it would be easier to have a dashboard
that would let you sit down, buckle up
16 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
University of Miami
and go (unless you have a warning light
on).
The University of Miami Department
of Public Safety, in Coral Gables, Florida,
uses a management tool, called a Dashboard, to accomplish this. This living document is used to consolidate data and
present it in graphical formats. The dashboard helps consolidate the framework
for strategic plans in your fleet and measures the progress of continuous improvement projects It is driven, from the top
down, by the University’s mission, strategic objectives, and goals. The mission,
goals and objectives for which the Department of Public Safety has inputs, outputs and throughputs establish the
Department’s own mission, goals and
objectives. The dashboard presents these
relationships in cascading order from goals
to key objectives to key indicators to
projects.
The Department is a unit of Business
Services. This fleet all works on “Dashboard management.” Bookstore drivers
measure on their dashboard textbook
availability; Purchasing measures quality
of staffing; and our new “e: Canes Travel”
uses its dashboard to measure travel performance. The Public Safety Dashboard,
therefore, has goals and key objectives
which spill into it from the Business Services Dashboard, a point which illustrates
why an understanding of inputs, outputs
and throughputs is so important. We are
interconnected with many other units of
the University. Our goals and objectives
reflect this and we need tools to help us
monitor, measure and achieve them in
an environment that is constantly changing and growing in complexity.
TQM Driven
It is important to note that our Department strongly subscribes to Total Quality
Management, or Six Sigma principles (we
call this Continuous Improvement or CI
at the University of Miami), and these
principles guide our long- and short-range
decisions, as well as our daily activities.
Data is gathered and analyzed in accordance with Continuous Improvement. Our
decisions are not driven by emotions,
knee-jerk reactions or hunches. Using
data, decisions are based on facts.
Data is linked to our objectives and is
presented graphically. Most data appears
as statistical control charts (an advanced
form of a line graph), and is presented
with the averages, upper and lower staContinued on page 17
Dashboard Management, A Public Safety Application
Continued from page 16
Sample Control Chart for Burglary
monitored. Otherwise, any management decisions
based on the data
may be seriously
flawed (panic on
the peaks – relax
in the valleys).
Construction
Figure 1
The dashboard
used at the University of Miami
Department of
Public Safety is
constructed in a
Microsoft Excel
workbook (Figure
2). The first page
or worksheet displays the goals, key objectives, key indicators, related tasks and
assignments. The left column lists goals,
followed by key objectives, key indicators, etc. The vertical spacing leaves ample
room between goals for all related key
objectives to be listed and so on for key
indicators, tasks and assignments.
Notice in the sample Goal I is reduce
crime. That is a broad goal, but one that
is probably common to all law enforcement agencies. In this example, the key
objectives for meeting this goal are reductions in larceny and burglary. In order
to reduce larceny, it is necessary to know
how many larcenies occur. In this example,
bicycle theft is also an indicator (as determined by careful study using Continuous
Improvement tools). Bicycle theft may
account for a large portion of larceny and
it would be reasonable to include it as a
key indicator. There is even a project assigned to deal with bicycle theft and it is
tistical control limits (see Figure 1). It is
not the intent of this article to explain
the statistical calculations that establish
these limits. What is important is that we
have a quick gauge to determine if we
are experiencing a crime wave or the
typical fluctuations in the system (noise),
like a needle telling the driver the car is
running at the right temperature or about
to overheat. Processes fluctuate all the
time (what campus has the same number of larcenies every month, the same
response time for every call, or the same
number of alarms in a month?). For the
most part our systems (crime data and
other indicators) are in control. That is to
say they rise and fall somewhere between
the upper and lower control limits (given
all of the factors that are a part of the
process or system), and exhibit a predictable system of noise. In the below sample
control chart (Figure 2), the system is generally in control, but two points require
further consideration to determine the cause (but that is not
the subject of this article).
Goals
In the creation of a dashI. Reduce
board, or similar management
Campus Crime
tool, it is imperative that measurement data is available and
collected. It is just as important that data is presented in
a way that is meaningful and
standardized (a control chart
for example). Doing so ensures that the data tells something about the system being
assigned to the crime prevention and
crime suppression units.
Another key objective listed is to reduce burglary. Again key indicators for
burglary are presented along with relevant
projects and tasks required to meet the
goal. Projects are used to study problems
when the cause is not known. Tasks are
assigned to address problems where the
cause is known. Moving from left to right
in the sheet increases the detail (and often the number of items). The goal is established. Then the key objectives in
meeting that goal are determined and
listed. Once the key objectives are established, the key indicators are identified and included. Then projects and tasks
are identified and assigned. The end result is a readily available tool for managers to review the performance of their
organization from the goals and objectives to the individuals responsible for the
associated projects and tasks.
The next step is to use the software
to link the key indicators with the data.
We use a worksheet within the same
spreadsheet (or workbook) as a master
data table (Figure 3) for most of the information. The master data table must be
structured in a way that allows the users
to manipulate it for almost any data need
and to continually add data as it is collected. Our data is kept in a table form
that runs chronologically from left to right.
The data table has all Part I UCR crimes,
open door data, alarm data, and several
other indicators important to the management of our organization. One thing in
common for all the types is that the data
for each month will appear in the same
Continued on page 18
Key Objective
Key Indicator
Reduce Larceny
# of Larcenies by Month
Secure Property
Crime Prevention
# Bicycle Thefts by Month Bike Security System Crime Prevention and
Crime Suppression
# Unattended Property
Develop new
Crime Prevention
Thefts by Month
Programming
# of Burglaries by Month
# Residential Burglaries
by Month
# Non-Res Burglaries
Open Door Project
Continuous
by Month
Improvement Team
Reduce Burglary
Created in Microsoft ExcelTM
Project/Task
Assigned to
Figure 2
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 17
Dashboard Management, A Public Safety Application
Continued from page 17
have meaning and can tell the
user if there is a problem or if
Month Murder Rape Burglary Larceny Auto Theft
the particular indicator is in a
Jan 02
0
0
12
8
0
state of control (meaning it is
Feb
0
0
9
19
1
exhibiting random noise and
Mar
0
0
15
28
1
you should not be overreacting
Apr
0
0
18
37
0
May
0
1
22
41
2
to valleys or peaks).
Jun
0
0
3
11
0
Managers in any public
Jul
0
0
14
6
0
safety
organization should note
Aug
0
0
2
8
0
the difference between statisSep
0
1
8
29
1
Oct
0
3
4
38
0
tical control and socially acceptNov
0
1
22
24
3
able control. Some crimes will
Dec
0
0
31
16
1
be so traumatic to your comJan 03
0
0
14
42
0
munity that statistical analysis
Feb
0
0
5
23
0
Mar
0
0
9
30
1
will be irrelevant. It will take
Sample Table Created in Microsoft ExcelTM
common sense, sensitivity, and
an overall understanding of
Figure 3
what is acceptable to your community to properly apply this
tool. At the same time, it is a
column (no matter when you started col- tool you can use behind the scenes to
lecting it). This is important because when help demonstrate how the problem at
the graphical presentations are updated hand is being addressed and how well
you need only change the column ad- you understand it.
dresses for each chart. Having it the same
There is no limit to the types of data
makes this process easier.
that can be tracked and managed in this
Once the data table is constructed the type of dashboard system, but it should
graphical representations can be created. have meaning and relate to the mission,
The charts we use show at least the last goals and objectives. Periodically manag36 months of data (although all past data ers are asked to present their dashboards
is maintained in the master data table). to cross-functional parts of the University
Line charts are created for each individual in order to get feedback for improvement.
offense type from the data table; one In Business Services we run into issues
each for murder, rape, robbery, burglary, everyday that we call “helter skelter
etc. Each chart is saved in its own items” or unplanned process events.
worksheet with the tab label being re- Some of these helter-skelter items are the
named to the corresponding chart (e.g., earliest indications of the need
one for murder, one for rape, etc.). This for process improvement.
way the user can click on the tab and They end up on the dashview the data for each category, or what board. For example, if a deis known in the dashboard as a key indicator.
Using statistical tools, the
mean, upper and lower control limits should also be calculated from the data. This
may require the use of a statistics package such as
MiniTab™. These limits can
be added to the graphs by
plotting the data in another
worksheet and using them
in the graph. The end product is a control chart for each
indicator. Now the graphs
Sample Master Data Table
18 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
partment is experiencing numerous traffic crashes, then it may be necessary to
track the number of crashes, warnings and
citations issued. As a dashboard is constructed it is very important to challenge
the usefulness of any data being collected
and measured. Will it be necessary to measure the number of radio transmissions,
number of phone calls, average response
time? Don’t collect data just to collect data.
As car dashboards evolve so must your
management team. Those are questions
that need to be answered by each individual manager and filtered through questions like: How does this relate to my
mission? How does this measure progress
toward that goal? Is this indicator really a
measure of the objective? The point is to
keep the data useful and relevant.
Once the data and graphics are constructed, they can all be linked. Microsoft
Excel allows users to hyperlink text to
other locations. On the main dashboard
page, text such as burglary can be linked
to the burglary chart. If the user clicks on
the hyperlinked text it will jump to the
burglary worksheet. Clicking the “back”
button will take the user back to the main
dashboard page. In our dashboard, links
have been created for each key indicator.
The dashboard is updated regularly,
generally monthly, based on the data for
each indicator. With it, management is able
to quickly determine if our organization
Continued on page 19
Dashboard Management, A Public Safety Application
Continued from page 18
is on track to meet its goals and is achieving its mission. Having the data presented
in control chart form prevents us from
taking unnecessary action that may be
costly and ineffective. In the past we may
have reacted to a spike in vehicle burglary with special task forces, extra security or new equipment. This could be a
mistake if the perceived spike was not
out of the ordinary statistical pattern for
vehicle burglary on our campus. The true
management reaction would be to study
the data in a Continuous Improvement
environment and look for methods that
will improve the system in a way that
reduces vehicle burglary overall.
In a Continuous Improvement environment we have to study the data in
detail through projects or tasks, see the
last column of the dashboard. The data
must be studied to determine the causes
for variation in the system. The causes
can then be addressed to develop new
processes which will improve the
organization’s outputs. This article cannot
address Continuous Improvement or Total Quality Management in the space available as others have dedicated lifetimes
and produced volumes explaining and
teaching the concepts. Our dashboard is
one very important tool and component
of our Continuous Improvement initiative.
There are several software packages
that can be used to implement this concept. They may be called something
other than “dashboard” such as: Scorecard,
Balanced Scorecard, or Scoreboard. Some
of these systems are very comprehensive and can encompass an entire organization. Large law enforcement agencies
have systems like crimemap and
compstat, the scale of which may be overwhelming and not feasible for small campus law enforcement agencies. The dashboard gives us the same result on a much
smaller scale and price tag. It could be
considered an economy model as opposed to the more developed luxury
editions. Either way, the concept is not
out of reach for any department. Some
may opt for a well developed commercially available product. Those without
ample resources but with savvy software
skills can develop and implement a tool
that is just as effective.
Once implemented, a dashboard will
reveal with just a few mouse clicks how
the organization is doing. Our management keeps the updated dashboard on
their computer desktop for quick access.
With it we can answer questions from concerned parents, inquiring administrators,
students, staff, police officers and media.
We are able to see crime trends as they
are developing between cycles because
we know when we are approaching an
out of control situation from a control chart.
Since implementation we have remained
below our ten year moving average for
total crime on campus because we are
better equipped to monitor our environment and manage our systems. For this
reason alone, campus law enforcement
agencies committed to providing safe,
crime free environments should be considering data measurement and monitoring tools like a dashboard. A movement
toward TQM or Continuous Improvement,
while not heavily addressed but strongly
encouraged in this article, should also be
undertaken since knowing your organization is on empty means nothing if you
don’t intend to refuel.
The authors thank Mr. Alan Fish, Vice
President for Business Services at the
University of Miami, and Dr. Howard S.
Gitlow, Ph.D., Executive Director of the
University of Miami Institute for the Study
of Quality in Manufacturing and Service
and a Professor of Management Science,
University of Miami for their support and
contributions to this article.
Plan Now for
Future IACLEA
Conferences
2005
June 25-29
Kansas City, Missouri
2006
June 24-27
Orlando, Florida
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 19
International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators
Standards for
Campus Public Safety Departments
The IACLEA Standards Manual is now available to campus public safety departments as a way to compare their practices and
procedures to the highest professional standards for campus law enforcement and public safety services. IACLEA Standards apply
to both sworn and non-sworn public safety departments for all sizes and types of higher education institutions.
The IACLEA Standards Manual contains standards and commentary arranged in 27 chapters that cover topics such as: Agency
Jurisdiction and Mutual Aid—Organization and Administration—Recruitment—Training and Career Development—Communications—Records—Disciplinary Procedures—Crime Prevention—Traffic—Clery Act Compliance.
The IACLEA Standards Manual is published with the permission of and in cooperation with the Commission on Accreditation for
Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). Most of the standards in the IACLEA Manual correspond to CALEA Standards. IACLEA
acknowledges the CALEA copyright on all standards derived from CALEA Standards and expresses appreciation to CALEA for its
assistance.
The IACLEA Standards are the standards on which the IACLEA Accreditation Program—now being developed—will be based. The
IACLEA Accreditation is currently in the pilot stage and will be open to all applicants in 2006.
How to Order: The IACLEA Standards Manual is available in looseleaf notebook format. Updates will be provided at no cost to
the original purchaser for a period of three years following purchase. Cost of the Manual is $230 each.
To order online, go to Publications on the IACLEA Web site: www.iaclea.org and click on the Publication Order form. To order by
fax, print the Publication Order form from the IACLEA Web site and fax to (860) 586-7550. To order by U.S. mail, print the
Publication Order form from the IACLEA Web site and mail to:
IACLEA, Attn: Publication Order, 342 North Main Street, W. Hartford, CT 06117-2507 or use the form below.
IACLEA – Standards Manual Order
Name: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Institution: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Address: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
City: _______________________________________________ State: ______________________ Zip Code: _______________
Telephone: ___________________________________________ Email: _____________________________________________
Send check payable to IACLEA or Charge to: ˆ MasterCard ˆ VISA ˆ American Express
Card Number: _____________________________________________ Expiration Date: ________________________________
Name on Card: _______________________________________________ Today’s Date: ________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
20 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
The New Era of Campus PPublic
ublic Safety
By C. Suzanne Mencer, Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness; Michael Lynch, Chief of Police at George Mason
University; and Jeff Allison, Assistant Director for Training in the Office for Domestic Preparedness.
On the tragic morning of September 11,
2001, the Borough of Manhattan Community College (BMCC) was instantly
transformed from an institution of higher
education to a command center for the
law enforcement officers, fire fighters and
other emergency personnel responding
to the attack on the World Trade Center.
This transformation took place with the
full cooperation of the campus public
safety agency protecting BMCC, as well
as the college’s executive leadership.
Located close to the World Trade Center, BMCC sustained significant structural
damage to many of its buildings, and yet
continued to serve as an asset to the immediate community, the City of New
York, and by extension, the nation. In the
days following the attack, BMCC’s rapid
return to a “new normalcy” provided a
powerful metaphor for our national effort to overcome threats to our safety that
have no parallel in history.
The need to embrace this new normalcy was underscored by the Boston
Consortium for Higher Education in its
report on a conference at the College of
the Holy Cross in 2002. “Every college
and university in the country now understands that traditional planning for crisis
events is inadequate. The scale of the
problem has changed dramatically, and
while most of the work done in the past
to contend with disasters on campus provided a solid foundation on which to build,
a very different kind of preparation and
response is now necessary” (Boston Consortium, November 2002).
CERT is a training program that prepares
you to help yourself, your family, and your
neighbors in the event of a disaster. During
an incident, emergency services personnel
may not be able to reach everyone right
away. By getting trained in CERT, you will
have the skills to help emergency
responders save lives and protect property.
There are approximately 4,000 Title
IV institutions of post-secondary education in the United States serving 15 million students, and several million faculty,
staff and visitors. According to the Bureau
of Justice Statistics, there are roughly
30,000 campus police and security officers protecting these institutions and individuals.
Our colleges and universities house
nuclear reactors and accelerators, chemical and biological laboratories, large capacity arenas and stadiums, and significant international student populations.
Bombings at Hebrew University, and Peking and Tsinghua Universities, as well as
incidents of domestic terrorism directed
at campuses in this country validate congressional testimony by FBI Director
Mueller that our colleges and universities
are “soft targets” for terrorism (February
2003).
Clearly, the new normalcy that confronts our nation also affects colleges and
universities, their surrounding communities, and the geographic regions in which
they are located. Under certain scenarios,
a strong argument can be made that a
successful attack on an institution of higher
education in America would have a cascading effect throughout various sectors
of our society. In the realm of known facts,
campus public safety agencies expended
tremendous resources running anthrax
calls during the 2001-2002 school year,
and continue to engage in vulnerability
assessments.
While recognizing the unique vulnerabilities of our campuses to an attack, we
must also acknowledge and address their
potential attractiveness as inconspicuous
sites for planning and carrying out activities in support of terrorist incidents directed at non-campus sites. Two of the
9/11 hijackers carried out pre-attack planning, in part, from a college campus. Likewise, we now know that a portion of the
surveillance which led to raising the alert
level for financial institutions in New York
City, New Jersey and Washington, D.C.,
was conducted by a person in this country as a college student. It is noteworthy
that the George Washington University
is immediately adjacent to the financial
institutions subject to the increased alert
in Washington.
The traditional openness of our campuses — a hallmark of our system of
higher education — may be used against
us by those wishing to do us harm. This
situation presents difficult choices for
policymakers attempting to find the right
balance between enhanced security and
maintaining access for all. In fact, as our
larger society debates this issue, it may
Continued on page 22
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 21
The New Era of Campus Public Safety
Continued from page 21
be colleges and universities that point the
way by identifying the most desirable and
feasible solutions to a complex challenge.
Colleges and universities also possess
unique assets and make contributions to
homeland security and the daily maintenance of order and safety, on campus and
off. They develop and deliver weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) training for
state and local emergency responders,
conduct technological and medical research to prevent and mitigate terrorist
attacks, and serve as conveners of WMD
exercises that demonstrate our community capabilities while also identifying areas of preparedness that we need to improve upon.
Progress
Since December 2001, the Office of State
and Local Government Coordination and
Preparedness (OSLGCP)1 has made a concerted effort to enhance the preparedness of our campus public safety agencies to prevent, deter and respond effectively to incidents of WMD terrorism. The
success of our efforts to date is due, first
and foremost, to the vision and commitment of individual campus law enforcement and public safety executives.
Second, we have formed effective
partnerships with the national associations
representing campus public safety, and
college and university administrators.
Along the way, we have learned a great
deal about the early 21st century environment — the new normalcy — that
today’s college and university leaders are
navigating while protecting and educating tomorrow’s leaders.
Working closely with the International
Association of Campus Law Enforcement
Administrators (IACLEA), the College and
University Policing Section of the International Association of Chiefs of Police
(IACP), and Louisiana State University,
OSLGCP’s WMD Terrorism Awareness
Course for Law Enforcement was tailored
to fit campus policing. This initiative,
which began during the summer of 2002,
has produced a cadre of certified campus
law enforcement trainers who in turn have
trained approximately 2,000 campus public safety officers. IACLEA is using an FY
2003 OSLGCP discretionary grant of $2
million to expand this training.
22 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
OSLGCP Mission Statement
To develop and implement a national program to enhance the capacity of state and local agencies to
prevent, deter and respond to
threats or acts of terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction
(WMD), through coordinated training, equipment acquisition, technical assistance, and support for federal, state, and local exercises.
Sensitive versions. The generic version,
which was disseminated to college and
university administrators through their national associations, is appended to this
article. The Law Enforcement Sensitive
version can be viewed in the Members
Only Area of the IACLEA Web site
(www.iaclea.org). The Protective Measures document is not intended to be
exhaustive, nor does it supersede federal,
state, local or campus statutes, regulations, or policies. It is offered only to guide
and inform campus public safety preparedness planning efforts. It may be calibrated to reflect changes in the alert level
for the nation or particular regions and
sectors.
Under the auspices of OSLGCP, the
Texas Engineering Extension Service
(TEEX) at Texas A & M has developed a
jurisdiction-based risk assessment instrument. In August 2003, OSLGCP convened
a meeting with IACLEA and representatives of the IACP College and University
Policing Section to begin tailoring the instrument for college campuses. Subsequently, the Campus Risk Assessment
Instrument has undergone pilot testing
at Gustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota, George Mason University in Virginia,
and at the University of Illinois Urbana –
Champaign campus. The George Mason
pilot was conducted by students in an
upper level criminal justice course under
the guidance of the campus police department (see May/June 2004 Campus
Law Enforcement Journal). Findings and
recommendations from the student-led
To help craft a comprehensive, strategic plan for enhancing campus preparedness, the OSLGCP co-hosted the Campus
Law Enforcement Conference on WMD
Terrorism at the George Washington University in December 2002. Our co-hosts
were IACLEA, the IACP and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. One of the primary and most compelling recommendations emerging from the Conference
was that OSLGCP needed to engage more
actively with campus presidents, vice
presidents, chief financial officers and
other key decision-makers to help focus
planning and preparedness activities on
campus.
In April 2003, the OSLGCP co-hosted
the Higher Education Summit on WMD
Terrorism at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the National Association of
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
(NASULGC). Our co-hosts were again
IACLEA, the IACP and the FBI. The Summit, which was also attended by repreContinued on page 23
sentatives of the U.S. Department of Education, succeeded in raising the
awareness of college and university leaders to the most
pressing homeland security
needs confronting institutions
of higher education. Following
the Summit, OSLGCP staff honored requests to present on
campus public safety issues at
the annual conferences of several national associations of
higher education.
In May 2003, OSLGCP reSergeant Bruce Jackson of the George Mason University
leased the Campus Protective Police Department with City of Fairfax, Virginia fire truck
Measures document in both during a drill with the city and county police and fire
generic and Law Enforcement departments. Fairfax, a neighboring city, is the “first due”
to any emergency at the University.
The New Era of Campus Public Safety
Continued from page 22
pilot are now under consideration by the
police department and other university
policymakers. We anticipate releasing the
instrument with IACLEA by the end of
2005 as a self-administered planning tool.
In April 2004, OSLGCP assigned a senior staff member to the FBI Office of
Law Enforcement Coordination as a Special Adviser, in part, to better coordinate
campus public safety initiatives. The Special Adviser, working with IACLEA and
IACP, convened an August 2004 meeting at the Washington, D.C. headquarters
of the American Council on Education to
begin developing a Campus Executive
Leadership Workshop on Homeland Security for delivery regionally and at the
annual conferences of national associations
of higher education. This workshop will
be supported by OSLGCP discretionary
grant funds awarded to West Virginia
University. As with some of the efforts
cited previously, the workshop will be
modeled on an existing initiative — the
Senior Officials Workshop conducted by
TEEX for local elected and appointed officials such as mayors, city managers and
city and county board members.
To ensure that command level officers in campus public safety agencies understand and can operate effectively in a
unified command system environment,
OSLGCP awarded a $1.5 million discretionary grant to IACLEA in FY 2004. The
grant will support the delivery of training
that is National Incident Management System (NIMS) compliant and will also provide seed funding to create a capability
to identify and disseminate best practices
relating to homeland security within the
campus public safety community.
A review of state Homeland Security
strategies clearly indicates that states are
also recognizing the vulnerabilities and
assets presented by colleges and universities. A significant number of states are
partnering with colleges and universities
to deliver WMD terrorism training to state,
county and municipal emergency responders. In two states, a university is
designated as the primary provider of this
training, statewide.
Some states explicitly identify campus
public safety officers as authorized recipients of WMD terrorism training. Other
states note that colleges and universities
may be targets of terrorist attacks, allocate equipment resources to campus
public safety agencies, involve campus
public safety in WMD exercises, or look
to our campuses as host sites for Community Emergency Response Teams
(CERTs).
The Future
We believe these efforts have created a
strong foundation upon which we can
continue to build campus preparedness
“Every college and university in the country
now understands that traditional planning
for crisis events is inadequate. The scale of
the problem has changed dramatically, and
while most of the work done in the past to
contend with disasters on campus provided
a solid foundation on which to build, a
very different kind of preparation and
response is now necessary”
(Boston Consortium, November 2002).
capabilities. We also know, however, that
there is a great deal of hard work ahead
of us.
Our challenge to each of you is to fully
appreciate the reality that WMD terrorism, while a low frequency event, is one
of extremely high consequences if it occurs. We must devote the necessary resources to prevent and deter WMD attacks on our campuses, and should they
occur in spite of our best efforts, we must
be prepared to effectively manage the
incidents in order to achieve the best
possible outcomes for the community.
A good starting point is to conduct a
risk assessment of your campus. Ideally,
this assessment will be carried out in concert with your federal law enforcement
partners (FBI, ATFE and DHS), and with
an interdisciplinary, multi-jurisdictional
team composed of key stakeholders on
campus and in the surrounding community. Again, OSLGCP anticipates fielding
a self-administered assessment instrument
with IACLEA in Spring 2005.
Increasingly, local jurisdictions are including colleges and universities in their
threat and risk assessment process. If you
have already conducted an independent
assessment, this information can be rolled
into the surrounding jurisdiction’s report
to the state and/or be submitted separately. As mentioned previously, the campus assessment instrument closely mirrors the jurisdictional instrument.
Second, share the assessment results
with the executive leadership of your
campus. They must be aware of the risks
to students, faculty, staff and visitors, and
to the continuity of the college or university as a business.
Third, with the assistance of your assessment team, and possibly others, develop a plan. The plan, to be effective
must:
• Identify gaps in facility protection,
equipment, training, and policies and
procedures.
•
Prioritize actions based on risks and
costs.
•
Assign key roles and responsibilities
for plan execution in a manner that
continues to build interdisciplinary
and multi-jurisdictional partnerships.
•
Identify and leverage all available
resources. Make contact with your
State Administrative Agency responsible for your state’s Homeland Security Formula Grant.
•
Be consistent with operational security requirements and communicate
the plan to all stakeholders, including students, parents and alumni.
•
Conduct periodic exercises of the
prevention, deterrence and response
portions of your plan. Use the results
of these assessments to make revisions that address constantly evolving challenges and realities.
Conclusion
The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services,
Johns Hopkins University and the MidAtlantic Regional Community Policing Institute recently conducted the National
Summit on Campus Public Safety: Strategies for Colleges and Universities in a
Homeland Security Environment. A consensus theme throughout the Summit was
Continued on page 24
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 23
The New Era of Campus Public Safety
Continued from page 23
Bombings at Hebrew University, and Peking
and Tsinghua Universities, as well as
incidents of domestic terrorism directed at
campuses in this country validate
congressional testimony by FBI Director
Mueller that our colleges and universities
are “soft targets” for terrorism
(February 2003).
that campus public safety was being performed in an increasingly complex environment even before 9/11. With the added
challenges associated with homeland security, the complexity of the environment
has never been greater. All of us share a
commitment to meeting these challenges
because our system of higher education
is a potent symbol of democracy.
About the Authors
C. Suzanne Mencer was nominated by
President George W. Bush and subse-
quently confirmed by the United States
Senate in September 2003 as Director of
the Office for Domestic Preparedness.
Prior to this appointment, Ms. Mencer
was the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Public Safety and a
member of the Columbine Review Commission. Ms. Mencer is a 20-year veteran
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
lies of fallen public safety officers and
was the national director of the Police
Corps Program. He was appointed to his
current position as Assistant Director for
Training in the Office for Domestic Preparedness in December 2001, and is now
on special assignment with the FBI Office of Law Enforcement Coordination.
Michael Lynch retired as a Lieutenant
from the Baltimore County Police Department in 1999. He is currently Chief of
Police at George Mason University, which
has three campuses and a department
of 50 sworn officers nationally accredited by CALEA.
The U.S. Department of Homeland
Security acknowledges and expresses its
appreciation to the following campus
public safety executives for their vision
and dedication to homeland security:
Oliver J. Clark, Director of Public Safety/
Chief of Police, University of Illinois;
Dolores Stafford, Chief of Police, The
George Washington University; Scott
Doner, Director of Public Safety, Valdosta
State University; Kenneth A. Willett,
Director of Public Safety, University of
Montana; Noel March, Director of Public
Safety, University of Maine; Dr. Gary
Margolis, Chief of Police, University of
Vermont; Steven Healy, Director of Public
Safety, Princeton University; Ray Thrower,
Director of Safety and Security, Gustavus
Adolphus College; Sue Riseling, Associate
Vice President/Chancellor of Public Safety,
University of Wisconsin; Asa Boynton,
Associate Vice President, Office of Security
Preparedness, University of Georgia; John
Carpenter, Chief of Police, San Diego State
University; Ken Goodwin, Director of
Public Safety, Portland Community
College.
Contributing Author
Jeff Allison served with the Maryland
State Police and the Aurora, Colorado
Police Department before joining the U.S.
Department of Justice in 1985. While at
Justice, Jeff headed the department’s fatality assistance program for the fami-
Palma auto boot pu last page 35
Acknowledgements
Notes
1.
In March 2003, the Office for Domestic
Preparedness (ODP) transferred from the
U.S. Department of Justice to the Department of Homeland Security, and was subsequently renamed the Office of State and
Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (OSLGCP).
References
Boston Consortium for Higher Education, “Data,
Dialogue, Decision Making: Disaster Planning for Higher Education,” Learning History, November 2002.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Campus Law Enforcement Agencies 1995,” National Criminal Justice Reference Service, December
1996.
Mueller, Robert S., “Prepared Statement Before
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,” February 2003.
Continued on page 25
24 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
The New Era of Campus Public Safety
Continued from page 24
Campus Public Safety Weapons of Mass Destruction
Terrorism Protective Measures
There are approximately 4,000 Title IV institutions of postsecondary education in the United States serving 15 million
students, and several million faculty, staff and visitors. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are roughly 30,000
campus police and security officers protecting these institutions and individuals.
Within available resources, and consistent with each college
or university’s policies, procedures and governing philosophy,
consideration may be given to the affirmative steps listed below to prevent, deter or effectively respond to a weapons of
mass destruction terrorist attack. These steps may be calibrated
to local, state or national alert levels.
Prevention
•
•
Establish a working relationship with the Supervisory Agent
in Charge of your nearest FBI field office, the regional Joint
Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), as well as state and local
officials to help ensure your timely receipt of threat information.
Consider assigning officers as liaisons with international student groups on your campus. In addition to potentially
eliciting lifesaving information, the officer(s) may serve to
build trust and allay fears among international students.
Deterrence
•
Establish a management team responsible for directing the
implementation of your campus emergency operations
plan.
•
Immediately review your emergency operations plan, terrorism incident annex and mutual aid agreements with your
management team, command staff and jurisdictional partners. Ascertain the need for immediate staff training.
•
•
The review of your emergency operations plan with jurisdictional partners should include a discussion of potential
assets the campus can provide on its own behalf and that
of the community in the event of an incident occurring
outside the campus. Consider assigning a campus public
safety liaison to the local Emergency Operations Center
(EOC).
Review leave policies and standard operating procedures
for reassignment of plainclothes officers to uniform to enhance visibility and coverage of vulnerable areas.
•
Update your most recent risk assessment inventory.
•
Increase physical checks of critical facilities during periods
of increased alert.
•
Establish a single point of access for each critical facility
and institute 100% identification checks.
•
Limit public access to critical facilities and consider escort
procedures for authorized persons.
•
Increase administrative inspections of persons and their
possessions entering critical facilities.
•
Increase administrative inspections of vehicles and their
contents.
•
Assess adequacy of video monitoring.
•
Assess adequacy of physical barriers outside sensitive buildings and proximity of parking.
•
Ensure adequacy of your emergency alert and communication system for students, faculty, staff and visitors.
•
Review your parent communication and reunification plan,
and then educate all stakeholders.
Special Notes
The suggestions set forth above are offered only to guide and
inform your public safety planning efforts. They are not intended to be exhaustive, or to supercede federal, state, local or
campus statutes, regulations or policies.
More detailed guidelines have been provided to your campus public safety executive.
The Office for Domestic Preparedness, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, gratefully acknowledges input from the
following sources:
• International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA)
•
The IACLEA Mid-Atlantic Regional Conference
•
The College and University Policing Section, International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
•
The Wisconsin Association of Campus Police Chiefs
•
University of Illinois Urbana - Champaign Division of Public Safety
•
Valdosta State University Department of Public Safety
•
The George Washington University Police Department
•
McDaniel College Department of Campus Safety
•
University of Maine Department of Public Safety
•
University of Vermont Police Services
•
The iXP Corporation, Campus Public Safety and Security
•
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Law Enforcement Coordination
•
The U.S. Department of Education
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 25
26 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
Awareness of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Training for the Worst — Hoping You Never Get to Use It
By Richard W. Lee, Program Specialist, University of Massachusetts – Boston Department of Public Safety
September 11, 2001 was an attack not
only on my country but on that sense of
security that I along with others felt because of the distance between us and the
Middle East where all the “real” problems
were occurring. I had seen the news on
the bombings of our embassies and military assets in the area. While it was discomforting to realize that Americans were
being killed I could see how it was happening. It was like being a police officer
in my book; you were placing yourself in
harm’s way for the good of your community or country and sometimes you lose
the battle. I didn’t like it at all but maybe
in a convoluted way I could understand
it. September 11, 2001 derailed that chain
of thought forever for me.
Sometime after the events of that day
had been tempered by time I read an
article in which Army General Tommy
Franks asked the question, “As an American how did you feel September 12,
2001?” The answers were about what you
would expect ranging from anger to depression. His next question was, “What
would you do to prevent it or something
similar from happening again?” The answer to that came for me in June 2003
when I was selected to attend a trainthe-trainer program for “Campus Public
Safety Response to Weapons of Mass
Destruction.” I was pleased to be able to
partake of this training because I felt
deeply the need to contribute to fight
the war on terrorism. As I watched several of our officers get activated by their
respective military units to serve, I felt
the need to do something. However I
find myself too old and out of shape to
compete in that venue unless the powers that felt my presence would incapacitate the terrorists by making them laugh
themselves into oblivion.
One of the first thoughts that ran
through my mind as I attended the course
to become a trainer was how frightening
the possibility that this training could actually be used someday was to me. The
possibility of a WMD being used even in
my own campus community didn’t seem
as farfetched as it would have back when
I first came on the job. I could remember
back with almost pleasant nostalgia that
the biggest fear I had getting out of the
Police Academy back in 1974 was getting shot by some perpetrator of evil
holding up the local variety store or bookstore. However like most young recruits
I couldn’t wait to get out and use all that
training. This training I hope to never use.
When the Congressional 9/11 Commission published their report I decided to
read it. I was struck by a paragraph in the
Preface that read as follows: “We learned
about an enemy who is sophisticated,
patient, disciplined, and lethal. The enemy rallies broad support in the Arab
and Muslim world by demanding redress
of political grievances, but its hostility
toward us and our values is limitless. Its
purpose is to rid the world of religious
and political pluralism, the plebiscite, and
equal rights for women. It makes no distinction between military and civilian
targets. Collateral damage is not in its
lexicon.” After reading that, I was glad to
be able to get the chance to get the train-
ing and gain the knowledge. It gave me
the feeling that I was doing something
that would help me better protect my
community.
The course agenda was straightforward
and easy to understand. It was not designed to make us experts. As the instructors told us, the only way you can be an
expert in these things is to experience
them. I will fall back on my crime prevention training and say I would rather
be proactive here so we can either prevent or mitigate the worst effects of an
incident rather than reacting to it afterwards. We were given knowledge to help
us recognize a terrorist incident, what the
possible weapons could be, what defensive considerations we could employ, and
how to best help to contain and control
the issues arising from the deployment
of a WMD.
The terrorist threat section gave us a
process to help identify potential targets
in our community and its environs. After
going through this section you may never
again take for granted the safe little world
in which you work. Even as I write this I
can look out my window at UMass Boston across Dorchester Bay to a large liquid natural gas tank. When I first got back
I joked with my office mates that if they
ever blew that up that tank we would
have the opportunity to be one of the
first true satellite campuses in the University of Massachusetts system. Unfortunately I am told that the class did not
increase my sense of humor.
Continued on page 28
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 27
Awareness of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Continued from page 27
The next module gave us an overview
of the concept of the Integrated
Command System and how it works.
Many times these concepts are couched
in mystery terms and the very thought of
them makes the primary users shy away
because of their assumed complexity. It’s
not so in this case; solid, no-nonsense
examples gave you a firm idea of how it
would work subject to local quirks. We
left with the feeling that it could function
in all jurisdictions with little or no problem.
In the next module we were given an
introduction to Weapons of Mass Destruction themselves. The who, what, why,
where, and how, so to speak of how they
would work if used. It was in this section
that I began to realize that these weapons, while deadly and having the ability
to cause significant damage, were not the
city-busters of my youthful nightmares.
As someone who lived under the threat
of being disintegrated with about 20
minute’s notice by a Russian ICBM for approximately 40 years of my life, these
weapons, while worthy of a healthy respect for their capabilities, do not instill
the same feeling of helplessness in me.
It is apparent that with knowledge of
these systems they can be contained and
the effects mitigated.
Personal protection and safety was next
on the agenda. As we went through it
was obvious that we could take many
effective steps to help adequately protect ourselves and our communities. Time,
distance and shielding become a mantra
for protection in all instances. I do believe I actually saw a few instances where
the use of duct tape might actually work.
One very important section was the area
on Critical Incident Stress. Having been
through a few very stressful incidents in
my time as a police officer, I could actively relate to the need for this. It is the
one weakness that I see in most preparations for this type of incident. We will
probably be able to identify, manage, and
cope with the initial incident. Traditionally organizations such as ours respond to
critical incidents with skill and bravery
during the ongoing incident. We may even
deal adequately with the initial stress
symptoms. However I feel that we must
start to identify programs now to deal with
28 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
the long term effects of Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder that will occur.
The next part of the presentation was
a method of dividing a Weapons of Mass
Destruction Incident into five phases. The
phases were Prevention/Deterrence,
Notification, Response, Recovery, and
Restoration. Prevention and deterrence is
actually a new step for many public safety
agencies. Most of the time in the past
incidents began with notifications and then
the response began. This training takes it
up a step and suggests that with proper
prevention and deterrence activities, incidents may be averted. Many of us have
active crime prevention, and community
policing programs which stress proactive
approaches to crime control through training and education. There is no reason not
to apply this to prevention of Weapons
of Mass Destruction incidents. As in life
there are no guarantees but an error of
commission in trying to detect and prevent one of these incidents will be a lot
easier to stomach that an error of omission in which you do nothing. Notification, the next step in the process, will
begin after the threat is received or the
incident occurs. Training stresses choosing the correct response which will guide
your initial actions and help guarantee
your survival. It also allows you to pass
along information that will help guide the
onslaught of emergency services that will
hopefully start arriving after the determination that a WMD has been used. Your
response will then be guided by four notable actions devised to isolate, identify,
further notify, and protect yourself, community and other responders. In these
sections are other important concepts
such as media control, crowd control,
crime scene protection and others too numerous to detail here. Recovery and restoration, the last two steps, are thought
provoking, insightful concepts on just what
it will take to return some sense of normalcy to the community and what the
steps may be towards a period of restoration.
The last section of the training was
scenario based. It gave several very plausible scenarios. We then had to come up
with concepts to deal with them. While I
would like to say we all had happy endings in them it was not the case. The very
nature of these incidents just drove home
how important training and preparation
will be in the prevention or in the lessening of the harmful impact should an incident occur.
The training offers the opportunity for
campus law enforcement to step up to
the plate and be proactive protectors of
their communities. It allows us to fulfill
our nontraditional role by being educators by providing information and training that could be of great benefit to the
communities in which we work. It also
follows the advice of one very crusty,
cranky instructor I had in the academy
back in the dawn of time who drummed
the “5 P” rule into our heads: “Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance.” It was
true then and it’s true now. Last of all I
would like to express my deepest thanks
to Don Kelly from Baton Rouge Police
Department and Tom Fitzpatrick from
Buffalo Fire Department, instructors par
excellence, from the Louisiana State
University Academy of Counter-Terrorist
Education who coupled with IACLEA sponsored this training. Their insights and experiences were invaluable in getting the
point across to us.
About the Author
Richard W. Lee currently holds the position of Program Specialist with the
UMass Boston Department of Public
Safety, reporting to the Director of Public Safety. In this position he oversees the
areas of Crime Prevention, Crime Analysis & Mapping, Public Information, and
Sponsored Projects. He is a 30-year veteran of campus law enforcement. A
graduate of Northeastern University with
a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice, he also holds a Paralegal Certificate
from UMass Lowell. Rich also is a commissioner on the Massachusetts Neighborhood Crime Watch Commission, a
member of the MACLEA Crime Prevention Training committee, and Treasurer
of the New England Community Police
Consortium (NECP2). He is married to
another UMass officer, Susan Lee. They
have two daughters 20 and 18 years old
and a son 2½ years.
The Use of Electro-Magnetic Disruption Devices
(EMDs) in Higher Education Law Enforcement
By Randy Mingo, University of Central Florida; Ross Wolf, University of Central Florida; Charles Mesloh, Florida Gulf Coast
University; and Tina Kelchner, University of Central Florida
Introduction
Electro-Magnetic Disruption Devices
(EMDs) are a relatively new phenomenon
in use of force options by police departments throughout the United States. The
majority of agencies only began to issue
EMDs within the last two to three years.
With the increased negative publicity
being produced by police shootings
across the country, police agencies have
been seeking a more effective “less-thanlethal” force alternative.
Although EMDs have existed for decades, initially police agencies were slow
to utilize them because of their perceived
ineffectiveness. However, “…in 1999,
Taser introduced the Advanced M26,
promising instant incapacitation without
injury; its 50,000 volt charge overrides the
central nervous system, forces muscle
contraction and is virtually impossible to
shrug off” (Anglen, 2004). Departments
across the country saw the increasing use
of the Taser by fellow agencies and began to purchase them by the truckload.
Stock for Taser has been soaring, rising
from a selling price of $2 per share in
2002, to $40 per share in 2004 after a
peak of $60 per share (Anglen, 2004;
Berenson, 2004).
More recently, EMDs available on the
market today have drawn both criticism
and accolades from law enforcement,
politicians, newspapers, and public forums. The most commonly utilized EMD
on the market today is the Taser. Taser
International, Inc. repeatedly emphasizes
that their less-than-lethal weapon saves
lives; yet in story after story in the local
and national news, citizens are bombarded
with information on the danger of police
delivering a powerful electric shock
(Anglen, 2004).
The use of EMDs on children and the
elderly by police has caused serious controversy and anger. Additionally, Amnesty
International and the Arizona Republic
newspaper have questioned deaths following EMD deployments throughout the
United States as excessive uses of force.
In response to these issues, Taser International, Inc. issued a press release: “Concerns have persisted over the safety of
Taser’s weapons, despite a recent report
by the Department of Defense that
Taser’s devices were probably not the
primary cause of some reported deaths
of individuals in custody” (CNN.com,
2004). Repeatedly, medical examinations
throughout the country have pointed at
other causes for death on “Tased” suspects. In July 2004, Orange-Osceola Medical Examiner Dr. Jan Garavajlia reported
to the Orange County (Florida) Taser Task
Force that “the common factor in the
deaths reported seems to be the excited
state of the individual being shot by the
[EMD]…Excited delirium is becoming increasingly recognized, and has been detected with patients with mental disorders, taking antidepressant medications,
and in psychotic patients who have
stopped taking their medication” (Orange
County Sheriff’s Office).
In an Amnesty International report in
2004, over 5,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States were reported
to be deploying or testing EMDs. Amnesty
International reports that forty-three states
have “few or no restrictions on the possession of stun weapons by members of
the public for private use” (2004, p. 3),
therefore making EMDs legal for use by
the general public.
In 1997, there were nearly 700 campus police agencies in the United States,
employing over 43,000 sworn personnel
with organizational structures mirroring
those of municipal agencies (Paoline &
Sloan, 2003). With campus police agencies mirroring their municipal counterparts, many of these agencies also began
issuing EMDs to their officers. As a national trend, “administrators in higher education are facing the reality that campuses
are no longer havens from crime” (Mesloh
and Wolf, 2003, p. 26). Due to the individual campus politics, leadership goals,
community input, and the legal environment of law enforcement in each state
(Wolf, 2001; Paoline & Sloan, 2003),
agencies must examine if the use of EMDs
Continued on page 30
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 29
The Use of Electro-Magnetic Disruption Devices (EMDs) in Higher Education Law Enforcement
Continued from page 29
on their campus is a constructive decision. Many agencies have found, however,
that this less-than-lethal alternative can
have a positive impact on officer injuries,
suspect injuries, and the reduced use of
deadly force.
Case Study
The University of Central Florida (UCF)
is a sprawling campus, located in Orlando,
Florida, of over 13,000 acres. There are
also over 5,000 bed spaces in affiliated
campus housing located off the main campus. There are over 127 permanent buildings on campus, 35 portable buildings,
with an additional six structures under
construction. In 2004, the enrollment approached 44,000 students, making UCF
the tenth largest university in the country. Growth has been manageable, but
this rapid expansion presents problems
for the police, including reduced response
rates for calls for service. Officers also
have found that they are unable to respond as quickly to assist other officers.
As a solution to address officer and public
safety concerns, EMDs were introduced
as a viable tool for the UCF Police Department (UCFPD) as a less-than-lethal
alternative.
Prior to the implementation of EMDs,
UCFPD officers have had two other intermediate weapons available on their
duty belts. These options have included
Oleoresin Capsicum (OC), or “pepper
spray,” and the expandable baton. While
OC spray is used widely throughout the
United States, it is also not without controversy. For example, in December
2004, the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida
reached a tentative settlement for
$500,000 with the family of a suspect
who died after being sprayed with pepper spray (Wallman, 2004). UCF police
officers, in proper use of force situations,
have utilized both of these alternatives,
and both are still issued to officers. When
deciding to issue EMDs to UCFPD officers, administrators realized that with EMD
technology available, there had been a
gap in their use of force matrix and ability to respond to suspect actions. After
considerable research, the decision was
made to add EMDs as an additional lessthan-lethal alternative for police officers
in the field.
30 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
The University of Central Florida Police Department placed an order in June
2003 for forty M-26 Tasers with laser
sights, and forty K351-M26W high ride
cross draw holsters with spare cartridge
holders. Additionally, the department
purchased 160 15' and 160 21' air cartridges for training and for issue to the
officers. The purchase also included
“smart” battery chargers for each officer.
The start-up cost for these forty EMDs
was $29,972, equating to approximately
$749 for each officer. The projected recurring costs are minimal.
A unique feature of the M-26 is the
data port; this permits downloading of
information regarding use of the Taser
including time of discharge, duration of
discharge, and number of discharges.
Qualified UCFPD firearms and defensive
tactics instructors were selected to attend
Taser Instructor classes. During the eighthour training session for UCFPD officers,
participants were permitted to fire three
test cartridges and each officer was afforded the opportunity to be “Tased.”
Nearly all departmental personnel volunteered and some officers volunteered to
demonstrate the Taser effect as many as
three times. Though each officer was not
forced to take part, the value of training
officers on rapid recovery was stressed,
should they become accidentally or intentionally incapacitated by the Taser in a
situation. The officers who volunteered to
be Tased have gained a
clear understanding of the
weapon’s defensive abilities.
UCFPD Emergency
Response Team members
also were issued Tasers
with a mounting clip designed and manufactured
by Advanced Research
Solutions which mounts
the Taser to a Remington
870 shotgun. The ERT
team carries these shotguns
loaded with bean bag shot
to provide two less-thanlethal alternatives as
needed for dynamic entries
or other confrontations.
Community Concerns
Mesloh and Hougland (2004) were quick
to point out the importance of working
with the community in developing policies regarding use of force. This includes
discussion of perceived negatives as well
as the potential positives involved in the
deployment of EMDs by the police. The
UCFPD understood the need to make the
campus community aware of the new
policies concerning EMDs. To inform the
university community and off-campus citizens, an article was released in the student newspaper, interviews were granted
with the departmental Public Information
Officer, and officers were advised to answer all questions presented by curious
students about the device.
Because the department has been concerned with student reactions to police
procedures, the UCFPD’s annual survey
of student perceptions included numerous questions related to the use of force.
In 2003 and 2004 these survey results
rated the UCFPD’s use of Tasers on campus as favorable in comparison to other
intermediate less-than-lethal alternatives.
In the 2004 survey, for example, students
were asked to respond to various lessthan-lethal force options by the police.
On this survey, one question asked students to indicate where each weapon or
use of force would be appropriate in the
following scenario: “A suspect violently
Continued on page 31
Figure 1
The Use of Electro-Magnetic Disruption Devices (EMDs) in Higher Education Law Enforcement
Continued from page 30
resists arrest and attempts to injure law
enforcement officers. How appropriate
are the following responses on the part
of the police?” Each student was then
given a 9 point Likert-type scale to reply
for each listed officer response, with 1
being “very appropriate,” and 9 being
“very inappropriate.” The use of a Taser
was rated as 3.66, while use of baton,
beanbag, chokehold, and strike with the
hand all rated higher. The only response
by the officer that students rated as more
appropriate than the Taser was the use of
“mace” or “pepper spray” (see Figure 1).
On the other hand, UCFPD administrators knew that the campus community
was not acting in a vacuum. Local sheriff’s
departments and police departments
were also adopting the use of EMDs by
patrol officers. Local newspapers were
quick to report on use of EMD incidents,
and the Orange County Sheriff’s office
experienced several in-custody deaths
after the use of an EMD. None of these
deaths, however, were determined by
medical examiners to be shock-induced.
This alone, however, led to an increase
in concern by the community regarding
the use of these weapons.
Communities may also be interested
in additional information available on
EMDs. Police departments have reported
a significant fall in police shootings following the introduction of EMDs to officers’ less-than-lethal alternatives. According to Amnesty International (2004), the
Phoenix (Arizona) Police Department “announced that officer-involved shootings
had fallen by 54% from 28 in 2002 to 13
in 2003, with fatal shootings down from
13 to 9 during the same period, the lowest number since 1990.” Amnesty International is quick to point out, however,
that they feel that police in the United
States overuse and abuse EMDs.
Justifications for Use
Documented UCFPD use of force reports
indicate that the Taser (June 2003-December 2003) had been discharged by
the police department six times, and each
was found to be in accordance with policy.
In addition, there were (June 2003-December 2003) twelve “non-activated deployments” (where the Taser was re-
Agencies should also consider several policy
issues when deciding whether or not to
implement use of EMDs on their campus.
moved from the holster, laser activated,
and pointed at a suspect but not discharged). In the entire 2004 calendar year
(January-December), there were three
discharges and five non-activated deployments. So far for 2005 (January data only),
one discharge has taken place.
In examination of UCFPD use of force
reports, from implementation in 2003 to
January 2005, officers were justified to
use deadly force in several situations (for
example when officers confront suspects
armed with knives and crowbars). The
use of force reports also indicated that
these suspects tended to be intoxicated
by alcohol and/or drugs, and several had
mental illness related problems. The officers involved in these scenarios opted
to use the EMD in these circumstances,
possibly sparing a life they otherwise may
have legally taken.
The trend delineated in the UCFPD
reports, regarding EMDs, has been the
combination of strong verbal commands
accompanied with a warning of deployment, and laser contact (amber laser connection from EMD to the suspect). This
resulted in suspect compliance nearly
50% of the time, and the EMD not having to be discharged. The value of the
EMD as a deterrent weapon has become
vastly recognized in the UCF community,
due to both UCFPD and local agency use.
Policy Implications and Conclusion
When discussing policy issues, it is imperative to note that the UCFPD initially
placed EMDs at level 3 (active physical
resistance) on the use of force continuum;
repeatedly stressing to officers that presence and strong verbal commands are still
the best practice for compliance. Examination of the UCFPD records indicate that
the 2003 implementation of EMDs into
the less-than-lethal force alternatives for
police officers saw a reduction in the use
of OC spray and near zero use of the
expandable baton.
In late 2004, Orlando area law enforcement agencies made a consolidated stand
to place EMDs at level 4 (active physical
resistance). This change was a result of
numerous negative media and public concerns regarding EMD use and in-custody
deaths following discharge. Though these
incidents were not related to UCF, area
complaints were waged by citizens against
EMD use in situations involving very
young and very old suspects. Understanding that negative media events may affect community relations is imperative
when considering EMD use on a college
campus, even when a deployment decision may have been rationally sound.
In UCFPD’s incorporation of Tasers
into their use of force policy, local Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) units
were consulted for recommendations
regarding the removal of “barbs” from
Tased suspects. It was determined that
the removal of Taser barbs from a suspect can be conducted by the officer by
spreading the skin with the thumb and
index finger and pulling out the barb. EMTs
should be summoned to the scene for barb
removal only if the barbs strike critical areas (any location in the head or groin).
The UCFPD policy also requires that
daily inspections (at shift briefings) are
conducted on each issued Taser to ensure that the recommended battery charge
is maintained. This act is now an inspection routine. Additionally, the department
felt that it did not make sense to issue
Tasers only to supervisors (who were the
least likely to need an immediate less-thanlethal force alternative), so Tasers were issued to all sworn officers. In addition,
UCFPD has not issued Tasers to non-sworn
Community Service Officers (CSOs).
If the EMD is utilized in the field, in a
use of force situation, university police
department policy requires that the Taser
be immediately given to the Training
Sergeant. A written computer download
record must also accompany each use of
force report completed by the officer
who discharged the device. This procedure may assist in liability reduction and
acts as a record to assure officers compliance and citizen safety from claims of
brutality. Officers’ must then submit the
spent cartridge to procurement in order
to receive a replacement.
Continued on page 32
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 31
The Use of Electro-Magnetic Disruption Devices (EMDs) in Higher Education Law Enforcement
Continued from page 31
Agencies should also consider several
policy issues when deciding whether or
not to implement use of EMDs on their
campus. One issue is that smaller officers
may have to remove other less-than-lethal alternatives from the duty belt. It may
be difficult for all equipment to be worn
comfortably and be readily accessible with
the addition of a duty weapon, firearm
magazines, EMD spare cartridge magazines, radio, handcuffs, biohazard equipment (rubber gloves/CPR mask), belt
keepers, key rings and cell phone. Although any equipment removed from the
duty belt should be stored in the officer’s
patrol vehicle, it becomes less readily
accessible in situations which may require
its use.
Throughout the United States, many
agency and higher education administrators are considering the use of EMDs.
Administrators and police management
should consider the valuable law enforcement tools available that may have a place
in university and college environments.
Liabilities involved with any use of force
device are always present, but can be
minimized by policy compliance, standard
operating procedures, proper training, an
informed public, consequences for misuse, and responsible feedback from the
community. Positive results, such as reduced injuries to officers and suspects,
may outweigh negative concerns.
About the Authors
Randy Mingo is assistant director of police and police major for the University
of Central Florida Police Department.
Major Mingo is also an adjunct professor
with the UCF Department of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies. Of interest to this
article, Major Mingo has volunteered to
be “Tased” three times and supports operational use of EMDs as a police tool.
Ross Wolf is an assistant professor and
coordinator of Criminal Justice at the University of Central Florida in Orlando and
holds a Doctorate in Higher Education
Administration and Educational Leadership. He has over thirteen years of experience as a law enforcement officer
and has worked various assignments including Patrol and Criminal Investiga-
PU for MITI
pu last issue page 5
32 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
tions. Dr. Wolf continues to serve as a
Police Academy Instructor and as a Chief
with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office
Reserve Unit.
Charles Mesloh is an assistant professor and Director of the Institute for Technological Innovation and Research at
Florida Gulf Coast University, which specializes in less-lethal weapons research.
He holds a Doctorate in Public Affairs
and has twelve years of experience as a
law enforcement officer. Dr. Mesloh holds
instructor certifications in most lesslethal weapons and is currently involved
in the development of new less lethal technology and training methods.
Tina Kelchner is a graduate research
assistant in the Criminal Justice master’s
degree program at the University of Central Florida. She has focused her research
on police use of force and discretionary
decision-making in law enforcement.
References
Anglen, R. A. (July 18, 2004) Taser safety claim
questioned. The Arizona Republic. Retrieved December 9, 2004, from http://
azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/
0718taser-main18-CP.html
Amnesty International (2004) USA: Excessive and
lethal force? Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use of Tasers.
Berenson, A. (July 18, 2004) Taser injuries: As
police use of Tasers rises, questions over
safety increase. Wound-Ballistics.com. Retrieved December 7, 2004, from http://
www.wound-ballistics.com
CNN.com (November 30, 2004) Taser responds
to Amnesty’s claims. Retrieved December
9, 2004, from http://money.com/2004/11/
30/news/midcaps/taser.reut/
Paoline, E. and Sloan, J. (2003) Variability in
the organizational structure of contemporary campus law enforcement agencies: A
national-level analysis. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and
Management, 26(4).
Mesloh, C. and Wolf, R. (2003) The use of canines in higher education law enforcement:
An examination of policies and procedures.
Campus Law Enforcement Journal, 33 (6),
26-29.
Orange County Sheriff’s Office, Florida (July
28, 2004) TASER task force medical findings. Report available from the Orange
County Sheriff’s Office, 2500 West Colonial Drive, Orlando FL.
Wallman, B. (December 16, 2004) $500,000 is
offered to family of man who died from
police spray. Sun Sentinel.
IACLEA’s Annual Conference in Kansas City —
Everything You Expect and More
Kansas City is just like the food it’s famous for: spicy, sizzling, casual and
friendly. It has everything you expect to
find in a major metropolitan city — worldclass hotels, professional sports, full-gaming casinos, a fabulous zoo, top-notch
museums, live theater, great places to eat
and shop, and interesting places to relax
and have fun.
IACLEA’s 47th Annual Conference and
Exposition in Kansas City has everything
you expect to find — great hotel, first
class workshops and speakers, networking, socializing…
Kansas City
Hyatt Regency Crown Center
The Hyatt Regency Crown Center sets
the standard for Kansas City hotels. The
newly renovated hotel is connected to
the Crown Center Exhibit Hall and just
minutes from downtown Kansas City, the
Country Club Plaza, and nearby theaters
and dining. It is connected by an enclosed
walkway to the Crown Center, an office
and shopping complex, and is adjacent
to Science City at Union Station and the
Kansas City convention center, Bartle Hall.
There’s plenty to keep you occupied
at the Kansas City Hyatt Regency Crown
Center with a heated, all-season, outdoor,
freeform pool with sundeck; whirlpool and
sauna in health club; complimentary
health club for all guests, with access to
climate-controlled pool and fully equipped
fitness area offering free weights, exercise cycles, steppers, stair climbers and
rowers; nearby Crown Center that connects you by glass enclosed walkway to
IACLEA’s 47th Annual Conference and
Exposition in Kansas City has everything you
expect to find — great hotel, first class
workshops and speakers, networking,
socializing…
more than 80 shops and restaurants, two
live theaters, movie theater and ice skating and the international headquarters of
Hallmark Cards, Inc., featuring Kaleidoscope, Hallmark’s free creative workshop
for kids ages 5 to 12, and Hallmark Visitors Center, offering 85 years of Hallmark
history.
Workshops
The Clery Act: Department of Education Compliance Handbook Review presented by Dolores Stafford will
focus on a four-hour review of the new
Clery Act Compliance Handbook developed by the U.S. Department of Education. The DOEd will distribute the handbook to each institution as soon as it is
completed, but the goal of this training
program is to provide information contained in the new handbook and to clarify
requirements of the Clery Act that campuses have struggled with over the years.
U.S. Department of Education representatives have been invited to participate in this training session and IACLEA is
looking forward to the addition of these
experts to assist in conducting this training program.
Copies of the final compliance handbook (or the last available draft version
of the handbook) will be distributed as a
handout for this training session. Please
note: there will only be one copy per
attendee of the handouts and handbook
for those people who pre-register for this
session. No extra handouts will be available during or after the conference.
This session is free to conference attendees but you must complete the separate registration form for this session in
order to receive the handbook. The information and registration form are at
http://www.iaclea.org/conf/05index.htm
The IACLEA Weapons of Mass Destruction Awareness Course for first
responders will be presented on Tuesday, June 28 from 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
This eight-hour course is designed for all
campus public safety personnel who
could participate in a response to a WMD
incident. Regardless of your rank or job
title, this course provides important, up
to date information on WMD preparedness. There is no fee to attend the training. Upon successful completion participants will receive a certificate of attendance and documentation for continuing
education units from Louisiana State University.
The presentation includes properties
of, effects of, and methods of delivery/
dispersal of potential WMD weapons. It
addresses priorities for protection of persons, environment and property during
WMD incidents. Specifically, it includes
discussion of procedures that campus
public safety personnel can implement
to protect themselves and others as well
Continued on page 35
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 33
Å
34 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
IACLEA’s Annual Conference in Kansas City — Everything You Expect and More
Continued from page 33
as describing decontamination procedures
appropriate for WMD events.
The course is being funded by a grant
from the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness. The curriculum was developed by
Louisiana State University and Agricultural
and Mechanical College (LSU) and the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA).
The Campus Avenger: Workplace
Violence will be presented by Dr. John
Nicoletti, Police Psychologist, NicolettiFlater Associates and Dr. Sally SpencerThomas, Director, Leadership Development and Behavioral Health Promotion,
Regis University. After attending this session participants should be able to develop a basic understanding of the different dynamics of workplace violence
prevalent for colleges and universities;
appreciate why colleges are vulnerable
targets for workplace violence; explore
the phases of action related to workplace
violence and develop corresponding intervention responses; and develop a basic understanding of effective threat assessment and disaster management techniques. The presenters will discuss workplace violence cases on college campuses
and discuss why campuses are vulnerable.
They will provide intervention techniques
and time to discuss issues on your campus.
Legal Liability and Campus Suicide
Case Update is presented by Peter Lake,
Esq. and Professor, Stetson University
College of Law. It will include recent developments in the law regarding suicide
and self inflicted injury and updates on
student wellness, policy initiatives and
university liability trends.
Don Awles, a consultant for the National Tactical Officers Association, will
present Campus Violent Critical Incidents: Planning and First Response.
This session will address the law enforcement response to a threat from a lone
individual or a group and the focus will
be on the roles of university law enforcement officers and university security officers as first responders. Emphasis will
be placed on active shooter and destructive device response. Participants in this
workshop will leave with an understanding of the sources and types of threats of
In times of critical incidents, small CSU
police departments needed to rely on local
law enforcement agencies or borrow
officers from any of the 22 CSU
departments.
mass violence. They will possess an overview of planning and response options
that will help them in the prevention of,
planning for, and response to acts of mass
violence. You will be shown tools and
resources that could assist in mitigating
threats and minimizing casualties should
such an attack occur. Topics to be discussed include a brief history of violent
critical incidents at colleges and universities; current and future threats; interagency
cooperation; site surveys and essential elements of information; planning and
preparation; recommended procedures
and equipment; active shooters; suicide
bombers; and rapid deployment/immediate action/instant response.
Strategies for Addressing Racial
and Ethnic Tensions or Conflict on
Campus will be presented by Shari Freeman, Director, Community Relations Service, U.S. Department of Justice. Ms. Freeman will focus particularly on CRS training on Arab, Muslim, and Sikh-American
cultural awareness, providing a short video
training presentation to help law enforcement personnel when interacting with
university students who are members of
these respective communities. The program was developed to address growing
tensions and disruptions throughout the
country following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Through this presentation,
campus law enforcement officials will
learn of different strategies to avoid or
address racial conflict or violence on campus. Moreover, they will gain a basic cultural understanding of the practices and
protocols of Arab, Muslim, and Sikh communities, which will help officers serve
the entire campus community better.
Learn how to effectively manage interviews to get the type of information
you need to make successful hiring decisions by attending Getting the Right
People on the Bus — Using Targeted
Selection to Attract and Select Top
Performers presented by Steven Healy,
Chief of Police, Princeton University. Participants will be exposed to the Targeted
Selection Strategy, which recommends a
multi-tiered process that is both affordable and effective. Attendees will review
the universally accepted “dimensions” for
law enforcement positions and learn how
to uncover appropriate evidence of the
presence of these dimensions through
behavioral interviewing. The workshop
will also cover planning and administering Targeted Simulations, using the assessment center methodology.
Jackie McClain, Vice Chancellor for
Human Resources, California State University System, Office of the Chancellor;
Commander Kirk Gaston, San Francisco
State University Police; and Lt. Bob
McManus, Asst. Commander, San Diego
State University will provide an overview
of human resources issues, training, tactical command and policy issues during
their workshop: Development of a
Multi Agency Tactical Team. The California State University System consists of
23 separate campuses with 22 police
departments. The smallest police department consists of 12 sworn officers and
the largest, 33 officers. In times of critical
incidents, small CSU police departments
needed to rely on local law enforcement
agencies or borrow officers from any of
the 22 CSU departments. The 50 sworn
police officer tactical team referred to as
the Critical Response Unit was formed
from officers from 22 CSU campuses, creating a highly trained and skilled tactical
unit that responds to CSU natural disasters, crowd control and dignitary protection events.
Hoping to form a coalition between
the NCAA and IACLEA, Rachel Newman,
Assistant Director of Agent, Gambling and
Amateurism Activities, National Collegiate
Athletic Association will present Sports
Wagering on College Campuses. This
session will focus on the issues of gambling and sports wagering and provide
information regarding the role of the
Agent, Gambling and Amateurism Activities staff within the NCAA structure. The
results of the NCAA’s 2003 National Study
Continued on page 37
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 35
Arson
Assault
Vandalism
Theft
Intoxication
INCIDENTS HAPPEN…
KNOW…
What’s happening… and where.
Who’s involved… and how.
• Limit liability.
• Control insurance costs.
• Ensure compliance with the Clery Act.
TOLL FREE 1-888-776-9776
www.ppm2000.com
IRIMS®—Incident Reporting & Investigation Management Software
36 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
IACLEA’s Annual Conference in Kansas City — Everything You Expect and More
Continued from page 35
on Collegiate Sports Wagering and Associated Health Risks will be presented.
The goal of Closed Circuit Television: Policies, Procedures and Partnerships that Can Lead to Acceptance of CCTV on Campus presented
by Frederick Gardy, Assistant Chief of
Police, University of Nebraska-Lincoln and
Owen Yardly, Chief of Police, University
of Nebraska-Lincoln is to generate feedback that can be used to create an operational model for CCTV supported by
IACLEA. The presentation will develop
understanding of the issues you will face
when implementing policies presented
that can assist you when considering a
CCTV network. Discussion will include
implementation of policies and procedures that standardize equipment; address
faculty, staff and student concerns over
privacy issues; ensure functionality and
expandability; and produce evidentiary
quality videos. The full range of considerations affecting the decision to implement CCTV will be discussed with spe-
Check out the Weapons of Mass
Destruction Awareness training
classes being offered by IACLEA
at www.iaclea.org. Click on
Awareness Training/WMD to locate a class near you or contact
Project Director Tom Hogarty,
thogarty@iaclea.org
cial attention given to the brief history of
CCTV, purchasing committees, vendor
selection, CCTV networking, systems integration, purchasing standards, operational standards, and legal standards.
Community Service Officer Program will be presented by Barry
Roberson, Chief of Police, Rutgers University and Commander Daniel Pascale,
Rutgers University. They will provide an
overview of the extensive student CSO
program at Rutgers University. Assignments include mounted patrol, escorts,
transportation, bus security, CCTV monitoring, first aid/CPR certifications, CERT
and crime scene preservation.
Julie Friend, Project Director, Office of
Study Abroad, Michigan State University,
and Inspector Mary Johnson, Michigan
State University Police Department will
discuss the creation of an Incident Command Team for High-level University
Officials to address long-term crisis abroad
in Students, Faculty and Staff in Crisis Abroad. They will walk participants
through the steps necessary to create a
coordinated effort between the Study
Abroad and Police Department that includes training police cadets and Study
Abroad staff to respond to hotline calls
and questions. Presenters will distribute
sample intake forms and response procedures.
Additional presentations include:
• Accreditation Overview and Accreditation Manager Training
(see page 7 for details);
•
Campus Domestic Violence
Training presented by Malcolm
Adams, Division Chief of the National
Center for Law Enforcement Training;
•
Random Actor Violence Prevention by Dan Korem, Korem and Associates;
•
Developing and Understanding
Diversity Training for Public
Safety Employees by Eric Cook,
University of Illinois, UrbanaChampaign and Vanessa Horsman,
University of Illinois, UrbanaChampaign.
Your Campus Relies
On You For Security...
Information
You Can Use!
All IACLEA members now
have access to a searchable
resource database that includes publications, previously
published Campus Law Enforcement Journal articles,
and links to other helpful Web
sites. Check it out in the
Members Only area of the
IACLEA Web site.
www.iaclea.org
...When you Need Help, Rely on Us
FOG ADVISORS, LLC
Security Management Consultants
(630) 563-9701
www.fogadvisors.com
Providing expert security assistance to campus security experts
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 37
President’s Message
Continued from page 2
bring them to—as the information will be
hot off the press! It will be an in-depth
four-hour class focusing on the clarifications and modifications in the interpretation of the law that have been made by
the Department of Education and are now
in writing in the new handbook. If you
haven’t noticed by now, I have now
mentioned the Annual Conference
a total of seven times. This is a priceless marketing ploy to make sure you
don’t forget it. See you in Kansas City!
In 2008, IACLEA will celebrate its 50th
anniversary. The plan is to start the celebration at the end of the Annual Conference in 2007 so that we will have a full
year of celebratory programs and events
leading up to this once-in-a-lifetime event.
How good can a regional conference
be? How about the highly successful
IACLEA – Southeast Regional Conference
held in New Orleans, Louisiana? The conference started the day after Fat Tuesday
in the City of Mardi Gras. As one might
expect, attendance was very good. In
addition, our host Director Ken Dupaquier,
Tulane University, ran an excellent program of presentations and made everyone attending feel like we were locals to
New Orleans. As we all learned from Ken,
“laissez les bon temps roulez” (let the
good times roll). The FBI identity theft
program and the Taser demonstration program were two of best presentations I
can remember. Thank you Ken
Dupaquier!
In November 2004, IACLEA and IACP
were invited by the U.S. Department of
Justice COPS Office to convene with a
group of law enforcement, government
officials and national educators in Baltimore, Maryland to hold a National Summit on Campus Public Safety. The event
was hosted by the Mid-Atlantic Regional
Community Policing Institute (MARCPI)
at Johns Hopkins University. IACLEA and
IACP, University and College Police Section were the most prominently represented groups. Not to be left out were
our friends from the Department of
Homeland Security Office of State and
Local Government Coordination and
Preparation. The Summit was facilitated
by John Firman, IACP Director of Research and a final report of the Summit is
38 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
being prepared for the COPS Office by
Johns Hopkins University’s Division of
Public Safety Leadership. One of the key
outcomes of the Summit was the suggestion to establish a National Center for Campus Public Safety. Such an idea was already on the radar within IACLEA; however, this type of suggestion and attention will move us along at a much quicker
rate. It really places IACLEA at the cutting edge of 21st century campus law enforcement and security. I plan to ask for
Board of Director and Association endorsements of the final report and the establishment of the National Center for Campus Public Safety.
As a gesture of Association support, I
submitted a letter of congratulations to
Judge Michael Chertoff when he was confirmed as the new Secretary for U.S. Department of Homeland Security and to
The Honorable Alberto R. Gonzales when
he was confirmed as the new Attorney
General, U. S. Department of Justice. Both
of these gentlemen are in critical government positions that will have an impact
on how we conduct business in the field
of campus public safety.
I would like to bring to your attention
an individual from IACLEA that I have
known for as many years as she has been
a member. Her name is Susan Riseling
and she is the Chief of the University of
Wisconsin-Madison Police Department.
Why is it important that you get to know
this individual? Sue will be running for the
Vice President-at-Large at the 2005 IACP
conference in Miami. Many of our IACLEA
members are also members of the University and College Section of IACP.
Whatever we can do to get Sue elected,
we need to do. Thank you, Susan Riseling
for always moving the bar higher for our
membership.
In December, IACLEA was invited to
participate in the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Committee to the
National Center for State and Local Law
Enforcement Training. (see article page
8) IACLEA is now forging a partnership
with the National Center to deliver training at our Kansas City Conference. We
are seeking additional opportunities for
our membership to benefit from training
offered by the National Center. Malcolm
Adams, Division Chief, State and Local
Programs Division has been most helpful
in this process. Serving as the point position for this project was Steve Rittereiser,
Mountain Pacific Regional Director. Thank
you Steve for the 150% you give to our
organization.
See you in Kansas City!
Join Us in Kansas City
for IACLEA’s
47th Annual Conference
June 25-29, 2005
Links to area attractions
have been posted on the
IACLEA Web Site:
www.iaclea.org
GOT NEWS?
Have you received an award, been
interviewed by the media, moved
into new office space, retired,
accepted a new job, received a
promotion, received accreditation for
your department, or anything else
that might interest other IACLEA
members?
We want to hear
about it and
tell your colleagues
about it.
Mail the information (and photos) to:
Karen E. Breseman, Managing Editor,
Campus Law Enforcement Journal,
IACLEA, 342 North Main Street, West
Hartford, CT 06117-2507 or email to
kbreseman@iaclea.org
Strategic Planning Group Focuses on Domestic Preparedness Training Needs
Continued from page 8
Close coordination should be established and maintained with local and
state counterparts, federal agencies
(including the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Forces, Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), Federal
Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(ATF)), and state Offices of Emergency Management.
•
•
Campus law enforcement officials
need to establish and train on the issue of “who’s in charge” of a scene.
Under Congressional mandate, the
FBI will continue to have the lead
regarding law enforcement investigation of terrorist-related incidents.
However, campus law enforcement
will have immediate and continuing
campus venue responsibilities and
coordinate with other responding assets and agencies, including the FBI.
Future training must be driven by
identified developing trends and
techniques. Campus law enforcement
should be plugged in to the development of emerging trends and should
be actively involved in identifying
emerging threats, which in turn
should drive the focus of training.
•
•
•
All crisis management/emergency
response plans must be tested and
exercised on a multi-tiered basis
(table top, command post, full field/
field training exercises). Training
should include the executive officers of the campus.
Exercises should include all appropriate and affected agency representatives (campus administration, law
enforcement, facilities, academic, logistics, etc.).
Approach to training should be “all
hazards” in nature, to address response to terrorist incident, but also
to include ability to respond to natural disasters and other events.
•
Training should be standardized in
concepts, yet tailored to the unique
characteristics of each campus and
address its critical infrastructure, ethnic/cultural/exchange students, and
programs that might garner the focus of international or domestic terrorist groups.
•
Immediate near-focus should be on
campus preparedness threat assessments that identify potential threat
elements, the nature of the threat,
vulnerabilities of campus assets, and
types of threat elements.
The subcommittee also heard presentations from Georgeann C. Rooney of the
U.S. Secret Service, Paul M. Plaisted of
Justice Planning Management Associates,
Inc., and Brigadier Gen. Simon Perry of
the Israeli Police and Ministry of Public
Security.
Rooney, who is a threat assessment
specialist with the U.S. Secret Service’s
national threat assessment center, gave
Continued on page 40
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 39
Strategic Planning Group Focuses on Domestic Preparedness Training Needs
Continued from page 39
an overview of the Safe School Initiative.
This initiative is a joint study with the U.S.
Department of Education of school
shootings in elementary and secondary
schools in the U.S.
Plaisted gave a demonstration of an
online learning tool developed by his
company. The online tool allows local
agencies to administer online classes and
maintain records of students’ completion
of courses, as well as grades. Classes are
generally one hour in duration and can
be stopped and started again at a student’s
convenience. An online test is taken to
gauge the student’s grasp of the material.
Perry gave an overview of the structure of the Israeli Police, which has primary operational responsibility within the
borders of the State of Israel to protect
the public against terrorist activity. Perry
stressed the importance of operational
readiness and public cooperation in combating and preventing terrorism. “The
public needs to know who to call when
they see something [suspicious],” he said.
“They need to know also that when they
call, someone is going to listen and follow up…Students and faculty have to
know they have someone to talk to when
there’s a problem.”
In terms of resources, law enforcement
agencies need to conduct threat assessments to determine all foreseeable scenarios and invest in manpower and technology to deter terrorism, he said.
The subcommittee, chaired by Thomas P. Carey, director of security and
public safety at Bates College in Lewiston,
Maine, plans to conduct additional research and survey IACLEA members and
others to determine current and future
training needs in domestic preparedness.
40 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal
NOW OPEN FOR BUSINESS
IACLEA Logo Apparel
and Accessories
Now available to IACLEA members
online, http://www.iaclea.org, in the
Members Only area.
Campus Safety
and Security
Is Our Business . . .
Let Us Help You Improve
Your Institution’s
Effectiveness
Letter to the Editor
Continued from page 4
try, budgeting for the annual conference
was a wise investment for me and my
university.
Perhaps my one claim to IACLEA fame
was serving with Jerry Witsil (Princeton)
as a two-man committee appointed by
the Board of Directors to interrogate Peter Berry on the Rutgers campus as a candidate for the position of Executive Secretary. As I view the growth and development of the Association from that day
to this, it is evident that the team of Ochs
and Witsil made a wise decision when
recommending to the Board that this
young man from Connecticut be hired.
Since retiring in 1988 I remain an avid
CLEJ reader, and am impressed with the
articles discussing the techniques that have
been developed and implemented by
dedicated public safety directors to upgrade
and improve their programs. The IACLEA
training programs, strategic plan, information services, publications, video workshops,
and special training programs have had a
vital role to help public safety assume its
earned and deserved position as a vital
member of a university’s administration.
It appears that the protests,
demonstrations, teach-ins, sit-ins, building
IACLEA STORE
take-over, and the more violent actions
associated with campus public safety
during the Viet Nam era have passed.
However, the crimes associated with any
community continue, if not increase, on
many campuses. The professional
advancement and achievements of
campus security and police officers have
met these challenges with distinction and
reflect why public safety is no longer an
obscure campus agency. The 16 years of
being a “has been” have increased my
respect and admiration for the men and
women who are the current leaders in
this proud profession.
IACLEA, the glue that unites campus
public safety programs, has enjoyed and
will continue to enjoy unlimited success
as its leaders and members are dedicated
to assure that the Association never fails
to meet its core purpose: “To represent
and promote campus public safety.” Being confident that this will happen, it is
more than evident that campus public
safety has been recognized and accepted
as a superior law enforcement profession.
Bob Ochs, Honorary Member, IACLEA
Wilmington, NC
LEMAP is a program sponsored
by IACLEA for the purpose of
providing management consultation and technical assistance
to association members and
non-member campuses.
For More Information on
the Program
Contact Tessa Wilusz O’Sullivan at
the IACLEA Headquarters,
(860) 586-7517 Ext. 521 or by
email at tosullivan@iaclea.org.
To discuss the scope of your
review, contact our LEMAP
Coordinator, John Carpenter,
directly at (619) 594-6905 or email
at carpenter@sdsu.edu.
Protect Your Campus!
Desktop Anti-Theft
LCD Projector Security
Cables and Locks
Security Enclosures
Computer Case Locks
Electronic Central Alarms
Asset Tracking ID Tags
Sonic Shock Alarm
Electronic Central Alarm
Asset Tracking ID Tags
Computer Lab Anti-Theft
Electronic Central Alarms
LCD Projector Security
Laptop Anti-Theft
Cables and Locks
Motion Alarms
Asset Tracking ID Tags
Mobile Security Carts
PC Access Control
Biometrics (Fingerprint ID)
RFID (Radio Frequency ID)
Asset Recovery
Other Security Products
Tracking and Recovery Software
Asset Tracking ID Tags
Disk Drive Locks
3M Privacy Filters
Security Cables
Security Fasteners
College & University Pricing
For more details on these produc ts:
Call - (800) 451-7592 Ext. 710
U R L - w w w. S e c u re - I t . co m / 7 1 0
Your One Source For Computer Security Solutions
42 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal