Higher education institutions want their campuses to welcome diverse and ever-changing populations, promote free-flowing transit and encourage frequent high-profile (and often controversial) events—each of which introduces risks that can quickly escalate into crisis.
This article explores two key risk areas and outlines strategies for emergency response planning and risk management.
Effective risk management: Policies, plans and practice
Standard operating procedures, emergency response plans and consistent training ensure appropriate responses during crises by reducing confusion, improving coordination with first responders and providing a defensible decision-making framework. By investing in structured practices, institutions protect lives while mitigating liability, preserving operational continuity and strengthening their communities’ confidence.
Emergency response plans are the bedrock for any institution’s safety team and should address both individual one-off events and ongoing campus-wide action plans. It should include:
- Designated responsibilities: Clearly delineate the chain of command and specifically designate responsibilities for the response team, including alternative contacts for each role.
- Established communication plans: Pre-established communication channels enable individuals to rapidly provide information and updates to the response team. Individuals responsible for communicating with law enforcement should also have preestablished contacts with the relevant agencies, such as SWAT teams or bomb squads.
- Ensure appropriate length: Overly complex response plans are unmanageable for most safety teams and often result in increased confusion and delayed response times. Incorporate streamlined expectations in one to two pages while attaching the full SOPs as appendices. Leverage process charts and visual graphics for streamlined review and reducing unnecessary materials or information.
However, emergency plans are only as useful as their underlying standard operating procedures. Thus, it is important that institutions develop and regularly update procedures, including codifying existing practices, to promote consistency and allow for legal review and analysis of expected procedures.
Once adopted and annually thereafter, institutions should also conduct tabletop exercises and targeted drills to ensure that standard operating procedures accurately reflect the expectations of the campus’s community. These trainings can, and should, vary widely in scope and style based on the situation they are preparing for.
Bomb threats and active shooters
The dire prospect of a campus shooting or bombing has only been complicated by the dozens of institutions receiving false bomb threats and swatting hoaxes in recent weeks. And the legal and operational stakes in these scenarios are immense.
Beyond the immediate threat to life, institutions may also face lawsuits alleging negligent security, inadequate emergency protocols and failure to warn.
Institutions of higher learning must therefore adopt comprehensive response strategies, including:
- Active-threat standard operating procedures: Every institution should have written plans in place establishing response expectations when facing an active threat. Common elements should be: (a) communication plans, (b) designation of incident commanders, (c) predetermined staging areas (particularly for EMS) and (d) expectations for college personnel engagement/assistance. Furthermore, these plans should account for post-incident responses, such as counseling/accommodation resources and predesignated vigil locations.
- Threat assessment teams: These teams should leverage members of campus leadership, public safety and student affairs to proactively evaluate individuals exhibiting concerning behavior. Similarly, they should conduct site assessments with local law enforcement annually to identify weak points, bottlenecks and potential staging areas.
- Emergency notification systems: Federal and state laws require institutions to provide timely warnings and emergency notifications. As such, all users should receive regular scenario-based training to ensure they can send accurate and informative notices during emergencies. Furthermore, institutions should pre-draft messages that require little to no customization to minimize user errors and expedite the notification process.
Managing campus unrest and free speech
Institutions have long been centers for political activism, often in the form of constitutionally protected protests. However, these can occasionally cross into riots causing property damage, physical harm, educational disruption and severe reputational risks.
Institutions must carefully balance their community’s First Amendment rights with the need to preserve safety and order. To manage these risks, institutions should:
- Establish clear policies and procedures: Courts have consistently upheld institutions’ ability to impose content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions, provided they are narrowly tailored, applied consistently and written prior to enforcement. All institutions should document their expectations and make them reasonably available surrounding expressive activity on campus.
- Act consistently and decisively: Institutions repeatedly face safety and legal concerns because of inconsistent application or refusal to execute their standard operating procedures. Institutions should act swiftly and avoid diverging from historical practice without clear, documented explanations.
- Establish clear trespassing policies and procedures: Institutions should enact distinct procedures that clearly notify trespassing individuals, following specific state/local requirements.
Ever-evolving threats
Public safety risks in higher education cannot be eliminated, but proactive planning, clear policies and regular training can help manage them. Institutions that embrace comprehensive risk management will not only protect their communities but will strengthen their resilience, reputation and long-term success in the ever-evolving threat environment.
This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader should consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader’s specific circumstance.
