Report of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Campus Security

June 28, 2002

The Task Force was created in July 2000 with members appointed by both the University President and the Faculty Senate. Although the impetus for its creation was the issue of arming the campus police, the Task Force was given a much broader charge: examining the missions of those departments concerned with campus security and safety, assessing the sense of security of URI students and staff, and developing specific recommendations to improve campus safety and security. Needless to say, what might have been a rather mundane task took on a graver and more somber tone following the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

Our findings and recommendations are based on data from a variety of sources. Directors of the various university departments concerned with safety and security briefed the Task Force regarding their operations and provided it with extensive data. Members of the Task Force interviewed officials at other institutions in the region to gather data at comparable universities, and crime and law enforcement data published by the state and federal governments were examined for additional benchmarks. Questions concerning crime and feelings of safety on campus were developed and included in a survey that has been conducted annually in recent years. An open forum on campus safety and security was held in February 2002 and some members of the campus community submitted comments and suggestions via e-mail.

Whatever the point of comparison, be it similar universities or towns of approximately the same size, the University of Rhode Island is a relatively safe environment, and that fact is reflected in the sentiments of its students and staff. By federal law, colleges and universities are required to make public the numbers of certain crimes committed on campus each year. The rate of these crimes per 10,000 students on the Kingston campus in 2000 was far lower than at comparable universities.1 The rate of violent crimes2 at these campuses ranged from 1.4 times that of URI to 8.5 times higher; the rate of property crimes was 2 to 4 times higher.3

A similar comparison was made to all towns in Rhode Island with less than 17,000 population using the crime statistics reported to the R. I. State Police under the Uniform Crime Reporting program.4 By these statistics, the rate of violent crime (2 per 10,000) at URI in 2000 was well below the median (6.8), ranking URI alongside Foster, West Greenwich, Jamestown and Little Compton. The rate of property crime at URI (315.5 per 10,000) is higher than that of all these towns, however, and is twice the median of 157. The higher rate of property crime is due largely to the number of larceny/thefts (266) reported to the URI police. Larceny/theft is a nonviolent crime, usually committed without personal contact, and poses little threat to the physical safety of either community members or the police. In fact, although not included among the crimes required to be published by federal law, it is very common on college campuses. Nearby universities at which such statistics are available show rates similar to that of URI. 5

Preliminary results from a recent survey using a random sample of URI students reveal that 6.5 percent of 572 respondents were victimized by a crime on campus during the Fall 2001 semester.6 Unfortunately, space precluded asking students the nature of the crime; most, presumably, were thefts. While this figure may seem high, it is almost exactly the estimated rate for college-age students nationally: the most data from the National Crime Victimization survey estimates the rate of victimization for persons 16-19 years old to be 6.43.7

The same survey asked students about their feelings of safety on campus during the day and at night. On ten-point scale, with ten indicating "totally safe," the mean score for the day was 8.62 (safe) and for the night it was 6.74 (pretty safe). These data are consistent with another set collected annually by the Office of Residential Life. That office conducts a Quality of Life survey in which, among other things, students are asked how satisfied they are with the level of security inside and outside the residence halls. On a 4-point scale, with 4 = very satisfied, the average rating of inside security over the past three years has been 3.4; for outside security it has been between 3.2 and 3.3. 8

Thus, while the University provides a comparatively safe environment for students and staff, it is clear that there is room for improvement, and we have concluded that there are steps that should be taken to strengthen safety and security. Our recommendations, each of which has a detailed rationale, are included as appendices. What follows here is a brief statement of each. The appendices and statements are grouped in what seem to be logically related categories; thus the order in which they are presented does not reflect any sense of priority.

First, a new position should be created to provide leadership to the Police/Security Department, the Department of Safety and Risk Management and the newly formed Division of Parking Services and to coordinate their operations. The new position should be equivalent to that of an assistant vice president. The mission statement of the Department of Safety and Risk Management should be rewritten to reflect the manner in which that mission is to be accomplished within a University context. (Appendix A).

Second, the University's police and security staff should be increased to a size sufficient to maintain safety and security at an institution of this size and complexity. Moreover, entry-level educational requirements for sworn police officers should be raised to an associate's degree or 60 hours of college work, and additional screening devices and standards, specific to the University, to select recruits for training at the Police Academy should be developed and implemented. These might include the following: psychological testing, a written aptitude test and an interview with a board that is representative of the campus community. (Appendix B).

Third, the command structure of the Police/Security department should be reviewed and revised to clarify lines of authority and provide for more effective supervision and accountability. Further, a field-training program for new officers, an annual in-service training program for all personnel, and a formal, written system of evaluation for all personnel need to be developed and implemented. (Appendix C).

Fourth, although future events may warrant such action, arming the University police officers is not prudent at this time. To prepare for such an eventuality, the University should immediately develop and put into operation a process to increase the professionalization of the Police and Security Department. This process must include both individual training for the police and security officers and development of the organization as a whole. For their own safety, police and security officers should be provided with equipment such as body armor and body alarms. (Appendix D).

Fifth, a professional consultant should be retained to assist the Police and Security Department in developing a community-policing program and to provide the appropriate training to operate it. A community-policing program that would partner police/security officers with residence hall staff and students to identify and resolve security problems as they arise should be implemented, and then modified and extended to other buildings, teaming the police/security officers with the appropriate building staff. (Appendix E).

Sixth, the University Police and Security should immediately embark upon a process leading to professional recognition and eventually accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). (Appendix F)

Seventh, the police station needs immediate renovations to make it minimally adequate to meet the needs of the department over the next few years. In the longer term, but within a few years at best, the police department needs a new physical plant. Police and security officers must be provided with all of the equipment they require to perform their jobs. (Appendix G).

Eighth, the Emergency Management Guide needs to be updated and a long-range plan for building security should be developed. Video surveillance cameras should be installed in some areas of the campus, and the use of central station burglar alarms and building access control should be expanded. A procedure to coordinate the acquisition of property and security needs to be developed and implemented. (Appendix H).

Ninth, a consultant should be retained to prepare a lighting plan for campus that would balance aesthetics, light pollution and security. Routes from all major parking areas to the dormitories and class room buildings should be designated and provided with adequate lighting and blue light emergency phones. Routes from the Fine Arts and Flagg Road parking areas should be given a priority. An administrative mechanism to ensure prompt maintenance of the lighting system using security as a priority needs to be developed, and a system that encourages people to report lights that are not working through a light repair telephone number/e-mail address should be established and advertised. Finally, adequate maintenance staff must be provided to ensure that these repairs are made in a timely manner. (Appendix I)

Tenth, audience entry plans for public events, which are consistent and appropriate for various University venues, need to be developed. (Appendix J).

Members of the Task Force

Abu Bakr

Leo Carroll, Chair

Mark Chearino

Frances Cohen

Robert Drapeau

Kristen Hinz

James Jackson

Barbara Luebke

Jean Miller

Vincent Rose

---

Footnotes

1.The universities selected for comparison are the other five New England state universities and the University of Delaware. The units for comparison are the main campuses of each.

2.These crimes refer only to those known to campus authorities, of course. Differences may thus reflect, to some degree, differences in the willingness of victims to report the offenses as well as differences in the accuracy with which reports are recorded. Violent crimes include murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible sexual assault, aggravated assault and robbery. Property crimes include burglary, motor vehicle theft and arson.

3. URI differs from most other institutions in the proportion of its students who live off-campus. When this is taken into account, by computing the rates on the basis of the resident student population, the ratios are lower, in the order of 2 to 4 times greater for all crimes, but the rates for URI remain the lowest of the seven universities selected for comparison.

4. R. I. State Police, Uniform Crime Reporting Unit, "Crime in Rhode Island 2000: A Statewide Compilation of Statistics and Reference Guide," (Scituate, RI: R. I. State Police, 2001). This report does not provide a population estimate for URI as it does for the towns. For this comparison, an estimated population of 9000 was used.

5. Using the total student population as a base, the rate of larceny at URI was 166 per 10,000 in 2000. At the University of Massachusetts (Amherst), it was 128.3 and at the University of Connecticut (Storrs), it was 160.

6.These data were supplied by Dr. Mark Wood who conducts an annual "Campus Climate Checkup" survey.

7. Callie M. Rennison, "Criminal Victimization 2000," National Crime Victimization Survey (U. S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 2001), p. 4.

8. Information supplied to the Task Force by Chip Yensan, Director of Residential Life, at a meeting, December 7, 2001.