Marshall: I would characterize non-compliance as you don’t know what you don’t know and when you don’t ask, you still don’t know what you are responsible for. This was singularly the greatest area of concern, which when identified, we corrected. In some cases, it was the responsibility to provide and coordinate EOPs with county authorities or the local office of emergency management. Other areas dealt with responsibilities for mental health awareness and counseling. Another area dealt with how and what is considered timely alert and warning, and in most cases written policies that formally addressed safety and security issues. These are some areas that were corrected by using the self-assessment tool and developing a security binder, which was part of the feedback from one of the institutions; have a single binder that would be the repository for information and documentation required to be on hand to do the assessment and the follow-up, in-person and on-site peer review.
McLelland: Training on how to be in compliance with certain aspects of law and or training that is required by the law. Training costs money and resources, but as Bill McElrath mentioned, through the project we’ve taken the opportunity to offer more training and bring resources together at minimal costs.
CS: Are these vulnerabilities or areas of non-compliance being addressed? If so, how is the state as a whole addressing them? How are the individual institutions addressing these challenges?
McElrath: If there is an identified pattern of noncompliance with a particular question, the committee’s working group looks into the matter. Will training resolve it? If so, we’ll set up a training course. Will funding resolve it? Maybe we can direct someone to a grant process that
might assist them. Sometimes the lack of a policy might simply be addressed by advising an institution to contact a similar institution that already has a policy on a particular topic. One of the greatest parts of this process is the interaction between institutions on how best to address concerns. Each institution does not have to reinvent the wheel.
The New Jersey Office of Homeland Security has also been instrumental in guiding this process and helping uncover solutions to problems that we have uncovered. They have taken on both a leadership and guidance role, as well as providing financial support.
Marshall: There is universal acceptance of our work, and now there is legislation that amplifies the requirement and specifies what needs to be addressed in higher education institutions’ EOPs. The result is an energized effort to meet certain deadlines outlined in the legislation. We have provided training and will continue to do so at the various levels of responsibility. The presidents who make up the campus safety and security committee have been extremely supportive of the subject matter experts who comprise the working group and work aggressively to maintain the current momentum.
McLelland: I feel the main purpose of this project was to help schools identify their vulnerabilities and give them a means to address those vulnerabilities by tapping into resources they may not have even realized they have, like their peer institutions and other state agencies. Schools are asking for what they need now, and they’re looking for ways to partner with other institutions and agencies whenever possible.
CS: How could your program be improved?
McElrath: I hate to bring up money issues. The New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness provided us with grant dollars to sustain the infrastructure of the survey and the peer review process, which has been extremely helpful in both developing and running the program. Without their assistance, we wouldn’t be where we are. Individual schools, however, may be struggling to find ways to cover the costs associated with certain measures. When you get down to basics, there is always a cost behind improving your services.
Marshall: We are constantly looking for ways to streamline the process and get feedback from all of the institutions. Currently there are no dedicated administrative resources, which puts a strain on the resources that we do have. We have overcome this by having a very active and engaged working group and a part-time administrator who keeps things on track.
McLelland: We need to find a way to ensure that when a point of contact from a school separates from that school (retires, takes another job, etc.) that we are notified and a new person from the school is designated as the POC. This will help ensure there’s no lapse in the process. Ideally, each school should have not only a designated POC but should also have a back-up person who is trained.
CS: What is the future of this program? How will it be maintained and improved?
McElrath: The future of the program is positive. One of the things we realized is that we did not want the process to be stagnant. On an annual basis, we review trends in safety and current legislation relating to campus safety and discuss the addition of questions to the tool. We are looking to add three questions to the tool relating to the reporting of sex assaults on campus, the requirement for emergency operations plans and the security of network infrastructures.
Marshall: We have been fortunate to have had a great relationship with the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness who through the efforts of the previous chair of the New Jersey Presidents Council (Sister Rosemary Jefferies who is president of Georgian Court University), provided funding that has supported this effort. The guidance provided by Dr. Robert Altenkirch (former president of the New Jersey Institute of Technology) as the first chair of the CSSC and the leadership of President Paul Gaffney from Monmouth University currently serving as the chair of the CSSC have driven this successful effort.
What has been crafted is a living and breathing process that can be modified as required to address trends, legislation or other circumstances. It is an example of what can be accomplished when there is a true collaborative and collective effort that shares in the responsibility of working and addressing issues and concerns of government, academia and the private sector in meeting the expectations of parents and students in providing a safe and secure environment to learn and live and become productive members of society.
McLelland: As new laws are enacted, we as a collective group review the law and identify what questions to add to the survey so that it acts as a comprehensive checklist for schools to refer to when they need to review or measure their compliance with applicable rules and regulations. We need to identify ways continue to fund the program once the grant dollars are exhausted, but we’re hopeful that won’t be difficult to do.
To view the program scope, self-assessment survey and peer reviewer report, click here.
Related Articles:
- How New Jersey’s Higher Education Peer Review Program Works
- Timely Warning vs. Emergency Notification: What’s the Big Difference?
- Clery Reporting: Whose Job Is It Anyway?
- Florida State Aims for ‘Easy Button’ Solution to Mass Notification
- Emergency Managers Can Be Invaluable Resources
- Your Campus Emergency Notification Check-List
