5 Safety Strategies to Adopt If Your Campus Hosts Youth Programs
Institutions of higher education often host activities that involve minors. Here’s how you can ensure their safety and security while they are visiting your campus.
3. Ensure There Is Adequate Supervision
There is no denying that education and training play a key role in actively preventing and responding to cases of child abuse, sexual abuse or neglect. Adequate supervision plays an equally important role in safeguarding minors from the risk of abuse or maltreatment. But what does “adequate supervision” entail, and what steps can institutions take to help ensure that activities involving minors are properly overseen?
Since all university youth activities are not created equal, a number of factors should be considered when developing and implementing strategies to adequately supervise minors on campus.
For instance, while it is recommended that institutions establish minimum staff-to-participant ratios, a blanket approach may neglect the needs and abilities of program participants and may fail to produce ideal results. Instead, institutions should consider adopting supervisory ratios that take the age and skill level of participants into account, as well as other factors, such as the nature of activities, the environment in which they are taking place and the size of the program.
To illustrate, consider an overnight camp with a wide age range among participants. It would be prudent for such a camp to carefully plan how activities will be clustered and sleeping accommodations will be assigned.
To help navigate similar scenarios, many well-established youth-serving organizations have worked on developing sound supervision practices, which may also be suitable for university youth activities.
For example, supervisory ratios recommended by the American Camp Association (ACA) provide a basis for setting the minimum number of staff needed to ensure adequate levels of supervision. Such ratios are adjusted depending on the age of campers and the type of camp (day or overnight).
Another example is the two-deep leadership approach used by the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). The intent of this approach is to limit the opportunity for one-on-one interaction between staff and youth participants. These efforts not only help mitigate risks to minors but can also help staff protect themselves from false allegations.
To further strengthen supervision practices, facilitators of university youth activities should be careful not to ignore how minors are accounted for throughout the length of the programs. To assist with this, institutions can provide facilitators of university youth activities with guidance on the development of sign-in and sign-out procedures. At a minimum, such procedures should give programs a sense of how to document attendance, the type of verification needed during sign-out and methods for obtaining advance parental consent detailing who is authorized to pick up youth participants.
Additionally, it may be beneficial to provide guidance on restroom protocols and expectations for supervision in different settings, such as during transportation, field trips, the overnight component of the program and emergencies.
In the end, an active approach to supervision (in which systems to account for program participants are in place, activities are routinely monitored and staff are continuously vigilant and engaged with participants) will contribute to the overall safety of minors involved in university youth activities.
4. Define Your Pre-Employment Screening Protocols
Another valuable step in managing risks associated with having minors on campus is to properly vet individuals working with minors. While criminal background checks are perhaps the most prevalent technique used to accomplish this, it would be wise to view them as a component of overall screening protocols and not necessarily the single source for screening personnel. Instead, seek to implement a balanced combination of screening methods.
For instance, the Centers for Disease & Control (CDC) suggests that youth-serving organizations consider tailoring their hiring process to ensure that employment applications, candidate interviews and reference checks provide relevant insights concerning individuals slated to work with minors. This approach may yield information on previous interactions with minors, potential red flags and may even function as a tool to discourage offenders.
As alluded to earlier, criminal background checks are a fairly standard element of youth protection efforts. However, it is important to note that the types of background checks used may vary from institution to institution. Because a number of background check options are available, a thorough assessment may be needed to determine which approach best meets the needs of the institution.
For instance, state background checks may produce results for offenses committed within a particular state; however, national background checks (typically the more expensive route) will likely produce a more complete summary of a person’s criminal history.
Being aware of such differences, along with having knowledge of statutes governing the type of background checks needed for individuals working with minors, will help institutions select an approach that is both fitting and in line with applicable statutory requirements.
5. Ongoing Evaluation and Support Is a Must
While the implementation of university-wide protection of minors policies is essential, institutions are quickly realizing that having policies in place is only half the job. To ensure campus youth protection efforts are successful, institutions must also implement processes to evaluate the effectiveness and adoption of such efforts. This will help institutions proactively identify and address areas of concern and provide facilitators of youth activities with necessary support.
While a more detailed framework for evaluating youth activities can be found in the College and University Auditor article, “Monitoring the Effectiveness of Youth Protection Efforts,” two critical questions must be answered when seeking to implement such efforts:
- What are the core areas being monitored?
- How will monitoring activities be carried out?
While there may be differences in the core monitoring areas selected by institutions, at a minimum, such areas should align with university protection of minors policies and applicable child protection laws. Core monitoring areas may include levels of supervision, appropriateness of interactions, protocols used for accounting for minors, adequacy of camp rules and conduct expectations, compliance with staff screening and training requirements, proficiency of mandatory reporting laws, collection of parental consent and waivers, and verification of insurance.
The University of Florida monitors such areas by using a number of techniques, including integrating key compliance standards into its central tracking systems, issuing program scorecards, conducting onsite monitoring visits and providing facilitators of youth activities with self-monitoring tools. Institutions can use these types of tools to measure overall program effectiveness, promote accountability, rate the overall level of compliance, track year-over-year progress, jointly analyze results with programs and plan for future activities.
These Strategies Can Mitigate Your Risk
Year after year, institutions across the country welcome thousands of children to their campuses. High school students are filled with excitement as they step foot on the same field where their favorite athletes played football. Others are eager to learn about existing university programs and upon completing their short visit, are just as eager to apply for future admission. Parents smile as they drop their kids off in an environment that provides their children with cutting edge insights and enriching educational experiences.
Many institutions recognize the value of creating such opportunities for minors and are actively seeking to continue this tradition by implementing strategies to protect minors on campus and mitigate associated risks. While the particulars of campus youth protection efforts may vary from institution to institution, the core elements and considerations presented in this article provide a basis that may assist institutions in the enhancement, development, and/or implementation of such efforts.
Omar Andujar, CCEP is the director of youth conference services for the University of Florida
If you appreciated this article and want to receive more valuable industry content like this, click here to sign up for our FREE digital newsletters!
Related Content
Leading in Turbulent Times: Effective Campus Public Safety Leadership for the 21st Century
This new webcast will discuss how campus public safety leaders can effectively incorporate Clery Act, Title IX, customer service, “helicopter” parents, emergency notification, town-gown relationships, brand management, Greek Life, student recruitment, faculty, and more into their roles and develop the necessary skills to successfully lead their departments. Register today to attend this free webcast!
