Community College of INTERNAL AUDIT 2007€¦ · College constituents generally believe that...

Community College of Philadelphia

CAMPUS SECURITY INTERNAL AUDIT 2007

1

ADMINISTRATIVE AUDIT

CAMPUS SECURITY

Table of Contents

Page Number

Part I - Executive Summary I. A Brief History of Security Management 2 at the Community College of Philadelphia II. Current Mission, Goals, Values and 8 Objectives for Campus Security III. Current Status of Campus Security Operations 10

IV. Summary, Recommendations, and Resource 13 Resource Requirements

2007-08 Financial Requirements Associated with Security 21 Improvement Plan 2008-09 Financial Requirements Associated with Security 24 Improvement Plan 2009-10 Financial Requirements Associated with Security 26 Improvement Plan Attachment A – Security Administrative Analysis Trend Report 2006

2

October, 2007 PART I - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. A BRIEF HISTORY OF SECURITY MANAGEMENT AT THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF PHILADELPHIA

The Community College of Philadelphia’s original academic facilities were housed in a nine-story building with one principal entrance and a secondary entrance which provided access to an attached parking facility. Except for a third shift fire watch, the original campus functioned with little or no security presence. In response to specific incidents (e.g., street crime and street protests), guards were placed at the two entrance doors on some occasions. At no time was there formal checking of ID cards during either day or evening class times. Security staff were contract employees and not expected to provide any services to students other than addressing incidents involving disruptive behavior. The information-giving aspect of security, now an important component of the College’s security services, was not a job requirement. The College had a central information desk in its main lobby, and students seeking any form of information about the College were referred to that main desk. No specific managerial staffing was provided for campus security. The contracted security guards reported to the Director of Facility Operations who was a former policeman. Classroom incidents, which were rare, were typically handled by the faculty member in collaboration with the appropriate student services personnel. The most troublesome incidents in the 1960s and 1970s were created by individuals, who were not affiliated with the College, entering the campus with criminal intent. There were a few incidents of major crimes involving stabbings and armed robberies. Then, as now, theft of personal property was a problem when unsecured items were left unattended.

The notion of campus security as a highly visible presence that had a student service dimension did not begin to emerge as a College priority until the move to the permanent location in 1983. The new campus provided a whole new set of security challenges for the College. As opposed to one principal entrance, it had many entrances scattered over three principal classroom buildings. Monitoring and control of entrance was more difficult, which was exacerbated by enrollments that had grown severalfold from the original 11th Street levels. Adding to the substantially increased populations and more complex building configuration was the fact that the College was now located in a neighborhood which was on the edge of one of Philadelphia’s higher crime areas. The gentrification and redevelopment that occurred dramatically in the late 1980s and 1990s, and greatly changed the external environment surrounding the College, was only then just beginning. While street crime and safety was not really ever a significant problem during the hours that the College was open, during the late evening hours, drug and street crimes were common. Significant student and staff concern arose with respect to safety on campus, particularly during the extended day class hours. This perception of lack of safety, despite facts to the contrary, continues as an issue for some potential students and staff.

3

In response to the real and perceived issues, College security operations were

gradually transformed. The largest contract security firm in the City (SpectaGuard) was employed to provide a significant security guard presence during both the day and extended evening hours. A formal security department was established with professional leadership. Visible security posts were established at many entrances; and a roving security presence, both inside and outside the campus, was established to monitor for potential security problems and help allay student and staff concerns about the safety of the campus.

During the 1980s, the role and comportment of campus security became a

significant student issue. An active student government and student newspaper frequently questioned the competency of the College’s contracted security staff. Charges of non-professionalism and over-fraternization with students were common. Complaints of both too little and too much security were common. The many and vocal opinions expressed about security required the College to expand its commitment to clarifying its expectations for security staff, and strengthening training programs provided to campus security. College constituents generally believe that in-house security staff, appropriately trained and with greater expected job longevity than contracted security, were a superior route for the College to take. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the College expanded its staff of in-house security and generally gave the in-house security staff more responsibility than contracted security employees.

In 1986, the College began to implement a master plan that established regional

centers at various geographic points in the city. At first contracted guards were used at these sites as the centers tended to be small in size and typically housed in leased facilities. In 1990, the new off-campus space master plan called for larger owned regional centers. In response, the first center to be established was in West Philadelphia at 4725 Chestnut Street. As these centers were constructed, each was assigned an in-house working security supervisor who would be in nominal control of the security contingent at that center. The security staff working under this person were provided by an outside contractor.

The periodic funding difficulties that characterized all of the 1990s caused a

reconsideration of the College’s approach to security. Two significant changes were implemented. The College rebid its contracted security with the goal of reducing the cost per hour that was spent on contracted security. The assumption made was that, with a larger in-house staff and a somewhat lesser role defined for the contacted security, additional savings would be possible by moving away from SpectaGuard which was at the time one of the most expensive of the contracted security firms to utilize. The second key development was the introduction of a substantial use of technology into the College’s management of its Security Program. Closed circuit TV (CCTV) was installed in key areas of the main campus, and eventually at the three Regional Centers. The CCTV system made it possible to monitor and review activity throughout the campus from the central command post at the entrance to the Mint Building. The CCTV system, which provided a video recording of events in monitored spaces, greatly aided campus

4

security in identifying the sources of campus security problems, most notably individuals responsible for theft (historically the greatest source of incidents on campus). The advent of cameras had a positive impact of security incidents on campus and promoted a more efficient usage of the available guard pool.

Another key development in the late 1990s was the introduction of electronic

locks with ID card type access. Initially used only in a few areas, these access control systems have the benefit of determining both when and who has access to the secured spaces and provides an opportunity to easily change individuals eligible for access to space electronically.

Based upon the positive experimentation with surveillance systems and electronic

access controls in the 1990s, a more aggressive-wide approach toward the use of these strategies has been put in place in the last five years. The Center for Business and Industry (CBI), which opened in 2003, was designed with integrated security systems controlled from the central command post in the lobby of CBI. Electronic locks are used on all principal spaces, and the CCTV system has the potential to be integrated with the lock system in a way that affords visual record of entry and exit from all the spaces. To date, this capability has not been fully implemented. The “almost smart” building approach used in CBI has greatly strengthened the capabilities of the security staff to manage CBI with a limited staff.

Another key development in Security over the past six years has been the careful

attention to security in the design of new buildings and remodeling. The Northwest Regional Center, which opened in 1999, was the first building designed with a high degree of consciousness with respect to effective management of security operations. The two buildings at the Northwest Center were designed with one entranceway that is controlled by a security command post. The design of the building facilitates easy monitoring of activity and allows a small guard staff with the CCTV system and a single point of entry to do a highly effective job of monitoring and controlling activity on campus to promote a very safe environment. The notion of a single point of entry and full security guard oversight of the entry was taken a step further in CBI. In many respects, CBI reflects the College’s best thinking at present about comprehensive approaches effective for security. The building design, use of advanced security technology, and the assurance of a highly trained guard staff always in place at the central security location has allowed the building to operate without significant incidents since it opened in January 2003.

An important change in the last few years has been the reconsideration of the

quality of contracted security that should be employed by the College. The experiment in the 1990s with a lower-cost firm was deemed not successful. The quality of guards provided was not consistent, and the level of training and oversight provided was not always deemed to be adequate. In 2003, the security contract was rebid, and the College elected to return to one of the premier security firms within the Philadelphia region, Allied (formerly SpectaGuard). Allied provides better compensation to its guards, has a

5

lower turnover rate than is normative for the industry standard, and has a much stronger commitment to customized training programs to reflect the needs of the client.

A key change in campus security over time has been the evolution of security

staff from an exclusive focus on building control and access to also becoming a source of information and service to students and staff. Terminals were added to the security guard stations in the 1980s. Initially these terminals served primarily as a way for security staff to validate students who entered the building without ID cards at times when ID cards were required for entry. Eventually, a college-wide events schedule was developed and served as a resource to campus security to help them direct visitors and in-house staff to special events occurring on campus. More recently, an increasing emphasis has been placed on training security staff to be able to understand institutional processes and, as the first point of contact for many visitors and students, serve in a role of being able to answer key questions about the institutional processes and provide meaningful direction as to how students and visitors should proceed to address their reasons for being on campus.

The evolution of campus security over the decades of the College’s operations

highlights the issues that currently confront the College in its management of its security program. The issues under consideration at the time this audit was prepared include:

(1) Clarifying institutional expectations for the role and functions that

campus security is expected to play; (2) Finding ways to ensure that the College is prepared to address

major campus emergencies as could occur from an armed hostile intruder or terroristic event;

(3) Finding the right balance between contracted and in-house

security; (4) Clarifying the nature of training programs that would be optimal to

ensure a fully effective in-house and contracted security staff;

(5) Identifying and implementing affordable campus security technology and balancing budget expenditures on technology versus people;

(6) Defining future priorities for the use of technology in the

management of the security services;

(7) Defining the role of campus security in an organization which aspires to be student-centered. This requires balancing the role of security as a form of concierge service providing guidance to students, staff and visitors and solving problems; and the role of security as the watchful eye

6

of the institution striving to provide a secure and safe environment for students, staff and property;

(8) Providing and maintaining a trained security staff in the context of

an employee base that is mobile and typically less likely to commit to a long period of time at the College either because of new career opportunities or reassignment by the contract manager;

(9) Understanding best practices in place at other urban community

colleges as one basis for setting priorities for future allocations;

(10) Developing buildings’ specifications for renovations and new construction which will optimize the College’s achievement of its security goals; and

(11) Strengthening the performance of campus security in the College’s

overall safety and risk-management programs.

The Aftermath of the Virginia Tech Incident

This audit was completed in early spring 2007 well before the horrific events of April 16, 2007 on the Virginia Tech campus. On this and every campus in the country, the events that day triggered an increased awareness of vulnerability of campus constituents to violent actions by one or a few people, and demonstrated vividly the vulnerability that all college campuses have in trying to both prevent and react correctly to incidents like those which occurred at Virginia Tech. The College’s Emergency Response Plan has, for many years, included tactics for addressing a scenario involving an armed hostile intruder. Indeed, tabletop exercises undertaken by the College’s Emergency Response Team earlier in the year had focused on a scenario that was eerily similar to what actually played out at Virginia Tech. What the Virginia Tech incident demonstrated was how incomplete and naïve much thinking on campuses is with respect to the management of grave incidents that like the one which occurred. Among the many lessons learned from the Virginia Tech incident were:

(1) The absolute importance of communication devices which enable timely notification to all campus constituents about an incident as it unfolds; and the ability to, through good communications, keep as many individuals as possible away from a life-threatening or dangerous incident.

(2) The need to rehearse response to potential incidents so that all involved

campus constituents are aware of the roles and protocols that must be put in place immediately to ensure the least amount of harm to campus constituents and property.

7

(3) Aberrant behavior cannot be predicted, and institutions are often unable to

identify troubled individuals capable of great harm that was inflicted on the Virginia Tech students.

While the Virginia Tech incident may or may not have been completely

preventable, there is general agreement that had the university been better prepared to respond, the loss of life and level of tragedy could have been greatly reduced. To help CCP respond effectively in a major event, several things must be in place: comprehensive communication tools and strategies; a clear and fully understood incident leadership and management plan; and a response to incidents that is rehearsed so that roles and responsibilities of individuals and offices are understood and carried out in a timely fashion. The audit recommendations are intended to ensure that each of these considerations are addressed by the College.

On August 31, 2007, the College collaborated with the City of Philadelphia’s

Counter Terrorism Bureau Major Incident Response Team and the Philadelphia Police Department to conduct a hostile-intruder drill. The drill allowed both the external emergency response teams and the College to test their procedures. The results of the drill identified both strengths and weaknesses in the College’s emergency response procedures. Under the leadership of the Cabinet and the Emergency Response Management Team, the College’s Emergency Response Plans are being strengthened based upon the experiences and findings from the drill.

8

II. CURRENT MISSION, GOALS, VALUES AND OBJECTIVES FOR CAMPUS SECURITY

Mission

Campus security supports the College’s Mission by helping to maintain a physical

environment at all of its locations that:

• both in fact, and in perception, is known to be safe by all students, faculty, staff and visitors; and

• supports the realization of a student-centered and learning-centered campus where students from all backgrounds feel welcome and able to achieve their educational goals.

Goals

I. We will preserve a campus environment that is conducive to the pursuit of

educational goals in support of the College mission. II. We will ensure the personal safety of all College constituencies and

protection of all College facilities and equipment. III. We will support a campus culture that values the diverse backgrounds of

all College constituencies. IV. We will keep knowledgeable of emerging technologies and practices in

the Security field and adopt those most promising as appropriate.

Core Values The Community College of Philadelphia’s Security Department established core values which are directly harmonious to the college’s core values; Integrity, teamwork, dedication to excellence, leadership, service to the college community and respect for the individual. These are values worthy of a great college organization, and we believe we should incorporate them as anchor points in every decision we make. Our core values provide us with a means of not only guiding but also evaluating our operations, our planning and our vision for the future.

Objectives

A. We will operate in compliance with all local, State and Federal regulations

as they specifically apply to the Security Department. (Supports Goals 1, 2).

B. We will deliver a timely and effective response to terroristic threats and

other man-made and natural disasters. (Supports Goals 1, 2, 4).

9

C. We will develop appropriate protocols in support of providing timely

communications and information sharing with our colleagues, students, guests and visitors. (Supports Goals 1, 3).

D. We will provide support for the staging of special events, assist in the

transition to new services and procedures. (Supports Goals 1, 2, 3, 4). E. We will recruit, hire and train a fully competent and qualified staff.

(Supports Goals 1, 2, 3, 4) F. We will develop and maintain educational training programs for the

College community to enhance our ability to render the services the department is charged with delivering. (Supports Goals 1, 2, 3, 4)

G. We will be the first responder in medical emergencies. (Supports Goals 2,

4) H. We will assist in development and review of design standards for new and

renovated College facilities to ensure effective security. (Supports Goals 1, 2, 3, 4).

I. We will maintain an environment in which physical risks to students, staff

and visitors are minimized. (Supports Goals 1, 2). J. We will maintain an environment which is perceived as safe and secure.

(Supports Goals 1, 2, 3, 4). K. We will operate efficiently by taking maximum advantage of available

resources. (Supports Goals 1, 4) L. We will enforce applicable College Policies and Procedures. (Supports

Goals 1, 2, 3, 4). M. We will support an effective College judicial procedure. (Supports Goals

1, 2, 3). N. We will responsibly maintain and use equipment and vehicles assigned to

the department for its use. (Supports Goals 1, 2, 4). O. We will establish and maintain productive relationships with local police,

fire and emergency authorities. (Supports Goals 1, 2, 3)

10

III. CURRENT STATUS OF CAMPUS SECURITY OPERATIONS During the beginning stages of the audit, an environmental scanning process was used to identify the current strengths and weaknesses of security operations. The process was augmented by additional research during the course of completing the audit. The following summary observations were derived from the assessment procedures. Current Strengths of Campus Security Operations

1. Growing professionalism of security. College employees report greater sense of professionalism during interactions with security-they seemed to have the answers and if they do not, they will try to help find the needed information. Most guards at posts are consistently alert and attentive to their duties.

2. Many aspects of security are transparent to the user. Cited was the feeling

of being in a secure environment without an overwhelming sense of security. Unlike many office buildings, the College desires to be warm and welcoming to students, staff and visitors.

3. Ready and actively responsive: Security is normally responsive when an

issue arises and has adequate “back-up” and proper supervision.

4. Responsive to administrative concerns: security has created a solid structure within its department for establishing clear goals and mission objectives.

5. Main campus and regional centers are safe. There are relatively few

serious security incidents at any of the College’s sites.

6. There is relatively limited staff turnover. Past issues with frequent guard turnover has been greatly reduced. This permits the student and staff service dimension of campus security to be more successful.

7. Guards are generally seen as courteous and helpful. Lapses occur most

frequently when short-term replacements are assigned to the account.

8. Formal training programs tied to College’s goals for security operations are in place.

9. Relationships with local Philadelphia police and fire units are positive and

generally well coordinated.

11

Current Challenges for Campus Security Operations

1. Communication flows are occasionally incomplete between security and

other departments and prevents effective collaboration in some circumstances.

2. There are technical shortcomings with respect to communication,

surveillance and computerized tour system tools. Communication among staff and with students during emergencies is difficult to do well with current resources.

3. Institutional financial constraints prevent full implementation of current

goals for security operations, particularly in the area of expanding the use of technology.

4. Developing an efficient means to collect incident data, and communicating

incident information effectively with concerned administrative staff. The current approach is highly manual and not web-based. Analytical reports of incident have to be prepared by hand.

5. Integrating the security data-collection system with Banner system.

Currently, student information cannot be integrated with the College’s incident reporting efforts.

6. Optimizing staff deployment for maximizing overall effectiveness of

security and achieving operating efficiency. Better use of technology could reduce the need of the amount of guard staffing, especially at the Main Campus.

7. Some faculty and student concerns remain about the perceived safety of

the main campus at night. Despite a very low level of incidents, many faculty, staff and students express concerns about feeling safe during extended day hours when many offices are closed and pedestrian traffic inside and outside the campus is limited.

8. College community is not yet fully capable of optimally handling all

categories of major emergencies. Responses to emergencies are inconsistent. Communication tools are not uniformly in place. Some offices and staff do not follow the procedures outlined in the College’s Emergency Response Plan.

9. Not all faculty and staff have the skills needed to deal with inappropriate

student behavior inside the classroom or at service locations. Some incidents escalate because faculty or staff lack conflict resolution skills. A related concern has been the failure of some staff to report incidents on a

12

timely basis thus allowing initially minor incidents to escalate into potentially more serious situations.

10. An integrated city-wide response to major emergencies is not fully in

place. The College is forced to make emergency planning decisions in isolation.

11. Emergency call devices are not distributed uniformly throughout the

classrooms, corridors and exterior locations. This makes communications with some classrooms impossible in an emergency. There are some campus locations where calling about a medical or physical safety emergency is difficult.

13

IV. SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS,AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS

The security and safety self-audit team developed fifteen separate objectives

meant to support the mission statement and goals established for the Security and Safety

group. Each of these objectives were reviewed and suggestions as to how measures

could be implemented to satisfy the objective in support of the mission and goals of the

group were developed. In the fall of 2005 a survey of staff and students was conducted.

Incident patterns for the past several years were analyzed to understand patterns by

location and time. A wide range of literature on campus security practices and safety was

reviewed. The Manager of Campus Security is active in the Regional Higher Education

Security Director group. Contacts in that organization have been useful to understand

best practices at other area colleges. The information derived from these sources was

used to select the most relevant of the many possible suggestions in each objective. This

approach was followed in order to have the most beneficial impact in addressing the

issues described in the report.

In general, respondents to the survey and interviews held during the audit were

positive in their overall perception of safety on campus. Most comments seemed focused

on improvements to existing services and operations as opposed to a total redesign of

security operations. Several key themes emerged. Many of the respondents consider

adequate lighting as very important in establishing a sense of security at the College.

Additionally, across all groups of respondents, the visual presence of security officers is

felt to be important. Students diverge from faculty on the subject of additional cameras

(CCTV) being required to enhance the feeling of safety on campus. Students felt that

cameras were more important than the faculty did. With regard to exterior security, the

issue that causes the most respondents to feel apprehensive about their safety is that of

walking to their vehicle or to public transit stops. Students and faculty/staff again

associate different levels of importance to the provision of escort services with faculty

and staff not associating as much importance to the service. The following

14

recommendations were developed as being the most important considering both

feasibility and potential impact on achievement of the objective.

Security Audit Recommendations

Objective A - We will operate in compliance with all local, state and federal

regulations as they specifically apply to the Security and Safety group.

● Acquire and install a comprehensive campus security Incident

Management system software application which will enable the

Security and Safety group to efficiently gather records, analyze

patterns and create reports for state and federal agencies as

required by various laws. Ideally this system should be able to

integrate to the College portal for dissemination of information.

● Improve access to and re-design the current Security web page and

portal to deliver mandated information more efficiently

Objective B - We will deliver a timely and effective response to terroristic

threats and other man-made and natural disasters.

● Improve campus awareness of appropriate responses to campus

emergencies through better communication of the Emergency

Response Plan and providing training opportunities to ensure

understanding of the Plan.

● Develop an overall comprehensive communications system to

allow security to engage and establish effective communications

with all College groups. As a first step the acquisition and

deployment of emergency communications systems and tools will

allow security to maintain contact with key College staff and the

ERMT, as well as the general College community.

15

● Strengthen support for the Emergency Response management

Team (ERMT). Develop and incorporate various table-top

exercises to evaluate institutional response to critical incidents

which may affect the operations of the institution.

● Collaborate with external emergency response and public safety

agencies to develop and practice a coordinated response to campus

emergencies.

● Utilize the results of tabletop exercises and drills to improve

campus management of emergencies.

Objective C - We will develop appropriate protocols in support of providing

timely communications and information sharing with our colleagues,

students, guests and visitors.

● Develop a written procedure on communication protocol as a

means to standardize expectations with respect to student and staff

communications.

Objective D - We will provide support for the staging of special events and

assist in the transition to new services and procedures.

● There is a long standing problem with effective communications

between events management and other college stakeholders

including the security group. The full implementation of

“Resource 25” a College owned application that coordinates

events, meetings and course sessions and their scheduling is

strongly encouraged. This application will not only communicate

information on the event to security, but also create the necessary

requests to support the use of facilities. This will alleviate the

communications issues that can impede event management and

help ensure appropriate security support for College events.

16

Objective E - We will recruit, hire train and retrain a fully competent and

qualified staff.

● Collaborate with HR to ensure recruitment strategies maximize

quality of candidate pool.

● Develop and maintain a comprehensive library of training

materials. Incorporate the use of technology in the delivery of these

training modules where possible.

● Continue a regular training program for all guards that ensures that

all staff are trained in all key areas related to job duties.

Objective F - We will develop and maintain educational training programs

for the College community to enhance our ability to render the services the

group is charged with delivering.

● Since many CCP students enroll without participation in a formal

orientation program, develop additional ways to communicate with

all students on key campus security and safety issues. The

“MyCCP” portal and universal e-mail accounts for all students

greatly facilitates current efforts in this area.

Objective G - We will be first responders in medical emergencies.

● Communications on the College’s Emergency Response

procedures should strive to ensure that security staff’s roles as first

responders are understood.

● To expedite the responses to medical emergencies, consideration

should be given to an institutional investment in a campus-wide

call box system (hardwired or wireless) prominently located at key

locations of the campus.

17

Objective H - We will assist in the development and review of design

standards for new and renovated facilities to ensure effective security.

● College buildings standards should be up-to-date at all times with

respect to security requirements in facility design.

● In order to provide helpful information prior to final design

decisions, the senior security staff should be included as part of the

program development team.

● As a regular process the senior security staff should undertake a

review of the existing campuses and facilities for recommendations

to be incorporated in capital planning.

● In new facility planning, security consultants should be employed

to ensure that special conditions posed by the building are

addressed in security systems.

Objective I - We will maintain an environment in which physical risks to

students, staff and visitors are minimized.

● Attention should be given to adding or enhancing the exterior

lighting plan at all campuses.

● The College’s CCTV systems should be upgraded to a college-

wide digital system to take advantage of integrated recording and

alarm capabilities as currently available in the Center for Business

and Industry.

● Fill Coordinator of Campus Safety position as soon as budget

circumstances permit to ensure campus safety and security

procedures are fully coordinated.

18

Objective J - We will maintain an environment which is perceived as safe

and secure.

● The initial CCTV systems installed at the campus should be visibly

expanded.

● Installation of a series of “Code Blue” type emergency call stations

at all campuses to create a great sense of access to security at

exterior locations.

● Analyze current staffing patterns and develop plans to address the

goal of increased guard visibility in exterior areas of the campus.

● Analyze the current practice of providing lockers to students to

ascertain whether it should be discontinued or if kept; changed to

address the issue of locker theft.

● Address exterior issues, such as overgrown trees and limited

lighting, which limit views and create a sense of isolation at night.

Objective K - We will operate efficiently by taking maximum advantage of

available resources.

● Monitor incident data by regional site locations carefully and

deploy appropriate resources to those sites.

● Routinely evaluate the logistics of each post assignment. Explore

technologies both current and future to achieve security goals at

reduced staff cost.

● Proceed with full implementation of electronic access controls to

buildings to remove responsibilities for room openings from

security staff and address faculty complaints of untimely openings.

This will allow the redeployment of existing staff to more visible

posts to address concerns expressed about not always having

visible security.

19

● Undertake a review of the current organizational structure of the

Security and Safety group to evaluate the role and reporting line for

the College locksmith.

● Redefine one or more permanent guard positions to be security

technology specialist with expert level skills in using the College’s

integrated electronic technology systems.

Objective L - We will enforce applicable College Policies and Procedures.

● Ensure security have clear guidance for questions of academic

misconduct and alleged code of conduct violations. This includes

knowing when and how to handle referrals for issues that do not

fall within the purview of security.

Objective M - We will support and effective College judicial procedure.

● Develop procedures which will inform the College community of

judicial hearing outcomes without jeopardizing any privacy laws.

Objective N - We will responsibly maintain and use equipment and vehicles

assigned to the group for its use.

● Develop and maintain records of inspection and repair for any

vehicles assigned to the security group.

● Provide documented driver safety programs for all staff using

vehicles.

20

Objective O - We will establish and maintain productive relationships with

local police, fire and emergency authorities.

● Foster improved relationships with District Fire and Emergency

personnel by inviting them to participate in College emergency

response drill exercises.

● Continue efforts to coordinate emergency response procedures with

police, fire and emergency personnel and integrate efforts with the

City plan to create a synergistic, multi-agency plan to campus

emergencies.

Resource Requirements

Achievement of many of the above objectives will be accomplished by the

ongoing deployment of existing staff and resources. However, a specific

commitment of new resources is required to achieve some objectives. The

following tables summarize key resource requirements for the 2007-08, 2008-09,

and 2009-10 fiscal years. In addition, the budgets for the two major capital

projects at the Main and Northeast campuses will include a commitment to

comprehensive investment in current security technology in both new and

renovated spaces.

21

2007-08 FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH

SECURITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Main Campus

NERC NWRC WPRC

Acquire and install a comprehensive campus security Incident Management system software application which will enable the Security and Safety group to efficiently gather records, analyze patterns, and create reports for state and federal agencies as required by various laws. Ideally this system should be able to integrate to the College portal for dissemination of information.

$5,000 Included Included Included

Develop an overall comprehensive communications system to allow security to engage and establish effective communications with all College groups. As a first step, the acquisition and deployment of an emergency communications system would allow security to maintain contact with key College staff and the ERMT.

• Acquire LYNX system for immediate communication with ERMT and personal computers on campuses.

• Acquire and deploy

Emergency Alert Message modules from Alertus Technologies at entrances to College facilities.

$10,000 $20,000

Included Included

Included Included

Included Included

Develop and maintain a comprehensive library of training materials. Incorporate the use of technology in the delivery of these training modules were possible.


22


SECURITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN Main

Campus NERC NWRC WPRC

Acquire E-2 system which supports immediate emergency messaging to students and staff via phone and text messaging.


Expand current Automatic External Defibrillators (AED) placement and incorporate into alarm notification cabinets.

$4,000 $1,800 $1,800 $1,800

Maintenance and enhancement of the exterior lighting plan at all campuses.

$5,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000

Upgrade CCTV systems to take advantage of integrated recording and alarm capabilities of the CBI system.

$25,000

CCTV systems placed in service in the initial phases should be upgraded and integrated augmented by additional cameras.

$40,000 $25,000 $25,000 $5,000

Installation of a series of “Code Blue” type emergency call stations at all campuses to enhance safety perceptions of the College community.

$20,000 $10,000 $10,000 $3,500

Proceed with full implementation of electronic access controls to buildings to remove responsibilities for room openings from security staff and address faculty complaints of untimely openings. This would allow for a redeployment of existing staff to more visible posts to address concerns expressed in the survey. [Begins in 2008-09].

0 0 0 0

23



Main Campus

NERC NWRC WPRC

Prune trees on campus to reduce dark areas in campus center and increase ambient light conditions.

$30,000

Install emergency phones in all classrooms.


Convert two in-house security system specialists who will take lead operating and training for computer-based security systems.


Grand Total All Campuses $359,400.00

24



Main Campus

NERC NWRC WPRC







$0 $0

Included Included

Included Included

Included Included



25



Main Campus

NERC NWRC WPRC




0 0 0 0


$5,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000

Proceed with full implementation of electronic access controls to buildings to remove responsibilities for room openings from security staff and address faculty complaints of untimely openings. This would allow for a redeployment of existing staff to more visible posts to address concerns expressed in the survey. This will be incorporated into budgets for major campus expansion and renovation projects.

TBD TBD TBD TBD



New Position – Manager of College Safety



26



Main Campus

NERC NWRC WPRC







$0 $0

Included Included

Included Included

Included Included



27


SECURITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN Main

Campus NERC NWRC WPRC




0 0 0 0


$5,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000

Proceed with full implementation of electronic access controls to buildings to remove responsibilities for room openings from security staff and address faculty complaints of untimely openings. This would allow for a redeployment of existing staff to more visible posts to address concerns expressed in the survey. This will be incorporated into budgets for major campus expansion and renovation projects.

TBD TBD TBD TBD



New Position – Manager of College Safety



WORD\SECURITY AUDIT 2007 BAC VERSION.DOC

Community College of INTERNAL AUDIT 2007€¦ · College constituents generally believe that...

Documents

Transcript of Community College of INTERNAL AUDIT 2007€¦ · College constituents generally believe that...