The university residence hall frequently becomes the first place where students are expected to be totally responsible for their actions and property. They no longer have a parent present to reinforce appropriate safety and security measures. There is no one to remind them to lock their room door or secure their laptop computer. The university in effect becomes the “in loco parentis” for the student. In loco parentis is defined in Latin as “in place of a parent”. According to its generally accepted common law meaning, it refers to a person who has put himself in the situation of a lawful parent by assuming the obligations incident to the parental relationship without going through the formalities of necessary adoption. It embodies the two ideas of assuming the parental status and discharging the parental duties” (250 F. 2d 818[1]). The term is commonly used with reference to the relationship between a minor and a residential institution such as a boarding school.[2]
The safety and security of students and their property is a shared responsibility with neither party having primary responsibility. The goal of any residence hall safety and security program must be the complementary and mutual protection of student and university personnel and property. Additionally, a comprehensive safety and security program develops a litigation defense database of actions taken to protect the interests of the student and the educational institution. A viable safety and security program can only be developed by identification, definition and documentation of the responsibilities of each party. The responsibilities of each party are intertwined but require the delineation of responsibilities to be successful.
Student Responsibilities
The educational institution must develop specific instructions for the student for protecting their person and property. Once these instructions have been constructed, they must be explained in detail to the student to prevent misunderstanding or failure to comply with stated standards. Understanding and acknowledgment of these standards by the student must be documented. It is suggested that the standards be itemized in detail and that the student be required to acknowledge their understanding of these standards by signing a document that is retained by the educational institution in accordance with accepted record retention programs. The student acknowledgment should include a statement that they are aware that they have primary responsibility for their safety and security and that they will hold the educational institution harmless for property losses resulting from the student’s failure to comply with identified standards. Any such statement or acknowledgment should be reviewed for adequacy by legal counsel.
The expected standards should include, inter alia, a requirement that individual room doors be locked at all times when the student or another authorized person is not in the room. This requirement should be without a time requirement, e.g., the door should be locked when the student leaves the room for a short period of time to go to a common area as well as when they leave to attend classes or leave for other purposes.
The student should be required to document the identification of all valuable property within their residence hall room. This identification should include a comprehensive description of the item and model and serial numbers of property in excess of a stated value. This documentation should be placed in a university controlled central file for later retrieval, e.g., person with overall responsibility for the residence hall or the university security service. Students should be encouraged to place a permanent personal marking on their property, e.g., engraving their initials on the item.
The security of building and room access devices becomes a serious problem for many educational institutions. Students get careless and lose or misplace their key or provide it to another person. Ideally, plastic door access cards similar to those utilized by most hotels should be used. The access card provides a capability of limiting access to selected locations and timeframes. If the access card is lost, it can be easily deactivated and a new card provided to the student. The use of metal keys creates additional problems[3]. The metal key can be easily duplicated and if the door lock is not changed, a former student who has failed to return a key will still have access to the building and the individual room. The access card also provides for the utilization of a monitoring system that will identify when the room door is locked or unlocked and the time and duration of each occurrence.
Students are frequently naive and unaware of what is occurring around them. Therefore, it is necessary to have a requirement that any defined suspicious activities or persons be reported immediately to a designated individual who is expected to respond to the student’s report. Many young persons have an aversion to reporting suspicious persons or activities for fear of being labeled a “snitch”. This attitude may require the implementation of a confidential reporting system. The key to this situation is the immediacy of response. Students need to be educated to report problems immediately for corrective action and not delay reporting.
For perceived inconvenience or vandalism, students may be inclined to disable security devices such as propping open fire exit doors to facilitate entry without going through a central controlled entrance. Frequently they will cover or readjust video surveillance units as a practical joke so that unauthorized actions will not be visible or recorded. Because of the serious impact these action have on personnel safety and security, tampering with these devices should be subject to severe disciplinary action including expulsion.
Student adherence to safety and security policies and procedures should be enforced with a graduated disciplinary code, ranging from verbal warnings to expulsion for repeat offenders. Policies and procedures that are not uniformly and consistently enforced actually increase liability for the institution under the concept that you have acknowledged a safety and security risk and the need for the identified policies and procedures but failed to enforce compliance.
Institution Responsibilities
The educational institution because of their “in loco parentis” status needs to develop specific and detailed instructions for the protection of personnel and property in accordance with the state premises liability statute. Universally, the premises liability statute requires that the institution identify risks to personnel and property and take reasonable and appropriate action to counter the identified risks. The identified risks must be made known to students and staff.[4]-[5]-[6]
To counter risks, policies and procedure need to be documented to identify institutional requirements and expected actions with required supplementation and implementation by subordinate units. Verbal policies and procedures should not be used because understanding of required actions cannot be proven. When written policies and procedures are utilized, there should be a common format to facilitate understanding and integration with related policies and procedures. These documents must be available for review by all affected parties. They must also be reviewed periodically, not to exceed annually, to ensure their continuing viability. Individuals who are expected to abide by the policies and procedures should be required to acknowledge their awareness and understanding of the requirements. This acknowledgment should be certified in writing by the individual on an annual basis. Depending on the ethnic composition of the students and staff, it may be necessary to translate the documents into another language to ensure comprehension. As a minimum, the policies and procedures should include desired responses to natural disasters, bomb threats and explosions, incidents to be reported,[7] and criminal activity. Any policy or procedures should be reviewed to ensure compatibility with university level safety and security procedures and those of adjacent buildings.
Because of continually changing physical and demographic environments, it is necessary to conduct an initial assessment to identify risks existing in the adjacent area as well as on the institution property. This risk assessment is the basis for identifying reasonable and appropriate measures to counter the identified risks. Absolute protection of personnel and property cannot be achieved; therefore, the requirement is predicated on what is “reasonable and appropriate”. There is no requirement that you have safety and security measures that are identical to adjacent or similar properties[8]. The risks will be different for each property and there may be alternate methods for providing a similar level of security. The risk assessment should be reviewed and updated as necessary on an annual basis or when there is a significant change in the risk factors. Because of the complexity of risk factors, all risk assessments should be conducted by an individual who is qualified in risk assessment activities.
Staff responsibilities for safety and security must be defined in detail to ensure knowledge and compliance with expected actions. While the university security service may have overall responsibility for campus safety and security, they are normally only a guiding force and information resource for interior building safety and security. One person should be assigned primary responsibility for safety and security within a university housing unit. This person may be assisted by other students or staff members but the designated housing supervisor cannot delegate staff or management responsibility. The housing unit supervisor should develop additional policies and procedures for executing university policies and procedures based on the unique features of the facility. The implementing instructions are primarily “how to” directions. The building supervisor should periodically conduct an unannounced inspection of the housing unit for compliance with established requirements and the conduct of those subordinate individuals with a responsibility for safety and security matters. The inspection cycle should be a minimum of monthly. The results of these inspections must be documented for inclusion in the ligation defense database.
A major portion of any safety and security program is the utilization of physical security devices such as cameras and access control devices. Building entrances should be the primary barrier to unauthorized entry or illegal activity. Specific policies and procedures for the proper utilization of security devices should be promulgated. One central entrance to the housing unit should be designated for use by students and visitors. This entrance should be covered by monitored and recorded video surveillance. The monitoring station could be at a central university facility or at a designated location within the housing unit. Regardless of the location, at least one person should be designated to monitor surveillance activity at all times. Physical security devices should be inspected by a qualified technician at least quarterly to ensure proper functioning[9]. A designated person should conduct a daily inspection of the security devices to ensure proper functioning and utilization. The quarterly and daily inspections should be documented as a permanent record.
Visitor control to the housing unit can be a problem. Control procedures should include a requirement that all individuals, student and visitor alike, enter though a single entrance. Visitors should be required to produce personal identification and sign in with the entrance monitor. Visitor identification should be included in the visitor control document. The visitor should not at any time be allowed unescorted access to interior building areas. The visitor’s sponsor should be required to meet their guest at the entrance control location and sign the visitor control document and annotate the time of entrance. The student should also be required to escort the visitor when they exit the housing unit and annotate the control document with the exit time. To ensure compliance with directives, the visitor and sponsor’s identification could be retained at the entrance location while the visitor is in the housing unit. Staff maintenance personnel should be required to sign-in and sign-out of the building but do not need to be escorted.
Evacuation planning for fires and bomb threats should be tested on a quarterly basis with mandatory participation by all individuals in the housing unit at the time. A visitor’s sponsor must ensure that the visitor complies with necessary directives. Because of the potential but not identical danger, separate evacuation procedures should be prepared for fires and bomb threats or explosions. Another consideration for the evacuation route and assembly location should be the traffic route of responding life safety units. Having to cross an emergency entrance route increases the danger to personnel.
Summary
Providing adequate safety and security for a university campus or housing unit can be an expensive reality unless you consider the costs from litigation where there has been a failure in the safety and security program. An adequate program requires consistent thinking by dedicated and knowledgeable personnel. Ultimate responsibility for safety and security resides in the hands of the university Board of Regents. They may delegate implementation and management to subordinates but never lose responsibility for the program.
[1] Arthur Helfgott and Connie Helgott, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee, Docket 24482, United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit, decided January 6, 1958.
[2] Steven H. Gifis, “Law Dictionary”, Third Edition, Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., Hauppage, NY.
[3] Berry Property Management, Inc., v. Bliskey, 850 S.W.2d 644 (Tex. 1993), Key Control-Failure to Control Keys.
[4] Peterson v. San Francisco Community College District, 685 P.2d 1193 (Cal. 1984), Warning Policy-Failure to Disclose Existing Dangers.
[5] Nguyen v. Akhi Investments, Inc., No. 96CV236 (Dist. Ct. Denver, Colo 1997, Security Measures Misrepresented-24-hour Security
[6] Childress v. Church’s Fried Chicken, 196 Cal. Rptr. 404 (Cal. 1983) Security Measures Misrepresented-Nonexistent Security
[7] Lisa P. V. Bingham, 50 Cal. Rptr.2d 646 (Cal. 1996), Incident Reporting-Reporting Standards.
[8] Allen v. Ramada Inn, Inc., 778 P.2d 291 (Colo. 1989), Security Trade Practices Do Not Establish a Legal Standard of Care.
[9] Pamela B. v. Hayden, 31 Cal. Rptr. 2d 147 (Cal. 1994), Security Maintenance Programs.