Long time No See

by user








Long time No See
The STRIMA Annual
“Campus and Workplace
Presented by:
Richard Perry
Marsh Risk Consulting
Marsh & McLennan Companies
Summary of Findings: Virginia Tech
 Seung Hui Cho exhibited signs of mental health problems going
back through middle school
 Virginia Tech did not adequately deal with his prior incidents on
 University officials did not effectively communicate with each other
or Cho’s parents because of confusion related to privacy laws
 Cho purchased two guns in violation of Federal law
 Virginia Tech police may have erred in prematurely concluding that
their initial lead in the double homicide was valid
 Senior university administrators, acting as the Emergency Policy
Group, failed to issue an all-campus notification for at least 2
hours following the double homicides
The Millennial Generation as
College Students
 “Millennial Generation” was born between 1982-2000
 Leading edge of this generation was the Class of 2003
 Childhood and early adolescent experiences shape
who they are and how they relate to the world
 This has changed the nature of the institution’s
relationship with the student and their family
Their World…
 Special
 Child safety laws were created
to protect them: car seats, bike
helmets, etc.
 Grew up in “child-proof” homes
 Sheltered
 Confident
 Conventional
 Parents created a sheltered
experience – highly structured
play experiences and learning
 High parental involvement in
“playground problem solving”
 Safety is a number one concern
in schools, on the playing field,
in homes and public places
Is Your World…
 Collegial
 On “virtual leashes” since
childhood with baby monitors,
walkie-talkie, beepers, then cell
phones and email to be in constant
contact with parents.
 Pressured
 Increasingly overscheduled with
activities, lessons, academic prep
 Achieving
 Used to being watched over,
helped, and protected and expect
guarantees that this will continue –
with completing college
applications, applying for jobs, etc.
 In direct contrast to previous
generations who sought
independence and disdained
“institutional paternalism” or any
hint of “in loco parentis”.
What Are We Seeing On
 High levels of stress, underdeveloped coping skills
 Students use alcohol and other drugs to self-medicate
 More students entering with behavioral health diagnosis
 Mental health represented 12.3% of all student health claims
for 2002-03 – up from 3-4% in only a few years
 More students take prescription medications for behavioral
health conditions
Behavioral Indicators
 Acting out in class
 Substance Abuse
 Suicidal Ideations
 Poor Personal Hygiene
 Self-injury & Eating Disorders
 Hostile, Threatening , and
Intimidating Behavior
 Excessively needy and
attention seeking
 Persistent and exaggerated
 Inability to develop and sustain
 Manic, depressive, and anxious
 Actively hampers the
 Chronically absent from class –
functioning faculty, other
withdrawn from social
students, and the college to
provide a reasonably safe
teaching and learning
Student Alcohol & Substance
Abuse Claims
 28% Sexual Assault
 18% Discipline & Discrimination
 18% Other Accidental Injuries
 13% Death
 12% Physical Assaults
8% Falls from Dorm Windows
4% Alcohol Poisoning
3% Miscellaneous
 93 total claims
*United Educators (2000-2004)
Legal Perspective
 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
 Main purpose to give students access rights to their official records
and ensure that institution’s provide registrar services to protect
integrity of these records
 The law recognizes that safety outweighs privacy at times
 Clery Act
 Mandatory notification of crime on campus and in the nearby
Emerging Role of Institution
In loco parentis
Insularity from legal scrutiny
Changed in 1960s – 1970s
No longer isolated from legal scrutiny;
“Constitutional rights” came to campus
Bystander era (1970s-1980s)
Attainment of Constitutional Rights made students adults for all purposed and
beyond the control of the university
Students owed “duties” to protect themselves, university stood by
Facilitator (1990s-?)
Appropriate legal and cultural balance between university authority/control and
student freedom
Built upon legal use of “duty” which requires expert guidance in torts generally,
negligence law and some contract law
Relevant Factors to “duty and
 Foreseeability of harm
 Nature of the risk
 Closeness of the connection between the institution’s act or
omission, and student injury
 Moral blame and responsibility
 The social policy of preventing future harm
 The burden on the university and the larger community if duty is
 The availability of insurance
*The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University”, Bickel and Lake
Bystanders to Campus Violence:
Breaking the Code of Silence?
 “Bystanders include students, professors, and other college or
university personnel who hear/see violence in the making, such as
verbal and physical harassment or related conflicts that may
escalate into assault and battery”
 Substantial evidence exists before a violent event occurs that could
have prevented it
 Prevention of campus violence often focuses on perpetrator or the
relationship between perpetrators and victims.
 Critical now to consider the role of bystander
 Influence in preventing, perpetuating or escalating violence has been
 Many violent encounters frequently involve third-party participants
or bystanders
Bystanders to Campus Violence:
Questions for College Administrators
 What are the warning signs that may trigger bystander action to
prevent violence from occurring or escalating?
 What sorts of protocols should institutions have in place for
conveying information about potentially dangerous situations and
threats from students, faculty, and staff to campus/public law
 What are the potential problems of acting on student-reported
threat or the witnessing of a student-on-student altercation at a
campus sporting event or in the residence halls?
 What are the consequences of taking action, or of inaction, on a
reported threat or witnessed altercation for the bystander, for the
institution, and for the student accused of threatening to act or
acting out violently?
Bystanders to Campus Violence:
Questions for College Administrators
 What type of violence is threatened?
 Must a threshold level of violence be reached before the college
intervenes on a bystander’s report of a threat or incipient
 Is a weapon involved?
 Did college personnel directly observe the alleged violence, or did
a fellow student report a potential act of violence to an
School Shootings: An Impetus
for Change?
 School shootings
 Virginia Tech
 University of Texas
 Firearm possession survey of 15,000 undergraduates, 130 4-year
 3.5% had working firearms at college
 Most likely to be male, White or Native American
 Members of a fraternity or sorority
 Live off campus or with spouse/significant other
 Association between having a gun and driving after excessive
 More likely to put themselves or others at risk
Off-Campus Liability
 Legal duty: Obligation to protect from foreseeable harm
 Liability does not always depend on whether or not institutions owns
 Example of claims activity:
 74 claims in 4 years were injuries off-campus
 25% of those claims involved fatality
 Losses range from $1,000 to $1.2M
 Most prevalent cause of injury:
 Failure to maintain the property (60% of claims)
 Criminal assaults occurring on the off-campus facility (1/4th claims)
 Fire on premises (10% of claims)
Off-Campus Liability
 Owned by Institution
 Duty as a landowner
 Duty as a landlord
 Courts have applied liability to Institutions who own, manage and rent
 Owned by 3rd Party
 Assumed duty
 On-campus duty that causes off-campus loss
 Special relationship between school and student
Managing Off-Campus Housing Risks
 Establish an off-campus housing policy
 Educate and guide students who choose off-campus housing
 Develop a plan to regularly maintain premises
 Understand legal implications of actions you take
 Establish an off-campus housing committee
Case Study: Franklin & Marshall
College, Lancaster, PA
 Event: Student walking to apartment robbed at gunpoint, shot in
 Response: 5 additional security officers, bike & vehicle patrols added,
roving metal detectors for certain campus events
 President Fry:
 “My belief is that when a terrible thing happens, institutions panic, and the
reaction is to make it completely into a public safety issue, but they don’t deal
with systemic issue that they generally have,”
 “How a college responds to an incident isn’t as important as what steps it
takes before an incident occurs”
 Fry as EVP at U of Pennsylvania, worked with the surrounding Philadelphia
neighborhood to bolster safety watch programs and increase off-campus
 Arrival at Franklin & Marshall, saw a “broken-down neighborhood” that was
inviting for potential criminals. Tried to spur economic development in the area
by helping to institute a homebuyer initiative program for local residents and is
providing some students in the class of 2009 the option of signing four-year
leases to live in apartments just off campus — with the thought that long-term
neighbors have a more vested interest in keeping their surroundings safe.
Case Study: Duquesne University,
Pittsburgh, PA
 Off-campus function, non-student shooter injures 5 men’s
basketball players
 Student charged for reckless endangerment, carrying a concealed
firearm without license and criminal conspiracy
 Response:
 5 additional security officers
 Bike patrols added
 Additional vehicle patrols
 Roving metal detectors
The Need for Prevention
 Address attitudes, beliefs, perceptions and skills that contribute to
violence through education, skill building, curriculum infusion and other
 Supporting healthy group norms and promoting bystander interventions
 Conveying clear expectations for conduct among students, faculty, staff
and visitors
 Creating and disseminating comprehensive policies and procedures
addressing each type of violent behavior, and instituting training programs
to ensure that policies are followed and enforced
 Providing a range of support services for students, including mental
health services, crisis management, and comprehensive and
compassionate services for victims
 Helping students to avoid harm through such measures as escort
services and self-defense classes.
 Establishing comprehensive alcohol and other drug prevention programs.
Top 5 Safety Concerns When
Choosing a College or
 Monitor available crime information.
 Choose schools willing to embrace innovative technological
 Favor schools that administer strict alcohol and other drug
abuse policies
 Consider the institution’s history of advocacy for victims of
sexual assault and other violent crimes
 Demand effective parent-notification policies
*Security On Campus, Inc., http://www.securityoncampus.org/
Jean Demchak
Global Higher Education Leader
Marsh, Inc.
One State Street
Hartford, CT 06103
860 723 5635
[email protected]
Richard Perry
Marsh Risk Consulting
200 Ottawa Ave NW, Suite 700
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
616 233 4265
[email protected]
Regulatory Compliance
 Cleary Act
 Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act
 Guidelines for the Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act Amendment to
the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent
Offender Registration Act
 Drug Free School & Campus Act
 Title IX includes protection from sexual harassment (assault/rape)
 “Breaking the Code of Silence: Bystanders to Campus Violence
and the Law of College and University Safety”, Joel Epstein,
Stetson Law Review
 Security On Campus, Inc., 133 Ivy Lane, Suite 200, King Of
Prussia, PA 19406, http://www.securityoncampus.org
 United Educators, “Off Campus – Out of Sight, Out of Mind”
 “The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University”, Robert
Bickel and Peter Lake
 “Private Law Continues to Come to Campus: Rights and
Responsibilities Revisited”, Peter Lake, Journal of College and
University Law
Fly UP