Over the past 15 years, university policing has undergone significant transformations driven by evolving social expectations, by emerging threats, and by the increasingly complex campus environment. As institutions of higher education (IHE) work to address issues ranging from campus protests and active shooter preparedness to mental health crises, and technological advancements, campus police agencies have been required to adapt their tactics and strategies. In the last decade and a half, university policing has addressed protest management; transparency through body-worn cameras (BWCs); increased local, state, and federal partnerships; and the expanding role of technology in university policing and public safety. University policing has been at the forefront of modern policing and is often the front line for many changes and advancements that have impacted the profession.
The Rise and Resurgence of Campus Protests
During 2011 and 2012, campus-based protests started in major urban communities, but quickly found their way to college campuses across the United States. For many, this was the start of large-scale protests and encampments at IHE. Several high-profile incidents occurred at campuses such as University of California (UC) Berkley, UC Davis, and the City University of New York. Higher education police leaders and university administration worked to reevaluate their approach to managing demonstrations and civil disobedience. Changes included policy revisions, increased training on crowd management and constitutional rights, increased transparency, and finding ways to meet the need for increased dialogue and community relations.
In 2013, following the death of Trayvon Martin in Florida, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement was formed, and campuses saw sporadic protests related to the movement. The deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in New York City raised BLM to national attention in the United States, and college campuses were the setting for marches, die-ins/sit-ins, teach-ins, and other protest actions that drew widespread attention. The 2020 death of George Floyd reignited protests across the United States, and colleges became a focal point for many demonstrations. Student groups at multiple institutions called for the defunding or disbanding of campus police departments and the removal of agreements with municipal police agencies.
“The traditional approach to campus security has transformed into a vibrant, wide-ranging job influenced by changing community expectations, new dangers, and ever-changing technological progress”
In 2020, because of institutional policies enacted due to the COVID-19 pandemic, protests continued at campuses across the United States. Notable examples include protests at the University of Georgia, University of North Carolina (UNC)-Chapel Hill, the University of Michigan, and the California State University system. These protests were driven by issues such as mask mandates, the required movement to teach and learn online, opposition to mandatory in-person classes that did not take account for individual safety choices, and tuition rates. Some campus police departments were tasked with enforcing policy changes such as mask mandates and quarantine protocols, and these tasks often placed university police at odds with students and other staff members.
Protests reignited as the Gaza/Israel conflict escalated, and the protests and encampments of 2023–2024 had significant impacts on higher education and university policing. In many ways, these protests and encampments have had the most significant and widespread impact across college campuses in recent times. Universities such as Columbia, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Harvard, MIT, and many others have had large, organized encampments on their campuses. These protests included large-scale tent cities or encampments, sit-ins and building occupations, marches and rallies, digital and social media campaigns, and disruption of institutional events.
University police departments responded to the most recent round of protests and encampments with a strategy of measured adaptation. Balancing lessons learned over the last15 years of protests on college campuses, university police worked to balance the protection of free speech with the need to maintain campus safety and security. University police departments increased training in de-escalation and crowd management and increased their coordination and partnership with municipal and state police partners to ensure a unified response. The evolution of university police response to protests on campus included early engagement with student groups; clear policies and procedures related to protests on campus including time, place, and manner restrictions; and a coordinated response model focused on community trust and transparency to protect their campuses.
The Push for Transparency via Body-Worn Cameras
College campuses are often described as progressive, politically active environments where there is a heightened demand for accountability from leadership, including campus police. Following campus protests in 2011, university police departments were early adopters of officer BWCs. Recognizing the need to maintain trust with the campus community, many university police departments were quick to implement the mandatory use of BWCs within their departments. University police departments are often smaller and more centralized than their municipal counterparts and are able to overcome the logistical and financial hurdles to seek quick implementation. University police departments’ implementation of BWCs reflects their unique operational environment where student activism, institutional risk management, and community trust intersect. Campus police’s proactive approach to accountability and transparency, combined with their alignment with campus values, allowed many agencies to implement BWCs early.
Active Shooter Preparedness and Response
There have been few events that have influenced university policing in the last 15 years more than active shooter incidents on college campuses. On college campuses, students, staff, and faculty have been victims of active shooters and other active killers. These tragic incidents have proven to be strong catalysts for increased emphasis on preparedness and prevention, response, and recovery efforts. These advancements have been shaped by painful and highly publicized events across the United States.
“Blue light phones and emergency kiosks have been foundational tools of campus public safety over the last two decades, but for some, these devices have been phased out in favor of mobile safety applications that can be installed on student, staff, and faculty cellphones.”
The 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech is often considered the defining moment that changed higher education’s police response to active threats on campuses. Key changes and advancements included the expansion of enhanced emergency notification systems, the implementation of behavioral threat assessment teams, improved information sharing, increased emergency preparedness and response training, and an overall increase in campus security technology.
While significant progress was made as a profession, college campuses continue to be plagued by tragedy and active shooter incidents. The 2019 shooting at UNC-Charlotte, the 2023 Michigan State University shooting, and the 2023 shooting at the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) show that IHEs continue to remain vulnerable to acts of targeted violence. University police departments have increased outreach and community training related to active shooter response, such as Run-Hide-Fight or ALICE (Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate). These training programs have become common on campuses across the United States.
Technological advancements have also been instrumental in all aspects of emergency planning on college campuses. Institutions and campus police departments have invested billions of dollars over the last 15 years on security cameras, license plate readers, access control, and gun detection platforms. The addition of these technological solutions has increased detection and situational awareness, the ability to rapidly lock down campuses or buildings, the ability to monitor live security camera feeds, and the use of security camera video after the fact, as well as aiding in directing operational response to reduce response times.
Behavioral Threat Assessment
Many consider the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting as the primary catalyst for the adoption of behavioral threat assessment and management teams (BTAM) in higher education. In the aftermath of many critical incidents, it was discovered there may have been opportunities for intervention prior to the attacks. BTAMs outline a collaborative and structured approach to identifying individuals who may be on the pathway to violence. Colleges and universities quickly established formal BTAMs to identify, assess, and manage concerning behaviors, aiming to prevent acts of targeted violence.
In the beginning, many BTAMs were composed of campus police, student conduct personnel, and counseling staff. Over the past15 years, the composition of BTAMs has evolved and become more cross-functional. Higher education BTAMs now include academic affairs, human resources, general counsel, and municipal police partners. As BTAMs evolved, these groups became more proactive and prevention-focused; implemented structured assessment tools; and developed robust information sharing protocols. The intersection of campus police and municipal police in BTAMs is a critical aspect of the team’s ability to assess and manage individuals on the pathway to violence.
Partnerships with Municipal/State/Federal Law Enforcement
The relationship between campus police and their municipal, state, and federal counterparts has undergone a significant transformation over the last 15 years. Historically, campus police departments have operated in a silo, and interactions with their municipal, state, and federal counterparts have often been limited. Today, partnerships between campus police agencies and their counterparts are considered commonplace and mandatory to create safe and secure campus environments.
The policing profession is acutely aware that incidents that start on a campus do not remain on campus, and incidents starting off campus often impact the campus community. It is imperative that all agencies work together toward the common goal of law and order. High-profile incidents like those at Virginia Tech, UNC-Charlotte, Michigan State University, and UNLV have underscored the importance of a unified response to critical incidents.
“3D printers have the potential to be used to print weapons and other dangerous firearm components that are illegal. Campus police departments are working with their educational partners to develop policies and procedures to monitor and mitigate the misuse of 3D printers.”
Campus police departments have worked to strengthen their partnerships with their counterparts at all levels of government. Institutions have worked to create memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with municipal police departments, formalized collaboration agreements, begun joint training, and increased information and resource sharing. Campus police departments are now frequently partnering with local police on critical incident response, active shooter training, exercising unified command, and fostering strong partnerships. Organizations like the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators have worked diligently to increase partnerships between federal law enforcement agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security. Today, university police departments have officers assigned to joint task forces; share information through fusion centers; and regularly interface with federal partners on topics such as protective measures, cybersecurity, threat assessment, training, and critical incident response.
Campus police departments partner with local police agencies to ensure safety and operational efficiency at high-attendance events such as home football games on their campuses. Joint operational plans, often including a unified command post, are created to ensure the proper integration of campus police, municipal police, municipal fire/EMS, and other emergency responders. Campus police departments are also working closely with municipal police on conducting joint patrols or joint jurisdiction regarding the areas between campuses and municipal jurisdictions. These partnerships improve visibility, reduce response times, and help address shared concerns.
Expanding Mental Health Resources
The past10 years have seen an increase in the number of mental health–related incidents in universities and colleges, which, in turn, has created new demands for the campus police departments. The incidences of anxiety, depression, thoughts of suicide, and behavioral health issues among college students have been rising. In response, many campus police departments have implemented a co-responder model where officers are paired with mental health professionals to provide better support.
Mental health professionals, usually licensed counselors, social workers, or psychologists, are incorporated within or assigned to campus police under the co-responder model. These mental health professionals may accompany police officers during patrols, attend to some of the mental health calls, or function as on-call experts during other incidents. There are many positive aspects of the co-responder model within higher education settings. First, a co-responder model enhances campus policing by helping them respond appropriately to the unique circumstances involved in mental health incidents. Because police professionals do not necessarily have the training or resources to intervene and respond with the behavioral health needs of the individual in crisis as well as a mental health professional, they have taken steps to acknowledge these barriers. Second, the presence of mental health professionals reduces the criminalization of mental illness by providing students in crisis with support rather than taking punitive measures whenever possible. Third, and importantly, the co-responder model encourages a better relationship between campus police and the campus community, while sending a message about providing further support for student well-being while focusing on safety holistically.
The co-responder model has been implemented in different ways at various colleges. Some institutions are hiring full-time mental health professionals who are directly embedded with the campus police departments. Other institutions are utilizing existing institutional mental health professionals to provide on-call services to the police department or coordinate ride-along times. Some institutions have partnered with private counseling centers or mental health agencies to provide coordinated services. The co-responder model aligns with additional trends in higher education that emphasize prevention, early intervention, and a student-centered approach to public safety.
Over the past 15 years, campus police departments have increased their focus on de-escalation training and crisis intervention training (CIT) to respond better to mental health–related incidents and other related situations. With the rise of mental health crises among college students, many university police agencies have made CIT programs a priority. This training is especially important for campus police officers because the higher education community centers on student growth and maintaining a supportive learning environment. By giving campus police officers the skills to calm tense situations without escalation, campus police departments are improving safety outcomes and building trust in the campus community.
Tech’s Expanding Role in Campus Safety
Over the past 15 years, technological advancements have had significant impacts on the overall safety and security of college campuses and the campus police profession. As threats and risks impacting college campuses have evolved, so has the infrastructure and technology available to campus police departments and higher education public safety teams. Today, technology is fully integrated into all aspects of campus safety and security.
One of the most visible advancements in physical security has been the widespread use of technological advancements in access control systems. Traditional locks and keys have been replaced with electronic access control systems. These systems utilize key cards, biometric identification, and mobile credentials via smartphones or wearable devices, such as smart watches. These systems allow institutions to restrict access to sensitive areas and provide the ability to quickly revoke access or secure doors/spaces during active emergencies.
Blue light phones and emergency kiosks have been foundational tools of campus public safety over the last two decades, but for some, these devices have been phased out in favor of mobile safety applications that can be installed on student, staff, and faculty cellphones. These mobile safety applications, often controlled by campus police, have the ability to provide numerous functions such as virtual safety escorts, mobile panic/duress buttons, real-time communication with campus police dispatch centers, and mass communications. Mobile safety applications are used at campuses to send timely warnings and emergency notifications in accordance with The Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act.1
In addition to physical security improvements, the advancement of real-time crime centers (RTCCs) and license plate reader (LPR) cameras has increased the overall situational awareness and coordination of information for campus police and their municipal partners. Institutions such as Arizona State University, Florida State University, Michigan State University, and many others have implemented RTCCs or security operation centers. These centers provide a single location to aid in the coordination, integration, and analysis of data and information from security cameras, access control systems, LPRs, and other information sources to aid in operational responses.
While most advancements in technology have proven advantageous to campus police departments, the increase in availability of 3D printers on college campuses may demand increased collaboration between campus police departments and federal agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. 3D printers have the potential to be used to print weapons and other dangerous firearm components that are illegal. Campus police departments are working with their educational partners to develop policies and procedures to monitor and mitigate the misuse of 3D printers.
Conclusion
Campus police departments have undergone significant shifts in the last 15 years. The traditional approach to campus security has transformed into a vibrant, wide-ranging job influenced by changing community expectations, new dangers, and ever-changing technological progress. Campus police departments have been quick to respond to incidents and new threats, implement new technology, and strengthen relationships to better protect the campus communities they serve. Off-campus events often spill onto campus, and on-campus incidents can impact areas far beyond the institution’s property. Campus policing will keep changing and evolving to meet the risks that threaten institutions of higher education but the goal stays the same. Campus police departments will continue to lead the way in creating safe and secure educational environments for all of those who set foot on their grounds. d
Note:
1Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act, 20 U.S. Code § 1092(f)(19).
Please cite as
Bryant Jackson, “Strategic Shifts in Campus Policing,” Police Chief Online, October 29, 2025.
