SSB 6328

HOUSE BILL REPORT
SSB 6328

This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent.

As Passed House - Amended:
March 5, 2008

Sponsors: By Senate Committee on Higher Education (originally sponsored by Senators Kohl-Welles, Shin, Schoesler, Kilmer, Delvin, McAuliffe and Rasmussen; by request of Governor Gregoire).

Majority Report: Do pass as amended. Signed by 10 members: Representatives Wallace, Chair; Sells, Vice Chair; Anderson, Ranking Minority Member; Hankins, Hasegawa, Jarrett, McIntire, Roberts, Schmick and Sommers.

Majority Report: Do pass as amended by committee on Appropriations and without amendment by Committee on Higher Education. Signed by 33 members: Representatives Sommers, Chair; Dunshee, Vice Chair; Alexander, Ranking Minority Member; Bailey, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Haler, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Anderson, Chandler, Cody, Conway, Darneille, Ericks, Fromhold, Grant, Green, Haigh, Hinkle, Hunt, Hunter, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kretz, Linville, McDonald, McIntire, Morrell, Pettigrew, Priest, Ross, Schmick, Schual-Berke, Seaquist and Sullivan.

Background:

Campus safety planning can be broken down into five major components:

(1)   mental health services: including the availability of mental health counselors, psychiatrists, and mental health outreach programs;
(2)   communications: including public address systems, sirens, instant warning systems,
   intercoms, and other available systems;
(3)   police: including commissioned and noncommissioned officers and other first responders, including training;
(4)   campus planning and awareness: violence prevention programs, campus safety assessments and review, campus safety advocates, emergency management coordinators; and
(5)   building mapping and access: including key card systems, campus mapping, security
   cameras, and other available help.

The Council of Presidents conducted a survey of the public Baccalaureate institutions to compile basic background information on the policies and procedures that are in place to respond to campus security issues. The Baccalaureates agreed that responding to emergencies is "highly episodic and circumstantial" and that institutions require flexibility to evaluate, assess, and respond according to the best judgment on hand at the moment.

Responses from the Baccalaureate institutions indicate that each has established procedures to make the university community and public aware of emergency preparedness policies; has some means of alerting students, faculty, and staff to emergency situations; and has "mapped" campus buildings to include floor plans, utility diagrams, and the location of hazardous materials. The survey also indicates that public Baccalaureate institutions have entered into mutual aid agreements with emergency management agencies, law enforcement agencies, and other partners in addition to the commissioned police forces they employ.

There is not as much consistency in baseline policy and practice within the community and
technical college system. While the colleges have each developed emergency preparedness plans and have identified mechanisms for public alert, the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) estimates that only 10 percent of colleges have extensive "mapping" of campus buildings. Because community and technical colleges do not typically have commissioned police forces, they are also more reliant on local law enforcement and emergency management organizations to provide emergency response.

Currently, each institution annually updates and distributes a report that includes crime
statistics for the prior three-year period. In addition, each institution provides every student
and new employee with information regarding enrollments, campus non-student workforce
profiles, the number of campus security personnel, and the arrangements with state and local
police.

Summary of Amended Bill:

Each institution makes available to students, faculty, and staff campus a safety plan. Other interested people may obtain the plan upon request. At a minimum, the plan includes: (1) data regarding campus enrollments, campus non-student workforce profiles, and the number of campus security personnel; (2) policies, procedures, and programs for preventing and responding to violence and campus emergencies, setting the weapons policy on campus, applying to controlled substances, and governing student privacy; (3) information about where to view campus policies on complaints and contact information for the individual to whom complaints may be directed in cases of sexual assault, domestic violence, stalking, and sexual harassment; and (4) mutual assistance agreements, access methods and options to programs for persons with disabilities, available mental health and counseling services, and emergency management plans.

For the most recent academic year, the campus safety plan must include: (1) a description of programs and services offered by the institution and student organizations
providing crime prevention and counseling; and (2) security policies and programs at student
housing facilities.

Each institution enters into memoranda of understanding that outlines institutional and local
jurisdiction responsibilities during campus emergencies. Institutions also enter into mutual aid agreements with local jurisdictions regarding equipment and technology sharing in the case of campus emergencies. Institutions already have task forces to annually examine campus safety issues. These task forces must annually review the emergency management and response plans and make suggestions for improvement. A specific individual must be designated for monitoring and coordinating the institution's compliance with the campus safety laws.

By October 30, 2008, each institution submits a self-study, assessing its ability to ensure campus safety and an evaluation of its ability to provide an appropriate level of mental health services to its respective state governing board; plans to address unmet safety needs of each campus must also be submitted. In October of each even-numbered year, each institution also submits updated safety plans. The Higher Education Coordinating Board and the SBCTC report to the Governor and higher education committees biennially on compliance and recommendations on measures to ensure campus safety and security.

Effective Date of Amended Bill: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed. However, the bill is null and void unless funded in the budget.

Staff Summary of Public Testimony: (Higher Education)

(In support) Last Thursday this bill was on the Senate floor when the news broke that another institution of higher education fell victim to an outbreak of violence. This is just the latest of a string of fatalities at our institutions of higher education and underlines the importance of legislation like this before you. We need to make sure that our campuses are safe. The key to campus safety is communication on campus and with the local community.

Students appreciate the attention that is being paid to campus safety as a holistic review of what needs to be done. Mental health services are also critically important. Students must also be able to access the information about victim advocates, where to turn in cases of sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking. Assessing security breaches is important and a great first step in keeping students safe. Community colleges already have plans in place, they need to keep reviewing them and then enhance with more advanced technology like public address systems or commissioned police forces or mental health services. They are reliant on local jurisdictions and need to continue to closely collaborate. The bill is a good first step.

(Opposed) None.

Staff Summary of Public Testimony: (Appropriations)

(In support) The bill is important to provide a way for all members of each campus community to know what to do or who to talk to in order to mitigate or prevent incidents on campuses. The bill states institutions should implement the requirements within existing resources.

(Opposed) None.

Persons Testifying: (Higher Education) Senator Kohl-Welles, prime sponsor; Tom Henderson, State Board for Community and Technical Colleges; and Sarah Ishmael and Jake Stillwell, Washington Student Lobby.

Persons Testifying: (Appropriations) Marc Webster, Office of Financial Management and Office of the Governor.