As 2026 begins, universities are navigating many complex safety challenges. Behavioral threats, unauthorized access, and operational disruptions now intersect with emergency events that impact research continuity, residential life, and the overall well-being of the broader campus community. As Area Vice President for Securitas USA, Chris Connolly has helped shape a forward-looking threat assessment and preparedness model that helps strengthen campus resilience while supporting an open academic environment.
This blog explores the evolving landscape of campus security through Chris’s frontline perspective, highlighting how proactive assessment, integrated response strategies, and collaborative leadership help contribute to safer, more prepared university communities.
A new era of campus complexity
The modern university is more fluid, decentralized, and diverse than ever. Thousands of students, faculty, visitors, and contractors move through open academic environments every day, creating a level of activity and unpredictability that exceeds anything institutions have experienced before.
Today’s campus threats span a wide spectrum: behavioral concerns, unauthorized access attempts, activism and protest activity, high-risk laboratory environments, mental health–related incidents, and emergency events that can disrupt academic, research, and residential operations.
Chris Connolly sees this complexity firsthand. His portfolio includes multiple campuses with dramatically different cultures, rhythms, and risk profiles; yet all are interconnected by a shared expectation: that security teams not only respond effectively but also help anticipate threats before they escalate.
“The overarching challenge is unpredictability: the threats themselves may not always be new, but the speed and complexity with which they emerge is the biggest challenge we face.”
As 2025 drew to a close, Chris notes that this unpredictability is amplified by a new wave of campus activity and pressure points. Protests, activism, and public events continue to intensify across institutions of all sizes, often shaped by national issues, geopolitical tensions, and campus-specific concerns. These events require thoughtful planning, clear communication, cultural awareness, and a crisis-management approach rooted in community engagement rather than traditional event logistics.
At the same time, operational risks such as research disruptions, facility emergencies, and unauthorized access concerns demand adaptable, scalable preparedness. Across these environments, students and faculty expect both transparency and a security presence that supports, rather than restricts, the openness of higher education. This balance between vigilance, accessibility, and trust will define the next era of campus safety.
Evolving expectations: from response to anticipation
In recent years, expectations around threat assessment have shifted dramatically. Campus communities no longer view security as a reactive function. Instead, they expect proactive, intelligence-driven strategies that combine data, frontline awareness, and community reporting.
Chris describes this evolution as a cultural shift:
“Campus communities now expect not only that security teams will respond to incidents, but that we will help anticipate and mitigate risks before they escalate.”
This means analyzing access-control patterns, surveillance alerts, environmental cues from security operations centers, and insights from intelligence-as-a-service partners. It also means listening to students, faculty, and staff, who often surface early indicators long before they appear in formal reports.
Just as importantly, expectations around transparency and communication have grown. Students and faculty want to know the “why” behind security decisions. They expect openness, consistency, and assurance that the university is balancing safety with accessibility.
Preparedness now extends across the enterprise: operations, brand reputation, academic continuity, research protection, and student well-being all intersect with threat assessment decisions.
“The goal is a holistic, integrated approach that strengthens resilience across the entire campus environment,” says Chris.
Building a layered, campus-wide security framework
A university is not one environment; it's dozens of ecosystems operating simultaneously. Academic buildings, residence halls, athletic facilities, cultural spaces, and high-risk laboratories all carry unique vulnerabilities.
Chris’s framework is built around three pillars: visibility, integration, and partnership.
- Visibility
Security teams help assess risks at human, environmental, and systems levels.
- Academic buildings require unobtrusive monitoring that respects openness.
- Residential spaces require trust and relationship-building with students.
- Research facilities require heightened access control, regulatory alignment, and specialized contingency planning.
- Integration
Local officers, patrol teams, technology systems, and 24/7 control center personnel help contribute to a unified operational picture. This shared visibility supports early anomaly detection and rapid response. - Partnership
Campus police, facilities, administration, emergency management, environmental health and safety, and school-level administrators are all part of the ecosystem.
“Security can’t be one-size-fits-all. Our layered approach helps protect people, research, and the campus itself in a way that’s adaptable, community-focused, and resilient.”
Recognizing early indicators before they escalate
Early threat indicators rarely come as formal complaints. They emerge through everyday interactions: an officer noticing irregular behavior, a faculty member expressing concern, or a student mentioning something that doesn’t feel right.
“Most early indicators surface subtly and through relationships, not reports,” Chris notes.
Officers are trained to understand “what normal or typical looks like,” empowering them to identify patterns that warrant follow-up, such as repeated unauthorized access attempts or behavior suggesting emotional distress. Just as critical is creating reporting pathways that are simple, trusted, and judgment-free.
Data analytics can strengthen this awareness. Access-control anomalies, video alerts, and intelligence from external partners help contextualize emerging patterns and see that signals aren’t siloed across campuses.
“Ultimately, our approach is built on recognizing subtle signals, elevating them quickly, and sharing information widely,” says Chris.
Balancing accessibility with preparedness
Higher education thrives on free movement, collaboration, and the exchange of ideas. Helping protect that environment while mitigating risk requires balance.
The philosophy guiding Chris’s program is “visibility without intrusion.” Officers are trained to be approachable, to de-escalate, and to integrate into campus culture. Technology is deployed strategically, not restrictively. Decisions are also made collaboratively with academic leaders so that safety measures can enhance rather than impede the university's mission.
“The goal is a campus that is secure but not closed, where students, faculty, and visitors feel safe, supported, and free to focus on learning and research.”
A unified crisis-response environment
On a large university campus, emergency response is a team sport. Contract security, campus police, emergency management, student affairs, and facilities all have distinct responsibilities, yet success depends on acting as a unified ecosystem.
“No one operates in silos. During an incident, everyone knows their role, and the response is seamless.”
This alignment is reinforced through:
- Shared radio channels and communication platforms
- Real-time incident reporting systems
- Routine tabletop exercises and drills
- Decision trees, checklists, and clear SOPs
- Consistent terminology for incident types
Technology helps provide visibility, protocols help provide structure, and training helps execution remain smooth even in high-stress scenarios.
Scalable, adaptable preparedness
Scalable preparedness across a large and diverse campus depends on a unified crisis-response ecosystem. One in which contract security, campus police, and administrative partners operate as interconnected teams rather than independent units.
“Each group brings something different to the table. Contract security provides day-to-day visibility, monitors buildings and systems, and handles immediate incidents. Campus police possess law enforcement authority, investigative expertise, and advanced training to address serious threats. Administrative partners such as student affairs, facilities, IT, and environmental health help make sure the right resources, communication, and policies are in place to support the response.”
To keep this system adaptable, Chris emphasizes the importance of coordination: shared expectations, routine communication, and regular joint training. These practices help create clarity around roles, escalation pathways, and decision-making, so that each campus can tailor its execution while still operating within a cohesive framework. By collaboratively designing preparedness strategies and grounding them in local response models, the university can scale its approach effectively, adapt to new threats, maintain continuity, and support both safety and operations before, during, and after any incident.
Lessons learned from the frontlines
A recent incident reinforced the importance of early detection and coordinated response: an explosive device detonated in a research building during early morning hours.
Thanks to real-time alerts, security and police teams responded immediately. Security supervisors detected the incident through fire system alarms, dispatched patrol staff to secure the scene, and coordinated with police and administrators as the investigation unfolded.
Chris broadened communication instantly across other research, while the operations center leveraged video and system data to support law enforcement, ultimately leading to the apprehension of the individuals responsible. The event underscored the importance of vigilance, technology, coordination, and proactive communication, all essential to protecting a modern university ecosystem.
Building a culture of shared safety
Modernizing threat assessment and emergency readiness in higher education requires more than new tools; it requires a cultural transformation.
Chris’s advice to leaders is clear:
“The strongest campuses are those that combine engaged leadership, proactive assessment, smart technology, and a collaborative culture. When those pieces align, safety becomes part of the institution’s identity.”
In a landscape where risks evolve rapidly, and campus life remains vibrant, universities must adopt security as a shared responsibility. One built on communication, trust, integration, and early intervention. As 2025 has come to an end and we're now in the New Year, these principles will continue to shape resilient, prepared, and thriving academic environments.
