News & Insights

Higher education institutions must balance their commitment to open, accessible learning environments with a growing emphasis on both safety and security. As expectations evolve and campus use becomes more dynamic, institutions face increasing pressure to proactively mitigate risks, protect people and assets, and maintain operational continuity – all while preserving a welcoming atmosphere.

Modern campuses function less like isolated academic settings and more like complex, interconnected micro-cities, where students, staff, visitors, contractors, and community members move continuously across buildings, roadways, parking structures, residence halls, and shared outdoor spaces. This constant movement and diversity of activities underscore the importance of integrated safety and security strategies that safeguard individuals, support emergency preparedness, and maintain a secure yet inclusive environment. Targeted violence, mental health crises, and cybersecurity threats now sit alongside traditional safety concerns. These challenges cannot be addressed solely through surveillance cameras or access control systems. The response has been a shift toward strategies that combine environmental design, infrastructure, operations, and integrated technology to support both security and usability.

Many of the most effective safety and security strategies are not highly visible. They are embedded in decisions about lighting, pedestrian and vehicle circulation, landscape design, and building placement. A well-lit walkway, a clear line of sight across a plaza, or an intuitive path from parking to a residence hall can shape how safe a campus feels long before an electronic security system is noticed.

Safety, done well, becomes part of the everyday experience rather than a visible reminder of risk.

Why campus safety planning is changing

Campus safety has historically been associated with physical security systems such as surveillance cameras, access control platforms, and emergency call stations. Those systems remain important, but institutions increasingly treat them as components of a larger resilience and risk management strategy rather than the strategy itself.

The modern approach to campus security emphasizes enabling access while managing risk, recognizing that today’s campuses operate as dynamic, around-the-clock environments rather than traditional nine-to-five facilities. Buildings serve multiple functions and maintain varied operating schedules, requiring access for custodial, maintenance, and support personnel beyond normal business hours. At the same time, students move continuously between residence halls, academic buildings, recreation facilities, dining venues, and collaborative spaces throughout the day and evening. As a result, security strategies must balance safety, accessibility, and operational flexibility while supporting the diverse needs of the campus community.

This evolution has driven a broader shift away from viewing security as a collection of standalone technologies and toward a more integrated operational model. The modern approach recognizes that security effectiveness is determined not only by the systems deployed, but by the people, policies, and processes that support them. Cameras must be actively monitored, emergency communications must be staffed and supported by defined response procedures, and access control systems must be governed, credential management maintained, and maintenance performed. When institutions invest in visible security measures without the operational framework necessary to sustain them, vulnerabilities emerge that can diminish both system effectiveness and community confidence.

Lighting, wayfinding, and the spaces in between

Some of the most influential contributors to campus safety are not traditionally considered security measures at all.

Lighting is one of the clearest examples. Parking lots and pathways that are bright in some spots and shadowed in others create an environment that feels unpredictable and uncomfortable. Good lighting design isn’t just about brightness; it’s about continuity. A well-lit pedestrian route where visibility holds for the full path of travel creates a fundamentally different experience than one where darkness pools between fixtures. Lighting is also increasingly being coordinated with building systems: occupancy sensors, scheduled controls, and automated responses can align visibility with how spaces are actually being used throughout the day.

Wayfinding plays a similar role in shaping confidence and predictability.

Large campuses can be difficult to navigate, particularly for first-year students, visitors, and staff working outside standard hours. Uncertainty about directions, entrances, or building locations can create hesitation and stress. That uncertainty affects how people move and how they respond in unfamiliar situations. Clear signage, intuitive circulation paths, recognizable landmarks, and logical building organization reduce that friction. When movement becomes more predictable, the campus becomes easier to understand and manage operationally.

These design choices are often subtle, helping people feel safe through measures embedded within the environment

CPTED on today’s campus: supporting safety, visibility, and openness

Many of these strategies align with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), a framework that considers how physical environments influence behavior, perception, and safety outcomes. A recent public safety research brief found that effective CPTED strategies have been associated with reducing crime and calls for service by more than 60% in some cases, while also improving perceived safety and security. Effectiveness varies based on implementation and context. Still, the underlying principle holds: thoughtful environmental design influences how spaces are used, observed, and experienced.

While CPTED has existed for decades, its application in higher education has evolved. Earlier approaches often emphasized hardening environments through barriers, surveillance, and strict separation between public and private spaces. Today, the focus has shifted toward maintaining openness while strengthening visibility, clarity, and natural observation.

The physical environment itself can either support or discourage unsafe behavior long before technology becomes involved. On today’s campuses, CPTED principles often inform design decisions that may seem ordinary but carry important safety implications.

• Landscaping: Tree placement, canopy height, and vegetation density can influence sightlines, roof accessibility, and concealment opportunities. A fast-growing tree placed within ten feet of a structure can, within a few years, provide a way onto the roof. Dense shrubs near windows can obstruct sightlines or create concealment areas if not carefully selected and maintained. These decisions are most effective when discussed before landscape plans and circulation patterns are finalized, not after.
• Roadway design: Long, uninterrupted road approaches near pedestrian-heavy areas allow vehicles to reach higher speeds closer to gathering zones. Curved approaches, speed tables, raised curbs, setbacks, and landscape buffers can improve separation between vehicles and pedestrians without making campuses feel restrictive. Elements that appear primarily decorative, such as benches, planters, and seating walls, can also serve protective functions when rated and positioned appropriately.
• Boundaries and circulation: CPTED doesn’t rely on fences and gates alone. Visual cues such as a change in paving material, a row of plantings, or a shift in grade can signal where public space ends and campus space begins. Activated gathering areas and clearly designed circulation routes enhance visibility and encourage legitimate use of spaces, strengthening a sense of stewardship among campus users.
• Upkeep and maintenance: Lighting outages, overgrown vegetation, damaged signage, and neglected public areas can quickly affect both perception and usability. Well-maintained environments signal active stewardship, which supports both comfort and confidence in using campus spaces.

These strategies are most effective when integrated early in the planning and design process. Once circulation patterns and building placements are finalized, opportunities for environmental adjustment become more limited.

Why integration matters across campus systems

Many campuses continue to operate security infrastructure that has been implemented in phases over time. Surveillance systems, access control platforms, emergency communication tools, and building management systems often function independently rather than as a coordinated network. When systems operate in isolation, gaps emerge between them.

Integrated platforms allow those systems to work in tandem. An access control event at a loading dock can automatically trigger nearby cameras to begin recording. Occupancy systems can indicate whether lecture halls or labs are still in use after hours. Emergency notifications can be pushed simultaneously to speakers, digital signage, and campus communication platforms. A unified graphical interface lets security and facilities teams monitor multiple systems from a single screen rather than logging into separate applications across buildings or campuses — a significant operational advantage on large or multi-site institutions.

For institutions with multiple campuses, consistency across locations is equally important. Safety systems should not vary significantly from one building or site to another, as inconsistency can create confusion during emergencies and complicated training and response procedures.

What should be prioritized now in upgrades and new projects

Successful campus safety strategies consistently show one pattern: the most effective decisions are made early, when environments are still being shaped rather than retrofitted later. Once buildings are constructed and circulation patterns are fixed, options for improvement become more constrained and often more costly.

Several priorities tend to have an outsized impact on long-term outcomes:

• Start safety planning early in the design process. Entry locations, pedestrian routes, road alignments, and landscape layouts influence how people move through campus every day. When safety is considered early in programming, design decisions can enhance visibility, reduce ambiguity, and improve operational coordination before construction begins.
• Coordinate early across disciplines. When security, public safety, facilities, and design teams work together from the outset, problems like isolated pathways, inconsistent lighting, and unclear circulation patterns are identified before they become built conditions. Late coordination limits options; early coordination expands them.
• Design for end users from the start. Campus environments must support a wide range of users with different mobility needs, schedules, and responsibilities. Accessibility requirements, emergency egress, credentialing systems, and operational workflows should be considered together rather than independently. When these elements are aligned, safety can be supported without restricting movement or creating unintended barriers.
• Match technology to operational capacity. More infrastructure doesn’t automatically make a campus safer. Emergency phones, surveillance systems, and monitoring platforms communicate that support is available, and that carries an implicit promise. When staffing and response capacity don’t match the visible infrastructure, the result is both a false sense of security and real liability exposure. Before expanding any system, the question to ask is not just what to install but whether the team can realistically support it around the clock.
• Plan for maintenance and lifecycle costs. Ongoing maintenance plays a direct role in performance, perception, and CPTED ideology. Lighting outages, deteriorating signage, and neglected landscapes can reduce usability and erode confidence in campus environments. Long-term planning should account for lifecycle costs, not just initial implementation.
• Avoid uneven system deployment. Phased implementation without a clear roadmap can create inconsistencies across campus. Buildings with advanced access control may operate differently from those relying on manual systems, particularly during emergencies. A coordinated rollout strategy helps reduce operational gaps and supports more consistent user experiences.

The greatest safety and security benefits are achieved when these elements are planned and managed as a coordinated ecosystem rather than individual initiatives. Effective campus safety relies on the integration of design, technology, operations, maintenance, and emergency response, with each component reinforcing the others. Access control, surveillance, lighting, wayfinding, CPTED strategies, and operational procedures work together to support prevention, detection, and response while creating environments that are safe, accessible, and welcoming. When aligned under a common strategy, these investments deliver greater long-term effectiveness, resilience, and value than any single measure alone.

How Salas O’Brien can help

Campus safety depends on more than security technology alone. It requires coordination across planning, infrastructure, operations, environmental design, and integrated systems.

At Salas O’Brien, your project benefits from multidisciplinary expertise spanning security consulting, infrastructure engineering, systems integration, and operational strategy. With teams sharing knowledge and experience across projects nationwide, you gain access to perspectives shaped by diverse campus environments, evolving risk considerations, and real-world operational demands. Support extends from understanding client and end-user requirements through implementation guided by industry best practices, applicable codes, and relevant standards.

Whether you’re planning a new facility, modernizing existing systems, assessing operational gaps, or building a phased implementation roadmap, support can be tailored to your institution’s goals, constraints, and day-to-day realities.

The objective is to help you create a campus environment where safety supports openness rather than competes with it — and where technology, design, operations, and compliance requirements reinforce one another as part of the everyday student, faculty, and staff experience.

To talk about a project, reach out to [email protected] or reach out to one of our contributors below.

For media inquiries on this article, reach out to [email protected].