An assessment of Safety and Security Conditions in State University: A Mixed Method Approach
Using a mixed-methods approach, this study reveals that a state university suffers from low satisfaction with its safety and security measures due to systemic deficiencies in leadership, training, and equipment, prompting recommendations for an integrated framework, regular audits, and capacity-building initiatives.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Every university campus is a complex ecosystem where learning happens, but it is also a place where people gather, live, and work, making safety a fundamental requirement for its success. Safety and security are often treated as separate ideas, yet they are deeply intertwined in the daily life of an institution. Safety usually refers to protection from accidental harm, such as a fire, a slip on a wet floor, or a power failure. Security, on the other hand, deals with protection against intentional threats, like theft, violence, or unauthorized access. For a school to function well, it must manage both the accidental risks of the physical environment and the deliberate risks posed by people. When these systems fail, the disruption can halt education and erode trust. In the Philippines, government guidelines exist to help schools maintain these standards, but researchers have long suspected that the reality on the ground, especially in remote areas, often falls short of the rules on paper.
A team of researchers from Mountain Province State University set out to measure exactly how safe and secure their own campus felt to the people who use it every day. They wanted to move beyond guesswork and official reports to understand the actual experience of students, teachers, staff, and visitors. To do this, they used a two-step approach. First, they conducted in-depth interviews with three outside experts in safety and security. These experts shared their insights on the campus's safety conditions, policies, and challenges to identify the most critical weaknesses. Their feedback helped the researchers build a detailed survey. In the second step, the researchers asked 652 people—ranging from students and faculty to administrative staff and visitors—to rate the university's safety measures. The survey covered three main areas: the physical condition of the campus, the performance of the security staff, and how well the university protected its documents and digital information.
The results painted a picture of a campus that is functioning but not thriving in terms of safety. When the researchers averaged the scores from all the respondents, the overall feeling was one of being only "slightly safe and secured." This low rating pointed to specific trouble spots. The physical environment, which includes things like fences, gates, lighting, and emergency exits, received the lowest marks. Respondents were particularly concerned about the lighting in the dark and the availability of emergency lights during power outages. The study found that while the university had security guards, the training and responsiveness of these personnel were seen as inconsistent. Furthermore, the protection of documents and digital data was a major concern. While the university used two-way radios for communication, which was a positive finding, the systems for securing electronic records, such as passwords and digital signatures, were rated very poorly. This suggests that while the university might be watching the doors, it is less effective at protecting the information inside.
The study also revealed that not everyone feels the same level of risk. The researchers found that students were the most satisfied group, rating the campus as safer than any other group did. This is likely because students see the security guards and the emergency drills that happen regularly, which gives them a sense of order. In contrast, faculty members were the least satisfied, giving the lowest scores across all categories. Teachers and staff, who spend long hours in the buildings and deal with sensitive academic records, seem to be more aware of the gaps in the system, such as poor lighting or a lack of clear leadership in security matters. Administrative staff and visitors fell somewhere in between, with visitors rating the physical security slightly higher, perhaps because they only see the main gates and entrances, while staff members worry about the details of daily operations.
The experts who helped design the study confirmed these findings, pointing out systemic issues that go beyond simple fixes. They noted a lack of qualified leadership to oversee security, insufficient training for the guards, and a shortage of proper equipment. They also highlighted that the university was not following its own safety protocols consistently. The researchers concluded that the current measures are not enough to fully protect the community or the institution's assets. To fix this, they recommend a complete overhaul of the safety framework. This includes hiring and training a dedicated security leadership team, upgrading the physical infrastructure like lighting and locks, and creating a robust system for protecting digital and paper records. They also suggest that the university must move from a reactive stance, where they only act after a problem occurs, to a proactive one, where they constantly check, audit, and improve their safety systems to ensure the campus remains a secure place for learning.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.