Open enrollment. Public access. Labs and clinics. Evening and weekend programs. Community events. Multiple entry points. Minimal centralized control. These features are central to the community college mission. Yet many institutions still rely on emergency response plans rooted in assumptions that don’t match how their campuses operate.
Too often, campus safety planning defaults to a single instruction: lockdown. While lockdown can be an appropriate response in certain circumstances, treating it as the primary or only response option during a violent critical incident creates dangerous gaps on open-air campuses.
The question facing community college leaders today is how to prepare in ways that reflect reality rather than aspiration.
The problem with ‘lockdown-only’ thinking
Traditional lockdown protocols were largely developed for contained, residential campuses with controlled access points, centralized communication systems and predictable daily rhythms. Community colleges operate differently.
Students may attend classes part-time. Workforce programs bring in external partners, patients or customers. Campuses are often spread across multiple locations, each with distinct layouts and risk profiles. According to a 2023 Campus Safety survey of higher education institutions, only 35% of respondents reported being able to lock down 75% or more of their campus, compared to 83% of K-12 schools.
Libraries, childcare centers, testing centers and food pantries remain open to the public throughout the day. Evening and weekend programs often operate with reduced staffing and limited on-site security presence.
In this environment, a blanket lockdown directive can be impractical or even unsafe. Some doors cannot be secured. Some people may be outdoors, in transit or in labs where sheltering in place presents its own risks. Others may not receive alerts in real time. When plans assume a one-size-fits-all response without accounting for context, they place unrealistic expectations on students and staff and can delay effective action.
Preparedness built around a single response option — often lockdown — places pressure on faculty, advisors, lab managers and other employees who are suddenly expected to execute instructions that may not fit their surroundings. In a crisis, people rise to the level of their training. When training is limited, so is their ability to respond.
From one-size-fits-all responses, to informed decision-making
ALICE Training®, a solution of Navigate360, prepares individuals to respond when an alert is received. Participants learn to gather information, assess their surroundings and choose the response option that best fits the situation they face.
In response, many community colleges are reexamining response plans that rely on a single prescribed action and instead adopting multi-option response frameworks that support informed decision-making. This approach recognizes that no central authority can see every corner of an open campus during a rapidly evolving incident. Effective preparedness equips people with a clear understanding of multiple response options, authority to act based on role and location, guidance on assessing risk rather than waiting for perfect information and communication protocols that support flexibility.
This shift reflects principles taught in multi-option response training programs, such as ALICE Training®, which recognize that different situations require different actions based on circumstances, environment and available information.
Rather than abandoning coordination or command structures, this approach acknowledges that decentralized environments require decentralized judgment calls, supported by training and shared language. When staff and faculty understand not just what to do, but why certain actions are appropriate in certain scenarios, they are better prepared to respond safely and confidently.
Why scenario-based training matters
One of the most effective ways to build this capacity is through scenario-based training. Unlike traditional drills — which are supervised, coordinated events designed to test new policies, procedures or equipment and often rehearse a single outcome — scenario-based training presents participants with realistic situations that require real-time evaluation and decision-making.
For community colleges, this might include:
- An incident occurring near a public entrance during evening classes
- A threat affecting one building while other locations remain operational
- A workforce lab with specialized equipment and external participants
- A campus event drawing community members who are not on college communication systems
In these scenarios, participants engage in decision-making under realistic conditions in a controlled setting, grounded in ALICE’s trauma-informed training approach. Participants discuss what information they would need, what options are available and how they would communicate with others. These exercises can focus on guided discussion or real-time decision-making, allowing campuses to build readiness without using high-stress or traumatic simulations.
This approach is especially important for adult learners and employees who may have experienced prior trauma or who are balancing education with work and family responsibilities. Preparedness should build confidence, not fear.
While scenario training prepares people for crisis response, equally important work happens before emergencies begin.
Reviews of higher education incidents and after-action reports consistently point to similar challenges: delayed communication, uncertainty about appropriate response options, and emergency plans that assumed spaces could be locked down when they could not. Multi-option response training models are designed to address these gaps by preparing people to think critically in the moment, rather than waiting for centralized instructions that may not reflect their immediate surroundings.
Preparing for prevention — not just response
Another limitation of lockdown-only planning is its focus on what happens after violence begins. Increasingly, community colleges are recognizing the importance of prevention and early intervention, particularly through behavioral threat assessment and management.
According to Rick Leonard, chief of public safety at Oakland Community College in Michigan, prevention starts with preparing people to recognize and report concerns before situations escalate.
“Even though our campuses are safe, we take the potential for active violence very seriously,” said Leonard. “We’ve put prevention protocols in place and made sure they’re communicated to our faculty and staff.”
Those protocols include encouraging students and employees to report concerning behavior through an anonymous tip reporting system, alerting public safety to suspicious activity, and offering emergency response training to all employees. The college also exercises evacuation plans and shares building access information with regional emergency responders to support coordinated response if needed.
With five campuses and numerous buildings, flexibility is essential. Leonard added, “Our training focuses first on assessing what’s happening and then implementing an action plan that fits that specific event.”
By establishing multidisciplinary teams and clear reporting pathways, colleges can identify concerning behaviors, assess risk, and intervene early. While prevention does not replace emergency response planning, it significantly reduces the likelihood that response plans will ever need to be used.
Moving forward
Community colleges will always be open by design. The goal of campus safety planning should be to protect that identity.
By moving beyond lockdown-only thinking and investing in scenario-based training, informed decision-making frameworks, and prevention-focused strategies, community colleges can prepare for the realities they face.
The question is no longer whether community colleges can be both open and safe. It’s whether leaders will invest in the training and frameworks that make both possible.
