The Campus Security Operations and Management of Laguna State Polytechnic University: Basis for an Enhanced Campus Security Policies and Guidelines

The Campus Security Operations and Management of Laguna State Polytechnic University: Basis for an Enhanced Campus Security Policies and Guidelines

Liezel Baclig – Franco, PhD

Laguna State Polytechnic University- Sta. Cruz Main Campus, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.908000307

Received: 09 August 2025; Accepted: 15 August 2025; Published: 09 September 2025

ABSTRACT

Our nation’s Universities should be safe havens for teaching and learning, free of crime and violence. Any instance of crime or violence at campuses not only affects the individuals involved, but also may disrupt the educational process and affect bystanders, the university itself, and the surrounding community.” A quantitative safety measure is important to compare different campuses easily and to learn about specific campus safety conditions.

In this study, the researcher used a survey on the level of implementation in the operations and management of LSPU Campuses security in terms of duties and functions and the security training of the security personnel. Then, provide best practices in order to have efficient management that capture campus security standard. Also, utilized collected of information’s on the challenges encountered in the delivery of operations in terms of facilities and equipment, human resources and finances. Lastly, formulate an action plan for the enhanced Laguna State Polytechnic University security policies and guidelines.

The researcher conducted the research at the Four (4) campuses of Laguna State Polytechnic University using the three (3) groups of respondents such as security personnel, employees and students that provide a detailed description of the research work. This research will contributes to the enhanced campus security of this University.

Keywords: Campus Security, Security Operations, Security Management, Campus Policy and Guidelines, Security Training, Best Practices

INTRODUCTION

Safety and security are always everybody concern. Events of campus violence illuminate the ever-growing awareness of the risks and threats present on university campus.  The university campus has traditionally been known as a safe haven for students, but after the outbreak of the pandemic COVID-19, many studies have been conducted to examine how education has responded to the challenges of a completely new situation that has led to the spread of distance education as the only form of instruction. With universities beginning to reopen for face-to-face learning, Laguna State Polytechnic University’s management and head of student support and wellbeing offers some ways to manage the feelings around this. Many other man-made tragic events such as the shootings at Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois University, Purdue University, and the University of Texas Austin.  Non-violent events such as alcohol-related deaths, date rape, dormitory fires, and drug related deaths are also further affecting the overall perception of campus safety.  These types of events continue to increase and gather massive amounts of media attention which is affecting the image of a safe university campuses where students could live and learn (Carrico, 2016).

Today’s colleges and universities are faced much more challenges in the attempt to provide a campus which is safe and secure.  Mental health issues have also continued to become more prevalent in society and are often displayed in the students on today’s college campuses (Hemphill & LaBanc, 2010).

According to CHED Memorandum No. 09 series of 2013 Article 9 Section 28, safety and security services that refers to the provision of safe and secure environment and that of the members of the academic community. Under paragraph 28.1 there is safe, accessible (for disable person) and secure environment, buildings and facilities shall comply with government standards. Licensed and competent security personnel shall ensure the safety and security of students and their belongings. As well as under paragraph 28.5 that there shall be an established mechanism for the students to help in crime prevention, safety and security of the concerned HEI.

It is imperative that HEI’s in the country must follow, and ensure the safety and security of their clients. In connection with the recent ISO certification of the Laguna State Polytechnic University which aims to give a quality and client satisfaction services, it is of paramount that services on safety and security is delivered to its clients in its best.

The Laguna State Polytechnic University (LSPU) was initially established in 1952 as a provincial secondary school known as Baybay Provincial High School, the first public high school in the shoreline district of Laguna de Bay. Now, LSPU is a SUC Level III Higher Education Institution which helps the government make education the central strategy for investing in human resources to reduce poverty while inviting economic growth and national competitiveness.

With the intention of establishing and understanding the knowledge, present challenges and best practices of Security Management Office, this study will be a basis to enhance the policy and guidelines which serve as the very reason why the researcher seeks to undertake this study. Specifically, the study will seek to determine the following:

Level of implementation in the operations and management of LSPU Campus security in terms of:

Duties and functions

Security training;

Best practices in order to have efficient management;

Challenges encountered in the delivery of operations in terms of:

Facilities and Equipment

Human Resources

Finances;

Based on the findings of the study, how security policies and guidelines of campus security be enhanced?

METHODOLOGY

The conduct of the study was implemented in the four campuses of Laguna State Polytechnic University, Province of Laguna. Respected units/offices will be requested with any available data and/or documents as the main source data and focus of the study which will be supported by the interviews and the use of validated instrument to be conducted to the person’s concerned with the University. The person’s concerned will include, but not limited to the following: Student, Faculty, Teachers, Employee’s and Security Personnel

The security personnel, faculty, teachers, employee’s and students will be requested to accomplish the questionnaire. To get the hundred percent (100 %) retrieval of the questionnaire, the researcher will have a direct supervision in the gathering of data. Moreover, the questionnaire will be rendered in English languages, however, it may be translated to Filipino for better understanding and interpretation on the part of the respondents.

The conduct of the study will be monitored regularly and closely by the researchers to include the following activities:

Formulation of the draft survey questionnaire.

Ocular Visits and/or informal/formal interviews to the target respondents.

Meetings with the panel of technical people and consultants.

Distribution of survey questionnaire to the target respondents (security personnel, faculty, teachers, employee’s and students)

Gather data, encode and tabulate results of the study.

Statistically analyse and treat data with interpretations.

Create an Action Plan for the Extension Program for the Enhanced Campus Security Policies and Guidelines.

Complete the survey report with recommendations, neatly packaged, and ready for submission to R&D Office, and local to national or even international presentations.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Figure 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 show the demographic profile of respondents.

It can be seen from the above Figure 1 which represented the respondents from different LSPU Campuses that 427 or 34 percent of the respondents were from Sta Cruz campus, 316 or 25 percent were from San Pablo campus, while 330 or 27 percent were from Los Baṅos campus and lastly, 171 or 14 percent were from Siniloan campus. A total of 1, 244 respondents participated in the four (4) campuses of Laguna State Polytechnic University.

The overhead Figure 2 showed the Category of the respondents, which consist of 782 or 63 percent student, 430 or 34 percent employee and lastly, 32 or 3 percent for the Security Personnel of the university.

It can be gleaned from the above Figure 3 that 521 or 41. 88 percent of the respondents are male and 723 or 52 percent are female.

Moreover, the above Figure 4 shows the Age range of the respondents which 631 or 51 percent of the respondents were 21-30, followed by the 31-40 with 408 or 33 percent, while 107 or 9 percent were aged 41-51, whereas 61 respondents or 5 percent for aged 51-60,  and only 37 or 2 percent were 61 years old and above. It may be noted that majority of the respondents were at the age of 21-30.

Lastly, the Figure 5 represent the Educational attainment of the respondents with 32 or 3 percent of the respondents were High school graduate, followed by the majority of the respondents which College level with 829 or 6 percent, while 308 or 24 percent were College graduate, and lastly 75 or 6 percent were Postgraduate.

The next tables represent the results of the study and presented systematically in tabular form to discuss the implications of these findings to the current state of knowledge on the topic of the study in each campuses of Laguna State Polytechnic University.

Research Objective 1.1. Level of implementation in the operations and management of LSPU Campuses security in terms of duties and functions.

Table 1. Level of Implementation in the Operations and Management of LSPU Sta Cruz Campus in terms of Duties and Functions

As shown in Table 1, both Security personnel and students assessed that the level of implementation at LSPU Sta Cruz campus in terms of duties and functions as “Strictly Implemented” (4.76 and 4.31), while the employees considered as “Implemented” (3.77). Overall, the respondents gave a “Strictly Implemented” assessment (AWM=4.28).

The most implemented indicator was “Serve as a role model for students in behavior, attire, and professional grooming”, whereas the least implemented was “Checking of luggage, handbags, and other personal belongings of students, employee, and visitors”.

Table 2. Level of Implementation in the Operations and Management of LSPU San Pablo Campus in terms of Duties and Functions

Table 2 displayed that Security personnel assessed that the level of implementation at LSPU San Pablo campus in terms of duties and functions as “Strictly Implemented” (4.28), while the Employees and Students evaluated as “Moderately Implemented” (3.02 and 3.32). In sum, the respondents gave as “Implemented” (AWM=3.60) as regards to the Level of Implementation in the operations and management of LSPU San Pablo in terms of duties and functions.

The most implemented indicator was “Respond to emergency situations and notify police and emergency personnel when there is an urgent or unusual situation”, whereas the least implemented was “Implements the control procedure of incoming and outgoing pass for university and non-university property”.

Table 3. Level of Implementation in the Operations and Management of LSPU Los Baṅos Campus in terms of Duties and Functions

 In Table 3 showed, the security personnel, employee and students gave the same assessments that the level of implementation at LSPU Los Baṅos campus in terms of duties and functions as “Implemented” (3.96, 3.57 and 3.65). The respondents gave an average weighted mean of “Implemented” (AWM = 4.23).

While in the most implemented indicator was “Conduct roving and monitoring university campus and areas around the school including unsupervised areas”, whereas the least implemented was “Intervene in activities that may result in injury and encourage students to not participate in such conduct”.

Table 4. Level of Implementation in the Operations and Management of LSPU Siniloan Campus in terms of Duties and Functions

As gleaned in Table 4, Security personnel, employees and students assessed that the level of implementation at LSPU Siniloan campus in terms of duties and functions as “Implemented” (4.01, 3.56 and 3.38). In totality, the respondents gave an “Implemented” with Average weighted Mean of 3.65.

The most implemented indicator was “Conduct roving and monitoring university campus and areas around the school including unsupervised areas”, whereas the least implemented was “Recording of information of the visitors as well as if there is a vehicles (make/model, color, plate number) of the visitors”.

Table 5. Summary of Level of Implementation in the Operations and Management of LSPU Four Campuses in terms of Duties and Functions

As gleaned in Table 5, the San Pablo, Los Baṅos and Siniloan campuses assessed that the level of implementation at LSPU campuses in terms of duties and functions as “Implemented” (3.54, 3.72 and 3.65), contrary to the Sta Cruz campus which gave a “Strictly Implemented”(4.28). In totality, the respondents gave an “Implemented” assessment with Average weighted Mean of 3.79.

The most implemented indicator was “Conduct roving and monitoring university campus and areas around the school including unsupervised areas”, whereas the least implemented was “Implements the control procedure of incoming and outgoing pass for university and non-university property”.

In the study of the School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) 2021-2022 in which collects data on school safety and security practices by asking public school about their school’s use of safety and security measures. These commonly used measures were generally related to either controlling access to the school during school hours or using communication systems and technology. The most commonly reported safety and security measures (reported by more than 90 percent of schools) were controlling access to school buildings during school hours, requiring visitors to sign or check in and wear badges and using security cameras to monitor the school. Moreover, it was supported by Chen (2008) which ultimately recommends “a positive school climate in combination with necessary security control” to improve school safety and reduce school crimes. Contrary to study of Mayer and Leone (1999) stated that a construct of “Secure Building,” that included physical (metal detectors, locked doors, etc.) and personnel-based (security guards, etc.) actions to run a secure building, led to more disorder.

Research Objective 1.2. Level of implementation in the operations and management of LSPU Campuses security in terms of Security Training.

Table 6. Level of Implementation in the Operations and Management of LSPU Sta Cruz Campus in terms of Security Training

Table 6 displayed that security personnel assessed that the level of implementation at LSPU Sta Cruz campus in terms of security training as “Implemented” (3.76), while the employees considered as “Moderately Implemented” (3.06). In totality, the respondents gave an “Implemented” with an Average Weighted Mean of 3.41.

The most implemented indicator was “the security guard participate in the Basic Safety and Security Training (Fire Drill Orientation, Emergency Response Training).”, whereas the least implemented was “the security guard undergo incident reporting and investigation training”.

Table 7. Level of Implementation in the Operations and Management of LSPU San Pablo        in Security Training

As shown in Table 7, Security personnel assessed that the level of implementation at LSPU San Pablo campus in terms of Security Training as “Strictly Implemented” (4.88), while the employees considered as “Implemented” (3.92). In sum, the respondents gave a “Strictly Implemented” with AWM of 4.4.

The most implemented indicator was “the security guard participate in the Basic Safety and Security Training (Fire Drill Orientation, Emergency Response Training)”, while the least implemented was “the security guard undergo incident reporting and investigation training”.

Table 8. Level of Implementation in the Operations and Management of LSPU Los Baṅos Campus in terms of Security Training

As displayed in Table 8, both Security personnel and employees assessed that the level of implementation at LSPU Los Baṅos campus in terms of Security training as “Implemented” (4.12 and 4.01). The respondents gave an assessment of “Implemented” (AWM=4.08).

The most implemented indicator was “the security guard participate in the Basic Safety and Security Training (Fire Drill Orientation, Emergency Response Training)”, however the least implemented was “the security guard undergo incident reporting and investigation training”.

Table 9. Level of Implementation in the Operations and Management of LSPU Siniloan Campus in terms of Security Training

As gleaned in Table 9, both Security personnel and employees assessed that the level of implementation at LSPU Siniloan campus in terms of Security training as “Implemented” (3.94 and 3.91). In totality, the respondents gave an “Implemented” assessment (AWM=3.92).

The most implemented indicator was “The security guard attend Occupational Health and Safety Training. (First Aid and CPR Training).”, while the least implemented was “The security guard must complete the Pre-Licensing Training Courses (PLTC) required for security officer\guard license”.

Table 10. Summary of Level of Implementation in the Operations and Management of LSPU Campuses in terms of Security Training

As gleaned in Table 10, the Sta Cruz, Los Baṅos and Siniloan campuses assessed that the level of implementation at LSPU campuses in terms of security training as “Implemented” (3.41, 4.06 and 3.92), while to San Pablo campus which gave a “Strictly Implemented”(4.4). In totality, the respondents gave an “Implemented” assessment with Average weighted Mean of 3.94.

The most implemented indicator was “the security guard participate in the Basic Safety and Security Training (Fire Drill Orientation, Emergency Response Training).”, whereas the least implemented was “the security guard undergo incident reporting and investigation training”.

According to Jennings(2011) that the presence and number of School Resource Officers (SRO) is significantly associated with a lower incidence of serious school violence, perhaps an indication that the presence of SROs may to some degree serve as a deterrent for serious crime. Therefore, this result may suggest that having an SRO independent of having qualified and trained security guards may be an effective strategy to prevent serious school violence. Furthermore, in the study of Elenin (2023) stated that self-defence training begins with educational awareness, prevention, and risk reduction and avoidance approaches. Health and safety online training is also provided, and it is required based on the security and employee’s work environment and considers the specific hazards might experience as a part of their jobs. Safety against active campus violence is part of the safety educational program, which aims to prepare individuals to respond to an active, aggressive campus situation and help people to avoid panic and disorientation.

Research Objective 2. Best Practices on Efficient Security Management of LSPU Campuses.

Table11. Best Practices on Efficient Security Management of LSPU Sta Cruz Campus

As shown in Table11, both Security personnel and students assessed in the best practices on efficient security management of LSPU Sta Cruz Campus as “Very Efficient” (4.81 and 4.27), while the employees considered as “Efficient” (3.93). Overall, the respondents gave a “Very Efficient” assessment (AWM=4.33).

The most efficient best practice was “Evaluating and refining school security measures. (Adequacy of equipment such as metal detectors, surveillance cameras, police and security officers, and other physical, tangible measures)”, whereas the least efficient was “Creating enhanced crisis communications plans and social media strategies (conduct an assessment of existing crisis communications plans and evaluate social media strategy)”.

Table 12. Best Practices on Efficient Security Management of LSPU San Pablo Campus

Table 12 displayed that both Security personnel and employees assessed the best practices on efficient security management of LSPU San Pablo Campus as “Moderately Efficient” (3.04 and 2.61), contrary to the student considered as “Less Efficient” (2.38). In totality, the respondents gave a “Moderately Efficient” assessment with AWM of 2.67.

The most efficient best practice was “Updating and exercising school emergency preparedness plans. (School emergency plans should be reviewed updated at least annually)”, whereas the least efficient was “Training security personnel’s, University administrators, teachers, and other support staff on school violence prevention, school security, school threat assessment, and school emergency planning. (The first and best line of defense is a well-trained, highly alert school staff and student body)”.

Table 13. Best Practices on Efficient Security Management of LSPU Los Baṅos Campus

As displayed in Table 13, both employee and students assessed in the best practices on efficient security management of LSPU Los Baṅos Campus as “Moderately Efficient” (3.31 and 3.29), while the security personnel assessed as “Efficient” (3.67). Overall, the respondents gave an “Efficient” assessment (AWM=3.42).

The most efficient best practice was “Updating and exercising school emergency preparedness plans. (School emergency plans should be reviewed updated at least annually)”, whereas the least efficient was “Creating enhanced crisis communications plans and social media strategies. (Conduct an assessment of existing crisis communications plans and evaluate social media strategy)”.

Table 14. Best Practices on Efficient Security Management of LSPU Siniloan Campus

Table 14 showed that the best practices on efficient security management of LSPU Siniloan Campus assessed as “Moderately Implemented” by all of the respondents. (3.40, 3.19 and 3.27) Overall, the respondents gave a “Moderately Implemented” assessment or AWM=3.28.

The most efficient best practice was “Creating enhanced crisis communications plans and social media strategies. (Conduct an assessment of existing crisis communications plans and evaluate social media strategy)”, whereas the least efficient was “Strengthening partnerships with public safety officials. (School administrators and crisis team members should meet regularly, at least twice a year, with public safety partners (police, fire, emergency medical services, emergency management agencies, Red Cross, etc.)”.

Table 15. Summary of Best Practices on Efficient Security Management of LSPU Campuses

As gleaned in Table 15, San Pablo and Siniloan campuses assessed that the efficiency of security management at LSPU campuses in terms of best practices as “Moderately Eficient” (2.67 and 3.28), contrary to Sta Cruz campus  with “Very Efficient”(4.33), while to Los Baṅos campus which gave an “Efficient”(3.42) assessment. In totality, the respondents gave an “Efficient” assessment with Average weighted Mean of 3.43.

The most efficient best practice was “Updating and exercising school emergency preparedness plans. (School emergency plans should be reviewed updated at least annually)”, whereas the least efficient was “Training security personnel’s, University administrators, teachers, and other support staff on school violence prevention, school security, school threat assessment, and school emergency planning. (The first and best line of defense is a well-trained, highly alert school staff and student body)”.

It was supported by the results of U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2019–20 and 2021–22 reported each of these various trainings on school safety and security were lower in 2021–22 than in 2019–20. For example, 67 percent of schools reported providing training on intervention and referral strategies for students displaying signs of mental health disorders in 2021–22, compared with 72 percent in 2019–20. The analysis of campus safety statistics and the deployment of comprehensive security strategies are crucial steps in addressing the rising concerns over student safety and promoting a secure educational experience. By leveraging mobile surveillance solutions, comprehensive screening protocols, and dedicated support services, educational institutions can enhance their overall security posture and better protect their campus communities (Campus Safety Stats and Security Measures, 2024). In the Philippines, CMO No. 42 S. 2021 emphasize a “Whole School Approach” to peace and security, involving all members of the school community and integrating peace values into various aspects of school life.

Research Objective 3.1. Challenges Encountered in the Delivery of Security Operations at LSPU Campuses in terms of Facilities and Equipment.

Table 16. Challenges Encountered in the Delivery of Security Operations at LSPU Sta Cruz in terms of Facilities and Equipment

As displayed in Table 16, both Security personnel assessed the challenges encountered at LSPU Sta Cruz campus in terms of facilities and equipment as “Very Serious” (4.41), while the employees considered as “Serious” (3.82) and the students evaluated as “Moderately Serious”(3.49). Overall, the respondents gave a “Serious” assessment (AWM=3.90).

The most serious challenges was “the school security personnel lack of issued paraphernalia. (Gun, metal detector, flashlight, and nameplate)”, whereas the least serious was “the school security has poor line of defense (1^st line- gates, 2^nd line- doors and windows, 3^rd– safe and drawer locks).”

Table 17. Challenges Encountered in the Delivery of Security Operations at LSPU San Pablo in terms of Facilities and Equipment

As displayed in Table 17, both Security personnel and students assessed the challenges encountered at LSPU San Pablo campus in terms of facilities and equipment as “Serious (3.61 and 3.48), while the employees considered as “Moderately Serious” (2.92). In totality, the respondents gave a “Moderately Serious” assessment (AWM=3.33).

The most serious challenges was “Lack of installed   security technology   (CCTV, alarm detection system, access control)”, while the least serious was “Lack of available means of communication (local & commercial telephone, two-way radio, intercom, and megaphone).”

Table 18. Challenges Encountered in the Delivery of Security Operations at LSPU Los Baṅos in terms of Facilities and Equipment

Table 18 displayed that both security personnel and employees assessed the challenges encountered at LSPU Los Baṅos campus in terms of facilities and equipment as “Less Serious” (2.01 and 2.44), while the students considered as “Moderately Serious” (2.70). Overall, the respondents gave a “Less Serious” assessment (AWM=2.38).

The most serious challenges was “lack of installed protective lightning (floodlight, stationary light, and emergency light).”, however the least serious was “the school security personnel lack of issued paraphernalia. (gun, metal detector, flashlight, and nameplate)”.

Table 19. Challenges Encountered in the Delivery of Security Operations at LSPU Siniloan in terms of Facilities and Equipment

As displayed in Table 19, Security personnel, employees and students assessed the challenges encountered at LSPU Siniloan campus in terms of facilities and equipment as “Moderately Serious” (3.20, 3.04 and 3.28). Overall, the respondents gave a “Moderately Serious” assessment (AWM=3.17).

The most serious challenges was “lack of available means of communication (local & commercial telephone, two-way radio, intercom, and megaphone).”, whereas the least serious was “the school security personnel lack of issued paraphernalia. (gun, metal detector, flashlight, and nameplate)”.

Table 20. Summary of Challenges Encountered in the Delivery of Security Operations at LSPU Campuses in terms of Facilities and Equipment

As displayed in Table 20, San Pablo and Siniloan campuses assessed that the challenges encountered in the delivery of security operations  at LSPU campuses in terms of facilities and equipment as “Moderately Serious” (3.33 and 3.17), contrary to Sta Cruz campus  with “Serious” assessment of (3.90), while to Los Baṅos campus which gave an “Less Serious”(2.38) assessment. In totality, the respondents gave a “Moderately Serious” assessment with Average weighted Mean of 3.19.

The most challenging encountered in the delivery of security operations at LSPU Campuses in terms of facilities and equipment was “Lack of installed protective lightning (floodlight, stationary light, and emergency light).”, whereas the least challenging was “the school security personnel lack of issued paraphernalia (gun, metal detector, flashlight, and nameplate).”

As with any community, there are a multitude of issues and problems that relate to providing and maintaining a secure, safe campus environment for all individuals that study and work there. These campuses were largely designed to promote freedom of movement and to encourage staff/student usage of available spaces and amenities. The campus security system is an effective and mandatory mechanism to achieve a strong foundation of safety to protect students, faculty, staff, campus assets, and campus resources (Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2005). Moreover, Elenin (2023) discussed that effective security systems on campus ground can guide campus officers to prevent instances of violence. It is challenging to find a reliable, comprehensive security system that works efficiently for the entire campus and covers all the safety and security concerns of a university. Most universities use the advancement of technology and utilize integrated security systems related to the technology and comply with their demand.

Research Objective 3.2. Challenges Encountered in the Delivery of Security Operations at LSPU Campuses in terms of Human Resources.

Table 21. Challenges Encountered in the Delivery of Security Operations at LSPU Sta Cruz in terms of Human Resources

As displayed in Table 21, Security personnel assessed the challenges encountered at LSPU Sta Cruz campus in terms of human resources as “Very Serious” (4.59), while the employees considered as “Serious” (3.54). Overall, the respondents gave a “Serious” assessment (AWM=4.06).

The most serious challenges was “the security personnel failed to comply with the security guard license”, while the least serious was “the security personnel failed to uphold the Code of Conduct”.

Table 22. Challenges Encountered in the Delivery of Security Operations at LSPU San Pablo in terms of Human Resources

Table 22 showed that both Security personnel and employees assessed the challenges encountered at LSPU San Pablo campus in terms of Human Resources as “Serious” (3.65 and 4.06). Overall, the respondents gave a “Serious” assessment (AWM=3.85).

The most serious challenges was “lack of security personnel to secure and monitor the university premises”, however the least serious was “the security personnel failed to comply with the security guard license”.

Table 23. Challenges Encountered in the Delivery of Security Operations at LSPU Los Baṅos in terms of Human Resources

As gleaned in Table 23, both Security personnel and employees assessed the challenges encountered at LSPU Los Baṅos campus in terms of Human Resources as “Less Serious” (2.56 and 2.59). In totality, the respondents gave a “Less Serious” assessment (AWM=2.57).

The most serious challenges was “the security personnel failed to comply with the security guard license”, while the least serious was “the security personnel failed to uphold the Code of Conduct”.

Table 24. Challenges Encountered in the Delivery of Security Operations at LSPU Siniloan in terms of Human Resources

As displayed in Table 24, both Security personnel and employees assessed the challenges encountered at LSPU Siniloan campus in terms of Human Resources as “Serious” (3.97 and 3.86). Overall, the respondents gave a “Serious” assessment (AWM=3.91).

The most serious challenges was “the security personnel fail to pass the physical and mental test”, whereas the least serious was “the security personnel failed to comply with the security guard license”.

Table 25. Summary of Challenges Encountered in the Delivery of Security Operations at LSPU Campuses in terms of Human Resources

As displayed in Table 25, Sta Cruz, San Pablo and Siniloan campuses assessed that the challenges encountered in the delivery of security operations  at LSPU campuses in terms of Human Resources as “Serious” (4.06, 3.85 and 3.91), contrary to Los Baṅos campus  with “Less Serious” assessment of (2.57). In totality, the respondents gave a “Serious” assessment with Average weighted Mean of 3.60.

The most challenging encountered in the delivery of security operations at LSPU Campuses in terms of facilities and equipment was “the security personnel failed to comply with the security guard license” and “the security personnel fail to pass the physical and mental test”, whereas the least challenging was “the security personnel failed to uphold the Code of Conduct.”

Jackson (2002) concludes that it would thus “behove school administrators to utilize their financial resources for counselling, student-faculty crime prevention programs or delinquency awareness programs.” In addition, campus emergency management is a framework that includes managerial functions, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures that are utilized to reduce safety vulnerabilities, hazards, and campus-related risks. Emergency management includes emergency drills, response guides, calls, crisis intervention teams, and notifications. Emergency drills and practices are essential for organizations which prepare administrations, security personnel, employees and students for actual emergency situations. The practice can be used for fire and other emergencies. (Elenin, 2023) The physical presence of security guards is also a major safety and security measure, and should work in cooperation with the security technology of a campus. By combining a reliable school safety and security system with trained security staff, you can safeguard the learning environment and promote campus public safety in a more robust way. (Campus Security and Safety Checklist, 2025)

Research Objective 3.3. Challenges Encountered in the Delivery of Security Operations at LSPU Campuses in terms of Finance.

Table 26. Challenges Encountered in the Delivery of Security Operations at LSPU Sta Cruz in terms of Finance

As displayed in Table 26, security personnel assessed the challenges encountered at LSPU Sta Cruz campus in terms of finance as “Very Serious” (4.48), while the employees considered as “Serious” (4.17). Overall, the respondents gave a “Very Serious” assessment (AWM=4.32).

The most serious challenges was “the security personnel are not properly compensated in accordance with the salary standard scale”, whereas the least serious was “the security personnel are not properly receives overtime pay and double time pay”.

Table 27. Challenges Encountered in the Delivery of Security Operations at LSPU San Pablo in terms of Finance

Table 27 showed that Security personnel assessed the challenges encountered at LSPU San Pablo campus in terms of finance as “Serious” (3.68), while the employees considered as “Moderately Serious” (3.37). In totality, the respondents gave a “Serious” assessment (AWM=3.52).

The most serious challenges was “lack of recognition on the security personnel to receives awards, commendation and citation when performing duty excellently”, whereas the least serious was “the security personnel are not properly compensated in accordance with the salary standard scale”.

Table 28. Challenges Encountered in the Delivery of Security Operations at LSPU Los Baṅos in terms of Finance

As displayed in Table 28, both Security personnel and employees assessed the challenges encountered at LSPU Los Baṅos campus in terms of finance as “Serious” (3.74 and 3.84). Overall, the respondents gave a “Serious” assessment (AWM=3.79).

The most serious challenges was “the security personnel are not properly compensated in accordance with the salary standard scale.”, whereas the least serious was “lack of recognition on the security personnel to receive awards, commendation and citation when performing duty excellently”.

Table 29. Challenges Encountered in the Delivery of Security Operations at LSPU Siniloan in terms of Finance

As displayed in Table 29, both Security personnel and employees assessed the challenges encountered at LSPU Siniloan campus in terms of finance as “Serious” (3.72 and 3.61),). Overall, the respondents gave a “Serious” assessment (AWM=3.66).

The most serious challenges was “lack of recognition on the security personnel to receive awards, commendation and citation when performing duty excellently”, whereas the least serious was “the security personnel are not properly compensated in accordance with the salary standard scale”.

Table 30. Summary of Challenges Encountered in the Delivery of Security Operations at LSPU Campuses in terms of Finance

Table 30 showed that, San Pablo, Los Baṅos and Siniloan campuses assessed that the challenges encountered in the delivery of security operations at LSPU campuses in terms of Finance as “Serious” (3.52, 3.79 and 3.66), contrary to Sta Cruz campus with “Very Serious” assessment (4.32). In totality, the respondents gave a “Serious” assessment with Average weighted Mean of 3.82.

The most challenging encountered in the delivery of security operations at LSPU Campuses in terms of facilities and equipment was “the security personnel lack of receives incentives (bonuses, 14^th month pay, etc.)”, whereas the least challenging was “the security personnel are not properly receives overtime pay and double time pay”.

The Philippine Labor Code mandates various compensation and benefits for employees, including minimum wage, 13th-month pay, overtime pay, night shift differential, holiday pay, service incentive leave, and parental leaves. Employers are also required to contribute to Social Security System (SSS), PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG Fund. Moreover, in the study of Omnipresent, (2022) employee compensation includes salary and wages, benefits, bonuses, and additional perks. Salary and wages refer to the regular pay employees receive for their work. Benefits include insurance, retirement plans, and various types of leave. Bonuses are additional payments for meeting or exceeding goals. Additional perks can include company-provided lunches, on-site parking, flexible work schedules, and professional development opportunities. Contrary to the study of Mabaso (2017) organizations seeking to improve their employee retention rates should adopt a comprehensive approach that includes competitive compensation as well as addressing other factors important to employees that values and retains top talent, leading to long-term success and sustainability.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are forwarded: (Aided with the Senate Bill No. 1324 otherwise known as “Campus Security Act”)

Tighten and integrate policy application uniformly across campuses to reduce differences. Improve communication and collaboration of security personnel, administration, staff, and students to enhance alignment of perceptions and expectations.

Update training programs with additional focus on incident reporting, incident investigation, and mental health crisis response.

Enhance infrastructure—increased CCTV coverage, improved lighting, and improved access control systems.

Continuously run emergency drills and simulations to help prepare for actual incidents.

Start a campus-wide safety awareness-raising initiative to help engage the whole academic community in security.

Create an anonymous contact point for students and for employees to report security concerns.

Seek out public-private partnerships for funding new security systems and training programs.

The University campus shall begin to collect the information with respect to campus crime statistics and campus security policies annually, then, prepare, publish, and distribute, through appropriate publications or mailings, to all employees, and stakeholders, as an annual security report containing at least the following information with respect to the campus security policies and campus crime statistics of that institution.

Conduct Extension program and create an Action Plan which enhanced the Laguna State Polytechnic University security management and operations by providing trainings and seminars through partnerships across other government sectors and establishing centers or focal points with expertise and resources.

Deliver statement of policy concerning the monitoring and recoding through local police agencies of criminal activity at off-campus student organizations which are recognized by the institution and that are engaged in by students attending the institution.

In coordination with representatives of Institutions of higher education, identify exemplary campus security policies, procedures, and practices and disseminate information concerning those policies, procedures, and practices that have proven effective in the reduction of campus crime.

Updates and sufficient availability of educational materials/ instructions which increase the operation and management of campus security awareness.

Regular Focal Group Discussions (FGD) in campus security awareness and prevention program which participated by the Laguna State Polytechnic University, Local Government Unit, Philippine National Police, the stakeholders and other willing agencies. Fostering partnerships with non-governmental organizations, the business, private and professional sectors and the community.

Similar in-depth studies may be undertaken by individuals interested along their areas particularly on the aspects where the present investigation is delimited.

REFERENCES

1. Bove, V. “National Model of School Emergency Preparedness.” The Sentinel, November 10, 2006. http://vincentbove.blogspot.com/2006/11/national-model-of-school-emergency.html
2. Brown, B. 2005. “Controlling crime and delinquency in the schools: An exploratory study of student perceptions of school security measures.” Journal of School Violence, 4:4, pp. 105 – 125.
3. CHED Memorandum No. 09 series of 2013 Article 9 Section 28. [Online] Available: https://www.scribd.com/doc/276369259/CMO-No-09-s2013
4. CHED Memorandum No. 42 series of 2021. [Online] Available: https://chedro3.ched.gov.ph/2022/03/28/ched-memorandum-order-cmo-no-42-series-of-2021-suggested-guiding-principles-and-practices-on-peace-education-studies-for-higher-education-institutions/
5. “Fast Facts: School safety and security measures.” 2012. Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2011, National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=334
6. Chen, G. 2008. “Communities, students, schools, and school crime: A confirmatory study of crime in U.S. high schools.” Urban Education, 43:3, pp. 301 – 318. As cited by Jennings et al., 2011
7. “Critical Response Team.” Los Angeles School Police Department. http://www.laspd.com/critical-response team.html
8. “Emergency Operations.” Keller Independent School District. http://www.kellerisd.net/district/business/Pages/EmergencyOperations.aspx
9. “Facilities and Transportation Services Safety Manual.” 2010. Fairfax County Public Schools, pp. 24-25. http://www.fcps.edu/fts/safety-security/publications/safetymanual.pdf
10. Fein, R., Vossekuil, B., Pollack, W., Borum, R., Modzeleski, W., and Reddy, M. 2002. “Threat Assessment in Schools: A Guide to Managing Threatening Situations and to Creating Safe School Climates.” United States Secret Service and United States Department of Education. http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_guide.pdf
11. García, C. 2003. “School safety technology in America: Current use and perceived effectiveness.” Criminal Justice Policy Review, 14:1, pp. 30 – 54.
12. Jackson, A. 2002. “Police-school resource officers’ and students’ perception of the police and offending.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 25:3, pp. 631-650.
13. Jennings, W., Khey, D., Maskaly, J., and Donner, C. 2011. “Evaluating the Relationship Between Law Enforcement and School Security Measures and Violent Crime in Schools.” Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 11:2. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15332586.2011.581511
14. Labor Code of the Philippines. [Online] Available: https://amslaw.ph/philippine-laws/labor-law/labor-code-law-of-the-philippines
15. Laguna State Polytechnic University Manual, 2024
16. “LAUSD Increases Security After Connecticut Shooting As Students Go Back To School.” The Huffington Post, January 7, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/lausd-increased-security_n_2425873.html
17. Neuman, S. “Schools Have Become More Secure Since Columbine, Experts Say.” National Public Radio, December 14, 2012. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/14/167276746/schools-have-become-more-secure
18. Roundcount, T. 2010. “The perceptions of superintendents and emergency responders concerning the usefulness of geographical information systems in Illinois school district’s crisis response procedures.” Dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Saint Louis University, pp. 37, 91-92. Retrieved from ProQuest.
19. Spencer, D. “Local School Districts Reassure Parents About School Security.” NBC Washington, December 17, 2012. http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Local-School-Districts-Reassure-Parents-About-School-Security 183572421.html
20. Theriot, M. 2010. “The impact of school resource officer interaction on students’ feelings about school, safety, and school police.” Manuscript submitted for publication. As cited by Theriot, 2011.
21. Tillyer, M., Fisher, B., and Wilcox, P. 2010. “The effects of school crime prevention on students’ violent victimization, risk perception, and fear of crime: A multilevel opportunity perspective.” Justice Quarterly, 27:5.
22. “Visitor Check-in Procedures.” 2013 Skokie School District 73.5. http://www.sd735.org/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=7727&&

APPENDIX

The Campus Security Operations and Management of Laguna State Polytechnic University:  Framework for an Action Plan Proposal for Extension Program

The campus safety and security components utilized a major factors in determining the safety and security rank of a university’s campus. In this proposal, it will illustrate the main classes and subclass components employed for evaluating campus security, which includes safety measurement, safety, and security systems, crime and offense prevention, and on-campus safety facilities.

Figure 1. Main Factors of Campus Security Operations and Management

The Safety Measurement component contains the following elements such as annual security report, emergency management, security policy, and safety education programs. These systematic tactics encompass policy and education, which contribute to managing risk related to safety. The annual security report contains about three years of campus crime statistics information, and it is designed to provide essential information about the safety and security of university campuses. Campus emergency management is a framework that includes managerial functions, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures that are utilized to reduce safety vulnerabilities, hazards, and campus-related risks. Emergency management includes emergency drills, response guides, and crisis intervention teams. Security policy refers to the related organization’s policy, practice, and procedures that are utilized to assist organizations to protect against threats. Security/Crime prevention policy is a set of educational rules and regulations that aim to protect students and minimize crime that can take place on campus. Universities’ safety educational programs aim to enhance the safety of staff, faculty, and students. Safety educational programs are part of the institution’s educational mission, intended to reduce the chance of risks and hazards individuals can face in the future. The Education safety programs can include personal safety, environmental safety, and safety against active campus violence. Personal safety programs to empower and teach students, faculty, and staff different mechanisms for self-protection/self-defence.

The Safety and Security System class includes the flowing element cyber security, campus safety technology, and building security which comprises different means and devices to protect people and campus facilities from any danger encountered or risks. Cyber security threats can be phishing attacks, data breaches, social engineering, ransomware, malware, and other malicious activities. Organizational cyber security training can assist in mitigating the risks associated with cyber-attacks and ensure the protection of an organization’s sensitive data and system. The campus safety technology is an effective and mandatory mechanism to achieve a strong foundation of safety to protect students, faculty, staff, campus assets, and campus resources. The integrated security system can include elements such as Safety Mobile App, GPS Tracking, Secure Communication, and Camera Surveillance, etc. While, building access control is an applied technique by some universities and colleges to create a secure environment. Building security is an important practice for universities and colleges utilized to supervise and maintain the accessibility of the university’s facilities. Building security includes access control, student housing, and lecture hall security. Access control systems enable universities and colleges to monitor people entering and exiting buildings, residence halls, and lecture halls. Access cards, pin codes, key cards, or any other access control methods, and keeping out unauthorized persons on the property.

Crime and Offense Prevention include the following elements crime prevention and sexual violence awareness, which address various policy and procedure in terms of crime prevention. Examples of prevention methods encompass policy prohibiting harmful devices or equipment on campus, policies protesting violence against women, and hate crimes. The crime prevention techniques include active shooter training for university staff, students, and other university members to spread awareness among individuals. Release programs, policies, and statistics related to dating violence, sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking and provide consultation to assist individuals who have experienced sexual violence.

On-Campus Safety Facilities include the following elements environmental health and campus safety, fire prevention, and transportation safety, which combine to increase the safety of campus facilities and people by applying different mechanisms such as chemical lab safety, food safety, fire detection, and safe walk program for individual protection, etc. The Environmental Health of universities is responsible for following up on reports of food-borne illness and managing the campus food services in large events such as campus conferences. Campus chemical lab safety is a set of standards and procedures of safety roles for individuals that use the chemical lab to promote safety in laboratories. Campus weather safety practices help maintain a safe environment for students, staff, and faculty and reduce weather-related risks. Universities maintain emergency alerts to notify individuals of severe weather changes and update them with the campus safety procedure. Fire prevention aims to increase awareness, recognize the hazards, and address the necessary and correct action in fire emergencies. Fire safety training for security personnel, students and employee which during the training, highlighted fire hazards and concerns and also address the effectiveness and the necessity of fire and smoke detection in different campus areas. Transportation safety can be defined as the techniques students utilize to manage their rides to and from campus. Transportation takes the form of campus transit such as motorcycle riding, walking, and taking public utility vehicles, etc. The University provide motorcycles registration programs to secure individuals’ motorcycles against theft.