Your browser does not support accepted Web standards. This site has been redesigned to meet Section 508 accessibility standards for persons with disabilities and to meet W3C recommendations for forward compatibility. If you are using an older browser (Netscape or IE 4.x and older), the site layout will not display correctly. However, all pertinent information should still be viewable. To better view this site, please download a browser that complies with Web standards. For upgrade information, visit []. Comments or questions? Email [].

Skip directly to: Content, Search Box, Main Navigation


Subcommittee Reports - Funding

Scope of Work
Current Assessment

Scope of Work
The Funding Subcommittee was charged with three tasks: (i) identify funding sources for educational institutions to help defray the cost of security measures, (ii) identify funding strategies to meet campus safety needs identified by other subcommittees and (iii) establish a minimum baseline funding need for higher education institutions and career technology campuses for security and student services.


Current Assessment

Funding Sources
Obtaining funding for specific campus security needs will take ingenuity and a willingness to work with groups that historically have had little interaction with education institutions and knowledge of campus life. The subcommittee identified seven funding sources that could help achieve campus safety goals. Each source is described below.

  1. Grants. Historically, educational grant opportunities have not focused on providing funds for safety and security for campuses. However, grant funding is available for related areas that could be used to support safety measures. As a result, educational institutions must be able to identify potential grant opportunities that may not be specifically for security or safety but that can be used to improve the overall well-being of the student population. Examples of grant opportunities include the U.S. Department of Justice Violence Against Women Program and the U.S. Department of Education Prevention of High-Risk Drinking or Violent Behavior Among College Students. Several grants are also available through Oklahoma’s Office of Homeland Security. Further, it is suggested that lists of granting agencies, foundations and grant-writing workshops be maintained on the CLASS Web site.

  2. Federal Support. Oklahoma’s congressional delegation and other Washington offices should be contacted to determine how campus safety and security fits with other federal priorities. Efforts to obtain funding should center on security, safety and counseling services through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration.

  3. Institutional Support. Institutions of higher education and career technology centers will need to add and/or increase budget categories that are related to campus safety and security. Options for increasing campus security budgets could include mandatory fees related to counseling services or campus safety infrastructure (lighting, generators and notification systems). More innovative ideas that are student-driven have been successful in other parts of the country. For example, in New York, the Orange County Community College’s computer club raised more than $100,000 for a chance to win a custom-made motorcycle. The money raised went to help fund a wireless system for the campus.

    Many campuses have degree-granting programs that might include students who could be part of a support system. For example, degrees and certifications in security, safety and counseling might be considered for additional support.

  4. Community Support. Educational institutions should work with local community service agencies to pool funding resources.

  5. Local Government Support. Opportunities for funding resources could be obtained through local bonds or tax revenue base. Community or citywide security measures (emergency notification systems) could be incorporated into campus security needs.

  6. Corporate/Private Support. Corporations and businesses may be able to provide services or goods or sponsor programs that could help offset the cost of safety measures. Local businesses may consider themselves stakeholders in campus safety and security and potential partners in meeting these needs. Institutions should also engage their development office to reach out to foundations or private donors who may be interested in contributing to the overall welfare of the student body.

  7. State Support. The subcommittee made a special effort not to have state appropriations be the primary source of funding for campus safety programs. Any request made to the governor and state Legislature should represent “gap” funding needs. The gap funding would be a source of last resort, after grants, federal support and all other funding options were exhausted. Any request for gap funding should be a joint request from all relevant agencies. A joint request would make a larger impact and have the greatest chance of success.



Funding Strategies
The subcommittee identified four funding strategies that could provide the best use of available funding sources.

  1. Partnership/Collaboration. Educational institutions must be open to collaborating with community and state agencies, area businesses and local governments. Through coordination efforts, institutions can share training expenses, lower equipment purchase costs and provide additional counseling services. For example, the Oklahoma Department of Homeland Security will provide information about free and cost-based training that is available. Collaboration is the most effective way to impact the safety and security of entire communities, not just education campuses.

  2. Training
    1. Preparedness Training – Funding should be directed specifically for annual ongoing training for all faculty members, even those who may be part-time. There is a fundamental concern that many campuses may overlook the need for faculty training and preparedness.

    2. Train-the-Trainer Programs – Examples include faculty trained to teach other members how to identify potential safety threats, how to administer emergency medical procedures and how to identify and direct students with mental health problems to the proper services.

    3. Grant Workshops – Specialized workshops can be provided to help institutional personnel identify and submit grants that would help fund a campus safety program. The grant workshops could be provided on annual or semi-annual basis with specific emphasis on mental health services and specific security measures. A specific strategy would be to maintain a grant clearinghouse. The clearinghouse would identify grant opportunities and post them on the OSRHE Web site. Grant opportunities could be categorized as campus security, mental health enhancement or technology.

  3. Information Sharing. It is important for all campuses to know what strategies and funding sources are available and what other campuses are doing. To ensure a central source for information sharing, the CLASS Web site should be maintained and should provide continual updates on resources, grants and workshops. Additional efforts could include an annual campus security assessment and annual conferences focusing on model programs and funding resource information.

  4. Promising Practices. It is important to provide examples of successful best practices (state and national) for institutions. Information could be disseminated based on size of institutions or resource bases.

Funding Need
The subcommittee surveyed all higher education and career technology campuses to assess current security budgets. The subcommittee received responses from 25 higher education institutions and 21 career technology centers. Security budgets were comprised of several funding sources: operational funds, auxiliary funds and equipment/capital.

  1. Baseline Funding. Using the surveys as a baseline, the subcommittee determined that security budgets should equal approximately $100 per student (headcount). The total cost of the baseline would be $40.7 million. Higher education institutions and career technology centers currently budget $24.7 million in security. The subcommittee has determined that an additional $16 million is needed to assure that all campuses have baseline funding. The baseline funding is based on bringing all campuses to the average per student funding amount.

  2. Program Determination. The subcommittee recommends that individual institutions and centers determine the best use of funds made available to them through state sources. Flexibility in funding will maximize the ability for each campus to meet its specific needs for security and student services.

  3. Budget Limitation. All funding recommendations are in addition to funding requests submitted to the executive and legislative branches by the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education and the Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology Education. The funding needs listed above are intended to fulfill the specific requirements of the governor’s Executive Order and should be considered separate from the agencies’ requests.