The University launched three external reviews of aspects of Brown’s safety and security environment and infrastructure after the events of Dec. 13. Separate reviews were conducted by COSECURE (a national firm specializing in physical security charged with reviewing security infrastructure, processes and standards), and the global consulting firm Teneo Risk (via a team of highly experienced law enforcement consultants), which was charged with conducting an After-Action Review of the events of Dec. 13 and a comprehensive Campus Safety and Security Assessment. 

All the reviews were conducted via engagements with, and under the direction and supervision of, outside legal counsel. They were pursued in close coordination to enable efficient information-gathering and to give the University the capacity to make immediate and ongoing security improvements while the reviews were underway. The reviews are described in more detail in the Safety and Security Overview and Action Plan.

No. The full reports from the external reviews contain sensitive information relating to injuries and fatalities, safety and security (including details that could undermine deterrence) and personnel matters, and are subject to the attorney-client and work product privilege. Teneo’s full Executive Summary of its After-Action Review is included in the Safety and Security Overview and Action Plan, which also synthesizes Brown’s key insights from all the external reviews and outlines the University’s forward-looking actions.

The U.S. Department of Education notified Brown in December 2025 that it was opening a Campus Crime Program Review to evaluate the University’s compliance with the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act). A program review may be opened for a number of reasons, and it is not uncommon for the government to conduct such a review following a major safety incident on a college campus, such as a mass shooting. While the Clery Act does not provide specific requirements for colleges and universities on aspects of campus safety and security such as building access controls, cameras or other physical security systems, many requirements of the Clery Act can play an important role in informing effective campus safety practices for Brown and other schools across the country.

Brown annually reports the crime statistics specified by the Clery Act and remains committed to meeting all of its requirements for crime reporting. Brown is cooperating fully with the government's review, and will continue to do so, as part of its commitment to compliance.

The safety and security of our community is not only a priority, but a responsibility aligned with Brown’s core institutional values. Our values affirm that the University “holds itself responsible for generating the conditions necessary for every individual member of its community to thrive.” A secure campus is a necessary condition for fulfilling our mission of education and research, and for all members of our community to feel a sense of security and belonging as they pursue knowledge in service to society. Ongoing actions to reinforce and bolster safety and security advance Brown’s strong commitment to continue to place our community’s safety at the center of all we do.

Brown University has a record of significant investments in safety and security staffing, infrastructure and tools over more than a decade:

• Brown has increased the annual budget for safety and security by 67% since 2014, including staffing and technology.
• In addition to the 67% increase in the annual operating budget, Brown has invested more than $65 million on safety and security technology and projects over that period.
• The University increased the number of security cameras on campus by 200% over a period of 13 years, from approximately 380 in 2012 to 1,200 by early December 2025. 
• Dating back to 2013, Brown made a range of other investments, including expanding an on-call shuttle service (with a documented 60% increase in use the first year after the 2013 expansion); growing security staffing through contracted security firms; hosting law enforcement and emergency responder training with multiple municipal and state agencies (including hostile intruder training exercises); and expanding safety tools for members of the Brown community, such as the GPS-enabled RAVE Guardian mobile security app. 

Even as other areas of Brown’s operating budget have recently contracted in response to economic factors, the University has remained steadfast in its ever-increasing commitment to safety and security. This includes sustaining a campus police force that embraces best practices in crime response and prevention. Brown’s Department of Public Safety and Emergency Management (DPSEM) is a fully licensed, nationally accredited (since 1998) and armed (since 2006) force composed of highly trained and experienced police officers, many of whom came to Brown following distinguished careers in municipal police departments. 

The University increased the number of security cameras on campus by 200% over a period of 13 years prior to the shooting, from approximately 380 in 2012 to 1,200 by early December 2025, prior to the shooting. For the past 15 years, Brown has invested heavily in video cameras as a central part of its safety and security plan. Cameras may serve as a powerful visual deterrent to crime and can provide crucial support for rapid investigative follow-up. 

On Dec. 13, 2025, there were three exterior security cameras located at the Barus and Holley building. The School of Engineering and Department of Physics complex comprises Barus and Holley (B&H) and two other buildings: the Lassonde Innovation and Design Hub (LIDH) and the Engineering Research Center (ERC). In addition to the three exterior B&H cameras, there were three cameras on the exteriors of LIDH and ERC, bringing the total number of exterior cameras at the complex to six. The complex is located on a campus block with a number of other University buildings, and across this entire block there were a total of 19 exterior security cameras in place on Dec. 13. The first image available to law enforcement of the shooting suspect on Dec. 13 was obtained from one of these University security cameras, operating as designed, located at 190 Hope St.

In addition to the 19 exterior cameras, there were 26 security cameras on the interior of the three buildings in the complex (B&H, LIDH and ERC), although none of these was located in the classroom wing where the shooting took place. Most of Brown’s security cameras are deployed in high-traffic areas such as streets, sidewalks and campus walkways with significant foot traffic, and in academic and administrative buildings with an emphasis on entry and exit points.

No. These online rumors are false.

Yes. Brown has added more than 700 security cameras to campus buildings following Dec. 13, 2025, in addition to the 1,200 in place prior to the shooting. In addition, the implementation of plans to upgrade blue light phones to include embedded camera technology, which was approved in 2025, was accelerated following the shooting. As of the publication of this report, the total number of cameras is now 1,942, and more installations are underway. The total number is projected to be approximately 2,000 cameras by the start of the Fall 2026 semester.

Over the course of the spring and summer of 2026, security cameras were added at buildings that met criteria for hosting sensitive research, housing critical infrastructure or hosting large members of the public, including Barus and Holley, and at points of ingress and egress of residence halls. Brown does not disclose the exact location of security cameras because doing so can undermine security goals. More information on how Brown will approach decisions about security cameras in the future is included in Brown’s action plan in the Safety and Security Overview and Action Plan.

A comprehensive Security Camera Oversight and Recording Retention Policy finalized in early August is designed to protect privacy without compromising the value of security cameras in protecting safety and security. The policy establishes the principles that govern the placement and use of security cameras on campus, including College Hill and the Jewelry District. It also sets forth standards for the retention of data recorded by security cameras. 

A new Safety and Security Steering Committee launched in July 2026 has responsibility for maintaining campus-wide standards for video coverage and a streamlined process for assessing requests for additional coverage, as well as making recommendations for replacement of cameras with improved technology over time. Further details about camera installations and Brown’s new policies governing use of camera footage appears in the action plan section of the Safety and Security Overview and Action Plan.

The two DPSEM dispatchers on duty performed well and accomplished their most important life safety tasks quickly and efficiently, ensuring that the shooting victims received the best possible initial police and emergency medical response. However, the DPSEM Communications Center staff did not have the staff — and the staff did not have the capacity — to send out a Rave Alert in a crisis of the magnitude of Dec. 13. Because of the extraordinary volume of calls within the first hour that DPSEM dispatchers received from students, staff, parents, law enforcement partners and emergency services, among others, dispatchers were unable immediately to request authorization for sending, or to themselves send, a Rave Alert. Likewise, no one else on duty within DPSEM would have had such capacity because they were responding to the crisis at hand.

Fourteen minutes after receiving the first call at 4:04 p.m. that shots had been fired — a call which itself required focused attention for a duration of approximately two minutes — the dispatchers called Brown’s emergency services director, who issued the first Rave Alert at 4:21 p.m. This delay did not undermine initial police or emergency medical response or lead to additional harm, as the perpetrator had fled the incident location even as the first calls were coming into DPSEM’s dispatch center. Such a delay, however, could hinder a future response to a similar event.

Brown is revising protocols and policies related to process and staffing to ensure an expedited process for sending Rave Alerts. In addition, a new dedicated crisis hotline should reduce the burden on dispatchers who are facilitating the response to an emergency. More information about all these measures is shared in the Emergency Preparedness and Protocols section of the Safety and Security Overview and Action Plan.

The University’s siren was not activated during the incident. The purpose of the siren is to alert individuals to life-threatening emergencies and instruct them to shelter in place. In Teneo’s judgement, in retrospect, the siren should have been activated. However, because the perpetrator fled campus immediately after the shooting, and because Brown issued Rave Alerts to the community, not sounding the siren had no adverse impact on the events of Dec. 13.

Brown is enhancing siren policies and training while also reviewing siren technology. More information is shared in the Emergency Preparedness and Protocols section of the Safety and Security Overview and Action Plan.

The University mobilized a rapid response in the days and weeks after the shooting, building on safety and security projects the University had launched prior to Dec. 13, and informed by continuous feedback from the external reviewers over the course of conducting their reviews. In summary, Brown did the following:

• Enhanced public safety staffing, active shooter training, and operating systems for rapid and effective communications during emergencies.
• Completed upgrades (approved prior to Dec. 13) to the University’s dispatch center communications system that allow the dispatchers to communicate directly with the Providence Police Department more effectively.
• Transitioned to card access for a small number of remaining academic and administrative buildings that historically required keys for entry.
• Added over 700 security cameras to campus buildings (in addition to the 1,200 in place in December) and modernized its existing network of blue light phones with integrated cameras across campus.
• Expanded the number of panic buttons in critical locations (such as large classrooms and lecture halls) to ensure rapid access to help when it is needed most.
• Strengthened coordination among campus partners, state agencies and Rhode Island mental health resources.
• Reinforced messaging of available resources supporting crime prevention and emergency management (including apps like Rave Guardian and other resources for reporting suspicious activity or summoning police for assistance, as noted above).

Brown’s action plan provides further detail about these and other actions the University has taken and will continue to implement in the future. 

Brown has made substantial investments over the years to acquire and enhance the tools and technology that improve safety and security on campus, including digital access control systems for University buildings. Like many campuses, prior to Dec. 13, the University navigated an inherent tension between keeping academic buildings open to and for students, faculty and staff, on one hand — particularly during exams — while fully locking down buildings on the other. 

In the days and weeks after the shooting, the University mobilized a rapid response plan that included transitioning to card access for a small number of academic and administrative buildings that historically required keys for entry. This project had been approved in 2025, prior to the shooting, and was accelerated. 

Going forward, a university-level Safety and Security Steering Committee established in July 2026 is charged with developing campus-wide policies for building access, with the goal of balancing security requirements with the need for members of the Brown community, as well as alumni and other visitors, to make use of the campus. The Steering Committee will also regularly assess technologies for access controls (beyond Brown’s current card-swipe system) and make recommendations for upgrading technology for exterior and interior doors. This work is described in Brown’s action plan under Tools and Technology.

Dating back to at least the beginning of 2025, DPSEM received multiple reports related to Barus and Holley and adjoining buildings involving suspicious persons, petty theft and trespassers, including individuals whom one building manager believed to be unhoused. 

DPSEM emails indicate that, as early as Oct. 31, 2025, the department received reports of a Brown alumnus, later identified as “John,” who began attending closed research group meetings within the building. Reports of his loitering were seen as a nuisance and were regarded as a low-level threat. In response to these reports, DPSEM officers increased their presence in and around Barus and Holley during routine patrols. DPSEM also issued a “Be On the Lookout” advisory for John, while DPSEM detectives also made visits to the building in an attempt to locate and identify John. Despite these efforts, John was not located or confronted by DPSEM personnel prior to Dec. 13. Following the shooting, John provided information to law enforcement that led to the identification of the shooter. 

A Brown custodian who had been assigned full time to Barus and Holley since 2020, working daytime hours, recalled confronting at least four suspected trespassers inside Barus and Holley in 2025. He did not believe that any of the individuals he confronted was the shooter. In each case, he said he directed them to leave the building and immediately notified both DPSEM and his supervisor. He said these two notifications (DPSEM and his supervisor) were required for any unusual event, and responding DPSEM officers always ensured the unauthorized individual had left the building. There was no evidence found that any specific incident report was related to the individual responsible for the Dec. 13 shooting. 

In the spring and summer of 2025, multiple staff engaged DPSEM in separate meetings about upgrading security at the Barus and Holley complex. Ultimately, because of the size and scope of requested upgrades, the security concerns were partially addressed by increasing patrols in and around the building. 

No evidence has been found that the University was made aware of the assailant’s presence before the shooting. Following the shooting, a Brown custodian reported having seen a suspicious person resembling the individual ultimately identified as the perpetrator of the shooting, Claudio Manuel Neves Valente, loitering around Barus and Holley in the weeks before the shooting (this was a different custodial employee from the individual who reported other trespassers to DPSEM). This custodian stated that he saw the individual resembling the shooter around campus on approximately four to five occasions in November 2025, and once in December 2025 at a campus event. While this person was likely Neves Valente, no evidence was found indicating that the custodian made the standard notifications to DPSEM or his supervisor, as was the case for the other separate incidents involving other trespassers.

The custodian stated that he verbally reported the suspicious individual to an event staff person employed by the external vendor Event Staff Services LLC (ESS), one of Brown’s event support contractors. ESS is retained by the University for event management and support services, not security, although the University does engage other contractors who provide security services. ESS personnel are independent contractors hired for specific on-campus events. They are not Brown employees or part of DPSEM. There was no evidence found that any ESS employee escalated a Brown custodian’s concern within ESS or notified DPSEM. 

No. The perpetrator of the shooting, Claudio Manuel Neves Valente, had been briefly enrolled at Brown as a graduate student in the 2000-01 year and had not communicated with Brown since he formally withdrew from the University, effective July 31, 2003. Nothing in Neves Valente’s academic history or records suggested a propensity for violence or an animus toward the University.

An April 29, 2026, report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Attorney’s Office determined that “Neves Valente’s transient lifestyle, long-term planning, and social isolation provided little to no opportunity for bystanders to observe and contextualize the significance of his behaviors.” The FBI’s April 29, 2026, release is available online: “FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts Release Findings on Brown University and Brookline Shootings.”

Yes. Prior to Dec. 13, weekday hours of unrestricted access to Barus and Holley were 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. to accommodate class schedules, with Brown ID card-swipe access at other times. Most buildings on Brown’s campus were open and accessible during business hours, while ID card swipes were required for entry on evenings and weekends. This was common across the nation and was the case at Brown for many buildings. 

Because Brown was in an exam period, on Saturday, Dec. 13, the building’s exterior doors were unlocked to ensure the building remained open to the significant number of students, faculty, teaching assistants and staff needing access.

Immediately following the shooting, the University placed all buildings with card access into a restricted access mode requiring card access or keyed access at all times. Previously, the standard periods of open access for Barus and Holley were 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., varying according to class schedules, exam periods and events. (Prior to Dec. 13, access had varied from building to building across campus depending on operating needs.) For the start of the Spring 2026 semester, University leaders established an access policy requiring all buildings in which academic classes were scheduled to require card swipe with a Brown ID card, though buildings were permitted to adjust access hours later in the semester based on operating needs. This includes Barus and Holley and other buildings in the School of Engineering and Department of Physics complex. 

Additional installation of card access controls internal to the complex — specifically, providing card access-controlled entry to the Barus and Holley tower where many faculty and staff offices and research facilities are located — will be completed by the start of the Fall 2026 semester. Within the building, lecture halls 166 and 168, eight immediately adjacent and proximate classrooms (155 through 165), and the immediately adjacent hallways, restrooms and entrances to that area of Barus and Holley remain closed and inaccessible to everyone as construction continues to transform those spaces. 

In the immediate days following Dec. 13, Brown transitioned to card access for a small number of academic and administrative buildings that historically required keys for entry. This project had been approved in 2025 prior to the shooting and was accelerated. A Safety and Security Steering Committee established in July 2026 is charged with developing campus-wide policies for building access, with the goal of establishing an approach that balances security requirements with the need for members of the Brown community, as well as alumni and other visitors, to make use of the campus. 

Currently, guests, meeting attendees, vendors and other authorized visitors may continue to be granted access by members of the Brown community who have permission to grant access to the specific space, as normal. The standard for all buildings is that uncredentialed or uninvited individuals should not be granted access. Brown has focused on enhancing security and access controls while preserving appropriately open access to and throughout campus for students, employees, alumni and community members. 

The University offers multiple ways for departments and offices to pose questions about security in their workspaces. In the event of an immediate threat or concern about suspicious activity or incidents, individuals should contact DPSEM without delay by dialing (401) 863-4111. DPSEM has put in place new internal protocols to review and track these submissions. 

For requests related to physical security technology (e.g. cameras, swipe cards for controlling access, etc.), a new intake model will be shared with the campus community at the beginning of the Fall 2026 semester. This model will ensure that all requests are tracked and responded to. In addition, departments can request unit-specific security training for their teams. DPSEM offers a variety of preparedness training sessions, including hostile intruder training. Units may request training using the Engagement/Program Request Form on the DPSEM website.

As described in detail in the Safety and Security Overview and Action Plan, Brown has made substantial investments in DPSEM over decades, engaging external consultants at different points in time to ensure that the University is following best practices. In alignment with this approach, in the summer of 2025, Brown initiated an engagement with the Healy+ Group, a firm with nationally recognized expertise on campus safety led by Steven Healy, to initiate an external longitudinal review and assessment of departmental climate, culture and operations of Brown’s Department of Public Safety and Emergency Management (DPSEM). This followed a prior external review in 2020. The new engagement was launched in the Fall 2025 semester, and the site visit portion of the review had concluded just before the shooting. 

In addition, DPSEM maintains national accreditation through the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA), providing an ongoing framework for independent assessment and continuous improvement. As part of the accreditation process, CALEA conducts regular assessments to verify the department’s continued compliance with applicable standards, which reflect best practices in public safety and include standards related to critical incident planning and preparedness.

Before the Fall 2025 semester began and prior to votes of no confidence reported in news media, the University had initiated an external review and assessment of DPSEM’s climate, culture and operations, led by Steven Healy (one of the nation’s foremost experts in campus safety) and the Healy+ Group. As part of the review, a team from Healy+ visited campus in November and December 2025 for meetings with members of the department and key campus partners. All members of the department were invited to participate in individual confidential interviews to share their perspectives about departmental climate and operations. 

In addition to the Healy review, throughout 2025 the University also worked to ensure department members were aware of the various resources and established channels available to them to raise concerns and seek reviews through the appropriate University offices. These resources are available to all staff and offer them a number of ways (both with attribution and anonymously) to have concerns independently reviewed or investigated, as appropriate. 

Given leadership changes made in late December 2025, after the shooting, DPSEM is well positioned to foster a positive departmental climate. Under the leadership of Chief Hugh T. Clements, DPSEM has already (in 2026) implemented enhancements to the department in key areas and is committed to a formal strategic planning process to build on this progress and incorporate a system of accountability to measure and assess progress on implementing the resulting strategic plan.

In addition, the University will enhance policies, practices and training for consistent and prompt resolution of complaints, as well as consistent enforcement of departmental policies and non-retaliation expectations. The University will conduct a confidential climate survey of all Brown employees, including DPSEM personnel, in September 2026. The survey will provide valuable information on the current climate in DPSEM and will also support the creation of structured mechanisms to assess DPSEM climate and morale on an ongoing basis. 

These and other measures are outlined in Brown’s Safety and Security Overview and Action Plan.

No. DPSEM officers responded rapidly, effectively and heroically to the Dec. 13 shooting and performed well with the information they had and the tools available to them. However, while DPSEM officers responded well, better equipment and training could have enhanced their response, as described in the Safety and Security Overview and Action Plan. Brown’s action plan includes steps to enhance DPSEM training, evaluate new tools and equipment, and strengthen emergency management resources.

A training organized by DPSEM for an active shooter situation in June 2025 involved the Providence Police Department (PPD) and other local organizations involved in emergency response. As part of Brown’s Safety and Security Action Plan, the University will partner with PPD and other agencies to develop additional and regular joint training to support joint readiness to respond to a range of plausible emergency scenarios. 

A strategic planning process expected to launch early in the Fall 2026 semester will seek PPD leaders’ input to consider how best to leverage this relationship to enhance the development of DPSEM personnel and to address any challenges that may arise in situations requiring interdepartmental coordination. 

DPSEM has long offered emergency preparedness training to groups across campus. Among the workshops, training and tabletop exercises available to Brown departments, offices and student groups is a course that provides practical strategies for responding to a hostile intruder or active shooter situation. The training sessions emphasize the nationally recognized “Run, Hide, Fight” approach. The courses also highlight campus resources, response plans and recovery support, and participants learn how to assess rapidly changing situations, make informed decisions, and protect themselves and others.

Leaders from DPSEM deliver this training in person to units and groups across campus upon request. In addition, to accompany the University’s long-established Emergency Action Plan, Brown continues to maintain web-based Emergency Action Plan Training that is available to Brown community members, focusing on procedures for situations including evacuations, shelter-in-place orders, hostile intruder incidents and emergency reporting. 

Yes. In the months following Dec. 13, the University adopted a more expansive approach to campus training as part of a layered security model, which includes community preparedness as a priority. Brown students, staff and faculty now have the opportunity to participate in newly designed hostile intruder preparedness training, which is grounded in nationally recognized best practices and uses a trauma-informed approach, in light of the events of Dec. 13. These trainings have been available since March 2026.

In addition to these new sessions offered to all faculty, staff and students, tailored sessions have been conducted for units with staff in high-volume, frontline areas, as well as faculty and staff working in Barus and Holley. The expanded hostile intruder training began in spring 2026 and will continue through the 2026-27 academic year and into the future.

Brown’s Safety and Security Overview and Action Plan outlines investments in safety and security spanning the months since Dec. 13, as well as actions that will be taken in the future. The action plan is organized in six categories: (1) Governance and Accountability; (2) Leadership, Staffing, Organization and Training; (3) Emergency Preparedness and Protocols; (4) Tools and Technology; (5) Partnerships with External Law Enforcement; and (6) Community Outreach and Engagement.

In the intervening months since the first external reviews were launched and the University launched its rapid response plans following the events of Dec. 13, the majority of recommendations have already been accepted and, in a number of cases, implemented. 

Brown’s action plan provides the status of each action in the plan, including a timeframe for completion for actions that have been partially implemented or remain in progress. 

In the wake of the Dec. 13 violent attack on the campus community, Brown has focused on two questions: (1) Could this attack have been prevented, and (2) What can Brown do to enhance emergency response and campus safety and security in the future? The Aug. 28, 2026, report, Safety and Security at Brown University: Overview and Action Plan, presents the University’s answers to these questions, even as Brown continues to review all available and best practices to further inform the University’s approach to safety and security.

One consistent conclusion from studies of mass shootings spanning recent decades is that tragedies of mass violence are extremely difficult to identify in advance and prevent. They are occurring with increasing frequency. As noted elsewhere in this FAQ, federal law enforcement authorities who investigated the Dec. 13, 2025, shooting at Brown determined that the shooter “was committed to conducting the attack,” and that his “transient lifestyle, long-term planning, and social isolation provided little to no opportunity for bystanders to observe and contextualize the significance of his behaviors. The shooter lacked traditional support, such as family, peers, and authority figures, who would have been able to observe any potential warning signs and contact law enforcement.” 

There currently are no mechanisms for institutions of higher education, nor other organizations or industries, to predict or prevent with certainty a confluence of such factors among individuals committed to perpetrating a violent attack.

Nevertheless, proactive measures are essential. Brown has systems in place to assess and evaluate internal and external threats that come to the University’s attention, including working with external law enforcement such as PPD, the FBI and the Rhode Island State Police’s Fusion Center. Brown remains focused on taking all steps to reinforce and bolster security and to deter threats to the extent possible, prioritizing investments and actions to further build strength in the University’s multi-faceted approach to security infrastructure, training and preparedness, emergency management, and response and recovery.

Campus community members have already made significant contributions to Brown’s Safety and Security Action Plan. Since Dec. 13, the University has received feedback through the Brown University Community Council; listening sessions with different campus constituents; and the results of the bi-annual DPSEM Community Survey, which gathers feedback on a variety of safety considerations ranging from technology to interactions with public safety staff. These modes of collecting input will continue in the future. 

In addition, Brown will establish in the Fall 2026 semester a Campus Safety Advisory Committee that will include representation from students, faculty and staff. This committee will provide advice to DPSEM and the University’s new Safety and Security Steering Committee. More information about these committees is outlined in Brown’s Aug. 28, 2026, report, Safety and Security at Brown University: Overview and Action Plan.