UVU REVIEW SYNOPSIS An independent review of Utah Valley University’s security planning and response surrounding the assassination of Charlie Kirk found significant gaps in preparation for the high-profile outdoor event. Among the most important findings: • No comprehensive written security plan: The event did not have a formal Security Assessment or written Event Action Plan outlining staffing, responsibilities, communications, contingencies and when additional resources should be requested. • Open outdoor venue created vulnerabilities: The area had multiple access points, adjacent buildings, elevated walkways and numerous locations overlooking the event, complicating perimeter security and situational awareness. • No comprehensive perimeter or screening: There was no controlled perimeter, formal attendee screening or credentialing system. Non-ticketed attendees generally could enter the event area without going through a controlled security point. • Rooftop concerns were raised before the event: TPUSA security specifically raised concerns about student roof access near Kirk’s location. UVU restricted the Hall of Flags walkway and posted two officers there, but reviewers described that as a reactive measure rather than part of a documented site-security plan. • Security cameras were not being specifically monitored for the event: Camera footage proved valuable after the shooting, but no one had been assigned to monitor relevant feeds in real time for event security. Reviewers recommend considering technology that could detect people on rooftops or in restricted areas. • Staffing and resources were a concern: Reviewers found the lack of a formal security assessment, reliable attendance estimate and written plan made it difficult to systematically determine how many officers and resources were needed. • No ambulance was staged at the event: Two UVU EMTs were there with trauma packs and provided aid after the shooting, but they could not transport patients, including Kirk, to a hospital. • Problems identified years earlier resurfaced: A 2023 active-assailant exercise had already identified communication and situational-awareness problems. Reviewers said similar issues surfaced again on Sept. 10, suggesting earlier corrective actions had not been fully implemented or validated. • Emergency alerts were problematic: The report says no immediate campus alert was activated by the police chief as incident commander, and subsequent alerts included delays, changing guidance and contradictory information. The review also emphasizes what worked, including officers responding quickly after the shooting and UVU’s existing emergency plans and security technology. The report’s larger conclusion is that many of those existing resources were not sufficiently integrated into a formal, coordinated security operation for the event.