Brown releases review on mass shooting, action plan; says it’s unlikely it could have been prevented

An external review of the December 2025 mass shooting at Brown University found it was “highly unlikely” the attack could have been prevented, while identifying several areas where the university could strengthen its campus security, emergency preparedness, and response. 

The shooting occurred Dec. 13, 2025. Two students — Ella Cook and Mukhammad Aziz Umurzokov — were killed, and nine others were injured. 

The suspect, 48-year-old Claudio Manuel Neves Valente, was also accused of shooting and killing 47-year-old MIT Professor Nuno F.G. Loureiro in his Brookline home two days later. Neves Valente was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound at a New Hampshire storage facility after about a week-long hunt for him, police said.

In the months after the shooting, Brown commissioned three external reviews examining the university’s actions before, during, and after the attack, as well as its broader campus safety and security program, the university said in an announcement. 

Two of the reviews were conducted by global consulting firm Teneo Risk, while the third was by COSECURE, a national firm specializing in physical security.

Brown University released the report’s key findings and “detailed action plan” on Friday, outlining changes the university says it has launched to strengthen campus safety. 

The release comes after scrutiny of Brown’s security policies. The university’s police chief was placed on leave after the shooting as officials reviewed its security policies, and the interim police chief vowed to build a “stronger, sophisticated, and more resilient model of campus safety.” 

This month, three students injured in the shooting sued Brown in Rhode Island Superior Court, alleging the Ivy League ignored prior warnings about the shooter and failed to provide adequate security that could have prevented the attack. 

“More than eight months after the shooting that took the lives of two of our students and devastated our community, Brown has continued to grapple with questions that are natural in the wake of such a tragedy,” Chancellor Brian T. Moynihan and President Christina H. Paxson wrote in a message to the campus community Friday. 

The report, they said, “seeks to answer these questions” about preventability, security, preparedness, and shooting response.

Report finds no clear warning that shooter was a threat 

The main conclusion of the Teneo Risk review was that it was “highly unlikely” the Dec. 13 attack could have been prevented or that Brown could have known in advance that Neves Valente posed a threat to the university. 

Neves Valente, a Portuguese national, was not a current Brown student or employee. He had attended the school for three semesters as a graduate student before taking a leave in 2001 and formally withdrawing in 2003, according to Brown. 

“Our review found nothing in Neves Valente’s academic history or records to suggest a propensity for violence or an animus toward the University,” Teneo wrote in the report, “nor is there any evidence that he had any contact with Brown personnel prior to the attack.” 

The report did identify one “speculative scenario” in which increased security could have created a chance to confront Neves Valente before the shooting. 

A Brown custodian had reported seeing a suspicious person resembling the suspect in the Barus and Holley Building, the place the shooting took place weeks later.

The review concluded that person was likely Neves Valente, but found no evidence that the concern was reported to Brown’s Department of Public Safety & Emergency Management (DPSEM) or to a custodial supervisor. 

Report praises Brown response, but finds staffing and security gaps 

The report praised DPSEM officers for their fast response once the shooting began, saying they responded “rapidly, effectively, and heroically” and “performed as well as could be expected given the information they had and the tools.” 

But, investigators also found that the department’s limited staffing affected its ability to manage the emergency. 

There were only two dispatchers on duty when the shooting broke out, and as a result, the DPSEM Communications Center was not able to send out a Rave alert, a system that sends mass emergency notifications. 

The report said the two dispatchers nevertheless “performed well” and completed their “most important life-safety tasks quickly and efficiently.” 

The review also identified problems with the response after the immediate threat had passed. 

The Providence Police Department’s investigation was slowed by delays in acessing Brown’s stored video footage, the report said. Teneo concluded that DPSEM “should have been more responsive to the investigative needs” of Providence police. 

Investigators additionally found that Brown had been aware of nonthreatening suspicious activity in and around Barus and Holley before the shooting. 

“Although the frequent trespasser was not the perpetrator and was not himself a threat, earlier trespassing incidents at the building complex showed areas in which security could have been strengthened,” the report states. 

The report further cited specific university policies that hindered police operations and compromised overall safety, including the failure to sound the campus emergency siren to instruct the community to “shelter in place.” 

It also noted a restriction preventing off-duty officers from carrying firearms and advised Brown to equip its police force with body-worn cameras.

What’s next for Brown? 

In response to the findings, Brown University released a campus “Safety and Security Action Plan,” organized into six categories: governance and accountability; leadership, staffing and training; emergency preparedness and protocols; tools and technology; partnerships with law enforcement and community organizations; and community outreach and engagement.

Brown officials said many of the recommendations had already been completed or were being implemented before the reviews were finalized. Others remain in progress, with some target completion dates extending into the 2026-27 academic year.

Changes already underway include leadership changes within DPSEM, expanded coordination with law enforcement partners, and additional reviews of campus security infrastructure. 

“Brown has demonstrated a clear and unwavering commitment to safety and security spanning at least the past three decades, reflected in major investments in infrastructure, technology, and intentional decisions to fund and arm a highly effective campus police force,” Moynihan and Paxson said. “The external reviews helped deepen and broaden Brown’s approach to continuous improvement.” 

Among the major changes was appointing former Providence Police Chief Hugh T. Clements as vice president for public safety and emergency management. 

Clements spent 38 years with PPD, including 12 years as chief. He later served as director of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, according to Brown. 

The university said Clements will continue to work with school leaders, DPSEM members, and local law enforcement agencies to implement the recommendations outlined in the safety and security plan. 

Brown said it will provide updates on the implementation of the action plan throughout the academic year.

“No campus should ever have to experience the senseless act of violence that has left a lasting mark on our community, and our commitment to the safety of those who live, work and study at Brown is enduring and unwavering,” Moynihan and Paxson wrote.