Everything I know about security I learned in kindergarten and I've been updating ever since

I know many of you remember that in kindergarten we learned to play fair, share tools, put things back in “the cubbie” where they came from, put your name on your stuff, be quiet during nap time and in general to be good neighbors.  Well, I learned something else, too.  LESSON LEARNED: HE WHO HAS THE TOYS GETS TO CONTROL THE GAME AND IS THE BOSS OF THE OTHER KIDS.

Fast forward to the third grade, I learned that if someone was bullying me,  I had to fight them to get them to stop or get someone else who would do that for me.  I know, can you believe that this beautiful face was getting bullied in the third grade.  Well, it’s true and all because I kissed a girl who was a fifth grader.  So I did what every skinny, respectable guy would do – I got her to beat him up. LESSON LEARNED: GET SOMEONE ELSE TO DO YOUR DIRTY WORK!

When I was in the fifth or sixth grade, my criminal career started and ended in a span of a few minutes.  You see, there was a pack of rubber bands on the shelf at the Ben Franklin store and I really wanted them but I didn’t have the money.  I put some in my jacket pocket and left the store.  As soon, as I was walking out a county sheriff car pulled into the parking spot directly in from of the store.  The store had a revolving door, which allowed me to reenter the store without ever really exiting.  I put the rubber bands back on the shelf and waited for the sheriff to leave the store before I went home, scared to death.  I have to admit, every time I’d see a police car while growing up I always wondered if “they knew about that” incident. LESSON LEARNED: ONCE YOU’VE DONE IT YOU’VE DONE IT FOR LIFE.

And then upon entering the military, I became an Air Policeman.  God works in crazy ways.  Since I was mostly stationed in Europe from the time I was twenty until I retired in 1993, my biggest security lesson was tracking terrorist activities and fighting the “the Communist, the bastards”.  LESSON LEARNED: THERE ARE BAD PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO WISH ME (US) HARM.

Later in my career, I thought and was taught to think this way, that all you had to do was put a camera on it to watch or post a guard and crime would stop.  Your stuff would be protected. Neither a camera or a guard will prevent, they may deter, and unless the response force is within a reasonable distance to respond they probably won’t deter either.  I’ve always wondered why organizations spend thousands and still get “ripped off”.  Upon analysis it usually comes down to them using the wrong mitigation strategy for the wrong threat or the security is “so tight”  it becomes a burden or tax and people don’t want to pay the tax, even those who are authorized to do so.  They’ll find a way around it so that life is convenient. So, unless your security system is specifically designed to deter and prevent unwanted behaviors, it won’t do that. Sure there is always some deterrence but a dedicated aggressor will not be detoured.  They will bring the tools they need.  Also, if there isn’t a dedicated response force, all you’ll be doing with your fancy system is taking pictures of what happened. LESSON LEARNED: SECURITY IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT DETERRENCE/PREVENTION AND INSTEAD IT’S ABOUT CONVENIENCE.

Well, after my heart attack a couple years ago, my cardiologist said I’d probably live another 30 years.  I’ve used three so far, so who knows what I’ll learn in the next 27?

Security - It Really is a T or F Question

I know many of you when you read the title thought, “Yep, security is a true or false question.  You’ve either got it or you don’t.  Well, purposefully I didn’t spell out what the T and F stood for. It isn’t true or false.

As many of you know, for some time now I’ve been advocating for a softer approach to security, especially when it comes to the design and layout of high-occupancy spaces.  And during my years of advocacy I’m come across some, who will agree, and others that play lip service and say, “Oh yea, that’s what we should do.”  And when they have their next opportunity to make the change they go back to their olds ways with the bigger, better, faster, stronger, in your face approach.

Recently, while collaborating with a local school district we took a softer approach.  After an active shooter threat (fortunately stopped prior to being carried out due to social media monitoring), parents wanted the District to heighten security by adding guards and cameras, and constructing fences on the perimeter.  They wanted this because that’s what they’ve been seeing on TV.  After every school shooting, there’s a rush to install more cameras, higher fences, and to hire more guards.  I don’t blame the parents; I blame the security companies who are selling their products with the idea that if one is good, two must be better – the more products sold the better for the bottom-line.  Some may argue that adding visible, in your face, deterrence works.  I’ll admit, there is some benefit; however, a dedicated threat will not be deterred – they will bring the tools necessary to circumvent whatever is in place. That said, we can argue until the cows come home about the benefits.  From my point of view, it’s not about effectiveness.  It’s about the psychological impact it has on our youth.  Recently, a local school board approved a bond for security upgrades.  The newspaper ran a picture of a ten foot metal fence gate to allow campus entry and mentioned that everyone would go through a metal detector.  I showed the article to a Latino friend of mine and he said, “They’re always looking at us like we’re all criminals.  The guys are in gangs and the girls are ‘ho’s.”  Is this the intended message?

Additionally, research shows us that “hardening” causes anxiety and even affects performance.  

https://network.aia.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=110227d5-dde4-9c0d-fa52-a23257148cca

Our approach is to add security features that are “hidden in plain sight”.  For example, instead of a fence to keep out trespasser we suggest a buried co-axial cable sensor system.  It provides a warning that someone has breached the perimeter, yet is unseen.  Another example, to keep unauthorized folks off of the roof we suggest placing large flower pots with bougainvillea near drainage pipes or next to other features that a person could climb to get to the roof.   Again, a solution that is unseen.

My article published in American Security Today magazine January 2020 https://view.joomag.com/2019-champions-edition-2019-champions-edition/0683429001578075665/p148?short

So which message do we want to send?  The message that we don’t trust you and we think there will be an incident or the message that we trust you, we expect you to act trustworthy and you can expect the same of others?

My book, The Solutions Matrix: a  Practical Guide to Soft Security Engineering for Architects, Engineers, Facility Managers, Planner and Security Professionals has a Quick Glance Checklist that will allow you to list your current security solutions and then list your ideas on how to take a softer approach.  Order your copy today via the CONTACT US link at https://hainessecuritysolutions.com

What Message Does Your Security Send – Fear or Trust?

In order to have proper physical security, mitigation strategist and those responsible must understand the types of aggressor groups, what motivates them and the tools they need in order to be successful.
  

Aggressors fall into four main categories: criminals (sophisticated/unsophisticated, organized/unorganized), protesters (organized/unorganized), terrorist (domestic/transnational/State sponsored) and subversives (intelligence agents [State/non-State sponsored]).


And, there are four main aggressor objectives; to inflict injury or death on people, to destroy or damage equipment, facilities or other resources, to steal equipment, material or information, and to create adverse publicity.


Tools on the other hand, don’t fall into any category and are virtually unlimited.


Unfortunately, the security industry has been approaching school security from the wrong angle.  We keep thinking, if one is good two must be better and we can harden our way to a perfect world.  We can’t.  School shootings and worse will continue, I’m sad to say, until we start eliminating the causes that promote this behavior. 


School systems have developed a variety of multi-disciplinary programs that address prevention and response to mental health issues if a student manifests behavior that might precipitate violence on a grand scale; i.e., bullying, addiction and interpersonal violence.  But this is still not enough.

Some security companies offer “social media behavioral monitoring” and are analyzing a person’s social media presence in “real time” and reporting actionable intelligence of patterns or suspicious behaviors to authorities, but this alone isn’t enough.  Using artificial intelligence, and deep learning are great but they’re just another tool.   And, just because a person manifests some type of anxiety or disruptive behavior it doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll act out and it doesn’t mean that that person will become a school shooter.


I believe we need to get to the cause of the angst.  Why does a “perfectly normal kid” decide to go to a school and shoot it up?  Does the “prison look” of many schools contribute to this phenomenon?  Is it possible, that the chain-linked fence surrounding the school yard, the metal detector that everyone passes through and the roaming armed guard all contribute in some way?  Now, just because that has become the “new normal” it doesn’t mean every kid will grow up and commit a criminal act, but there is no doubt that they will carry this angst with them into adulthood.


You don’t have to look very far to see examples of the “big dog” in your face approach and the subliminal message of something bad is expected to happen.  

We can address behavior in the built environment in a non-traditional way as a substitute to the confrontational in your face kind of way.  The approach must be more subtle, in fact, the more transparent it is the more effective it will be.  

Normally, to deter crime, we put up signs that say, “Cameras in Use” and some folks get creative saying, “Smile you’re on camera”.  For access control, we usually mark our territory by placing a chain-linked fence or some other type of “barrier” on our boundary-line.  It has a limited effect because a dedicated threat will bring the tools needed to circumvent it.  Build a big fence; they’ll bring a bigger ladder.  Make it even higher and they’ll bring an even bigger ladder or tunnel under it.  Sure, there is somewhat of a deterrent, but the reality is, a dedicated “bad actor” will bring the tools needed in order to be successful.   


In the early “90’s, Crime Prevention through Environmental Design was introduced to connect these two worlds – unwanted behavior and a physical deterrent.  Research shows that the concepts of natural surveillance, natural access control, territorial reinforcement and maintenance contribute to the deterrence and reduction of criminal activity.  CPTED is not the sole reason, but it helps. https://www.cptedtraining.net/


The basic concept of CPTED is if we can design the space so that it is almost always under observation “bad actors” won’t act bad.  I believe it needs to go further than that.  Not only do we need to design the space using these concepts, but we also must design the space so that “bad acting” can’t occur.  Additionally, in the off chance it does the built environment should help to reduce its effects and not contribute to its severity.  


A couple of years ago researchers in the European Union conducted a survey.  They asked elementary school kids who had emigrated from a country where there was war to draw what they considered safety or security to be.  The kids drew pictures of fencing with razor-wire and “gunships” overhead.  Then the researchers asked the same question to kids from Europe who had not be exposed to hostile environments and those kids drew houses with trees, stick families, a dog and sunshine.  Shouldn’t we be striving for the “sunshine” scenario?


The harder we make it for the “bad guy” to do things the more of a deterrent there is.  There is some truth to that but on the other hand, if security is a tax your people won’t pay it and they will figure out a way to circumvent it.  This in turn defeats its purpose.


Getting away from hardening schools after every incident by using “big dog” philosophies will take time, nonetheless, we can begin immediately.  I submit that beginning this school year, administrators should use the checklist provided by the Partner Alliance for School Safety (PASSK-12) www.PASSK12.org to conduct a physical security risk assessment of their campus and whenever possible replace traditional mitigation solutions they would normally opt for with a hardscaping, landscaping or art strategy.  Creativity and student, staff and community involvement are essential.


Success in security is sloppy.  It’s entangled.  It’s very hard to distinguish where detection, assessment, policy and procedures, response and engagement begin and end.  Addressing behavior must be coupled with addressing the physical environment.  They require a different amount of time, effort and commitment to produce positive results but nonetheless are equally important.  In order for students, and later as adults, to thrive we must create environments, internal and external, that address the need for “well-being” in both the social and physical ecosystems, and if we can do that in a more aesthetically pleasing way, then why not?

More about a softer approach to security: https://www.securityindustry.org/2018/04/05/the-puppy-movement/

My Book The Solutions Matrix: A Practical Approach to Security Engineering for Architects, Engineers, Facility Managers, Planners and Security Professionals is on sale at https://www.hainessecuritysolutions.com  

Haines Security Solutions is a contributor to the Security Industry Association’s education platform, “Center of Excellence” at https://www.securityindustry.org/center-of-excellence/

Go Where there is No Path. But, I Can't, I'm Afraid of Snakes

A few months ago, my wife and I were shopping and came across this saying on a night shirt, “Go where there is no path”.  When I showed it to her, her reaction caught me a little off guard.  She said, “I can’t I’m afraid of snakes”. And, of course, being the person I am, I immediately translated that into a language I can understand – security-ish.  My first thought was, that explains why people don’t conduct risk analysis or even more importantly why they don’t even start the process.  They don’t tread into uncharted territory because there are snakes hiding in all that tall grass, so they stay where they’re comfortable – on the path.  Doing what is comfortable causes two problems.  

First, as Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, said, “We don’t know what we don’t know”, which translates into, we’re only protecting ourselves against what we can see, expect and believe is likely to occur.  Since, we don’t know what we don’t know, we’re not planning on dealing with its affects either.  This can be extremely more sinister because a lack of action could result in someone getting seriously injured or worse.  

Fortunately, there are methodologies out there that can get rid of the snakes.  I’m consulting on security matters with a local school district.  During our initial meeting, the District Superintendent, said, “Okay, where do we start? With an assessment to see where we are?”  Absolutely! 

Risk management is about managing risks.  In order to do that, you have to accept five factors:

1) You can’t prevent or deter everything

2) Protection from one threat may allow for some protection against another unrelated threat

3) Protection options must be in place before the event occurs

4) Risk Management must address the following pillars; detection, assessment, plans and procedures, response and engagement

5) Risk management and the assessment process is continual and is just part of what we do.

For ways to tame the snakes, read related articles here:

https://view.joomag.com/march-2019-ast-magazine-march-2019-ast-magazine/0952115001553308799/p4?short https://view.joomag.com/july-2019-ast-magazine-ast-july-2019-magazine/0612002001563068627/p60?short

The Need to Push Down Silos

A few years ago, a friend of mine, trying to generate additional students for the classes I teach, asked his cousin who works for a very large architecture and engineering firm in the new World Trade Center in New York City, if they would be interested in attending training on integrating security technologies into building design.  His cousin answered something to the effect, “No, we leave that up to the client after we turn the building over to them”.  While his cousin’s answer is not surprising it is disappointing and confusing to me. 

Not surprising because I’ve heard that so many times before.  In essence, everyone stays in their silo and the connection between the disciplines usually only involves answering questions about the project and clarifying requirements; architects architect – engineers engineer – and security securities, if you will.

It’s confusing on two levels.  First, at the beginning of every project the architect gets the client’s desires list; i.e., the building should be blah, blah, blah. Right from the start the architects develop a mental picture of what the building should look like.  Next he or she begins to include all of the regulatory requirements or “best practices” for design.  Best practices are nothing more than this is how it’s normally done.  In New York City, for multi-story buildings in Manhattan the façade default material is glass in the Mid-West it is reinforced concrete or masonry units.  Meeting regulatory requirements deal with disability act, fire and safety codes, such as, hallway width, stairs, doors and windows, and elevator placement, etc. and depending on the region some weather related events.  And second, very seldom are man-made threats considered.  This contributes to the fact that man-made threats continue to occur despite large amounts of money being spent on security measures. I guess the argument could be made, that “well, we’re not required to consider them like we are for natural threats so we don’t need to; besides it will drive up costs”.  On the surface this makes sense but if you dig just under the surface your next thought should be, why don’t “best practices” apply?

The Department of Defense, and some other federal government agencies to a limited degree, requires that integration mitigation strategies be included in their building design review process regardless of where or what type of threat is involved.  In fact, it’s mandated that all threats, including man-made threats be addressed by a group of stakeholders at the onset of any new building construction project and for renovation projects that meet certain thresholds or “triggers”.   The stakeholder group determines the “design basis threat” to the building and its occupants and the level of protection required based on the number of people occupying the space.   These two factors ensure that the appropriate amount of money is spent on protection options and in the unlikely event a catastrophe does occur; injury and death will be kept to a minimum.

By bringing all stakeholders together from a variety of disciplines, everyone 1) has a chance to air their requirements and needs, 2) buys-in to the group’s decision on which threats will be addressed and support the “DBT” and the level of protection required, and costs are kept down.  Adding electronics in the form of surveillance or other technologies lies with the owner after the project is completed.  So in the short term, the cost of this equipment and its installation is currently absorbed by the owner/client and is not part of the building costs.  This “trick” helps keep the building design costs down but doesn’t adequately protect people or the facilities they use.  But more importantly, the real costs to the client come after the installation from the long term requirement for equipment maintenance and manpower. 

Since buildings are currently designed with everyone, remaining in their silos, with  limited exception, the process is treated as if it were a vertical process, when in reality it’s a horizontal one.  The “silo effect” and the isolation it causes make security an “add-on” and limits its efficiency and effectiveness.  

Planning Now for the Terrorist Attack that Won’t Come or Will it?

While radical Islamic-extremist inspire large scale attacks have not occurred in the United States in some time, low scale attacks are more common place than you’d think and not necessarily exclusive to radical-Islamist.  “Bad actor” attacks using terrorist tactics occur all the time.  To prevent, deter and reduce the effects of a terrorist style attack, business owners, facility managers or anyone else charged with the security of those they service must determine if they are an attractive target to, not only terrorist attack, but also criminal activity.

In that regard, two questions come up, 1) “Do I deal with the public?” and 2) “Does the public (or a “bad actor”) have access to my facility?”  If the answer to both questions is “Yes”, then you are at risk.  Even if you answer “No” to the second question, you must remember that a dedicated threat will not be deterred and will bring the tools necessary to carry out the attack.  Answering these questions will be an indicator of threat likelihood.  Additionally, if you ask, “What is the public’s opinion of that service/product?”   The operative word here being “the public’s opinion” and not what you think, you will get an even better understand of your risk.  If there is the slightest likelihood that you could be attacked by a criminal or a terrorist, then you should reconsider if  the procedures you follow and the physical security countermeasures you already have in place are adequate.

Usually, criminal activity doesn’t result in injury to people or death.  Terrorist activity, regardless of motivation intends to inflict violence on another person in order to hurt them.  That said, most criminal acts involve the theft of or damage to property.  Consideration must be given to common criminal activities, such as; theft, burglary, damage to property, assault and work place violence, just to name a few.  Criminal activity using terrorist tactics on the other hand are directed toward people and try to cause as much injury or death as possible.  Common tactics still include; improvised explosive devices (Yes Virginia, sick people are still building bombs), using a vehicle or automatic weapon to inflict injury or death.  While school and workplace shootings have become the norm they are not necessarily terrorist attacks, although the results may be the same – they produce mass casualties. 

Mitigation strategies for any type of criminal activity, including terrorism, must be in place before the event occurs.  So, we want to deter the activity from occurring in the first place and then delay it so that it can be noticed and responded to by trained forces.  And finally, in the unlikely event it does occur we want to reduce it effects as much as possible.

In the case of IEDs, we want to move vehicle parking away for places where large numbers of people gather and prevent the placement of unidentified objects near buildings. 

To thwart the hostile vehicle threat, we need to place rated barriers between vehicle traffic and people, especially where large numbers of people gather; i.e., street fairs, sidewalks or pedestrian zones.

Since police departments and some security companies are teaching people to “Run-Hide-Fight, which actually means hide, we need to create spaces that actually offer protection.  Two protective options are, 1) retrofitting walls with rated ballistic materials; so that when people do hide they are actually protected and 2) limit movement of the person with the gun. 

Note, there will always be some level of risk no matter how much you plan and implement countermeasures.  The goal is to reduce the risk to a level you can accept and to continually analyze and make changes when warranted.  When you hear or see something in the news, you should ask yourself, “Can that happen here?”  If the answer is “Yes”, then you should take actions to change that to a “No”.

Chances are you are not going to become a victim of a terrorist attack; however, there is a greater likelihood that you will become a victim of a criminal act that resembles a terrorist act.  

Getting Everyone to Speak a Common Language

A couple weeks ago, I was teaching a class about using building design to deter criminal activity, including terrorist attack, and when it fails reduce its effects and prevent mass casualties.  After the obligatory introductions, I said something to the effect, that building design is a matter of reducing risk whenever and wherever possible.  But in order to do that you have to the know your “DBT”.

Based on the blank stares, I got back, I knew something was wrong.  So, I said it again.  Still the deer in the headlights looks.  So, I said, “Everyone knows what DBT stands for, right”?  Still nothing.  Not one person raised their hand.  I was taken aback.  After all the class was made up of seasoned architects, engineers, planners and security folks.  I would have thought, at least, one or two would have known what I was talking about.

So, we spent the new few minutes talking about Design Basis Threat or DBT, if you will.  DBT is identifying your threats, their tactics, the tools they may use and then designing your building to deter or prevent them from happening, in the first place, and understanding that if they do happen you can reduce their effects if you’ve included reduction strategies into the design.

The very first thing to do is to assemble “the planning team”.  The idea that “it takes a village” needs to be used here.  The team should include architects, engineers, facility manager, security, end users and others.  It’s important to bring these folks together, so that they can discuss the parameters of what they are trying to accomplish and “buy in” to the project.  If done correctly at the beginning of a project, security costs can be kept to a minimum, usually somewhere around five percent of the total project costs.  If security comes in at the end of the project this cost may skyrocket to thirty-forty percent, because of the long term cost of equipment maintenance and especially, personnel costs.

Once the team is assembled, the first step is to identify the threat or threats.  Threats can be divided into two categories; natural and man-made.  Fortunately, laws and ordinances exist that address natural threats in building design; i.e., earthquake, flooding, fire, tornado, etc.  Man-made threats on the other hand – not so much.  Although, that is changing slowly.  Last year, federal legislation was signed into law that addresses the use of hostile vehicles as a method of attack in public spaces.  We’re still waiting for the DHS report the law requires and its subsequent findings and recommendations.  I’m particularly concerned that our government hasn’t the courage to attack hostile shooter legislation, when it is so needed.  But that’s another Blog topic for another time.

The second step is to identify the motives of the man-made threat,; i.e., causing injury or death, theft or unlawful removal of property or equipment, damage to property or facilities and causing adverse publicity.  Then we need to figure out what type of groups commit these acts; criminals (sophisticated/non-sophisticated, organized/unorganized), protesters (organized/non-organized), terrorist (domestic/trans-national/state-sponsored) and subversives.  

Then we look at the tactics they use; stationary or moving vehicle, different types of weapon usage, forced entry, etc.  Each tactic uses a different set of tools. That said, each type of tool use has a countermeasure available to reduce its effectiveness.

If we understand their motives, tactics and tools, we can design countermeasures into inhabited space that reduces the possibility that they will occur and when that falls short reduces their effects. 

My book, The Solutions Matrix: A Practical Guide to Soft Security Engineering for Architects, Engineer, Planners and Security Professionals, will be available in September.  It will outline the processes used to determine DBT, have a quick reference chart that outlines how to counter each type of man-made threat and provide examples of practical real-world solutions.  

The 310 Year Gamble

The Federal Government’s 310 Year Gamble on Your Child’s School Safety

In the days following the Parkland High School shooting, my emotions were out of control; first, because of the lack of “adult” leadership by the Federal government officials and secondly, because when called out by the high school’s young adults they (politicians) attacked the teens.  Whenever asked about how they intended to keep another active shooter event from happening they hid behind thinly veiled comments about how it was someone else’s responsibility to address the causes and fix them.

Let’s be realistic, it’s about guns, it’s about mental help, it’s about a person’s desire for fame, it’s about lack of protection, it’s about lack of designed evacuation routes and the list goes on…  Some causes can be fixed in the short term and others, like mental health issues will take many years to devise systems that are effective in identifying “at risk behaviors” and getting the person the proper treatment.  We also need to address the way schools are designed not only should they be great environments for learning by they must also be safe.  One example is there should always be two ways to egress a space in an emergency.  Currently, many times there is only one and if there are two, they lead into the same hallway.

So, in the meantime, if students and faculty are going to be taught to “hide” in the back of the classroom then the space must provide ballistic protection.  If it doesn’t, the AR-15 bullet will travel through the hallway locker, drywall or classroom furniture.  I thought, if we don’t have specific ballistic protection in place couldn’t we design a system similar to have hotels create additional space by mobile walls.  I reached out to my friends at Amulet Ballistic Technologies and come up with a design for retrofitting existing classrooms or new construction.

In 2018, the Federal government allocated $100 million for security upgrades to schools.  The deadline for application to receive some of that money was 31 July 2018.  If your school district didn’t apply, it for sure won’t get any of the money, so you’ll have to wait until next year.  Fortunately, many State legislatures have been setting aside funding and the process seems to be continuous.

Another unfortunately circumstance when it comes to funding is that most of the money will go to hiring school resource officers (RSO) from the local sheriff or police department.  Placing an armed guard is not in of itself sufficient.  While it will help deter possibly, the truth is if a RSO is present he/she will become the first victim and/or will not be where the shooting starts when it starts.  Another key security feature will be electronic surveillance and access control.  Both are useful and effective but have their limits as well.  Cameras must be monitored in “real-time” AND a response must be immediate.  Access control is only effective if it doesn’t become a burden to day-to-day operations.  If it becomes “taxing” people will figure out how to get around it.  

Now, back to $100 million per year for the next 10 years ($1Billion total).  There are an estimated 50.2 – 58 million students in America’s schools.  The average class size in the US is somewhere between 17 and 26, so let’s just say 20-22 students.  If we divide the average size class occupancy into the lower number of total students that tells us we have about 2.5 million classrooms (give or take).  Now, if the average cost of constructing or retrofitting one classroom with ballistic protection is $15,000 (I suspect that once we get going the costs will be lower and more likely to be about $10-12k for a classroom of 20 using the Department of Homeland Security recommended square footage for safe-haven/shelter space occupancy.) then it will take $3,750,000,000,000 to retrofit all existing classrooms.  At one billion every ten years that will be 375[1] years to protect every classroom in the US.

Let me put that into context.  Most people think that during the 2008 financial crisis[2], the treasury department used $700M to save the banks.  This is not true.  The Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in their summary report says that the total commitment of the government is $16.8 trillion with about $4.6 trillion already paid out.

According to a team at Bloomberg News, at one point last year the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy.[3]

In either case, more than enough to protect America’s kids in less than 10 years instead of over 300. 

---

[1] I rounded down to 310 years just in case my numbers are off a little, at any rate you get the idea.

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/07/14/the-big-bank-bailout/#1c0b5b752d83

[3] http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/economy/the-true-cost-of-the-bank-bailout/3309/

Parents and School Administrators are Buying
Security Equipment That Won’t 

Protect Children – Why?

Salesmanship and fear are the two main reasons.  Fear because active shooter events are more commonplace than a few years ago.  The recent discovery in New Mexico of abducted children being trained to carry out armed attacks at schools is frightening.  Since the federal government won’t address some of the underlying issues of gun violence by creating sensible legislation maybe they can concentrate instead on finding the horrifying number of missing kids that occur every year in America[1].  Just saying.

In the meantime, parents and school administrator know that something has to be done and have taken matters into their own hands.  

I applaud many States and school districts that have taken steps for comprehensive security improvements.  Unfortunately, there are an equal number of school districts that have only made superficial changes that really don’t offer protection from the active shooter threat or errant vehicle threats.  

Right after the February 14^th event in Parkland, everyone wanted to put more resource officers on campuses, more cameras and more access control.  While on the surface these may be good ideas, just getting more is not enough.  There must be processes in place that make them effective.  For example, if a school increases the number of CCTV cameras, then who monitors them in real time becomes essential.  Unless monitored in real-time, they only have evidentiary value.  The real value of CCTV is that it allows investigators to go back in time and figure out what happened.  We don’t need after-the-fact protection. 

Students and staff need to rely on protection that will actually protect them[2].

Bulletproof - C'mon really?

I saw a news report a couple days ago about a company offering “bullet proof” backpacks.  My antennae went up – way up.  There is no such thing as “bullet proof”!  The correct term is “ballistic resistant” or “bullet resistant”.  It may stop some types of bullets but it won’t stop all.  Therefore it is bullet resistant and not bullet proof.  Shady salesmen will play on your fear and lack of knowledge in knowing the difference.  Anyway, the news reporter had a marksman fire two types of handguns, which the backpack manufacturer said would be stopped, and they were, but when rounds from an AR15 (the most common type of weapon used in school mass shootings) were fired and the rounds went straight through the backpack and into the dirt berm behind.  The reporter asked why, and a guy whom I believe to be a company spokesman, said something to the effect, “well, it was shot at without books and binders being inside. That would change everything”.  To suggest that books and binders offer ballistic protection is just ludicrous.  Backpack manufacturers if I’m wrong AND you have the data to prove it!  Then do so and I will publically admit I was wrong.  

I’m amazed that Walmart and Costco are selling these backpacks for upwards of $100 and apparently do not make this distinction.  

Even if the backpack will stop a .9mm or .45mm, a person would have to be wearing it and be shot from the back.

Use Whatever You Can  

Police Departments and some companies have made a very profitable business out of teaching Run-Hide-Fight.  A defense strategy that teaches: run if you can, hide if you can’t and fight if you have to.  At first, this concept makes sense but the reality is the instructions being given during the R-H-F training actually teaches people to hide and use whatever they can for protection, or in worse case scenarios, use whatever they can to fight.  With this in mind, the idea that a student could hold a backpack in front of them and hide behind it, to me seems a little unreasonable.  I have a hard time imagining a ten year old reducing herself down to the size of a book-bag.  

Instead we should be teaching, to get out - Run-Run-Run - no matter what. Throw a chair through the window, punch thru the dry-wall - but do something that allows you to escape.  The idea of waiting for the "cavalry" to arrive and save the day is just crazy.  We could start designing all occupied spaces with, at least, two avenues of escape.  

This will take a considerable amount of time because first, we have to change our mindset about how we think about high occupancy spaces and how to design them to our advantage, and second, we have to actually implement these concepts into retrofitting classrooms or building new ones.

Don't D-I-Y This

A couple weeks ago, I was sitting next to a second grade teacher on a flight to Houston.  Of course, the conversation got around to school safety.  She said, “I don’t think about it.  I mean, I know what the security measures are for sheltering-in-place and fire drills and such but I really don’t give it much thought, and especially the “big stuff”.  I assumed she meant events like active shooters or terrorist attacks.  She’s right – she shouldn’t be worrying about security.  She should concentrate on teaching.  Educators should not try to D-I-Y this.  Instead, they should contact security professionals that are agnostic to products and are concerned solely with providing effective security solutions.  

That way, educators will get honest protection options that address issues on multiple levels and not just be sold more products.

---

[1] National Center for Missing & Exploited Children   http://www.missingkids.com/KeyFacts

[2] One More Town – One More Family – One More Angel – One More Funeral February 22^nd 2018 on-line edition of American Security Today.  https://americansecuritytoday.com/one-town-one-family-one-angel-one-funeral/

Prediction: An Active Shooter Event Will Occur at Your Child's School Unless Fundamental Security Changes are Made

One more active shooter incident, just a different town, different families but we’ve seen this show far too many times before.  I’m disgusted that everyone is blaming everyone else, the gun lobby oh it’s a mental health issue, the gun control tribe, oh we need gun control, everyone attacking the FBI and the mental health system.  The reality is WE, the collective We, failed.  No single agency or group or person or law is solely responsible.  Non-sensible gun control, non-sensible mental health laws, non-sensible law enforcement and non-sensible governing by public officials who haven’t display even the slightest bit of leadership.  Leaders stand up, admit their failures and take actions to correct course.  I know it’s only been a few days, so maybe just maybe someone will step up but based on previous track records, I kind of doubt it.

ELECTED OFFICIALS

If you’re an elected official, we’re calling you out.  There is nothing and I mean, NOTHING that is more important than protecting our kids, no … America’s kids.  If you think of them as someone else’s kids, then you’re sorely mistaken.  These are American’s kids, they belong to all of us.  It just so happens that they weren’t my blood relatives – at least, not this time. 

If you’re a public official you serve us – not your own or your party’s agenda – OUR agenda, and right now our agenda is – SAVE OUR KIDS! 

I had written a two-hundred-word rant but I think Emma Gonzalez said it much more eloquently that I.

This is not about anything other than will power.  We, after Presidential leadership, decided to put a man on the moon.  Not because we knew how but because that’s who we are.  We did it because of our willpower to do it. 

SAME OLD SOLUTIONS

I fear that in the aftermath of this tragic event those faced with finding solutions; i.e., security companies, elected officials, and school administrators will rush to add security guards and electronic security systems to their schools.  Unfortunately, these products will not solve the problem.  The school in Parkland had both.  Sadly, the guards will be somewhere else when the shooting starts or will become the first victim.  More cameras will only allow us to capture what happened, because there is no one monitoring and responding in “real time”.  Allowing teachers to carry guns, will not stop the carnage.  In fact, the idea of allowing “responsible” people to carry weapons, whether open or concealed, only puts more people at risk.  We could add fences and gates and metal detectors but all of those can and will be circumvented by a dedicated threat.  Besides, fences and gates and access control add to the issue of aggressiveness[1].  And, I certainly don’t advocate that we turn our schools into prison like compounds. It’s going to take a multi-layered approach.  We need to address the possession and use of guns, especially assault type weapons that are designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible. Since they’re not for protecting a person and or his/her loved ones I don’t get why you need to have one.  I understand the argument that you have the right to protect yourself and your loved ones in your home, but do you really need an AR-15 to do that?  I’m not writing this to get in an argument over guns.  I’m writing this to voice my concern that if we don’t address the use of these type weapons in a logical way, we’re in for more trouble. 

Regrettably, someone will say, “Hey here’s how we fix this, so it doesn’t happen again”.  And then everyone will run after that solution for a while or until the next shooting happens.  Then we’ll figure out what “fell through the cracks”, plug that hole and wait for the next killings to occur.  Unless we have a comprehensive approach bringing a variety of disciplines to the table the “plug a hole” approach will cost lives.

Just like tackling the root causes of what happened in their totality so is the necessity to take a layered approach to implement security at the detection, assessment, command and control (school administration), response and engagement levels.  Without a holistic approach we will not have comprehensive solutions.

CRY FOR HELP – MENTAL HEALTH

I have to say, that while I detest what the Parkland shooter did, I also can see that this was a desperate cry for help.  The system failed this young man and now we have hundreds of victims to show for it.  So mental health professionals need to be consulted so they can express how they can have a greater impact on the actions of those who are troubled before they act out. Note: After the Isla Vista shooting in Santa Barbara a few years ago, the city formed a coalition of mental health professionals, police and others to respond to “welfare check” requests, instead of leaving it solely up to the police.

If we don’t address associated mental health issues and the laws surrounding when a physician can report his or her suspicions and concerns that a person may act out, then we’ll miss the boat again.  I think we all can agree, if a mental health professional says this person may resort to violence, then our first course of action should be to take away their ability to access firearms.  At least, until a risk assessment is done by a professional panel.

LAW ENFORCEMENT’S FAILURE

Now that the FBI is under scrutiny for its failure to follow up on what seems to be a credible tip, everyone wants to blame them.  In this instance, an investigation needs to be conducted (Director Wray has already announced a probe will be conducted) and if someone needs to be held accountable, at whatever level, then so be it.  But to place the blame solely on the FBI is wrong.  I have high confidence that the FBI will get to the bottom of what happened and correct it.

ARMING TEACHERS AND SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS

Many people will want to have officials pass legislation so that teachers and school administrators can carry weapons at school.  Bringing more wood to a burning building only makes the fire grow.  While on the surface, armed teacher/administrators may seem like a good idea but when you think it through it’s not.  These active shooter incidents most often start outside the classroom, somewhere on the periphery.  This means, that in order to be effective armed school officials would need to be outside of the classroom to engage and neutralize the threat.  Second, if everyone has a gun then what is the triggering mechanism for suspicious behavior or “See Something, Say Something”.  The tip that came in to the FBI was initiated because the behavior of the shooter was out of the ordinary.  If everyone is walking around with a loaded weapon, then how do we distinguish the good guys from the bad guys?  Besides, when the shooting starts who’s to say it won’t become the “wild west”?  I fear there would be many more casualties.  We’ve become accustomed to armed security officers or policeman because they’re uniformed, which identifies them as a good guy, and because they receive regular firearms safety training.  Yet accidents do happen.  I doubt teachers and administrators would receive the same degree of rigorous and routine situational training.

Curious note here: A Presidential Pool reporter was stopped this morning because he had a gun in his bag and was attempting to travel with the President.  If gun advocates think everyone should be allowed to “conceal carry” a weapon wherever they go, then why not let the reporter carry his legally registered firearm while accompanying the President to his golf game?  Just saying.

CHANGE IN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

Additionally, schools are not designed for protection, they’re designed for education.  Now, that said, some newer schools have been designed with security in mind but most of the effort has been on creating a perimeter that is impenetrable.  The reality is, what happens if a person gets past the perimeter[2], then what?  No places to hide that offer ballistic protection.  Especially in the newer facilities with open floor plans that foster the interaction of students.  The idea of stacking desks and chairs behind a door and expecting the dry-wall to offer protection from a high caliber bullet is just insane. 

We need a change in the way we design inhabited space, especially when the occupancy is higher than 20 people or so.  There should always be two possibilities for escape[3]. 

And we should be teaching to run at all costs; hiding and fighting is not an option.  Throw a chair through the window, kick or punch a hole in the wall (after all it’s just dry-wall) and get out no matter what, the only time a person should stay behind is if they don’t have time to escape.  With that in mind, we need to start creating ballistically protected spaces throughout that provide sanctuary and keep people safe when it’s too late for them to run.

There are off-the-shelf ballistic materials available that can be used to create safe-havens, in new construction or existing facilities and can be embedded in white boards, desks and chairs. 

THE COST OF CHANGE

Now, don’t get me wrong, I think space exploration and figuring out a way that’s economical to get to Mars is a great and necessary thing.  I’m using this as only one of many examples that I could use.  I’m just saying, if we can find the money to this, then why can’t we find the money and willpower to protect our schools.

The fiscal conservatives will say that it will drive the budget up.  So!  I can’t think of a better return on investment.

The cost to launch the Falcon Heavy was somewhere close to $90,000,000.  Not to mention the costs of the R&D that came before hand.  There’s not allot of information about how much money is has been allocated to this program so I’m going to make some guesses here.  Let’s say there were 10 launches (ground tests and orbital) at $50M each.  So that’s $500,000,000. 

So, let’s just say, that to make a space that’s approximately 100 square feet, that can accommodate a classroom full of students and teacher, we use the occupied floorspace guidance provided by DHS for saferooms/shelter (spaces where a person can seek shelter for up to two hours) costs, $20,000.  If, you divide half a billion by $20k that’s 25,000 classrooms that could be built or retrofitted.  And let’s say on average a classroom has 20 students then that’s roughly 500,000 students and teachers that would have been afforded protection in the same period.  Using the same formula and using just the latest launch cost of $90M, equates to protecting 90,000 lives. 

This doesn’t look like rocket science to me.

REAL CHANGE

For real change to occur two actions are required;

First, we need to stop thinking about this as a singular issue to resolve.  This is a multi-layered issue and can only be resolved with a multi-dimensional approach.  No topic or option, no matter how painful, needs to be off the table[4].  Folks need to check their emotions at the door and get to work.

And second, and much more importantly, we need to change our way of thinking.  We need to think that although it didn’t happen in my town or to my family it did happen to me personally – these are not someone else’s kids and teachers, they are OUR kids and teachers – they belong to America!

We claim to be the greatest nation in the history of the earth yet we sure aren’t acting like it.

Related article https://view.joomag.com/ast-digital-magazine-august-2017-digital-aug/0415224001503451917?short

---

[1] Security Update Opinion: Little empirical evidence #security measures can really stop school shootings ow.ly/kRah30irCS0

[2] Security guidelines for safer schools can be downloaded from the PASSK12 website http://passk12.org/

[3] “Active Shooter Threat:  Why Run-Hide-Fight is Wrong and Two Ways to Fix It” appeared in the 16 May 17 edition of the New York Real Estate Journal

[4] Toolkits on how to change the safety culture at your school are available here  https://www.safeandsoundschools.org/