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/

Electronic Technologies vs Non-electronic Technologies

Many folks think this is the question to ask themselves, “Since there is so much electronic technology out there that can replace the human being, then that must be enough”.  Actually it’s more of a way of thinking than it is a question.

Security companies have been especially good over the last few years in getting people to believe that their “new widget” is the end-all solution to the security dilemma.  The reality is electronic technology is a tool to be used by a person for assessment and analysis.  Ultimately, a human must decide what action to take. 

Having returned this week from the largest U.S. security industry tradeshow, ISC-West 2017, in Vegas I can tell you there were tens of thousands of people looking for the latest “widget”.  Hundreds of companies were professing to have “THE solution”.  Granted a lot of progress has been made in the past few years in regards to taking away some of the pitfalls in the security industry.  Number one among them is the issue of complacency that comes with standing or sitting monotonous hours of guard duty.  Through intelligent analytics and predictive analysis software programs can assist with the assessment.  While helpful, in the end a human must decide how to respond.

Which brings us to the use of non-electronic technologies.  Security is an everybody business.  It cannot be left up to guard personnel or the police.  It takes everyone’s “eyes and ears”.  Smart companies provide security awareness training to their staff on a regular basis.  The training must include how to recognize “wanted and unwanted” behavior, when and how to report it and to whom.  Training should also include when to intervene without jeopardizing their own safety or those around them and when reporting unwanted behavior is the first and only course of action.  While routine, it cannot be done every Friday afternoon nor can it be the same scenario week after week.  The Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, Public Law 109-29, recognizes that training and drills must be a mix of “live, virtual and constructive” scenarios.  While this legislation applies to exercise planning for government agencies the same holds true for non-disaster type training in the private sector.  Interactive scenarios that challenge staff to think, sometimes outside of the box, will go a long way in making them ready for whatever comes their way.

Relying solely on electronic technologies is not the answer.  Nor is it a good idea to exclude these technologies in today’s world.  Electronics provide assistance.  They should be treated that way – as a tool that helps us do our jobs.  Likewise, procedures and policies, including awareness and training, are not definitive solutions either. A good security program will have a combination of electronic technologies intertwined with non-electronic technologies for the protection of all.

The Need for a Different Approach to Active Shooter Incidents

Antiterrorism Strategies In Public Spaces

Part I

I’ve been following terrorist attacks for quite some time now and after each one look back and try to analyze what occurred and why, and if anything could have been differently to affect the outcome. 

The modern era of terrorism, generally speaking, is considered to have started with the 1972 Munich Olympic attack.  Throughout the 70’s we saw a series of hi-jacking which eventually led to stricter security standards for the airline industry.   In the 80’s, 90’s and early 2000’s terrorist attacks took on a variety of formats.  And really little has changed in the way we react.  Sure there’s the DHS, “see something, say something” campaign but outside of that – what?  Unfortunately, in the last few years’ active shooter incidents, either inspired by Islamic-radicalization or not, have taken place.  After the enormous loss of life at the Virginia Tech massacre, the notion for first responders to wait until reinforcements arrived has changed.  Before, the idea was to wait until reinforcements could arrive to neutralize the threat.   While still the case in some instances; i.e., San Bernardino and Orlando, police departments arm their patrols with higher powered weaponry and provide ballistic protection.  And now, some police departments are training their officers to intervene as quickly as possible, as soon a numerical superiority is achieved.  Another change in tactics, and widely-accepted, is the notion that a victim should use the RUN-HIDE-FIGHT approach.  RUN if you can, HIDE if you can’t and FIGHT if you have to. 

Events in San Bernardino, Paris and recently in Orlando, make me wonder if teaching the RUN-HIDE-FIGHT methodology might actually be adding to the injury and death count.  I know many police departments swear by it and a lot of training has been conducted, especially at school, college and university campuses across the nation.  I’m not saying it was all in vain.  What I am saying is maybe we need to take a look and think “outside the box” in how we deal with terrorist acts and specifically, active shooter events.  Maybe we can and should be using building design to assist us in reducing the number of victims.  We know that designing neighborhoods and inhabited public spaces by incorporating Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles are effective in reducing crime.  Why can’t the same hold true for other building design and community strategies?

Here’s my point, during a fire, the best protection for an individual in a building is to get out of the building as quickly as possible.  In essence, get away from the threat – the fire.  In the security business we teach distance is the best defense.  Get as far away as possible from the threat in order to protect yourself. 

I’m not a firefighter and consequently have not attended any formal firefighter training, but I doubt if anywhere in their training, it says to tell people to stay in the building until they show up to save them.  We don’t do that for fire but we do that for active shooter incidents.  Huh? 

We’ve come up with legislation that implements fire safety codes, which include labeling exits, training personnel in escape procedures, signage and so on.  There hasn’t been a fire related death in a school since 1957.  That tells me all the codes, training and practice fire drills have paid off.  Couldn’t and shouldn’t the same hold true for active shooter situations or other types of terrorist attacks, for example,  vehicle or backpack bombings ?  We could easily design buildings and rooms within so that there are always at least two evacuation routes.  This would allow people to escape the shooter, instead of hiding in the bathroom and waiting to be murdered or, at best, to fight to overwhelm the attacker.  Essentially, we’ve told and trained folks to be sitting ducks. 

That I know of, no one involved during the initial phase of an active shooter incident has been shot in the back while trying to escape.  I may be wrong here but I’ve not heard of anyone.  But I have heard of people being killed while they waited for the police to neutralize the threat.  I believe, the notion that people should hunker-down until the cavalry arrives is ludicrous.  Instead we should be teaching people to RUN-RUN-RUN.  But in order to do that, we have to design buildings so that people can RUN no matter what.  Which means every internal space should have at least, two exits.  Preferably opposite each other to afford people the opportunity to get away.

Next month, in Part II I’ll share my thoughts on other types of attack and preventive measures or, at least, how the effects of a terrorist attack can be reduced.

Additional reading http://www.campussafetymagazine.com/article/physical_security_are_we_protecting_people_or_trapping_them?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&eid=350354640&bid=1498847

8 Tips for Do-It-Yourself

Home and Small Business Security Alarm Systems

There are lots of alarm companies that will tell you, that you need their alarm system in order to monitor activity in and around your house or business.  They will sell you an “all-inclusive package” of X number of cameras and sensors.  The reality is, whatever X represents is in most cases not going to be enough the cover your entire building or home.  They make their money when they sell you additional equipment.  They include X but what you really need is X more to provide complete coverage. 

New alarm systems allow the homeowner/business owner to monitor activity via an IP connection.  So you can monitor your system from anywhere there’s an internet signal.  With that in mind, alarm companies now have the owner monitor the activity and notify them instead of the old way where they would monitor and notify the owner when sometime seemed amiss.  In either case, if the responding patrol car doesn’t get there within 10 minutes chances are very high that the perps will be gone and all you will have is evidence on film that they stole something.  Don’t be fooled by what you see played out by Hollywood and on TV shows – Fact: 98% of crime captured by video surveillance does not result in an apprehension.

Now that you’ve been warned, here’s the other side.  Nowadays, relatively inexpensive systems are available for do-it-yourselfers.  Eventhough surveillance cameras are an assessment tool they can provide some deterrence, if there’ visible and especially if there’s a warning sign in the yard or at the front entrance.  Actually, the sign is the deterrent not the cameras or sensors, but you get the idea.  Additionally, if properly placed, electronic security along with an appropriately equipped and trained response force can be effective.  Here are ten things you can do to make sure your alarm system benefits you and provides the protection you seek.

• Place outside cameras so that they view avenues of approach and can detect people as they come up to the front door or entrance.
• Placement of cameras internal to structures is a little trickier.  They have to be able to capture the entire room and high enough so that the bad guy can’t knock it down or spray paint the lens.  Discreetly placed “nanny cams” can help but it seems they are always pointing in the wrong direction or covered up by something.
• Perform regular maintenance by cleaning the lenses and housings.  Nothing worse than getting burglarized and find out that your camera system captured Charlotte building her web.
• Test the system regularly.  Find out from the monitoring company how often you’re allowed to test the system without a charge.  I would recommend, at least twice a year.  More often if necessary.  Find out the priority for response.  If you live in a high crime neighborhood guess what, they’re not coming – unless the perps still there and in that case you shouldn’t be.  Police departments maintain these types of stats.
• Check the cameras field of view.  Is it viewing what you want viewed?  Sounds pretty stupid doesn’t it, but how often have the camera angles changed because of high winds or by being bumped by a cat or other critter.
• Insure you have the latest software available.  If password enabled, make sure you change the factory installed password once you start using it.
• Get an Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) that is capable of running your security system until the power can come back on.  The UPS should be able to maintain the system for at least a day.
• Don’t rely solely on one type of electronic security equipment, if you have cameras augment them with sensors and vice versa.  Chances of both systems failing at the same time is pretty slim.
• Place volumetric sensors so that the beams shoot out across a room and not directly at the door or windows.  These sensors work by detecting variations in the beam, so as a person walks between one beam and another they get detected.  Think of it like your hand with the fingers being the beams radiating across a room.

Don’t forget that just because you have an alarm system it doesn’t make you invincible.  If the rest of your security posture sucks, they’re gonna get you.  It’s just matter of time!

More common sense tips available under the Technology Improvements Tab on our homepage or here: https://hainessecuritysolutions.com/Technology_Improvements.html