Surveillance

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Surveillance-and-Stereotypes.aspxSurveillance and StereotypesGP0|#cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8;L0|#0cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8|Physical Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a43444652017-04-01T04:00:00Z<p>​Juveniles make up 40 percent of the shoplifters in the United States. Shoplifters, in total, contribute to billions of dollars of loss each year, according to the National Association for Shoplifting Prevention’s 2014 report <em>Shop­lifting Statistics.</em></p><p>To combat adolescent shoplifting, according to the report, retailers depend on private security officers combined with other security measures, including security cameras, observation mirrors, and radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags. </p><p>The key to apprehending juveniles during or after shoplifting, however, is to correctly determine whom to surveil. Security personnel often rely on a combination of common underlying physical characteristics—race, gender, and age—and behavioral indices—glancing at clerks nervously, assessing security measures, and loitering—to distinguish shoppers from potential shoplifters. </p><p>Are these surveillance decisions a result of bias? To find out, the authors conducted original academic research funded by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York on how stereotypes play into who is suspected of shoplifting, how that suspect is dealt with, and what private security can do to limit discriminatory practices.​</p><h4>Existing Data</h4><p>A 2003 Journal of Experimental Psychology article, “The Influence of Schemas, Stimulus Ambiguity, and Interview Schedule on Eyewitness Memory Over Time,” which discussed research findings and lawsuits against retailers, concluded that stereotypes of juvenile shoplifters may unduly influence security officers to target juveniles on the basis of their physical characteristics, rather than their behaviors.</p><p>Over the past 20 years, the media has reported on cases in which the retail industry engaged in discriminatory practices. This is known as consumer racial profiling (CRP), “the use of race and or ethnicity to profile customers.” According to a 2011 study in the Criminal Justice Review, “Public Opinion on the Use of Consumer Racial Profiling to Identify Shoplifters: An Exploratory Study,” officers sometimes use CRP to determine which juvenile shoppers are potential or actual thieves. </p><p>Most people develop negative stereotypes about juvenile thieves through exposure to various types of media, particularly when they reside in areas that contain few minorities. The media has the unique ability to both shape and perpetuate society’s beliefs about which juveniles typically commit offenses through its selective coverage of crimes. </p><p>It is also common for the media to portray adolescents—particularly boys—as criminals. Biases are then used, whether consciously or unconsciously, in the private sector by retailers and security officers to target shoppers, and in the public sector by those in the legal system, including law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, and even legislators, to arrest and prosecute thieves.</p><p>The consequences of applying discriminatory practices can be seen in the private sector through lawsuits against retailers. Ethnic minority shoppers purport that they were targeted through excessive surveillance—and even through false arrests. </p><p>Researchers have shown that this automated bias occurs even when observers were trained to focus on behavioral cues, and it persists despite findings that shoplifting occurs across racial and ethnic groups, according to the 2004 Justice Quarterly article “Who Actually Steals? A Study of Covertly Observed Shoplifters.”</p><p>Stereotypes also affect retailers’ decisions on how to handle shoplifters, either formally by involving the police, or informally. The results of accumulated discrimination, accrued during each step in the legal process—initial involvement of police, decision to prosecute, conviction, and sentencing—continue in the legal system. This is evidenced by the disproportionate number of African- and Latin-American boys shown in the apprehension and arrest statistics of juvenile thieves, compared to their representation in the population, according to Our Children, Their Children: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Differences in American Juvenile Justice, a book published by the Chicago University Press. ​</p><h4>Current Research</h4><p>To test the premise that there is a widespread stereotype of the typical juvenile thief and shoplifter, our research team obtained information from young adults in two diverse areas:  97 psychology-major college students in a small city in the U.S. state of Kansas, and 156 security and emergency management majors at a college in a large city in New York state. </p><p><strong>Shoplifter profile. </strong>The psychology-major students were 83 percent European American. The rest of the students were represented as follows: 5 percent African American, 2 percent Asian American, 1 percent Latin American, and 9 percent of mixed or unknown descent.</p><p>The security and emergency management major students—72 percent of whom were male—came from a variety of backgrounds: 31 percent European American, 37 percent Latin American, 19 percent African American, 9 percent Asian American, and 2 percent Middle Eastern American.</p><p>Participants in both locations were asked to guess the common physical characteristics of a typical juvenile shoplifter—age, gender, ethnicity or race, and socioeconomic status. </p><p>The stereotypical juvenile shoplifters described by both the Kansas and New York respondents were remarkably similar: male, aged 14 to 17, and from lower- to middle-class families of African-American, Latin-American, or European-American descent. The two samples also indicated that the stereotypical thief was likely to have short or medium length brown or black hair and an identifying mark—such as a piercing. </p><p>These findings show commonality in the prevalence of certain physical characteristics, despite the diversity of the two groups of respondents, and demonstrate that American society has a well-developed juvenile shoplifter stereotype.</p><p><strong>Decision processes. </strong>After determining the stereotype, the research team considered whether juvenile shoplifter stereotypes affected respondents’ decisions. The goal was to determine the degree to which the respondents believed that physical characteristics influenced the security guards’ decisions regarding whom to surveil, and what consequences to apply when a youth was caught stealing.</p><p>The New York respondents read a brief scenario describing a juvenile shoplifter as either male or female and from one of five backgrounds: European American, African American, Asian American, Latin American, or Middle Eastern American. However, the description of the overt behaviors by the juvenile was the same for every scenario—selecting and returning shirts in a rack, glancing around the store, and stuffing a shirt into a backpack.</p><p>Respondents provided their opinions about the degree to which the security officer in the scenario relied on physical characteristics in surveilling a juvenile, and whether the retail manager and security officer should impose informal or formal sanctions on the shoplifter. Researchers reasoned that respondents should draw identical conclusions for surveillance and sanctions if they were simply evaluating the juvenile shoplifters’ behaviors, but that students would have different recommendations for these choices if their racial or ethnic stereotypes were activated.</p><p>Respondents who indicated a preference for applying informal sanctions did so more frequently for girls of African-American and Middle Eastern-American descent. These respondents also assessed that the officer described in the scenario based his or her surveillance decisions on physical characteristics. No other gender differences for race or ethnicity were notable when considering reliance on physical characteristics.</p><p>Stereotypes also affected decisions on how to sanction the shoplifter. Respondents were given the option of implementing one of four informal sanctions: speak to the juvenile, call parents to pick up the juvenile, get restitution, or ban the youth from the store. Their selection of the least severe sanction—talk to the juvenile—was doled out at a higher rate for boys than for girls of each ethnicity except European Americans, which did not differ.</p><p>The moderate level sanction—call the youth’s parents—was selected more for girls than for boys of African and Latin descent. The most severe level sanction—ban the youth from the store—was selected more for boys than for girls of African descent. However, it was selected more for girls than for boys of Asian, European, and Middle Eastern descent.<img src="/ASIS%20SM%20Callout%20Images/0417%20Feature%202%20Chart%201.jpg" class="ms-rtePosition-2" alt="" style="margin:5px;width:510px;" /></p><p>Respondents who indicated a preference for applying formal sanctions attributed physical characteristics to the guards’ surveillance decision for girls more than for boys of Latin descent; gender differences were not apparent for the other ethnicities. </p><p>Respondents were also given five formal sanctions for the youths: involve the police, prosecute the theft as larceny, impose a fine, give the youth diversion or community service, or put the incident on the youth’s criminal record. Their selection of the least severe sanction—involve the police—was endorsed more for boys than for girls of Asian, European, and Latin descent, but more for girls than for boys of African descent. No gender difference was apparent for youths of Middle Eastern descent.</p><p>The most severe sanction—diversion or community service—was preferred more for boys than for girls of African descent. A small percentage of respondents endorsed a criminal record for the theft of a shirt, but only for girls of African and European descent and for boys of Middle Eastern descent.</p><p>Finally, a comparison of our data revealed that respondents believed informal—rather than formal—consequences should be imposed for girls rather than for boys of Asian and European descent, and for boys rather than for girls of Latin descent. ​<img src="/ASIS%20SM%20Callout%20Images/0417%20Feature%202%20Chart%202.jpg" class="ms-rtePosition-2" alt="" style="margin:5px;width:519px;" /></p><h4>Lessons Learned</h4><p>Our findings clearly demonstrate that people have stereotypes about juvenile shoplifters. They also showed that people unconsciously use the typical physical characteristics of gender and race or ethnicity associated with their criminal stereotypes to make decisions and recommendations, such as whom to surveil and how to handle a shoplifting incident. Otherwise, there would not have been a difference in how the juvenile shoplifter was processed or punished, because the behaviors exhibited by all of the juveniles were identical across scenarios.</p><p>Consumer racial profiling is a defective filtering system that may direct private security officers’ attention to characteristics that are not reflective of actual shoplifting conduct. Our data suggests that CRP not only hurts retail businesses by discouraging minority consumers from shopping in their stores, but also simultaneously prevents security officers from apprehending shoplifters.</p><p>Other research, such as from “Juvenile Shoplifting Delinquency: Findings from an Austrian Study” published in the 2014 Journal for Police Science and Practice, shows that only 10 percent of juveniles are caught shoplifting. Even more disconcerting, the typical shoplifter steals on average 48 to 150 times before being apprehended. Clearly, retailers need a better strategy if they are to reduce loss due to shoplifting.</p><p>Another issue that was addressed was the decision to involve the legal system. Many businesses, despite having posted prosecution warnings, reported only about half of the adolescent shoplifters they caught to the police. </p><p>Retailers instead focus on minimizing loss and negative publicity, and may rationalize against reporting the offense to the police because they do not want to stigmatize the adolescent or because they consider it a one-time incident, particularly when the juvenile admits to the theft and then pays for or returns the items, according to the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Community Oriented Policing Services.</p><p>These beliefs, however, may be misguided. Though current research is scarce, a 1992 study—The Sociology of Shoplifting: Boosters and Snitches Today—indicated that 40 to 50 percent of apprehended adolescent shoplifters reported that they continued shoplifting. </p><p>There are benefits for retailers who involve the legal system, especially for informal police sanctions. </p><p>First, criminal justice diversion programs and psychological treatment and educational programs treatment may reduce recidivism. For example, shoplifters who attended and completed a diversion program had significantly fewer re-arrests compared to those who failed to complete or did not attend, a DOJ study found.</p><p>Second, the private sector needs the support of the public sector to reduce shoplifting. Shoplifters can be given an opportunity to participate in first offender programs and, upon completion of classes on the effects of shoplifting, have their charges dismissed or even erased. ​</p><h4>Recommendations</h4><p>Retailers and private security officers need training to make them aware of their own biases and how their stereotypes affect their choices. They also need training to learn which behavioral indices are most effective in distinguishing shoppers from shoplifters. </p><p>If retailers do not make significant changes in guiding their employees—particularly security officers—towards objective measures of vigilance to prevent shoplifting, their financial loss will continue to be in the billions of dollars. </p><p>Private security officers must be taught how to treat all potential shoplifters, regardless of their gender, in the same way to prevent making mistakes and subjecting retailers to lawsuits for discriminatory security practices.</p><p>Overcoming unconscious biases is difficult. Prior to specialized training in bias identification and behavioral profiling, it is important to determine the biases of security officers. Self-assessment measures similar to the ones the researchers used in their study can be administered. </p><p>The officers should also keep records that specify each incident of shoplifting, what behaviors drew their attention to warrant surveillance, what act occurred to provoke them to approach the juvenile shoplifter, the items that were taken, the method used, the shoplifter’s demographics, how the situation was handled, who made the decision, and reasons for the decision. The officers should then review these records with their retail managers.</p><p>Retailers should also implement a mandatory training program to provide private security officers with the tools needed to identify shoplifting behaviors to increase detection and reduce shrink. </p><p>The incident records could be introduced and used to help identify the impact biases have on private security professionals’ decisionmaking about juvenile shoplifters. It would also help security guards learn the various types of suspicious behaviors that shoplifters exhibit, such as juveniles who make quick glances at staff, examine items in remote aisles, monitor security cameras and mirrors, and purposefully draw employees’ attention away from others.</p><p>Additionally, a practical component would be to show surveillance videos of the behaviors exhibited by juvenile shoplifters of different gender and race or ethnicity. In this way, the findings of past studies showing the insignificance of race, ethnicity, or gender can be learned through real-world examples.  </p><p>--<br></p><p><em><strong>Dr. Lauren R. Shapiro </strong>is an associate professor in the Department of Security, Fire, and Emergency Management at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She has published several journal articles and chapters on the role of stereotypes in perception and memory for crime and criminals. <strong>Dr. Marie-Helen (Maria) Maras</strong> is an associate professor at the Department of Security, Fire, and Emergency Management at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She is the author of several books, including Cybercriminology; Computer Forensics: Cybercriminals, Laws, and Evidence; Counterterrorism; and Transnational Security.   ​</em></p>

Surveillance

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Surveillance-and-Stereotypes.aspx2017-04-01T04:00:00ZSurveillance and Stereotypes
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/The-Virtual-Lineup.aspx2017-02-01T05:00:00ZThe Virtual Lineup
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Surveillance-is-Instrumental.aspx2017-02-01T05:00:00ZSurveillance is Instrumental
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Wildlife-Trafficking.aspx2017-01-01T05:00:00ZWildlife Trafficking
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Speedy-Surveillance.aspx2016-11-01T04:00:00ZSpeedy Surveillance
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Reducción-de-la-Violencia-en-América-Latina.aspx2016-10-11T04:00:00ZReducción de la Violencia en América Latina
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Guarding-A-Floating-Treasure.aspx2016-09-01T04:00:00ZGuarding A Floating Treasure
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Scholastic-Surveillance.aspx2016-08-01T04:00:00ZScholastic Surveillance
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/A-Casino-Makes-a-Sure-Bet.aspx2016-06-01T04:00:00ZA Casino Makes a Sure Bet
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/In-the-Public-Interest.aspx2016-05-01T04:00:00ZIn the Public Interest
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Staying-On-Message.aspx2016-02-25T05:00:00ZStaying On Message
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Q-and-A---Ashly-Helser.aspx2016-01-01T05:00:00ZMall Security
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/A-Sweet-Solution.aspx2015-12-21T05:00:00ZA Sweet Solution
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/A-Threat-in-the-Crowd.aspx2015-12-07T05:00:00ZFour Indicators Security Professionals Should Look for when Identifying Suicide Bombers
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Remote-Detection.aspx2015-10-05T04:00:00ZRemote Detection
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Book-Review---Digital-Video-Surveillance-and-Security.aspx2015-09-01T04:00:00ZBook Review: Digital Video Surveillance and Security
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Body-Cameras-in-Schools.aspx2015-07-28T04:00:00ZSchools Consider Adopting Body Cameras for Security
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/High-Alert.aspx2015-07-14T04:00:00ZHigh Alert
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Surveillance-for-Security-and-Beyond.aspx2015-06-15T04:00:00ZSurveillance for Security and Beyond
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/A-Savvy-Storage-Solution.aspx2015-06-01T04:00:00ZA Savvy Storage Solution

 You May Also Like...

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Surveillance-for-Security-and-Beyond.aspxSurveillance for Security and Beyond<p>​<span style="line-height:1.5em;">In 2015, there are more than 2 billion surveillance cameras worldwide, according to estimates from Seagate Technology. These cameras are watching over people and property in previously unimagined settings. The United Kingdom, an early adopter of public area surveillance, had nearly 6 million cameras in 2013, according to estimates by the British Security Industry Authority–one camera for every 11 citizens. Institutions like schools and hospitals have long relied on surveillance to protect those coming through their doors, and retailers and manufacturers are using traditional surveillance to not only improve security, but to enhance quality control and boost flaging marketing strategies. </span></p><p>Experts testify to the increasing affordability of cameras as a factor in the industry’s growth. They also point to the operational value surveillance systems provide, in addition to the traditional security applications. As an illustration of how surveillance is being used in unique ways, this article looks at how a major transportation authority is using cameras to provide operational benefits. Next is a look at how trends in surveillance in law enforcement, municipal, and education spaces are making surveillance technology indispensable.​</p><h4>Mass Transit</h4><p>The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) is the fifth largest transit system in the United States, with an average daily ridership of nearly 1.4 million people. The agency’s transportation modes include bus, light rail, subway, ferry, and paratransit for riders with physical disabilities. </p><p>“The transit environment is one of the most complicated security environments you could have because of the unbelievably high volume of customers, the complexity of trains and track, and…hundreds of staircases and escalators and elevators,” says Randy Clarke, director of security and emergency management at MBTA. “All of these things could be places where a security issue could come up or an emergency response or fire emergency. Slip, trip, and fall–these things happen all day, every day.” </p><p>Clarke tells Security Management that the security arm of the MBTA takes an approach to the divisions it services much like a corporate security program would: “Our job is to support our internal clients, such as the operations control group, transit police, legal department, things of that nature.” Security staff also support the Registry of Motor Vehicles, as well as the state police and highway operations center. </p><p>In 2009 the agency began a capital security project to secure all of its facilities with a video surveillance system. The number of cameras MBTA has is in “the thousands,” says Clarke, and they are all embedded within the agency’s access control system that services its more than 10,000 employees. </p><p>To expand its video surveillance program, early last year MBTA began rolling out a project to equip its buses with an integrated video system that would provide real-time surveillance aboard 225 of its more than 1,100 buses. “If you walk into a store, you see a monitor and know you’re on TV; therefore, you know there’s security in this building,” Clarke says. “We wanted that approach for bus security.” </p><p>The previous solution was burdensome and took time out of daily transit operations because video could not be transferred over a network, notes Clarke. “You’d have to go get the bus, take the bus out of service, pull the hard drive, hope the hard drive actually works, put it in a hard-drive reader, replace it with another one, and there will be impacts to the bus operations because you either have to hold the bus and do this operation out in the street impacting customers, or take the bus out of service.”</p><p>MBTA turned to Canadian firm Genetec for its Omnicast video surveillance solution, which provides a number of features that enhance law enforcement and public safety while increasing operational benefits for the agency. </p><p>Each bus is equipped with two 360-<span style="line-height:1.5em;">degree cameras and four high-definition cameras, all manufactured by Panasonic. Additional equipment, such as an anti­vibration feature, is provided to meet the needs of a rugged transportation mode like a bus, which encounters obstacles such as potholes. A screen installed inside the bus shows all the camera views so passengers can see themselves and others on video, much like in a retail store environment. The video is recorded and stored locally on a network video recorder (NVR) inside each bus. </span></p><p>Whenever a bus pulls back into the depot, the video begins downloading automatically to the central server over Wi-Fi, and the footage is stored for about a month. However, if there is an incident that occurs while the bus is still moving, Clarke says they can immediately download the video over the Verizon LTE network to the central monitoring station. “We’re not going to do that for a 30-minute file or six different camera views, but we can do it for an immediate incident,” he explains.  </p><p>The MBTA has a sworn police force of transit officers who specifically deal with incidents relating to the transportation system. Each squad car has a mobile data terminal that integrates with the bus video surveillance platform, allowing an officer to see in real time what’s occurring on a vehicle via a Wi-Fi connection. In addition to the transit police dispatch center, the MBTA has a separate dispatch for transit operators, and at least one police officer is on duty there at all times. </p><p>City and state law enforcement agencies also benefit from the video surveillance when it comes to tracking down criminal suspects. Clarke notes that immediately after committing a crime, thieves will often use public transportation to flee the scene. Recently, a bank robber jumped on a subway train to evade police. Operators at the central monitoring station were able to match the video surveillance to the suspect’s description, and they instructed the train operator to wait at the next station until law enforcement could arrive and make an arrest. </p><p>Operator assault is another major problem the video surveillance solution is helping to solve. In one case, a patron punched a driver in the face; the driver immediately radioed into transit dispatch. Within a minute the central monitoring station had pulled up video from the bus, Clarke says, and zoomed in on the offender’s face. When officers arrived at the scene, the suspect was walking down the street attempting to escape. He was immediately arrested.</p><p>MBTA has a high level of engagement with the public, Clarke notes, and it uses tools such as social media to communicate with riders. With video surveillance, any tweets sent to MBTA over Twitter are easily corroborated, allowing situations to be resolved more quickly. For example, a patron may send a message that she suspects the bus driver is intoxicated. “We’ll look at the video, see if that video validates what the person is saying; if so, they can send a road supervisor, intercept that bus, and do a fitness for duty check on that employee to make sure that they’re not intoxicated,” he explains. </p><p>He adds that the MBTA has an exhaustive list of policies and procedures when it comes to filming and retaining the video. “We have a really detailed chain of custody for why we do video, how it’s archived, how it’s maintained, how it’s digitally stamped, how it would go to court, how it wouldn’t go to court—all those kinds of things.”</p><p>The agency has added 60 more buses to the Genetec platform since the initial deployment in 2014, and it plans to mi­­grate more of its fleet in the future. Clarke says any company looking to implement a similar video application should be prepared for customer feedback. “You just have to know with eyes wide open going into what you’re doing. When you’re go­ing to open up video on anything like a bus, you need to know that people are going to see it—the expectation level is high.” ​</p><h4>Law Enforcement</h4><p>“Especially in the municipalities, preventing crime is still the primary use for the video surveillance solution,” says Dave Sweeney, COO of Advantech, a company that provides system integration. His organization has completed a number of video surveillance projects for law enforcement, allowing them to take advantage of low-cost cameras to replace the need for human force. “We have a local police leader who says ‘I can’t afford to put an officer on every corner, but I can afford to put a camera on every corner,’” Sweeney notes. </p><p>Other municipalities have established partnerships with local businesses and law enforcement, providing a central monitoring station for camera feeds. While they may not have a dedicated </p><p>officer watching the monitors 24/7, if anything should occur throughout the city, “they have learned to use the tool to help them solve the crime, to dispatch their resources, and to try to find witnesses who may have left the scene to figure out what occurred,” he notes. For example, one such municipality teams up with government agencies. While the city owns about 75 percent of the cameras feeding into its central monitoring station, the other 25 percent come from the local housing authority’s cameras.</p><p>Sweeney says public perception can be a major challenge faced by municipalities when deploying video surveillance. “You always have the skeptical crowd who is leery of ‘Big Brother’ watching them,” he notes. “But if you put the solution in and publicize the benefits of it, ultimately the community will gain trust in it.” </p><p>Scalability is also crucial for muni­ci­­palities and law enforcement, but bu­dget constraints may only allow them to expand their video surveillance infrastructure a handful of cameras at a time. Often, Sweeney notes, money can get pulled away from video surveillance within a municipality’s budget if there’s an emergency such as a snowstorm that takes precedence. </p><p>He says whatever size deployment a city or law enforcement agency begins with, keeping its ultimate goal in mind is key to successful expansion. “The challenge for all parties involved in the beginning phase is making sure they understand the ultimate goal of the system in the future so that they can sign accordingly, and so that everything they put in will allow that growth.” ​</p><h4>Education</h4><p>Experts say schools are increasingly turning to video and audio surveillance to deter threats and also increase the amount of time being spent on education. One use of video surveillance technology in the education environment, for example, is corroborating incidents such as a child being bullied. Louroe Electronics provides an audio component to video cameras that adds an extra layer of monitoring.</p><p>“If a teacher tells the child’s parents, ‘your kid is acting up in class,’ the first thing they’re going to say is ‘not my little angel, she would never do that,’” says Cameron Javdani, director of sales and marketing at the audio company. “But if you can send it home with an audio clip of her picking on another student or some kind of incident that happened, it’s a lot more powerful and you can address the specifics of the situation, rather than this nebulous term of ‘bullying.’”</p><p>A combination of audio and video surveillance within schools can also allow students who are sick and have to miss class the opportunity to catch up on the day’s lessons. “There’s a huge secondary benefit to security equipment being used but serving a use that’s not security,” notes Javdani.  </p><p>Education administrators see video as a way to not only enhance security, but also improve the educational experience, which Sweeney says should be their primary focus. For example, a school being evacuated due to a bomb threat may lose eight hours of classroom time because authorities can’t clear the area where the device is supposedly located. But if video surveillance can help give an all-clear sooner, schools may get hours back in the teaching day.</p><p>The placement of surveillance cameras can also vary depending on the education environment, adds Sweeney, who says that a primary school may want more cameras pointed at doors and playgrounds, while high schools tend to want more cameras overall. “Once you migrate into the middle school and secondary education, that’s where you see the cam­eras really grow full scale into the facility,” he says. “Hallways, stairwells, cafeterias–all the areas where the students are for the most part, [whenever] there’s a very high student-to-adult ratio.”  </p><p>Another notable trend in the education space for video surveillance is shared infrastructure, says Sweeney, who explains he’s seen several schools using the same IT backbone for their video networks. “We’ve seen customers who are okay with sharing infrastructure that have a very well-thought-out, very clear IT policy….to allow the systems to use the same network hardware, but still remain completely isolated from traffic and all the other networking standpoints,” he says. ​</p><h4>Retail</h4><p>Surveillance remains a critical aspect of retail security for deterring and solving thefts, but experts say that stores are turning to surveillance to enhance marketing techniques, such as product placement, says Andrew Elvish, vice president of marketing at Genetec. Elvish notes that a company can use video and heat mapping to show which display cases in a store get the most traffic and visibility. That way, they can justify charging vendors more for shelving their products in those locations. </p><p>Retailers are also monitoring product sales with video management systems (VMS) that are connected to point-of-sale (POS) terminals. If they’re trying to find the video of a certain item being sold, they can click on the line item within their sales report and the VMS will jump to the video at the time and date it was vended. “You can click and go directly to the view of that product being scanned through the POS system,” he notes. “It’s not a super fancy Star Trek analytic, it’s just finding two pieces of data that are very meaningful and more powerful when you put them together.”​</p><h4>Trends</h4><p>The surveillance industry is on track to grow to nearly $49 billion by 2020, according to a January 2015 report from Grand View Research. Research by ASIS International indicates that 62 percent of organizations are increasing their video surveillance budgets in 2015 and 2016, while only 3 percent are decreasing budgets. “It’s getting ubiquitous, almost like a utility, and I think the cost is no longer going to be prohibitive,” says Robert Fuchs, marketing manager of surveillance technology at Plustek USA. In fact, many experts say that so many new manufacturers have entered the market, especially from Asia, and have reduced costs so much, that cameras have been “commoditized.” </p><p>Sweeney notes that the K-12 space will continue to expand on its use of surveillance. “I think the growth of video as a tool in that space is going to be something to keep an eye on,” he says. “You’re going to see a big push for visitor management, some form of a real-time check of visitors, not only of identification but also a formal log electronically of who came in.” </p><p>In the municipal market, Sweeney says having surveillance feeds at all times in law enforcement vehicles is a real possibility. Portability for police is something Plustek USA sees as a growth area. For example, during special events or in high-risk areas, law enforcement can mount a temporary camera. “They can just put a small camera on a pole and have it pointed in a direction. It doesn’t pull very much energy and they can have a couple of pairs of eyes looking at the events, not drawing attention, and take it back down,” Fuchs notes. </p><p>Surveillance technology vendors and integrators point to a number of existing or emerging trends in the industry that are shaping the way solutions are designed and installed. One such trend is unification of systems. “People don’t really want to focus on managing a whole bunch of different software applications when something bad is happening or they’re in a sense of panic,” says Elvish. “We see that in large-scale corporations; we see it in city, municipal, and state; we see it across the board in our end users–the idea of bringing together the core systems is really going to define where we’re going in this industry.” </p><p>VMS devices traditionally link with an organization’s cameras and can provide analytics so end users can easily search for needed footage. But Elvish says that uniting even more systems into the VMS platform is a growing trend. The system may also be tied to things like access control, license plate recognition, and intercoms, as well as sensors such as smoke alarms throughout an organization. With these unified systems, whenever an incident occurs, information is quickly available, and cameras can be pointed at the area of interest so operators can respond appropriately.  </p><p>Elvish recalls an incident that occurred at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, Eur­ope’s fifth-busiest airport in terms of passengers. Schiphol deals with a range of security issues every day. After a customer had a heart attack in a terminal, security was able to bring together a number of different tools to improve its response. A unified system “brings together the camera, it brings together the notification over the communication system–even two-way radio for mobile security officers and pushing SMS text messages to those mobile officers–and then to start that process of, okay, did you notify the local police force? Did you notify the ambulance? Did you get this form signed by the ambulance when they left? It seems like such a natural thing but it’s extraordinarily complex,” Elvish explains. </p><p>One popular new technology is the 4K camera, which provides ultra-high definition for video recording, about 4 times more than normal HD. “The trend toward these high megapixel cameras, like 4K cameras, that’s going to put a massive amount of stress on customers’ IP networks, in a good way,” adds Elvish, who says the quality of the cameras will be a major benefit for companies. He notes that marketplace solutions that accelerate GPU (graphic processing unit) transmission will help end users meet the challenge of higher load on their existing storage capacity. For example, with a GPU, an organization can increase the number of streams it can show on a single monitor with the same graphics capabilities it had before. </p><p>In the municipal space, Sweeney says there will be a push for more mobile video surveillance access for police. “In the municipal piece you’re going to see the growth of video surveillance continue, probably with the objective of trying to get that video out to the edge…</p><p>I think you’re going to see some push and some ability to get video out to those responders in their vehicles,” he says. </p><p>Elvish adds that in terms of storage, companies will be turning more to the cloud than to local devices. “We’re going to see the movement from edge to cloud architecture, and if we thought encryption and security were important from edge to core within your own security network, once you start moving edge to cloud then you really need to lock down that data,” he notes. </p><p>Javdani of Louroe adds that surveillance should be viewed as a preventive tool, not merely a retroactive one. “A lot of people in the industry, and I don’t know why, have this mentality of ‘we want to catch someone in the act,’” he notes. “You don’t want to catch them, you want to deter or prevent the criminal because it’s operationally better, and it saves a lot of headaches.” </p>GP0|#cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8;L0|#0cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8|Physical Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/The-Power-of-Physical-Security.aspxThe Power of Physical Security<p>​<span style="line-height:1.5em;">A</span><span style="line-height:1.5em;">ny utilities security expert can effortlessly recite the details. In April 2013, someone snuck into an underground vault near a freeway in San Jose, California, and cut several telephone cables. Then, 30 minutes later, snipers shot at an electrical substation in Metcalf, California, for almost 20 minutes, knocking out 17 transformers that funnel power to Silicon Valley, before fleeing the scene and evading capture. </span></p><p>A major blackout was prevented by rerouting power around the downed station, but the attack caused more than $15 million in damage and brought physical threats to the electric grid to the forefront of discussions about the security of the United States’ critical infrastructure. It quickly became clear that cyberattacks were not the only threat to the U.S. power supply. </p><p>Two years have passed since the incident, and, while the snipers remain at large, the utility industry is taking steps to deter any future attacks.</p><p>“Because the grid is so critical to all aspects of our society and economy, protecting its reliability and resilience is a core responsibility of everyone who works in the electric industry,” said acting Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) chairman Cheryl LaFleur in a statement in March 2014. (LaFleur was named permanent chairman in July 2014.) Following LaFleur’s statement, FERC directed the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to develop new standards requiring owners and operators of the bulk-power system to address risks due to physical security threats and vulnerabilities.</p><p>The FERC order asked NERC to create a standard to identify and protect transmission stations, substations, and associated primary control centers that could cause widespread outages if compromised. </p><p>From those instructions, a 10-person drafting committee created the CIP-014 standard that focuses on transmission assessments and physical security. The standard requires transmission station and substation owners to perform a risk assessment of their systems to identify facilities that could have a critical impact on the power grid.</p><p>The order also requires owners and operators to develop and implement a security plan to address potential threats and vulnerabilities.​</p><h4>Participants</h4><p>The electric system is made up of three components: generators—coal fired, biomass, solar, and wind—that produce electricity; transmission—taking the electricity from the power source and moving it somewhere, such as a substation; and distribution—power moving from a facility to the meter in a home, business, or other building.</p><p>When electricity moves from a generation station, such as a wind farm, it goes to a substation that normally has transformers that decrease the voltage, often from 500 to 230 kilovolts (kV). From there, the substation transmits the power to another substation, which usually lowers the voltage even further to 115 kV so it can be used in residential and commercial facilities. </p><p>CIP-014 applies to transmission substations in the electric system, not the generators or the distribution stations. However, it doesn’t apply to all 55,000 transmission substations in the country, explains Allan Wick, CPP, PCI, PSP, a member of the standard drafting committee. </p><p>Instead, the standard relies on categories that determine which facilities must comply with the standard. The standard takes effect if a system that is “rendered inoperable or damaged as a result of a physical attack could result in instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading with an interconnection,” Wick explains. </p><p>Because of these criteria, CIP-014 applies to transmission facilities that operate at 500 kV or higher, or single facilities that operate between 200 kV and 499 kV where the substation is connected at 200 kV or higher voltage to three or more other transmission stations that have an “aggregate weighted value” higher than 3,000 kV. </p><p>This means that few transmission substations will have to comply with standards. “By the time you use those criteria against what’s in the standard, [CIP-014] will only apply to 200 or fewer substations in the United States,” Wick says. The standard also applies to the control centers that operate those 200 substations—which are owned by roughly 30 different companies. </p><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre;"> </span></div><h4>Preparation</h4><p>FERC approved CIP-014 in November 2014, officially kickstarting the compliance process that owners need to complete by the first implementation date in October 2015. Their first responsibility is to perform an initial risk assessment (Requirement 1) to identify the transmission stations and substations the standard may apply to. Owners then have to identify the primary control centers that operationally control each transmission station or substation identified in the risk assessment.</p><p>Once these steps have been completed, owners will have 90 days to have an unaffiliated third party verify their assessments (R2). This third party can be a registered planning coordinator, transmission planner, reliability coordinator, or an entity that has transmission planning or analysis experience. </p><p>If the third party adds or removes a transmission station or substation from the original assessment, owners then have an additional 60 days to modify their risk assessments or document the basis for not making the appropriate changes.</p><p>Additionally, if the primary control centers identified are owned by a company other than the transmission station, that owner needs to be notified (R3) within seven days following the third-party verification that it has operational control of the primary control center.</p><p>After the initial risk assessment has been completed, transmission owners that are covered by the standard will perform subsequent assessments at least once every 30 months. Transmission owners that are not covered by the standard are also required by law to perform assessments, but only once every 60 months.​</p><h4>Physical Security</h4><p>Once the transmission analysis and identification have been completed, owners are required to conduct evaluations of the potential threats and vulnerabilities of a physical attack (R4) to each of their respective transmission stations, substations, and primary control centers.</p><p>These evaluations should include unique characteristics of the identified and verified transmission stations, substations, and control centers. For example, characteristics could include whether the substation is rural or urban, if it’s near a major highway, or if it’s in a valley. </p><p>For instance, the substation could be “set down in a small valley, so there are areas around it [from which] a shooter could either shoot the transformers or even use a rocket-propelled grenade to shoot something into it,” Wick explains.</p><p>Owners also need to detail any history of attacks on similar facilities, taking into account the “frequency, geographic proximity, and severity of past physical security related events,” according to the standard. CIP-014 asks owners to include intelligence or threat warnings they’ve received from law enforcement, the Electric Reliability Organization, the Electricity Sector Information Sharing and Analysis Center, and government agencies from either the United States or Canada.</p><p>Once these evaluations have been completed, and no more than 120 days after R2 is completed, owners are required to develop and implement a documented security plan and timeline that covers their respective transmission stations, substations, and primary control centers (R5). </p><p>Within the security plan, owners should include law enforcement contact and coordination information, provisions to evaluate evolving physical threats and their corresponding security measures, and resiliency or security measures designed “collectively to deter, detect, delay, assess, communicate, and respond to potential physical threats and vulnerabilities identified” during R4.</p><p>The drafting committee chose this language specifically, Wick says, because “you can’t just do one of those—you need to put them together as a group to ‘deter, detect, delay,’ because those are the primary components…in a layered security program.”</p><p>The committee was also purposely less prescriptive about methods owners can use as part of their security measures. “We tried to build in maximum flexibility to arrive at the same end state for everybody,” Wick says. For instance, to delay someone “you can do that several different ways. You could have a 20-foot -high wall with razor tape, or you could do it with a chain link fence; there are so many options that you could use to mitigate the threats and vulnerabilities that are identified in R4.”</p><p>This nonprescriptive method has faced some criticism, but many others think it’s beneficial. The regulators “are not really telling you to go out and spend all sorts of money on increased cameras, spending a lot of money on fences,” says Rich Hyatt, PCI, manager of security services for Tucson Electric Power. “They’re kind of promoting that you should harden up your site, like vegetation removal, signage…it’s not like the government’s coming in and telling you to spend $5 million per substation.”</p><p>The committee is also allowing owners to take a twofold approach by giving them the opportunity to build in resiliency on the operational side and protect their assets with security measures.</p><p>For example, Tucson Electric Power is increasing its resiliency by hardening its substations, says Hyatt, who’s also a member of the ASIS International Utilities Council. This is important because sometimes transformers malfunction. “There’s always the likelihood of sabotage, but we also have a threat of malfunction or weather-related issues, or manmade stuff that could go into a transformer being taken out,” he explains.</p><p>Hyatt is also working with substation employees to improve emergency communication, another issue addressed in the standard. “We’re also engaging our…substation folks to beef up their emergency response and have additional spare parts in their inventory so they can respond if a transformer got shot out—we could get it back online quicker,” he explains.</p><p>However, Jake Parker—director of government relations for the Security Industry Association (SIA)—says physically protecting assets is the better way to go for utilities security. “We think that physical security measures are much more cost effective because the cost of hardening the structure can also be extremely steep,” he explains. </p><p>Once owners have drafted and implemented their physical security plans, they then need to be verified again by a third party reviewer (R6) within 90 days. This reviewer can be an entity or organization with physical security experience in the electric industry and whose review staff: has at least one member who holds either a Certified Protection Professional (CPP) or Physical Security Professional (PSP) certification; is approved by the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO); is a government agency with physical security expertise; or is an entity or organization with law enforcement, government, or military physical security expertise.</p><p>The ASIS certifications requirement was included after a review of existing applicable certifications. “By holding one of those two certifications, it shows that you know what you’re talking about on physical security,” Wick explains. “We did reviews of any certification that had physical security requirements, and these were the only two that were suitable.”</p><p>If the reviewer recommends changes to the R4 evaluation or the security plan, owners then have 60 days to comply with those recommendations or document why they are not modifying their plans.</p><h4>Penalties</h4><p>CIP-014 has an aggressive implementation timetable; Parker says he expects most utilities to have their physical security plans in place by spring 2016. There are no penalties for owners who do not comply with the new standard, although owners who do comply are required to keep documentation as evidence to show compliance for three years. NERC is responsible for enforcement.</p><p>Despite the lack of penalties and the limited number of transmission stations and substations covered by the standard, many companies say the standard has inspired them. CIP-014 has given companies guidance on increasing their physical security, according to Parker.</p><p>“We’re seeing, given the current environment and response to what happened at Metcalf…that utilities are finding it easier to justify security improvements across the board via rate increases,” he explains.</p><p>The rate increases are the funding mechanism utilities can use to pay for physical security improvements. They can do this by bringing proposals to their boards and justifying small rate increases “to cover the cost of the security upgrades because of the standard, but also because of the need to improve physical security of the electric grid overall,” Parker adds. </p><p>Hyatt agrees, saying that the industry is doing a “really good job” on being proactive in “policing up” and increasing the use of best security practices. The incident at Metcalf, he adds, has “actually increased security’s perception among executives where we work that physical security is just as important as cybersecurity.” ​</p>GP0|#cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8;L0|#0cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8|Physical Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/School-Security-Trends.aspxSchool Security Trends<p>School security often involves response tools, from mass notification to surveillance to reporting. However, experts note that trends are moving away from technology as a single solution to prevention-based programs centered around information sharing, all-hazards training, and public-private partnerships.</p><p>Preventing a tragedy often starts with getting critical information into the right hands. </p><p>Take the case of two teens in Spotsylvania County, Virginia, who were arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit murder in October 2015. The two had plans to phone in a bomb threat to their school, then shoot people as they evacuated, CNN reported. A school resource officer discovered that one of the boys had threatened violence on the Internet, and the resulting investigation uncovered the plot. </p><p>In December 2015, an anonymous tip was sent to a Denver school district’s “Text-a-Tip” threat reporting hotline. Based on that information, two 16-year-old girls were found with plans to commit a mass killing at Mountain Vista High School. They were arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, reported Reuters. </p><p>These stories, and many like them, have a common thread throughout: critical information was reported and acted upon in a timely manner, stopping any plans to commit harm. While some security experts do not like to classify tragedies as preventable, they say there are key threat indicators that pointed to the mass shootings and other attacks before they occurred. If communities, schools, and law enforcement work together to identify and connect these dots, future threats could be stopped. </p><p><em>Security Management </em>speaks to experts about their experience conducting threat assessments in schools and communities. ​</p><h4>Connecting the Dots</h4><p>After the December 2012 Sandy Hook shooting that killed 20 elementary-age children and six educators, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy created a 16-member panel to review policies pertaining to school safety, gun-violence prevention, and mental health. The panel recommended in a 277-page report that all schools create safety committees that include police, first responders, administrators, and custodians. The report also urged each school to take an “all-hazards” approach to safety and security training for faculty, staff, and students. </p><p>Furthermore, the panel recommended that schools form threat assessment teams that “gather information from multiple sources in response to indications that a student, colleague, or other person’s behavior has raised alarms.” The report cites the U.S. Secret Service’s behavioral threat assessment model, which has been adopted for educational institutions, the workplace, and military settings. </p><p>“Once a team has identified someone who appears to be on a pathway to violence, the team ideally becomes a resource connecting the troubled child, adolescent, or adult to the help they need to address their underlying problems,” states the report, which goes on to say that such multidisciplinary teams can conduct risk assessments when questionable behaviors arise. “These would not only identify students at risk for committing violence, but also serve as a resource for children and families facing multiple stressors.” ​</p><h4>Partnerships</h4><p>As outlined in the Sandy Hook report, it is critical for organizations, schools, and communities to take an all-hazards approach to assessing and preparing for threats. If there is a dedicated platform or channel where they know they can report pertinent information, those dots can be connected in a meaningful way to prevent tragedy. </p><p>Two security experts share best practices with Security Management based on their experiences with threat assessments. These programs were bolstered by building partnerships with law enforcement and the community. </p><p>Working with stakeholders. Sometimes a threat assessment reveals an obvious problem that needs fixing, while other issues are uncovered only by working and communicating with stakeholders. Such was the case for school security professional Gary Sigrist, Jr., CEO and president at Safeguard Risk Solutions. </p><p>He tells Security Management that when he first started working at the South-Western City School district in Ohio, there were some obvious changes that needed to be made. “We had building principals who told their staff members they weren’t allowed to call 911 [in an emergency], that they have to call the office first,” he says. “We changed that.” </p><p>There was one building principal who told the cafeteria cooks that if there was a fire in the kitchen, not to pull the fire alarm until they had notified him first. “I brought the fire marshal in, and we had a conversation about that,” he notes. </p><p>Sigrist explains that working with law enforcement isn’t always a seamless process; sometimes schools and police in his district differed on their vision for a safe and secure environment. </p><p>“It’s not that the police were wrong, it’s just that some of their goals and objectives didn’t sync with the goals and objectives of the school,” according to Sigrist. But establishing regular meetings with law enforcement and other first responders was key to successful collaboration. “The police would say, ‘we think you should do this,’ and the school could say, ‘that’s not a bad idea, but let’s look at it from the point of view of the school,’” he notes. “Fire drills became better because we involved the fire department in the planning of our drills, where our command posts would be, and how we were going to check students in.” </p><p>He adds that first responder collaboration should go beyond just police and fire; schools rely on medical professionals when faced with health epidemics, for example. “When the Avian Flu and H1N1 sprang into effect, we worked with our county and state boards of health, and were able to develop a pandemic plan,” he says. “We had those subject matter experts.” </p><p>Over the course of his career at SouthWestern City Schools, Sigrist twice helped secure the Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools (REMS) Grant, in 2008 and 2010, from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. These funds helped him establish many safety programs around the district. “Those are things people say, ‘wow, you must be a wonderful person to be able to get all of this done’–no, we had grant money,” he says. “It’s amazing what you can do with half a million dollars in grant money, and also the right support from the superintendents.” </p><p>No matter how prepared a school is for an emergency, those plans are truly put to the test when disaster strikes. Such was the case for South-Western City Schools when an explosion occurred at an elementary school. </p><p>“We had a building in a rural area, and the water table shifted, causing methane gas to build up in the basement. When it built up to a certain level with the right oxygen mix, there was an explosion,” Sigrist says. A custodian was injured, but everyone was able to evacuate the building safely as they had in many drills before. </p><p>The staff had been trained on how to function as a crisis team that was three members deep. Because the principal was not present at the time of the explosion, the building secretary assumed the role of incident commander, safely evacuating everyone from the building. “And it’s just evacuation training,” he says. “We never trained her on what to do when a building blew up.” </p><p>There were some key takeaways from the event that the district saw as areas of improvement. “Did we have lessons learned? Yes,” says Sigrist. “This happened almost right at dismissal, and we had school buses parked right in front of the building. Well–they didn’t move.” </p><p>These buses prevented fire trucks and other emergency vehicles from pulling right up to the scene. “And so one of our lessons learned is, if you have an incident, how are the buses going to pull out of the parking lot so the fire equipment can get in?” </p><p>Hometown security. Schools are a major focal point of the community, but they are not the only one. Societies are also made up of private businesses whose security is paramount to the overall environment of safety. Marianna Perry, CPP, a security consultant with Loss Prevention and Safety Management, LLC, explains that because about 85 percent of critical infrastructure in the United States is privately owned, “it makes sense that these businesses and communities partner with law enforcement to address problems.”  </p><p>Perry has more than 20 years of experience in conducting threat assessments for private businesses, as well as communities, including school districts. She recounts examples of how these reviews helped strengthen those localities, businesses, and law enforcement alike. </p><p>While Perry was the director of the National Crime Prevention Institute, there was a particular community with high crime rates, homelessness, and drug problems, as well as health-related issues. “There were abandoned properties, rental properties in disrepair, homes that had been foreclosed,” she says. “We were looking for a solution to help fix this community.” </p><p>Perry helped form a team of key stake­­holders and partners, including law en­forcement, a local university, security consultants, area churches, and the local health department. The public housing authority was also a major partner, as well as some local residents and business representatives. Initially, everyone came together for a week-long training program. The goal was to involve all partners in helping to develop strategies to improve the overall condition of the neighborhood, which in turn would help prevent crime. She says that much of the training was centered on crime prevention through environmental de­sign (CPTED), which predicates that the immediate environment can be designed in such a way that it deters criminal activity.  </p><p>She adds that the training wasn’t just focused only on preventing crime, but on several aspects of the community. “The goal was to improve the overall quality of life for everyone who lived or worked in that neighborhood,” says Perry. </p><p>The training also helped the partners learn to speak a common language. “We had all of these different people from different professional backgrounds and business cultures, and we needed them all on the same page,” she says. “They needed to be able to communicate with each other.” </p><p>A critical outcome of the training program, she says, was facilitating interaction among stakeholders, as well as developing and building trust. “It was a really successful partnership, and a lot of good was done for that community because everyone worked together to achieve common goals.” </p><p>Businesses also benefit from such assessments. Perry recently conducted a security assessment for one organization that was located in an area with one of the highest violent crime rates in the city. “Management was very concerned about the safety of their employees,” she notes. </p><p>During the assessment, Perry recommended that the company install additional cameras on the perimeter of their property for added surveillance and employee safety. The company could also share camera footage with law enforcement by tying their camera system into the citywide surveillance program. Perry worked with a local vendor to install IP cameras to cover a 10-block area. A control center operator would then monitor the cameras, and if he or she saw suspicious activity, either a security officer would be dispatched to respond, or 911 would be called. “I think people are now embracing the concept of public-private partnerships because they’re beginning to realize that they work,” Perry says.</p><p>Training. Preventing and detecting threats, while challenging, is possible when stakeholders share critical information. Having a centralized place for reporting such information is key, as well as training students, employees, and the community on how to use those platforms. </p><p>However, if the threat remains unde­tected or cannot be stopped, organiza­tions should conduct all-hazards training that covers a range of possible scenarios to ensure minimal damage and loss of life, says Kenneth Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services. </p><p>“Active shooter is one concern, certainly, but it’s just that–one concern,” he says. “There’s a much greater likelihood that school employers are going to deal with a noncustodial parent issue multiple times during a school year than that they will ever deal­­—during their entire career working in the school—with an active shooter incident.” </p><p>Sigrist adds that having a laser-like focus on active shooter training can be a drawback for schools, because they lose sight of issues that have a greater likelihood of occurring. </p><p>“I asked one of my clients at a Head Start school how many times they have had a drunk parent show up to pick up a child, and they said, ‘it happens all the time,’” he says. “We still teach active shooter, but by teaching how to respond in an all-hazards approach, they will know how to take action.” </p>GP0|#cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8;L0|#0cd529cb2-129a-4422-a2d3-73680b0014d8|Physical Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465