Security by Industry

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/June-2018-ASIS-News.aspxJune 2018 ASIS NewsGP0|#3795b40d-c591-4b06-959c-9e277b38585e;L0|#03795b40d-c591-4b06-959c-9e277b38585e|Security by Industry;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a43444652018-06-01T04:00:00ZPeggy O'Connor<h4>​GSX Program Unveiled</h4><p>In April, ASIS revealed a jampacked education lineup for Global Security Exchange (GSX), formerly the ASIS International Annual Seminar and Exhibits. Featuring a record 300-plus sessions led by subject matter experts from ASIS, InfraGard, and Information Systems Security Association (ISSA), the education covers the most pressing issues facing security professionals today. </p><p>The learning covers a diverse range of topics from "Security for Events and Mass Gatherings" and "Digital Data in the Age of Breaches and Theft" to "Selling Security Requirements to the C-Suite." </p><p>Building on the exciting changes launched in 2017, the sessions will be delivered in more modern formats including immersive small group workshops, deep dives, and simulation formats, as well as traditional lectures and panels.</p><p>"With the different tracks GSX offers, it allows you to really hone in on the areas you're interested in," says longtime attendee Brian Reich, CPP, senior vice president and head of global security and investigations, TD Bank. "There are so many options and learning levels that it allows practitioners at every stage of their career to focus in on specific areas of interest and learn something new to better their organization. Combine that with walking around the show floor, and you have new insight into the products and services you're looking for."</p><p>The education continues beyond the classroom. In addition to Career Center and Impact Learning Sessions held directly on the show floor, the GSX exhibit hall doubles as a learning lab environment. Demonstrating innovation in action, more than 550 of the industry's leading solutions providers will showcase new and emerging technologies, such as immersive reality, machine learning, robotics, and drones. In addition, three interactive learning theaters will feature a series of fast-paced presentations that focus on the past (lessons learned), the present (threat analysis, best practices, and benchmarking), and the future (anticipating what's to come). </p><p>GSX takes place September 23-27 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Save up to $200 on the All-Access Pass when you register before June 29. For the complete list of sessions and to view registration packages, visit GSX.org.​</p><h4>WILL I SEE YOU THERE?</h4><p>A personal perspective on GSX18</p><p>By Jeffrey A. Slotnick, CPP, PSP</p><p>"Global Security Exchange (GSX) is coming soon to Las Vegas. Will I see you there?" An interesting question that I often receive from colleagues. I attended my first annual event in 2003 and I have not missed one since. "Why?" you might ask. What motivates me to make the financial investment to attend year after year?</p><p>Simply, it is the personal and professional relationships that continue to grow. It is the new products on the show floor, the great conversations as I travel from one event to the other, the keynote speakers who always motivate me to do better, and the fun! It's a lot of fun!</p><p>But let's take a deeper dive. I have made long-lasting friendships with colleagues from all over the world. I have come to know some of the most knowledgeable and influential people in the industry—who provide perspective from Africa, Central America, South America, the Middle East, and Europe. I do not need to know everything, I just need to know someone who knows what I need. At GSX, I get to confer with 20,000 or more colleagues. Many of these friendships have also led to business because we all want to do business with someone we know and trust.</p><p>I know the vendors of products I use and recommend for my clients. Some of my vendor contacts are relationships I first made in 2003 on the show floor or in a training session or coffee break, and they now work at the executive level in their organization. Now, if I need to know about a product or a new offering, I can simply call the person who is the subject matter expert on that product and receive direct information from design engineers, or even the company's vice president.</p><p>Fun! Did I mention fun? The President's Reception, professional lounges, Foundation activities, golfing, motorcycles, cigars with friends, vendor events, and, yes, the occasional adult beverage.</p><p>So, this is my personal perspective and why I continue to invest in GSX year after year. My budget does not allow me to attend every industry conference. I get the most out of my investment at GSX, from educational opportunities, vendor information, professional development, and friendships. I find it all in one place for five very intense days—and I always return motivated, optimistic, happy, and occasionally with a new project.</p><p>Please feel free to reach out to me on the ASIS Connects community platform to continue the conversation.​</p><h4>WHITE PAPERS</h4><p>Two councils published white papers in the first half of 2018—the Information Technology Security Council's Security on the Internet of Things: An ESRM Perspective and the Cultural Properties Council's Hostile Surveillance Detection for Houses of Worship.</p><p><strong>Internet of Things: An ESRM Perspective</strong></p><p>The idea behind the Internet of Things (IoT) is that we have come to expect our technology to be readily accessible from anywhere via any interface we choose. We want to start our cars from our phone, lock our front door from our computer, or turn on the crockpot from a tablet. To do that, all those devices must be able to communicate with us, with the outside world, and with each other.</p><p>According to the paper, the IoT brings a new level of mobile management to every aspect of consumer and business activities. However, it also provides convenient access for criminals who want to exploit those things. "More access points provide more opportunities for attackers to get in. More communication provides more online traffic to siphon information from. More control provides more ability to hijack that control."</p><p><strong>Surveillance Detection for Houses of Worship</strong></p><p>Terrorists often gather significant pieces of information from open sources such as Google Maps and social media postings. They collect a lot of data about their target of interest and eventually they will conduct physical surveillance. Physical surveillance allows them to study the location, focusing on how they will attack, how they will escape, when the attack will create the most devastation, and what form of attack will be most effective.</p><p>So, how do you know if someone is watching your facility?</p><p>This paper provides tips on what to look for and actionable steps to take to identify and counter surveillance detection of a facility. Although the practices are tailored to houses of worship, the document serves as a valuable guide for all facilities, especially soft targets, that are trying to understand, identify, and mitigate hostile surveillance.</p><p>Both white papers can be found on the ASIS website. Search "Understanding IoT" and "Hostile Surveillance."</p><h4>ASIS EUROPE 2018</h4><p>Rotterdam, The Netherlands, was the site of ASIS Europe 2018, held April 18-20. Themed "Blurred Boundaries—Clear Risks," the conference drew 775 registrants from 52 countries for two days of networking, exploring the exhibit floor, and sampling the 70 educational sessions that discussed issues facing security professionals today and tomorrow. </p><p>Attendees navigated a broad sweep of risks—from the malicious use of the latest emerging technologies to the dangers of low-tech attacks, particularly on soft targets in public spaces. Other topics included the human factor and the insider threat, and ever-present responsibilities like travel risk management and duty of care.</p><p>Two featured speakers—Tom Raftery, global vice president, futurist, and innovation evangelist at SAP, and Scott Klososky, founding partner at Future Point of View—examined the security landscape of our connected, digital future.</p><p>"Terms like Internet of Things and connected devices will soon disappear, because everything being connected will simply become the new normal," says Eduard Emde, CPP, ASIS Europe 2018 conference chair. "We heard that technology is very much the jugular vein of organizations, confirming that for security practitioners, the bottom line is that enterprise security risk management approaches—which cover the full sweep of human, cyber, and physical assets—are essential for supporting our organizations through partnerships and shared strategic objectives."</p><p>On the exhibit floor, innovations ranged from the latest integrated access control and surveillance technology to self-learning cyber defenses and mass communications platforms. Knowledge-driven solutions were also strongly represented, from intelligence and risk analysis to executive protection and workforce training programs.</p><p>ASIS Europe 2019 will take place in Rotterdam March 27-29, 2019. Visit www.asiseurope.org to learn more.</p><h4>CPP STUDY MANUAL</h4><p>ASIS has begun to develop a new study manual for the Certified Protection Professional® (CPP) exam. </p><p>The Society has received a significant amount of feedback relating to the recommended reading materials and the need for content organized in a way that better supports the certification domains. ASIS recognizes the need to address this gap and to provide security practitioners with the tools necessary to facilitate exam preparations and promote professional development and advancement. The project is led by volunteers and staff and launched in May with a call for experts. Stay tuned for updates in the coming months.</p><h4>ASIS TV</h4><p>ASIS is partnering with Chuck Harold of Security Guy Radio/TV to livestream interviews with ASIS members and industry thought leaders throughout 2018, expanding content delivered on ASIS TV via the ASIS Livestream channel. Harold will further showcase member expertise by representing ASIS at select industry tradeshows across the United States.</p><p>"Chuck Harold has decades of security experience and has built a reputation for helping security professionals across the globe make more informed decisions," says Ron Rosenbaum, ASIS chief global marketing and business development officer. "This partnership is an exciting step forward for ASIS as we diversify how we provide information and resources to the profession. These ASIS TV broadcasts offer expanded access to security best practices, engage new audiences, and ensure that industry professionals are able to stay ahead of the security curve."</p><p>In 2018, Harold will broadcast on behalf of ASIS TV from Black Hat USA this August and will conduct interviews from the ASIS booth at the IACP Conference. ASIS TV coverage at Global Security Exchange (GSX) will include livestreaming from the expo floor, key education sessions, and networking events throughout the week.</p><p>"This is a terrific opportunity to showcase the depth and breadth of our industry—the career paths, subject matter expertise, as well as the technical and service innovations that help protect our people, property and information assets," says Harold. "I am excited, honored, and proud to partner with ASIS, and look forward to engaging with the industry in this new capacity." </p><p>View security expert videos at asisonline.org/ASISTV.​</p><h4>ASIS LIFE MEMBERS</h4><p>ASIS congratulates Cheryl D. Elliott, CPP, PCI; James B. Princehorn, CPP; and Harvey M. Stevens, CPP, who have been granted lifetime membership to ASIS.</p><p>Elliott has been a dedicated member of ASIS and the Greater Atlanta Chapter for 20 years. She served on the Professional Certification Board for many of those years, and she is now a member of the Investigations Standards Committee.</p><p>Princehorn, an ASIS member for 28 years, is a member of the Fire and Life Safety Council. He also served the Rochester, New York Chapter as chapter chair and in other leadership positions. Princehorn has also volunteered as a regional vice president, assistant regional vice president, and member of the Awards Committee.</p><p>Stevens served ASIS many years as a member of the Physical Security Council. He spoke at 10 ASIS educational programs during his 32 years as an ASIS member and a member of the New York City Chapter. ​</p><p> </p><h4>Member Book Review</h4><p><em>Security Surveillance Centers: Design, Implementation, and Operation<br></em>By Anthony V. DiSalvatore, CPP, PCI, PSP. CRC Press; crcpress.com;<br>204 pages; $79.95.</p><p>Author Anthony V. DiSalvatore believes that the particular topic of surveillance centers has not gotten the attention it deserves. In<em> Security Surveillance Centers: Design, Implementation, and Operation</em>, he creates a complete resource on the subject in a compact, easy-to-understand format.</p><p>The author offers a history of security surveillance centers. In the beginning, they were usually divided into a security office proper and a monitoring room or dispatch center. For a variety of reasons, among them economics, safety issues, and synergy, they have largely become one. Two points of value emerge in combining them: the economics of avoiding redundancy in the security department and the opportunity for professional development of the monitoring employees, who are given more responsibility and feel more important to the team. </p><p>DiSalvatore lays out exactly what is required for a security surveillance center so that it can be budgeted for accordingly. Among these budget items are design, installation, operation, technology requirements, maintenance, and replacement. He further explains who should be included in the creation of a surveillance center, such as the IT department to not only help develop the system but to partner with security to improve efficiency and trust. </p><p>Besides the budget, the center's incorporation into the overall security plan is important. Various duties, such as key control, monitoring alarms, organizing patrols, and other routine tasks must be accounted for. Managers must prioritize procedures to include what to monitor and how, evacuations, and even fire command, depending on the size and scope of the center. The author winds down with the addition of chapters on ethics, legal issues, auditing of the center, training, and policy. A relevant checklist of potential duties involving a center, test questions, a glossary, and types of forms complete the work. </p><p>Educational, relevant, and easy to understand, this book is a worthwhile read for any mid- to upper-level security manager as well as those who work in security design. </p><p>Reviewer: William F. Eardley IV, M.L.S. (Master of Liberal Studies), has 31 years of experience in security and corrections. He is a member of ASIS International.</p>

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Disaster-Recovery.aspx2014-09-01T04:00:00ZDisaster Recovery
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/21st-century-security-and-cpted-designing-critical-infrastructure-protection-and-crime-prev-0.aspx2014-05-01T04:00:00Z21st Century Security and CPTED: Designing for Critical Infrastructure Protection and Crime Prevention, Second Edition.
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/security-design-abu-dhabi-0013246.aspx2014-04-01T04:00:00ZSecurity by Design in Abu Dhabi

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Next-Gen-911.aspx2018-06-01T04:00:00ZNext-Gen 911
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Safety-and-Low-Frequency-Alarms.aspx2018-06-01T04:00:00ZSafety and Low Frequency Alarms
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Flying-Over-Fire.aspx2018-03-01T05:00:00ZFlying Over Fire

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/ESTRATEGIAS-DE-CONTENCIÓN.aspx2018-03-14T04:00:00Z​ESTRATEGIAS DE CONTENCIÓN​
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Vote-Integrity.aspx2018-02-01T05:00:00ZVote Integrity
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Slipping-Through-the-Cracks.aspx2017-11-01T04:00:00ZSlipping Through the Cracks

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Happy-Holidays-from-Security-Management.aspx2017-12-22T05:00:00ZHappy Holidays from Security Management
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Accolades-Entries-Spotlight-Innovation.aspx2016-09-11T04:00:00ZAccolades Entries Spotlight Innovation
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/SM-Online-February-2016.aspx2016-02-01T05:00:00ZSM Online February 2016

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/January-2018-Industry-News.aspx2018-01-01T05:00:00ZJanuary 2018 Industry News
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/December-2017-Industry-News.aspx2017-12-01T05:00:00ZDecember 2017 Industry News
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Driving-a-Security-Transition.aspx2017-10-01T04:00:00ZDriving a Security Transition

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Resilience-Trends.aspx2016-09-01T04:00:00ZResilience Trends
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Required-License-to-Operate.aspx2015-02-01T05:00:00ZRequired: License to Operate
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/chemical-facilities-tackle-explosive-problem-0013191.aspx2014-03-01T05:00:00ZChemical Facilities Tackle an Explosive Problem

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/June-2018-Industry-News.aspx2018-06-01T04:00:00ZJune 2018 Industry News
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/May-2018-Contributing-Authors.aspx2018-05-01T04:00:00ZMay 2018 Contributing Authors
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/April-2018-Industry-News.aspx2018-04-01T04:00:00ZApril 2018 Industry News

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Paving-the-Way.aspx2018-03-01T05:00:00ZPaving the Way
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/GridEx-IV-Tests-The-North-American-Power-Grid.aspx2017-11-17T05:00:00ZGridEx IV Tests The North American Power Grid
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Global-Water-Risk.aspx2017-09-01T04:00:00ZGlobal Water Risk

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Scanning-the-Schoolyard.aspx2018-06-01T04:00:00ZScanning the Schoolyard
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/A-Safety-Strategy-on-Campus.aspx2018-06-01T04:00:00ZA Safety Strategy on Campus
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Shooting-at-Maryland-High-School-Leaves-One-Dead;-SRO-Ends-Threat.aspx2018-03-20T04:00:00ZShooting at Maryland High School Leaves One Dead; SRO Ends Threat

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Giving-Security-Credit.aspx2018-05-01T04:00:00ZGiving Security Credit
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/The-Fraudians-Slip-In.aspx2018-03-01T05:00:00ZThe Fraudians Slip In
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/New-Technology-with-a-Personal-Touch.aspx2018-01-01T05:00:00ZNew Technology with a Personal Touch

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Four-Ways-to-Improve-Healthcare-Security.aspx2018-06-01T04:00:00ZFour Ways to Improve Healthcare Security
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Top-Five-Challenges-in-Healthcare.aspx2018-06-01T04:00:00ZTop Five Challenges in Healthcare
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Access-Control-for-Healthcare-and-Nursing-Facilities.aspx2018-04-19T04:00:00ZAccess Control for Healthcare and Nursing Facilities

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/May-2018-Industry-News.aspx2018-05-01T04:00:00ZMay 2018 Industry News
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/How-to-Learn-from-Las-Vegas.aspx2018-02-01T05:00:00ZHow to Learn from Las Vegas
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Book-Review--Sports-Travel-Security.aspx2018-01-17T05:00:00ZBook Review: Sports Travel Security

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/November-2017-Industry-News.aspx2017-11-01T04:00:00ZNovember 2017 Industry News
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Safety-in-Shared-Spaces.aspx2017-09-01T04:00:00ZSafety in Shared Spaces
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Protecting-Fine-Art-and-Other-Industry-News.aspx2017-09-01T04:00:00ZProtecting Fine Art and Other Industry News

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/The-Fight-Against-Fake-Pharmaceuticals.aspx2015-02-01T05:00:00ZThe Fight Against Fake Pharmaceuticals
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/uncovering-smart-solutions-0013513.aspx2014-07-01T04:00:00ZUncovering Smart Solutions
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/online-pharmacies-0013326.aspx2014-05-01T04:00:00ZRogue Online Pharmacies

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/CUATRO-DESAFÍOS-PARA-LA-SEGURIDAD-DE-LA-AVIACIÓN.aspx2018-06-12T04:00:00ZCuatro Desafíos Para La Seguridad de La Aviación
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Lost-in-Transit.aspx2018-06-01T04:00:00ZLost in Transit
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Book-review-Practical-Aviation-Security-Third-Edition.aspx2018-03-23T04:00:00ZBook Review: Practical Aviation Security, Third Edition

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Raising-the-Bar-Food-Defense.aspx2018-06-01T04:00:00ZRaising the Bar: Food Defense
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/February-2018-Industry-News.aspx2018-02-01T05:00:00ZFebruary 2018 Industry News
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Subway-Surveillance.aspx2017-11-01T04:00:00ZSubway Surveillance

 You May Also Like...

 

 

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Put-Training-to-the-Test.aspxPut Training to the Test<p>​The classroom door flies open. An emotionally distraught student rushes into the doorway, produces a semiautomatic pistol, presses the muzzle of the gun to his temple with his finger on the trigger, and proclaims, "I can't take it anymore."</p><p>How will the teacher respond to this stressful, high-stakes situation? Will she intervene with verbal tactics or physical ones? Will she inadvertently put other students in danger by reacting too quickly? </p><p>An analysis by school security firm Safe Havens International found that teachers and administrators who had undergone traditional active shooter training were more likely to react to this situation by opting to attack the student or throw things at him, rather than taking the action steps outlined in the school's policies and procedures, such as calling 911 or instigating a lockdown. In other scenarios, trainees reacted in a similar manner that could intensify and aggravate the situation when time allowed for safer policies and procedures to be applied.</p><p>In the wake of high-profile massacres at schools and college campuses, institutions are preparing themselves for the emergency situations with scenario-based training programs. </p><p>The percentage of U.S. public schools that have drilled for an active shooter scenario rose from 47 to 70 percent from 2004 to 2014, according to a study by the National Center for Education Statistics. But the intensive search for solutions to these deadly events can lead to hasty planning and decision making, ultimately resulting in an ineffective response. </p><p>The number of teachers and administrators who opt to attack or otherwise approach the armed perpetrator indicates that current active shooter programs may be overwhelming for participants, causing them to respond to threatening scenarios in a dangerous way. Schools have also become narrowly focused on active shooter scenarios, when most deaths and accidents on campuses do not involve an active shooter. </p><p>Taking these factors into consideration, an all-hazards approach to scenario-based training allows schools to prepare for a range of incidents, including bullying, sexual harassment, and natural disasters. Fidelity testing then allows administrators and teachers to put those plans to the test and see how participants apply the training under stressful scenarios. </p><p>School leaders can then learn to rely on the solid foundational principles of policies and procedures, as well as communications and emergency plans, to diffuse potentially hazardous situations. Using these basic elements of active threat response and evaluating training programs to identify gaps could save lives.​</p><h4>Evaluations</h4><p>During the stress of an actual crisis, people often react differently than they have been trained to do. Fidelity testing of a training program can help determine if there are gaps between what the trainer thinks the trainees will do, and what actions trainees will take in real life. This was the aim of evaluations completed by campus security nonprofit Safe Havens International of Macon, Georgia. </p><p><strong>Methodology.</strong> Analysts conducted the evaluations at more than 1,000 K-12 public, faith-based, independent, and charter schools in 38 states. More than 7,000 one-on-one crisis scenario simulations were conducted by Safe Havens International in a series of school safety, security, and emergency preparedness assessments over the last five years. The participants were observed and scored by analysts who had completed a 16-hour formal training program and one day of field work. </p><p>Prior to running the scenarios, analysts came up with several action steps that should be taken in each scenario. These steps included initiating a lockdown, calling 911, sheltering in place, or pulling the fire alarm, for example. Based on those steps, the analysts developed a standardized scoring system to keep track of participant performance in the scenarios. </p><p>This type of training is known as options-based active shooter training because it gives the participants various responses to choose from. Many popular options-based programs are based on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Run. Hide. Fight. approach.  </p><p>Drawing from Safe Havens International's repository of more than 200 audio and video crisis scenarios, analysts ran the simulations and let administrators, support staff, and teachers respond accordingly. These simulations covered a range of scenarios, which were presented in several formats. </p><p>For example, some participants were guided through an audio narration of a school bus taken hostage by an armed student. The audio was paused, and the trainees were asked what they would do next in that situation. </p><p>Similarly, video scenarios depicted potentially violent situations that left participants with a number of choices on how to react. </p><p>In one scenario, a woman screams at staff in the school office while brandishing a claw hammer. In another, a student on a school bus jumps up with a gun and yells, "Nobody move, and nobody gets hurt!" The video is stopped and trainees are prompted to say how they would react. </p><p>Based on action steps that were predetermined to be ideal, analysts then scored the trainees' responses on tablet devices. The scoring was be tailored to individual clients. For instance, if analysts were training a school district that has a police officer on every campus, its response would be different from that of a rural district that does not have a law enforcement officer within 20 miles.</p><p><strong>Results. </strong>The results of the evaluations consistently showed that participants who were provided with options-based active shooter programs had lower scores than those who had not completed any type of training. </p><p>This outcome shows that current active shooter training methods may be overwhelming for administrators and teachers because they provide too much information—prompting them to attack when it is not necessary.</p><p>In an assessment in the northeastern United States, test subjects completed an options-based active shooter training program that was three and a half hours long. Evaluators found that the 63 administrators and staff members from 28 schools missed 628 out of 1,243 critical action steps that should have been implemented. That's more than 50 percent.</p><p>For example, participants failed to initiate or order a lockdown when it was appropriate 70 percent of the time. More than 55 percent of participants failed to call 911 or the school resource officer in scenarios depicting a person with a weapon, and 39 percent of participants failed to pull the fire alarm in situations involving fire. </p><p>During an assessment of a school district in the southwestern United States, 32 people from two groups participated in scenario simulations. One group completed a five-hour live training program based on the Run. Hide. Fight. video, developed by the district's school resource officers. The second group did not receive the training or view the video. </p><p>The simulation results revealed that none of the top five scoring participants had received any type of active shooter training. All five of the lowest scoring participants, on the other hand, had completed the training program. </p><p>The overall score was also significantly lower for the group that had completed training than it was for the untrained group. The lower scoring participants often opted to attack in situations where it was not the best option. </p><p><strong>Opting to attack. </strong>For the scenario described in the beginning of the article, where a student is potentially suicidal, analysts found that in one out of every four incidents, a school employee who had completed an options-based active shooter training would try to throw an object at or attack the student armed with a weapon. </p><p>Many of the participants in the simulations responded by opting to use force for almost any scenario involving a subject depicted with a gun. If the student in question was suicidal, such a reaction could be deadly, possibly leading to the student to shoot himself or others. </p><p>Participants who had not received formal training began talking to the student, encouraging him to put the gun down, and asking if it was okay for the other students in the classroom to leave. These basics of communication are essential in an active suicide threat situation and can help defuse possible violence.  </p><p>Another scenario featured a drunk man who was 75 yards away from a school at the same time that a teacher and her students were 25 yards from the school building at recess. The analysis found that 30 percent of participants playing the teacher chose to approach—and even attack the drunk man—even though he was three-quarters of a football field away from the school.</p><p>The best option in this scenario is for the teacher to instruct the students to go into the school and put themselves in lockdown, then go into the building and ask the office to dial 911. </p><p>In November 2017, a school in Northern California initiated its lockdown procedure when the school secretary heard gunshots nearby. The gunman tried to enter the campus but could not find an open door. Because school faculty followed policies and procedures, countless lives were saved.</p><h4>Active Threat Approach</h4><p>The narrow focus on active shooter incidents has left many schools ill-prepared for other active attacker methods, including edge weapons, acid attacks, and fire. Relying on active shooter training also neglects response to incidents that often go undetected, such as bullying and sexual harassment. </p><p>The Safe Havens International assessments revealed that many K-12 schools lack written protocols for hazardous materials incidents or do not conduct any training or drills for these easy-to-orchestrate, devastating types of attacks. Evaluations also revealed an unwillingness among some school staff to report incidents of sexual harassment.</p><p>Policies and procedures. Edu­cational institutions have written policies and procedures on a range of issues, including bullying, sexual misconduct, signing in visitors, and traffic safety. Scenario-based training will help demonstrate whether staff are prepared to apply those policies appropriately. All staff should be included in this training, including bus drivers, cafeteria employees, and custodial workers.</p><p>Scenario-based training can reveal the gaps between what procedure dictates and what staff would actually do when confronted with a threat. </p><p>For example, in one simulation conducted by Safe Havens International, a student sat in a classroom with a teacher after hours. The teacher stroked the pupil's hair inappropriately and used sexually explicit language. Some custodial staff faced with this scenario responded that they did not feel comfortable reporting what they saw to school administrators. Janitors, who may be more likely to witness such incidents, said they felt an imbalance of power among the staff, leaving them unwilling to speak up. </p><p>Administrators should address such issues by using multiple scenarios related to sexual misconduct to demonstrate to employees that they are not only empowered but required to report these situations. Reviewing these policies and procedures as part of scenario-based training, and incorporating possible threats other than active shooter, will bolster preparation among staff. </p><p><strong>Attack methods. </strong>While mass shootings garner the most media attention, most recent homicides at schools were caused by attacks that did not involve active shooter events, according to Relative Risk of Death on K12 Campuses by school security expert Steven Satterly. </p><p>The 2014 study revealed that of 489 victims murdered on U.S. K-12 campuses from 1998 to 2013, only 62 were killed by active shooters. The Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Red Lake Reservation School shootings made up 74 percent of those 62 deaths.</p><p>Several weapons possibilities exist, and should be acknowledged in training programs, including edged weapons, explosive devices, and fire. </p><p>There have been dozens of mass casualty edged weapons attacks in schools, and serious damage can occur in a matter of minutes. A mass stabbing and slashing incident in Franklin, Pennsylvania, in April 2014 left 21 victims injured when a sophomore began attacking other students in a crowded hallway. Similar attacks have occurred in China, Japan, and Sweden that have killed and seriously injured students and school employees.  </p><p>Acid attacks are occurring more frequently in the United Kingdom, as well as in India, East Africa, Vietnam, and other regions. </p><p>For example, in September 2016, a student rigged a peer's violin case with acid at a high school in Haddington, Scotland. The victim's legs were disfigured as a result.  </p><p>These types of attacks are relatively easy to carry out because acid is inexpensive and can be concealed in bottles that appear harmless. The injuries sustained in these attacks are gruesome and irreversible, and there are concerns that this attack method may become more common in the United States. </p><p>Many active shooter training approaches also fail to address combination attacks, in which the perpetrator uses two or more attack weapons, such as firearms and explosives, firearms and fire, and so forth. </p><p>In the 2013 attack at Arapahoe High School in Colorado, a student shot his classmates and a staff member several times before throwing three Molotov cocktails that set part of the library ablaze. The student then shot himself. </p><p>Combination attack methods can present complications for first responders who may have to decipher where each threat is located and which one to deal with first. These campus attacks demonstrate the danger of training concepts that focus intently on active shooter incidents, while not offering viable options for other extreme attack methodologies.</p><p>There are ways to better prepare school staff to react to violence and reduce the chance of unintended consequences. Scenarios that present a range of threats and situations help trainees learn to react in the most effective manner, and remind them to rely on existing policies. </p><p>Fidelity testing that includes a scoring system for action steps will help determine whether active shooter and active threat training concepts have been received by the faculty. Including all staff members who have contact with students creates an inclusive environment where everyone feels empowered to report misconduct. </p><p>Putting a mirror to current school emergency preparedness will reflect where changes need to be made. If there are significant gaps between the training concept and application of those concepts when reacting unscripted to scenarios, improvements are in order. By applying these principles, schools can prepare themselves for the common emergencies, the worst-case-scenarios, and everything in between.  </p><p>-- </p><h4>​Sidebar: keeping simulations safe<br></h4><p>​Even the most well-intentioned scenario-based training can result in injuries. Training programs that teach throwing of objects, taking people to the floor, punching and kicking, or similar uses of force can wind up hurting trainees and trainers alike.</p><p>At least one popular active shooter training program has resulted in high rates of serious injuries among trainees, according to Jerry D. Loghry, CPP, loss prevention information manager for EMC Insurance.</p><p>Loghry verified that EMC Insurance has paid out more than $1 million in medical bills to school employees for injuries sustained in trainings from one active shooter program over a 22-month time period. In addition, one police department is being sued due to those injuries. </p><p>Instructors can be trained on how to engage participants in use-of-force in a safe way. Reasonable safety measures should be put into place, such as floor mats, and participants should wear protective padding, goggles, and even helmets if necessary. </p><p>Safety rules should be written in advance and observed during training simulations. </p><p>Local law enforcement can be a valuable resource for simulating active threat situations in a safe manner, because police officers complete similar close-quarters combat training on a regular basis. Observing these best practices can help prevent litigation and liability issues, as well as enhance the overall experience of participants and instructors.​</p><h4>sidebar: fidelity Testing<br></h4><p></p><p>For stereo systems, fidelity means that the sound generated by the speakers is nearly identical to the sound of the music that is recorded. In marriage, fidelity means that a person will be faithful to their promises to another.</p><p>In the world of school safety, fidelity indicates a close alignment between what is intended by safety policies, plans, drills, and training, and what people do in reality. Fidelity testing is the best way to verify the level of alignment between intentions and reality.</p><p>In the case of active shooter preparedness, fidelity testing involves efforts to measure whether there is a close match between theory and what people will actually do under the stress of a violent incident.  </p><p>With properly designed active shooter preparedness approaches, practical application under extreme stress should mirror, to a reasonable extent, the theoretical expectations of the approach. If people cannot correctly apply the active shooter survival options they have been provided under simulated conditions, their performance will likely not improve when they are placed under extreme stress. </p><p>A high degree of fidelity helps reduce the distance between what people ideally do under stress and what they are likely to do. A reasonable level of fidelity testing of active shooter survival concepts should document that people are able to:</p><p> </p><p>•             Demonstrate the ability to identify when they are in an active shooter situation.</p><p>•             Apply each option they are taught in an appropriate fashion when tested with scenarios they do not know in advance.</p><p>•             Apply each option under limited time frames with incomplete information.</p><p>•             Demonstrate knowledge of when applying each option would increase rather than decrease danger.  </p><p>•             Demonstrate the ability to identify when they are in a situation involving firearms that is not an active shooter event.</p><p>•             Demonstrate the ability to properly address a wide array of scenarios involving weapons other than firearms.​</p><p>​<br></p><p><em><strong>Michael Dorn </strong>is the CEO of Safe Havens International. He has authored 27 books on school safety and emergency preparedness, and his work has taken him to 11 countries. He has provided post-incident assistance for 12 active shooter incidents at K-12 schools, and helped coauthor a u.s. government IS360 Web training program on active shooter events. He can be reached at mike@weakfish.org ​</em></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
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/School-of-Threats.aspxSchool of Threats<p>​In the fall of 2015, a university sophomore we will call Sophia spoke with her college’s Title IX coordinator, called Mr. Jones for the purposes of this article. Sophia told Jones that her former boyfriend—a sophomore at the same college—sexually assaulted her in 2014.</p><p>The two broke up over the summer, but Sophia thought her ex-boyfriend was stalking her now that they were both back on campus for the fall semester.</p><p>Jones told Sophia about her various options, including reporting the stalking to campus police or to local law enforcement, or filing a complaint with the college’s Student Conduct Office, which would then investigate and take action against her ex-boyfriend if necessary. </p><p>Jones also gave Sophia a list of support resources that she could access, including the college’s counseling center, women’s centers, and community-based resources for victims of domestic violence.</p><p>Sophia said she did not want to file a report with campus police or local law enforcement, but she did want to file a report with the Student Conduct Office.</p><p>Two days after filing her report, Sophia alerted Jones that she thought her ex-boyfriend was escalating his efforts to stalk her. She was afraid of what he might do to retaliate against her, and feared for her physical safety.</p><p>When Sophia mentioned that she feared for her own safety, Jones offered another option: he could alert the college’s threat assessment team to address the situation from a safety perspective. </p><p>The team could evaluate whether there was any threat posed to Sophia by her ex-boyfriend and could intervene—as necessary—to reduce the risk to Sophia while her report was investigated by the Student Conduct Office.  </p><p>As higher education and security professionals are well aware, the last few years have seen many changes in the law and guidance addressing sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking issues on college and university campuses. </p><p>Colleges and universities in the United States are now obligated to undertake certain actions when they become aware of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking at their institutions under new requirements from the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) through Title IX guidance and enforcement and amendments to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act) made by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA).</p><p>Those requirements include taking swift action to investigate allegations of such incidents; notifying victims about the availability of protective and support resources; and notifying victims of their options to report the incident to law enforcement or to the institution’s conduct office or to opt not to report.</p><p>With the recent focus on the need for colleges and universities to aggressively pursue reports of sexual assault, interpersonal violence, and stalking, there has been little public discussion about the need to assess and maintain victim safety and campus safety while these investigations, called Title IX or Clery investigations, are undertaken. However, that is beginning to change.</p><p>Several prominent organizations and task forces have released reports on campus safety and violence prevention since the campus shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007 and at Northern Illinois University in 2008. All of these reports recommended that colleges and universities create threat assessment teams as a key measure to prevent violence before it occurs. </p><p>The threat assessment model is now advocated for use in higher education settings by entities at the federal and state levels, as well as various international and national associations. These include the U.S. Departments of Education, Justice, and Health and Human Services; the National Association of Attorneys General; the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators; and several state task forces.</p><p>In 2008, Virginia and Illinois both passed laws requiring colleges and universities to establish threat assessment teams. These laws apply to public higher education institutions in Virginia and to all higher education institutions in Illinois. In 2014, Connecticut also began requiring colleges and universities to be trained in campus threat assessment.</p><p>Additionally, in 2010 the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) approved a national standard for higher education risk analysis that is designed to identify, evaluate, and mitigate risks at higher education institutions and to help colleges and universities better allocate resources and prepare for emergencies.</p><p>“It is recommended that threat assessment teams be put into place on campus to help identify potential persons of concern and gather and analyze information regarding the potential threat posed by an individual(s),” the standard says.</p><p>Behavioral threat assessment is now recognized as a best practice for preventing campus violence and workplace violence at colleges and universities. Using threat assessment procedures can help enhance safety in Title IX and Clery cases in which there is a potential for ongoing interpersonal violence or stalking behavior, victims fear for their safety, or threats have been made before or after a victim files a police report or student conduct complaint.</p><p>In cases such as these, however, adhering to provisions of Title IX and the Clery Act is not enough; steps should be taken to identify and assess whether any threats are posed to those involved in these investigations and to manage the situation to reduce any such risk.​</p><h4>Integrating Threat Assessments</h4><p>In an environment in which victims, advocates, and public servants commonly express concerns about campus response to sexual violence, colleges and universities must also assess threats while investigating these incidents and publishing crime statistics—as required by federal law.</p><p>To best address these safety concerns, the institution’s threat assessment team or behavioral intervention team should be involved to run a parallel threat assessment investigation that is separate from, but coordinated with, the institution’s Clery investigation.</p><p>This level of coordination requires some effort, but is vital and can be done using five steps to maintain victim safety and campus security during investigations.</p><p>Create a threat assessment team. Institutions should have a threat assessment team—or a similar multidisciplinary team that is trained in behavioral threat assessment and threat management. </p><p>The best threat assessment teams include representatives from student affairs, academic affairs, the counseling center, human resources, campus police or security, and ad hoc members who might be needed for particular cases, such as veterans’ services for cases involving veterans or international programs members for cases involving international students.</p><p>Once the team is assembled, it should be trained in behavioral threat assessment, have the authority to engage in threat assessment on behalf of the institution, have procedures to guide activities of the team, and have access to case management and support resources—on campus and in the community—to intervene where needed.</p><p>Having training in best practice procedures is critical to ensuring that the team is equipped to objectively assess any risk or threat posed, and to take appropriate steps to intervene to reduce risk and manage the situation going forward.</p><p>Many institutions have established threat assessment teams, but only a subset of them have ever been trained in threat assessment procedures. One institution, whose threat assessment team lacked qualified training, did not know how to handle a stalking case that was escalating and decided to call in outside expertise to reduce the prospect that the situation could turn violent. </p><p>If a team has not received training in threat assessment procedures, the group should make sure to check the qualifications of potential training vendors before hiring them.</p><p>Understand Clery requirements. All personnel involved in threat assessment and safety should know that the DOE has issued guidance on requirements that institutions face under Title IX and preamble comments on regulations issued to implement the VAWA revisions to the Clery Act.</p><p>Under these laws, colleges and universities must respond swiftly to reports of sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking—not just those involving a threat assessment investigation. </p><p>This response must include providing information on confidential sources for victims to talk to and explaining reporting options to victims. The response must also include information on disciplinary and law enforcement reporting options should victims decide to report an incident to law enforcement or to the student conduct office.</p><p>In addition to responding to reports of sexual violence, colleges and universities must also actively work to prevent such crimes, including providing institutionwide training for students and employees.</p><p>Some colleges and universities are implementing mandated online training courses for students, as well as for faculty and staff, to raise awareness about sexual violence and the importance of bystander intervention. </p><p>But prevention efforts can also involve outreach from an institution’s threat assessment team to encourage people to report potentially dangerous situations and behaviors to the team when they become aware of them, so quick action can be taken to mitigate and reduce risk. </p><p>To address these wide-ranging duties and the increasing number of reports, institutions should have dedicated investigators to handle their Clery-related cases and responsibilities. In many cases, institutions will need to hire or retain these individuals.</p><p><strong>Alert the team.</strong> Once an institution has a threat assessment team, those taking reports from victims must learn when to alert the team. </p><p>Although reports of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking are often referred to a Title IX coordinator or investigator, there may be ongoing safety concerns that should be addressed simultaneously and more broadly by a threat assessment team. If a report is made to an employee not designated as a “confidential employee,” that person can freely alert the threat assessment team. </p><p>Confidential employees include employees who are licensed medical, clinical, or mental-health professionals when acting in their professional role to provide services to a patient who is a university student. This category also includes university employees providing administrative, operational, and related support for healthcare providers performing these services.</p><p>Confidential employees are generally prohibited from reporting information to a college or university’s Title IX coordinator without permission from the individual who disclosed the information to them.</p><p>A confidential employee who receives a report should provide information about the threat assessment team to the victim or reporter, as well as provide options for reporting the incident and for safety planning. </p><p>If a risk is deemed sufficiently imminent to permit disclosure of privileged communications, the confidential employee could make other disclosures as necessary to promote safety. When victims better understand what a threat assessment team can do to enhance safety, they may be willing to have their situation reported to the team.</p><p><strong>Get legal advice.</strong> Teams should seek advice from the institution’s legal counsel on how to address situations in which a victim requests confidentiality or anonymity. </p><p>In 2014, the DOE’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) published guidance on Title IX issues that clarified a 2011 document on the limits of confidentiality in certain situations.</p><p>For instance, the OCR recognized that institutions may not be able to respect requests for confidentiality where circumstances suggest there is an increased risk of further violence. The OCR included examples of these circumstances, such as multiple complaints about that person, a history of violence and arrests, multiple perpetrators, patterns of perpetration, use of weapons, and threats to commit further violence.</p><p>Train and practice, together. Personnel involved in Clery cases and those involved in threat assessment matters can learn a great deal about each other’s methods, resources, and obligations when they spend time together—preferably not just on active cases.</p><p>Finding opportunities to train together in tabletop exercises, and to train each other on their respective jurisdictions and areas of expertise, will enhance coordination and cooperation when faced with a high-risk case.</p><p>One threat assessment team, which had received training on trauma-informed investigations from its institution’s Title IX coordinator, increased its awareness about the effects of trauma. As a result, the team changed its approach to interviews with complainants of stalking. </p><p>Since the training, the team now chooses—where possible—to give its questions to Title IX investigators to ask of a complainant to avoid subjecting the individual to yet another interview on the same matter. This process is designed to minimize stress and additional trauma. ​</p><h4>Outcomes </h4><p>In Sophia’s case, involving the college’s threat assessment team helped the institution get a more complete picture of her safety and any potential danger she faced as the investigation unfolded. </p><p>One of the first options the team suggested was that either the Student Conduct Office or the campus police department issue a “no-contact order.” A no-contact order prohibits contact—whether in person, by phone, email, text, social media, or through a third party—between individuals at an institution where the college or university feels it is necessary to impose such a boundary. </p><p>No-contact orders are often issued by student conduct officers when they are investigating potential violations of a student code of conduct. The orders do not require the same level of evidence required to obtain a court-issued restraining order or protective order—but they carry significant consequences if violated. </p><p>For instance, some institutions can take immediate disciplinary and protective action if an order is violated, such as immediate suspension or barring the individual from campus.</p><p>This is a tool administered solely by the college and did not require Sophia to file a police report, even if the campus police department issued the order.</p><p>Following best practice threat assessment procedures, the threat assessment team in Sophia’s case gathered information from multiple sources about her ex-boyfriend and his recent behaviors and communications. </p><p>The team was able to corroborate Sophia’s accounts of his stalking behavior and discovered a series of disturbing posts he made on social media that suggested he was experiencing increasing desperation, and may have been suicidal. </p><p>A member of the team conducted a conversation with the ex-boyfriend, confirming his growing level of desperation. The team then assessed that Sophia’s case required inter­vention to reduce risk.</p><p>First, the team’s representative from the campus police department asked campus police to immediately transport Sophia’s ex-boyfriend to the college’s counseling center for a safety assessment to determine if he was suicidal. </p><p>At the same time, the team’s representative from the counseling center notified personnel at the center about the transport and provided information to the mental health provider who was conducting the assessment, so the provider had appropriate background information to include in the assessment.</p><p>In addition, the team asked the college’s Residential Life Office if it could provide Sophia with emergency alternate housing so her ex-boyfriend would not know where she was living. Campus police also provided Sophia with safety planning and offered to escort her around campus, if she wanted that service. </p><p>Sophia’s ex-boyfriend followed the no-contact order and did not have any contact with Sophia throughout the student conduct process. The team remained involved in monitoring the case as it proceeded and in conducting a follow-up assessment after her ex-boyfriend was sanctioned by the college.</p><p>The team was actively involved in the case until it assessed that Sophia’s ex-boyfriend no longer posed a threat to her—which was several months after the conclusion of the investigation.</p><p>Finding ways to improve communication and coordinate efforts between Title IX/Clery personnel and threat assessment teams can help security protect students. A multidisciplinary approach to training, assessing threats, and responding to incident reports can help ensure a safer campus for all. </p><p>--<br></p><p><em>Marisa R. Randazzo, Ph.D., is a managing partner of SIGMA Threat Management Associates and former chief research psychologist for the U.S. Secret Service. Jeffrey J. Nolan, JD, is a partner at Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C. Dorian Van Horn is a senior consultant with SIGMA Threat Management Associates and former division chief of the Threat Management Unit for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. ​ ​</em></p>GP0|#28ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997;L0|#028ae3eb9-d865-484b-ac9f-3dfacb4ce997|Strategic Security;GTSet|#8accba12-4830-47cd-9299-2b34a4344465