Cost-benefit implementation of school security technology

Cost-benefit implementation of school security technology

By Michael Dorn and Chris Dorn

Planning is essential when deciding what type of security equipment to purchase. It is important to consider facilities issues, cost limitations, integration into district emergency plans (pictured) and the practicality of day-today operation when choosing new equipment. The best security technology on the market is no match for improper installation, a failure to properly integrate equipment into existing procedures and policies, or a lack of staff time to operate and maintain the equipment. Photographic credit: Rachel Wilson.

Pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) cameras, either moving on a timer or controlled by remote, can be helpful if properly placed with an adequate field of coverage and appropriate level of lighting when the camera is in operation. These types of cameras are often able to be controlled remotely from an administrator’s office and some districts even have iPad apps to access camera views anywhere in the building. When using a timer to pan back and forth, the location of the camera and the amount of time it takes to pass the field of view should be considered so there are minimal gaps in coverage when the camera is rotating in another direction. Photographic credit: Rachel Wilson. In some cases, attackers don’t even need to bring their own weapons. This large butcher knife was found easily accessible in an unlocked teachers’ lounge of an elementary school during one of our assessments. It is not uncommon to find this type of hazard when a school does not undergo a regular physical security assessment. Photographic credit: Chris Dorn.

A staff member locking an exterior door during a lockdown drill. In addition to basic security features, a school safety, security, climate, culture and emergency preparedness assessment takes into account physical security concerns when evaluating the overall level of emergency preparedness in a school. In this photo, for example, the type of door design increases the time it takes for a staff member to secure a door during a lockdown. One recommendation in an assessment report for this particular facility might be to consider short- and long-term fixes for this issue. A shortterm fix may be keeping doors locked during the day and a long-term fix would be to enhance or replace the locks on this bay of doors during facilities upgrades or renovations. Assessments are helpful in creating a ready-to-go “wish list” for future improvements when budgets come available. Photographic credit: Chris Dorn. In contrast to what was available just a decade ago, modern school safety and security technology solutions are nothing short of amazing. Unfortunately, as was the case then, there are still many instances of school organizations spending hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars on security technologies that do not deliver the anticipated improvements in school safety. Typically, these gaps in performance have little to do with the quality of the technology, but are instead a result of a failure to fit security technology solutions to needs defined through an effective assessment process.

What types of school safety assessments are there?

Unfortunately, there is not a definitive and standardized school safety assessment process that is consistently agreed upon by leading school safety experts. While some assessment processes focus solely on physical security, others are much more comprehensive and look at school safety in a more holistic manner.

Whether local personnel conduct the assessment or an outside vendor is contracted to perform the work, school officials should carefully define the scope of the assessment before it is started. Broader assessments of this type will prove to be far more effective than those focused mainly on locks, doors, alarms and security cameras in isolation. For example, a basic physical security assessment might last a few hours, whereas a school safety, security, climate, culture and emergency preparedness assessment can encompass several visits and will address physical security as well as other critical areas such as: • The level of connection between the school and its students and staff • The effectiveness of student supervision in the school

• The effectiveness of access control and visitor management procedures in actual practice • Ways to reduce the chances of injury and death due to common hazards (for example, gravity hazards and

“Slips, trips and falls”) • The probable level of effectiveness for emergency preparedness measures under the stress and confusion of an actual crisis event • How closely written plans and policies match actual safety, security and emergency preparedness measures

This comprehensive approach to the assessment process can dramatically improve the effectiveness of security technology implementation. This allows decision-makers to selectively purchase and place equipment where it is needed, rather than basing these decisions on guesswork. For example, our assessments commonly reveal gaps where cameras and night-time lighting are not coordinated to provide proper lighting for video surveillance at night. Another common problem we see is the implementation of an expensive surveillance system with little or no input from staff in the building where the equipment is to be used.

Using assessments to improve implementation of security technologies in concert with human behaviours

School facilities must serve a very dynamic, interactive and constantly fluctuating population of students, staff and visitors. Since they are designed to serve children and youth, the security technology needs of schools are sometimes very different from the application of the same security technology solutions in other settings such as airports, courthouses, factories and shopping malls. The type of comprehensive assessment described above can help school officials more effectively select and integrate security technologies to the unique school environment. For example, obvious gaps in student supervision at specific locations and times of day are one common finding of our assessments. This finding might result in a recommendation to use a combination of security camera coverage, improved student supervision at key times in the locations identified by the assessment, and a new school policy that prohibits students from congregating in certain areas.

One of our larger school district clients spent $56 million on new security cameras in one fiscal year but did not see a dramatic drop in their incident rates. When this technology was supplemented by training and clearly communicated expectations for staff assigned to supervise students in these “hot spots” identified through an assessment process, before and after surveys of students demonstrated a 50 per cent reduction in unhealthy behaviours such as gang activity, vandalism and fights. While the security technology cost millions, the supportive human practices to enhance it cost the district less than $12,000 for a district of 300,000 students.

The assessment process can help match the implementation of security technology to actual rather than perceived needs. This in turn can make schools safer but also dramatically reduce both short- and long-term fiscal expenditures.

Using the assessment process to select security for technologies based on cost-benefit

One common problem in school security involves the acquisition of capabilities that are not the most effective choices for the reality of risk in relation to funding limitations. For example, the purchase of security cameras instead of a visitor management system might be relatively ineffective even if the upfront costs are lower. For example, an elementary school that is located in a high-crime neighbourhood would likely benefit more from a solid access control and space management program than from video surveillance. In this type of situation, capturing a crime on video

Camera placement is critical, especially with fixed cameras that can only be moved by facilities personnel using a ladder. These cameras might be placed just a bit too close together and probably represent an over-investment of equipment in a single area. Photographic credit: Rachel Wilson.

Camera placement and angle are critical, and should be considered with landscaping in mind. It is not clear which came first, the camera or the plant, but the two should be coordinated so that the camera has a clear field of view – unless the plant itself is the subject of surveillance! Photographic credit: Rachel Wilson.

One type of exterior camera. It is important to consider the placement, angle and lighting for all exterior cameras. Photographic credit: Rachel Wilson.

Dome-style security cameras with a tinted shield can be helpful if properly placed with an adequate field of coverage and appropriate level of lighting when the camera is in operation. These types of cameras are often able to be controlled remotely from an administrator’s office and some districts even have iPad apps to access camera views anywhere in the building. Photographic credit: Rachel Wilson.

Michael Dorn accompanies a building principal on a school climate assessment. Photographic credit: Chris Dorn.

One of our analysts conducting a facility assessment – exterior access control is the first line of defense and should be one of the starting points of a physical security assessment. Photographic credit: Rachel Wilson.

One of our analysts doing an assessment of a school – gravity hazards and fire code violations are a common sight in many storage rooms and closets. Photographic credit: Rachel Wilson.

would be less effective than preventing it in the first place. While both of these types of technologies could help reduce risk, the chances are better that a good visitor-screening system will have a higher return on investment in the form of increased security and staff perceptions of safety, particularly if the cameras are not monitored – as is often the case with primary schools.

As this example shows, the assessment process can help school officials determine not only which types of security technologies are needed but can also help to prioritize their implementation for maximum effectiveness over the long term. This example also underscores the need to support the technology with day-to-day operations practices in the school. For example, the visitor management system may be easily defeated if staff commonly leave side doors propped open. In this example, adding proximity access card readers to doors may reduce the feeling among staff that they even “need” to prop doors open at all. One of our analysts recently spoke to a teacher at an elementary school that said propped doors were a constant concern of hers at her old school, where this was a common practice. After being transferred to a new school building with proximity access for all staff, the same teacher reported that she never sees propped doors at her school building.

Educating staff to increase the effectiveness of security technologies

Educating staff on the technologies selected can be very important for a successful implementation. For this reason, staff interviews can be an extremely important part of the assessment process. It is very common to learn that staff members have unrealistic expectations of what technology can do. In one case we were brought in to a remote and rural school district after a multiple-victim shooting committed by a student. In response, the district had purchased a walk-through metal detector, plugged it in, placed it in a main hallway and instead of providing staffers for the unit, placed a sign that asked visitors to walk through the unit themselves! The superintendent was under the impression that somehow the unit would notify them if a person was carrying a gun – assuming they walked through the detector in the first place.

Though this is an extreme example, it is very common to learn from interviews that staff assume someone is monitoring security cameras constantly, ready to jump into action at a moment’s notice. One teacher we spoke reported an incident where a student was showing a gun to fellow classmates in a restroom and was convinced that the incident would have been instantly neutralized if there had been security cameras in the restroom. It is also common for staff to automatically buzz-in visitors with no effort to even ask the visitor’s purpose for visiting the school. We routinely provide the names of famous serial killers when we have to buzz into schools, and say strange things that should arouse suspicion, and are still often buzzed in by office staff who are focused on other duties and just see the buzzer as a formality that by itself will increase safety.

Today’s robust and highly capable security technologies can be a wise investment when properly applied. Taking the time to properly assess real needs before selecting specific solutions can reduce costs, decrease the burden on staff time and maybe even save lives.

About the Authors:

Michael Dorn serves as the executive director of Safe Havens International, a non-profit school safety centre. Safe Havens analysts have assisted clients with school safety assessments for more than 2,000 public and nonpublic school facilities. The author of 26 books on school safety, Michael’s work over three decades has taken him to schools in Central America, Mexico, Canada, Europe, South Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Michael welcomes reader feedback and can be reached at www.safehavensinternational.org.

Chris Dorn has authored five books on school safety and his work has taken him to Mexico, Bolivia, Canada, England, France, Vietnam, South Africa and the Netherlands. Chris performs school safety, security, climate, culture and emergency preparedness assessments for schools and leads the Safe Havens International Training Video Production Unit. Chris can be reached at www.safehavensinternational.org. b