NCS⁴ Publishes Venue Security Director Survey Industry Research Report

THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR SPECTATOR SPORTS SAFETY AND SECURITY (NCS 4 ) AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI (USM)

Venue Security Director Survey

2022 Industry Research Report

ABOUT NCS4

Established in 2006, the NCS4 is the United States’ only academic center devoted to the study and practice of spectator sports safety and security. The NCS4 is located in the Trent Lott National Center at The University of Southern Mississippi (USM), a top-tier (R1) Carnegie Classified institution for its very high research activity.

Our Mission

We support the sports and entertainment industries through innovative research, training, and outreach programs. Our mission is realized by working closely with diverse organizations and subject matter experts to better understand the threat environment, identify vulnerabilities, communicate risk-mitigation techniques, and close capability gaps.

Our Vision

We will be a leading partner with government, private sector, and sports and entertainment organizations to create and deliver critical resources for enhancing safety and security.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this survey is to explore professional sports venue security issues, emerging threats, and technology solutions. The Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved survey consisted of 48 questions related to venue demographics, staffing and training, fan behavior, technology utilization, patron screening, cybersecurity, and drone mitigation. The online survey was administered in April/May 2022 to venue security directors (n=131) hosting professional sports teams from Major League Baseball (MLB), Major League Soccer (MLS), the National Basketball Association (NBA), the National Football League (NFL), and the National Hockey League (NHL). A total of 40 participants successfully completed the survey resulting in a 30.5% response rate.

Venue Demographics

● MLB (30%); MLS (20%); NBA (20%); NFL (27.5%); NHL (32.5%)

● Indoor (35%); outdoor (45%); indoor and outdoor (20%)

● Maximum capacity ranged between 10,001 and 80,000.

● Average attendance in the previous season ranged from less than 10,000 to 70,000.

Staffing and Training

● Most participants (90%) contract with a third-party security staff service provider.

● Background checks are required of all contracted security staff.

● 95% of respondents experienced staff shortages in the last two years, primarily caused by COVID-19 and staff not showing up for work

● 70% indicated that staff absenteeism has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic

● The most common action taken to mitigate staff shortages was increasing the hourly wage (91.9%).

● All participants require venue/event familiarization training, with 90% or more requiring awareness of prohibited items, fan code of conduct, standard operational procedures, how to operate security technology, and crowd management strategies.

● Facilitated in-person training was the most common training method, followed by tabletop exercises, refresher courses, and e-learning.

Fan Behavior

● Respondents indicated that fan behavior is much worse (25%) or worse (40%) than it was ten years ago.

● Nearly two-thirds (65%) of participants indicated that COVID-19 restrictions had caused increased tension between patrons and staff.

● Alcohol abuse was the most common form of inappropriate fan behavior (82.5%), and fights between patrons was the most concerning for venue directors (72.5%).

● All participants have a spectator ejection policy, which is primarily communicated via the venue website and venue signage, video board, and announcements.

● Frequently used crowd management strategies include an established alcohol policy (100%), signage (97.5%), public address announcements (95%), barriers (92.5%), and event staff directing crowd movement (90%).

● All respondents use a central incident documentation system, and 80% conduct research or statistical analysis on incident data. Approximately 92.5% utilize industry research and data to inform their safety and security policies.

Technology Utilization

● The most commonly used technologies include closed-circuit television (CCTV), walkthrough metal detectors, electronic tickets, stationary bollards, explosive detection canines, and venue signage.

● If additional funding was available, facial recognition systems, license plate readers, RFID staff identification, retractable bollards, automated barrier systems, and x-ray scanner capabilities are among the most sought-after resources.

Patron Screening

● 87.5% of respondents stated their current screening checkpoints cause lines to form outside venues, and the average wait time is less than 10 minutes during the busiest time before an event

● About one-third (32.5%) of participants have experienced security incidents between patrons waiting to enter the venue.

● Most participants (87.5%) indicated that they use patron screening technology.

● Walk-through metal detectors (100%), handheld magnetometers (85.7%), and x-ray scanners (60%) are the most commonly employed technologies.

● Respondents consider their patron screening to be basic (using the industry-standard but may need something better soon) or advanced (using new technologies now to enhance security screening).

● The majority of participants stated that they wish their patron screening technology could get patrons into their venues faster without sacrificing accuracy.

● Most respondents would acquire facial recognition systems and millimeter wave scanners if they had additional funding.

● Only 20% of participants are using artificial intelligence (AI) in their security screening, surveillance, or incident response technology; 62.5% believe they understand the extent to which AI can help these operations.

Cybersecurity

● 87.5% of respondents have a cybersecurity defense program, and 85% provide basic cybersecurity awareness training to full-time staff

● Most participants (92.5%) inform patrons of the secure in-house WiFi network(s) to use at their venue.

Drone Mitigation

● The majority of respondents (82.5%) have a drone mitigation plan.

● 82.5% of participants observed or detected unauthorized drone operations in the airspace above or near their venues

● Most drones were observed visually (45.5%) or observed visually and detected through sensor technology (39.4%).

● Drone sightings ranged between 1 to 10,000+ over the past year.

● Unauthorized drone operations interfered with operations/events at the venues of three respondents, causing one respondent to evacuate or take other protective action.

INTRODUCTION

The sporting world faces unique challenges when returning to play following a global pandemic, and many leagues, teams, and venues are exploring ways to maintain or improve their security operations. The purpose of this survey is to explore professional sports venue security issues, emerging threats, and technology solutions. Information gleaned from this study will assist venue directors in policy development, increase awareness of technology solutions, identify resource needs, and address training gaps to help protect human, physical, and cyber assets.

The survey consisted of 48 questions related to venue demographics, staffing and training, fan behavior, technology utilization, patron screening, cybersecurity, and drone mitigation. Survey development included input from both academics and practitioners. Feedback was solicited from NCS4 staff and industry professionals. The project was approved by the university Institutional Review Board (IRB), which reviews academic research involving human subjects to ensure that it follows federal and university requirements.

The online survey was administered in April/May 2022 to venue security directors (n=131) hosting North American professional sports teams, including Major League Baseball (MLB), Major League Soccer (MLS), the National Basketball Association (NBA), the National Football League (NFL), and the National Hockey League (NHL). A total of 40 participants completed the survey with a 30.5% response rate.

VENUE DEMOGRAPHICS

A total of 40 participants representing the five major North American professional sports leagues completed the survey, including MLB (30%), MLS (20%), NBA (20%), NFL (27.5%), and the NHL (32.5%). Several venue directors managed facilities that hosted more than one sport league. Maximum venue capacity ranged from 10,001 to 80,000, with most venues accommodating between 10,001 and 50,000. Average attendance at each venue ranged from less than 10,000 to 70,000 spectators, with the majority hosting between 10,000 and 30,000. The majority of venues (45%) were classified as outdoor venues (Figure 1).

STAFFING AND TRAINING

Approximately 90% of venues utilized a third-party service provider for security staff, with the majority of venues (67.5%) contracting 75%-100% of their security staff (Figure 2). All venues required background checks on contracted security staff and most venues (97.5%) required them on all full-time staff.

Editorial Credit: Joseph Sohm | Shutterstock.com

The majority of venues (95%) experienced security staff shortages in the last two years (Figure 3). COVID-19 and staff simply not showing up for work were the most common causes (Figure 4). Other causes included non-competitive wages, nobody showing up for interviews, no financial incentive to work due to government assistance, lack of interest, and inclement weather. Seventy percent of the participants indicated that absenteeism among security staff increased since the COVID-19 pandemic.

Have you experienced security staff shortages in the last two years?

Have you experienced security staff shortages in the last two years?

What caused the security staff shortages?

What caused the security staff shortages?

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 4

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 4

Approximately 97.4% of venue directors took action to mitigate staff shortages (Figure 5). Increasing the hourly wage was the most common action taken, followed by complimentary food and discounted ticket prices (Figure 6). Other actions included awarding a bonus per event, enhancing employee recognition, providing gift cards for referrals and job performance, hiring more third-party staff, utilizing security screening technology, establishing mutual aid agreements, and leveraging out-of-town resources.

Editorial Credit: Sergey Granev | Shutterstock.com

Figure 7 depicts the training required for security staff. All participants (100%) indicated that venue/event familiarization was required, and 90% or more required training on prohibited items, fan code of conduct, how to operate security technology, standard operational procedures, and crowd management strategies. “Other” types of training included guest services, on-field emergency response, STOP THE BLEED®, and active shooter.

Facilitated in-person training was the most common training method used (97.5%), followed by table-top exercises (82.5%), routine refresher courses (67.5%), e-learning (62.5%), workshops (7.5%), and “other” activities, such as drills and virtual PowerPoints via Zoom (5%).

FIGURE 7

What training is required for security staff?

FAN BEHAVIOR

Most respondents indicated that fan behavior today is much worse or worse than it was ten years ago, although some believe that it is about the same (Figure 8). Nearly two-thirds of participants (65%) stated that COVID-19 restrictions caused increased tensions between patrons and staff, 32.5% believed they have not, and 2.5% did not know.

FIGURE 8

In your opinion, how does fan behavior today compare to ten years ago?

The most prevalent form of inappropriate fan behavior was alcohol abuse (82.5%) followed closely by fights between patrons (80%) (Figure 9). “Other” inappropriate fan behaviors included cannabis edible consumption, not following building protocols, general fan misconduct, more confrontational behavior, profane and abusive language, hostile behavior, smoking, and vaping.

Furthermore, venue directors were asked what inappropriate fan behavior concerns them the most. Respondents indicated that fights between patrons (72.5%), violence against staff members (60%), and use of weapons (47.5%) were the most concerning (Figure 10). “Other” concerning fan behaviors included those related to alcohol and cannabis.

All participants stated that their venues have a spectator ejection policy, which is primarily communicated via their website (97.5%), venue signage (77.5%), venue video boards (70%), and venue announcements (70%) (Figure 11). Security supervisors (95%), law enforcement personnel (80%), event security staff (52.5%), and other individuals (17.5%) had the authority to eject a spectator at any stage of an event. ”Other” individuals included guest experience/services team members, venue management, and alcohol compliance.

FIGURE 11 How is the ejection policy communicated to spectators?

Crowd management strategies included an established alcohol policy (100%), signage (97.5%), public address announcements (95%), barriers (92.5%), and event staff directing crowd movement (90%) (Figure 12). “Other” included CCTV and a fan text system.

FIGURE 12 Crowd management strategies

All respondents indicated that they maintain a central information system for documenting incidents, and 80% conduct research or statistical analysis on the incident data. Approximately 92.5% of participants use industry research and data to inform their venues’ safety and security policies and operations.

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION

Table 1 presents the technologies used at the start of the most recently completed season. Closed-circuit television (CCTV), electronic tickets, explosive detection canines, stationary bollards, venue signage, and walkthrough metal detectors were employed by 100% of the participants.

TECHNOLOGY % RESPONSE

Technologies used at the start of the most recently completed season

TABLE 2

Technologies or analytical tools purchased if additional funding was available

Technologies used at the start of the most recently completed season

Table 2 depicts the technologies and analytical tools that would be purchased if additional funding was available. Facial recognition systems (37.5%), license plate readers (32.5%), RFID staff identification (30%), retractable bollards (27.5%), automated barrier systems (25%), and x-ray scanner capabilities (22.5%) were among the most sought-after resources. “Other” included crowd density software and wait time software. These responses correlate with the least utilized technologies presented above and suggest that such technologies/tools will be used in the future when budgets permit.

Technologies or analytical tools purchased if additional funding was available

TABLE 1

TABLE 2

Editorial Credit: Kent E. Roberts | Shutterstock.com

PATRON SCREENING

Approximately 87.5% of participants stated that their current entry screening checkpoints caused lines to form outside their venues. The average wait time at security checkpoints during the busiest time before an event was less than 10 minutes (75%), followed by 10 –20 minutes (25%). About one-third of participants (32.5%) experienced security incidents between patrons waiting to enter the venue.

Most participants (87.5%) use patron screening technology. Walk-through metal detectors (100%), handheld magnetometers (85.7%), and x-ray scanners (60%) were the most commonly employed technologies (Figure 13). Participants also rated their current patron screening technology as low, basic, or advanced. The majority of respondents (51.4%) considered their patron screening to be basic (using the industry standard but may need something better soon), and 48.6% believe it is advanced (using new technologies now to enhance security screening).

Respondents had the opportunity to indicate what they wished their patron screening technology could do better. Participants ranked the following items from 1 = most important to 5 = least important.

MOST IMPORTANT

1 Get patrons into the venue faster without sacrificing accuracy.

2 Detect prohibited items more accurately.

3 Provide security staff with more intelligence about developing security incidents.

4 Reduce the need for security staff to monitor entrances.

5 Limit the number of false positives.

LEAST IMPORTANT

Participants also expressed the need to improve accuracy in discerning types of weapons and the ability to detect non-metal contraband and detect blood alcohol concentrations (BAC). Other considerations included ticket scanning causing bottlenecks and pushing the screening perimeter further from the venue structure.

Figure 14 highlights screening technologies that respondents would acquire if they were able; facial recognition systems (57.1%), millimeter wave scanners (37.1%), and explosive particle detectors (31.4%) were among the most common.

Only 20% of respondents use artificial intelligence in their security screening, surveillance, or incident response technology (77.5% do not, and 2.5% are unsure). Approximately 62.5% of participants believe that they understand the extent to which artificial intelligence could help their screening, surveillance, or incident response operations.

13

13

What patron screening technology do you currently use?

What patron screening technology do you currently use?

14

Which of the following patron screening technologies would you acquire if you were able to?

14

Which of the following patron screening technologies would you acquire if you were able

Does your venue have a cybersecurity defense program?

CYBERSECURITY

The majority of participants (87.5%) have an active cybersecurity defense program (Figure 15), and 85% provide basic cybersecurity awareness training for fulltime staff. Additionally, 92.5% inform patrons of the secure in-house WiFi networks to use at their venue.

DRONE MITIGATION

The majority of participants (82.5%) have a drone mitigation plan and 82.5% observed or detected unauthorized drone operations in the airspace above or near their venues (Figure 16).

Of the respondents who reported unauthorized drone operations, 45.5% were visually observed, 15.2% were detected through sensor technology, and 39.4% were detected visually and through sensor technology. Drone sightings ranged between 1 to over 10,000 in the last 12 months; 67% of participants detected between 1 – 25 drones during this time period. Unauthorized drone operations interfered with the operations/events at the venues of three respondents, causing one respondent to evacuate or take other protective action.

Does your venue have a cybersecurity defense program?

Have you observed or detected unauthorized drone operations in the airspace above or near your venue?

Have you observed or detected unauthorized drone operations in the airspace above or near your venue?

FIGURE 15

FIGURE 16

FIGURE 15

FIGURE 16

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study aimed to explore professional sports venue security issues, emerging threats, and technology solutions. Staffing and training, fan behavior, technology utilization, patron screening, cybersecurity, and drone mitigation were areas of focus.

The majority of venues contract with a third party for security staff and require background checks on contracted and full-time staff. Many experienced staffing shortages in the last two years, mainly due to COVID-19 and staff not showing up for work. Seventy percent indicated that staff absenteeism has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic. Venue directors took action to mitigate staffing shortages, primarily by increasing the hourly wage. Top training requirements for security staff included venue/event familiarization, prohibited items, fan code of conduct, standard operating procedures, how to operate security technology, and crowd management. Facilitated in-person training was the most common method, followed by table-top exercises.

Most participants believe fan behavior is worse or much worse than it was ten years ago, and 65% indicated that COVID-19 restrictions caused increased tension between patrons and staff. The most common forms of inappropriate fan behavior were alcohol abuse and fights between patrons, while the most concerning behaviors were fights between patrons, violence against staff members, and the use of weapons. All respondents enforce a spectator ejection policy at their venue.

Technology can bolster safety and security efforts when budgets permit acquisition. Frequently used technologies include CCTV, walk-through metal detectors, electronic tickets, stationary bollards, explosive detection canines, and venue signage. Facial recognition software and license plate readers were most likely to be purchased if additional funding was available.

The majority of participants indicated that their current entry screening checkpoints caused lines to form outside their venues. The average wait time at security checkpoints during the busiest time before an event was less than 10 minutes. Approximately one-third of respondents experienced security incidents between patrons waiting to enter the venue. Most participants use patron screening technology, including walk-through metal detectors, handheld magnetometers, and x-ray scanners. Ideally, venue directors want to get patrons inside the venue faster without sacrificing prohibited item detection accuracy. If participants were able to acquire new technology, they would likely purchase facial recognition systems, followed by millimeter wave scanners and explosive particle detectors.

Only 20% of respondents use artificial intelligence in their security screening, surveillance, or incident response technology. However, about two-thirds believe they understand how artificial intelligence can help their security operations.

Most participants have a cybersecurity defense program and provide basic cybersecurity awareness training to full-time staff. In addition, patrons are informed of the secure in-house WiFi networks to use at their venues.

The majority of respondents have a drone mitigation plan and 82.5% observed or detected unauthorized drone operations in the airspace around their venues. Event operations were interrupted on a few occasions, with one instance when an evacuation or protective action was required.

INDUSTRY RECOMMENDATIONS

● Conduct a background check on all staff, especially individuals with access to restricted areas or privy to sensitive information.

● Require de-escalation, crowd management, and active shooter training for event staff.

● Engage with TEAM Coalition or TIPS for alcohol management training and responsible consumer campaigns.

● Offer in-person training supplemented by e-learning programs. Training requirements should be determined for all staff and account for organizational and discipline-specific training needs. Initial and refresher training opportunities should be provided at regular intervals.

● Explore incentives for security staff to increase hiring and retention numbers (i.e., increased hourly wages, rewards program, complimentary food, and discounted ticket prices).

● Clearly communicate venue and spectator policies. For example, patrons should be aware of the fan code of conduct and ejection policy before arriving at the venue. Ensure that behavior policies cover alcohol consumption, acts of violence, and abusive language towards patrons and staff members, as well as the penalties for not following the policies.

● Discuss the feasibility of adding resources with executive leadership, including facial recognition system, license plate reader, RFID staff identification, retractable bollard, automated barrier systems, millimeter wave scanner, and explosive particle detector capabilities.

● Explore patron screening technology options that best fit operational needs and budget.

● Encourage or incentivize early spectator entry to events.

● Promote responsible behavior through dedicated campaigns with the support of league officials and athletes.

● Research artificial intelligence capabilities that can add value to venue security systems.

● Establish a cybersecurity defense program and provide basic cyber hygiene training for staff with access to cyber infrastructure.

● Implement a drone mitigation program and work with local/state authorities on drone intrusion response procedures. Consider using drone detection technology.

● Benchmark with peers and continue to leverage research and industry resources to inform plans, policies, and procedures.

● Consider reviewing the resources listed on the following page.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES

ASIS

Security Publications and Resources

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)

Active Shooter Preparedness

Cyber Essentials

De-escalation Series

Insider Threat Mitigation

Protecting Against the Threat of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)

Public Venue Bag Search Procedures Guide

Public Venue Credentialing Guide

Public Venue Screening Guide and Touchless Screening Annex

Vehicle Ramming Attack Mitigation

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Office of SAFETY Act Implementation

Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-UAS)

Event Safety Alliance (ESA)

ANSI ES1.9-2020 Crowd Management

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Active Shooter Resources

International Association of Venue Managers (IAVM)

Safety and Security Resources

National Center for Spectator Sports Safety and Security (NCS4)

Training and Resources

Stadium Managers Association (SMA)

Education and Resources

Security Industry Association (SIA)

Training and Technology Resources

Techniques for Effective Alcohol Management (TEAM) Coalition

Alcohol Management Training and Responsible Consumer Programs

Training for Intervention ProcedureS (TIPS)

Education and Training for Responsible Service, Sale, and Consumption of Alcohol

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

For further information or additional questions, please contact Dr. Stacey A. Hall, Executive Director, or Dr. Joslyn Zale, Senior Research Associate:

Dr. Stacey A. Hall

Dr. Joslyn Zale

NCS4 Executive Director Senior Research Associate

Professor of Sport Management

Email: Stacey.A.Hall@usm.edu Email: Joslyn.Zale@usm.edu

Ryan Kavanaugh, NCS4 Graduate Assistant, contributed to this report.

THANK YOU

Thank you to the NCS4 staff and affiliated research fellows. A special thanks to Sara Priebe, NCS4 Event and Membership Manager, for her work on the graphic design of this report.

This report was made available with the support of the NCS4 Technology Alliance.

National Center for Spectator Sports Safety and Security

The University of Southern Mississippi

NCS4.USM.EDU

COPYRIGHT