by Garret Macrine
1. These institutions want to operate on an “open campus” platform in an effort to foster an atmosphere of invitation to newcomers, welcoming guests and acceptance. In parallel they open them selves up to vulnerabilities from bad actors who look for soft targets.
2. Many decision makers are averse to having anyone in a uniform on campus, as teenagers often avoiding authority figures. In the mean time unarmed “guards” provide little actual effect on outcomes of emergency situations of a violent nature.
3. Funding is often spoken for and allocated to other programs that are more palatable then active threat training. Only after a heinous act are people willing to accept the reality of our society.
4. There is no set standardization or official governing body for emergency procedures and enforced implementation. Outside of the fire martial the only other source provided by the government is a resource officer, which has its own limitations as we have seen.
5. Most threat assessments provided for free by the local police department or DHS representative are far to generic in nature and do little to address the details of any one specific institution making the request. Further they lack any specific guidance on how to allocate resources and design with security in mind. This is nonetheless an attractive option because it is readily available, free and accessible.
Garret Macrine will present on “Israeli Security Best Practices for Law Enforcement and Physical Security Professionals,” at GSX in September.