Breakout Session: Protecting Clients, Staff, and Property Through Security Assessment and Prevention

The breakout session on Prevention-Protecting Clients, Staff, and Property Through Security Assessment and Prevention focused upon creating a safer environment for students to live and work, as well as for staff to perform their duties. Another area of focus was to identify campus security needs and ways of meeting these needs through police/security assessment and strategic planning. These areas were selected based on input obtained from Consortium Center staff collected through a training needs survey instrument. This track session also reflects content gleaned from General Session presentations on Emergency Preparedness and Response to Natural and Man-made Disasters. The goals identified for this track session include:

• Recognizing the critical necessity of communication between clients, staff, management, and emergency responders.
• Creating and maintain policies, procedures, and staff and student education to advance the security of the center.
• Establishing linkages between NCSOCRC Centers to provide an on-going dialogue pertaining to best practices.
• Ensure frequent and meaningful educational opportunities for clients and staff on specific preventative procedures to enhance safety and security of students, staff, visitors, and property.
• Ensure education on preventative procedures is approached from both the Awareness and Operational levels.

Track session presenters provided operational levels of prevention and engaged participants in identifying similarities and differences in consortium Centers in terms of practices, resources, and environment. In addition, presenters provided information and "best practices" models regarding their prevention processes at their respective Centers. David Berg, Program Coordinator for the Center for Bioterrorism and Disaster Preparedness at the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, provided insight into how to manage Bioterrorism threats. Track session presenters included the following:

• Chief Ronald F. Richardson, (Facilitator) Woodrow Wilson Rehab Center, Virginia
• Chief Drew Hall, Workforce and Technology Center, Maryland
• David Beach, Carl D. Perkins Comprehensive Rehabilitation Center, Kentucky
• Chief Ben Eubanks, Roosevelt Warm Springs Institute for Rehabilitation, Georgia
• David Berg, Center for Bioterrorism and Disaster Preparedness at the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA

Recorder for the session was Michael Kelly, Woodrow Wilson Rehabilitation Center, Virginia.

Top of page

A. Discussion and Highlights

Discussion highlights included identification of similarities among consortium Centers in terms of preventative measures, resources, and security assessments. In addition, identification at differences among consortium Center are highlighted as to existing practices, resources, and operations that have a direct impact upon security and prevention outcomes.

Similarities

• Consortium Centers approach prevention from a pro-active stance educating clients and staff about Prevention through a variety of modes - written materials, oral presentations, internet, staff meetings and orientations, guest speakers with particular areas of expertise.
• The role of police/security is well defined.
• Maintain databases of criminal and non-criminal incidents.
• Implementation emergency drills is practiced at all Centers.
• Keen observation of the campus through foot, bicycle, and vehicle patrols is maintained.
• Yearly needs assessments to include statistical data of criminal incidents at each locality. WWRC being the pioneer in this endeavor by implementing this strategy for the past two years.
• Police/Security build a positive rapport with clients and staff, generating a trust which promotes mutual cooperation on issues of safety and prevention.
• Procedures to handle issues resulting from the transport of clients.
• Procedures relating to when it is appropriate to call in Campus Police and when civilian staff should handle interventions.

Top of page

Differences

• Size of departments and financial resources.
• Differing state laws and regulations governing center activity.
• Differing roles of police/security - therapeutic (institutional) policing versus standard community policing.
• Organizational structure of departments and organizational structure as related to the Centers.
• Differences relating to state of the art communication systems - cameras, public address systems, Center radios, Center telephones.
• Differences referencing Security use of pepper spray or mace without having the complete "Force Continuum" to use in the event of further escalation of violence.
• Differences in the manner in which Security personnel are trained.
• Differences in the frequency of preventative drills and scenarios.
• The use of an "Observation Unit" in the event that a client cannot be immediately transported away from the Center.
• The maintenance of "consistency" in dealing with serious incidents.
• First Responder plans for dealing with threats of domestic violence to insure the immediate protection of staff and clients from threats coming from within or from outside of the Center.
• Rural vs. urban locations and issues relating to EMS response times.
• Varying degrees of "partnering" with other Centers and community Agencies.
• Shelter in place plans versus evacuation from Center plans.
• Drug testing of staff and students.
• Crisis management programs such as mandate, cpi, and tova.
• Uniformed versus non-uniformed security and cost factors involved in converting from security to police.
• Assessments from outside entities such as Homeland Security.

B. Challenges Facing Rehabilitation Centers in Maintaining and Improving Security and Prevention Practices

Participants identified numerous current challenges facing Centers.

• Adequate funding for "best practices" implementation.
• Determining cost/benefit ratios for programs, staff, equipment, etc.
• Merging "police roles" into an institutional format.
• Relating training of Police/Security to departmental needs, organizational goals, and overall mission.
• Staff resistance to change.
• Change in response to client populations.
• Resistance to the carrying of weapons by Police personnel.
• Serving clients with criminal histories.

Top of page

C. Effective Practices Currently Utilized in Maintaining the Safety and Security of Students, Staff, and Property

Presentations by Chief Drew Hall, Mr. David Beach, Chief Ben Eubanks, and Mr. David Berg demonstrated that many truly effective practices are already being implemented by our consortium Centers. Some are extremely simplistic and do not require large amounts of funding to adopt. Others would require more staff, equipment, training, organization, and funding to be successfully adopted and implemented by other Centers. These effective practices include the following:

• Issuing staff and client Identification Cards and requiring their use.
• Trees and shrubs well maintained and trimmed back away from buildings and Walkways.
• Parking lots and walkways having appropriate lighting.
• State of the art communication systems - public address systems, Center radio systems, Center telephone systems.
• Crime prevention and awareness pamphlets, as well as a variety of informational pamphlets ranging from date rape, personal safety, wellness and other safety and prevention topics.
• State of the art camera surveillance of walkways, buildings, parking lots.
• Close working relationships between Police/Security and Student Government to publish a weekly/monthly newsletter discussing safety issues and giving prevention tips.
• Training for Police/Security staff on an ongoing basis.
• Encouragement of prompt, accurate reporting of crimes or suspicious incidents. Any phone on campus may be used. NO COINS REQUIRED. Pay phones are equipped to reach country-wide 911 emergency system which connects you to all law enforcement agencies, emergency medical services, and fire departments.
• Sufficient Police/Security Staffing 24/7, 365 days per year.
• Prohibiting the illegal use, production, manufacture, sale, distribution and/or possession of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances on campus. Having Field Narcotics Kits on hand with certified staff inside and outside the Police/Security Departments being certified to use them.

• Coordination of Dorm Staff, Recreation Staff, and Police/Security Staff to provide alternative recreational activities - both structured and unstructured - for clients during hours of the day when there are no classes or appointments.
• Frequent and consistent safety drills covering a variety of potential incidents and emergency preparedness.
• Police/Security being visible to staff and students, and establishing a good rapport which engenders trust and cooperation.
• Codes/Alerts for contacting staff in times of emergency.
• Careful placement and paring of students in residential living accommodations.

Top of page

D. Recommendations

1. Centers are encouraged to review and utilize aforementioned effective practices for implementation in Centers where such practices do not exist.

2. Each Center should carefully canvas the extended community, assessing potential dangers and formulating contingency plans for meeting emergency situations resulting from these assessments. Some EXAMPLES:

• being located in an area where major Interstates meet - could be an intersecting point for drug distribution and a drug related criminal presence.
• being located close to major railroad lines or major highways where toxic chemical spills could happen.
• being located in an area where statistics indicate a high level of poverty which studies show would likely be a "high crime" area.
• being located in a large geographical political unit where emergency services are stretched thin, increasing response time to a Center in need.

3. In conjunction with the NC-SOCRC, identify individuals to assume the responsibility of developing multi-agency minimum security training guidelines.

• utilize Police and Security Chiefs in consortium facilities.
• research available security guidelines and manuals.
• partner with state criminal justice agencies to get their input
• utilize Consortium training academy.

4. Establish periodic video-conferencing for Consortium members.

• Centers should designate people to take a lead role in facilitating video conferences as relates to date, time, facilities, and technical set-up. Designated individuals could be Directors or other assigned personnel. Lori Epic will be the liaison for WWRC.
• Video conferences should be held each month to discuss progress Consortium members have made in their quest to implement identified "effective practices" and review pertinent security issues.

5. Centers who have Police Departments connect with those who are interested in exploring the possibility of having a sworn Police Department.

6. A Communications study should be completed at each Center to insure adequate communications systems are in place and functional.

7. Centers should ensure that frequent and specific training is provided to staff and students, as well as specific emergency response procedures incorporated into Center Crisis Response and Emergency Preparedness Plans concerning the following emergency situations:

• Bomb Threats
• Fires
• Unauthorized Guests
• Assault by Intruders
• WMD Terrorist Threats
• Bioterrorism Threats
• Domestic Violence Threats from Within and Outside the Center
• Other Disaster Preparedness activities as determined appropriate

Staff and Student education should be approached from both Awareness and Operational levels.

Top of page

---