Subscribe to RSS - Jeffrey Hawkins

Jeffrey Hawkins

After The Incident: The Crisis Management Team

 - 
Friday, January 25, 2013
Jeffrey A. Hawkins
American Military University

Over the last 30 years, several incidents stick out in my mind that either happened at institutions where I was chief security officer or happened to close colleagues. All taught me valuable lessons that are applicable to all organizations.

In one incident, a tragic accident happened in a public venue on a very busy summer Saturday afternoon. A young teen was killed in a fall in front of dozens of people, many children. It was a horrific scene. My colleague, who was on his way to a ballgame with his son, was called in.

My colleague told me after the incident that he had many security and emergency plans in place prior to the incident, but was taken by surprise when the captain of the fire department on the scene told him that he better get some counselors in for all the people that witnessed the death. My colleague told me that, being in a major city, he had alwayts assumed first responders would have people to contact for that type of thing. He never thought that would be his responsibility.

In another incident, a U.S- based research company was contacted by one of its employees. One of the helicopters the company had hired went down in a Peruvian jungle, most likely with fatalities, what should be done? The president of the organization, who later readily admitted that there were no plans in place for something like this, was suddenly faced with many critical decisions and actions to take. Who notifies the families? How do you get the bodies back to the United States? Who should go to Peru to handle the situation, if anyone, and who pays for all these expenses?

Shortly after, that company established a Crisis Management Team.

Security, law enforcement and first responders spend a lot of time trying to develop and implement ways to prevent incidents—from accidents to acts of violence—from happening, as well as how to respond quickly and efficiently when they do.

The fact of the matter is that security is never 100 percent. and incidents will continue to happen, be it at a school, church, corporate office or mall. All organizations must have a CMT in place, trained and ready to handle whatever may happen to or within their organization.

Often, organizations think their security team is the CMT. That could not be further from the truth.  Security personnel may be part of the CMT, but they are not the team itself.

The CMT handles an incident after it occurs and is generally given the authority to act quickly without having to contact executives or boards of directors, etc. This is a critical piece. The CMT must be given the authority to act, whether that means making public statements, dealing with authorities, making operational decisions or spending money.

The optimal CMT is usually small, about five people, with back-ups for each position. The members include representatives from human resources, finance, legal, facilities and security departments. These may be direct employees or may be outside contractors, especially in the areas of legal, insurance and finance.

What the CMT may have to handle is only limited by one's imagination. It may include everything from a fire. a death due to violence or medical problem, to a kidnapping, domestically or abroad.

Regularly scheduled tabletop exercises, from start to finish, is the best training team-members can receive. Coming up with scenarios is as simple as reading today's headlines and putting your organization in that situation. There will be many things that were never thought of, like counselors for children on a Saturday afternoon.

But this is the time to find out what you don't know, before an actual incident occurs.

Jeffrey A. Hawkins is manager, strategic initiatives for the private security sector, at American Military University. He has more than 30 years of experience as a public safety/security professional.
 

Topic: 

"Guard" versus "Officer": What's your view?

 - 
Monday, June 4, 2012

What's the difference between a security guard and a security officer?

I'm sure many people have their opinions on this question. I heard one reader's opinion a few weeks ago after I wrote a blog post, "Security as customer service: Why not recruit guards from the hospitality sector," about how Jim Birch, security director at the Comcast Center office building in Philadelphia, had recruited from the local hospitality sector for his staff of "security ambassadors."

Within the post, I used the terms security "officer" and security "guard" interchangeably, something this commenting reader—a security professional for one of the major guard companies—took me to task for. "I find most security 'officers' working in the public arena resent being referred to as 'guards', they/we don’t work in prisons and jails," this reader wrote. "Seldom do we just guard something, we patrol, interact with people, observe and report."

He told me the Comcast Center's "security ambassadors" were likely "not smiling" at my article and closed with a tip for me. "I believe if you want to gain respect and a following you might want to avoid demeaning your audience," he wrote.

I take reader comments seriously. Feedback is crucial in helping me improve SDN and guide how I cover the security profession so I'm delivering the most value to my readers. So I wanted to know if I had, in fact, inadvertently demeaned my audience. I asked Jeffrey Hawkins, American Military University's manager of strategic initiatives for the private security sector, about the different terms and where the discussion is within the profession. "I think there are some people in the industry that do not like the term 'guard,' feeling that is an outdated title, one that demeans the position by creating the image of the old-time security guard that slept in a factory in between doing rounds, mostly to make sure there were no fires in the building," Hawkins wrote in an email. However, "If you look at the actual Webster’s definition, the term 'guard' is actually more applicable to what security personnel do 'to protect'; the definition 'officer' is defined as one with police authority."

Hawkins believes security professionals have abandoned the traditional definitions of "guard" and "officer" and developed their own interpretations. "My feeling is there are still 'security guards' and there is nothing wrong with that; I think of these folks who are generally at a fixed location and oversees the protection of an object, or area, or certain point of access. I feel 'officer' is probably more applicable to uniformed security personnel who patrol and perform more 'police-like' functions."

However, the terms are not universal. "Many states still classify the security industry personnel as 'guards,' so it is still widely used and will probably be a long time, if ever, before it is not associated with the security industry."

What's your opinion? Are the words interchangeable? Is the term "guard" a stumbling block along the path to increasing the professionalism of security?

Whatever you think, it's clear I need to be more sensitive to the issue and more careful with my word choice in the future.

Churches urged to 'look within' to enhance security

 - 
01/11/2010

CINCINNATI, Ohio—A study released in January found that there were more than1,200 crimes against churches across the country in 2009, ranging in severity from vandalism to violent crimes. This is the first year this study has been conducted.