Page 34 - Campus Security & Life Safety, July/August 2019

Why Your Risk Management Plan
Can’t Work in Silos
By Danielle Myers
risk management
Siloed systems inhibit security solutions from performing effectively
Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock.com
34
campuslifesecurity.com | JULY/AUGUST 2019
"When it comes to schools' risk management, many implement safety technologies reactively,
Iratherthanproactively."
magine trying to watch TV with one remote designated to powering it on, another solely for adjusting volume, another for changing the channel, and so on. Individually, they’re all techni-
cally useful and are necessary for watching television, but their lack of unity and ease of use would greatly decrease anyone’s experi-
ence watching television—and maybe stop them from watching television altogether.
This concept also applies to a schools’ risk management plan. Many schools have imple- mented security cameras, alarm systems, door locks, and other safety and security technolo- gy, but because they are siloed systems, they don’t work efficiently or effectively towards the main goal of keeping the school safe.
Be Proactive, Not Reactive
When it comes to risk management, there is one major issue that is consistently seen across the board in schools: reactivity. When it comes to schools' risk management, many implement safety technologies reactively, rather than proactively. For example, if there is an incident in which someone enters a school unauthorized, after the incident, the
school’s reactionary response may be to install security cameras. While it is an understandable solution from the stand- point of wanting more of a visual sense of what is happening inside the building, it leaves little to no action people can take to control the situation—they can simply watch it unfold.
In reality, once the cameras are installed, more often than not, nothing further hap- pens. Although they took a great first step in implementing a new technology system to provide them with valuable information, that information by itself isn’t helpful because it typically doesn’t end up going anywhere.
The security cameras are only a superfi- cial fix to the original problem, rather than being a functioning part of an entire risk management plan. For instance, let’s look at the situation one step further. After the cameras are installed, what is the plan when someone else attempts to enter the school? This creates another level of accountability, as someone must always be watching the live video feed to wait for an incident to occur (the only other option is to review the recording after an incident has already taken place, which by then is too late). Add- ing the cameras only created another role for someone to fill, and even if that role is filled, that doesn’t mean they are actually prepared to deal with another incident. These reactionary responses may seem like a solution, but they don’t actually contribute to the overall risk management plan, and rather lead to a dead end.
Let’s take a look at another potential sce- nario: Say a security guard is hired or is given the responsibility for watching the video feed as outlined above, and he/she sees an unau- thorized user attempting to enter the build- ing. What is their next step? They can either decide what to do on their own or leave the camera feed to go tell someone what they’ve seen. Neither option is sufficient. The secu- rity guard will either have to leave the situa- tion unattended, or instead be forced to