Page 92 - Security Today, October 2019

"While no technology or planning will ever eliminate active shooter threats, it can significantly shorten the duration and lessen the impact of the event.”
By Thomas W. Connell II
Confronting Active Shooters
Five tips for implementing shot detection technology
securing campuses
According to a recent report from the DOJ and FBI, there were 27 active shooter incidents in the United States in 2018, resulting in 85 deaths and 128 inju- ries. Of these incidents, 16 occurred in business environments, five occurred in educational build- ings and two occurred in healthcare facilities.
These situations are differentiated from other gun-related situa- tions because the FBI recognizes that in an active shooter situation, law enforcement and citizens have the potential to affect the outcome based on their responses. To aid law enforcement response and help reduce the impact of incidents, security and life safety technology providers have recently started offering gunshot detection systems.
Today’s schools, businesses and healthcare campuses are employ- ing indoor shot detection to reduce or eliminate delays and errors common in victim- or witness-initiated responses to active shooter incidents. Adding this technology to a campus life safety system can help shorten the duration of an active shooter event.
While an active shooter incident is something that everyone hopes never occurs, all campuses should have a response plan and the tech- nology to deal with the situation appropriately and quickly. In order to select and implement the most suitable technology for a building or campus, it is important to consider the following five suggestions.
1. Choose the System Most Appropriate for Your Building Layout
Some shot detection systems use single-factor acoustic verification to detect gunshots. Acoustic detection uses sensors to capture a sound. Then, it develops an acoustic signature and uses computer-based sig- nal processing to validate if the sound is a gunshot. This data is then used to determine the precise location of the shot.
Other systems use multi-factor authentication, where two or more sensing technologies are grouped together. These technologies can include the acoustic signature from a muzzle blast and/or from the shockwave of a bullet passing through the sensor field, changes in barometric pressure triggered by a shockwave, an optical flash/infra- red signature from the ignition of explosive gasses in the ammunition propellant and comparison of the acoustic signature against an audio library of previously recorded gunshots.
Unfortunately, multi-factor authentication can fail to recognize an active shooter event if one type of detection is not authenticated due to the configuration of the space. For example, if an active shooter system requires both acoustic and muzzle flash authentication, wall sensors will pick up the gunshot, but muzzle flash may be masked by partitions or walls separating cubicles, offices or classrooms. While acoustic sensors can detect sound through walls and corners, infra- red sensors can only pick up flashes within its line of sight.
2. Understand the Potential for False Alarms
The goal of multi-factor authentication is to reduce the number of
false alarms by providing dual—or even triple—sound authentica- tion. However, it can be a costlier solution because more sensors may need to be used. There is always the potential for false alarms regard- less of the technology employed. There are single-factor systems with a lower false alarm frequency than some multi-factor systems in the marketplace today. It’s important to discuss the potential with the system providers and ask them how, and against what conditions and catalysts, their systems have been tested.
With single-factor acoustic detection, computer-based signal pro- cessing helps increase precision by analyzing a sound to determine if it’s an actual gunshot or just another sound with similar characteris- tics. For example, a cymbal crash from a drum set, which could be found in the music department of many campuses, has been found to trigger false alarms. Ongoing testing allows developers to refine algo- rithms and rule out these potential false alarms.
It is also important to consider that not every false alarm is neces- sarily a bad thing. In fact, it is arguably preferable to react to a false alarm than to have a system fail to identify an actual gunshot.
3. Know Best Practices for Sensor Placement
Acoustic sensors are most frequently mounted in ceilings or on walls. The range of sensors varies by manufacturer and depends on the acoustical characteristics in the space, like reverberation and sound absorption properties. Even the shooter’s body can create an acoustic shadow when shooting forward with their back facing the sensor.
While there is no limit to the number of sensors that can be placed throughout a building, budget concerns are forcing campus facility managers to focus their investment on placing sensors only in poten- tially high-target areas.
Some recommend placing sensors in areas where large numbers of people congregate like cafeterias, gymnasiums or auditoriums. How- ever, this is not necessarily where the first shots take place. Other variables, including building access, approach, motive and the shoot- er's actions all play into the location of the first shots. Entryways and hallways may be the most effective areas to detect first shots.
It is important to note that system design will never be able to cover 100 percent of a building. This technology should be part of a comprehensive campus safety plan developed by security profession- als.When determining what system will best fit your requirements, ensure the technology provider gives you a clear system design illus- trating areas of coverage. Above all, involve your local law enforce- ment and stakeholder emergency response agencies in the decision- making process.
4. Pick System Offering Communication with First Responders
Active shooter events present numerous challenges for first respond- ers and emergency staff. Communication of escalating events between 911 and witnesses can be both confusing and erratic, which
20 campuslifesecurity.com | SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2019