Serious About Security
Paying Attention to What We Protect and How
It may take generations for the emotional impact of September 11, 2001 to fade from national memory. Yet it took only that one unimaginable day for the concept of "security" to acquire new meaning and gain greater visibility.
Reaction was swift following the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. All manner of existing security measures were called into question. Tougher controls were rushed into place at airport checkpoints. Questions were posed about designing terrorist-proof buildings. Emergency response plans were dusted off and rewritten.
The devastation of September 11 focused people on the need to have extraordinary protections in place. But are government entities and individuals overreacting to security threats? Is there a balanced approach to protecting buildings and the people who use them? What should we be protecting and how?
Answers, in part, come from professionals who make it their business to spot and close safety and security loopholes. Suddenly in demand, their input is proving critical in the public and private sector.
Randall Atlas, an architect and criminologist; W. Douglas Fitzgerald, a security consultant; Isaac Atkins Jr., an industrial hygienist; and William Hagness, a law enforcement professional, are among these experts. They view society's altered landscape as a chance to solve some less-sensational, long-ignored security problems.
Rethinking Today's Threats
There is no question that deadly high-profile terrorist actions take a heavy toll. Talk of designing buildings that can withstand the impact of a plane or a bomb raises staggering issues of structure, scale, materials, and more.
It is the "more" that concerns the security professionals.
They insist that people who design, build, own, and manage everything from nuclear power plants to large office blocks must rethink the way they view all threats to safety.
"The price we are paying now is because, in infrastructure and other areas, we've fallen short on meeting even the minimum requirements for safe, secure facilities," claims Douglas Fitzgerald, a security and countermeasure planner who cut his teeth on designing security for U.S. State Department buildings here and abroad. He is currently senior vice president and director of security technology for HDR Architecture Security and Technology Group based in Orlando, Florida.
Fitzgerald cites slipshod protection of hazardous materials, bridges, power plants, and other essential facilities as examples of weak points in the nation's security. "Part of the panic is the need to reinvent our approach to making existing structures safe and to do it in a way that does not serve as early notification that something is wrong."
Isaac Atkins, manager of health-based building forensics investigations for HDR Engineering in Houston, Texas, and formerly a director of occupational health policy for the United States Department of Defense, notes that state and municipal governments spent more than $1 billion after September 11 to protect critical infrastructure. Estimates of another $2.1 billion spent in 2002 is recognition of how unprepared the country was to ensure public safety.
A scenario of leaking chlorine tank cars or other widespread hazard may seem overly dramatic. However, such incidents are more likely to happen than people realize, says Fitzgerald. These are threats, along with workplace violence, assault, theft, vandalism, and accidents due to faulty construction or poor maintenance, that pose a greater daily risk to most Americans than a terrorist attack.
Statistics tell the story. Although civilian targets have been hit in greater numbers since the mid-90s, until the 2001 attack, the impact of U.S.-based terrorism annually averaged 30 people killed and180 people wounded.
In contrast, death by homicide is the third leading cause of fatal injury on the job in the U.S., accounting for 11 percent of workplace fatalities in 2000. Non-fatal assaults at work averaged 1.7 million a year in the 1990s. Eighteen percent of all violent crimes, including rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, are committed while the victim is at work.
Expectations: Redefining Safe and Secure
Fitzgerald and other experts see the recent sweeping response to security issues as an opening to redefine the meaning of "safe and secure," mitigating these more common threats. However, it may be a narrow opening.
Bill Hagness, deputy chief of police with the Wisconsin Capitol Police in Madison, says the initial attitude of "unreasonable expectation"—demanding that authorities do whatever it takes to be secure—has subsided over the past 10 months. Hagness has extensive experience in crime control and critical incident situations and is responsible for monitoring and developing an array of security and surveillance strategies for state government.
In 30 years of policing, Hagness says he has seen such heightened concern before and its aftermath. The result each time produces only incremental upgrades in basic building security.
"A precipitating event always sensitizes the public, and we hear stern calls for security improvements," Hagness says. Measures are taken, he adds, but never enough and seldom with a clear focus on the most likely threats to safety.
"The public starts to forget their fear, and suddenly the pressure is off the building designers and security forces who really should stay concerned longer and continue to make the necessary changes."
Building Against Threats
Architects—and the consultants who advise them—may hold an important key. They are in the vanguard of prevention, generating designs for new and existing buildings that are safer and more secure.
Randy Atlas, a registered architect, criminologist, and certified protection professional, sees it as an architect's duty to design buildings for the health, safety, and welfare of the people who use them. After all, he says, they routinely implement ADA accessibility requirements and fire safety standards. "Designing to protect people against crime, workplace violence, and acts of terrorism is no less important."
Atlas, who is president of Counter Terror Design, Inc., and vice president of Atlas Safety and Security Design, Inc., both based in Miami, Florida, says that designing for safety must be the standard of care for architects and engineers anxious to avoid litigation.
A strong proponent of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), Atlas believes building design serves as one of the first protections. Architects alert to security issues, he notes, make conscious choices in their designs. They avoid obscuring sight lines with an artful curving wall. They do not add refinements that are vulnerable to vandalism. Moreover, they never isolate a parking lot.
Those choices need not be heavy-handed or intrusive, he says. Security precautions incorporated in the design process can be as understated as they are effective.
Atlas and Fitzgerald emphasize that building against security threats begins with site selection. Locate a structure where it meets architectural requirements, they say, but also where it is secure without succumbing to a bunker mentality.
Experienced in advising clients and colleagues on hard-core security issues, the experts point to a list of strategies they consider relevant against workplace violence as well as terrorism.
- Design safety and security into new buildings.
Do it early, says Atlas, and solutions will fit in rather than fight function and form. - Hire a safety/security professional to evaluate plans or building layouts.
An outside expert can identify security shortcomings and recommend improvements. Even the wrong vehicle access can compromise a building, says Fitzgerald. - Conduct a vulnerability assessment.
Industrial sites or utilities that store hazardous substances must know their vulnerabilities, says Atkins, and then revamp the facility to protect against probable risk. - Survey potential users of a building about their security concerns.
Documenting concerns and anxieties in the target population of users can highlight possible security problems. Since making people feel safe is a prime security principle, suggests Hagness, we need to know what frightens them. - Maintain facilities in safe condition.
Neglect of malfunctioning locks, broken lights, and other facility safeguards invites trouble. - Install or upgrade appropriate security systems.
Fitzgerald defines effective electronic security measures as "unbreachable" and always up-to-date. Proximity card systems, security cameras, duress alarms, and other tools need to be working and understood by building users. - Create enforceable policies and procedures.
Official guidelines that respond to known or suspected problems, including work-rule violations and zero tolerance for workplace threats, are invaluable. - Develop emergency plans, test them, and keep them current.
Like policies, a plan of action for emergencies is essential to keep people on their toes and, as important, to create confidence in building security. Atkins suggests industrial workers should know about safe material storage and decontamination procedures. - Communicate the truth about genuine threats.
The more employees and building visitors know about whom or what might threaten their security, says Hagness, the more prepared they are to react accordingly. - Educate everyone about security systems and policies.
Knowledge really is power here. Employees or building residents who know how to use the system will support it rather than try to defeat it. - Train key people to be alert and capable of taking action.
Atlas observes that a well-trained employee can defuse a threatening situation and is less vulnerable to potential violence.
Balancing Security and Design
Any realistic plan to build security into office towers, shopping malls, and government buildings must strike a balance between proactive and reactive. While putting up barricades and installing more checkpoints may be an understandable response to attack, in the light of day, security design must be credible without keeping people away.
"It is said that only courageous people live in a free society," remarks Hagness. "We must be willing to take some chances, accept some risk."
According to Hagness, preventing danger short of closing every street and public building requires teamwork. "The people responsible for security must interact with builders and designers, tell them what is needed."
Fitzgerald agrees building designers must be informed of security concerns and possible threats related to the structures they are designing. But not, he cautions, at the expense of their creativity or a functional building.
"Use adequate setbacks for a glass building, for instance, but don't stop using glass," he advises. "Rather than ring the building with Jersey barricades, build landscaping that serves the same purpose without being so obvious."
Strategic siting of a new building to minimize the chance of attack, a lobby design that subtly controls access to interior spaces, ventilation systems that can be shut down to isolate a contaminated area are all useful countermeasures. But they are only as good as the commitment of building owners and users to maximize such protections. As Atlas suggests, a structure can be secure, functional, and aesthetically satisfying, but smart design is a waste if the people who work, shop, or do business inside do not take the rules seriously.
Legitimate building users need to learn why certain security procedures are necessary and how to comply. "Without it, they become the weakest link in a security system," Fitzgerald says, drawing a comparison with employees and others trained to spot suspicious activity and take notice of things that don't seem right.
Does Preparedness Pay Off?
Not long before September 11, the experts say, it was difficult to persuade those in charge of public and private infrastructure that greater protections were needed. There is less resistance to the idea now, notes Fitzgerald, and the challenge is to help people take reasonable care with genuine rather than overblown risks.
Heightened interest in designing impenetrable structures and installing complex security systems may alter the impact of future terrorist attacks. In the view of security professionals trained to see past the spectacular, it is equally important to protect against workplace crimes and accidents.
Atlas, Hagness, Fitzgerald, and Atkins were featured recently in a new course on the topic, Planning Against Today's Threats, one of many continuing education courses offered by the Department of Engineering Professional Development at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Learn more by visiting our Courses. Or call 800-462-0876.
Sources: OSHA online archive; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; CIA Directorate of Intelligence; Wall Street Journal.
Written by Mary Maher
This article is based upon work supported by the University of Wisconsin–Madison Department of Engineering Professional Development. It is for general information and distribution. It is not intended to provide specific solutions or advice for specific circumstances, which should be sought from appropriate professionals.