Risk and Security LLC

Risk Assessments, Training and More

This content shows Simple View

Fort Hood Shootings

Why We Need to Switch to a Risk-Based Security Model – School Stabbing at Franklin Regional, Active Shooter Incidents at Fort Hood (twice), LAX, and The Washington Navy Yard.

When I turned on the news today, I was in the middle of writing an article on the 2nd Shooting
at Ft. Hood from last week, and then saw that there had been a violent knife attack at a
Pennsylvania high school, with 20 casualties and at least eight injured critically, the next day,
there was a hate crime shooting at the Jewish community center in Overland Park, Kansas.

Once again, we see violence on a mass scale, the FBI has been brought in, and next will come
information on the victims.   With two major events, in two weeks, what can we deduce about the
security in place at both Franklin Regional High School, Pennsylvania, and Fort Hood, Texas.

        NEWS FLASH:   THE CURRENT SECURITY MODEL IS NOT WORKING!

CURRENT SECURITY MODELS

Disaster preparedness is improving,  Emergency Management is working, but security is
still not where it needs to be.  It is a systemic problem based on the fact that security around
the U.S. is still locked in a REACTIVE mode, not a PROACTIVE mode.

The main reason for this reactive mode in security organizations, is because most security
officers come from a law enforcement background, with a model which is based on crimes
and arrests, and it is totally REACTIVE.  A crime happens and police officers go into action
and arrest the perpetrator(s).

CRIME HAPPENS    =    PERP IS IDENTIFIED    =   PERP IS ARRESTED

Unfortunately, this reactive model does not work for preventing security incidents and mass violence
because it is INCIDENT DRIVEN, not Risk-Driven.  It focuses on individuals, not on a more holistic,
generalized view of Threats, and it totally leaves Solutions (Controls) out of the equation.

After studying pages of after action reviews, post-incident analyses and media sources, the one
recommendation that makes sense is that organizations need to switch to a RISK-BASED,
PROACTIVE mode for security to work
.

This was highlighted in a remark made by a Pentagon official, commenting on the 2nd Fort Hood
Shooting on April 2, and the fact that new DOD recommendations for security, had just been released.

“After the Navy Yard shooting in September 2013, another round of recommendations were made
to improve security at all DOD installations, however, a  Pentagon official said that the new
recommendations had not yet been put into effect at Fort Hood.
 At Fort Hood, very little 
had
changed from 2009
regarding security procedures for soldiers at the entrance gates.”

The question for the Department of Defense is “how could this happen again at the same military
base?  
I took extra time to study the 89-page document called An Independent Review “Protecting
the Force
”, one of 3 reports created after the initial Fort Hood Shooting, whene 13 were killed, and
43 injured.

If you look at the recommendations, they are very bureaucratic and procedural.  They could have
been written by an efficiency expert, not by anyone with a background in security, and covered things
like policy changes, and having screening for clergy and psychologists, and improved mental health
programs.   These are all important, but they do not provide a secure environment.

The LAX after action analysis’ Number One recommendation was to change
the security focus to a Risk-Based approach
.

 


RISK-BASED SECURITY

The problem with a reactive approach is that you can’t screen and lock down everyone. At Fort
Hood, for example, there are 80,000 individuals living on the base, and probably hundreds of
visitors who go in and out every day.  It’s impossible to assess the mental health, and the
‘intentions’ of all of them.

FortHoodAmbulances-Medium

That’s why a Risk-Based Approach works – because it focuses on the potential threats and then evaluates the existing controls to see whether they offer the required amount of protection based on the likelihood of the threat occurring.

You stop violent events by controlling access and by controlling weapons.  No matter how unpopular they are, you use metal detectors at certain points, you use security officers at key entrances, you control entrances and exits.

Once the event starts, you can improve security by having faster notification (panic alarms), ability
to block, or disable weapons and attackers, adequate transport, better emergency response, but to
avoid the violence, you need to have strong access control.

The Risk-Based approach makes use of annual risk assessments that are holistic in nature. They
are not done in stovepipes, they include the entire organizations, they include input from staff
members, visitors, students, vendors, soldiers, patients on how they see security from their point
of view, which is always dramatically different from management or administration.

A risk-based approach requires an organization to:

  • Define potential security risks.
  • Develop standardized risk assessment processes, for gathering and
    analyzing information, and use of analytical technology
  • Risk-Based Security focuses on PREVENTION OF NEW INCIDENTS
    whether they are active shooter, general violence, etc.
  • Enhances security’s ability to rapidly respond  to changes in the threat environment.

MORE BANG FOR THE BUCK

According the LAX (LAWA) after action report, “Simply adding more security does not
necessarily provide better security.
  Determining priorities and where to achieve great
value for the dollars invested requires regular, systematic assessment of the likelihood
and consequences (risks) associated with a range of threat scenarios that morph and
change more quickly now than ever before. 

Collaborative engagement in a security risk assessment process across the community builds
the buy-in needed to develop and sustain a holistic security program over time. Leaders must
be open to challenging established practices and demonstrate a willingness to change direction”
.

Making the switch to a Risk-Based security program is the best recommendation for those who
want to protect their staff, students, patients, vendors, clients, soldiers, and visitors from a mass
casualty event, or for all the organizations who don’t want to have a terrible incident happen in
the first place!

 Caroline Hamilton, friend of Patty Garitty (Soup Kitchen voluteer)

Caroline Ramsey-Hamilton

President, Risk and Security LLC

Caroline@riskandsecurityllc.com

 

www.securityinfowatch.com/blogs

www.riskandsecurityllc.com



What Went Wrong at Fort Hood? Another Active Shooter?

RISK Alert  Alert  #530 –  Fort Hood Active Shooter-April 2, 2014

 Dateline:  April 5, 2014

Shock and grief were the reactions when the news said, for a second time, a shooter
inside Ft. Hood near Killeen, Texas had killed 4 and injured 13 in another Active Shooting
Incident. Everyone remembered  the first major shooting attack in November 2013, when
a major killed 13 and injured 43 because he did not want to be deployed to Afghanistan.

A total of 73 injured and/or killed in the two incidents!

How could this have happened?  The Department of Defense had implemented many of
the recommendations of its internal, and independent review panels, and the changes had not

been enough to prevent another active Shooter incident.

The 34-year old shooter had apparently been denied a leave form, and asked to come
back the next day and he came back, with a .45-caliber Smith & Wesson semiautomatic
handgun, recently purchased at Guns Galore, and started shooting.  He eventually turned
the gun on himself, after firing 35 rounds in two buildings over a 2 block area.  He had a
history of mental issues, and had recently been transferred to Fort Hood.


What We Learned:    The After Action Review “Protecting the Force” had detailed 89
recommendations, but by Sept. .2013,  only 52 had been
implemented and none included an Active Shooter Risk Assessment.


A comprehensive Active Shooter Risk Assessment has to be the first recommendation
after any Active Shooter event.  Recommendations from the previous shooting were concentrated
on new policies and procedures, mental health screening, education and training programs but
those controls did not directly influence PREVENTION of incidents.

A Review of the Most Important Active Shooter controls would have been more
likely to prevent a future shooter event, like:

  •           Tightened Access Controls for Facilities
    • Panic Alarms
    • Tracking of Potential Troubled Individuals
    • Metal Screening for Weapons
    • Policy on Personal Weapons on Base

      After the Navy Yard shooting in September 2013, another round of recommendations
      were made to improve security at all DOD installations, however, a  Pentagon official
      said on Thursday, April 4th, that the new recommendations had not yet been put into
      effect at Fort Hood.
       Unfortunately, at Fort Hood, very little had changed from 2009
      regarding security procedures for soldiers at the entrance gates.

      Stay Alert and make sure that any Security Incidents are reported IMMEDIATELY!
                                                                      
                                     



What’s Your Active Shooter Risk? How to Assess the Threat!

Just the idea of an Active Shooter in your organization, whether you’re a military base, like Fort Hood, and the Washington Navy Yard, or a school like Sandy Hook, a beauty shop, a cracker factory in Philadelphia, a retail mall, a movie theatre, a grocery store parking lot, or a hundred other places, is a terrifying thought.

I lived about 3 miles from one of the shooting sites, a gas station, used by the Beltway Snipers back in October, 2002.  They killed ten people, totally at random, and critically injured three others.   Both of the snipers were sentenced, and John Muhammad was killed by lethal injection in 2009.

If you lived in the DC area, do you remember how scary it was just to pump gas into your car,  people were huddled against the side of their cars in the gas stations, and hidden by their shopping carts at the local Home Depots.

The fear of the Active Shooter comes from the seeming randomness of the action, which means there’s no way to prevent it, unless you give up, stay home, and hide under the bed all day.

But there are things you can do.  Instead of thinking of an Active Shooter incident as a totally unique situation, it’s really a form a Workplace Violence, Gas Station Violence, Parking Lot Violence and other related forms of random violence.   In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has identified quite a few steps you can take to keep yourself safer if you are in the vicinity of an active shooter (http://www.dhs.gov/active-shooter-preparedness).

Most of the shooters are mentally ill.  Normal individuals do not enjoy planning and killing strangers, and it is usually a last ditch effort, with the suicide of the shooter as the grand finale.   Their actions can sometimes be identified early, and the police can be alerted, or the Human Resources group at work, or even the local Sheriff can intervene before it gets to the actual shooting.

Signs that someone is having trouble negotiating their life, especially if that someone is a gun fanatic, with their living room full of AK-47 assault weapons and hollow point bullets, is not hard to spot, because these individuals often leave lots of warning signs, like:

  • Irrational Posts on Facebook or inappropriate tweets.
  • Threats made against friends and family.
  • A dropoff in personal hygiene, as the person gets more obsessed.
  • Problems negotiating their personal life.
  • Demonstrating signs of isolation and groundless paranoia

Organizations can protect themselves from an potential active shooter through a combination of specific controls that include elements like access control, continuous monitoring of cameras, employee awareness and training programs, clear cut evaluation routes, regular active shooter drills, and hardening of facilities, to name a few.

One of the best preventive measures is to conduct an Active Shooter Risk Assessment, which is similar to other security analyses, except that it is focused on a particular set of threats related to an Active Shooter Incident.   As part of my annual Threat Trend Reports, I’ll be releasing a new set of threat data about the Active Shooter, to help organizations calculate their risk of
having such an incident.   For example, did you know that the number of active shooter incidents has jumped from 1 in 2002
to 21 incidents in 2010?

ActiveShooterIncidentsbyYear

 

 

 

 

 

 
Locations have changed, too, and we found that

About 25% of active shooter incidents occur in schools,
About 25% in retail locations, and
About 37% in workplaces.

In future blogs, we’ll be looking at each element of the active shooter incident, and providing more information to keep
your organization safe.

 

 




top