Safety in the Workplace – Perpetrators of workplace shootings

Lost in the myriad of the news stories this weekend as we celebrated our independence was a spate
of unfortunate incidents of murder-suicide in the workplace. On Friday, in Belton, Missouri, a
Kansas City man shot and killed his estranged wife outside her place of employment then killed
himself a short time later. On Sunday, in Killeen, TX, a soldier killed his wife inside a Dollar
General store as customers looked on before killing himself. There were several other similar
unfortunate incidents over the weekend that occurred inside homes and apartment complexes. As
we see in the first two instances, there is little that can be done to control domestic problems from
following an employee to work. The question becomes how do we protect and notify our employees
and alert emergency services as quickly as possible? At SafeDefend Systems we think of this
everyday and have the answer.

The FBI recently released updated information (2014-2015) on active shooter incidents in the United
States. Unfortunately, instances of violence in schools and the workplace are steadily increasing.
Some of the startling information that needs to be pointed out applies specifically to the work
environment. We know from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that 86% of workplace homicides occur
in privately owned businesses. The media focuses on those stories that occur in a public entity
where a grievance against government function is expressed. The reality is that the violence starts
much closer to the people we know. From the FBI report we have learned that 95% of perpetrators
of violence in businesses closed to the public are current or former employees. The other 5% is
generally made up of those involved in a domestic relationship with an employee. These are
considered your manufacturing, technology driven, or processing businesses with no direct customer
interaction. Employees from these businesses have left behind information on a variety of reasons
for undertaking a rampage. Notions of unfair discipline, termination, ridicule from coworkers,
perceived mistreatment for promotion, failure to receive a raise, love triangles, and domestic discord
to name a few have all been cited by perpetrators. Unlike school shootings, the suspect does not
often drop clues to the plan and often act after some triggered event. There appears to be a growing
trend to resolve problems with violence that is unforeseen in our country. What steps have you
taken to thwart an intruder that knows your day to day business operations?

In response to the increase in violence, companies have undertaken steps to reinforce the workplace
against an intruder. Enhanced fencing, camera surveillance and controlled access doors are the norm
for such an approach. Most of the shootings we have seen recently already have these in place. The
Naval Shipyard shooting is a prime example of how all the money thrown toward security cannot
prevent a determined employee from committing an atrocity. What is missing in each of these
incidents is the ability to notify staff and building occupants of a threat. As we have seen in
workplace shootings such as Excel Industries or Atlantis Plastics, for example, is that the shooting
started outside and the perpetrator then entered the building to continue the rampage. Office staff
were able to start the calls to 911 but there was no ability to notify employees inside the building.
This lack of notification cost lives. We are able to go back and watch videos of employees going
about their normal routine with no idea that the threat was literally walking up behind them.
Employees deserve to feel safe and secure at work. Companies have an obligation to notify their
personnel to a threat inside the building and provide accurate information on how to seek shelter and
safety. If you don’t have a means to do this you aren’t protecting your staff.

Do Armed Guards Make Kids Feel Safer in Schools?

In response to several school shootings there has been a large push to allow armed personnel or to add school resource officers on campus.  This is a popular approach that has gained traction over the last few years.  There can be a financial cost for additional personnel, training and potential liability.  Outside of these factors there are several important pieces of information that have been revealed within recent studies that should also be understood.

While the perception of safety from staff and parents to having more guns in school is generally higher the students don’t normally feel safer.  Students tend to see uniformed personnel as policing them not protecting them.  In schools that have implemented SRO programs the likelihood of police involvement in non-violent incidents has gone up.  An officer in the school is more likely to intervene in an event that would previously be handled by the administrative staff alone.  There has also been an increase in other uses of force from empty hand control techniques, deployment of intermediate weapons and arrests.  Finally, as the number of guns has increased our students are more likely to be involved in an accidental weapons incident than a real shooting.

It is also often stated that an armed personnel are a deterrent to school shootings.  There have been several recent instances of intruders attacking schools with armed guards.  Marshall County, KY, Parkland, FL & Sante Fe, TX all had armed campus officers at the time of the shooting.  Officers are usually not in the right place at the time of the shooting because the perpetrator plans around them.  Unfortunately, the hardest part for schools is getting the armed responders to the right place in the building.  This has been an obstacle that schools overlook when implementing policy changes.  Notification systems are a simple solution to resolve this breakdown in communication.

The perception of safety does not always correlate into a more secure campus environment.  School administrators should be cautious about measures that can severely impact the profile of security in school without adding a substantial benefit.  The best course of action in a crisis is getting the trained professionals to the exact location of the crisis and notifying staff to initiate the emergency action plan.  Until this can be accomplished the other issues ought to be considered secondary solutions.

More of the same a year after the Parkland shooting

The solution to school security is not more of the same

With the anniversary of the Parkland shooting there have been a lot of articles about the changes over the last year.  The interesting observation is that nothing has changed but rather a double down on more of the same.  The response to these events usually ends with the same options being put out as enhancements.  These options portray the impression to the public that our schools are safer without resulting in improvements that address the threat from an active shooter.

A recent Wall Street Journal article on the Parkland anniversary mentioned several expenditures over the last year.  The school added fencing to several schools.  The 45 acre Marjory Stoneman Douglas campus was fenced in at the time of the shooting.  Upgrades and additions to the security system were purchased.  The school has a robust camera system and the shooter’s every movement is captured on video.  A recommendation was made to have more armed personnel at all Florida schools.  One district hired combat veterans to patrol the grounds with rifles.  We forget that there was an armed officer on the grounds that was at the scene in roughly 1 minute 45 seconds but failed to confront the shooter.  The other armed responders were given confusing information and didn’t make entry until 11 minutes into the incident which was long after the shooter fled.  So the solution is to continue doing what we have been doing for years hoping for fewer casualties.

A true solution comes from looking at what has happened in the past and figuring out what will make a difference. Not hypothetical solutions but thwarted attacks or attacks where the shooter was interrupted.  The 2017-2018 school year was the worst year for the number of school shootings.  Outside of the three major shootings there were others with minimal casualties.  While the intent of the shooter appeared to be a mass casualty incident the impact was minimized by two things.  Notification to the buildings occupants to lockdown saved countless lives.  Actions by teachers to thwart or stop the attack was just as impactful.  If the new strategies for security don’t improve notification or empower teachers then your readiness for a hostile intruder or no better off with a hardened building.

We have had the same approach to school shootings since the 1980s when we started some of the current measures. There have been improvements to the technology for locked doors and surveillance.  These have never stopped an active shooter, they were not effective in Parkland, attempting to address a threat with these improvements will have similar ineffective results.  The SafeDefend system was designed to solve the notification process to building occupants and police while empowering staff to protect students until help arrives.

Train according to the possibilities not the protocols

With the changes to the crisis drill requirements in the country the addition of intruder response drills and lockdown drills have been an overall positive thing. Most school administrators had already added these types of drills to the preparedness training by staff.  At SafeDefend we encourage schools to regularly discuss response options and consider scenarios for notification in the event of hostile intruders.  The manner in which these drills are conducted, however, can greatly impact the way the information is conveyed and maintained.  The idea should always be to prepare not to scare.

Fire drills and tornado drills have consistent response protocols. Regardless of where the fire starts the goal is to exit the building.  A tornado warning clearly indicates the need to take shelter in designated areas.  Very little deviation from these protocols is required.  Practicing these responses and having students be familiar with expectations is necessary to achieve the goal of keeping everyone safe.

Hostile intruder drills cannot be so easily handled. There is no one response option that keeps everyone safe.  Real attacks have demonstrated that the events are fluid and require various responses.  Simply instructing staff to lockdown and wait is an option but it shouldn’t be the only option.  Teachers and staff need to understand that until help arrives their actions can have important consequences.  If you can get out safely then that should be an option as well.  If the intruder is trying to get into the classroom be prepared to drive them back out. In order to accomplish this the drills should revolve around mental exercises and discussions about options.  Having kids hide in a corner while the teacher locks the door and turns out the lights does not prepare them to adapt when the situation changes.

Staff should spend more time learning how to communicate a threat over the intercom with simple commands like ‘Lockdown, Lockdown, Cafeteria Intruder!’ Staff that are informed can make immediate critical decisions that will reduce casualties and save lives.  Simply hoping that police will arrive in time and locate the intruder has shown to fail time and again.  Empowering staff and faculty has had measurable results in numerous unreported low casualty events around the country.

Thinking School Security Solutions As We Head Back To School

In the flurry of back to school emails that I received from administrators, teachers, and staff was a notice about the new buzz in system being implemented at our district. The requisite apologies for inconvenience and lack of access were included for sincerity purposes.  It made me consider why we were apologizing for attempting to keep our kids safe but more importantly why this was considered the best use of limited security funds.

I certainly applaud the efforts of enhancing the security culture in our schools. What concerns me is the notion that continuing to approach security solutions with the same ideas that have repeatedly failed in the past has been the standard across the country.  It is paramount that we look at past incidents to determine what failed and how this can be improved.  Quick response by law enforcement and immediate lock down are the two factors that have proven to reduced casualties and save lives.  If these things aren’t in place the external security measures will be ineffective in addressing a hostile intruder.

The Spring of 2018 was an atrocious time for school violence. Lost in the aftermath of these incidents was the existing security measures that each of the schools had already implemented in the hopes of thwarting an attack.  In Kentucky, Florida, and Texas and many others the emphasis was on the access control, surveillance cameras and SRO as priorities for school security and safety.  Missing from this approach is the realization that more than 94% of school shootings start inside the building according to the FBI.  In the three major incidents the police response was delayed by a lack of information about exactly which room on campus was being threatened.  Responding SROs on campus had little accurate information about where to go.  More importantly the reliance on using 911 to notify police slowed down notification and resulted in confusing information for responding units.  Likewise, the schools were not able to communicate the need to go on lockdown in a timely manner.  Procedures to use public address systems or intercoms have not been timely in school crisis.  We developed a quick notification for fire emergencies that accomplishes notification to building occupants and emergency responders in one step.  We need to implement a single-phase notification system for violent intruders inside the building.

Physical security improvements have a place in our schools. Understanding the limitations of each is important.  Access control will stem the flow of staff, students and visitors but has failed in every active shooter event.  Cameras are great for bullying, theft, vandalism and fighting but has never successfully stopped an active shooter.  Two-way radios in a crisis are overwhelmed and little information is available.  Window laments slow a shooter down but most start in the building and can limit the egress of those inside.  School resource officers will respond but if they aren’t informed what room is in crisis the response will be slow as we saw in the worst three shootings this year.  These measures have their place but aren’t practical at saving lives in a crisis.

School security can only be addressed using a layered approach. Anti-bullying and awareness programs are step one.  Developing response procedures and emergency action plans is paramount.  Having physical security in place heightens the culture of safety.  The addition of a notification system with alarms is the critical element that is often omitted.  Our school staff members have demonstrated the ability to protect our students and step up to meet the challenge for protection but they need information and tools to do this.  The SafeDefend system answers the problem of quick notification with accurate information.

Learning from the Parkland, FL shooting – Communication breaks down in a crisis

With all the investigations, reviews, lawsuits, and committees looking at the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School it is unlikely that an official report will be released anytime soon. In the Miami Herald article Seconds mattered: How the response at Parkland went wrong in 11 minutes there is a clear analysis of the known events during the shooting.  The take away for all of us should be that while all the so called ‘recommended’ security and safety enhancements were in place during the chaos of the event nothing really mattered.  Insufficient information was available for police in the 6 minutes during the killing for them to respond effectively.  The confusion of these events is predictable but we are applying the same measures in the aftermath that don’t address the need for quick and accurate notification to the police while simultaneously alerting building occupants of a threat.

While a large portion of this article focuses on the police response there are several salient quotes that could easily be overlooked. Pete Blair, executive director of the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University. “It’s important to stop (attackers) as quickly as possible.” The number one thing police are taught is to stop the killing.  Disregard every other concern, including their personal safety, and confront the shooter.  In order for this to work in a large building or multi-building campus we need precise information on where police are needed.  Phone calls to 911 repeatedly fail to provide this information in a timely or accurate manner.  11 people were dead in under 2 minutes at Parkland on the first floor.  The average 911 call takes this long just to ascertain the nature of the threat and the address without providing detailed information.  A notification system can do this in seconds while also alerting building occupants, staff and students.

The confusion of responding officers was made worse by bad information. Reports of fireworks near the football field and the limitations of a radio system that only allows one person to talk at a time slowed police response.  The responding officers were informed of a threat on a 45 acres campus but not initially given specific building, floor or room numbers until after they were on scene.  This delayed the response.  Police radios are ineffective when dispatch, officers, commanders, and multi agency responders are all trying to provide or receive information.  Garbled noise is heard when two people attempt to talk at the same time.  A school emergency notification system, like SafeDefend, can pinpoint down to the room number where police are needed.  This information can be transmitted in seconds to everyone.  The fact that the first officer in the building was 11 minutes after the shooting and 5 minutes after the shooter had fled the building is common in this type of incident.

In the Parkland incident the shooting started before the fire alarm added to the confusion. The gunpowder and ceiling tile dust activated the alarm.  If a teacher had the ability to quickly activate a school emergency notification system and alarm inside a classroom the upper floors at a minimum would have heard a hostile intruder alarm before the fire alarm.  Teachers would then have been able to avoid the casualties that resulted from leaving the classrooms on the upper floors.  Most likely those deaths on the second and third floors could have been avoided if the school was put on lock down within seconds of the shooting starting.  An alarm system can do this for our schools.

Communication and information flow are critical in a crisis. Expecting staff to make emergency phone calls or use the public-address system while dodging bullets is ludicrous.   Unfortunately, this remains the go to protocol for most of schools in the country.  What is needed is a single step activation system to put the school on lockdown and notify emergency responders in seconds.  Until this becomes a priority the casualty counts will continue to be higher than necessary.

Workplace Violence Active Shooter – Alerting Employees & OSHA Compliance

The news of an active shooter at the YouTube headquarters is saddening. As the nation focuses on the conversation of school security in the wake of the shooting at Parkland, FL the discussion of threats in the workplace became sidelined.  We know from the FBI Active Shooter reports from 2000-2015 that 95% of active shooters in the workplace to businesses closed to the public are current or former employees. The other 5% have a relationship with a worker at the business.  We have seen time and again how disgruntled employees, domestic discord or disputes among workers has resulted in violence and death.  It is all too common in the American workplace.

Businesses often prepare for many emergencies. Human resource professionals will tell you there are protocols in place for fire, climactic events and chemical spills.  Warning systems will sound, emergency responders will be notified, and staff understand the protocols and responsibilities for their positions in the event of a crisis.  When it comes to a hostile intruder in the workplace, however, the workplace violence protection process is unknown and the need for alarms is almost ignored by businesses.  We know from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that in 2016 the category with the highest increase from the previous year was homicide (525 up from 416 in 2015) compared to the number of fire deaths that was the only category to decrease.  The worst statistic is that 40% of woman killed in the workplace are the result of homicide from a domestic partner.  The likelihood of an armed intruder is 30 time more likely than a fire, 60 times more likely that a climactic event and 125 time more likely than a chemical spill and yet it is the one we are least prepared to handle.

Most business owners and managers assume that Worker’s Compensation will cover these hostile events. Unfortunately, this doesn’t always apply depending on the circumstances.  The OSHA General Duty Clause 5(a)(1) requires employers to provide a workplace ‘free from recognized hazards’.  In the years since the clause was implemented several OSHA director interpretation letters have indicated that ‘courts have interpreted this clause as a legal obligation for employers’.  A January 2017 directive titled Enforcement Procedures and Scheduling for Occupational Exposure to Workplace Violence to OSHA investigators (CPL 02-01-058) recommended for all industries and administrative workplaces to ‘install and regularly maintain alarm systems and to arrange for reliable response systems when triggered’.  Without creating specific standards OSHA has started to implement guidelines that direct employers to take steps to protect employees in the event of workplace violence.

The notion of calling 911 in a crisis is antiquated and when it comes to fire we rely on alarms to alert building occupants so they can seek safety. We have seen that waiting for law enforcement results in higher casualty counts.  In February of 2016 in Hesston, KS an employee shot a worker in the parking lot at the Excel Industries.  Staff called 911 and the police chief heroically responded in less than 3 minutes.  In that same time the shooter entered the plant and shot 14 coworkers, killing 3 of them.  There was no way to alert the employees of the threat on the plant floor from the front office.  This is just one example of incidents across the country where a threat is known by someone in the bulding but there exists no warning or workplace violence protection system in place to sound the alarm.  A security company responsible for a Kraft foods plant was found liable and had to pay out 8 million dollars to families of three employees who were killed after a disgruntled employee returned and stole a security guards access card.  The guard could only call 911 and wait for police.  The ability to sound alarms and alert employees in the event of a hostile intruder is essential to providing a safe workplace.

SafeDefend has worked with companies across the country to install and maintain an alert system with tools for protection and trauma response when a hostile event occurs. Most companies assume fences and access control are sufficient.  This doesn’t address the fact that the most likely threat to the business will come from within.

#youtubeshooter #workplacesafety #activeshooter