At GSX 2024, committee members gave an update on the proposed ASIS School Security Standard, still under public review and likely to be released in the second half of 2025. It was developed by 50-plus industry experts and reflects a multi-hazard and disciplinary approach from a variety of professions including school administration, security, architectural design, mental health, behavioral threat assessment, facilities management, life safety, emergency management, law enforcement, crisis communications, business continuity, and legal.
Unlike ANSI/BHMA lock standards, this ASIS standard will not mandate certain locks or door hardware. Rather, it is the accumulation of extensive research and best practices for K-12 schools. The standard is billed as a toolbox that can be adapted for different schools’ individual needs.
The briefing featured a presentation by a panel of five experts who worked on the development of the proposed standard.
- C. Joshua Villines, CTM, CPP, PCI, PSP | Executive Director, HUMINT Group
- Drew Neckar, MBA, CPP, CHPA | Principal Consultant, COSECURE Enterprise Risk Solutions
- Guy Bliesner | School Security Analyst, Idaho State Board of Education
- Jeffrey Slotnick, CPP, PSP | President, Setracon Enterprise Security Risk Management Services
- Michael Rozin, CTM | President, Rozin Security
“Our aim in initiating this project was to create a solid framework, based on enterprise security risk management principles, that will assist all schools in developing an appropriate risk-based security program that blends leadership, risk assessment, policies, procedures and practices, physical security, behavioral threat assessment and management and emergency response principles to provide tools for those schools that they can pick up and apply effectively in their own environment,” Neckar explained.
A Starting Point for Schools
“We’re here today because we all know that violence in schools is a serious problem. It’s heartbreaking when students or teachers are hurt or killed. These tragedies shake our faith in school safety and disrupt learning. What’s frustrating is that many of these incidents could have been prevented if we had better systems in place,” Slotnick stated. “Right now, if a school wants to improve its security, it’s hard to know where to start. There’s a lot of advice out there but it’s scattered and sometimes contradictory.”
“We’re here today because we all know that violence in schools is a serious problem. It’s heartbreaking when students or teachers are hurt or killed. These tragedies shake our faith in school safety and disrupt learning. What’s frustrating is that many of these incidents could have been prevented if we had better systems in place,” Slotnick stated. “Right now, if a school wants to improve its security, it’s hard to know where to start. There’s a lot of advice out there but it’s scattered and sometimes contradictory.”
The standard provides information on:
· How to set up and run a best-in-class security program
· How to help schools perform a security risk assessment to identify potential threats, vulnerabilities and consequences
· How to create and practice emergency response and emergency operations plans
· How to make schools, buildings and grounds safer
· How to train staff and students on safety procedures
“We’re not just focusing on how to respond when something bad happens. A big part of our standard is about prevention, creating a school environment where everyone feels safe and supported and where potential problems can be spotted and addressed early,” Slotnick said.
This includes preventing workplace violence, making school buildings safer through smart design, using integrated technology effectively to enhance security and planning for emergencies and practicing those plans, as well as helping schools recover after an incident.
All the participants used the term roadmap to creating a safer learning environment while stressing that the standard will be flexible enough to help all schools, taking into consideration their size, location, culture and budget while trying to create a comfortable learning environment.
Behavioral Threat Assessment
Three specific “annexes,” or sections of the standard were addressed: behavioral threat assessment management (BTAM), emergency operations planning and physical security.
The purpose of the threat assessment annex to the school security standard is to keep educators from having to create answers to questions that we already have answered with decades of research, stated Villines.
Creating this annex, Villines said he had one common scenario in mind: a school official has been told by their board that they are required to take on threat assessment responsibility. They are told that they MUST create a behavioral threat assessment team but they are not familiar with the thousands of pages of research, hundreds of government guidelines, board certifications or relevant disciplines.
“We’ve taken our experience with that scenario – starting from nothing, starting from scratch – and created an annex built around our real-world experiences and also based on current, cutting edge, peer reviewed research. The result is a very practical guide that walks school leaders through multiple processes,” he explained.
Topics include:
· How to create a BTAM Team
· How to write effective policies and procedures
· How to find and implement meaningful training for BTAM team members
· How to identify persons of concern
· How to get community participation
· How to assess and manage persons of concern
· How to build healthier communities that are designed to reduce the risk of violence
The BTAM Annex to the School Security Standard gives practical, clear answers to these kinds of questions:
· What kind of special training does the BTAM Team need?
· What kind of things should be reported to the BTAM Team?
· Once a report is made, what is the next step?
· If we realize someone’s behavior indicates a risk of violence, how do we reduce that risk?
· What types of records should we keep?
These answers are not punitive or disciplinary because those approaches have been found to increase the risk of violence without addressing the underlying issues, he noted, explaining that punishment, suspension or expulsion can create even more anger and likelihood of a violent incident.
Emergency Operations Plan
Like the other sections of the standard, the Emergency Operations Plan can be adapted to address the individual needs of individual schools. “This document is not and never was intended as a template. We purposely avoided a search and replace, ‘plan-in-a-can’ approach. The radical differences in exposure, location, bldg. design and a dozen other factors preclude a universal, one-size-fits-all emergency operations plan,” stated Bliesner.
Considerations include:
First responder response times. While emergency personnel may be only 3 to 5 minutes away in an urban/suburban environment, it can take as long as 30-45 minutes for emergency response to a remotely located, rural school. The planning required for those two are radically different.
Available staff and their specific skillsets. Some may have first aid training, for example,
Functional needs of students and staff. Students with physical and/or cognitive impairments will need extra help.
He also advised school security officials to take a multi-hazard approach, rather than focusing exclusively on active shooters. Often the active shooter approach dominates the discussion, which is understandable; that would be a school’s worst day. Thankfully, these types of violence are high impact but largely low frequency.
“In my 30 years of experience, I’ve been involved in the response to one school shooting. In that same period of time, I’ve been involved in the response to literally hundreds of more mundane types of emergencies that happen day-to-day in a school,” Bliesner said.
More common events include playground injuries, medical issues for staff and students, severe weather, wildfires. Schools face these kinds of emergencies every day.
Schools need implementable, trainable and sustainable plans. Because they generally have limited time to focus on training, the plan cannot be overly complex and must be easily implementable to move the school from normal operations to a safe condition.
Having a great plan is not the goal; having a great response is the goal, he added. “Our guidance addresses prevention first, mitigation, response and recovery. The plan should address all four of those phases.”
Physical Protection Systems and Measures
The Physical Protection Systems and Measures Annex focuses on three core areas: security operations, technology and physical measures. Each category offers a systematic approach to mitigating threats, both external and internal.
“I believe targeted violence in school can be prevented with effective security measures, a framework of actionable, tangible security measures designed to address various security risks that schools face,” Rozin said.
“I believe targeted violence in school can be prevented with effective security measures, a framework of actionable, tangible security measures designed to address various security risks that schools face,” Rozin said.
This annex provides schools with steps to take to address vulnerabilities before they lead to tragedies, and aims to close clear gaps in school security that have led to past incidents
Key elements:
Creating a culture of security awareness and preparedness. Well-trained security personnel should be able to effectively manage relevant security risks in their schools. The standard offers guidelines on staffing levels and training standards for school security personnel.
Routine security protocols. Ensure that all school staff members understand their role in maintaining a secure environment. Security is truly everyone’s responsibility.
Behavioral threat detection, which applies to both security and non-security personnel. Training staff to recognize behavioral indicators will increase the chances of identifying potential actors early and intervening before incidents occur.
Rozin also addresses physical security measures. “The school’s physical security structure is a critical line of defense. This means, in simple terms, layering various security measures to achieve the goals of deterrence, detection and delay. Multiple physical security measures, working together have the best opportunity to prevent a security incident,” he said.
The standard looks at key areas, such as perimeter protection, ensuring the schools’ boundaries are secure and clearly established. This includes fencing, gates and vehicle control measures.
Playgrounds, athletic fields and other outdoor spaces have their own security considerations. This involves addressing areas where intruders could hide or place a device undetected. Clearing out hiding spaces and installing perimeter lighting can help.
Technology plays a role too. “Schools can leverage modern tools to supplement their physical and operational security measures. Video surveillance, for example is critical in providing real-time monitoring and detection and, at times, forensic review,” Rozin said, adding that the standard offers digital best practices on how to use surveillance systems to cover high-risk areas like entrances, playgrounds and parking lots.
Other important security aids include emergency communications systems that connect directly to first responders, integrated active threat response systems, access control systems, public address systems, visitor management systems and mass notification systems
“Schools are complex environments, and they face a wide range of security threats, both internal and external. Annex A was designed with flexibility in mind to provide schools with a clear path to self-assess their current security measures against best practices as defined in the standard, helping them to identify their gaps and take steps to gradually address them. Schools don’t have to start from scratch or re-invent the wheel … it’s a strategic framework that can change how schools approach security,” he concluded.
Emily Pike | Managing Editor
Emily Pike is managing editor of Locksmith Ledger International.
