Maryland PSETC Safety and Security Plan Overview

Executive Summary

This report provides a comprehensive safety and security plan for the Maryland Public Safety Education and Training Center (PSETC). The security plan is divided into sections that address different security factors and risk areas for the organization and its physical assets. The organization must use its budget in the most effective manner possible to ensure the safety of its facilities. It is critical to protect the lives of students, faculty members, volunteers, employees, and inmates from potential threats that could emerge during operations at the facilities.

Facilities Overview

The Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) is one of the largest agencies in Maryland state government. Its eleven thousand employees work as a team to protect the public as well as the offenders and arrestees under their supervision (Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services, n.d.). The Maryland Public Safety Education and Training Center (PSETC) is located in Sykesville, Maryland. The physical space is divided into two locations comprising roughly 700 acres in total.

The Firearms Training Facility (FTF) and the Drivers Training Facility (DTF) are both located on the same site, approximately two miles from the Academic Center. Both training areas are open and have roads connecting them to several residential communities, though those communities are over twenty miles away. The FTF presents unique challenges due to the use of firearms as its primary training objective. This facility includes staff offices, classrooms, an armory, a weapon cleaning area, and outdoor firing ranges located about a quarter of a mile from the other buildings.

The Academic and Administrative Complex (AAC) shares its location with the Maryland Springfield State Hospital, a mental health facility with accommodations for approximately four hundred patients. Within the AAC, there are numerous offices and classrooms, as well as computer labs, food preparation areas, dining halls, and shops. Two residential dormitories can house overnight guests or students, and a full gymnasium is available for physical training. The PSETC has over one hundred staff members across the DTF and FTF. Currently, security at the PSETC is minimal, which represents a significant area of concern and risk.

Physical Plant Intrusion Prevention

One of the primary security defenses serving as a front-line deterrent is the physical infrastructure that can prevent intrusion by unauthorized individuals such as burglars or vandals. A physical plan is the first necessity for the PSETC, as it can create environmental safeguards for controlling physical access to the grounds. The first line of defense is controlling unauthorized entry. A simple initial step toward this objective is to issue authorized personnel a name tag badge to be worn on their clothing or around their neck. This gives security staff and authorized visitors a quick visual cue to identify individuals who may not be permitted on the premises.

In the event of an unauthorized entry, anyone who discovers a possible security breach should know exactly how to report the suspicious person. This requires that all employees, guests, and volunteers be trained in a reporting protocol, enabling notification of the security office so that an investigation can begin. Identification cards can also serve a dual purpose by being integrated with a security system, allowing authorized students and personnel to access their respective areas through card-controlled doors. This would act as a significant deterrent to unauthorized visitors by making it more difficult to enter the buildings.

To determine how much should be invested in a security system, the benefits and costs must be carefully balanced. As security expert Bruce Schneier explains, an organization should implement only those security countermeasures that positively affect its bottom line — it should neither spend more on a security problem than the problem is worth, nor ignore problems that are costing money when cheaper mitigation alternatives exist. Security decisions should be approached like any other business decision: costs versus benefits (Schneier, 2008).

The classic methodology for this analysis is called annualized loss expectancy (ALE). It involves calculating the cost of a security incident in both tangible terms — such as time and money — and intangible terms — such as reputation and competitive advantage (Schneier, 2008). In the case of the PSETC, intangibles include the potential loss of human life, making the calculation more complex than typical private-sector examples. Nevertheless, estimating the probability and cost of various risks can still provide useful insight into how much should be spent on mitigation. For example, if a facility has a 10 percent chance of being robbed and the cost of a robbery is $10,000, then approximately $1,000 per year should be allocated to that specific security measure (Schneier, 2008).