13 Must-haves of a Bomb Threat Policy

            For many organizations, responding to bomb threats can pose some difficult problems. It is not something that happens every day, but at the same time is not uncommon.

In light of the devastation from the bombs at the Boston Marathon, it is a good time to review your organizations’ bomb threat response plans. There are some common misconceptions and a solid bomb threat policy and procedure will help employees respond safely. It is vital to have a plan that is in sync with local police and that staff or faculty is very familiar with the procedure and know how to react.

Additional Links

http://businesskarate.blogspot.com/2011/07/responding-to-bomb-threats-part-one.html

http://businesskarate.blogspot.com/2011/07/responding-to-bomb-threats-part-two.html

 

Policy checklist – does your policy include the following elements?

From WikiCommons

1. Bomb threat received and phone check list available

2. Notification to police and ‘incident’ commander (be sure that role is identified, by title rather than name)

3. Evaluate available information to decide whether to evacuate or not

·       How specific or detailed is the threat

·       How accurate was the information provided

·       Have there been similar incidents to other businesses or offices in the area

·       Are there other risks, such as a disgruntled employee or domestic violence situation involving an employee

4. Incident command makes decision on whether to evacuate or not (consider the possibility of an explosive device around the exterior, including vehicles in the parking lot)

5. If there is no evacuation, begin a search of the entire building by the staff most familiar with their areas – keep in mind that unless a suspicious device is found, law enforcement will not normally make the decision to evacuate!

6. Search all rooms, common areas and exterior

·       Search floor to waist height

·       Search waist to eye-level

·       Search eye level to ceiling

·       Search above floating ceilings if necessary

7. Do not use cell phones or radios to communicate as that could trigger an explosive device

8. Do not touch any suspicious packages or items found

From WikiCommons

9. Notify police immediately if something suspicious is found

10. If office is evacuated consider how long the search may last and impact on associates and operations

·       How will staff get personal belongings

·       Consider bringing personal items such as purses or briefcases to avoid leaving behind more ‘suspicious’ items

·       Are office doors locked during evacuation

11. Account for all employees

12. Once the building has been searched and law enforcement agrees, allow employees to return to the building

13. Communicate event details and outcome as needed and lessons learned

Of course a great policy or procedure is only as good as the training to back it up. Since it is somewhat rare, a response plan has to be reinforced with training and practice. Different drills focusing on different parts of the policy is a good way to train and then conduct a drill from start to finish in order to test the policy and the response.

Eric Smith, CPP is the leading authority on organizational self-defense. He has extensive experience in law enforcement as well as security management. Eric is available for staff education and security awareness training as well as business coaching to help organizations provide safe workplaces. To learn more email eric@businesskarate.com.

 

 

If you would like to reprint this post, please contact Eric at eric@businesskarate.com.

Distraction or Good Sense for School Security?

Ohio Teacher Melissa Cairns is in trouble for Facebook photos of her middle school students with their mouths covered with duct tape. The photo includes the caption, “Finally found a way to keep them quiet.”

The school administration acknowledges that the tape was part of a joke, but are considering termination. Two concerns are that there was duct tape present in the classroom and that the students’ privacy was jeopardized.

At a time when so much attention is focused on school security and safety, this seems like something of a diversion. By all accounts, the students willingly participated and it probably made the day more interesting and school a bit more fun. The presence of duct tape is hardly a concern – I’d be more concerned about the screening and background of the teachers and school employees. While the tape could be used for harm, so can many other normal household items if someone were so inclined.

Visit Business Karate on Facebook (and hit the "like" button)!

As for privacy violations, I would wager that those students involved probably post far more on their own social media websites than what was on the teacher’s photo. They probably were connected via Facebook as friends. The real question is whether or not there was a harmful privacy violation. Were the students’ grades exposed or personal information on home addresses or medical allergies, etc. put online? That is probably the real intent behind whatever policy the school has in place and should be the focus of any hearings to determine the teacher’s employment at the school.

As a society, we allow ourselves to be sidetracked and distracted from our primary goals far too often. It seems that some issues that really pose no threat become a major concern that outstrips common sense. There was a student in a kindergarten class a few years ago that was expelled or nearly so for bringing a tiny Lego person to the class with a little Lego gun. There are the cases of students bringing plastic knives for their lunch being suspended or in trouble.

 This incident should have been a straightforward matter to investigate without the media attention. The focus should be on any policy violations as well as any real harm done. It would be interesting to know what the students involved actually think of this case. Knowing my own kids and their teachers, I imagine that the students enjoyed the prank and are upset that their teacher is no longer part of the classroom.

Remember to keep your focus on the true intent of your security and safety policies and not to be distracted by the minor bumps that come along.

 

For more info on bad policies or procedures, click here.

 

Eric Smith, CPP is the leading authority on organizational self-defense.  He has extensive experience in law enforcement as well as security management.  Eric is available for staff education and security awareness training as well as business coaching to help organizations provide safe workplaces.  To learn more email eric@businesskarate.com.

 

 

If you would like to reprint this post, please contact Eric at eric@businesskarate.com. 

Are Bad Policies Making You a Liability Target?

Risks come in all shapes and sizes – and more importantly from any direction.  Typically, we think of risks as those dangers or hazards that are coming at us from others, maybe employees, but usually from outside our organizations.  Sometimes, however, we may be our own worst enemy.

One way we cause ourselves to stumble is through poorly written policies.  Policies and procedures are the backbone of many organizations and embraced by HR departments.  Policies should be guides or even educational tools letting employees know what the company expects for a given situation.  The procedures should outline how the staff will do that.

However, there are times when a policy causes more harm than good.  In fact, it can put an organization in a dangerous situation, exposing it to more loss than is necessary.  Bad policies can increase the risk of liability at the worst end of the spectrum.  At best, a bad policy can create inefficiencies, be unproductive or simply misguided.  Somewhere in the middle could be employee dissatisfaction when a policy attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

A poorly written or thought-out policy is an unnecessary risk and creates increased liability.  This may sound dramatic, but is not as infrequent as you might think.  When an organization faces a lawsuit, the courts will quickly look to policy manuals and whether or not the company followed their own policy.  This means that if a policy is more restrictive or requires acts above and beyond typical case law, you increase the risk of losing a lawsuit.  

As a police officer, we were expected to know the law as well as policies for a wide-variety of situations and had to be able to act in seconds.  I was surprised at one point in my career to find that the policy for use of force was more restrictive than state law.  One example had to do with the use of deadly force to defend yourself or someone else.  Under state law, an officer would be justified to use deadly force to stop an attack that could cause death or serious bodily injury.  Per policy, an officer could not respond to an imminent attack involving serious bodily injury with deadly force.  That would mean that a suspect wielding a baseball bat swinging at your knees threatening to cripple you or a victim would not justify a deadly response per policy.  If an officer did face that situation and shot an attacker to stop harm to them self or another, the department could be sued for failure to follow its own policy.

Police pursuit policies are another potential hot topic.  An overly restrictive policy, as compared to local laws, could increase the risk of liability if it is not followed.  On the other hand, limiting pursuits may reduce accidents and injuries to innocent bystanders and, presumably reduce the chance of a situation that would generate a lawsuit.

You might be thinking that these examples have nothing to do with your own situation.  However, you might be in a position increasing liability inadvertently through other, more mundane, policies.  For example, if you have a policy of doing a background check on all new hires and the policy states that it is supposed to include a reference check.  The screening includes a criminal history check or a verification of past work history, but no one ever calls a reference.  In the event that an employee commits a crime and it is discovered that the company was not following their own policy, there could be an increased possibility of failing to act as promised.  

There is also the correlation to compliance issues.  For many different industries, there are compliance or accreditation concerns.  In health care, for example, most hospitals choose to be accredited through The Joint Commission.  One TJC requirement is that an organization follows its own policies.  It follows then, that the policies need to be realistic to ensure that employees do, and are, following the policy.  If a policy is overly cumbersome or not practical, then the hospital could be out of line and be found to be out of compliance during an audit or survey even though the policy exceeds the Joint Commission standards.

Policies and procedures are necessary and when well written help employees perform their jobs more effectively and to understand what is expected.  Good policies also help organizations protect themselves from mistakes and avoid legal pitfalls.  The wrong or poorly written policy can do the exact opposite.  Each policy should be carefully thought out, with the goals identified and any potential legal risks evaluated.

              

Eric Smith, CPP is the leading authority on organizational self-defense.  He has extensive experience in law enforcement as well as security management.  Eric is available for staff education and security awareness training as well as business coaching to help organizations provide safe workplaces.  To learn more visit http://www.businesskarate.com. 

If you would like to reprint this post, please contact Eric at eric@businesskarate.com.