By Leon Harris CPP
Published in INsite,
February/March 2003
As
security risk management consultants, we are always concerned when
aged care operators spend money on stop-gap actions after a security
incident. In some cases these stop-gap actions maybe necessary until
a more sustainable solution is implemented. One of these stop-gap
(reactive) actions is the engagement of a security guard (sometimes
with a dog) to patrol the site. Besides the financial issue of having
such an arrangement (between $130,000 to $140,000 per annum - based
on an evening shift only), there are other issues such as vicarious
liability (e.g. the possibility of a security guard [or dog] causing
personal injury), public image and effectiveness in terms of crime
prevention and personal safety perceptions. Management may also face
difficulty in allaying safety fears of staff when attempting to withdraw
the security services.
We are not in any way advising operators not to consider this course
of action. What we are advocating, is that this action must be placed
in a security risk management framework.
A risk assessment is needed not only for the hiring of a security
guard, but also for the later removal of the guard, which eventually
happens due to costs and questionable effectiveness. A problem arises
in legal proceedings when the decision to remove the security guard
is based on financial, rather than risk management, reasons. Costs
do come into the risk management approach, however, when cost is
the main, or only, reason for the removal of the security guard,
the courts may take a dim view when the matter before the court centres
around an act of violence which occurred after the security guard
services had been removed.
Some aged care operators may also be under the misconception that
when they contract a security (on-site) guard or security patrols,
they have met their duty of care obligations. The use of any risk
treatment method, in this case a guard (and dog), must be placed
within a risk management framework. This framework, as recommended
in the AS/NZS 4360:1999 Risk Management, recommends that risks and
risk treatment options should be comprehensively identified. Without
an appropriate security risk management approach, management decisions
may be seen to be flawed, costs are often unnecessarily high and
there is little added value. Duty of care compliance may be difficult
to exhibit in a legal action relating to personal injury and property
claims (damage or theft), if security risk is not placed within a
security risk management framework.
In previous articles I have discussed the benefit of undertaking
an holistic Security Review (risk assessment) of facilities referring
to AS/NZS 4360:1999 Risk Management and AS 4485 1 & 2: 1997 Security
for Health Care Facilities. When considering contracting a security
patrol/guarding service, facility operators should also make themselves
conversant with AS 4421:1996 Security Guards and Patrols and any
guidelines or codes issued by government authorities relating to
the use and care of security dogs (such as in NSW, issued by the
Department of Agriculture).
As with any risk management process, it is always advisable to
be pro-active and have a Security Review undertaken as part of normal
business process. However, should an incident occur, it is critical
that a supplementary Security Review is undertaken to examine the
nature of the incident and to modify the facility's security risk
management approach.
In the event of civil or industrial litigation where there is sufficient
evidence to support a plaintiff's claim that the measures in place
at the time of the incident were not considered to be reasonable
in preventing the act of violence, or may have even contributed to
it, hefty penalties and compensation have been experienced.
To improve security risk management (including legal defence) and
to gain greater value from your security budget, security advice
should be gained from a specialist consultant not aligned to providers
of security guard services or security systems installers.
Leon Harris CPP, is the principal consultant for Harris Crime Prevention
Services.
|