By Leon Harris
Published in INsite,
December 2004-January 2005
 Aged
care operators are increasingly becoming aware that ignoring or delaying
credible security risk assessments sometimes results in costly and
unfortunate experiences. The range of experiences arising from a
criminal incident may include injury to staff, residents and visitors;
financial losses (e.g. civil [legal] remedy for personal injury,
fines from [WorkCover] prosecutions, insurance premiums); management
time loss and distraction (including time needed for legal defence);
staff morale, prestige; and diminished management credibility.
We still hear statements like “we have all bases covered,
or, “we have no concerns”, or “we have security
patrols”, albeit less than what we heard say five years ago.
We still hear statements after a serious criminal incident like “we
thought that we had all the bases covered”, “we thought
that we had no concerns” and “this should not have happened;
we had security patrols”. However, on a brighter note, we are
increasingly hearing statements like, “we need to know more
about our security risks and our strategic options to manage them”.
This proactive focus is both a sign of good risk management and
a reflection of good corporate governance. It is a realisation that
occupational health and safety, security risk management (including
staff safety measures and insurance) and corporate governance are
interwoven and more obviously a part of core business for the modern
business, including not-for-profit organisations. All three aspects
have social and legal responsibility and obligations in terms of
duty of care compliance. Facility owners and managers should discuss
these issues with their professional legal advisers. Better sooner
than later.
This proactive focus by an increasing number of owners and managers
is an acknowledgement that the cost of appropriate protection from
crime needs to be resourced. Good security standards are central
to core business. Like any business requirement, there is a need
to seek opportunities in genuine cost-savings, however, without compromising
the integrity of security. This can be done with modern approaches
in risk identification, effective staff training and new technologies.
Opportunities to reduce the operating cost of security are available,
in particular with the right selection and appropriate application
of technologies. Opportunities for both single and multi-site operations
are, unfortunately, missed by some operators because of a number
of reasons; a common one being relying on poor advice. This is regrettable,
unnecessary and in some legal cases, may be deemed negligent. Managerial
action to identify the most cost-effective security risk management
is absolutely the right approach.
One of the problems for those owners and managers of facilities
who have yet to realise the need to realign and appropriately resource
their security risk management is that court cases are exposing their
(alleged) lack of duty of care compliance by comparison with similar
organisations which are considered to have a ‘best practice’ in
security risk management approach. Courts often consider the security
(and safety) best practice standards of an industry at the time of
the incident before them in assisting the directions of judgments
and associated penalties (criminal matters) and damages (civil matters).
The absence of criminal incidents prior to a criminal attack of a
facility involved in litigation is losing credibility as a defence,
because Courts are looking at the broader crime trends of an industry
group.
All owners and managers need to be current in their understanding
of what security best practice means in the aged care industry and
(at least) work towards it.
Leon Harris CPP, is the principal consultant for Harris Crime Prevention
Services.
|
