Teaching Security Courses Experientially

JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION VOLUME 19 NUMBER 2 (JULY 2008)

Teaching Security Courses Experientially Brandon Kooi and Sameer Hinduja

Downloaded By: [Florida Atlantic University] At: 21:10 14 August 2008

[email protected] Journal 10.1080/10511250802137804 RCJE_A_313946.sgm 1051-1253 Original Taylor 202008 19 BrandonKooi 00000July and & ofArticle Francis Criminal (print)/1745-9117 Francis 2008 Justice Education (online)

Courses in security are essential in criminal justice programs, but tend to be nonexistent at many postsecondary institutions. Faculty often struggle to legitimize these types of courses, and find that students are reluctant to take them. However, prior research indicates that student career choices and perceptions of the security field change after taking a course in security. The current work summarizes the need to teach security-related topics to criminal justice undergraduates and details two personal experiences on how to successfully do so. It also advises instructors on how to utilize university campuses internally and practitioners externally toward this end.

This paper is written as a response to three previously published articles: “Why college-level security courses don’t fly” (Swart, 2000); “Teaching security in criminal justice programs: The key is getting them in the classroom” (Gabbidon, 2002); and “Security in the evolution of the criminal justice curriculum” (Williams, McShane, & Karson, 2007). In an effort to continue this important dialogue, we consider how instructors who teach courses in security for criminal justice majors can best ensure that students not only sign up for classes, but also find them useful and rewarding in their educational and professional pursuits. This approach contrasts the commonly-held notion that security courses typically do not attract (or hold the attention of) many criminal justice students. When constructed and executed properly, we believe they are essential in criminal justice curricula and can bear much fruit in equipping undergraduates with the knowledge and skills to successfully pursue a career in this field.

Offering Courses in Security While the body of literature surrounding the teaching of security courses is limited, two papers merit discussion. The aforementioned Swart (2000) paper evolved after he experienced low attendance when offering a security course at the University of North Florida. He argued through a conflict perspective for

ISSN 1051-1253 print/1745-9117 online/08/020290-18 © 2008 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences DOI: 10.1080/10511250802137804


TEACHING SECURITY COURSES EXPERIENTIALLY

291

restructuring the criminal justice major as “justice studies” in order to more uniformly include security courses. He also suggested the possibility of adding these courses to the curriculum of business majors and then encouraging their attendance. Both of these approaches, in our opinion, lack the positive and desired impact that security courses should have on both student and academic interests. To wit, business administration majors are not nearly as likely to enter the security field as criminal justice majors. Furthermore, Kooi and Nalla (2005) demonstrate that the career interests of criminal justice students will remain exclusively (and detrimentally) myopic and focused only on the public/ governmental criminal justice system if not exposed (in some capacity) to a course in security. In the other work referenced above, Gabbidon (2002) outlined some challenges with conducting security courses, such as the insignificance placed on them by both students and academics (if in fact they are offered at all). However, the value of teaching courses outside the public/governmental criminal justice system was demonstrated through data collected by Kooi and Nalla (2005). Their snowball sample was drawn from six institutions where students were taking courses in private security within traditional criminal justice programs.1 Gabbidon (2002) further argued that security is not recognizable in traditional criminal justice introductory textbooks, as very little space is allotted to this topic. This often leads students and academics alike to believe it is less important than other criminal justice issues. Lastly, Williams et al. (2007) draws a parallel to the 1970s Law Enforcement Education Program (LEEP) funding initiatives to develop criminal justice curricula and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants following 9/11 to develop security-related programs. Their argument centers on the fact that the security industry has a vested interest in criminal justice majors educated in areas relevant to their work. To be sure, the demand for a more professional and credentialed security employee-base has grown significantly since 9/11. Considering the importance of protecting our domestic infrastructure, it is essential to deliver instruction that directly relates to the security field. Academic involvement in homeland security is heavily decentralized and includes certificates, associates, bachelors, masters, and doctoral degrees. While there are certainly commonalities in much of the coursework, many of the programs throughout the country have been established using pre-existing courses supplemented with new material related to homeland security issues (Rollins & Rowan, 2007). While some contend that standardization in security education is necessary, others in the academic community suggest diversity should be maintained and emphasis placed upon teaching problem-solving through enhanced analytical and critical thinking skills (see Bellevita & Gordon, 2006). 1. Although there are clearly more than six across the nation offering at least one course in private security, many institutions were difficult to access for research evaluation purposes.


292

KOOI AND HINDUJA

As programs nationwide continue to expand, departmental administrators and faculty need to address contemporary issues concerning security and its relation to other spheres of criminal justice. The purpose of this paper is to address some of the issues in delivering security-related curricula, and also to offer pragmatic advice to those who currently (or plan to) teach this type of course. The lack of attention to nontraditional and nonpublic criminal justice issues in many curricula is misguided at best and negligent at worst, particularly in the light of new societal and technological developments. For example, our dependence on computer networks and systems renders us vulnerable to crime, but initiatives in criminal justice education related to cybercrime have not burgeoned with the same speed or intensity. Teaching and research in this area is only now substantively evolving, and a healthy recognition is finally being given to the attendant issues. Since security is similarly implicated in the private sector in countless ways, our discipline must substantively support the education and training of criminal justice students and practitioners in this area. Education in criminal justice that includes security is critical as estimates conclude that 85% of the country’s critical infrastructure is being protected by the private sector (Ohlhausen Research, Inc., 2004). The DHS reports that the federal government does not own most of the critical infrastructure as indicated in fiscal year 2009 DHS budget priorities, and has slated $1.5 billion in grants to protect mass transit, electrical plants, and water supplies and $6 billion towards the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and other multi-layered risk based aviation security systems (Homeland Security, 2009). Knowing how to successfully collaborate between private and public security entities is therefore requisite for the twenty-first-century criminal justice student. Unfortunately, persistent complaints abound regarding a private security and a criminal justice system that is unprepared and fractured. Challenges directed toward the credibility of private security personnel and operations need to be confronted and countered by practitioners in the field and by academics in criminal justice programs. Past studies have clearly indicated that criminal justice students are reluctant to ascribe legitimacy to the private sector in criminal justice (Kooi & Nalla, 2005), that academics fail to legitimatize teaching private sector courses in criminal justice curricula (Swart, 2000), and that law enforcement practitioners fail to see the need for training in securityrelated topics (Hinduja, 2004). A recent anecdotal account aptly highlights the need for security issues to be covered in college and university settings. On October 13, 2005, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) faced denunciation following a one-hour broadcast by ABC News “Primetime Live” that vividly showed security lapses in nuclear test reactor sites at various research universities across the country. According to the report, there were 25 college campuses with nuclear research reactors, and a number of young journalist students found these sites highly accessible. In the words of the NRC Chairman, Dale Klein, on September 14, 2006, at the annual banquet of the National Organization of Test, Research, and Training Reactors (TRTR) in Austin, Texas:


293


Two dates loom large in the annals of TRTR security: September 11, 2001, and October 13, 2005. October 13, 2005 is the day on which the ABC television network devoted the entire hour of its Primetime Live program to examining research reactor security. The news report was complete with covert midnight visits, doors propped open with books and flirtatious behavior directed at university reactor personnel to get them to bend the rules. During the show, ABC showed that doors were left open or unchecked, guards were either absent or asleep, backpacks and packages were permitted in areas adjacent to the reactors, individuals arriving unannounced were allowed tours and even to bring cameras inside, among other transgressions (Office of Public Affairs, 2006).

Perhaps a greater appreciation of security issues fostered by in-house criminal justice faculty and students at these universities would have preempted such vulnerabilities before mass media students broadcasted their presence to the world.

History of Security Education Nalla (2001) points out that over the last 25 years the number of course offerings related to security education in undergraduate programs has increased (Kakalik & Wildhorn, 1971; U.S. Department of Justice, 1976; Kostanoski, 1978; ASIS Foundation, 1981; Timm, 1982; Fischer, 1983; Cunningham & Taylor, 1985; Cunningham, Strauchs, & Van Meter, 1990; Timm & Christian, 1991). According to a recent historical account, the first undergraduate degrees granting a specialization in security administration occurred as early as 1958–1959 through Michigan State University (Rykert, 1985). The goal of this early program was to equip baccalaureates to staff the security departments of the major automobile companies that arose in the late 1930s and the defense plants of the early 1940s— thereby meeting a need that no other academic institution was addressing. While professional security practitioners recognized a void for quality undergraduate security education, their guidance in the development of curricula during the 1950s and 1960s was generally limited. In the 1960s, a small group of university faculty worked with security directors and the American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS) to identify security education needs. Kakalik and Wildhorn’s (1971) research on behalf of the RAND Corporation revealed a very large unregulated private security field in which order-maintenance practices were frequently overlooked. Subsequently, ASIS Foundation (1972) published a report entitled Academic guidelines for security and loss prevention programs in community and junior colleges, directed at students enrolled in associate degree programs. A few years later, the Report of the Task Force on Private Security (U.S. Department of Justice, 1976) outlined the contents of security education by developing a curriculum for granting degrees, and the findings therein substantiated those from previous works. The RAND, ASIS, and U.S. Department of Justice studies all discussed the need for academic programs directed toward organizing and professionalizing the security industry. Interestingly, the Task Force report also called for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration


294

KOOI AND HINDUJA

(LEAA) to cooperate with the private security field by encouraging and developing undergraduate and graduate programs to best meet the latter’s needs as the employing constituency. However, little to no LEAA money was allocated for this specific task. One comprehensive document created around this time has been helpful. In 1978, the Academic Programs Committee of ASIS produced a monograph entitled Establishing baccalaureate programs in security and loss prevention (ASIS Foundation, 1978) with materials drawn from various meetings, including the First National Conference on Private Security held in December 1975, at the University of Maryland; the Seminar on Criminal Justice Human Resource Needs and the Collegiate Response held at Michigan State University in 1977; and the Twenty-Third Annual ASIS Seminar and Exhibit, held in 1977 in Orlando, Florida. This work contained a philosophical and pragmatic approach to establishing a course of study in security and loss prevention and proposed a program to prepare individuals for a related career in the field of security. A final point bears mentioning. Increased attention toward criminal justice issues during the 1960s gained recognition by the Johnson administration through the establishment of the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Many of the early criminal justice programs on college and university campuses were disparaged for being simply “cop shops” rather than offering high-quality educational curricula and were under pressure and scrutiny to address the entire public justice system in order to maintain LEAA funding (see Newman, 1993). Unsurprisingly, security received little attention during this time, and was left out of the original academic criminal justice pedagogy. As mentioned earlier, it has only sporadically appeared within criminal justice programs and even then largely only as elective coursework. The lack of security influence within university/college curricula is evident when reviewing academic journals related to security. For example, in the Sorenson, Snell, and Rodriguez (2006) assessment of criminal justice and criminology journal prestige, security-related journals were not mentioned. (A table of security journals is provided in Appendix A.) Despite these challenges, there is some belief that criminal justice is undergoing a paradigm shift in part due to the DHS (see Williams et al., 2007) and will become more inclusive with security.

Security Education Today Some scholars have argued for the inclusion of security courses within criminal justice departments (Nalla, Morash, & Schram, 1995, 1996; Nalla, 2001). To be sure, this would be consistent with interdisciplinary research in criminology/ criminal justice programs that involve the social sciences, some natural sciences, business management, and information technology aspects (Calder, 1980; Ellis, 1989; Nalla, 2001). Moreover, efforts by the ASIS’s Educational Council over the past decade reveal that there has been very little support from business schools to incorporate a security curriculum, despite the argument for



295

inclusion under Business Administration advocated by Swart (2000). Since security continues to be a critical component of every business, and since it is fundamentally similar to public security and law enforcement in certain ways, it seems best compartmentalized under a criminal justice rubric. Historically, one of the biggest challenges in winning support for these types of courses revolves around negative student perceptions. Swart (2000) points to the commonly-held image of a low-paid, uniformed guard position filled by cop “wannabees” and those who are aimless but seek an entry-level professional position. Recent research shows, though, that this view may be maturing and evolving as college students obtain a deeper understanding of the breadth and depth of the field (Nalla & Heraux, 2003). It has also been demonstrated that taking courses in security can significantly and even dramatically impact career choices and improve perceptions of the security profession (Kooi & Nalla, 2005). Collectively, these studies emphasize that we are moving in the proverbial right direction. As such, security classes—if taught properly—are not only ideal, but highly requisite for criminal justice students when considering the current state and goals of our discipline. How, then, can we best teach this course? Are there practices interested instructors can follow? It is to these topics that we now turn our attention.

Teaching Security Courses Experientially Security courses taught on traditional day campuses offer some of the best opportunities to engage students in experiential learning that bring criminological and managerial theories to life. Within the experiential learning approach, the focus is on “reflection-in-experience.” That is, being immersed in the relevant environment causes the relationship between the instructor and student to become mutually transactive, rather than teacher-to-student interactive. The transactive model further calls for both the student and the instructor to introduce information useful to the course learning objectives (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 1998). Through this symbiotic exchange of knowledge, students can affect or enhance the learning environment in the same manner as instructors. The experiential approach to education has a deep history, perhaps beginning with Aristotle, who stated, “The things we have to learn before we do them, we learn by doing them” (Irwin, 1985). In more concrete terms, the Association for Experiential Education (1996, p. 7) states that “experiential learning occurs when carefully chosen experiences are supported by reflection, critical analysis, and synthesis.” Even more comprehensive is Carver’s (1996, p. 9) contention that experiential education “makes conscious application of the students’ experiences by integrating them into the curriculum by involving a combination of senses (i.e., touch, smell, hearing, sight, and taste) through more complex cognitions (e.g., knowledge, established beliefs, and problem solving skills).” These definitions succinctly depict the benefits that hands-on, sensory-implicating applied learning can


296

KOOI AND HINDUJA

bring to any educational endeavor. This appears even truer for education in security, which is seemingly so suited for it. Before working to create this type of class environment, criminal justice instructors are encouraged to research and understand experiential learning approaches. Wincelowicz (2005) provides some examples of how a community college program in Denver utilized this type of active learning with security students. Other helpful readings concerning the utility of experiential learning in criminal justice courses include: Bates (2003), who provides a thorough review of assessing workplace learning experiences; Stinchcomb (2002), who illustrates an out-of-class assignment that forces students to stay in their rooms for an entire weekend as a means for recognizing the impact of home confinement; Wolfer and Baker (2000), who discuss their active pedagogical approach in a course dealing with organized crime patterns where students worked in small groups on individual case studies to improve their problem-solving and presentation skills; and Robinson (2000), who provides 25 examples on how to use experiential learning in criminal justice classrooms for enhancing lectures, questioning and testing, group discussion, controversial topics, and idea generation. Academics in four-year degree programs and graduate schools should not make the mistake of assuming that experiential learning environments are only suited in two-year associate degree programs. As evidenced in the extant literature base, experiential learning environments can be created in any educational setting—and appear particularly useful in the field of security given its pragmatic nature. Instructors facilitating security courses within criminal justice programs are encouraged to provide environments for students to experience the realities of risk management and security work. One way this can be accomplished is by networking with other employees at one’s institution of higher learning, such as campus security/police and administrators and/or risk managers often represented in the university’s legal counsel. Two benefits are likely to stem from these encounters. First, faculty will begin to learn a great deal about crime problems and safety hazards throughout the campus, and second, those involved with security issues will likely be excited to share their concerns and stories with criminal justice academics. In the foregoing text, we share personal experiences regarding our efforts to implement experiential learning in our security courses. While we offer various suggestions based upon our perceived successes, there is no cookie-cutter approach to teaching and administrating relevant security material in an experiential way. As such, we spend limited space in discussing specific course topics for teaching security; for more information, please see Nalla (2001), who provides guidance on how to fundamentally structure and instruct a course in this area. Rather, the current work seeks to provide pragmatic advice on utilizing the university’s internal community and the wider external community in the construction and execution of your security course. Concurrently, we also hope to foster additional dialogue on the disciplinary importance of privatesector courses and more general security/crime prevention courses within traditional criminal justice programs.


297


Dr Kooi’s Experiential Experience in Teaching Security When conducting the planning stages for a course in security, I wanted to utilize the first half of the course to discuss the history of private policing and basic theoretical models most relevant to security: crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) (Jeffrey, 1971); defensible space (Newman, 1972); routine activities (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Felson & Clarke, 1998; Felson, 2006); problem-oriented policing (Goldstein, 1990); and environmental criminology (Barr & Pease, 1990; Brantingham & Brantingham, 1991; Clarke, 1997). In following Becker’s (1991) argument for security education as a reflection of business concepts, course work also included managerial and leadership issues underlying workplace environments and how security fits into those environments. The experiential learning process developed out of thorough discussions with practitioners who conduct security assessments and analyses related to insurance, risk management, occupational and health safety standards, and other critical factors. My approach follows Nalla and Newman’s (1990) argument that security course work should deviate from traditional military/law enforcement models and toward crime prevention and organizational psychology. With regard to terrorism prevention, Clarke and Newman (2007) effectively point out the need for increased collaboration and expertise in crime prevention and security matters. The school environment in which I taught was a private, Midwest parochial college within a rural setting encompassing less than 1,000 on-campus students. At first glance, this type of environment did not appear to be rife with crime- or security-related issues. However, after visiting with several administrators, I was enlightened by several problems experienced in different parts of the campus. One issue included the alleged theft of several band instruments over the course of five years and an inability to determine how many were actually stolen due to a lack of inventory controls. Other incidents included the theft of various DVD players and computer equipment from classrooms, the loss of several valuable records from a music professor’s private collection, students selling and using illicit narcotics in the dormitories and campus-owned apartments, theft of student belongings from their dormitory rooms, theft of exams from professors’ offices, and unsecured chemicals in biology/chemistry laboratories that were on the DHS “watch list.” The large number of safety- and security-related problems at this college is not atypical, and they likely exist to some degree at other, much larger schools.

Conducting Risk Analysis Surveys and Providing Recommendations All of these campus security issues allowed for opportune experiential learning moments to enhance student critical-thinking and problem-solving skills. Students were tasked with conducting their own risk analysis using a specialized survey instrument they created following a review of discussion of 20 guiding


298

KOOI AND HINDUJA

risk analysis survey questions (see Appendix B). This allowed them to collect quantitative and qualitative information related to their site and its security position. In conducting a risk analysis, specific steps included identifying the assets in need of being protected (people, services, money, chemicals, technology, etc.); identifying the kinds of risks that may affect the assets involved (kidnapping, extortion, internal/external theft, fire, etc.); determining the probability of loss occurrence; and determining the impact or effect, in dollar values if possible, if a given loss does occur. Risk analysis is a method for estimating the expected loss from the occurrence of some adverse event. Students learned that a properly-performed risk analysis should serve as a value-added service to an organization by: showing the current security posture (profile) of the organization; highlighting areas where greater (or lesser) security is needed; helping to assemble some of the facts needed for the development and justification of cost-effective countermeasures (safeguards); and serving to increase security awareness to all organizational levels from management to operations. They also learned that it is not an end-product, but a process to be periodically repeated as a means to stay attuned with changes in organizational equipment, facilities, goals, and directives. Students conducted group risk analyses in three phases at three different dates: (1) an unannounced site visit to record daily baseline activity; (2) an announced site visit involving prearranged interviews with site coordinators; and (3) unannounced site visits that sought to verify whether stated security implementations were actually present or absent. Students were also allowed and encouraged to be creative by customizing and augmenting pre-existing risk analysis surveys to the specific location and situation they were analyzing. Student groups also incorporated peer-reviewed research findings relevant to their assigned environment and utilized theoretical and workplace behavior considerations when constructing recommendations. They then presented their results to the college’s legal consultant, risk manager, and head of security. Presentations included a PowerPoint slideshow, an executive summary of findings, and a list and explanation of policy recommendations. Solutions suggested by students had to address security-related tensions on college campuses within extant organizational boundaries and constraints. One issue brought up involved biology/chemistry students who needed night-time laboratory access and security personnel who needed to lock up the building after business hours. Another involved the presence and vulnerability of unsecured art supplies, which the faculty member left unsecured so that preparation time for students was shortened and class time saved. Two final examples included students propping open doors that should be closed and locked in order to facilitate easy access to dormitories and student campus security officers taking advantage of their work-related access to professors’ offices, and at times, copies of exams. Following their presentations, the students’ suggestions to administrators and outside faculty were viewed as invaluable, and their reports were later


299

used in administrative risk management meetings. In addition, student post-test survey scores mimicked results found through a national study of security courses by Kooi and Nalla (2005) and Gabbidon (2002), as several students reported considering careers in security and improved perceptions of security jobs after completion of the course. I was extremely pleased with how well they adopted the hands-on approach and took to the task at hand. The end result made it clear that the material comprising a security course is best taught in an experiential manner.


Dr Hinduja’s Experiential Experience in Teaching Security When planning for my course, I spoke with various security educators and professionals from the fields of criminal justice, business, information technology, and organizational management in order to determine the areas within security that were most suitable for instruction. Generally speaking, I wanted to give students a broad understanding of the art and science of security within a range of fields and then enable them to use the information they learned in a practical setting—by conducting a risk assessment of a corporation or organization. After much deliberation, I decided to cover the following topical areas: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

The Origins and Development of Security; Security Education, Training, Certification, and Regulation; The Role of Security; Proprietary vs Contract Security; Risk Analysis and Security Survey; Perimeter and Exterior Security; Interior Security and Access Control; Transportation/Cargo Security; Computer and Information Security; Security and the Law; Internal and External Fraud; Personnel Policies and Human Relations; Workplace Violence; Retail Security; Casino Security; Olympic Security; Nuclear Security; Museum Security; Continuity of Operations.

While some of these areas are covered well in existing security textbooks, most had to be self-constructed in order to capably and imaginatively communicate the core concepts. The content of each teaching module can be very dry and inaccessible if lecturing straight from a textbook—even if PowerPoint or


300

KOOI AND HINDUJA

similar presentations are given, replete with digital photographs and illustrations. For that reason, it was essential to incorporate additional forms of computer-based and video-based multimedia, real-world stories and examples, “what if” scenarios, guest speakers, discussions of current security issues in the news, and experiential learning opportunities within the field. Some examples are hereby warranted. I contacted the major organizations headquartered in the Southeast Florida area—where my university is based—and sought field experts in access control, cargo security, computer security, and continuity of operations. While networking with the relevant personnel within these organizations, I found them more than willing to visit my university and speak to my students about how they reached their current position, what their day-to-day responsibilities involved, and war stories collected over the course of their career. This served to break up the monotony of one professor (i.e. me) lecturing during each and every class period, and helped put a personal touch on the type of positions to which students might aspire following graduation. Furthermore, I self-created scenarios involving private-sector problems that required a physical security, information security, or continuity-of-operations solution.2 Students worked in groups and brainstormed to determine all possible vulnerabilities, all possible ways to mitigate them (as well as how to obtain executive-level support and funding), and all possible contingency plans. I also incorporated clips from various popular motion pictures into the lesson plan to make the course material more palpable. For instance, I showed a clip from The Thomas Crown Affair during the session on museum security, a clip from Office Space during the talk on information security, and a clip from The Italian Job when covering transportation security. Videos from the A&E Television Network on Workplace Violence and Casino Security were also quite useful in reinforcing the material in a audiovisual way. Current events involving ATM thefts, bank heists, terrorist threats, and computer security breaches were also brought up throughout the semester to demonstrate how real-world problems arise, inflict financial and organizational harm, and often can be prevented. Furthermore, discussion of these events helped to promote a classroom full of students increasingly sensitive to and conscious of security issues in any situation or environment. Field trips are also excellent opportunities for experiential learning. For example, visiting a nuclear power plant in one’s vicinity keenly highlights how strongly security is taken or perhaps lacking in certain industries. I also accompanied my students to their site visits—where they were to perform their risk analysis projects. Rather than use the university campus at which I taught, I decided to contact the security directors of other major organizations in the area to see if they were willing to accommodate my students for a day. Two of the best sites we visited involved a local high-end shopping mall and a local sea port. 2. For example, continuity of operations was quite relatable considering the annual hurricane threats coastal residents of Florida know all too well.



301

Security directors at both locations sat down with us for a lengthy questionand-answer session, and my students were prepared to intelligently inquire about a number of areas of security because of the content we covered in each teaching module during the previous weeks. The directors then took us on an extensive tour of the property, and pointed out various security implementations that were in place to reduce or prevent the exploitation of vulnerabilities. They also provided my students with helpful documents (e.g. physical schematics, safety manuals, and human resources guidelines) and resources to inform them as they evaluated the current security measures in place and sought to identify weaknesses and solutions. Finally, they served as a point of contact for additional questions as the students worked on their analyses. I was particularly pleased that the security directors even took time to attend the end-of-semester oral presentations of my students to give further input and feedback. We benefited greatly from their willingness to inform, educate, and inspire. Overall, student evaluations for the course were extremely high with many students indicating a new and serious consideration of pursuing employment in the security field following graduation. The experiential contributions of the class throughout the semester had clearly and expediently dovetailed with my individual efforts, thereby enriching the process associated with truly learning the course material.

Discussion Regardless of whether their career trajectory leads them toward public or private security, criminal justice students need to be exposed more thoroughly to the nuances of the latter in order to more capably excel in their occupational endeavors. This is no longer optional but requisite on our part as educators. Close to 20 years ago, Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux (1990) noted that the privatization trend does not just involve growth in the number of uniformed security guards to supplement public law enforcement, but the development of specialized positions in detection, investigation, apprehension, surveillance, protection, tracking, and analysis in the courtroom and correctional setting. All of these areas offer numerous job opportunities for criminal justice baccalaureates who may not pursue these opportunities if they are not sufficiently familiarized with the private sector within their criminal justice program. We do not suspect that security, if presented properly, is a fad with shortterm popularity. The same cannot be said of forensics or crime analysis, with some arguing this type of coursework is media-driven, superficial, and calls for slight changes in the work, but has little regard for shifting the paradigm (Williams et al., 2007). However, security course work encompasses a wider push towards crime prevention, proactive critical thinking, and systematic collaboration. Rather than the confusing links between forensics to chemistry and crime analysis to geography, we contend that security has a clear home within criminal justice and, if presented properly, will encourage a paradigm


302

KOOI AND HINDUJA

shift on how we educate future criminal justice professionals. Others agree, arguing that homeland security is in a pre-paradigm phase as a professional discipline (Bellavita & Gordon, 2006), and criminal justice academic administrators can now utilize this momentum by instilling security into traditional criminal justice curriculum. Since 1997, ASIS has been holding collaborative symposiums with academics and industry practitioners from the United States and Great Britain to improve the organization, definition, and direction of security education. The first three symposiums were designed to: provide guidance for academics and practitioners who have an interest in the security discipline; better organize and shape the vast body of extant knowledge in this area; and acknowledge the proper focus of security in terms of business functions and community outreach. Within these symposiums, models for both undergraduate and graduate programs have been developed to assist colleges and universities in expanding their student body’s knowledge and understanding of business and organizational security management (ASIS Foundation, 1998). It is argued and assumed throughout this paper that promoting careers within security is best suited for academic criminal justice departments. While law enforcement jobs have always been the staple of criminal justice majors, private security has established itself as the leading employer in the area of social regulation and control. However, the existing criminal justice literature base does not offer much in providing students information about the profession or its related career opportunities. Instructors of security-related courses may therefore find the current work helpful in developing course content that effectively brings to life theoretical and methodological issues which typically face professionals in this field. It is also our hope that academics who have failed to recognize the need for security in criminal justice curricula hereby become more informed. Finally, this piece should serve as a catalyst for ongoing discussions on how higher educational institutions could and should find a place for utilizing experiential learning in the instruction of security, and how it can best be subsumed within criminal justice programs.

Acknowledgment The authors wish to express their appreciation for the earlier reviews from JCJE. We would also like to thank the following individuals for their helpful comments: Stephanie Walsh, PhD (Aurora University) and Stephanie Fletcher (Aurora University).

References ASIS Foundation (1972). Academic guidelines for security and loss prevention programs in community and junior colleges. Washington, DC: ASIS Foundation Inc.



303

ASIS Foundation (1978). Establishing baccalaureate programs in security and loss prevention. Washington, DC: ASIS Foundation, Inc. ASIS Foundation (1981). Career opportunities in security and loss prevention: a directory of academic programs. Washington, DC: ASIS Foundation, Inc. ASIS Foundation (1998). Proceedings of the 1998 academic/practitioner symposium. Alexandria, VA: ASIS International. Association for Experiential Education (1996). AEE Definition of Experiential Education. Journal of Experiential Education, 19 (1), 7. Barr, R., and Pease, K. (1990). Crime placement, displacement, and deflection. In M. Tonry and N. Morris (Eds.). Crime and justice: a review of research (p. 12). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bates, M. (2003). The assessment of work integrated learning: symptoms of personal change. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 14 (2), 303–326. Becker, D. (1991). Security administration: criminal justice with business input. Journal of Security Administration, 14, 69–74. Bellavita, C. and Gordon, E. (2006). Changing homeland security: teaching the core. Homeland Security Affairs, 2 (1). Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://www.hsaj. org/?article=2.1.1 Brantingham, P. and Brantingham, P. (1991). Environmental criminology (reissue). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Broder, J. (2006). Risk Analysis and the Security Survey, 3rd edn. Boston, MA: Butterworth Heinemann. Calder, J. (1980). The Security-criminal justice connection: toward the elimination of separate-buy-equal status. Journal of Security Administration, 2, 13–29. Carver, R. (1996). Theory for practice: a framework for thinking about experiential education. Journal of Experiential Education, 19 (1), 8–13. Clarke, R. (Ed.) (1997). Situational crime prevention: successful case studies, 2nd edn. Guilderland, NY: Harrow and Heston. Clarke, R. and Newman, G. (2007). Police and the prevention of terrorism. Policing, 1 (1), 9–20. Cohen, L. and Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–607. Cunningham, W. C. and Taylor, T. (1985). The Hallcrest report I: private security and police in America. Portland, OR: Chancellor Press. Cunningham, W., Strauchs, J., and Van Meter, C. (1990). Private security trends 1970– 2000: The Hallcrest report II. Stoneham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Ellis, J. (1989). Recent social science literature: building a security loss control discipline. Journal of Security Administration, 12, 11–28. Felson, M. (2006). Crime and human nature. London: Sage Publications. Felson, M. and Clarke, R. (1998). Opportunity makes the thief: practical theory for crime prevention. London: Home Office Police and Reducing Crime Unit. Fischer, R. (1983). A report card on security education. Security Management, 27, 165–172. Gabbidon, S. (2002). Teaching security administration in criminal justice programs: the key is getting them into the classroom. Journal of Security Administration, 25 (1), 17–21. Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York: McGraw–Hill. Hinduja, S. (2004). Perceptions of local and state law enforcement concerning the role of computer crime investigative teams. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 27 (3), 341–357. Homeland Security (2009). Budget-in-brief (FY09). Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http:// www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/homeland.html. Irwin, T. (trans). (1985). Nicomachean ethics, Aristotle. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.


304

KOOI AND HINDUJA

Jeffrey, C. (1971). Crime prevention through environmental design. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Kakalik, J. and Wildhorn, S. (1971). Private police in the United States: findings and recommendations. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Knowles, M., Holton, E., and Swanson, R. (1998). The adult learner, 5th edn. Texas: Gulf. Kooi, B. and Nalla, M. (2005). Impact of introductory security courses on the career choices of criminal justice students. Journal of Security Education, 1 (1), 41–55. Kostanoski, J. (1978). The private police and higher education. Journal of Security Administration, 1: 24–29. Nalla, M. (2001). Designing an introductory survey course in private security. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 12 (1), 35–52. Nalla, M. and Heraux, C. (2003). Assessing goals and functions of private police. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31 (3), 237–247. Nalla, M. and Newman, G. (1990). A primer in private security. New York: Harrow and Heston. Nalla, M., Christian, K., Morash, M., and Schram, P. (1995). Practitioners’ perceptions of graduate curriculum in security education. Security Journal, 6, 93–96. Nalla, M., Christian, K., Morash, M., and Schram, P. (1996). Security practitioners’ perceptions of undergraduate curriculum. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 7, 79–97. Newman, D. (1993). The American Bar Foundation survey and the development of criminal justice higher education. In L. Ohlin and F. Remington (Eds.), Discretion in criminal justice (pp. 279–350). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: crime prevention through urban design. New York: Macmillan. Office of Public Affairs (2006). No. S-06-024. Remarks by Chairman Dale Klein taken from United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission homepage on April 12, 2008. http:// www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/speeches/2006/s-06-024.html Ohlhausen Research, Inc. (2004). National policy summit: building private security/ public policing partnerships to prevent and respond to terrorism and public disorder. International Association of Chiefs of Police. Robinson, M. (2000). Using active learning in criminal justice: twenty-five examples. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 11 (1), 65–79. Rollins, J. and Rowan, J. (2007) The homeland security academic environment: a review of current activities and issues for consideration. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://www.hsdec.org/downloads/springsym07/Rollins2.pdf Rykert, W. (1985). History of the School of Police Administration at Michigan State University, 1935–1963. Unpublished master’s thesis, Michigan State University. Sorensen, J., Snell, C., and Rodriguez, J. (2006). An assessment of criminal justice and criminology journal prestige. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 17 (2), 297–322. Stinchcomb, J. (2002). Prisons of the mind: lessons learned from home confinement. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 13 (2), 463–480. Swart, S. (2000). Security between two worlds: why college-level security courses don’t fly. Journal of Security Administration, 23 (1), 37–39. Timm, H. (1982). Create a curriculum: establishing security administration programs in the 1980’s. Security Management, 7, 217–224. Timm, H. and Christian, K. (1991). Introduction to security. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole. Trojanowicz, R. and Bucqueroux, B. (1990). The privatization of public justice: What will it mean to the police? The Police Chief, 131–135. U.S. Department of Justice (1976). Report of the Task Force on Private Security. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.


305


Williams, F., McShane, M., and Karson, L. (2007). Security in the evolution of criminal justice curriculum. Criminal Justice Studies, 20 (2), 161–173. Wincelowicz, V. (2005). The right course for learning. Security Management, 49 (6), 123–126. Wolfer, L. and Baker, T. (2000). Teaching organized crime patterns: an active learning approach. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 11 (1), 79–99.

Appendix A Table A1 Title

Editor

Affiliations

Location

Security Journal

Bonnie Fisher Martin Gill

American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS) Macmillan Publishers

University of Cincinnati

Journal of Applied Security Research (formerly Journal of Security Education)

John Kostanoski

Academy of Security Educators and Trainers Protect New York Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS) Security/Crime Prevention section Haworth Press, Inc.

Farmingdale State University of New York

Crime Prevention and Community Safety

Rob Mawby Steve Lab

Macmillan Publishers

University of Plymouth (UK)

Risk Management

Denis Smith Dominic Elliott Alan Irwin

Macmillan Publishers

University of Glasgow (UK)

Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management

John Harrald Claire Rubin

Berkeley Electronic Press (online)

George Washington University

Computers and Security

Stephen Wolthusen

Elsevier Advanced Technology

University of London, Egham (UK)

306

KOOI AND HINDUJA

Appendix B


Risk Analysis and the Security Survey Assignment Security and risk management is principally concerned with the protection and conservation of institutional assets and resources. It is not uncommon to find conflicts between what top management perceives its security (i.e. loss prevention or assets protection) should be, and what comprehensive risk identification and analysis concludes it should be. The degree of this difference may determine an institution’s future—either remaining competitive in the marketplace or filing for bankruptcy due to unplanned losses. Risk analysis is a management tool, the standards for which are determined by whatever management decides it wants to accept in terms of actual loss. In conducting your group risk analysis some basics tasks include: • showing the current security posture (profile) of the organization; • identifying the assets in need of being protected (money, chemicals, products); • identifying the kinds of risks that may affect the assets involved (e.g. kidnapping, extortion, internal/external theft, fire); • highlighting areas where greater (or lesser) security is needed; • helping to assemble some of the facts needed for the development and justification of cost-effective countermeasures (safeguards); • determining the probability of risk occurrence with an understanding that such determination may be more of an art rather than a science (nothing is ever 100% secure); • determining the impact or effect, in dollar values if possible, if a given loss does occur or has occurred. Risk analysis is not an end product, but a process to be repeated periodically as a means to stay attuned with changes in organizational missions, facilities, and equipment. If meaningful results are to be expected, those responsible for the security must be willing to commit the resources and commit to the organizational culture necessary to accomplish the undertaking (see Broder, 2006). Ultimately, you will need to find out who, if anyone, is exercising responsibility for that which is deemed valuable within the location your group is analyzing risk for.

Guiding Questions 1. 2. 3.

Does a written security policy exist? If yes, see if you can make a copy for presentation purposes. Is there any documentation indicating who is responsible for security in the given location? Document full names. Is the responsible party accessible? Do they actually work within the area of concern?


4. 5. 6. 7. 8.


9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

307

Are there any disciplinary guidelines for security breaches? Are these documented and, if yes, see if you can make a copy for presentation purposes. Are security breaches documents? Again, if yes, get a copy of the data. Are security breaches reviewed and/or uniformly enforced or followed up on? If yes, by whom? Is there a chain-of-command regarding security responsibility? Are there days and times when no security is present and what is done during those days and times? What type of training, if any, has taken place with reference to security? Are staff/students/other faculty aware of the security procedures? Are the public police involved with regard to security or responding to criminal behaviors? If yes, how often and what has been the results? How is identification checked upon entry? Are strangers challenged when entering secured areas? When and how often? What type of physical security exists? How adequate is it? What type of lighting exists? Alarm systems? Locks? Have valuables been inventoried? If yes, what is the total value? How are inbound and outbound items inventoried and secured? How are or would losses be reported? Are all losses reported? Why or why not? How is waste disposed of? Are there any concerns? What types of plans exist for fire? Weather? Explosions? Bomb threats? Theft?