Workplace Violence iMother Seton Parish RIsk Assessment 13.docx

Workplace Violence i
Mother Seton Parish RIsk Assessment 13
Risk Assessment: Mother Seton Parish
Germantown, MD
Ian Swayze
CJMS 630
Professor Wilson
University of Maryland – University College
March 31, 2013
Turnitin.com Match Score: 8% similar
Introduction
As institutions focused on the practice of faith and the
associated charitable contributions to their surrounding
communicates, a reasonable person may assume that churches
and other houses of worship are largely insulated from the
threats that envelop the environment around them.
Unfortunately, much like hospitals, churches and other religious
institutions face a seemingly increasing degree of threat from
both property crime and related violent crimes against persons.
In a concise and well-developed study in the security challenges
to churches, Harrell (2010) paints a frightening picture of both
numerous and egregious attacks and criminal incidents
involving faith based institutions (FBOs). To that effect, he
notes the proclivity of these such events, to the degree of 12
homicides and 38 other violent crimes against Christian
churches alone within the US during CY 2009. Aside from the
human victimization, crimes against property are no less
worrisome in this venue, with more than $24 million in property
loss incurred during that same period. To that effect, sadly,
Purpura (2010) notes that arson is the leading cause for fires in

churches and facilities used by FBOs. Clearly the spectrum of
threats facing these institutions has become vast.
Despite the nature of their mission to be a source of hope and
assistance to their communities, FBOs face such serious threats
as theft, vandalism, arson and, increasingly, cases of assault and
homicide against their staffs and membership. Accordingly, in
addition to advancing their noble cause for service, clergy and
FBO community leaders must continually, and diligently
evaluate means by which to examine and counter potential risks
facing their institutions.
Site Selection & Rationale
With that respect, this paper serves to provide a cursory risk
assessment for a church of which I am a parishioner, Mother
Seton Parish in Germantown, MD. In evaluating potential
options to consider for this assignment, having had the
opportunity to view this institution and its practices through the
lens of a stakeholder has helped to hone a more effective view
on the potential challenges associated with the security
environment therein. As both a security professional and as a
member of the church community, I have a vested interest in the
assurance of safety, security, and relative peace of this
component of my life. The scope of this assessment is the entire
parish site, to include all facilities, physical property, and
persons with a presence at the site.
Importantly, as this was not a church-requested assessment, the
discussion provided henceforth is based on the best information
available through public data, personal dialogue with clergy and
parishioners, and individual observation. As such, this
assessment would not be appropriate for, nor should it be
utilized in, and sort of insurance determination, risk acceptance,
or capital budgeting activities.
Mother Seton Parish is a Roman Catholic Church located on
Father Hurley Blvd (intersecting with Middlebrook Rd) in

Germantown (Montgomery County), Maryland. Though the
parish has been in existence since 1974, the current facilities
were not completed until 2004. The church campus is comprised
of three main facilities: the church itself, a parish center (for
religious education and community activity), and the parish
rectory which houses the three priests assigned to the parish.
From a property standpoint, the site is tightly nestled into a 5.2-
acre lot bound to the north by Middlebrook Road, and to the
west by Father Hurley Blvd (which, coincidentally is named
after Msgr. Leonard Hurley, the parish’s first pastor). On-site
parking at the church is normally plentiful for normal Sunday
mass, but often woefully inadequate for holiday services such as
Easter and Christmas. Forming the site’s western line of
demarcation is a significant-sized shopping center (to include a
large grocery store, larger stores, smaller inline stores and
restaurants). In this way, the church is at the edge of a zone of
convergence between a high-density residential area (mostly
rental apartments and some smaller townhomes) and a major
retail / commercial area, principally anchored around
Germantown Rd (Maryland Rt. 118). The closest major highway
is I-270, which can be accessed by vehicle in less than 5
minutes’ drive time during normal traffic conditions.
Law enforcement responsibility for this area is under the
jurisdiction of the Montgomery County Police Department
(MCPD), with the church located within the county’s 5th
District (Germantown) and an estimated nominal response time
of NLT 5 minutes (5th District station is 1.5 miles from the
site). Crime metrics from MCPD’s most recent quarterly
statistics document (Q1 – 2012) suggest a moderate year-to-year
rise in crimes reported to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting
System within this police district. The most recent full-year
reporting (2011) indicates that larceny and burglary are by far
the most prevalent types of crime reported (1398 and 352
incidences, respectively).
On a positive note, these statistics were the lowest of the six

districts within MCPD. With respect to previous criminal
history at the church itself, it should be noted that in 2001,
Monsignor Thomas Wells, the parish pastor was murdered in the
rectory by a local man who reportedly suffered from emotional
and psycho-social disorders. The assailant approached the
rectory during hours of darkness, under the auspices of seeking
assistance, though purportedly with the actual intent of robbery.
The anecdotal value of this event alone suggest a potential for
risk associated with unknown persons’ relatively easy and
largely unrestricted access to church assets, empowered by the
central location of the site in a densely-populated area. In
discussion with the parish’s current priests and staff, recent
criminal concern has been largely along the lines of property
focused (i.e. larceny attempts or damage to vehicles).
Approach and Methodology
By definition, the classical approaches to risk assessment
activities factor in threat considerations and vulnerability
evaluations as precursors. For as Vellani (2006) reminds us, risk
is essentially a function of threat and vulnerability relative to an
asset or group of assets. Accordingly, the risk assessment tool
and approach presented in Appendix A works in a logical,
sequential and integrative approach. With respect to Mother
Seton Parish as the evaluated entity, the tool first identifies
assets while at the same time matching those to the most likely
threat vectors. Next, the process utilizes the US Army’s
MSHARPP matrix as a methodology to quantify a vulnerability
rating for identified assets based on what are largely
quantitative elements of evaluation. This method has the
beneficial effect of presenting a numerical picture of what
would otherwise be difficult to measure in terms of pure-data
driven metrics for vulnerability assessment. As a standalone
tool, MSHARP measures vulnerability using criticality &
probability considerations as embedded determinants. For this
application, however, final risk rankings included additional
calculus.

Within Appendix A, Table 4 represents a quasi-qualitative
rubric to analyzing and prioritizing risks for this asset-based
risk assessment. The MSHARPP index is employed as the
starting point, at this represents the quantification of an overall
vulnerability rating for the given asset or target. This value is
then multiplied by a qualitatively-determined scale for the
probability of any measurable threat affecting the asset.
Although the MSHARPP tool already considers postulated
threat potential (implied through the aggregation of several of
the matrix categories), this general threat variable expand upon
that by considering the likelihood of ALL reasonable threats
affecting the asset. As such, this calculus provides a greater
utility for risk analysis, such that amplifies the value of threats
that may not have yet been specifically considered. An
additional value is also then considered, which is the loss event
criticality. Similarly, although criticality is already implicitly
embedded within the MSHARP index value, this variable in this
case seeks to accentuate the relative criticality of the asset
versus the others listed. In this way, the resultant scaling factors
when multiplying the composite of columns A x B with column
C help to drive the final risk ranking score so as to allow
concentration of mitigation efforts based on a ranked
prioritization.
Assessment Analysis Results
Overall, the security picture at Mother Seton Parish is
reasonable, with risk levels that appear commensurate with the
baseline for religious institutions in the area. On a positive
note, the church has instituted a stricter adherence to a policy of
not opening the door of the rectory after-hours to uninvited
visitors following the tragedy with Msgr. Wells. Similarly, the
priests with whom I had the opportunity to discuss the criminal
threats facing the church seemed well versed on the ongoing
concerns and have made concerted efforts to tackle the lower
handing fruit

(ex: exterior lighting was in far worse shape prior to the arrival
of the current pastor).
The asset specific outcomes of the vulnerability and risk
assessment process are noted in Appendix A. Generally, the
items with highest assessed vulnerabilities fell in line with the
final determinations for assets with the highest overall risk. It is
interesting to note though that the assets with the two highest
vulnerability index scores (MSHARPP rating) exhibited a
reasonably wide margin between their final respective risk
scores. Although these assets were ranked next to each other in
terms of overall mitigation prioritization (#1 and #2), this risk
score gap highlights the significance of the score weighting
enacted by the event probability (Column B) and loss criticality
(Column C) multiplier factors.
Site Security Recommendations
Recommendations for improving asset protection are
enumerated in detail in the corresponding sections of the
security survey portion of Appendix A.
Appendix A: Risk Assessment Tool
Consolidated Asset Identification & Postulated Threat
Assessment:
The below table represents the identification of assets affiliated
with Mother Seton Parish, and also presents the corresponding
postulated threat or basis for asset loss, damage or harm.
Postulated threats are projected based on a synthesis of area
crime data and rational evaluation of the relationship to the
asset considered.
Table 1 – Asset Identification & Threat Matrix
Target
Postulated Threat Vector/ Motive
Parishioners
Street level criminals / petty theft; or assault seeking personal

effects or valuables
Clergy
effects or valuables –OR— Discontented persons with political
or social opposition to aspects of the Catholic Church
Donations / Cash Collection Box
Audio / Music Equipment
Personal Vehicles
Religious relics / items
Discontented persons with political or social opposition to
aspects of the Catholic Church
Clergy personal property
Site Facilities (Church, Parish Center, Rectory)
Discontented persons with political or social opposition to
aspects of the Catholic Church – Vandalism, Non-Theft
Property Destruction, Arson
Vulnerability Assessment:
A quasi-quantitative asset-focused vulnerability analysis was
conducted using DoD MSHARPP matrix. The targets noted in
the table below are core components and elements associated
Mother Seton Parish’s facilities and the reach of its ministry.
Here, the numerical total / index corresponds to a categorized
level of vulnerability ranging from Very Low to Very High.
Per US Army Field Manual 3-19.5:
One of these assessment tools used to determine the criticality
and vulnerability of U.S. interests examines seven variables:

mission, symbolism, history, accessibility, recognizability,
population, and proximity (MSHARPP). MSHARPP is a
targeting tool geared toward assessing personnel vulnerabilities
but can also be used for facilities, units, or other assets. The
assessed items are listed in the left-hand column; the
MSHARPP variables are listed across the top. Each asset is
assigned a number (ranging from 1 through 5) that corresponds
to the applicable MSHARPP variable. The number 5 represents
the greatest vulnerability or likelihood of attack; the number 1
represents the lowest vulnerability. The respective numerical
values are totaled to provide a relative value as a target or the
overall level of vulnerability.”
In this application, the following situation-specific
interpretations of each variable are assumed:
· Mission – the degree to which harm to the noted target would
disrupt the ability of the church to continue to function as a
place of worship and/or as a center of support to the community
·
Symbolism – the attractiveness of the target based on the
potential notoriety that would be achieved by inflicting harm
· History – significance and ease of attack on the target in the
eyes of attacker based on previous incident success
· Accessibility – the degree to which the assets are shielded or
compartmentalized from the public, street-level environment
· Recognizability – likelihood that attacker would be able to
easily located a pre-determined target set on the church site at
time of attack
· Population – reaction from and impact to the local population
if identified asset is harmed or damaged
· Proximity – the degree of movement required to reach the
asset, i.e. difficulty before reaching first barrier
Table 2 – Vulnerability Assessment (DoD MSHARPP matrix)

Target
M
S
H
A
R
P
P
Index
Clergy
4
5
5
4
5
3
3
29
High
Parishioners
3
3
1
2
4
4
3
20
Medium-Low
2
2
2
2
4

1
4
17
Medium-Low
3
2
2
2
1
1
3
14
Very Low
Personal Vehicles
1
1
3
5
4
3
5
27
High
3
5
0
3
5
4
3
23
Medium
1

2
1
1
3
2
1
12
Very Low
5
5
1
4
5
4
5
29
High
Security Survey:
In line with prior security surveys (Swayze, 2013), the below
checklist / survey was developed and implemented to
understand the protective measures in place and assess their
effectiveness in protecting the assets noted above. The results
of this survey are used in concert with the stand-alone and
integrated threat, vulnerability and risk considerations to help
in prioritizing use of resources to mitigate identified security
concerns. Format was adapted from a critical infrastructure
survey template designed by the Utah Department of Public
Safety Division of Homeland Security (2006).
Table 3 – Security Survey
Facility & Physical Security Survey
Question
Answer
Comment
Action Needed / Enhancement Recommended

CPTED – Is there a defined perimeter, physiological controls to
entry?
NO
Other than shrubbery, the site has no obvious physical
perimeter, and property transitions without any barriers into
adjacent property. This allows for nearly unrestricted access to
persons moving on food.
Consider installation of a fence line to encourage enforcement
and delineation of property boundaries and limit east of
approach from offsite property
CPTED – Vandalism / Facility Upkeep: Is the site free from
graffiti, litter and other signs of disrepair?
YES
The site is well maintained with not signs up disrepair or
allowance of property degradation
N/A
CPTED: Observation & Concealment: Are avenues approach to
the site observable from within?
YES*
Vehicular and pedestrian traffic approaching the main entry
doors of the three structures are easily viewable at a distance
from within the level parking lot. Access to the site from
northerner and the sides cannot be as easily observed from a
distance.
Consider placement of thorny shrubbery on N&S sides to
discourage access to the property from other than actual
entrance points
Signage: Is signage posted to dissuade trespassing, or advise on
hours of availability for facilities
NO
Such signage was unobserved
Post signage at main entry driveway and at regular intervals to
advertise boundaries on when services / assistance should not be
expected as available

Facility Access: Are doors secured consistently according to a
schedule
YES
Main church doors are secured at 10PM nightly. Parish center
doors locked when activities not scheduled. Rectory doors
secured 24 x 7
Consider earlier securing timeframe for church when no
activities are ongoing. Install bell or intercom to connect to on-
call priest or parish attendant telephonically during hours after
dark when doors are secured.
Lighting: Is exterior lighting sufficient
YES*
Lighting design is adequate, however, a number of parking lot
light poles were out
Replace bulbs and consider outward facing lights to illuminate
wooded boundaries, especially the area adjacent to shopping
center parking lot
Emergency Alert: Is there an instant notification / “panic
button” capability inside buildings to quickly summon law
enforcement?
NO
No panic button inside church building, and telephones not
easily accessible from most areas other than co-located parish
office. Conditions in parish center & rectory unobserved.
Install alarm-monitoring service connected panic devices, or
add additional telephone handsets in entry area and hallways of
church building
CCTV: Is this capability present and is it recorded
NO
No camera systems are present
Consider cameras with DVR to at least monitor door entry
points and parking lot along with signage announcing the
capability.
Risk Analysis / Prioritization:
Table 3 – Risk Analysis & Prioritization

Asset
MSHARPP Index
(Vulnerability) (A)
General Threat Probability (1-5) (B)
Loss Event Criticality (1-5) (C)
Risk Categorization (Quasi –Quantitative)
=A x B x C
Risk Priority
Clergy
29
High
2
4
232
2
Parishioners
20
Medium-Low
2
3
120
4
17
Medium-Low
3
1
51
8
14
Very Low
2

2
56
7
Personal Vehicles
27
High
4
2
216
3
23
Medium
1
3
69
6
12
Very Low
3
2
72
5
29
High
2
5
290
1
References
Harrell, B.M. (2010). Security challenges for houses of worship.
Journal of Physical Security 4(2). Retrieved from:
http://jps.anl.gov/Volume4_iss2/Paper1-BMHarrell.pdf
Milton, K. (2001). Lucas receives 42 years for Monsignor

Wells’ murder. Gazette.net: Maryland community newspapers
online. Retrieved from:
http://ww2.gazette.net/gazette_archive/2001/200133/montgomer
y/news/67261-1.html
Montgomery County Police Website (2013). Montgomery
county police crime statistics. Retrieved from:
http://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/poltmpl.asp?url=/conten
t/pol/media/crimestats.asp
Mother Seton Parish Website (2013). Retrieved from:
http://www.mothersetonparish.org/
Purpura, P.P. (1999). Securing houses of worship: A community
services manual for ASIS
chapters. Alexandria, VA; ASIS International Press. Retrieved
from:
http://www.scnus.org/local_includes/downloads/13619.pdf
Swayze, I.R. (2013). Vulnerability Assessment: George
Washington University Hospital L&D Department. Adelphi,
MD; University of Maryland – University College.
United States Army (2010). Police Intelligence Operations,
ATTP 3-39.20 (FM 3-19.50). Retrieved from:
http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/attp3_39x
20.pdf
Utah Department of Public Safety Division of Homeland
Security (2006). Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide
for Critical Infrastructure Protection. Retrieved from:
www.des.utah.gov
Vellani, K.H. (2007). Strategic security management.
Burlington, MA: Elsevier
�Excellent research and opening to your paper that gets the
reader's attention.
�Good roadmap of content to follow.

�Outstanding research and application to the threat
environment.
�Excellent explanation of a complex tool.
�Avoid idioms/colloquialisms in formal academic writing.
�Outstanding work.
�Wonderful use of tables to convey a lot of information in a
short amount of space.
Running Head: RISK ASSESSMENT
1
RISK ASSESSMENT
2
Risk Assessment
Leland D. Vaughn
CJMS 630.9041
March 31, 2013

Turnitin.com 4%
Risk assessment tools
Introduction
A risk assessment is the process of identifying probable risks
and scrutinizing what might happen after the risks occur.
Different hazards can occur at any time depending on the
location, extent and the timing. The procedure of risk
management entails taking into consideration the risks and
fears, and assessing and putting into place safety measures to
compress risks (Hopkin, 2012).
This study was done with the main aim of identifying a risk
assessment tool that can be used in the workshop
to avoid suffering from probable hazards. A risk assessment
tool is an indicator of the probable hazards that can befall any
business, home or even projects. For risk assessment to be
effective there must be a thorough search for hazards and
situations that can be harmful.
In modern age, there are different steps in which a business can
use to set a risk assessment tool. When setting up a risk
assessment tool you have to focus on those hazards that can
occur and potentially bring damage in your workshop (Hopkin,
2012). In the workshop, it is impossible to eliminate all risks
but ensuring the risks are minimized is far much important. This
research was conducted on a company. The main aim of setting
the assessment tool in the workshop was to identify whether the
management and the employees work hand-in-hand to assess,
evaluate and reduce the risks.
Literature review
Where there is co-operation between the employees and the
management in an organisation, assessing the risks is very
simple. In the AMEC Tech workshop, the risks are well known
and applying the risk management measures is not complicated.
For a small organization, risk assessment does not involve

hiring safety and health experts. You can do the risk assessment
at your own pace considering the views of the employees since
they also know where the floor is slippery, where many people
fall and where accidents occur at the workshop. In a large
organization, the advice of a safety and health expert is
required. The staff should also be included in the process since
they might have useful information to disclose when assessing
the risks.
Steps To Follow When Assessing the Risks
Categorize the hazards
A hazard can be defined as anything that can cause harm. These
things can be chemicals, open drawers and electricity. You have
to think how the employees can be harmed. It is easier to
overlook some hazards when you are at the same workshop. You
have to stroll about in the place of work and explore what can
lead to harm. When strolling, inquiring for information from the
employees is highly regarded since they might have been aware
of things that you might not see.
Researching from the Internet about how and where hazards
happen is also advisable. In the Internet, you will find
information on how to control these hazards and information on
the effects of the hazards. There are also regulatory guidelines
on how to set the workshop from trade associations (Dalton,
1998). When using chemicals, it is advisable to make sure that
the instructions printed on the labels are followed. On these
instructions, the dangers and hazards are clearly stipulated. You
have to make sure that when mixing or using the chemicals, a
specialist is available. If an accident had happened previously,
it is important to remember its cause and identify the reasons
for its occurrence.
Identify those that can be harmed
You must identify those likely to be harmed by these hazards

depending on the departments where they work. Those who
work near chemicals are more likely to be harmed by these
chemicals and those who work in the stores may suffer from
backaches for lifting heavy boxes. When it comes to
identifying where the employees are to be deployed, you must
consider the disabled, expectant and new or young workers
. Changes in the workshop should also be notified to all the
employees. When machines are moved from one place to
another, tiles mounted and various fittings changed, it is
advisable to allow only those who have knowledge of the
changes to those areas.
Sharing the workshop entails a lot of responsibility and it
should be extremely emphasized. Irresponsible workers will
most likely cause great risk to the rest. Some workers spill
water and chemicals on the floor and leave it wet and slippery.
The next thing that happens is a colleague falling and breaking
the backbone. Who is to blame? The management should be on
record to note all reckless employees and issue them with
notices, warnings and subsequent dismissal to minimize such
hazards.
Evaluate risks and take precautions
After realizing the hazards, you have to come up with an idea of
tackling them.
There are regulations by the law that an employer should do
everything possible to protect the employees from any harm
(Hopkin, 2012). Neglect of the obvious hazards that can harm
the employees is punishable by law. You should check at what
you are doing first and if you feel confused, you can compare it
with the set guidelines. It is easier to manage your own
workshop through your own controls that those set by the
government.
When evaluating and taking precautions for minimizing hazards,
it is very important to use a less dangerous alternative. Use the
less harmful chemicals and always control access of the
chemicals. To avoid on employees stumbling on each other at

the workshop, barriers should be put in place to avoid collision
between the working and the moving. The workers should be
provided with protective clothing in terms of gloves, goggles,
helmets, footwear, etc. to protect them from the hazards.
Arranging mirrors at blind corners will cost less but will play a
great role at preventing accidents at the workshop (Spiers,
2003).
Document and apply finding
After assessing and evaluating the risks, you have to put the
findings of the assessment into exercise. Documenting the
results and involving the employees formulates a great
difference in the workshop. Make the notes simple to allow easy
interpretation. A risk assessment is not always perfect but it is
appropriate and satisfactory. The risk assessment tool should be
reassessed and modernized where necessary. Many workshops
experience changes in machinery and in workforce. It is
advisable to review the assessment tool where changes occur
(Spiers, 2003). You should consider setting up review dates to
avoid hazards happening due to being forgetful.
Rationale of selecting the workshop
The reason behind basing this research to a workshop is that
there are many hazards in the work place than in the home and
institutions. In the workshop, there are different people,
departments, hazards and risks.
Most of these accidents are caused by neglect and identifying
the hazards and setting up rules minimizes the dangers (Dalton,
1998). Many businesses and companies are closed down due to
the ignorance of assessing the risks.
When risks are identified on time in the workshop, you enjoy
maximum productivity since the barriers that may arise in the
course of duty are eliminated. You also have to provide the
employees with the proper clothing and working implements to
enjoy this. When employees feel that their safety in the
workshop is guaranteed, the feel motivated and minimized
hazards will see less employees skipping duty due to illness.

When hazards are reduced in the workshop, fewer costs are
experienced in paying the hospital bills and compensating the
workers. Negligence has seen many companies close down since
they have no funds to compensate the workers in times of
accidents (Dalton, 1998).
Qualitative assessment
When dealing with qualitative assessment, you have to
determine whether the assets you want to protect are of much
value. The outcome of the qualitative assessment relies on the
expertise of those involved in carrying out the research. The
risk stages can be concluded to be high, low or medium. You
prioritize the possible hazards by use of a rating scale (Hopkin,
2012).
Quantitative Assessment
Numerical values to both possibility and value are assigned to
the risk stages in quantitative assessment. It rates the probable
outcomes and gauges the aim of attaining the objectives. In
quantitative assessment, you create an attainable and a sensible
cost. You require high-quality information and a list of
prioritized hazards when carrying out quantitative assessment
(Hopkin, 2012). According to this research, it is evident that a
risk assessment tool requires maximised consideration when it
comes to identifying the hazards. When you stay out of negative
publicity, your business will flourish since workers have the
oomph to produce more.
References
Dalton, A. J. P. (1998). Safety Health & Environmental
Hazards. Farmington Hills, MI: Cengage Learning
Hopkin, P. (2012). Fundamentals of Risk Management:
Understanding, Evaluating and Implementing Effective Risk
Management. London, UK: Kogan Page Publishers
Spiers, C. (2003). Tolley's Managing Stress in the Workshop.
Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis

�Vague description of the property/place. I don't know what
this is.
�If so, then describe them. I need to see more discussion about
specific threats and vulnerabilities rather than description of
what goes into a risk assessment.
�Very confusing because you did not set out a clear description
of what this workshop is.
�Avoid stating the obvious or truisms.
�Need you analyzing how to offset the hazards rather than
describing what they could be.
�Confused.
Comments on Paper
Your paper misses the mark in that it explains a great deal about
what a
security assessment is, but offers little about an actual
assessment. I needed
to see an actual, not theoretical, vulnerability assessment where
a site is
selected and an analysis done of existing security measures with
recommendations for improvement. See my comments in Track
Changes.

Teacher’s instructions for assignment
To be clear --- I need to see a vulnerability assessment of an
actual place or property. Conduct a security analysis of the
assets, threats and vulnerabilities, and suggest some security
countermeasures. When in doubt, refer back to Vellani Chapter
5 and see his sample in Appendix C. This assignment is much
like the assignments you have been doing in the Conferences in
the early weeks of the course. Which is attached
Running head: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
1
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 2
Vulnerability Assessment
Leland D. Vaughn
CJMS 630.9041
Turnitin 14%
Introduction
Vulnerability assessment involves a systematic approach that is
used to assess a facility’s security system and analyze its
effectiveness. It involves assessing the suitability of certain
basic aspects in the security system that includes the type of
assets to be protected by the facility security program. This
paper aims at developing a vulnerability assessment tool to be
used to conduct a survey of a home. In order to develop a
vulnerability assessment of a home, it is important to examine
the physical characteristics of the house, accessibility by the
outsiders, geographic location, illumination levels, location of
assets within the house as well as the strength of which access
measures can be assessed. It is also important to consider the
technical measures, which include equipment properties,
weakness of networks within the home, susceptibility to other
eavesdropping from other electronic surveillances
. (Bankoff, 2004) Moreover, it is important to consider the

effectiveness of the locks in the house, and the types and
number of cameras that have been placed in and outside the
house. (Mumtaz, et al, 2011) There are also operational
vulnerabilities that govern homes. These include the policies,
practices, procedures, behaviors as well as personal actions of
those living in the home. These rules must be observed in the
development and maintenance of a residence.
Assessing security vulnerability is vital for a home because it
enables one to analyze the security weaknesses and
opportunities unidentified that can be used to execute
adversarial activities. Therefore, a security survey of a home
will involve collecting information about that particular home.
(Lerche et al., 2006) A security suvey will also make it possible
to identify and block the opportunities for any attacks of assets
within the home. Therefore, a security survey enables primary
decision makers to mitigate threats and reduce risks.
Site Selection and the Rationale for the Site Selected.
A home is usually a place of residence for any individual.
Everyone has a home although the size and the type may differ.
A home is normally for family to live there as well as store
properties that can be used by the family. Sometimes, just
placing a perimeter fence is not enough for ensuring an
effective security. In major residential places such it is
important to consider the security system, as this is a priority to
ensure the assets within the house are safe and secure all the
time. A home is vulnerable to various threats that range from
attacks, the geographical location of the home in consideration
with the security level of the area and how vulnerable one
considers himself to be. (Bankoff, 2004) Therefore, the location
of a home
whether in urban or rural areas will determine the security level
needed to ensure the occupants and properties are safe. (Lerche
et al., 2006) Therefore, the security level is upgraded where
there is a need. For example, whether there is high level of

vulnerability, it is important to place inside and outside cameras
to make sure that one can monitor what is going on outside the
house as well as in every room within the building. (Mumtaz, et
al, 2011) The home’s additional security measures will be
required to increase level of security measures. Moreover, it is
also important to consider the changes in policies and
procedures governing houses in that particular location. This is
because failure to comply with these policies may give room for
an attack to occur. (Ball, 2003) For example, when power has
been cut, one may be vulnerable to attacks simply because
cameras are not working, making it impossible to monitor the
activities taking place within the home.
The choice of home is crucial because several attacks have
occurred in residential areas simply because they left a gap that
was used to carry out the attack. Some people, do not think it’s
necessary to improve the security system of a home until an
attack occurs, then they realize that there is an acute need to
check on the security system for the safety of the family and
property. (Mumtaz, et al, 2011) Vulnerability assessment of a
home may reveal gap in security and therefore come up with
measures to come up with effective measures to block such
gaps. Security weaknesses may also be identified through the
survey.
Components of the Vulnerability Assessment
The major components of vulnerability assessment include the
following: the basic process of a vulnerability assessment, the
type of assets that need to be protected by the program, the
protection measures that are already in place and lastly the gaps
identified in the security system. In short, these components of
a vulnerability assessment make it possible to identify the need
involved in upgrading the security system of a facility. (Ball,
2003) The assessment makes it possible to identify the

weaknesses and come up with solutions to block the gaps
identified. It also helps to determine whether there is a need to
put in place additional security measures and equipment.
(Birkmann, 2006) Depending on the location of the home,
vulnerability assessment will come up with an extensive survey
of what needs to be done in order to improve the security
system.
In fact, the main goal of a security assessment is to ensure that
there is life safety and protection of assets as well as promoting
the continuity of operations within the home. (Bankoff, 2004)
There are various driving forces behind the components of
vulnerability assessment which includes the following: new
legislations and revised threat assessments which may uncover
new or emerging threats. (O’Brien, 2002) Through this
assessment, the security decision makers and facility managers
are able to come up with future plans and methodologies to deal
with the threats. It also makes it possible to budget for the
expenditures needed to improve the security system, allocation
of personnel as well as other procedural guidelines. Thus, a
survey on vulnerability of a facility makes it possible to analyze
the potential weaknesses of the security system that can deter
the operations and procedures within the building.
Suggestions and recommendations of security counter-measures
to mitigate and reduce the risk of identified vulnerabilities to an
acceptable level
Some of the recommendations of security counter measures that
can be used to mitigate and reduce risks in a home include the
following; firstly, the use of CCTV cameras is a major step that
can be used to increase the level of security within any
building. CCTV cameras are normally connected with
computers where someone can be checking the flow of activities
within and outside the building. (Bankoff, 2004) The cameras

keep the building secure all the time
, just in case any suspicious activity takes place. An alert is
always raised and the attack is averted. Secondly, a direct
communication with the security force should be developed.
After an attack has been identified, the next step involves
alerting the security forces that will have the capacity to
counter the attack. (Lerche et al., 2006) Thus, an effective
communication system should be developed and a surety that
security forces can arrive at the scene as quickly as possible.
The security system aims at deterring, detecting and delaying
the attack before it takes place. Therefore, if an attack is
detected and no response is coming through, it is likely to be
more damaging.
A working electrified perimeter fence also plays an important
role in preventing any attack from occurring. A fence will keep
people away with malicious thoughts, as they will find it hard to
enter into the building. However, it is important to note the gate
should have security guard who is thoroughly checking the
visitors in and outside the building. In short, all the security
measures put in place should be working and in good condition
to enable the condition of activities with the building for
security purposes. However, it is important to note that security
measures do not only involve physical attacks, but can also
range from network weakness, lack of compliance with policies
and regulations among others. Thus, it is recommended that
those involved should ensure that they comply with all the
requirements to guarantee that all are safe and secure.
Reference
Bankoff, G. (2004). Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters,
Development and People.
London: Earth
scan.
Birkmann, J.(2006). Measuring Vulnerability to Natural

Hazards – Towards Disaster
Resilient Societies. UNU Press.
Ball, R. (2003). The Fundamentals of Aircraft Combat
Survivability Analysis and Design,
2nd
Edition.AIAA Education Series. pp. 603
Mumtaz, M.; Hansen, Hugh; Pohl, Hana R. (2011)."Chapter
3.Mixtures and Their Risk
Assessment in Toxicology". In Astrid Sigel, Helmut Sigel,
Roland K O Sigel. Metal Ions
in Toxicology.RSC Publishing. pp. 61–80
Lerche, Ian; Glaesser, Walter (2006), Environmental risk
assessment : quantitative measures,
anthropogenic influences, human impact., Berlin: Springer,
retrieved 27 September 2010
O’Brien, M. (2002), Making better environmental decisions: an
alternative to risk assessment,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press,
Appendix
Birkmann, J. (2006). Appendix A.Measuring Vulnerability: Risk
Assessment. Resilient Societies.UNU Press.
Appendix A
Assets
Threats
Vulnerabilities
Risk Assessment
Televisions
Intruders
Out dated security System
Cost Benefit Analysis
Jewelry
Flooding
Cracks in foundation

Records
Fires
Smoke Detectors
CleaningService
Supervision
�This is interesting, but is it a real threat to the resident? Is
the resident a high value target, and who would electronically
surveill?
�Less concerned with how to choose a site for assessment, but
that you actually choose a property or location. I don’t see that
here.
�Keep your paragraphs short to enhance readability.
�Avoid use of contractions in academic/formal writing.

�I need to see more that you are doing a security assessment
and less about what a security assessment is.
�More actual analysis needs to be done, and less theoretical.
Why install cameras when the threat and risk are low?
Running head: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
1
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 2
Vulnerability Assessment
Leland D. Vaughn
CJMS 630.9041
Turnitin 14%
Introduction
Vulnerability assessment involves a systematic approach that is
used to assess a facility’s security system and analyze its
effectiveness. It involves assessing the suitability of certain
basic aspects in the security system that includes the type of
assets to be protected by the facility security program. This
paper aims at developing a vulnerability assessment tool to be
used to conduct a survey of a home. In order to develop a
vulnerability assessment of a home, it is important to examine
the physical characteristics of the house, accessibility by the
outsiders, geographic location, illumination levels, location of
assets within the house as well as the strength of which access
measures can be assessed. It is also important to consider the
technical measures, which include equipment properties,
weakness of networks within the home, susceptibility to other

eavesdropping from other electronic surveillances. (Bankoff,
2004) Moreover, it is important to consider the effectiveness of
the locks in the house, and the types and number of cameras that
have been placed in and outside the house. (Mumtaz, et al,
2011) There are also operational vulnerabilities that govern
homes. These include the policies, practices, procedures,
behaviors as well as personal actions of those living in the
home. These rules must be observed in the development and
maintenance of a residence.
Assessing security vulnerability is vital for a home because it
enables one to analyze the security weaknesses and
opportunities unidentified that can be used to execute
adversarial activities. Therefore, a security survey of a home
will involve collecting information about that particular home.
(Lerche et al., 2006) A security suvey will also make it possible
to identify and block the opportunities for any attacks of assets
within the home. Therefore, a security survey enables primary
decision makers to mitigate threats and reduce risks.
Site Selection and the Rationale for the Site Selected.
A home is usually a place of residence for any individual.
Everyone has a home although the size and the type may differ.
A home is normally for family to live there as well as store
properties that can be used by the family. Sometimes, just
placing a perimeter fence is not enough for ensuring an
effective security. In major residential places such it is
important to consider the security system, as this is a priority to
ensure the assets within the house are safe and secure all the
time. A home is vulnerable to various threats that range from
attacks, the geographical location of the home in consideration
with the security level of the area and how vulnerable one
considers himself to be. (Bankoff, 2004) Therefore, the location
of a home whether in urban or rural areas will determine the
security level needed to ensure the occupants and properties are
safe. (Lerche et al., 2006) Therefore, the security level is

upgraded where there is a need. For example, whether there is
high level of vulnerability, it is important to place inside and
outside cameras to make sure that one can monitor what is
going on outside the house as well as in every room within the
building. (Mumtaz, et al, 2011) The home’s additional security
measures will be required to increase level of security
measures. Moreover, it is also important to consider the changes
in policies and procedures governing houses in that particular
location. This is because failure to comply with these policies
may give room for an attack to occur. (Ball, 2003) For example,
when power has been cut, one may be vulnerable to attacks
simply because cameras are not working, making it impossible
to monitor the activities taking place within the home.
The choice of home is crucial because several attacks have
occurred in residential areas simply because they left a gap that
was used to carry out the attack. Some people, do not think it’s
necessary to improve the security system of a home until an
attack occurs, then they realize that there is an acute need to
check on the security system for the safety of the family and
property. (Mumtaz, et al, 2011) Vulnerability assessment of a
home may reveal gap in security and therefore come up with
measures to come up with effective measures to block such
gaps. Security weaknesses may also be identified through the
survey.
Components of the Vulnerability Assessment
The major components of vulnerability assessment include the
following: the basic process of a vulnerability assessment, the
type of assets that need to be protected by the program, the
protection measures that are already in place and lastly the gaps
identified in the security system. In short, these components of
a vulnerability assessment make it possible to identify the need
involved in upgrading the security system of a facility. (Ball,
2003) The assessment makes it possible to identify the

weaknesses and come up with solutions to block the gaps
identified. It also helps to determine whether there is a need to
put in place additional security measures and equipment.
(Birkmann, 2006) Depending on the location of the home,
vulnerability assessment will come up with an extensive survey
of what needs to be done in order to improve the security
system.
In fact, the main goal of a security assessment is to ensure that
there is life safety and protection of assets as well as promoting
the continuity of operations within the home. (Bankoff, 2004)
There are various driving forces behind the components of
vulnerability assessment which includes the following: new
legislations and revised threat assessments which may uncover
new or emerging threats. (O’Brien, 2002) Through this
assessment, the security decision makers and facility managers
are able to come up with future plans and methodologies to deal
with the threats. It also makes it possible to budget for the
expenditures needed to improve the security system, allocation
of personnel as well as other procedural guidelines. Thus, a
survey on vulnerability of a facility makes it possible to analyze
the potential weaknesses of the security system that can deter
the operations and procedures within the building.
Suggestions and recommendations of security counter-measures
to mitigate and reduce the risk of identified vulnerabilities to an
acceptable level
Some of the recommendations of security counter measures that
can be used to mitigate and reduce risks in a home include the
following; firstly, the use of CCTV cameras is a major step that
can be used to increase the level of security within any
building. CCTV cameras are normally connected with
computers where someone can be checking the flow of activities
within and outside the building. (Bankoff, 2004) The cameras
keep the building secure all the time, just in case any suspicious

activity takes place. An alert is always raised and the attack is
averted. Secondly, a direct communication with the security
force should be developed. After an attack has been identified,
the next step involves alerting the security forces that will have
the capacity to counter the attack. (Lerche et al., 2006) Thus,
an effective communication system should be developed and a
surety that security forces can arrive at the scene as quickly as
possible. The security system aims at deterring, detecting and
delaying the attack before it takes place. Therefore, if an attack
is detected and no response is coming through, it is likely to be
more damaging.
A working electrified perimeter fence also plays an important
role in preventing any attack from occurring. A fence will keep
people away with malicious thoughts, as they will find it hard to
enter into the building. However, it is important to note the gate
should have security guard who is thoroughly checking the
visitors in and outside the building. In short, all the security
measures put in place should be working and in good condition
to enable the condition of activities with the building for
security purposes. However, it is important to note that security
measures do not only involve physical attacks, but can also
range from network weakness, lack of compliance with policies
and regulations among others. Thus, it is recommended that
those involved should ensure that they comply with all the
requirements to guarantee that all are safe and secure.
Reference
Bankoff, G. (2004). Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters,
Development and People.
London: Earth
scan.
Birkmann, J.(2006). Measuring Vulnerability to Natural
Hazards – Towards Disaster
Resilient Societies. UNU Press.

Ball, R. (2003). The Fundamentals of Aircraft Combat
Survivability Analysis and Design,
2nd
Edition.AIAA Education Series. pp. 603
Mumtaz, M.; Hansen, Hugh; Pohl, Hana R. (2011)."Chapter
3.Mixtures and Their Risk
Assessment in Toxicology". In Astrid Sigel, Helmut Sigel,
Roland K O Sigel. Metal Ions
in Toxicology.RSC Publishing. pp. 61–80
Lerche, Ian; Glaesser, Walter (2006), Environmental risk
assessment : quantitative measures,
anthropogenic influences, human impact., Berlin: Springer,
retrieved 27 September 2010
O’Brien, M. (2002), Making better environmental decisions: an
alternative to risk assessment,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press,
Appendix
Birkmann, J. (2006). Appendix A.Measuring Vulnerability: Risk
Assessment. Resilient Societies.UNU Press.
Appendix A
Assets
Threats
Vulnerabilities
Risk Assessment
Televisions
Intruders
Out dated security System
Cost Benefit Analysis
Jewelry
Flooding
Cracks in foundation

Records
Fires
Smoke Detectors
CleaningService
Supervision

Workplace Violence iMother Seton Parish RIsk Assessment 13.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Workplace Violence iMother Seton Parish RIsk Assessment 13.docx

Similar to Workplace Violence iMother Seton Parish RIsk Assessment 13.docx (15)

More from MARRY7

More from MARRY7 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Workplace Violence iMother Seton Parish RIsk Assessment 13.docx