Risk Management and Crime Statistics - Case Study Example

Running Head: RISK MANAGEMENT Risk Management and Crime Statistics Student’s Name Course Title Instructor’s Name 21st October 2012 Introduction Rusty’s Last Chance Saloon, formerly known as Los Reyes, is a bar that opened in the year 1999. The bar is situated in Manhattan, Kansas, a university town where Kansas State University is located. The bar attracts all kinds of persons, from bikers to campus students to blue-collar. However, Rusty’s is among the sports bars in the locale where college-age regulars like to hang out. The bar experiences some problems, mainly the frequenters who engage in cocaine dealings and gun firing into the air. So far, two deaths had transpired as Los Reyes, where its bouncers were extremely violent and habitually used physical force to kick individuals out of the saloon. It is important that Rusty’s, through the process of risk management, take some actions to ensure that such events that jeopardize its operations do not recur in the future. Risk Mitigation and Management Security professionals regularly perform two functions; prevention and response. They prevent whatever that can be forestalled and respond to whatever that cannot be foreclosed. As such, three response and adaptation options to emerging risk exist. They are: 1. Elimination or interception of threats prior to attack 2. Blockage of vulnerabilities through improved security 3. Reduction of consequences following an incident occurrence Logically, the finest approach for extenuating threats is by combining all of the three elements, lessening threats, barring opportunities, and cutting consequences. In the area of protection, reducing risks is a fundamental objective. A risk can be defined as the likelihood of destruction, loss, or damage, of assets because of a threat exploiting a particular susceptibility (Vellani, 2006), or else as the possibility of a loss ensuing from a threat, security occurrence, or a happening (Commission, 2003). As shown below, a risk exists at the convergence of threats, assets, and vulnerabilities. As noted earlier, Rusty’s is vulnerable to many risks some of which include underage drinking, drug dealing, sexual assault, drunken driving, disorderly conduct including public urination, and binge drinking. These crimes are in it risks, in that, assets become suitable targets, threats are likely offenders, and vulnerability occurs in the absence of competent custodians (Clarke, 1999). Therefore, when all these intersect a crime is formed, as shown below: In practical applications, risk managers make use of five strategies to mitigate risks. These strategies are avoidance, diminution, spreading, relocation and acceptance. Rusty’s security is generally concerned with reducing risks within the establishment thus; they provide sufficient protection for assets (Roberts & Winterlin, 1996). Risk management techniques There are several techniques for attaining the goal of reducing or eliminating vulnerabilities. The following techniques of Situational Crime Prevention can be applied by Rusty’s for preventing crime as well as managing risks (Clarke & Eck, 2005). Techniques of Situational Crime Prevention Increase the effort Harden targets Control access to facilities Screen exits Deflect offenders Control tools Increase the risk Extend guardianship Assist natural surveillance Reduce anonymity Utilize place managers Strengthen formal surveillance Reduce the rewards Conceal targets Remove targets Identify property Disrupt markets Deny benefits Reduce provocations Reduce frustration and stress Avoid disputes Reduce emotional arousal Neutralize peer pressure Discourage imitation Remove the excuses Set rules Post instructions Alert conscience Assist compliance Control drugs/alcohol Economics is a major driver of protection, both in terms of reducing losses as well as cutting costs and protecting the bottom line. Creating the dealing case for security is a more and more critical role of security experts (Kaplan & Norton, 1996). In Rusty’s, the security section is a business unit. A key technique for justifying the section is to optimize protection such that risks are measurably reduced, and costs of security are manageable (Piliavin, Gartner, Thornton, & Matsueda, 1986). Optimization is a conception utilized by businesses like Rusty’s which operate in a dynamic environment to manage risks effectively (Rubin, Gallo, & Coutts, 2008). Security professionals are faced with the exclusive challenge of offering security that minimizes crimes and losses, is moneymaking, and does not expose their business to unnecessary accountability. Success can be accomplished through a cautiously coordinated balancing operation of three tasks: Monitoring risks in instantaneous or near real-time, Setting up effectual security measures, which lessen risks, and running within rational financial limits (Shen & Zhao, 2001). Optimizing security is an efficient way of balancing these duties. In order to do well at this balancing operation, security personnel ought not only to be conversant on the subject of security technologies but they are also required to be excellent business risk managers and decision makers. Security overheads should not go beyond reasonable budgets and if possible, present a quantifiable return on investment. The protection program must also efficiently minimize risks to a manageable and tolerable level (Mohler, Short, Brantingham, Schoenberg, & Tita, 2011). Optimization is able to make certain that security persons are doing well in all of the three factors mentioned. Most security professionals are aware that the success of a security program relies upon the devotion and support, or import from superior executives to validate a sizable and rising security budget to higher management (Jones & Malina, 2010). A security program determined by information and metrics facilitates drive decisions. It substitutes perception with solid data (Jopeck, 2000). Data and metrics validate costs to higher management by indicating the evidence of success that can gather that needed buying and display a persuasive return on investment. In particular, metrics direct decision making in the following parts: distribution of resources including money and staff; reflection of new technologies; making out risks encountered by the business; and putting into practice the methods of extenuating those risks (Cavanagh, 2005). Risk Assessment and Analysis In recent years, business associations have spread guiding principles, which direct security professionals on the utilization of crime statistics as well as other threat statistics. Although the guidelines shown below are not standards, they are made using a meticulous process and accepted by member accord (Tilley, 2002). ASIS-International’s General Security Risk Assessment guideline declares that among the data sources for deciding on loss risk actions are local police crime statistics. In particular, the guideline recognizes that one source of events related to crime is local police crime statistics and demands service at the spot and the immediate surrounding area for a three-to-five year period (Commission, 2003). A complete threat assessment considers actual, potential and inherent threats, which are defined as follows: Actual Threats is the crime record against an asset. Actual threats are a quantitative component of a threat assessment. It takes into account relevant crimes that have occurred both on the premises immediate vicinity of the premises within the last 3-5 years to incident (Sennewald, 2006). Inherent Threats, on the other hand, are threats that are present by virtue of the intrinsic nature or features of the premises or nature of the business. For instance, certain kinds of assets or facilities may be a crime attraction or have a tendency to incur losses, damages or destructions, for instance, assaults amongst patrons in nightspots such as Rusty’s. Lastly, Potential Threats are threats, which are there by virtue of susceptibilities around the business or weaknesses in the protection program, which create opportunities for crimes to take place (Lersch, 2007). Most businesses participate in some kind of data collection to record offences, security breaches, and other pertinent information. Still, other companies prepare reports, which sum up the data. However, businesses Rusty’s have taken the concept further and are using the data to steer security assessments and optimize the plan (Manuta, 2002). The crucial factor for optimizing safety measures is crime investigation and as such, one of the diverse methods used by the Rusty’s today to analyze crimes is by comparing itself with the adjacent competing businesses. The table below provides information indicating the variations in reported assaults at Rusty’s and other bars. Reported Assaults in/around bars from May 2003 to May 2004 Name Assaults Patron capacity Assaults pre 100 patrons Johnny’s Tavern 2 142 1.41 Rusty’s Last Chance Saloon 4 327 1.22 Drinks and Company 1 120 0.83 PJ’s Bar and Grill 2 252 0.79 Red Balloon 1 135 0.74 Zig and Macs 1 240 0.42 Court of Appeals Pub & Grill 1 250 0.40 Randy’s Bar and Grill 0 53 0.00 Peanut 0 135 0.00 One More Bar and Grill 0 183 0.00 Nieman Pub 0 175 0.00 Jake’s Bar and Grill 0 125 0.00 Barliey’s Brewhaus 0 229 0.00 Arizona’s 0 99 0.00 Grand Total 13 2475 0.48 Crime analysis is an important measure in the series of actions aimed at judging, implementing and assessing measures to thwart crimes (Chapin & Akridge, 2005). Crime analysis lies on the postulation that offences are not completely accidental, isolated and exceptional actions, but can be combined to form sets that share a common characteristic and display distinctive patterns. It presupposes crimes bunch in place or time, concentrate on particular kinds of assets or victims and are pulled off by a particular variety of techniques. Certain businesses will have higher crime rates year after year, as others realize lower crime rates, and only isolated occurrences. For each company, however, other tendencies become obvious, such as the place and the time that the crimes occurred or the nature of crimes that arise (O'Shea, 2002). One of the indispensable purposes of crime analysis is to make out the conditions that ease crime and lack of respect so that policymakers may make well-versed decisions in relation to anticipation approaches. Carrying through a crime investigation makes it probable to formulate anticipatory measures suitable to the local crime situation and its physical and social framework (Garcia, 2006). In general, local crime analysis seeks to address the following issues: to identify a crime problem of an area through data analysis; to raise awareness and apprehension level of a crime within an area; and to help develop suitable responses to issues of concern, irrespective of the specific framework in which the analysis is carried out (Scott, 2001). Crime Analysis for Problem Solving Investigating crimes committed at company premises is ordinary in today’s business atmosphere. In Rusty’s, the role of crime analysis is carried by somebody who has other security management responsibilities (Kaplan & Norton, 1996). The duty of crime analysis may also be outsourced, in that, the company’s human resources simply exploits crime data that an outworker has already collected, enters it into a database, and perhaps provides some analytic build up or the equipments to do so (Jopeck, 2000). Offences are analyzed in diverse ways depending on what a company is trying to achieve. Most commonly, a business is ranked based upon the crime rate or level. Generally, businesses with higher rates of crime such as Rusty’s, are given a larger portion of the security financial plan, to aid in effectively combating the crimes and raising the business standards and reputation (Rengert, 2001). Moreover, crimes are analyzed on a premise-by-premise basis allowing security experts to decide on proper countermeasures. The Uniform Crime Report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation collects and maintains crime statistics for law enforcement bureaus across the country (Investigation, 2004). Using the Uniform Crime Report, security officers can accurately compare offences across different fields in a company as shown below: Crime Analysis for Problem Solving Security Officers Category Offense Part one offenses Criminal homicide Rape Robbery Aggravated assault Burglary Larceny- theft (except motor vehicle theft) Motor vehicle theft Arson Part two offenses Other assaults Forgery and counterfeiting Fraud Embezzlement Stolen property- buying, receiving, possessing Vandalism Weapons- carrying, possessing Prostitution and commercialised vice Sex offenses Drug abuse violations Gambling Offenses against the family and children Driving under the influence Liquor laws Drunkenness Disorderly conduct Vagrancy All other offenses Suspicion Curfew and loitering Runaways Crime-specific analysis is important as it provide security officers with information to come up with better solutions. By using this sort of analysis, different types of individual crimes such as robbery, burglary and theft, can be analysed. The analysis can further be refined with sib-types, which may include shoplifting, home invasion, purse snatching, and carjacking. This specificity helps in realizing the nature of the crisis, its extent, and the measures that can be employed to minimize the vulnerability for the problems (Vellani, 2006). Finally, crime study is used to measure and select suitable countermeasures. Offences that are carried out on a property can generally be prevented by utilising security personnel or devices; however, it is important to note that not all measures are cost-effective or practical (Cavanagh, 2005). Certainly, a scandalous perpetrator would be pushed to steal a vehicle from a small parking lot manned by several security personnel, though that sort of security is extreme and neither logical, nor economical. Crime analysis steers security officers in the right track by underlining the kinds of crimes committed (crime specific analysis), difficulty areas on the asset (Hot spot analysis), and when they take place (temporal analysis) among others. It is much easier to use this information in selecting countermeasures directed at the problem (Wortley, 2008). Conclusion In conclusion, not all crimes can be prevented. As such, the company, as part of their general security plan, should place acceptable threat levels at a certain section. The plan should consist of the criteria for determining threshold levels for named crimes and unlawful doings. The reason for establishing crime thresholds is to present a target basis for deciding when an offense is getting out of control. Security officers need to distinguish the upper and lower thresholds of all crimes in order to verify if they are either within, above, or below their accepted levels. References Cavanagh, T. (2005). Corporate Security Measures and Practices: An Overview of Security Management since 9/11. New York: The Conference Board. Chapin, C., & Akridge, S. (2005). How can Security be Measured. Information Systems Control Journal , 2, 43-47. Clarke, R. (1999). Hot Products: Understanding, anticipating and reducing demand for stolen goods. London: British Home Office Research Publications. Clarke, R., & Eck, J. (2005). Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers: In 160 small steps. Washington: U.S Department of Justice. Commission, A.-I. G. (2003). The General Security Risk Assessment Guideline. Alexandria: ASIS-International. Garcia, M. (2006). Risk Management. In M. Gill, A Handbook of Security (pp. 509-531). New York: algrave Macmillan. Investigation, F. B. (2004). UCR Handbook. Washington D.C: U.S Department of Justice. Jones, G., & Malina, M. (2010). Crime Analysis Case Studies. Washington: U.S Department of Justice. Jopeck, E. (2000). Five Steps to Risk Reduction: Learn to Identify and Reduce Risks by following these five steps. Security Management , 97-101. Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press. Lersch, K. (2007). Space, Time, and Crime. Durham: Carolina Academic Press. Manuta, G. (2002). Risk and Management: Are they Comatible Concepts. Security Journal , 43- 55. Mohler, G., Short, M., Brantingham, P., Schoenberg, F., & Tita, G. (2011). Self-Exiting Point Process Modelling Crime. Journal of The American Statistical Association , 100-108. O'Shea, T. (2002). Crime Analysis in America: Findings and reccommendations. Washington: U.S Department of Justice. Rengert, G. (2001). Camus Security; Situational Crime Prevention in High-Density Environments. Monsey: Criminal Justice Press. Roberts, B., & Winterlin, R. (1996). Integrated Risk Assessment: A Case Study. Boston: Futron Corporation. Rubin, J., Gallo, F., & Coutts, A. (2008). Violent Criime: Risk Models, effective interventions and risk management. Cambridge: RAND Corporation. Scott, M. (2001). Assaults in and Around Bars: Problem Oriented Guides for Police Series. Washington D.C: Deartment of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Sennewald, C. (2006). Effective Security Management. Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann. Shen, Q., & Zhao, R. (2001). Rik Assessment of Serious Crime with Fuzzy Random Theory. Wales: Aberystwyth University. Tilley, N. (2002). Analysis for Crime Prevention. New York: Criminal Justice Press. Vellani, K. (2006). Strategic Security Management. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Wortley, R. (2008). Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis. Portland: Willan. Read More