A survey conducted by the author in 2005 discovered notable differences in the tactics that security professionals employed to deter terrorism before and after 9/11.
The previous story depicts the broad landscape of how attitudes toward domestic terrorism have evolved over the past decade. This one paints a detailed, close-up picture of the impact of 9/11 on one specific geographic area.
A survey conducted in 2005 revealed how the focus of security measures before and after September 11, 2001, at critical infrastructure sites in the Houston metropolitan area shifted from deterring traditional crime to taking seriously the potential for future terrorist threats. The majority of respondents were security managers assigned to critical infrastructure facilities in the Port of Houston area.
Research Details
The study asked security managers to respond to a questionnaire consisting of 50 multiple-choice questions: 25 questions applying to circumstances before 9/11 and the same 25 questions applying to the post-9/11 time frame. (To view the actual survey instrument, visit www.iprmag.com.) The questions concerned such topics as target hardening, use of media, access control, use of technology, and emergency operations plans. They also asked about the size of the security manager’s organization, the respondent’s position within the organization, and the type of facility.
Sample. The sample for this study consisted of 40 security managers from different critical infrastructure facilities in the Port of Houston area. The Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long complex of diversified public and private facilities. It is ranked first in the U.S. in foreign waterborne commerce, second in total tonnage, and sixth in the world. Most significantly, the Port of Houston has a large number of Department of Homeland Security – designated critical infrastructure facilities.
Data analysis. The frequency distribution table, a univariate statistic, was used in this study to describe the impact(s) that terrorism and technology have had on security professionals at critical infrastructure facilities in the study’s area. The univariate statistic examines variables one at a time and provides information about how each variable varies.
Limitations. This study had two major limitations. First, the survey used available sampling — a nonprobability sampling — therefore, the sample is not randomized. As a result, the study’s findings may not truly present the parameters of this population. Second, the sample size of 40 may not be large enough to allow a meaningful statistical analysis or any generalizations from the findings. A larger sample size is always preferred; however, the findings of this project provide the basis for a more comprehensive research project in the future.
The Impact of 9/11
A year before 9/11, a survey conducted by E. Levy found that society allows the horrors of the past to quickly fade into memory, where they no longer occupy the center of attention. Levy found that the terroristic incidents at the World Trade Center (1993) and Murrah Federal Building did not motivate security managers to develop defensive plans against terrorist attacks. His research revealed that crime, not terrorism, motivated security managers to upgrade building security systems.
| Average years of respondent’s security experience | 12 |
| Average years as security manager | 6 |
| Average number of employees at facility | 332 |
| Percentage of respondents working in petroleum facility | 17% |
| Percentage of respondents working in chemical facility | 56% |
| Percentage of respondents working in another type facility (fueling terminal, barge terminal, etc.) | 27% |
| Question | Pre-9/11 Mean | Post-9/11 Mean | T-Stat | DF | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Our facility minimizes the number of people who have access to sensitive information. | 3.72 | 4.44 | –2.38 | 34 | 0.010 |
| Our facility has installed physical barriers to prevent terrorist attacks. | 3.00 | 4.22 | –3.60 | 34 | 0.000 |
| Our facility has installed physical barriers to prevent surveillance by terrorists. | 2.66 | 3.44 | –2.08 | 34 | 0.022 |
| Our facility has terrorism prevention measures for the mailroom and loading dock area. | 2.94 | 4.16 | –3.17 | 34 | 0.001 |
| Our facility uses access control for the prevention and detection of terrorism. | 3.22 | 4.44 | –3.31 | 34 | 0.001 |
Levy’s findings raise the question of whether the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, changed that crime prevention paradigm. My 2005 survey sought to answer that question. It considered upgraded security measures, access controls, alarms, surveillance TV, staff awareness training, contingency plans, perimeter fortification, and management policies.
Table 1 presents general information about the respondents and the facilities they manage.
The statistical analysis of the 50 multiple-choice survey questions is presented in five broad categories: access control, emergency operations plans, information and technology, training, and target hardening.
Access Control
According to a 2004 study by J. Engebretson, corporate security managers have rethought their need for access controls since 9/11. The technologies involved include security gates, security fencing, pass access cards, anti-pass-back access cards, ground loops, and smart cards. Limiting access also entails controlling access to sensitive data, erecting barriers, and monitoring parcel deliveries.
Five survey questions addressed the issue of access controls. Responding security professionals reported a significant change in access controls (Table 2).
Emergency Operations Plan
To effectively manage any type of emergency incident, the security professional needs to ensure that an emergency operations plan (EOP) is completed, updated, and exercised regularly. Others have strongly recommended that emergency plans, security measures, and countermeasures be continuously updated based upon reliable intelligence in order to address the paradigm changes in terroristic attacks.
Three questions focused on emergency operations plans. Table 3 indicates that there was no significant difference in utilizing emergency operations plans in the Port of Houston area before and after 9/11 (P = 0.064).
| Question | Pre-9/11 Mean | Post-9/11 Mean | T-Stat | DF | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Our facility has an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) for terroristic incidents. | 3.16 | 4.16 | –3.04 | 34 | 0.002 |
| Our facility reviews all EOPs annually. | 3.72 | 4.27 | –1.55 | 34 | 0.064 |
| Our facility has completed a terrorism threat and risk analysis. | 2.77 | 4.55 | –5.72 | 34 | 0.000 |
| Question | Pre-9/11 Mean | Post-9/11 Mean | T-Stat | DF | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Our facility has used technology to develop integrated terrorism prevention, detection, and response measures. | 2.77 | 3.66 | –2.48 | 34 | 0.008 |
| Our facility proactively gathers and disseminates information regarding a possible terroristic attack. | 2.66 | 4.16 | –4.02 | 34 | 0.000 |
| Our facility proactively researches new security technology(ies) for the prevention, detection, and recovery from a terroristic incident. | 2.61 | 3.88 | –3.72 | 34 | 0.000 |
| Our facility has an integrated security force (i.e., private security services and law enforcement officers). | 3.11 | 3.66 | –1.19 | 34 | 0.119 |
| Our facility uses CCTV systems for the prevention and detection of terrorism. | 2.72 | 3.61 | –2.15 | 34 | 0.019 |
| Our facility uses information technology for the prevention and detection of cyber terrorism and/or the misuse of sensitive operational materials. | 3.33 | 4.11 | –2.27 | 34 | 0.014 |
Information and Technology
The integration of information and technology is a must in preventing, detecting, and recovering from an internal or external attack against a facility. According to a 2004 article by M. Kanok, businesses lose approximately $70 billion a year as a result of the misuse of information and/or technology. Yet information technology departments focus more attention on incoming information than the outflow of confidential materials. Integrating physical security measures and surveillance/intrusion detection technology is recommended.
Six survey questions focused on the integration and use of information and technology to prevent, detect, and respond to terrorism. Table 4 indicates that the integration of private security professionals and local law enforcement did not change significantly after 9/11 (P = 0.119).
Training
To make training at all levels effective, senior executives have to support and participate in planning, reviewing, and testing security measures. The security force must also be professionally trained and fully integrated into local law enforcement response protocols.
Six survey questions addressed training issues, and answers to all showed a significant change in how annual terrorism training was conducted after the 9/11 attacks (Table 5).
Target Hardening
Terrorism targets the defenseless and innocent in an attempt to cause the most death and destruction possible. To prevent terrorism — as opposed to traditional crime — the security professional has to convert the facility from a soft target to a hard target.
Five survey questions addressed target-hardening measures. Only one question — concerning the use of the media to promote enhanced security measures — saw no significant change (Table 6).
What Changed and What Didn’t
This survey specifically focused on critical infrastructures in the Port of Houston area and the effects that terrorism and technology have played in their security strategies, procedures, and protocols since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. As outlined above, three questions elicited answers that showed no significant difference between pre- and post-9/11 measures: the use of media releases promoting enhanced security measures, annual reviews of emergency operations plans, and the integration of security forces.
It’s not too surprising that there was no change in handling the media. Historically, critical infrastructure facilities in the Port of Houston area have dealt with national media incidents. Security managers have had to develop good working relationships with the media and have been proactive in sharing nonsensitive security measures.
It also was not unexpected to find that these facilities had previously reviewed their EOPs annually because they are inspected by many local, state, and federal agencies to ensure safety measures are being implemented and followed. Additionally, the Maritime Transportation Safety Act requires these facilities to have Facility Security Plans. The threat of being fined or, more significantly, having operations shut down, motivates security managers to keep plans updated.
Even before 9/11, the realities of today’s economy may have been responsible for security managers developing partnerships between their private security forces and local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. Security managers have realized that the integration of security resources will provide enhanced layers of security.
| Question | Pre-9/11 Mean | Post-9/11 Mean | T-Stat | DF | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Our facility’s security professionals are well trained regarding terroristic incidents. | 2.83 | 1.05 | –3.05 | 34 | 0.002 |
| Our facility’s senior management staff has been trained in handling a terroristic incident. | 2.88 | 3.77 | –2.71 | 34 | 0.005 |
| Our facility conducts annual training exercises regarding terroristic incidents. | 2.55 | 4 | –4.43 | 34 | 0.000 |
| Our facility has trained all personnel regarding potential weapons of mass destruction (WMD). | 2.5 | 3.77 | –3.11 | 34 | 0.001 |
| Our facility has trained all personnel regarding the reporting of suspicious persons, packages, or events. | 2.94 | 4.38 | –4.25 | 34 | 0.000 |
| Our facilities management and security staff is prepared to handle a terroristic incident. | 2.72 | 4.16 | –4.09 | 34 | 0.000 |
| Question | Pre-9/11 Mean | Post-9/11 Mean | T-Stat | DF | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Our facility has taken measures to target harden our facility against terrorist attacks. | 2.72 | 4.55 | –6.53 | 34 | 0.000 |
| Our facility has implemented observable enhanced security measures. | 3 | 4.5 | –4.91 | 34 | 0.000 |
| Our facility has conducted media press releases promoting enhanced security measures. | 2.27 | 4.88 | –1.11 | 34 | 0.135 |
| Our facility is visibly integrated into the local police/security networks. | 3.05 | 3.72 | –1.87 | 34 | 0.034 |
| Our facility has developed counter-surveillance terrorism plans. | 2.61 | 3.55 | –2.41 | 34 | 0.010 |
More Research Needed
This survey clearly indicates that security managers at critical infrastructure facilities in the Port of Houston area are motivated by the threat of terrorism rather than traditional crime problems. Because of the small sample size, the findings cannot be operationalized to the hundreds of other critical infrastructure facilities found in all U.S. ports. However, the findings could provide a basis for a detailed research project to more fully determine the magnitude of the effects of terrorism and technology on the security professional.
Although current security measures and strategies can be improved, this project clearly indicated that security managers at critical infrastructure facilities in the Port of Houston area have taken significant measures to protect and defend against terrorist attacks. However, the actual degree and magnitude of those changes were not addressed in this project. A more detailed analysis should consider 9/11’s effects on security policies, procedures, staffing, and budgets. Additionally, questions concerning senior leadership’s long-term commitment to preventing, detecting, and responding to terrorism were not addressed.
Change Will Be Constant
The tragedy of 9/11 has changed the lives of all Americans. Security professionals will be required to be as cheerful as Wal-Mart greeters and as tenacious as suicide bombers. The paradigm for providing security will never be static again. Security professionals will need to be well-trained, well-equipped, and well-supported by senior management to effectively and efficiently prevent, detect, and respond to terrorist incidents.
Port SecurityThe Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 added additional security protections to every port in the United States. In 2004, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented new security measures designed to create a layered security approach in the nation’s ports. The DHS has utilized the expertise of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Customs, and Border Protection; the private sector; and state and local authorities to create a system of various security measures that ensures protective measures from the point of origin to final destination. The DHS requires all port facilities to submit a security assessment and a security plan to the USCG. Those security assessments identified security vulnerabilities. The security plan outlines specific measures that will be taken to mitigate the identified vulnerabilities and will utilize a layered security approach. Local stakeholders developed security plans to deter, prevent, and respond to terroristic threats. The USCG oversees implementation of these security measures across the country. Some of the specific security measures include:
The ability to secure ports requires a team effort that includes local governments and private citizens. The U.S. government does not have the resources to secure all ports and waterways; the DHS’s goal is to find the appropriate balance between security and freedom that allows the maritime trade industry to thrive. |