Active Incident Response: Why You Need to Conduct a Tabletop Exercise

Tabletop exercises (TTX) should examine crucial issues such as how each stakeholder will respond in each phase and who serves as back-up if a major player isn’t available.

Active Incident Response: Why You Need to Conduct a Tabletop Exercise

Step 4: Evaluate the Ability of Each Stakeholder to Achieve the Goals in Each Phase

A goal is not a strategy; a goal’s achievement depends on the availability of necessary resources and the ability of those wielding them to apply them successfully on the task at hand.

One way of categorizing assets and resources is based on the following five elements7:

  • Personnel
  • Procedures and Plans
  • Facilities
  • Equipment
  • Communications

The total number of assets included in these five categories easily exceeds 100-125. For instance, the following 15 constitutes only a partial listing in the Personnel category for police:  

  • Are security personnel on campus sworn?
  • How are sworn and non-sworn security personnel integrated
  • Number of personnel on hand (e.g., is there only one nighttime officer on campus?)
  • Number of supervisors
  • Training of personnel (current, rigorous, anticipates all scenario parameters, such as day and night)
  • Level of experience
  • Familiarity with campus
  • Recall time
  • Frequency of training drills
  • Certifications (e.g., firearms, CPR)
  • Currency and comprehensiveness of general orders
  • Joint training with local responders
  • Availability of intelligence
  • Information shared by behavioral intervention teams
  • Mental health response training

Once all available assets are identified, one must then ask which assets are associated with which goal8 and then, whether the resource is on hand and, if so, whether it can be used effectively so as to be mission capable or whether it is only partially- or even non-mission capable. When one has a sense of which assets affect the greatest number of goals, those assets that are non-mission capable become priorities for corrective action9.

Step 5: Develop a Prioritized Corrective Action Plan, with Timelines and Offices of Primary and Coordinating Responsibility

There is a huge gap between recognizing a need, committing to addressing it, and actually implementing the corrective action. As noted above, one may expect internal resistance because new funding priorities may reduce funding of other stakeholders, both internal and external. Additionally, attention to this new priority may affect internal organizational culture10. Access to leadership may increase and stature in the organization may change. If viewed from a myopic zero-sum perspective, one entity’s gain is seen as another’s loss.

Even with adequate resources and internal support, the implementation process is difficult. Emergent situations may deflect attention from the corrective action plan. Therefore, this plan must have sustained and visible support from organization leaders and those in charge of implementation must have the resources (i.e., time, staffing support) to achieve the goals.

Any corrective action plan must include the following characteristics:

  • Specification of an office of primary responsibility (OPR): the office in charge
  • Specification of office(s) of coordinating responsibility (OCRs): offices that bring relevant resources to the table or that are significantly affected by the proposed change.
  • A timeline from start to full implementation.
  • Mileposts along the way whose achievement show measurable progress. For instance, if a new camera system is to be deployed, Phase 1 may include research on available systems, with an interim report outlining factors such as costs, system requirements, evaluations by other users, installation time, lifecycle costs, warranty, service/repair costs, etc. Phase 2 may include deployment of a test bed with installation of a few units of the two or three leading contenders and another interim report on findings. Phase 3 might be a formal recommendation, with the number of units required, proposed installation locations, costs, etc. Upon plan approval, the final phase would see an installation manager appointed and any new required policy and procedural changes written and approved.

In short, the “real” work commences when recommended corrective actions are approved!

Summary

The active shooter/incident response scenario is far more complex and dynamic than most people realize. In any given phase, there may be 10-15 goals and more than 100-150 pertinent resources. The resulting 1000-2000+ matrix, multiplied by the four phases of a crisis and viewed from the perspective of each of the 10-15 stakeholders constitute a dynamic problem of enormous dimensions. When one adds the lack of information of many stakeholders about their responsibilities and how to discharge them in four separate crisis phases, potentially conflicting stakeholder goals, and reliance upon external actors, one fears the preparations of most institutions to confront an active shooter are woefully deficient.

The good news is the probability of an active shooter event at your institution is extremely small. The bad news is that its occurrence would result in the tragic loss of people, disruption of operations, loss of credibility of the staff due to their seeming inability to prevent it, the ensuing wave of liability suits, the negative scrutiny, and bad press. In light of these likely negative consequences, the prudent leader cannot remain complacent and unprepared. Hope is not a strategy!


Dr. John Weinstein is a retired senior police commander who has served in every position from patrol officer to chief of police. He is certified to teach active incident response to civilians and tactical response law enforcement personnel. Dr. Weinstein is a recognized and popular national and international speaker. He is widely published in numerous law enforcement publications. He may be reached through Dusseau Solutions (dan@dusseau-solutions.com) which structures and customizes active incident response planning, documentation, and preparations, along with all-hazards training and assessment.

[1] Weinstein, John, “Your Active Incident Response Plans are Likely to Fail: Here’s Why and What You Can Do to Fix Them”, International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators Campus Law Enforcement Journal, Fall, 2021, pp. 28-31.
[2] Many victims in active shooter incidents bleed out, making prompt medical attention critical.
[3] It may be advisable to conduct the TTX to simulate a time such as midday during the week when many people are on campus and then during night classes. In the latter, there will be fewer potential victims, but darkness will complicate response significantly.
[4] Different phases are used to illustrate the task at hand. Goals are initially listed in no particular order.
[5] The administration leadership will be concerned with all the goals.
[6] Selected stakeholders include: president; provost, principal, etc.; director of operations; facilities and maintenance; grounds; parking; IT, public information office; legal; counseling services; SGA; student life; residence advisors; campus police and/or security; external police; external fire and rescue; local hospital representatives; parents’ groups; faculty and staff; etc.
[7] These elements are used in nuclear weapon command and control assessments.
[8] Not all assets affect each goal. For instance, recall time does not affect the securing, documentation, and eventual return of abandoned property during the recovery phase.
[9] See How to Improve Your Agency in 5 Easy Steps for an illustration https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/news/how_to_evaluate_and_improve_your_agency_in_5_easy_steps_part_1/ and https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/news/how_to_evaluate_and_improve_your_agency_in_5_easy_steps_part_2/
[10] For the author’s views on technology selection, see https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/public/11-factors-to-consider-when-selecting-security-technology-for-your-campus/ and https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/technology/public-safety-security-technology/

If you appreciated this article and want to receive more valuable industry content like this, click here to sign up for our FREE digital newsletters!

About the Author

Contact:

Dr. and Lt. John Weinstein retired as a senior police commander at one of the country’s largest institutions of higher education where, in addition to other responsibilities, he directed officer and college-wide active incident response training and community outreach. He is a popular national and international speaker and is widely published on many institutional and municipal law enforcement matters. Weinstein also consults with Dusseau-Solutions on active incident and all-hazard topics involving schools, churches, businesses and other public venues.

Leading in Turbulent Times: Effective Campus Public Safety Leadership for the 21st Century

This new webcast will discuss how campus public safety leaders can effectively incorporate Clery Act, Title IX, customer service, “helicopter” parents, emergency notification, town-gown relationships, brand management, Greek Life, student recruitment, faculty, and more into their roles and develop the necessary skills to successfully lead their departments. Register today to attend this free webcast!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Get Our Newsletters
Campus Safety Conference promo