Comprehensive Systems
 |
Ed Spooner, AIA, is justice director for the South Central Region for Hellmuth Obata + Kassabaum (HOK). A registered architect since 1968, Spooner has specialized in the design of justice facilities for the past 27 years. Before joining HOK four years ago, he worked for several firms, including SOM, DMJM, and HDR, and ran his own firm in New Orleans for 10 years. |
Correctional News: We often hear discussions about what constitutes a secure facility. What are your thoughts on this issue?
Ed Spooner: There are several different groups of facilities. There are courts, detention facilities and correctional facilities. Each one of those project groups has different security requirements. Within each group there are also several types of facilities; in corrections these range from minimum-security facilities all the way to super maxes with five or six stops in between. It’s important to be specific on the type of facility, the requirements and the population that may be resident.
Primarily, we look at three elements. We look at the barriers, that is the construction of the building itself. The systems that monitor the facility are next and then the people who run and supervise the facility. We like to think that we design a facility where any one of those individual components might be interrupted or have a break down and there’s enough redundancy in the planning so that the remaining systems can cover the security needs of the facility.
We’ve all been in facilities where we’ve seen a staff that has been well trained and motivated and ran a facility that in reality may have been obsolete 15 or 20 years earlier and they are doing a great job. We’ve also been in some new facilities that are hard to manage and put a real strain on the staff because there’s an understaffing issue or a lack of proper training. You see a variety of conditions. We have come in the last 10 years to increasingly depend on systems to play a bigger role in the overall facility. Certainly many operators depend more on the systems. That may be a product of the inability to get staffing at the levels they would have liked. There is an increasing burden placed on the systems to manage facilities.
CN: Let’s talk about systems. What are some of the trends in the detention and correctional segments of the market?
ES: Probably the biggest single trend has been the implementation of digital in computer controls and the operating systems. When we talk about controls we include everything from door and access systems to the surveillance and CCTV systems, tracking systems for both staff and inmates, personal duress alarms and the perimeter security systems.
The use of the computer has allowed all of these systems to be integrated into a more comprehensive system. Before, we were dealing with more independent devices. It’s been a benefit to the staff to operate multiple systems from one location and to move back and forth for different requirements.
CN: Many correctional officials are skeptical of PDAs. Even though there are safeguards against an inmate escaping with a hand-held unit, officials worry that PDAs put officers at risk just because inmates might mistakenly perceive the chance is there. Is this a belief you’ve encountered?
ES: I have not personally encountered that issue. We have only done one facility with wireless operations, but I can see that the issue may be a concern. In our approach to design, the systems that would be controlled from the wireless device, whether it’s a PDA or a laptop, probably should be designed to have restricted control. As an example, a direct supervision officer in a housing unit might have control of the individual cell doors but not have control to the entry into the housing unit. Even if he lost control of the hand-held device it would be no different than the inmate taking control of a fixed workstation. That would be a check and balance system.
There is the potential to include biometric components in a hand-held device that would deactivate the device and couple it with a personal duress system. If the orientation and classification program was designed so that inmates knew what the officer was doing, what he could and couldn’t do with the device, that would probably resolve a lot of concerns about the officer having the device.
From a management perspective, the thing that might be enhanced by a mobile device is that the officer would move around the unit, physically looking in cells and making more contact with the occupants of the units. Many jurisdictions think that’s a positive thing, to have the officer on the floor more frequently.
CN: How secure are encryption codes for PDAs? Is the protection against outside control adequate yet?
ES: From what we understand, there is a very broad range of encryption technology. It’s incumbent on correction and detention facilities to be looking at top-end products. Many companies use wireless LAN systems for very sensitive business and have had satisfactory experience. Probably the biggest advantage for an institutional facility is that the construction of the facility, the masonry and the solidity of the construction, prevent the ability of a device outside of the facility to be directed inside the facility. The inability for someone to get into the system, and the higher end, more sophisticated encryption system, probably give the users a reasonable level of security.
CN: Do you think iris recognition is particularly suited to manage the regular ingress and egress at work-release facilities? What does it add to an existing ankle-monitoring system?
ES: A work-release facility would not be the type of facility where I would think about employing a sophisticated identification system like iris, retinal, thumbprint or handprint. We have reserved the biometrics for more critical access control applications than I would normally consider a work release center to be. I think if a classification process has placed someone in a work release center there are much simpler and more economic ways to identify them as they come and go.
CN: When designing a mid-rise facility, should all the elevators be operated from central control, or just the secure elevators?
ES: That’s obviously the most secure choice to make; we would recommend that all vertical transportation inside the secure perimeter inside of any institution be controlled by the control room. There are some facilities that have some administration spaces on upper levels and they are dedicated elevators that are essentially outside the secure perimeter and those could have a local control. Anything that moves within the secure perimeter, whether it’s moving food carts, inmates or visitors, should be controlled by central control.
CN: What is your opinion regarding digital versus analog recording surveillance systems?
ES: I think there’s a big advantage to digital. The digital systems today are improving. There is initially a higher cost, but each time we look at the manufacturer’s catalogs the storage capacity in the unit increases. The numbers of gigabytes has increased in video surveillance. These are usually in modules of 16 cameras and depending on the number of frames per second, you can get anywhere from two weeks to 30 days of storage on that hard drive. That’s usually more than adequate. If there has been a problem it should be identified in five to 10 days. We like the digital because of the ability for an officer, working at a variety of different terminals, to access information very quickly and easily.
The biggest single advantage to digital systems in many respects is the ability to modify the programming of what you want the system to do. It adds a level of flexibility that the older, hard-wired systems didn’t have. I think that’s a value worth paying for.
CN: Are there any limitations to digital that have yet to be resolved?
ES:I’m not sure I’d say ‘limitations’ as much as how much a client is willing to spend for the convenience of the digital. I bought a laptop a couple of years ago and it cost two and a half times as much as my current one. At a certain price level most of our clients seem willing to invest in digital equipment knowing that in a couple of years the replacement hard drive for a device may have twice the capacity of the one they get today.
CN: What are the challenges in integrating touch screen controls versus analog?
ES: Whether it’s an actual touch screen monitor or a monitor that is mouse-driven, staff who have never used that system before and have little hands-on experience, we find in the vast majority of cases, they are much happier with the computer based control systems. If I personally were sitting at a terminal all day, I’d rather use my mouse than a touch screen. But the way systems are now designed, that’s just an option.
The ability to do multiple tasks from a variety of workstations completely outweighs the limitations of the older analog dedicated systems. Some systems can’t be fully integrated; fire codes still require a separate fire panel for actual operations. Most of the operating systems in a facility can now be integrated in the central computer system.
CN: How do you stay in tune with developments in security electronics? Where do you get your information regarding new products and equipment?
ES: Your paper, Correctional News, is a good source of information. A lot of the technology development comes from the manufacturers. In their search for competitive advantage, they’re developing new products all the time. I personally enjoy going to ACA and AJA and looking at the exhibits and meeting the representatives. They tell me what’s in the market place. The periodicals and manufacturers are the primary source for this information. There are a couple of very good consultants in the field we work with, too.
CN: Do you have any final comments?
ES: I understand that our clients get their funding from legislatures and there is tremendous competition for construction dollars among law enforcement, education and healthcare. Recognizing that, I think the industry we are all a part of – as corrections designers, operators and law enforcement professionals – has slipped back over the last couple of years and perhaps lost the drive to search for better facilities, better systems and better management techniques. They’ve been in a holding pattern trying to keep their heads above water.
I’d like to see a return to a period where people were really searching for better solutions to correctional and detention issues. There have been a lot of studies demonstrating that certain educational and rehabilitation programs can be effective to refocus on not just warehousing people so much as in trying to improve society.