Tougher laws <> reduced losses

According to some recent media, the North Carolina legislature has sent a bill to the Governor that makes church burglary a more serious felony than before. Larger penalties, more time in jail, longer incarcerations, call it what you will it is all on the wrong end for security. While it can be said with some certainty that the intent of the bill is to reduce church burglaries and was developed in good faith, it can also be said with some authority that increased penalties only do so much for reducing crime.

Practically speaking, warehousing criminals for longer periods of time does prevent that criminal from committing further crime - at least on the public - during the incarceration, however let's consider the ultimate state sanction and its affect on crime and then we'll move to a better discussion. Murder is punishable by the death penalty in many states. This penalty has not significantly reduced the murder rate where ever it is applied. Yes, I know, there are many reasons for this and extensive circumstances that affect it, but let's admit that, by and large, increasing penalties beyond a specific point has little further deterrent effect.

So let's focus on the fact that increasing penalties do more for the politicians than for the victims - in this case churches. Once a facility, any facility, has been violated there is damage - physical and psychological - and that damage cannot always be fixed easily. There are losses - direct and indirect - that affect when or if a facility can be used again, or whether operations must be relocated, postponed, or ceased. We can discuss losses another time, but for now it is important to recognize the value of preventing losses. A proportionate investment in protective strategies is a budgeted occurrence, but dealing with a loss is crisis-spending. Unplanned, unbudgeted and generally the impact causes some other program to be reduced.

There were five burglaries in North Carolina that occurred just prior to the passing of this bill. Five organizations lost assets that affected their lives and how their operations were conducted, but far worse was the feeling that someone had invaded sacred space, stolen objects, and possibly, if not likely, desecrated the sanctity of the church. Could the burglaries have been prevented? Absolutely and without a doubt YES! But remember sometimes it is necessary to accept some risk rather than completely altering, impeding or destroying how operations are conducted. Too much prevention could make worship services impossible. But burglary is generally a preventable loss and at the very least it could have been possible to mitigate the actual loss that occurred. Sometimes it's technology that can help and other times it's processes, procedures and community involvement. Determining the proper mix is matter best completed after a Risk Assessment - which incidentally usually take one or two days to complete at most churches and maybe another week for analysis and reporting - and can mean the difference between losses and prevented losses (which is not exactly a 'gain' but much better than a loss).

What I'd really like to impress upon everyone here is that increased criminal penalties are a great gesture by the government but they do not necessarily help reduce losses. The bad guy is probably still going to commit the act - and then you're just stuck with the aftermath, the cleanup, and the personal impact felt by each member. Applaud the legislature for responding to the community - but role up your sleeves and start planning how to prevent the need for the law.

This first step an any Risk Assessment is to determine what assets exist within the organization. Consider this for your organization - you'll find that there is a lot more than you may have first realized. Have you considered what the impact might be if one, some or all of these were lost?