Recent events around the country involving police use of force and officer involved shootings, specifically impacting communities of color, have highlighted significant challenges and opportunities in the important relationship between the police and the communities they serve. Given these events and the resulting civil unrest in many cities, campus public safety agencies must seize the opportunity to review their policies, procedures and practices to ensure they continue to foster trust-based and collaborative relationships while effectively reducing crime and maintaining order.
Given the recent focus on the authority, jurisdiction, accountability, professionalism and transparency of campus law enforcement, we are highlighting our service geared towards helping universities and colleges to enhance the effectiveness and professionalism of their public safety agencies. We provide an objective review of policing practices with an eye towards ensuring fair and impartial policing. Our comprehensive review includes a thorough assessment of policies (especially those that govern high risk/high liability situations), procedures and practices rooted in our considerable experience in university and college public safety. We include an evaluation of technology (e.g., body worn cameras, use of force tools, etc.) and procedures for data collection and documentation specifically related to bias-based policing. We continue our work by examining your cultural competency programming and related curricula. We follow with an assessment of your trainings, recruitment program, and selection policies. If we identify gaps between your institution’s practices and current, evolving and promising practices, including those from the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (final report PDF), we provide recommendations and deliver suggested enhancements consistent with our experience as consultants and expert witnesses.
Note: Margolis Healy is a minority and veteran owned company.
Our new culture and diversity services have been developed in response to the current needs of colleges and universities across the US. We have seen a rise in incidents of bias across the country and many institutions of higher education (IHEs) have inquired about trainings for both campus public safety officials and student affairs professionals as well as other campus employees and departments. Our trainings are tailored to fit your specific needs. Please contact us for more information.
Bias Incident Response Training (BIRT)
Our recently developed trainings geared towards Bias Incident Response intend to enhance the mutual understanding of campus public safety and student affairs professionals regarding the impact of bias incidents and corresponding legal obligations. In light of the growing tension between underserved populations and law enforcement, institutions of higher education again find themselves in the role of social change agents. It is critical that campus departments that serve communities of color, LGBTQIA, or other historically marginalized groups understand their roles when responding to bias incidents and investigating Hate Crimes. It is equally important that the campus public safety offices and student affairs professionals understand and appreciate the perspectives and needs of these campus groups. In our unique interactive and scenario based program, participants identify both cultural and compliance challenges. Participants come away with greatly enhanced levels of understanding for the challenging roles one another have in framing this difficult issue and ensuring our nation’s campuses are prepared to set the stage for national change.
Cultural Competency for Campus Public Safety Agencies
The Cultural Competency program enables participants to understand their roles in promoting diverse, inclusive and equitable campus environments as campus public safety professionals. The training consists of various instructional modes (i.e., presentation, multimedia) as well as group work and experiential activities. Prior to the session, we conduct a pre-assessment to collect relevant background data on the department and participants.
We offer Title IX assessment and training services to assist campus leaderships continued commitment to providing an environment safe and free from gender discrimination, sexual harassment, or sexual violence. We use an experienced, multi-disciplinary team to conduct a comprehensive review and assessment of an institution’s compliance with Title IX across all departments and, where needed, recommendations for improvement in existing programs, policies, and resources.
Our methodology includes a deliberative and rigorous inquiry process involving key stakeholders and campus community members. For each area of focus, we develop thorough interview guides that the team uses to elicit facts, opinions, and perceptions of the areas under review. From these responses, we identify challenges and opportunities and develop recommendations to effectively address deficiencies and build upon existing strengths.
Our analysis and recommendations will assist the institution in its efforts to comply with the spirit and intent of Title IX, and the US Department of Education’s 2011 Dear Colleague Letter and the October 2014 Final Regulations to implement the changes made to the Clery Act by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA). We will identify, as appropriate to the scope of this project, best, promising and acceptable contemporary standards that could be used by the institution to achieve or adjust compliance practices, policies and procedures.
Title IX Trainings
Our Title IX training services are customized for your institution's needs. We offer a Title IX Investigators Course, which includes Hearing Panel training, as well as a multi-disciplinary training that can be tailored based on identified needs and goals.
Our multi-disciplinary Title IX institution-wide training program addresses all of the critical areas outlined in Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) April 2011 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) and October 2014 Final Regulations to implement the changes made to the Clery Act by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA). Our distinguished multi-disciplinary faculty created this comprehensive curriculum and accompanying guidebook to specifically assist colleges and universities navigate the complexities surrounding Title IX guidance. We have presented this program in several forums, including at national conferences and one-on-one sessions for institutions. We are proud that United Educators has also vetted the program.
Administrators who should attend this program may include the institution's senior leadership team, campus public safety leaders, student affairs professionals, student conduct practitioners, general counsel, Title IX coordinator, risk management, human resources, and/or other key Title IX personnel and Campus Security Authorities, as defined in the Clery Act regulations.
For references or names of other institutions we have worked with on this sensitive area, please contact us.
The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act) requires all Title IV institutions to prepare, publish and distribute an annual security report (ASR) to remain in compliance with the Act. We provide clients with an Annual Security Report Review (ASR) flat-fee service which consists of an in-depth document review of ASR-required policies, policy statements, associated procedures, and other programmatic elements of the institutional Annual Security Report (or Annual Fire Safety and Security Report, as applicable). The review informs feedback to institutional leadership regarding future policy enhancements and ASR development. We deliver a detailed report outlining results of the ASR review. We will also provide a detailed checklist and template for future ASR development.
WHERE TO SET THE BAR: DETERMINING APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF PUBLIC SAFETY STAFFING MHA BI-DIMENSIONAL STAFFING FORMULA™ (Download PDF)
Determining appropriate staffing levels is a widespread challenge for university administrators and Campus Public Safety Departments. Difficult economic times have made the situation worse, as fewer resources result in difficult allocation decisions. But even when resources are plentiful, the challenge remains.
Most public safety organizations base their staffing decisions on a ratio of officers to population, the “simplest and least appropriate” method according to the International Association of Chiefs of Police.1 But the unreliability of benchmarking and difficulties of workload analysis make even those efforts uneven.
Another approach is suggested by John Schuiteman: “Adequate police protection, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder. The optimal or appropriate ratio of troopers (or officers) to population, or traffic volume, reported crimes or accidents, etc., is not a matter of mathematics or statistics. It is a matter of human judgment and community resources.”
Margolis Healy and Associates argues that instead it is a combination of the three: mathematics, human judgment, and resources. Denying the quantitative knowledge found in historical data regarding shift activity results in staffing decisions based on an incomplete picture, just as relying solely on a computer program such as the PAM (Personnel Allocation Model) fails to take into account human judgment. We developed two analyses that together provide an in-depth, accurate description of staffing needs for individual institutions: a Space Analysis (Space FTE Method) based on five factors that include the institution’s gross square footage and buildings; and a Shift Activity Analysis (also known as a workload analysis) based on shift activity levels, deployment philosophy, and human resource practices. The process is known as the MHA Bi-Dimensional Staffing Formula™ (MHA – BDSF).
To collect data and account for variables, we conduct site visits (when necessary), interview key personnel, and review documents (including but not limited to briefing logs, annual security reports, budget documentation, campus planning documents, daily activity summary reports, dispatch schedule and staffing roster, organizational charts, yearly statistics, patrol zone documentation, position descriptions and staffing information, and written directives and policies). Beyond the base numbers created from the BDSF analysis, the institution must weigh political and other factors to determine the specific mix of public safety staffing (e.g., sworn, non-sworn, contract security, proprietary security, dispatch) ideally suited to meet its public safety needs 24/7/365. This comprehensive approach results in staffing recommendations based on realistic current and future needs.
Our “space method” uses a combination of five factors that work together to describe a campus in terms of its public safety needs:
1. PUBLIC SAFETY READINESS LEVEL
This scale is based on square footage and type of space, as the public safety needs of academic, research, administrative and residential facilities differ significantly. Building off of APPA’s work projecting space needs for maintenance and custodial staffing,2 we assign a number of public safety staff per one million square feet of space, dependent on the kind of space, and the chosen public safety level (as described by the Public Safety Matrix—see below). Current and future staffing needs must take into account the overall goal for public safety, aligning workload capacity with expectation. When the two are out of alignment (in other words when expectation exceeds capacity), a host of detrimental issues occur, both in terms of staffing (high turnover, stress, excessive overtime, etc), and in terms of satisfaction with the performance of the public safety department.
Public Safety Matrix
We developed the Public Safety Matrix (PSM) to help university administrators and public safety leaders identify and describe the desired levels of public safety services and their impact on the safety and security of the campus. It assists in aligning the expectations of both groups.
The matrix has five levels, with a general description of the essential characteristics expected to measure the effectiveness of campus safety and security at each level.
LEVEL 1 (FULL SERVICE):
• Tightly coordinated and organized
• Well developed written directive system
• Highly trained, professional staff
• Fully developed proactive and reactive services
• High customer satisfaction
• Healthy and/or optimal budgets based on historical data and reasonable/anticipated needs
LEVEL 2 (COMPREHENSIVE STEWARDSHIP):
• Coordinated and organized
• Developed written directive system
• Well trained, professional staff
• Reasonable balance of proactive and reactive services
• Good customer satisfaction
• Reasonable budgets based on historical data and reasonable/ anticipated needs
LEVEL 3 (MANAGED CARE):
• Coordinated and organized primarily around reactive services
• Adequate but not fully developed written directive system
• Basically trained, professional staff
• More focused on reactive services; proactive services as resources allow
• Decent customer satisfaction, with some struggles
• Strained budgets
LEVEL 4 (REACTIVE SERVICES):
• Coordinated and organized solely on reactive services
• Poorly developed and implemented written directive system
• Minimally trained staff
• Focused on reactive services
• Poor customer satisfaction in some areas
• Limiting budgets
LEVEL 5 (RESPONSE ONLY):
• Reactive services only
• Lacking written directive system
• Inadequately trained staff
• Poor customer satisfaction
• Inadequate budgets
2. CALL VOLUME
Public safety staffing numbers are influenced, in part, by activity level. To account for this influence, we established this factor that makes assumptions about the amount of time and attention an average call for service may require. The call volume factor does not take into account officer initiated activities, but instead focuses on calls coming into the public safety organization by the greater campus community. They may include reported crime; service needs; lost and found; etc. Based on our professional experiences as campus public safety administrators and the significant number of staffing assessments we’ve conducted for institutions throughout the United States and Canada, we assume that a public safety officer would be out of service (e.g., unavailable for other calls) for approximately 30 minutes (travel time, activity, clearance back into service) on a reasonable call for service. This time frame may be adjusted for a particular university or college by data provided by the campus public safety agency.
3. NUMBER OF FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUILDINGS
Different types of buildings have different safety and security needs, so the greater the diversity of buildings on a campus the greater the impact on the public safety organization. This isn’t to say that the sheer number of buildings itself won’t create challenges, but this is accounted for in a different factor (see below). Numerous buildings of varying functions (e.g., research, academic, administrative and residential), each with specific demands, can pull or push the public safety organization into many different requirements, regardless of the size of the institution. This factor does not discriminate between on-campus and off-campus buildings and spaces, as long as they fall under the purview of the public safety organization’s span of control.
4. TOTAL CAMPUS AREA
The size of the campus has a profound impact on the public safety services of the institution. Moving through acres of corridors and across miles of roads takes time, and therefore affects response.
5. CAMPUS MISSION
A variable often missing from consideration of staffing is the mission of an institution, which has an impact on its usage, community draw, and level of complexity for public safety services. We may expect, for example, seminaries and theological institutions to have a subdued overall activity level beyond the focus of its needs; size; and nature of its population. On the other extreme, community colleges are often open, busy, and vulnerable to a host of safety and security issues given the size of the population and other factors.
SHIFT ACTIVITY ANALYSIS
Four factors are used to create a comprehensive view of current shift activity and to project the number of patrol staff required to meet the need as calculated by the workload analysis.
1. STAFFING FORMULA
This formula takes into account the number of hours required for public safety coverage by including the number of hours in a year for one position less the lost time element (e.g., the allotted vacation time, sick time available, compensatory time off, holiday time, and training and development needs). If we assume that there are 8,736 hours in a given year (24 hours X 7 days/week X 52 weeks), then a 40-hour work week equates to 2,080 hours/year less 360 hours of time away from work (e.g., leave, vacation, medical, etc). This leaves 1,720 hours of time available from one public safety officer (sworn or non-sworn). Dividing the number of hours of available time/person (1,720) into the total number of hours required of coverage (8,736 and absent other mitigating factors to be discussed next), we arrive at a staffing factor of 5.08. This figure translates into the following: to have a 1 person equivalent available 24/7 in the on-campus schedule requires 5.08 people in the staffing roster.
2. CALL FOR SERVICE ANALYSIS
For the purposes of this analysis and based on experience and national discussions, we assume that the average time on a call for service is 30 minutes; this number is adjusted based on the data from a particular campus public safety agency. This number does not include officer initiated activities. We use campus public safety department records to determine averages of calls per shift; and time spent on calls for services, writing reports, and traveling to and from calls.
3. BUILDING SECURITY ACTIVITIES
The watch-guard services of a campus public safety organization require public safety officers to tend to the physical security needs of the buildings and spaces on campus. Locking, unlocking and conducting building checks requires significant time allocation during a shift, and varies between shifts and the extent of the deployment of security technology (e.g., access control, perimeter alarms, security cameras). Day and evening shifts may require fewer building checks, while midnights more, and depending on the type of building (academic, research, administrative, residential).
4. PROACTIVE/DIRECTED PATROL ACTIVITIES
This calculation factors in the amount of time assigned per shift to duties that are not reactive in nature. These are officer-initiated activities, crime prevention efforts, and general community policing activities.
PROJECTED STAFFING NUMBERS
By combining the Space Analysis with the Shift Activity Analysis through the MHA Bi-Dimensional Staffing Formula™, we can calculate current and projected public safety staffing needs for the desired level of public safety as indicated by the PSM. We can also determine the appropriate mix of sworn law enforcement, non-sworn security, and outsourced security guards. In short, we are able to map the size and complexity of the physical plant against the call volume of public safety demands to arrive at a well thought out staffing strategy. These calculations may be further refined through consideration of additional factors (such as technology that can decrease time spent on various activities) as necessary.
Determining appropriate staffing levels is a widespread challenge for university administrators and Campus Public Safety Departments. Difficult economic times have made the situation worse, as fewer resources result in difficult allocation decisions. But even when resources are plentiful, the challenge remains. We are pleased to announce the addition of our newest practice area, Staffing Analysis, to the list of services available to our clients.
Using a process known as the Margolis Healy Bi-Dimensional Staffing Formula™, or MHA – BDSF, we work with you under a flat-fee contract, using a comprehensive approach to develop staffing recommendations based on realistic current and future needs.
To collect data and account for variables, we conduct site visits (when necessary), interview key personnel, and review documents (including but not limited to briefing logs, annual security reports, budget documentation, campus planning documents, daily activity summary reports, dispatch schedule and staffing roster, organizational charts, yearly statistics, patrol zone documentation, position descriptions and staffing information, and written directives and policies). Beyond the base numbers created from the BDSF analysis, we help the institution weigh political and other factors to determine the specific mix of public safety staffing (e.g., sworn, non-sworn, contract security, proprietary security, dispatch) ideally suited to meet its public safety needs 24/7/365. Once all the data and factors are compiled, we create a report of recommendations for your institution.
What is the Margolis Healy Bi-Dimensional Staffing Formula™ and how does it work?
Our public safety executive retainer provides new public safety leaders and their institution with services such as coaching, mentoring and access to our experience and knowledge in such areas as understanding organizational culture, how to best collaborate and build relationships with other administrative offices within colleges and universities, understanding the role of the campus public safety agency in the behavioral threat assessment process. Additional experience and knowledge areas may include, but are not limited to:
Please contact us for more information or to receive a quote on this service.
Through our extensive experience with colleges, universities and K-12 schools throughout North America, and as we work with our clients on a variety of emergency preparedness related issues, we are often requested to provide significant additional services such as emergency plans or annex development, department plans, team trainings, exercise development and facilitation, etc. While we are honored and grateful to further serve as trusted advisors, such services are typically conducted at greater expense to a client due to increased value of the additional project(s). We have also discovered that the placement of fixed milestones over a shorter timeframe, typically due to artificial contractual parameters with a smaller scope of services, does not allow for the organic identification and development of reasonable, comprehensive and actionable plans, policies and procedures.
To this end, we have developed a unique, value-added retainer service, the Emergency Management Coordinator Retainer Service. This retainer service includes an ambitious, yet attainable, amount of annual deliverables that are augmented by routine and emergency access to our staff for expert consultative services through phone, email, video conferencing, etc. Our annual retainer service provides your institution with an annual exercise to meet Clery requirements, specifically designed by Margolis Healy in consultation with institutional leadership and facilitated by our staff on-site. A retainer also allows an institution to consistently and proactively budget for services. As our retainer clients will attest, we become an integral member of your team, available to participate in regularly scheduled emergency team meetings, the review of event plans, programs and development of policies related to preparedness.
The value of these services is increased further with the regular accessibility to our experts, well beyond the limited accessibility and scope provided on a per project basis. We offer a comprehensive solution to enhance campus emergency planning in areas that may include, but not be limited to, the services described below:
Please contact us for more information or to receive a quote on this service.
The goals of the Clery Compliance Retainer Service are: (1) to reduce an institution’s overall cost of enhancing its Clery Act compliance program; (2) to optimize institution-wide compliance efforts; (3) to provide the institution with direct and regular access to consulting on routine campus public safety and compliance matters, without added cost; and (4) to integrate our consulting services, to the extent appropriate, with the on-going efforts to enhance an institution’s safety and security program.
Annual Security Report
Data Coordination and Collection
Policy Development and Training
Please contact us for more information or to receive a quote on this service.
Margolis Healy will evaluate your institution’s range of risks and hazards critical to the development of appropriate prevention, mitigation, response and recovery strategies related to all-hazards emergency management.
We serve our clients through the development of a Risk & Hazard Profile(tm) that assists the institution with identifying the range of realistic threats and hazards it faces, and then implementing a decision making process to determine which require attention in the institution’s emergency management plan; the continuity of operations plan; and department-level prevention, mitigation and/or response strategies. Without such a process, universities and colleges face the daunting task of giving equal attention to all perceived and real hazards. Our process recognizes the range between high impact/low probability and low impact/high probability risks and hazards.
(Note: the term “Safety & Security Vulnerability Assessment”, “SSVA”, “Safety & Security Program Assessment” and “SSPA” are trademarks of Margolis Healy & Associates, LLC)
Margolis Healy provides support in the recruitment and selection of campus safety leadership by way of a partnership arrangement with Spelman Johnson, a specialized executive search and consulting firm with a proven history of filling leadership positions within higher education. This strategic partnership between Margolis Healy and Spelman Johnson allows colleges and universities a full complement of services as they look to enhance campus safety and security. In situations where institutions are seeking new leadership in this area, Margolis Healy and Spelman Johnson will work with them to identify and recruit a candidate with the right skill set to meet the needs of the organization. We will also oversee the transition by managing the on-boarding process and are pleased that this partnership will provide clients a comprehensive set of superior services.
Margolis Healy provides interim management support through the placement of an interim public safety leader and associated oversight of their performance in anticipation of a full search and permanent placement.
Margolis Healy is available to consult on litigation issues surrounding security and public safety events and concerns at universities and colleges.
Clery Act Assessment
Compliance with the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act can appear to be a daunting and an overwhelming responsibility. Our Clery Act Compliance Assessment includes an in‑depth audit of the related programs, policies, procedures, and processes in several of your institution’s departments, including, but not limited to, police/campus public safety, student life (and associated/subordinate offices, including residential life and student conduct), health services, human resources, legal services, athletics, etc. The goal of our assessment is to identify gaps and challenges with your institution’s compliance efforts. Where we identify challenges in your Clery compliance program, our team will recommend approaches to correct deficiencies and enhance compliance. We may also offer sample policies where appropriate to assist in your compliance efforts.
Clery Act Compliance Trainings
In addition to compliance assessment, we deliver trainings to campus teams responsible for Clery compliance. Many clients ask for a variety of trainings focused on selected levels within their organization such as the President’s cabinet, department heads who have responsibility for oversight of campus security authorities (CSAs), and departments typically most deeply involved in compliance (ex. campus public safety, student conduct, residence life, etc.). Prior to each training, we provide a guidebook that includes source materials, PowerPoint presentation slides, references, and other important collateral material. Members of our teams have been instrumental in the development of federal regulations, provided instruction in partnership with a variety of associations and organizations including the Clery Center for Security on Campus.
We understand the unique challenges that arise when an institution of higher education explores arming their campus public safety officers, or implementing less-than-lethal use of force options. Our extensive experience in public safety and higher education administration allows us to facilitate reviews and studies that support institutions and their public safety functions with these decisions and processes. We also advise on, and assist with, the implementation and/or enhancement of written directives, policies and procedures, including those relevant to response to aggression (e.g., use of force), delivery of a training program on a department’s use of force policies for all armed officers, and the investigation of use of force complaints and related liability delivered for supervisors. Our recommendations may include advice and counsel on the type(s) of lethal and less-than-lethal weapons to be deployed and/or made available to your officers, including handguns, shotguns, patrol rifles, Tasers, baton, chemical, beanbag, etc., as well as type of ammunition. We also assist with the identification of ongoing training needs and the development of internal resources to this end.
We work closely with the appropriate departments and members of leadership at your institution to advise on the assessment of officers suitable for transitioning to carry lethal force tools. We also participate in campus and community forums to discuss expectations, transition, etc., as required by your college or university.
Margolis Healy provides Event Security Planning and Management that transforms an event operations function to one of guest services. University and college athletic facilities are being re-purposed as multi-use entertainment venues with all the freedoms and responsibilities inherent in providing for such a public assembly. College event facilities are amongst the most vulnerable of soft targets according the US Department of Homeland Security. Event security brings together best and promising practices in crowd management; interface with first responders and law enforcement, and brings student life and public safety offices underneath an umbrella service and industry standard planning and implementation.
Our analysis and assessment focuses on three (3) core components of event security and crowd management: Time; Space; and Energy. We assess and evalute the amount of time necessary for the crowd to enter a venue; become energized; and vacate the event space. Our analysis of space is tied to the nature of the event(s) and the phyiscal location of the venue. Lastly, we assess the energy levels potentially generated by the various acts, bands, speakers and events that contribute to time and space challenges. Our practice in Event Security Planning and Management specializes in the seamless integration of ingress/entrancing; access control; guest services; interdiction and management of alcohol and other drugs; egress/traffic management and issues for student/residential life.
Margolis Healy has considerable academic and real world experience with organizational development and transformation. Our extensive experience in policing and higher education administration allows us to conduct management reviews and organizational studies for campus public safety agencies. We will conduct a review of the institution’s safety and security function and make recommendations and suggestions, if required, in light of best practices and institutional needs. Depending on the scope of the review, the goals of the management study may range from a review of the department’s operations to human resource practices; staffing (recruitment and retention); policies and protocols; and facilities and equipment depending on application, time constraints, and availability of information.
Margolis Healy assists our clients with developing emergency response and recovery plans tailored to your institution’s needs. Our work includes the formulation of an emergency management system and the associated development of coordination capabilities, policy and strategic roles, and effective implementation of recovery efforts specific to educational settings. We explore the roles and responsibilities of the executive decision makers and operational “first responders” while building an Emergency Operations Center and moving through the phases of a critical incident.
Our services include developing policies, creating effective teams, developing crisis communication messages and conducting comprehensive “hands-on” training and field exercises.
Margolis Healy will evaluate your residential, academic and administrative facilities; security and safety related policies; and existing or envisioned security technology infrastructure (security cameras; access control; and mass notification and warning systems) in order to provide recommendations in alignment with promising or best practices. For security technology needs, we can provide system cost projections that can be included in overall fiscal projections as well as specifications that can be included in installation bids.
We serve our clients through the development of a Risk Tolerance Profile(tm) that assists the institution with identifying the range of realistic threats and vulnerabilities it faces, and then implementing a decision making process to determine which require prevention, mitigation and/or response plans. Without such a process, universities and colleges face the daunting task of giving equal attention to all perceived and real threats. Our process recognizes the range between high impact/low probability and low impact/high probability events. The Active Shooter tragedy (high impact/low probability) and the iPod theft from the library (low impact/high probability) each require different strategies. Impact is defined through the institution and the individual.
(Note: the term “Safety & Security Vulnerability Assessment”, “SSVA”, “Safety & Security Program Assessment” and “SSPA” are trademarks of Margolis Healy & Associates, LLC)