Center for the Study of Public Security faces tough issues
Archived article from Nov 18, 2003
By Marilyn Kochman
In March 2002, still reeling from September 11, Rutgers established the Center for the Study of Terrorism. Its purpose seemed clear: to study the causes and spread of terrorism and improve public understanding of how to stop it. In the months after its inception, the center began to redefine its mission, as it started to place terrorism in the larger context of catastrophic events. In August 2003, the center changed its name to reflect its broader focus. It is now called the Center for the Study of Public Security.
The center’s expanded research mission crystallized last year after the outbreak of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic, according to Leslie W. Kennedy, director of the center, and dean of the School of Criminal Justice, which houses the Center for the Study of Public Security.
“It became evident that the preparation for a deliberate attack is not that different, from a health point of view, from a naturally occurring phenomenon,” Kennedy said. “We decided that it would be much more consistent with what we’ve done in the past if we think of our organization as a broad-based public security center.”
Terrorism is still a major threat, of course, but there are others as well. “We have broadened our scope to focus on how our society deals with any challenge to public security,” said Norman Samuels, chair of the center’s advisory board and former provost of the Rutgers-Newark campus. “We now want to focus on infrastructure . . . to learn how health fields are responding, what industry is doing, and how to keep our power, electricity, water and transportation systems safe.”
One major revelation has been the new importance corporate America has placed on its role in protecting its employees and the public. “Before September 11, corporate security was something done at a company’s door,” said Kennedy. “Today it is an integral part of the way organizations conduct business. The vice president of security now participates in the president’s meetings; before September 11, he or she was probably five steps removed.”
The Center for the Study of Public Security, a member of Rutgers’ Homeland Security Research Initiative (an umbrella organization for departments conducting homeland security research), is a joint effort of four partners on the Newark campus: the School of Criminal Justice, the Center for Global Change and Governance, the School of Law and the College of Nursing. Several institutions outside of Rutgers collaborate with the center, including the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, the New Jersey Institute of Technology and the Public Health Research Institute at Science Park.
The center’s goal is not to focus on “the grand, theoretical dimension of terrorism and public safety — many people already are doing that,” Samuels said. “We want to focus on the practical, nitty-gritty aspects of public security: What happens when there is a threat? How do we respond? What can be improved? Do we have the capability we need? If not, how do we develop it?”
For example, the center has launched a security monitoring program to track changes in security before and after September 11. Rutgers graduate students are conducting research that involves interviews with decision makers in the corporate, health and law enforcement sectors seeking perceptions of their organizations’ levels of risk, preparedness and security and the obstacles they continue to face. The center will publish their findings and invite interviewees to convene for further discussions.
The School of Criminal Justice has always been practically oriented, conducting training sessions for police and other law-enforcement officers, among other activities, Samuels said. “We can be a neutral ground for people to gather and discuss common problems. Once we see clear patterns, we will analyze the information and disseminate our findings, using the usual scholarly methods — journal articles and conferences.”
The center’s multidisciplinary composition is one of its key assets, according to Kennedy. “Law enforcement people involved with hazardous materials issues, for example, are able to talk to people in the health care field. They, in turn, can give guidance to corporate security personnel concerned with health issues within their organizations.”
The center has sponsored two conferences to date. “Technology and Terrorism: Preparation and Response,” conducted in February, focused on strategies for preparing for and responding to various forms of terrorism. Debate revolved around measures organizations can take to ensure cyber security and respond effectively to a future attack. The conversation later veered away from preparing for the next attack— in terms of an intelligence response or a specific intervention—to preparing for the consequences of an attack.
The “Health Summit,” conducted in June, was a daylong conference at which representatives from each of the center’s participating organizations, as well as officials from public health, law enforcement and corporate security organizations, spoke about health security in New Jersey.
Samuels said future conferences will address the practical aspects of public health and answer emerging questions such as: How do you get people to hospitals during a crisis? How do you handle major outbreaks of infection? How do you identify smallpox? How is it different from chicken pox? Should posters be placed in every doctor’s office so that people can instantly recognize smallpox? Other activities planned for 2004 include a conference in June on the social and economic consequences of heightened security, followed by one in the fall on the media response to public security.
|
