In a culture where more is automatically better, it may seem blasphemous to suggest that too much funding undermines security. Counterintuitive, perhaps. Even scandalous. Yet, sadly, true.
Anyone in the protection business has by now accumulated at least a handful of war stories about pet projects funded under the banner of Homeland Security, whether via federal grant or misguided private sector largesse. The insidious nature of subsidized security, however, extends far beyond the Homeland Security realm. Yet the pattern is often common, regardless of the circumstances. A security practitioner championing a worthy cause discovers a funding stream. With a combination of skill and luck, the practitioner obtains outside funding to jumpstart his or her program. What was a one-time windfall begins to feel like an entitlement. It becomes indispensable, and so the primary focus begins to shift away from the original security objective. Soon, the focus becomes grantsmanship and the best efforts go to capture strategies for that next grant check. In the process, security suffers. Reputations suffer and careers end abruptly when abuses surface.
Case in Point: A violence prevention program at a northern campus of the University of California earned a million dollars in federal funding. In order to obtain this funding, an aggressive program manager apparently felt obligated to falsify official crime statistics. Else, how does one account for a campus in the Sacramento suburb of Davis having twice the sexual assaults of its counterpart UC campus in Los Angeles? Details are in this expose' http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/2227823.html?mi_rss=Our%2520Region
Such misconduct is not original. What makes this story interesting is a subtle indicator of institutional complicity or lack of due diligence and reasonable scrutiny. How do we know? As the article reveals, "UC Davis officials said they didn't know why the longtime employee would do it. On Friday, they made it clear they had not asked her to explain her actions." Moreover, the same officials first suspended the individual behind the falsification of crime statistics and then retroactively changed the suspension into medical leave, after which the shamed program manager was able to retire. An attentive reporter figured out that employees suspended on medical leave are immune from disciplinary action unless they return to work. Since this employee did not return to work but retired, the institutional beneficiaries of the grant money were spared the discomfort of the investigation that would be necessary to support any discipline of one employee.
Did the university at least initiate the suspension based on the falsification of crime statistics -- a federal offense? No. As it happens, the misconduct that triggered the suspension (that later became medical leave) was overbilling on travel expenses. Thus we find that cheating in one area offers no immunity from cheating in another. And it now falls to the non-abusers to remove the tarnish from what is otherwise reportedly a commendable program.
- Nick Catrantzos
Subscribe Now
AddThis
Nick Catrantzos + Tom Goff
- All Secure
- NICK CATRANTZOS is the lead author of the All Secure website and is the emeritus security director for a large public organization. He has also managed security aspects of corporate takeovers, response to international hostage situations, and finding and keeping secrets. He has been board certified in security management, licensed as a private investigator, and certified as an incident commander. He worked as a case officer for a discreet branch of public service. He protected stealth technology at Lockheed and, later, as a consulting security director for both Kroll and Control Risks, he assisted executives with workplace violence cases and with protecting VIPs and critical assets globally in volatile areas. Nick's partner, TOM GOFF, was a captain in the Military Police Corps, U.S. Army Reserve and has a law degree from the University of California at Davis. He is a former reporter for Fortune Magazine, was senior editor at New York Magazine and Esquire, and has provided crisis and communications counsel to senior executives at Fortune 500 companies, including Lockheed, ARCO, Microsoft, Nissan, and Sony Pictures.