{"id":253,"date":"2006-09-04T10:47:45","date_gmt":"2006-09-04T15:47:45","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2020-10-06T08:27:56","modified_gmt":"2020-10-06T13:27:56","slug":"effective-security-management-of-university-sport-venues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/effective-security-management-of-university-sport-venues\/","title":{"rendered":"Effective Security Management of University Sport Venues"},"content":{"rendered":"
Submitted by: Stacey Hall<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n

The purpose of this study was to identify standards for effective security
\nmanagement of university sport venues. Standards were developed through
\na series of interviews and a three-round Delphi study. Purposeful sampling
\nwas used to select participants for both the interviews and Delphi panel.
\nFour sport security personnel participated in the interview process and
\nan initial set of standards were developed and used for the Delphi study.
\nThe twenty-eight member Delphi panel included the athletic facility manager,
\ncampus police chief, local sheriff, and local emergency management director
\nresponsible for game day security operations at seven state-supported
\nuniversities in Mississippi. Importance ratings for developed standards
\nwere assessed on a five-point Likert scale during Round 2 and 3. This
\nstudy identified 134 standards in eleven categories: Perimeter Control,
\nAccess Control, Credentialing, Physical Protection Systems, Risk Management,
\nEmergency Management, Recovery Procedures, Communications, Security Personnel,
\nTraining, Modeling, and Simulation, and WMD \u2013 Toxic Materials Protection.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThe homeland is secure when the home town is secure\u201d
\nFormer Secretary Tom Ridge, Department of Homeland Security<\/p>\n

Large public gatherings, such as sports events that celebrate American
\npopular culture, are considered to be potential terrorist targets (Hurst,
\nZoubek, & Pratsinakis, n.d.). In March 2005, the Department of Homeland
\nSecurity (DHS) identified a dozen possible strikes it viewed most devastating,
\nincluding a truck bombing of a sports arena (Lipton, 2005). Since 9\/11,
\nthe American sports industry has increased security at major sporting
\nvenues and high profile events such as the Super Bowl, World Series, and
\nOlympics. University sport programs must also take necessary steps to
\nsecure their stadiums and campuses against potential threats. College
\nsport stadiums provide a perfect target for mass casualties and catastrophic
\neconomic impact.<\/p>\n

Assessing risk, reducing vulnerabilities, and increasing the level of
\npreparedness will help minimize potential threats to university sport
\nvenues nationwide. The major goal of this study was to develop standards
\nfor effective security management of university sport venues and assess
\nthe level of importance for those standards according to individuals responsible
\nfor sport venue security. Identifying standards will assist university
\nsport security management teams in their quest to provide a safe environment
\nfor sport patrons and will help provide consistency in security practices
\namong sport venues nationwide. The two primary research questions that
\nspearheaded this research project were:<\/p>\n

1. What standards are needed for effective security management of university
\nsport venues?
\n2. What is the perceived level of importance for the security standards?<\/p>\n

Review of Literature<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sport is a multibillion dollar industry in the United States and large
\nsporting events such as the Super Bowl, NASCAR, or collegiate football
\nbowls provide an attractive stage for terrorists to communicate their
\nmessages of evil and hatred for society. \u201cAl-Qaeda\u2019s Manual
\nof Afghan Jihad proposed football stadiums as a possible terrorist attack
\nsite, and the FBI issued an alert in July (2002) warning that people with
\nlinks to terrorist groups were downloading stadium images\u201d (Estell,
\n2002, p. 8). Unfortunately, the sporting world has already been victim
\nto terrorist attacks. At the 1972 Munich Games, a Palestinian group seized
\nIsraeli athletes inside the Olympic village. In 1996, a domestic terrorist
\nbombed The Centennial Olympic Park at the Atlanta Games, killing one person
\nand injuring more than one hundred (CNN.com, 1996). University sports
\nvenues are no exception to these terrorist threats. In October, 2005,
\nan Oklahoma University student killed himself by prematurely detonating
\na bomb strapped to his body outside an 84,000 packed stadium (Hagmann,
\n2005). The intercollegiate game-day environment meets the criteria for
\na perfect strike with high consequences. According to NCAA attendance
\nrecords, approximately forty-three million people attended collegiate
\nfootball games during the 2004 season (Official NCAA Football Records
\nBook, 2005).<\/p>\n

In the aftermath of 9\/11, most leagues, teams, and venues conducted threat
\nassessments and updated security practices (Hurst, Zoubek, & Pratsinakis,
\nn.d.). The National Football League developed a \u201cbest practices
\nguide\u201d of recommended security measures for NFL teams. The NFL also
\nmade a request to the Federal Aviation Administration to restrict airspace
\nabove all NFL stadiums (Mason, 2001). Collegiate athletic programs in
\nparticular stepped up security on many levels. The Federal Aviation Administration
\naccepted a request from the University of Michigan to declare a no-fly
\nzone over the Wolverines stadium for their game against Western Michigan
\nin September, 2001 (Bagnato, 2001). Michigan also locked down its stadium
\nseveral days before game day and used bomb sniffing dogs to sweep the
\npremises the morning before kick-off. The Penn State Nittany Lions no
\nlonger allowed re-entry to the stadium, and illegally parked cars were
\ntowed. The Mississippi State Bulldogs officially banned backpacks, and
\nlike many other college stadiums in the country, Nebraska\u2019s Memorial
\nstadium had a greater security presence inside and outside the grounds
\n(2001).<\/p>\n

However, Pantera et al. (2003) findings indicate there is much room for
\nimprovement in security at college sporting venues. Implications discussed
\nby Pantera et al., (2003) include the need for effective communication
\nand scrutinization of game plans in advance of game time and practiced
\ndisaster\/emergency responses with support of local, state, and federal
\nfirst responders. Furthermore, all game-day staff members must be familiar
\nwith their roles and responsibilities (2003). According to Goss, Jubenville,
\n& MacBeth (n.d., \u201cTraining: our best kept secret\u201d), \u201cTo
\nbe ready to preempt or react to terror strikes, venue workers at entry
\nlevel must receive timely security training.\u201d Training must be a
\ncontinuous element to facility worker\u2019s duties. Outsourcing security
\npersonnel just to present a security presence is no longer adequate. Many
\nvenues have chosen to develop and maintain their own in-house security
\nresponse teams that are familiar with the venue (n.d). In today\u2019s
\nunstable environment, with the threat of terrorist attacks, sport organizations
\nneed to \u201cinstitutionalize security measures in policy and procedure
\nguidelines, train personnel on the guidelines and stage exercises to drill
\nand test incident response plans\u201d (Hurst, Zoubek, & Pratsinakis,
\nn.d., p. 4).<\/p>\n

The NCAA has issued a \u201cbest practices\u201d planning options guide
\nfor institutions to review and the International Association of Assembly
\nManagers (IAAM) has identified key security practices for public venues.
\nFurthermore, the DHS developed a Target Capabilities List (TCL) which
\nidentifies thirty-six capabilities that the Nation needs in order to address
\nmajor incidents. The DHS also created a Universal Task List (UTL) that
\ndescribes tasks to be performed to prevent, protect, respond, and recover
\nfrom incidents of national significance (Universal Task List, 2004). According
\nto Hurst, Zoubek, & Pratsinakis (n.d.), regardless of the analysis
\nconducted after an incident, \u201cthe fundamental question will always
\nbe whether or not reasonable steps were taken to protect against an incident
\nin light of the availability of security measures, the industry \u201cstandards\u2019
\nfor security, and the potential threat of terrorism\u201d (p. 5). Standards
\nare defined by Marshall Thurber (1993) as \u201ca written, or visual
\nmeasurable guideline describing expected behavior, performance, product
\nor service.\u201d A lack of industry standards for university sport venue
\nsecurity in America may result in varying security policies, procedures,
\nand guidelines among institutions. After an extensive review of literature,
\nHomeland Security threat\/risk assessment training, and experience working
\non sports event security management grant projects, the researcher was
\nable to identify common categories of security measures to be used in
\nthe research study. These included: Perimeter Control, Access Control,
\nCredentialing, Physical Protection Systems, Risk Management, Emergency
\nManagement, Recovery Procedures, Communications, Security Personnel, Training,
\nModeling, and Simulation, and WMD \u2013Toxic Materials Protection.<\/p>\n

Methodology<\/strong><\/p>\n

Participants<\/em><\/p>\n

Participants in this study were qualified experts in the field of security
\nand\/or sports event
\nsecurity. Two sets of participants were used for this study – interview
\nparticipants and Delphi study participants. The researcher interviewed
\nsix experts (n=6) in the field of sports event security management. These
\nexperts worked in various disciplines and offered unique perspectives
\non security management. They included: 1) a FBI agent with extensive experience
\nin conducting vulnerability assessments of sport venues; 2) a Homeland
\nSecurity Officer who oversees the implementation of risk management practices;
\n3) an Emergency Management Director; 4) a professional sports security
\nofficer; 5) a professional sport management officer, and 6) an NCAA Division
\nI collegiate athletic administrator responsible for game-day security
\nplanning and operations.<\/p>\n

Delphi study participants (n=28) included the athletic facility manager,
\nlocal sheriff, campus police chief, and the local county emergency management
\ndirector responsible for game-day security at seven public universities
\nin Mississippi. The sample population reflected NCAA Division I, Division
\nI AA, and Division II, and four different Athletic Conferences.<\/p>\n

Procedures<\/em><\/p>\n

Approval to conduct the research was obtained by the Institutional Review
\nBoard. All interviews were delivered via email during the fall of 2005.
\nA panel of experts reviewed the questionnaire to ensure face validity.
\nSix security experts were interviewed first to obtain a preliminary set
\nof standards critical to the effectiveness of university sports event
\nsecurity management. Interview questionnaires included a definition and
\nexample of a standard. Participants were asked to generate responses to
\nthe question, \u201cWhat standards, under the following categories, do
\nyou perceive to be important in effectively securing sport venues?\u201d
\nSecurity categories were provided by the researcher. The preliminary list
\nof standards was used for the Delphi study.<\/p>\n

A three-round Delphi study was conducted during spring 2006 to gain feedback
\non the preliminary list of standards and to reach consensus among sports
\nevent security management professionals. Each Delphi questionnaire was
\nreviewed by a panel of experts to ensure face validity. Round 1 Delphi
\nasked the panel to review the preliminary list of standards and add\/edit\/comment
\naccordingly. Round 2 Delphi was sent to those who responded to the first
\nround. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each standard
\non a five-point Likert Scale (1 = very low; 2 = moderately low; 3 = average;
\n4 = moderately high; 5 = very high). Round two results were compiled and
\nreformulated for Round 3 Delphi. Round 3 Delphi was sent to participants
\nwho responded to round two. Round three again asked participants to rate
\nthe importance of each standard. They were provided descriptive information
\non how the group responded in round two and were asked to consider the
\ngroup response and then re-rate the items.<\/p>\n

Data Analysis<\/em><\/p>\n

Upon interview completion, standards were consolidated under each category
\nand as much as possible of the participants\u2019 original wording was
\nretained. Some standards were suggested by more than one participant,
\nbut were only listed once to avoid duplication. A peer examination enhanced
\nthe researcher\u2019s analysis and provided a \u201cdevil\u2019s advocate\u201d
\npoint of view to enhance credibility.<\/p>\n

Round 1 Delphi questionnaires were analyzed through summarization and
\nidentification of new standards suggested by the Delphi panel. Round 2
\nand 3 Delphi results were analyzed using SPSS. Descriptive statistics
\n(mean, median, and standard deviation) for importance ratings were provided
\nfor each standard. The researcher set an elimination level at three or
\nbelow, indicating an average to low importance rating. No standard was
\nassigned a mean importance score low enough to warrant elimination. \u201cThe
\nequivalent terms for reliability and validity for qualitative data are
\ncredibility, dependability, and confirmability. With the Delphi study,
\ncredibility is directly related to the selection of the panel of experts
\nwho must fit the area of inquiry,\u201d (Doerries & Foster, 2005,
\np. 260) as did the selected panel in this study. Athletic facility managers,
\nlocal sheriffs, campus police chiefs, and local county emergency management
\ndirectors are key players in the planning and preparation of security
\noperations at intercollegiate sports events. These experts provided valuable
\ninsights into the coordination of security protocol on game day. To further
\nenhance credibility, transferability, dependability, and \u2018confirmability\u2019
\nof this study, the researcher utilized triangulation, peer debriefing,
\nand member checks.<\/p>\n

Results<\/strong><\/p>\n

Interview<\/em><\/p>\n

Four interview participants (n=4) successfully completed the interview
\nquestionnaire. A total number of 206 standards were suggested from all
\nfour participants. The standards were consolidated under each category
\nand as much as possible of the participants\u2019 original wording was
\nretained. Some standards were suggested by more than one participant,
\nbut were only listed once to avoid duplication. A total number of 141
\nstandards under eleven security categories were used for round one of
\nthe Delphi study.<\/p>\n

Delphi Study<\/em><\/p>\n

Twenty-two of the twenty-eight participants successfully completed all
\nthree rounds of the Delphi Study (78.6%). Table 1 highlights the overall
\nparticipation rates and main purpose for each Delphi Round.<\/p>\n

Table 1: Participation Rates for the Delphi Study<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Round<\/td>\nMain Purpose<\/td>\n# of Experts Asked to Participate<\/td>\n# of Complete Returns<\/td>\n% Completed<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\nFeedback on standards created through interviews<\/td>\n28<\/td>\n26<\/td>\n92.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\nRating of importance<\/td>\n26<\/td>\n23<\/td>\n82.1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\nUpdating of previous ratings<\/td>\n23<\/td>\n22<\/td>\n78.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Delphi Round 1 participants were asked to review the list of 141 standards
\ncreated by the interview panel. After Delphi Round 1 analysis, 134 standards
\nwere listed in Round 2 and 3 Delphi for assessment of importance ratings.
\nThe following is a summary of results after completion of the third and
\nfinal Delphi Round:<\/p>\n

Perimeter Control<\/em>
\nThe panel of experts indicated the importance of locking down the stadium
\n(M=4.36), police patrolling before and after events (M=4.36), establishing
\na secure inner perimeter (M=4.36) and securing vulnerable systems with
\nlocks and seals (M=4.36). Security should also establish a 500-foot outer
\nperimeter around the stadium (M=4.09). However, the panel clearly felt
\nthat the use of bomb dog teams for inspection (M=3.62) was not as important.<\/p>\n

Access Control<\/em>
\nThe Delphi panel highlighted the prohibition of certain items such as
\ncoolers, large backpacks, weapons, etc. as highly important with a mean
\nscore of 4.76. Several other standards in this category proved to be important
\nincluding: publicizing inspections and prohibited items (M=4.73), locating
\nsecurity personnel at each entry point (M=4.64), locating law enforcement
\nat each entry point (M=4.45), identification of coaches and players entering
\nlocker rooms and restricted areas (M=4.50), and the right to inspect any
\ndeliveries to event area (M=4.45). Electronic scanning of tickets (M=3.64)
\nwas of least importance to the panel.<\/p>\n

Credentialing<\/em>
\nThe panel indicated that credentials should be worn at all times (M=4.50)
\nand should be substantially different from those used in prior seasons
\n(M=4.45). Maintaining a record of persons issued credentials for control
\npurposes (M=4.36) was also important. All team bench staff, except players
\nin uniform, should wear a game credential (M=4.36). Requiring background
\nchecks for vendors, employees, contractors, students, and volunteers received
\na mean score of 3.91.<\/p>\n

Physical Protection Systems<\/em>
\nStandards in this category were assigned mean scores ranging from 3.86
\n(bomb removal equipment on site) to 4.59 (enhanced lighting of gated areas
\nand digital security system monitored by command center). Establishing
\na 100-foot inner perimeter (M=4.41), utilizing barriers (M=4.27), and
\nhaving digital camera monitoring capabilities (M=4.27) were highly rated.
\nThe stadium and press box should be equipped with an Integrated Security
\nManagement System (ISMS) consisting of CCTV, access controls, and alarms
\n(M=4.41). Having portable hazmat smart stripes and detection equipment
\non site received one of the lowest mean scores (M=3.91) in this category.<\/p>\n

Risk Management<\/em>
\nDeveloping risk management plans for athletic department events and completing
\nthese plans in conjunction with local law enforcement were assigned mean
\nscores of 4.45 and 4.48 respectively. Weekly game management meetings
\naddressing risk management issues should be conducted (M=4.25). Risk management
\ntraining should also be conducted with all game day staff (M=4.36).<\/p>\n

Emergency Management<\/em>
\nStandards in this category were assigned means scores ranging from 4.33
\nto 4.73. Emergency management appears to be a critical area in the security
\nmanagement of university sport venues, especially the development of an
\nEmergency Response Plan, Evacuation Plan, Disaster Plan, and an Emergency
\nMedical Plan. Emergency Response Plans should be coordinated with local,
\nstate, and federal emergency management agencies (M=4.68). A primary and
\nsecondary security command and control center should be established (M=4.55),
\nand it should have a view of the playing field to facilitate decision-making
\n(M=4.36).<\/p>\n

Recovery Procedures<\/em>
\nIdentifying security needs (M=4.67) and having written contracts or mutual
\naid agreements in effect with local and out of state emergency responders
\n(M=4.43) were assigned the highest mean importance ratings by the panel
\nof experts. Contracts should be in place for immediate restoration and
\nsecondary locations identified to hold event bookings. Identifying insurance
\nneeds received a mean score of 3.90.<\/p>\n

Communications<\/em>
\nIdentifying a chain of command (M=4.76), providing a sequence of notification
\n(M=4.67), having access to hand held radios (M=4.52), and having reliable
\ncommunication systems with backups in place (M=4.62) were assigned some
\nof the highest importance scores. Hand held radios should have a minimum
\nof ten channels and be independent in case there is a breach of security
\n(M=4.67). The command center should have direct access to the emergency
\ncommunication system (M=4.57) and have reliable communications with the
\nPA\/video staff in order to authorize emergency scripts and messages (M=4.68).
\nCommunications must be checked with all emergency responders prior to
\nthe sporting event (M=4.64).<\/p>\n

Security Personnel<\/em>
\nThe panel of experts believes security personnel should be included in
\nall training and planning activities to ensure they are aware of their
\nduties and responsibilities (M=4.64), and the panel believes that security
\npersonnel are provided by licensed and certified providers (M=4.55). All
\npersonnel must have a background check was also highly rated with a mean
\nscore of 4.45.<\/p>\n

Training, Modeling, and Simulation<\/em>
\nTraining should be provided in several areas including: 1) inspection
\nprocedures to security staff, 2) credential recognition to access control
\npersonnel, and 3) security awareness to ushers, vendors, and volunteer
\n(M=4.59). Conducting evacuation simulations (M=4.14), practicing emergency
\ndrills prior to season (M=4.55), and conducting table top exercises (M=4.41)
\nwere highly important. During training scenarios, planners should test
\nthe chain of command, decision making process, primary\/secondary communications
\nand emergency use of the PA and video systems (M=4.55).<\/p>\n

WMD \u2013 Toxic Materials Protection<\/em>
\nThe panel of experts indicated with the highest mean score of 4.59 that
\nall potentially dangerous chemicals or materials be permanently removed
\nfrom the sport stadium. Toxic materials protection and decontamination
\nshould be part of the Emergency Response and Evacuation Plans (M=4.45).
\nCampus police and safety officers need to be trained to the Weapons of
\nMass Destruction\/Hazmat awareness level (M=4.32).<\/p>\n

Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n

The outcome of this study has been a consensus of best security practices
\nby key personnel responsible for security operations at university sports
\nevents in the state of Mississippi. University sport security personnel
\nmay utilize these standards to prioritize security measures according
\nto importance, especially those organizations with limited funding and
\nimminent need to harden their facilities. Standards in the Credentialing
\nEmergency Management, Risk Management, and Communication and Training,
\nModeling, and Simulation categories were assigned some of the highest
\nmean importance scores. This finding was consistent with highlighted areas
\nin the review of literature. University sport programs need to ensure
\nthese key areas are addressed sufficiently. The NCAA has issued \u201cplanning
\noptions\u201d for athletic department events but do not have standards
\nin place for institutions to adhere to and be held accountable for. Therefore,
\nsecurity practices at university sports venues may vary between institutions.
\nIndustry standards need to be established forcing compliance among members
\nto ensure the sporting public that reasonable measures are in place for
\nsafety.<\/p>\n

It is extremely critical for security staff to work as a team in the
\ncoordination of security operations during university sports events and
\nto have in place effective communication systems. Athletic department
\nstaff, hired security staff, and all other game day staff (ushers, vendors,
\nticket takers, etc.) must be properly trained and aware of security policies
\nand practices. Emergency response and evacuation plans must be developed
\nand updated on a continuous basis. Disaster scenarios\/exercises need to
\nbe executed at least once before the sport season begins, involving all
\nemergency response services ensuring multi-agency collaboration. Sport
\nvenue managers must be qualified in the area of sport event security management
\n(SESM) and aware of DHS security initiatives. A new market emerges for
\neducational institutions across the nation to offer curriculum and certification
\nprograms in the SESM area for aspiring sport venue managers and professionals
\nalready in the field.<\/p>\n

Future research may focus on determining implications of new security
\nstandards on sport consumers, sport marketers, sport financial officers,
\nand the potential legality issues for intercollegiate athletic departments
\nand universities. With increasing pressure to enhance security efforts
\nat university sports events, there may be some concern about the adverse
\naffect on the sport consumer\u2019s experience. Sport organizations may
\nbe hesitant to spend extra dollars on security upgrades; therefore, an
\neconomic impact analysis of an incident at a high consequence sports event
\nwould provide data for organizations to consider their return on investment
\nin security.<\/p>\n

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to:
\nDr. Stacey Hall
\nThe University of Southern Mississippi
\nSchool of Human Performance and Recreation
\n118 College Drive #5142
\nHattiesburg, MS 39406
\nE-mail: Stacey.A.Hall@usm.edu<\/a>
\nWork Phone: 601-266-6183
\nFax: 601-266-4445<\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Bagnato, A. (2001, September 17). Stadium security bolstered nationally;\u00a0FAA bans aircraft from flying over Michigan\u2019s game. Chicago Tribune.\u00a0Retrieved September 29, 2005, from www.ebscohost.com<\/a><\/li>\n
  2. CNN.com. (1996, July 27). Sources: arrest in Olympic bombing could occur\u00a0within days. Retrieved September 15, 2005, from http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/US\/9607\/27\/blast.am\/index.html<\/a><\/li>\n
  3. Doerries, D.B. & Foster, V.A. (2005). Essential skills for novice\u00a0structural family therapists: A Delphi Study of experienced practitioners\u2019\u00a0perspectives. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and\u00a0Families, 13 (3), p259-265. [On-Line]. Available: http:\/\/tfj.sagepub.com\/cgi\/reprint\/13\/3\/259<\/li>\n
  4. Estell, L. (2002). A banner year for stadiums? Security concerns could\u00a0put an end to stadium fly-overs. Incentive, 176 (12), 8. Retrieved September\u00a029, 2005, from www.ebscohost.com<\/a><\/li>\n
  5. Goss, B.D., Jubenville, C.B., & MacBeth, J.L. (n.d.). Primary principles\u00a0of post-9\/11 stadium security in the United States: Transatlantic implications from British practices. [On-Line]. Available: www.iaam.org\/CVMS\/Post%20911%20Stadium%20Security.doc<\/li>\n
  6. Hagmann, D.J. (2005, October 30). Black hole in America\u2019s heartland.\u00a0Northeast Intelligence Network. Retrieved July 20, 2006, from http:\/\/www.homelandsecurityus.com\/site\/modules\/news\/article.php?storyid=16<\/li>\n
  7. Hurst, R., Zoubek, P., & Pratsinakis, C. (n.d.). American sports\u00a0as a target of\u00a0terrorism: The duty of care after September 11th. [On-Line]. Available:\u00a0www.mmwr.com\/_uploads\/UploadDocs\/publications\/American%20Sports%20As%20A%20Target%20Of%20Terrorism.pdf<\/li>\n
  8. Lipton, E. (2005, March 16). U.S. Report Lists Possibilities for Terrorist\u00a0Attacks and Likely Toll. New York Times, Section A, Page 1, Column 2.<\/li>\n
  9. Mason, A. (2001, September 20). Security: NFL\u2019s \u201cNo. 1 priority.\u201d\u00a0NFL.com. Retrieved September 13, 2005, from http:\/\/www.nfl.com\/news\/2001\/security_092001.html<\/li>\n
  10. Official 2006 NCAA Football Records Book. [On-line]. Available: http:\/\/www.ncaa.org\/library\/records\/football_records_book\/2006\/2006_d1_football_records.pdf<\/li>\n
  11. Pantera, M.J., et. al. (2003). Best practices for game day security at\u00a0athletic & sport venues. The Sport Journal, 6 (4). [On-Line]. Available:\u00a0http:\/\/www.thesportjournal.org\/2003Journal\/Vol6-No4\/security.asp<\/li>\n
  12. Thurber, M. (May 26-28, 1993). The Essence of Deming 3 Day Workshop,\u00a0Meta-Quality Institute, San Francisco.<\/li>\n
  13. Universal Task List (July 30, 2004). The Department of Homeland Security.\u00a0[On-line]. Available: http:\/\/www.comcare.org\/uploads\/Universal%20task%20list.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
    Submitted by: Stacey Hall<\/div>\n

    Abstract <\/p>\n

    The purpose of this study was to identify standards for effective security
    \n management of university sport venues. Standards were developed through
    \n a series of interviews and a three-round Delphi study. Purposeful sampling
    \n was used to select participants for both the interviews and Delphi panel.
    \n Four sport security personnel participated in the interview process and
    \n an initial set of standards were developed and used for the Delphi study.
    \n The twenty-eight member Delphi panel included the athletic facility manager,
    \n campus police chief, local sheriff, and local emergency management director
    \n responsible for game day security operations at seven state-supported
    \n universities in Mississippi. Importance ratings for developed standards
    \n were assessed on a five-point Likert scale during Round 2 and 3. This
    \n study identified 134 standards in eleven categories: Perimeter Control,
    \n Access Control, Credentialing, Physical Protection Systems, Risk Management,
    \n Emergency Management, Recovery Procedures, Communications, Security Personnel,
    \n Training, Modeling, and Simulation, and WMD – Toxic Materials Protection.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[290,293,291],"tags":[25,8,70,75],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-45","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":375,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/educating-sports-entrepreneurs-matching-theory-to-practice-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":253,"position":0},"title":"Educating Sports Entrepreneurs: Matching Theory to Practice","date":"July 6, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"Dr. Anthony Borgese,Kingsborough College, City University of New York Abstract Sports entrepreneurship courses are part of sports management programs because some students hope to own their own sports-oriented business, and major sports conglomerates look to hire employees with entrepreneurial skills. Sports management instructors prepare students for these challenges. However, not\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Coaching"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":269,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/introducing-a-risk-assessment-model-for-sport-venues\/","url_meta":{"origin":253,"position":1},"title":"Introducing a Risk Assessment Model for Sport Venues","date":"March 14, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Stacey Hall, Lou Marciani, Walter E. Cooper & Robert Rolen Abstract: With the 'unknown certainty' of terrorist actions and fan behavior, it is impossible to ensure a risk-free environment at America's sporting venues. Incidents will happen and emergencies will arise. It is a matter of how one prepares,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":333,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/spectator-perceptions-of-security-management-at-a-nascar-national-association-for-stock-car-auto-racing-event\/","url_meta":{"origin":253,"position":2},"title":"Spectator Perceptions of Security Management at a NASCAR (National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing) Event","date":"January 7, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Stacey Hall, Lou Marciani, Dennis Phillips, and Trey Cunningham - University of Southern Mississippi Abstract Major U.S. sporting events constitute potential terrorist targets (Lipton, 2005). Since 9\/11, more money has been spent on security at events (Hall, 2006). This study investigated spectators\u2019 perceptions of security at a NASCAR\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":376,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/educating-sports-entrepreneurs-matching-theory-to-practice\/","url_meta":{"origin":253,"position":3},"title":"Educating Sports Entrepreneurs: Matching Theory to Practice","date":"July 9, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"Anthony Borgese Abstract Sports entrepreneurship courses are part of sports management programs because some students hope to own their own sports-oriented business, and major sports conglomerates look to hire employees with entrepreneurial skills. Sports management instructors prepare students for these challenges. However, not all sports entrepreneurship instructors have owned their\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":143,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/implementation-of-a-sport-management-major-within-an-undergraduate-exercise-and-sport-science-department\/","url_meta":{"origin":253,"position":4},"title":"Implementation of a Sport Management Major Within an Undergraduate Exercise and Sport Science Department","date":"February 18, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Michael D. Kerr, D.S.M. Abstract The purpose of this investigation was to develop an orderly process designed to implement and establish a sport management major within an undergraduate Exercise and Sport Science Department. This research examined and evaluated established and accredited undergraduate university based sport management programs within\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":372,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/an-examination-of-british-sport-security-strategies-legislation-and-risk-management-practices\/","url_meta":{"origin":253,"position":5},"title":"An Examination of British Sport Security Strategies, Legislation, and Risk Management Practices","date":"April 9, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"Stacey A. Hall, University of Southern Mississippi Abstract Britain faces similar sport security issues to the United States such as terrorism and crowd management problems. In particular, hooligan activities have posed a significant challenge for the British government in the past 25 to 30 years. Major soccer tragedies, such as\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=253"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7635,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253\/revisions\/7635"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=253"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=253"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=253"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}