l

1

——

 

1.13

. ii‘i'.
1.11111'111111111111111l

  
  
     
   
       
    
 
 
 

 

    

    
 
 
 
  
  
   
   
   
    
   
  
 
  

   
 
    
    

. ‘ " "' [UH ‘1111‘
' 11 ..
11. 13 1.”, 11.11

I1 «101 14' . ~ 1 "no" ‘5 .1 1
g 1. :1. 1.11“? _'I. . .1 1.17112‘II'1'I'H’I1“II-1‘11: .1 :11
_.”-,..‘1:1.'II1..‘,.1 . .1‘1...1v. ( '. I‘11. 111-3111,11 1I-1‘11. . 1' f 3;;
.31-‘1 ‘ ‘ " 511111-11 .21' .1" 1.11.1'“ v ‘ "' II 11" I T. 1~1'- .' .11
I ' I ' .‘11 ‘11-“ 11‘ I111 .1 1 411' ’
1 -1. ,.1|‘ .1. '11‘11 ., 4 .I ‘1 1 (1.111 1 :11\11. A
r. . 1 1, 1111 I1 1’1'111'11I '1 ‘ ‘ I1. 4111 1.1 1 "‘ .
1' i ‘1'], 11.1.".1' 1 1 111 1.1.:1'1111'1 ' . I:
1. “1.1.11 '11 1 11. . I'1>I~ ' ‘
1"": 11 .111._"1 «11,111'1J 11IJ1..I E
I.‘. I.“' .1111 I 111|IL1.'I“1"IvI11‘.
11.“ 1.1.1.1 . ".1 1 ..~.' 111: 1151411111 ”11111 '. ,
l .‘ F
I .1“ ; ‘11.;9
"'.1‘

1'.
111131311 4141' I1 1 I I1.“ 11..1 11111111111 “11414111,. _.I 1'1” .5316}
I “112'. {11: 1.11111. 1"13‘ 11111111 11.

1‘5 1M 111111111114

”-si- {1: “ {1111' .
“11‘" 111' +1 '1’11‘”i1 111111-3111
‘ P "111..I1'-.1 '15"‘i1;1gl".;: 1 ."
.1311 .11 '11:? . 11: ”.1

  

 
 
  
 

   
  

I 1‘.r'..
19.2-11.1. 1. ‘2;_ .
$193.15.; 3-3 21f...
{-13

    

  
   

  
   
    
   

    

   

   
 
 
   

    
    
  

  
  

11111111 1'1 . .. 1 =1
,I 1'1 11., 1 11.1 1.; 1 1‘1 . 1 111"?»1R
I 11.1 . .1; 1.1 1] I 11 '. .1
112-3111; ‘ ' ‘1“ r‘ ‘
'11'1IIJIIii-11I' .1“!$1 3-: 1
111111111» "-" i‘ 1111.... "=1: 1 "
'€'15"1 I). “'I 13111~1111I1I3!"I’1'5111" 11131 1 flé‘égr "
'II *r 1.71:1. 11.» trF.‘ J . “,1-

     
 
   
    
  
   
     
  

I'CLO‘

- 1:1.
.1 -":.~....I. -
:11.
.

it {11:
IIi11'I. ' ‘1‘1111‘. W111 ' 1
11. 1.1 {:19 :1? R, 1;:

   
   

‘4:fo
gdfim.
1?!

‘ 1"Ja
7V?!”

 
 

  
  

  
  
 

   
  

  

      
  
  

   
 

Z .1‘1‘.‘
'.1_ U1: . . .
'1'le :1‘1 _ ., €535.
. .'. ‘ 2.. 2;
“ML 1. ‘1 ‘ . D1} .
.. '1 1 1 .
1 . _
11:21 ' I". , 1,
.‘ 1 — ‘. - {n
. '3'
. l
‘ 1 l
I
x

 
  
  
 
     
  
  

.‘ 1111-1“...
”1'31!

1 1.1.1.1"“
1‘ 1‘ 551411

     
  
    

  
   

     
 
    
      

  

it ‘ ;.“F'1J. 111. fi‘. :1
1-11. .1' 1‘1' 1' 3'11 ‘
. 1 2 . 1115115131111 1111.1 1
-‘ 57111131011" ;J-',1 . ""
~. . «”1" 1131.5“ 1 -‘
1 5%1‘11‘1311I

 
    
 

*6
._.:.
‘1‘
l 05-.
it

.1......-
‘— '

. ._

   

'. .s'.v~.;_— -
-.,.._

. ...-

.. ..- p.

0400*

.._,«

.4 4..— ‘mw- I ‘~‘
.-

, S.
tr. 3;.th __
”WM-
- -_
v.9..- .
'fim “w."
4 ~'

 
   

3-."

1:.”
'1 .-

-..

d..-
.-

 
     

1111

THESIS

q

...—

v 'a _- ;
) ,

Date

llUIHIHIHHIIIHIHIINIHIHUlllIIHIHIHIUIIUHIIHill

1293 01691 4354

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

A Study to Determine the Types of Undergraduate
Educational Backgrounds Most Preferred by

Security Professionals
presented by

Aaron Marc Kramer

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Masters degree in Criminal Justice

 

Major professor

22 April 96

 

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

4' __ Vi

-—

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

PLACE iN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

MTE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1!” W459.“

SECURITY EDUCATION: VISION 2000

A Study to Determine the Types of Undergraduate Educational Backgrounds
Most Preferred by Security Professionals

By

Aaron Marc Kramer

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

School of Criminal Justice

1997

ABSTRACT
SECURITY EDUCATION VISION 2000: A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE TYPES
OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUNDS MOST PREFERRED
BY SECURITY PROFESSIONALS
By

Aaron Marc Kramer

The following study describes the results of a nationwide stratified sample of
security practitioners (n=5700) selected from the membership of the American Society
for Industrial Security (ASIS). The primary purpose of this study was to explore the
undergraduate educational needs of security professionals. Specific subject areas and
educational backgrounds were identified and rated by importance and hiring preferences.
The results revealed that a degree in Criminal Justice/Security with an emphasis in
Business was most preferred by security professionals. The study showed that security
professionals considered the most important subject areas to be those that are necessary
for future security executives to be leaders, capable of responding to diverse business

management issues.

Copyright by
Aaron Marc Kramer
1997

To my wife Courtney, parents Harold and Dinah, and brothers Keith and Seth, thanks for
all your love, and support throughout this effort.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to acknowledge the following faculty of the Leadership and
Management Program in Security in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State
University: thesis chair, Dr. Kenneth E. Christian CPP; Director of the School of
Criminal Justice, Dr. Merry Morash; and Dr. Mahesh Nalla. I appreciate all their
wisdom, patience, and time, over the course of this effort. Special thanks are extended to

Dr. Dennis Payne, for his time and assistance.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................... viiii

1 .0 INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1

Need ............................................................ 1

Purpose .......................................................... 4

Goal ............................................................ 5

Research Question ................................................. 5

2.0 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................... 7

Introduction ...................................................... 7

Existing Research .................................................. 9

Legislative Initiative .............................................. 14

Academic Programs ............................................... 16

3.0 DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................................... 23

Sample ......................................................... 23

Pretest/Posttest ................................................... 24

Questionnaire .................................................... 25

Instrument Design ................................................ 26

4.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ................................ 28

4.1 Demographic Information .................................... 28

4.2 Section I Curriculum Information .............................. 33

4.3 Section III Hiring Plans and Preferences ......................... 52

5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION ............................ 54
APPENDIX A

Survey Instrument ...................................................... 59
APPENDIX B

Section I (Curriculum Information) Data Analysis Results ...................... 76
APPENDIX C

Section III (Hiring Plans and Preferences) Data Analysis Results ................ 103

vi

REFERENCES ....................................................... 1 O6

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 - Location of respondents ......................................... 29
Table 4.2 - Respondents’ major job functions ................................. 30
Table 4.3 - Company’s primary type of business or industry ..................... 31
Table 4.4 - Approximate security department budgets .......................... 32
Table 4.5 - Number of employees who report to the respondents .................. 32
Table 4.6 - Most important subject areas within criminal justice/security ........... 36
Table 4.7 - Most important subject areas within investigations and intelligence ...... 38
Table 4.8 - Most important subject areas within social science .................... 39
Table 4.9 - Most important subject areas within business ........................ 41
Table 4.10 - Most important subject areas within computer security management . . . . 43
Table 4.11 - Most important subject areas within government security ............. 44
Table 4.12 - Most important subject areas within information security ............. 46
Table 4.13 - Most important subject areas within physical security ................ 48
Table 4.14 - Most important subject areas within personnel security ............... 49
Table 4.15 - Most important subject areas within communications ................ 51

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1 - Importance of criminal justice and security subject areas .............. 35
Figure 4.2 - Importance of investigations and intelligence subject areas ............ 37
Figure 4.3 - Importance of social science topic areas ........................... 39
Figure 4.4 - Importance of business subject areas .............................. 40
Figure 4.5 - Importance of computer security management subject areas ............ 42
Figure 4.6 - Importance of government security subject areas .................... 44
Figure 4.7 - Importance of information security subject areas .................... 45
Figure 4.8 - Importance of physical security subject areas ....................... 47
Figure 4.9 - Importance of personnel security subject areas ...................... 49
Figure 4.10 - Importance of communications subject areas ...................... 50
Figure 4.11 - Ten most important subject areas ................................ 51
Figure 4.12 - Undergraduate background most in demand ....................... 53

ix

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Need

We are living in a rapidly changing political and economic environment both
nationally and internationally. Almost daily, new national and international security
concerns develop as geographical, political, and economic boundaries are reshaped. As a
result of the changing world, security managers are being asked to assume greater
responsibilities and take on challenging new roles in their corporations. The relationship
between the security office and top management is changing dramatically. The
perception of security as a cost center, "an entity that incurs costs to the firm but does not
generate revenues", needs to be, and gradually is, being replaced by the view of security
as a profit center (value-added), "an entity that generates revenues as well as incurs
costs", devoted to asset protection (Duncan, Gale, Tofflemire, & Yaksick, 1992). Chief
executives increasingly rely on security practitioners to protect sensitive business assets
from a host of new threats. In order to keep up with the changing needs in industry, it is
imperative that educational faculties keep pace with the needs of business and industry
through research and curriculum development.

Increasingly, security and the reduction of risk are an integral part of the success
of any organization, since they directly affect productivity and the "W", defined
as the organization’s net profit or loss. To accomplish their mission as risk managers,
security professionals must be able to identify threats and develop countermeasures.

It can be argued that the most important prerequisite to a successful security

1

2

career is an understanding of the theories and techniques of business management.
Regardless of whether security executives work in government or industry, they soon
learn that they must first be business leaders, and second, technical experts in the field of
security. Reliance on technical knowledge, without the management talent to plan,
administer and evaluate a program, will leave the practitioner lacking in the eyes of the
organization's hierarchy. Business skills are needed to prepare the next generation of
security managers for their roles in a highly competitive business environment. The
traditional image and role of security personnel as the "company cop" must be revised.

Many times managers regard the corporate security function as but another
reduction to gross margin and dollars right off the bottom line. Thus, the bottom line
becomes the most important theme in American business, the great struggle between cost
center and profit center. The question asked becomes is corporate security really a cost
center?

With security costs viewed as expenses for physical barriers, gadgets, and other
technology, designed to limit access and exclude intruders, security professionals are put
in a position of having to prove their worth by trying to eliminate upper management's
view of them as a cost center. A security manager must be able to present the department
to upper management as a value-added entity. Thus it can be argued that it is very
important for security managers to be able to speak and understand the language of
business through a working knowledge in areas such as accounting, management, and
finance (Cookingharn, 1989).

To be able to succeed in any environment, one must know the language of that

3

environment. Educational and research facilities need to design programs so that current
and aspiring security professionals can obtain knowledge through undergraduate and
graduate degree programs, continuing education Opportunities, and a variety of research
initiatives that will focus on security specific management issues. A principal goal of
such an effort should be to keep security practitioners abreast of the rapid changes in the
science of business management. An article in mm, states: "The fact is that
there is no specifically designed academic course of study at the graduate level to meet
the degree needs of security professionals. To be sure, there are fine criminal justice
programs that offer security management courses, but they are still criminal justice
programs." (Heskett, 1990).

The problem arises when trying to determine what components of criminal justice
programs Should or should not be included in the model, and what other areas of
emphasis should also be included (Heskett, 1990). The purpose of this study is not to
create a specific outline designed at determining an actual curriculum, but to identify
what security professionals believe are the most important subjects for security curricula
to offer, so aspiring security professionals can be adequately prepared to enter the
corporate security environment now and through the year 2000.

For those who work within the profession, the implications of current and
predicted growth patterns are clear. Professional security managers must be prepared to
assume increasingly greater responsibility when it comes to the operation of security

organizations. The question of whether or not they are academically prepared to meet the

4

challenge of a growing and increasingly complex role is one that deserves close
examination.
Purpose

According to Wathen (cited in Fisher and Green, 1991), "the demand for
improved training and education in the field of security has existed since 195 7". This
assessment was strengthened by the Hallcrest Report 11 (Cunningham, Strauchs, & Van
Meter, 1990), which referred to education as one of the greatest challenges facing security
today. Also, empirical research examining the educational levels of security personnel
supports the concern for greater education. For example, Davidson (1989) found that
38% of those individuals positioned to assume security management roles lacked formal
academic credentials.

The purpose of the proposed study is to (1) expand the line of research leading to
the development of appropriate undergraduate security education curricula, and the
codification of the body of knowledge in the field, (2) identify the types of academic
backgrounds top or senior level security executives consider to be professionally vital, (3)
document specific trends in security and security education over the last 25 years, (4)
analyze research concerned with causing a shifi in security management methods fiom a
cost center approach to a value-added (profit center) approach, (5) and, examine the
implications of the research for those who are engaged in the planning and

implementation of security education programs.

Goal

The main goal of this study is to determine what type or types of undergraduate
educational backgrounds are in most demand for meeting top security executives’ hiring
needs, and of these educational backgrounds, what are the specific types of subjects in
which a prospective security manager should be educated. An analysis will be made to
determine what types of coursework security executives and practitioners consider most
important, and their educational hiring preferences. A determination can then be made to
orient educational institutions to keep up with the needs of the security industry, in terms
of the coursework and degree programs they offer. This can then lead to the development

of an appropriate undergraduate security curriculum.

Research Question

Thus the research question asks, in regard to hiring plans and preferences: what
types of degrees and knowledge do security professionals want potential graduates to
have, and what areas of curriculum do they feel are the most important? Do they want
prospective students to have degrees with a emphasis in criminal justice/security,
business, combination of business and coursework in security, or criminal justice/security
and coursework in business?

The study can be described, in organizational development terminology, as
descriptive research, which provides a systematic attempt to bring about change in an
organization and at the same time, to generate new scientific knowledge which can be
replicated, verified, and added to our knowledge of behavioral science.

5

6

It is expected that specific security executives' hiring preferences, in regard to
graduates' educational background, can be accurately predicted through the analysis of
the data provided by the Curriculum Education Survey. It is also expected that the data
will Show a preference towards an educational background in business, or a combination
of business and coursework in security. This can be theorized because of the rapidly
changing security environment where security managers are being asked to assume
greater responsibilities and challenges in their corporations. They often have to assume a
business management position, the goal of which is to plan, administer and evaluate
programs. Without the skills needed to accomplish these tasks, the practitioner will be
seen as lacking in the eyes of the organization's hierarchy. Without the proper training
and knowledge of business practices and language, it would be very difficult to
accomplish the goals in an efficient and effective manner.

In a highly competitive business environment, business skills are needed to
prepare practitioners for roles as security managers. Without these skills, it will be
difficult for security managers to Shift the current view of corporate security as a
reduction to gross margin, to an entity that actively contributes to the corporation's
bottom-line. It is only logical to assume that, to be able to succeed in any environment,
one must possess the skills to operate in that environment. Thus it follows, that
knowledge in the areas of accounting, management, and finance can be important for

effective operation in a business environment.

2.0 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

A considerable amount of information through written and verbal communication
has been produced stating a need for more empirical research in the security field. In
fact, more seems to have been written about the need to conduct research and security
education, than there has been research conducted. In comparison to other fields, security
is lagging behind in terms of the amount and quality of empirical and theoretical research
being developed. The security literature is generally lacking in research dealing with
planning models or conceptual frameworks. Literature in other social and behavioral
sciences literally contain an abundance of theories, frameworks, and models dealing with
program planning, development, evaluation, operations, management, and general
systems thinking. The private security field has been slow to adopt or assimilate many of
these principles, methods or techniques. Instead, the literature has primarily focused on
the technical and industry-specific aspects of the field, largely ignoring many of the
generic concepts and issues, such as systematic planning and evaluation, and program
management; however, this is changing.

In the last 25 years, there have been five major national study efforts on private
security: the Rand Report (Kakalik & Wildhorn, 1971), the Private Security Advisory
Council (PSAC, 1977), the Report of the Task Force on Private Security (1976), the
Hallcrest Report (Cunningham and Taylor, 1985), and the Hallcrest Report 11
(Cunningham, Strauchs and Van Meter, 1990). There are also a few organizations that

7

8

are taking great steps to attempt to correct the problem regarding the lack of good
empirical and theoretical research. These organizations are attempting to help provide a
means through which the need for security research can be meet. The American Society
for Industrial Security (A818) and the Defense Personnel Security Research and
Education Center (PERSEREC), are two examples of these organizations which are
helping to improve, expand, and encourage more research associated with security.

The American Society for Industrial Security is an organization of security
directors and managers dedicated to the protection of corporate and institutional assets
from losses, both internal and external. ASIS was incorporated in 1955 as a professional
membership association for individuals. Currently, ASIS has more than 25,000 members
worldwide. The Society acts as a conduit for the security profession, by providing
programs and resources at the local, national and international levels, which enable
members to update and exchange information and expertise. ASIS accomplishes this
through a Certified Protection Professional (CPP) program, the A818 Foundation,
numerous educational workshops, regularly scheduled meetings and conferences, a series
of professional publications, legislative monitoring activities and the specialized
functions of more than 30 standing committees.

The Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center (PERSEREC), is
a research and education facility whose mission is to perform security research and
analysis for Department of Defense (DOD), and to furnish educational assistance and

advice on personnel security research to DOD components.

Existing Research

'1 2 ‘ 'i 'u I‘ ' '1'-E"',.,!!tf,‘£t!i'1L!_,,!!.,‘I!;!1!‘.121!{flirt
The publishing of the 1971 report on Engatefiohmmjhellmtedfitateslmmgs

W, known as the Rand Report, came about because of the federal
government’s consideration of the funding of a research center that would evaluate the
effectiveness and costs of private security personnel and equipment. The report
addressed general areas of the private security field, and recommended specific areas
where research would be valuable in attempting to improve the industry as a whole. This
study paved the way for existing research in the security field, helping to Spark the
development of other national research projects (Kakalik & Wildhom, 1971).

The report provided a glimpse of the size and growth trends of private security.
The report, however, was not well received by the security community, because it
provided the impression of the "average security guard" as underscreened, undertrained,
undersupervised, underpaid, and in need of licensing and regulation to upgrade the
quality of personnel and services. It also depicted private security as "private policing"
and "policing for profit" to meet the needs of special interest groups, as opposed to public

policing, which serves the larger community (Kakalik & Wildhom, 1971).

I I . C 'l 1 I I E B I
Two other major study efforts developed because of the problems listed by the

Rand Report and changes in the private security field such as, increased growth, and

potential interaction with law enforcement. A Private Security Advisory Council (PSAC)

9

10

to the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) was established in 1972 and
produced advisory reports until 1977. A Private Security Task Force (PSTF) was added
to the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. The
creation of these bodies recognized the pervasive involvement of private security in
safety and protection.

Both bodies included members from academia, law enforcement, business, and
security disciplines. Both groups felt that the establishment of standards would help
improve the quality of private security and reduce abuses and unethical practices (Bilek,
1976)

The W, completed in 1976, still
remains one of the leading works in the security arena today. The Task Force members
led by Arthur J. Bilek strove to develop standards and goals regarding private security
and its relationship to the public police. In the course of its research, the Task Force
identified several specifics of security that make its orientation, training, and education
somewhat different from those of the police. The report pointed out the need for
"specialized training and education" in security management issues. Security
management persons at the administration and supervisory levels must perform such
duties as organizing, directing, and controlling security services. Supervisors and
managers of all types and at all levels should interact to understand the overall corporate
structure and interconnecting functions.

The Private Security Task Force went on to take a broad look at the security

profession regarding the state of research in the field. It found that security was a field in

11

which there had been no extensive research and analysis, and that there had been little
emphasis placed on research relating to private security services. The Private Security
Task Force developed a standard, calling for more research in the field and encouraging
the development of a national private security resource and research institute. It also
called for increases in private security research efforts in all universities, companies,

organizations, associations, and individuals concerned with private security (Bilek, 1976).

HallcrestRemrt

Hallcrest Systems, Inc., in 1980, was selected by the National Institute of Justice
(NU) to conduct a 3-year, national study of the roles and resources of private security as
well as the nature, extent, and growth of security markets. This research also included a
national assessment of law enforcement and private security relationships.

The report acknowledges the scarcity of knowledge in the field by stating that:

“Altogether, security is not a body of knowledge with a strong research

base. Of the hundreds of publications in security listed in the National

Criminal Justice Reference Service catalog most contain technical

information for the practitioner rather than empirical data or theory on

security, asset protection, loss prevention, or economic crime. In the

academic and research communities, security tends to be regarded as a

private adjunct to the public criminal justice system” (Cunningham &

Taylor, 1985).

The report continued to charge that most of the research that was conducted:

12

“. . . consisted of market research or have yielded "soft" numbers rather than hard
empirical data on the nature and Size of private security. It is therefore extremely difficult
to construct tight research hypotheses which can then be accepted or rejected on the basis

of empirical testing” (Cunningham & Taylor, 1985).

W

In 1990, the National Institute of Justice (N 1]) again Commissioned Hallcrest
Systems Inc. to study the private security industry. The researchers looked at areas such
as crime and security resources, changing relationships of security and police, security
personnel and issues, protective services and products, and influential trends. The NIJ
sponsored report indicated that the private security industry is outspending public law
enforcement by 73 percent and employing 2V2 times the workforce. Industry is creating
its own private body, called to act in emergencies, as the variety and scope of threats to
business intensify. The cost of doing business is skyrocketing, as annual spending for
security is estimated at $52 billion and 1.5 million people are employed in the private
security industry. These figures point to a sharp increase from 1980 when 1 million
people were employed in the industry and annual expenditures were estimated at $20
billion. AS we approach the year 2000, employment is expected to reach nearly 2.0
million and spending will crest the 100 billion dollar mark annually (Cunningham,
Strauchs, & Van Meter, 1990). Clearly, such an investment in financial and human
resources provides compelling justification for a Security Education program that teaches

strong security leadership and management skills. The security issues resulting from a

13

rapidly changing world political and economic climate necessitate a business
management focus in security education to better prepare aspiring professionals to

function effectively in a highly competitive global 2000 marketplace.

! I I' |° I B I

Literature in the field seems to be showing that more Often mainstream business
people are tapped for security. Many previously worked in internal audit, facilities
management, risk management, accounting, or legal and human resources. In addition,
there has been some management-level trade-Off to outside resources --- security
engineers and consultants for strategic planning, designing security awareness programs,
and conducting risk assessment programs. Research shows that a small, though growing
number of companies are using these outside services instead of inside management.
These changes leave some security directors and managers in a bit of trouble. NO matter
how it finally plays out, it is obvious there will be more career opportunities for people
who can manage technology, understand economic crimes and function effectively in
business environments (Zalud, 1990).

Two widely recognized premises of the security profession suggest that the
effectiveness of the industrial security management function is directly impacted by its
placement in the corporate organizational structure, and the degree of support it receives
from the hierarchial apex of the structure. This theme consistently surfaces in security
management textbook discussions of security organizational placement (e. g., Green,

1981; Healy & Walsh, 1971; Cunningham & Taylor, 1985; Tim & Christian, 1991).

14

Seventy percent of the respondents to a 1981 Securityflgdd survey (Cunningham &
Talyor, 1985) indicated that their security director reported to the company's chairperson,
chief executive officer, president, vice president of operations or finance, or general
manager. Serving a staff function, the modern security director is an advisor to the
company's senior management officials. Despite this trend, security professionals are not
being given unlimited authority to accomplish their mission. Consequently, the security
director must be able to show how sound security measures can enhance and contribute to
business objectives, or else the resources necessary for adequate security may be limited
(Criscuoli, 1988). Demonstration of the return on investment, associated with a security
policy, procedure, or other initiative, will likely gain the security director an influential

ally in the chief executive officer.

Legislative Initiative

IhLQQLEBill

There is evidence that Congress recognizes the need for greater professionalism in
the private secmity field through the introduction of the "Security Officer Employment
Standards Act of 1991." While not directed at security management, the legislation,
sponsored by Senator Albert Gore, (D-TN), now Vice President, would nevertheless
encourage stricter regulation of the private security industry by creating two new
initiatives. First, the Federal Administrator for General Services (GSA) would be
mandated to issue regulations to establish standards for the hiring of security officers by

the federal government or its contracts. Any applicant for the position of security officer

15

with the federal government or a security services contractor, who has agreed to work as
a part of a federal government contract, will be subject to general and criminal records
screening, and training requirements. Screening requirements concentrate on criminal
history reference and credit checks, proof of citizenship, physical fitness and
psychological tests. Training will concentrate on basic proficiency in fire prevention,
investigation and detection procedures, building safety, crisis management, equipment
handling and technical writing.

Second, the legislation would create a grant program to assist states in screening
and training security Officers. Grant monies would be made available to states agreeing
to establish standards for private security that substantially comply with the federal

standards established by the GSA.

II M |° 3'"
Further recognition for the need for greater professionalism in the private security

field is represented through a second initiative made to standardize security officer

training through the introduction of "Private Security Officers Quality Assurance Act of

1992". Introduced under the direction of Representative Matthew Martinez (D-CA). The

Martinez bill, which is more specific than the Gore bill, provides for:

I a minimum of eight hours classroom and four hours of on—the-job training and
successful completion of a written examination

I licensing requirements for both security contractors and employers of proprietary

security officers

16

I pre-employment screening of security officers to verify five years of employment
and all personal references
I a review of state and federal fingerprint records

I state licensing of individual security officers.

Although security organizations have taken the initiative to set up training courses
and certification, it is obvious that industry-controlled standards are not going to be
forthcoming soon. The marketplace will continue to seek the lowest bid over quality
security as private security's role expands. However, with the security field employing
more than 1.1 million individuals, the demand for standards can be expected to increase

along with the public's awareness of private security.

Academic Programs

As security needs expand in industry, the demand will increase for qualified
professionals with college degrees specializing in the security field. Security is a
relatively new field, and because of this, security coursework and degree programs are
not found on many campuses. The security programs that do exist are very diverse in the
names and types of courses they offer: Security Administration, Loss Prevention
Management, Retail Security Management, Business Security, Security Systems
Technology, and Protective Service Technology. The course offerings themselves also
differ widely fi'om emphasis on criminology security technology, to security

management. It is most common to find security programs located in the college's school

17

or department of Criminal Justice. Security and Criminal Justice are closely related, but
they are not the same. Security emphasizes management practices and techniques
designed to protect people, information and facilities.

The need for security managers is increasing in private industry; there is increased
need to combat the grth of embezzlement, computer crime, employee thefi,
shoplifting, fraud, and terrorism. The expansion of the security industry has caused many
colleges to eXpand or add security related coursework to their criminal justice degree
programs.

Recognizing the need, in 1972 and 1979 the A818 Foundation sponsored studies
to identify and publish a list of colleges and universities that offered academic courses
and degree programs in security. The study done in 1979, to Show the academic security
and loss prevention programs available, published in the January 1980 issue of Security
Management, identified that the nmnber of institutions offering at least one security
course had grown from 43 in 1972 to over 182 in 1979. A more recent study done by
Howard W. Timm and Dennis B. Anderson looked at colleges and universities that
offered academic courses and degree programs in security, and found that the number of
institutions offering security course work or programs had more than doubled in the last
10 years fiom 185 to 463 (1989).

A study done in 1991 showed that over 65 colleges and universities throughout
the United States offer academic programs leading to a bachelor's degree in security and
loss prevention (Tim and Christian, 1991). However, the extent to which these

programs have based their curricula on a clear understanding of the trends and future

18

needs of the security profession is unknown. The available literature does not support the
contention that the majority, or any, of the curricula is the result of true empirical
research on the part of institutions offering these degrees, even though some institutions
have attempted to use research to assist in designing their programs (Morley, Vogel, &
Huegel, 1993).

In a recent study, Morley, Vogel, & Huegel, sampling security practitioners
selected from the membership of A818, examined the needs of security professionals’
perceptions regarding relevant academic preparation. Their survey was designed to
examine curriculum priorities identified by security personnel as important to their
personal and professional development. Survey participants were asked to identify the
general categories of courses that would assist them in their professional development.
The results of the survey revealed that a core curriculum would be difficult to establish
due to the diversity of private security courses identified. However, many of the
respondents noted interest in taking courses leading to a baccalaureate degree with an
emphasis in security management. The results revealed that management, English, and
speech communications were deemed most important (1993).

"The question that remains unanswered is whether there is a training and
education program designed, developed, and prepared to provide for the needs of the
upwardly mobile security management professional. It appears the answer to that
question is no" (Heskett, 1993). "Education programs at the baccalaureate and graduate
levels designed to prepare persons for private security employment are totally

inadequate" (Bilek et al., 1980).

19

Presently, over 50 colleges and universities offer baccalaureate degrees with some
emphasis on security. At the graduate level fewer than 10 universities offer graduate-
level work in security management; however, this number is growing. Of these
universities, only three have strictly defined definite degree programs in some aspect of
security (Bilek et al., 1980). This shortage of professional educational programs
designed for security managers is at least, in part, controlled by the concept that law
enforcement is the parent program of security management. Thus, in many cases,
"security courses . . .are taught by faculty who lack basic qualifications and knowledge
of private security foundation concepts. Likewise, the security curricula in these colleges

Often are police-oriented in their design" (Tyska, 1987).

Mammals

Theoretical research in the security field is less than abundant, and those few
associated principles and techniques have been Slow to be adopted. In 1989, the
American Society for Industrial Security, through the A818 Foundation, sponsored "The
Atkinson Security Project", later changed to the “Value-Added Model” (V AM). The
overall goal of this project was to realign security management techniques from a cost-
center approach to a value-added, ie., profit center approach, based on the development of
a methodology for assessing the value-added of investments in security projects. The
project was comprised of various sections, and the concepts the project developed will be
used to support the need for the security industry to improve its business focus which is

needed to cause the cultural shift necessary to get the Value-Added security methodology

20

that is called for by the Atkinson Security Project (Duncan, Gale, Tofflemire, & Yaksick,
1992). The Atkinson project is comprised of three sections:
Part I: Conceptualizing the Value-Added Approach to Security Management. It is argued
that a cost-center approach to security management is not the most efficient management
approach to security functions; rather, when the goal is to maximize shareholder value,
the most efficient approach is provided by a value-added methodology. Therefore, to
provide an optimum level of security service to the organization, a reorientation from a
cost-center approach to a value-added approach to security management must be made.
Part II: The Atkinson Model. A security investment decision-making mathematical
mode1--The Atkinson Model, is presented. The model could be used by security
managers to assess the probability of risks and expected losses and the value-added to
their organization from implementing specific security measures designed to counter such
risks. The main idea is that investment in security functions should be treated as any
other organizational investment. Hence, the performance of each investment can be
measured in terms of the value-added that it generates for the corporation.
Part 111: An Implementation of the Atkinson Model. This paper presents and explains the
data acquisition program that was followed to develop and implement the Atkinson
Model; this program results in a hypothetical case study that applies the Atkinson Model
to generic security problems in a particular industry."(Duncan, Gale, Tofflemire, &
Yaksick, 1992).

Attempts are currently being made by industry and educational institutions to

implement the value-added approach. The National Industrial Security Program (N ISP)

21

is one example of this. An example of the importance of linking the security director to
the chief executive can be seen in the NISP.

The NISP is an example of an attempt by industry to implement the Value-Added
Approach using Total Quality Management (TQM), an initiative to create a single,
coherent and integrated strategy to safeguard classified defense information in industry.

It has been endorsed by the nation's top executive, the President of the United States.
Conceptualized in March 1988, by security directors in the Industrial Security Committee
of the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), the NISP seeks standardization of security
policies and procedures throughout all Executive branch departments and agencies.
Largely a product of the TQM wave sweeping the defense contractor community, the
NISP is industry's response to the challenge for a more efficient and cost-effective
method to ensure national security. Once in place, the NISP will improve industrial
security nationwide and make available hundreds of millions of federal dollars for
redirection. Progress toward a NISP provides an illustrative example of what can be
accomplished when senior management supports a security initiative. This serves as an
example of the importance of management support .

An illustration of the importance of linking the security director to the chief
executive is apparent in the NISP. The clout of AIA chief executives, who recognized the
potential for security cost savings in a declining defense market, was critical to
accomplishing NISP presentations to senior government officials (Anderson, 1992).

Academic institutions are also re-engineering their current criminal justice or

security related programs to offer more concentrated specializations in the area of

22

security management. One example of this is at Michigan State University in the School
of Criminal Justice. The School of Criminal Justice is in the process of establishing a
new specialization program in security management called the Leadership and
Management Program in Security (LaMPS). The program is the result of close
interaction and strong support with MSU alumni in the security field. The School of
Criminal Justice has formed an advisory group made up of security professionals from
private industry and government, to assure that the program will meet the current needs
of industry and government. Other ways that the School is trying to meet industries’
needs is through the Corporate Associates Program in Security (CAPS). The program’s
goal is to bring together university researchers and business people to allow companies to
have input into the types of research necessary for the security field. CAPS is meant to
add to current knowledge in the security field and help security organizations better meet

their goals.

3.0 DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This section outlines the research methods used in the design of the survey, which
was developed in part by the researcher and and others in the School of Criminal Justice
at Michigan State University. It includes information regarding the sample population,
sampling fame, response rate, sampling method and size, validation methodology, data-

collection methods, methods of data processing and analysis, and survey design.

Sample

In February of 1992, the questionnaire was administered by mail to a sample of
security managers (n = 5,747) obtained from two separate membership lists of the US.
membership of the American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS). The first list
consisted of a stratified random sample (n = 4,751) drawn from the national list of
members (11 = 20,700) stratified by industry segment, chosen to capture variation across
the security field. This sample was comprised of employees fiom 22 categories of
industries, which included Architectural/Engineering Firms, Entertainment! Sports
Facilities, Government, Commercial Lodging, Industrial/Manufacturing. Health Care,
Retail, Transportation, and Utilities. The addresses of the corporate security offices were
provided by the headquarters office of the A318 Foundation. The second list contained a
disproportionately large sample (n = 996) from a concentration of four different local
chapters: Grand Rapids (n = 112), Boston (n = 315), Los Angeles (n = 328), and
Washington DC. area (11 = 241). Addresses for each of the four areas were obtained from

23

24

the local chapters of the A818. Single person consultant firms and duplicates from the
national list were eliminated from the second list. The respondents’ demographic
characteristics are presented in Section 5. Overall, the mailing yielded a response rate of

(15%) n = 835‘.

Pretest/Posttest

The survey instrument, used to sample the participants, went through a
pretest/posttest process to assure its validity. A Security Advisory Committee for the
School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University, made up of security
professionals from private industry and government reviewed the survey. The committee
consisted of senior security executives in government and a variety of security fields such
as education, aerospace, automotive, retail, hotel/lodging, banking, and pharmaceutical
industries. The function of the advisors was to ensure that the security curriculum would
be current for the future security professionals, who will be responsible for monitoring
such issues as global competition, international trade, ethical business practices and
national security.

The method used to assure content validity was through the use of the "Delphi
Technique", in which the members of the advisory committee were surveyed to define the
specific areas of knowledge and skills necessary to be a successful security manager, as

they relate to an educational curriculum. The comments received from the members were

 

l

The study results are based on data received from the initial mail questionnaire. A second mailing of the
questionnaire was conducted yielding a response rate of 26%, but these data are not represented in this study.

25

then combined into a survey instrument and presented to the respondents where they were
asked to reconsider the issue and comment again. This alternation of anonymous input
and the reporting of results was repeated several times, until a consensus, and sufficient
clarity and comprehensiveness, as determined by the members, was achieved. Once
content validity had been achieved, the final survey instrument was constructed and

mailed to the sample of the population.

Questionnaire

Each survey participant was mailed two letters, a questionnaire, and a stamped
self-addressed envelope. One of the letters was from ASIS headquarters encouraging
their support for the study and effort, and the importance for the members to respond.
The other letter was from Michigan State University outlining the purpose and objectives
of the study. The mail questionnaire was comprised of three general sections, consisting
of 133 questions, 10 of which were designed to collect demographic data. The remaining
123 questions utilized a Likert and open-ended format designed to allow the respondents
to identify the most important areas or subjects that a student should focus on in an
undergraduate program (Section I), identify their level of interest concerning distance
education, designed for security professionals (Section II), and identify new executive
training needs, and practitioners’ future hiring plans and educational preferences (Section
III). For the purposes of this study, only parts of Sections I and III will be used. These
two sections, which are further described in greater detail, are designed to answer

questions in regard to hiring plans and preferences, as well as degrees and knowledge that

26

security professionals would prefer in their new hires (Appendix A).

Instrument Design
Sectionl
Section I of the survey contains questions concerning particular areas of education
and their perceived importance in the security management field. The questions are
concerned with specific subject areas of emphasis that a prospective security manager
should possess. These subject areas of education are divided into the following ten

different topical areas:

I Criminal Justice and Security

I Investigations and Intelligence

I Social Science

I Business

I Computer Security Management
I Government Security

I Information Security

I Physical Security
I Personnel Security

I Communication

27

W

Section II and parts of Section III, were designed to determine the needs in
industry for master's level education and specific training needs, and will not be used for
the purpose of this study. However, the area on hiring plans and preferences, in Section
III of the survey, designed to find out what types of undergraduates would be most in
demand for meeting security executives' hiring needs is included in this study. The
questions are divided into the following types of educational degrees:

Undmdnatenemetflm
I Criminal justice/security

I Business

I Computer science

I Major in business and coursework in security

I Major in criminal justice/security and coursework in business
I Major in computer science and coursework in security

A complete copy of the survey is located in Appendix A.

4.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

This section contains an analysis of the data collected from the survey instrument.
It includes the presentation of the data, manipulations of those data, and interpretations
made by the researcher. A computer was used to analyze the raw data received back from
the surveys. Tables and graphs are used to illustrate the significance in mean frequency
or proportional measurements of the population. Thus the method of statistical analysis
that will be used to test the hypothesis, will consist of frequency analysis and measures of
central tendency (mean) to analyze the preferred undergraduate topical areas and their
respective subjects, and hiring plans and preferences needed for entry level positions in
security.

The Curriculum and Distance Education Survey yielded a considerable amount of
descriptive information about ASIS members and their interest in a degree program with

an emphasis in security management. The results of the analysis are presented below.

4.1 Demographic Information
Of the 835 individuals responding to this section of the survey 47.7 percent
acknowledged themselves as being the top most senior security executive in their
business/organizations. Of the total respondents, 50.1 percent hold corporate level
security responsibilities, 20.4 percent are responsible for security operations in a division,
20.8 percent are responsible for security operations of a particular site, and 12.6 percent
held other responsibilities.

28

29
Location
The respondents were fairly evenly distributed throughout the United Sates, the
majority, 26.9 percent, were located in the Northeast, with the least, 4.3 percent, being

located in the Northwest. See Table 4.1 for additional demographic information.

Table 4.1. Location of respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

Region _ Percent 11
Northeast 26.9%
Midwest 23.7%
Southeast 20.0%
Southwest 1 6.6%
Northwest 4.3%

 

 

 

 

Valid cases 765 Missing cases 70

Wu:

The respondents listed their major job functions as including security/loss
prevention management, with 75 percent of the respondents identifying this area as one of
their overall job functions. Forty-five percent were involved in physical/facility security,
and 25 percent of the respondents’ jobs included dealing with access control
management. Multiple responses were possible. The complete list of job functions and

associated percentages are located in Table 4.2.

30

Table 4.2. Respondents major job functions

      

 

  

    

 

   

 

 

  

  
   

 

 

 

 

  
 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

Job Functions Responses Job Functions Responses
(‘70) (%)
(multi choices were (multi choices were

A possible) 7 7 Jossiblc)

SecJLoss Prevention Mgrnt. 75.2% Financial Mgmt. 4.9%

Physical/Facility Sec. 44.8% Gov. Titled Personnel 4.0 %

Access Control Mgmt 24.6% Data Sec/EDP Audit 3.6%

Administrative Mgrnt. 17.7% Network/Communications 3.0%

Consulting 13.5% H Purchasing 3.0%

Education 10.5% Marketing/Sales 2.9%

II lnfo/Data/Computer Sec. 8.1% CEO/CFO 1.7%

II Other 7.4% Sales Personnel 1.0%
II Disaster Recovery Specialist 6.3%

 

 

 

 

18 missing cases; 817 valid cases

2' I [B'

     
   

 

The primary types of business or industry were fairly evenly distributed, with 9.2
percent being industrial/manufacturing, and 7.4 percent classified under health care down
to 1.8% in insurance. Of these companies, 40.7 percent were listed as being among the
fortune 1000. The complete list of their company's primary type of business or industry

is located in Table 4.3.

31

Table 4.3. Company’s primary type of business or industry

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Primary Type of Business Responses Primary Type of Business Responses
(%) (%)
industrial/Manufacturing 9.2% Transportation 3.2%
Health Care 7.4% Sec Consulting 3.1%
Other 6.9% Oil/Gas/Mining Extra 2.9%
Banking & Financial 6.7% Warehouse/Distribution 2.4%
Retail 6.7% Entertainment! Sports 1 .9%
Utility/Energy 6.5% Insurance 1 .8%
Guard/Security Services 6.3% Museum/Library 1.6 %
Government 5.5% Pharmaceutical 1 . 1%
Research and Develop 4.7 % Architectural/Engine 1.0%
Educational Institute 4.6% Food Services 0.8%
Communication Services 3.6 % Commercial Real Estate 0.8%
Hotel/Motel/Lodging 3.5% Real Estate 0.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid cases 772 Missing cases 63

Budget:

The majority of the respondents, 65.1 percent, listed their approximate budgets for
the security department or for security expenditures, including contracted security
services, at greater than $500,000. Of these respondents, 27.3 percent reported having

budgets in excess of $2,500,000. The complete list is provided in Table 4.4.

32

Table 4.4. Approximate security department budgets

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Budget _ Percent f [I f f f Budget Percent
Under $50,000 4.9% $500,001 - $1,000,000 16.0%
||_$50,001 - $100,000 5.2% $1,000,001 - $1,500,000 11.5 %
[$100,001 - $250,000 8.8% $1,500,001 - $2,500,000 10.3%
[250,001 - $500,000 = 16.0% tMore Than $2,500,000 27.3% I

 

 

 

 

Valid cases 788 Missing cases 47

E l B '1 TI

The majority of the respondents, 65.4 percent, were responsible for 1 - 49

security employees, with 45 percent of all respondents responsible for only 1 - 19

employees. Table 4.5 provides more detailed information concerning employee

responsibilities.

Table 4.5. Number of employees who report to the respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number Of Employees Percent
l- 19 45.0%
20-49 20.4%
50-99 12.1% I
100-249 9.0%
250-499 3.8%
500-999 3.2%
1000 OR MORE 1.7%

 

 

 

 

Valid cases 795 Missing cases 40

4.2 Section I Curriculum Information

This section contained a total of 100 questions which were designed to gather
information regarding the importance of specific areas of expertise that may pertain to the
duties of a security manager. The questions were divided into ten different specialized
fields or topical areas, and survey participants were asked to identify the specific subject
types within those topic areas that they believed a prospective security manager should
have for meeting the general and professional educational needs for such a position. For
example, the business topical area included twenty-eight different subject areas such as
leadership, crisis management, budgets, etc.. Forced choice and open-ended questions
were utilized to determine the respondents' choices as to what types of security
curriculum or subjects are important for meeting these needs.

Respondents were asked to determine how important they felt specific subjects
would be for their positions as security professionals. Their responses were rated on a
scale from O to 5 (O = not at all important, 1 = least important, 2 = slightly important, 3 =
important , 4 = very important, 5 = most important). For the purposes of this study, the
numeric responses were analyzed by combining the responses (0 & 1 = least important, 2
& 3 = quite important , 4 & 5 = most important). The responses were ranked using mean
analysis to determine which subjects were considered “most important”, or those that had
a mean of 4.0 or greater. Based upon the decision of the researcher, due to the large
number of total subject areas to choose from (100), those subjects whose mean score was
less than 4.000 ( "most important" ) were not reported in the tables (except for those
subject areas in which no courses were considered to be "most important"). If no subject

33

34

areas within a field were considered "most important", then those subjects whose mean
score was 3.000 (“quite important”) or higher were used.

The respondents were also requested to write-in specific courses or subjects that
they felt would be beneficial to them. The variety and number of their responses did not
allow for meaningful categorizations of the data. The fact that the analysis revealed few
logical course patterns is a relevant finding. It may be that the field of private security is
so diversified, that developing a concise listing of core courses is fraught with difficulty.
Additional research is necessary on this issue and the recommendations on this finding,
are included in the summary.

A complete analysis of the topical areas and their respective subject areas from

Section I (Curriculum Information) is located in Appendix B.

C"III' 15 '1

Within the specialized educational field of criminal justice and security, the
respondents were presented with fifieen different subject areas and asked to rate their
level of importance within this topical area pertaining to them for their duties as a
security manager. Figure 4.1 summarizes the results, ranking the subject areas by mean
score (the average of the respondents’ choices for each subject area based on their rating
0-5). The analysis results of those subject areas that were deemed “most important”,
whose mean score was 4.0 or greater, are contained in Table 4.6 along with the overall
frequency by percentage for the combined rating scores of 1, 3, and 5.

Analysis of the subject areas revealed that the majority of the respondents, 81.3

35

Importance of Education in Criminal Jusfioe and Security

0
h
o
u
U)
r:
a
o
5

Subject Area
Figure 4.1 Level of importance of criminal justice and security subject areas by mean score

 

percent, considered security administration to be the most important subject within the
criminal justice and security topical area, and to be most applicable to the duties of a
security manager. The other subject areas of investigation techniques/procedures (81%),
asset protection management (80.2%), criminal law process (61.9%), and criminal justice
system (58.9%) were also considered to be most important for the duties of a security

manager.

 

36

Table 4.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I' . 11 Ill'

 

 

 

'- SubjectAreas ,, . , :Quite‘: . I 51M0stfz- Mean Score
" f T ' Important Important Important- “’”°‘ °" min!)

_ , (rating-1) , (Etingafl) (rating-S)
Security Administration .9% 17.8% 81.3% 4.608
Investigation 2% 17% 81% 4.5 79
Techniques/Procedures
Asset Protection Mgmt. 1.4% 18.4% 80.2% 4.576
Criminal Law Process 5% 33.2% 61.9% 4.139
Criminal Justice System 6% 35% 58.9% 4.058

Within the specialized topical area of investigations and intelligence, the

respondents were presented with seven different subject areas to rate, based on how

important they felt them to be for their duties as a security manager. Figure 4.2

summarizes the results, ranking the subject areas by mean score based on their rating (0-

5). The analysis of results of those subject areas that were deemed “most important”,

whose mean score was 4.0 or greater, are contained in Table 4.7 along with the overall

frequency by percentage for the combined ratings scores of 1, 3, and 5.

37

 

 

 

o
h
o
o
(I)
c
a
o
E

Figure 4.2 Level of importance of investigations and intelligence subject areas by mean score

 

 

 

Analysis of the subject areas revealed that the majority of the respondents
considered the subject privacy issues/ethics, with 71.6 percent of the respondents
selecting it as the most important subject area within the investigations and intelligence
topical area, to be most applicable to the duties of a security manager. The subject areas
operations security (70.4%), fraud/waste/abuse (64.3%), drug-free workplace (58.3%),
intelligence gathering/analysis (58.3%), and evidence collection (58.0%) were also

considered to be most important within the investigations and intelligence topic.

38

Table 4.7

Most

(based on nting)

Issues/Ethics 25.9% 71.6% 4.382
Operations Security 27.3% 70.4% 4.361
Fraud/Waste/Abuse 32.1% 64.3% 4.214

31.8% 63.4% 4.171
Intelligence 35.6% 58.3% 4.045

Evidence Collection 35.3% 58.0% 4.027

 

S . I S .
Within the specialized topical field of social science, the respondents were
presented with fourteen different subject areas to rate, based on how important they
would be for their duties as a security manager. Figure 4.3 summarizes the results,
ranking the subject areas by mean score. The subject areas that were deemed “most
important”, whose mean score was 4.0 or greater, are contained in Table 4.8 along with
the overall frequency by percentage for the combined ratings scores of 1, 3, and 5.
Analysis of the subject areas revealed that 65 percent of the respondents
considered knowledge in the subject area psychology of individuals as being the most

important subject within the social science topical area. The only other subject area that

39

lnportanee of Education in Social Science

 

 

 

If
I!

Mean Score

 

“I
”I
I”
a"

3”; fig. ,9“ pg, .. .
:8“ Q- 0&0 ‘9’}
o .
We" safe? 6’ seeéee
SrbjeetArea
Figure 4.3 Level of importance of social science subject areas by mean score

. Qé’o
.‘ .e

 

was perceived to be most important for the duties of a security manager within this
topical area, was knowledge in labor/employee relations. The remaining twelve subject

areas were either rated as being “important”, or “not important”.

Table 4.8

Subject Areas Rated “Most Important” within the
Social Science Topical Area

, Most Mean Score
(rating-3) (292.335)

 

 

I Psychology of Individuals . 31.6% 65.0% 4.233

 

 

Labor/Em - 10 ee Relations . 32.5% 64.5% 4.230

 

 

 

 

40
mm
Within the educational field of business, the respondents were presented with
twenty-eight different subject areas to rate as to their importance for the duties of a
security manager. Figure 4.4 summarizes the results, ranking the subject areas by mean

score based on their rating (0-5). The subject areas that were deemed “most important”,

Importance of Education in Business

 

 

o
h
o
o
(I)
r:
«I
o
E

 

Figure 4.4 Level of importance of business subject areas by mean score

whose mean score was 4.0 or greater, are contained in Table 4.9 along with the overall
frequency by percentage for the combined ratings scores of 1, 3, and 5.

Analysis of the subjects revealed that the majority of the respondents considered
subjects associated with' building leadership skills to be the most important, with 81
percent of the respondents selecting leadership as the most important subject area within
the business topical area. Ten additional subject areas were rated “most important”; these

subject areas included discretion/business ethics, employee training, crisis management,

41

motivation techniques, budgets, planning and evaluation, personnel management and

organizational development, total quality management (TQM), negotiation skills,

performance appraisals, and business presentations.

Table 4.9

‘,'Subje’¢t

Discretion/Business Ethics
T
Crisis

Motivation T

Personnel Mgmt & Org.

Total
Skills
Performance

Business Presentations

W

I Quite

18.0%
26.1%
26.4%
31.8%
31.5%
32.2%
33.6%
32.2%

31.0%
34.2%
33.6%
35.8%

81.0%
71.4%
70.6%
66.5%
66.0%
65.3%
64.0%
63.9%

63.0%
60.6%
60.8%
59.0%

Mean Score
(based on rating)
4.599
4.379
4.353
4.294
4.269
4.257
4.232
4.200

4.139

4.109

4.104
4.0754

 

Within the specialized topical area of computer security management, the

respondents were presented with seven different subject areas to rate. Figure 4.5

42
summarizes the results, ranking the subject areas by mean score, based on their rating (0-
5). The subject areas that were deemed “most important”, whose mean score was 4.0 are
contained in Table 4.10 along with the overall frequency by percentage for the combined

ratings scores of 1, 3, and 5.

 

Mean Score

 

 

Analysis of the subject areas revealed that the majority of the respondents, 57.1

percent, considered that course work concentrated on dealing with computer operations
(PC and mainframe), was the most important subject area within the computer security
management field of specialization. The subject areas computer networks and their
vulnerabilities (55.7%), and telecommunications security (54.9%) were also considered to

be most important.

Subject Areas Rated “Most Important” within the

  
  
   

Computer Security Management Topical Area

Computer Operations (PC

43

Table 4.10

_, Mean Score
- _> 2"(baaed'on rating)

  
  

 

   

 

Security

 

Gmmmentiesnritx

 

 

 

6.4% 36.5% 57.1% 4.014
and Mainframe)
Computer 5.5% 38.7% 55.7% 4.004
Networks/Vulnerabilities
Telecommunications 5.1% 40.0%

 

  
   
 

Within the specialized field of government security, the respondents were

presented with three different subject areas to rate. Figure 4.6 summarizes the results,

ranking the subject areas by mean score, based on their rating (0-5). None of the three

subject areas were considered to most important, so the analysis results of those subject

areas that were deemed “important”, whose mean score was 3.0 or greater, are contained

in Table 4.11 along with the overall frequency by percentage for the combined ratings

scores of 1, 3, and 5.

44

 

 

 

 

2
o
o
(D
I:
«I
o
E

Mora lndrstrial Deferselnclstrial
Searitmeg’amNSP) Secuity Program(DlSP)

SubjeetArea

 

Analysis of the subject areas revealed that the National Industrial Security
Program was considered to be the most important subject within this topical area, with
48.4 percent of the respondents choosing it as a subject area that is “important” for their
duties.

Table 4.1 1

Subject Areas Rated “Important” within the
Government Security Topical Area

. Least Quite Most . ‘ Mean Score
Important": ’ ~ Jaipur-ranti- " Important Mimi-mi
. (radngel) , (ratingfl) _ (rating-6) .

 

12.4% 39.2% 48.4% 3.719

 

12.5% 39.5% 48.1% 3.711

 

Gov. Contracting & Security 15.1% 39.3% 45.6% 3.610
Process

 

 

 

 

 

45
I E l' S '1
Within the specialized field of information security, the respondents were
presented with five different subject areas in which to rate. Figure 4.7 summarizes the

results, ranking the subject areas by mean score. The subject areas that were deemed

 

 

2
O
o
(I)
:
II
o
E

 

“most important”, whose mean score was 4.0 or greater, are contained in Table 4.12
along with the overall frequency by percentage for the combined ratings scores of 1, 3,
and 5.

The majority of the respondents felt that proprietary and document protection, at
64.3 percent, was the most important subject area within the information security field of
specialization. The only other subject area that was perceived to be most important

within this topical area, was knowledge in computer security and audits (59.6%). The

46
remaining three subject areas were rated as being “important” for the security

management field.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.12
a e ‘ e ' e o o I o e
a a e a o ‘ -
. ‘9 Subject Areas Least Quite Most Mean Score
Important Important Important "”3“ °" mini)
(TIMI) 91‘1"?” (rating=5)
Proprietary & Document 4.7% 31.0% 64.3% 4.191
Protection
Com uter Securi & Audits 3.7% 36.7% 59.6% 4.116
BI . I S .I

Within the educational field of physical security, the respondents were presented
with eleven different subject areas to rate on their importance and application to the
duties of a security manager. Figure 4.8 summarizes the results, ranking the subject areas
by mean score, based on their rating 0-5. The results of the analysis of those subject
areas that were deemed “most important”, whose mean score was 4.0 or greater, are
contained in Table 4.13 along with the overall frequency by percentage for the combined
ratings scores of 1, 3, and 5.

Analysis of the subject areas revealed that the majority of the respondents felt that

surveys/audits, at 72.5 percent, was the most important subject within the physical

47

 

2
o
u
U)
r:
a
o
E

Figure 4.8 Level of importance of physical security subject areas by mean score

 

security field. Six additional subject areas were rated most important; these subject areas
include hardware (70.6%), operations security (68.6%), crisis management plans (61.6%),
plant protection (64.3%), disaster/recovery management (61.9%), and fire protection

(57.9%).

48

Table 4.13

Audits 25.4% 72.5%
Hardware 26.6% 70.6%
29.3% 68.6%

Crisis Plans 32.5% 61.6%
Plant Protection 30.4% 64.3%
34.7% 61.9%

Fire Protection 3 5.4% 5 7.9%

 

Bananas-memory

Within the specialized field of personnel security, the respondents were presented
with seven different subject areas to rate. Figure 4.9 summarizes the results, ranking the
subject areas by mean score, based on their rating (0-5). Those subject areas that were
deemed “most important”, whose mean score was 4.0 or greater are contained in Table
4.14 along with the overall frequency by percentage for the combined ratings scores of

1,3, and 5.

49

 

E
O
o
a)
c
a
o
E

Pre-Screening/Pre-Employment .
W Investigations mm" mm”

Subject Area
Figure 4.9 Level of importance of personnel security subject areas by mean score

 

The majority of the respondents, 73.6 percent, felt that prescreening/pre-
employment background checks was the most important subject area within the personnel
security field. The subject areas of personnel security (66.4%) and of single scope
background investigations (56.5%) were also considered to be most important.

Table 4.14

Subject Areas Rated “Most Important” within the
Personnel Security Topical Area

-, Least . ' iQuite: Most Mean Score
, --I.mp.o’r.tant . 1111901131“ Important- M°"""""
(ratingai) . (rating=3) (rating=5)

 

Pre-Screening/Pre- 1 .5% 24.9% 73.6% 4.441
Employment Background
Checks

 

I Personnel Security 3 1 .6% 66.4%

 

Single Scope Background 39.1% 56.5%
Investi _ation

 

 

 

 

 

50
C . .

Within the topical area of communication, the respondents were presented with
six different subject areas to rate. Figure 4.10 summarizes the results, ranking the subject
areas by mean score. Those subject areas that were deemed “most important”, are
contained in Table 4.15 along with the overall frequency by percentage for the combined

ratings scores of 1, 3, and 5.

gmamnmmmmmm i~ '

rrportance of Education in Commnicaflons ”

 

Mean Score

 

 

The majority of the respondents, 91.4 percent, felt that effective writing was the
most important subject area within the communication field of specialization. The other
subject areas that were perceived to be most important within this topical area include
public speaking/presentations (78.7%), group dynamics (59.2%), and public relations

media (59.1%).

51

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.15
o - ‘ - ' ~ 0 o o o -
o a o o ‘ -
Least Quite Most Mean Score
"= ' Important. ‘- I'mpOrtant '7 Important 'Wmn‘m
.;.-:5 , , .(ratig‘ :1) (rating=3) (rating-S)
Effective Writing .1% 8.4% 91.4% 4.826
Public Speaking/ 1.3% 20.1% 78.7% 4.548
Presentations
I Group Dynamics 4.7% 36.1% 59.2% 4.091
Public Relations Media 5.2% 35.7% 59.1% 4.077
MostlmnortantfiubjestAreas

A summary of the ten highest rated subject areas, by mean score across all the
topical areas, that were considered to be most important by the respondents is presented

in Figure 4.11. The subject area that was considered to be the most important by security

 

 

 

 

2
o
o
(D
c
a
o
E

Figure 4.11 Ten most important subject areas by mean score

 

52

managers was effective writing skills, with 91.4 percent of the respondents rating it as
being the most important. The nine next highest subject areas that were rated most
important include security administration (81.3 %), leadership (81 %), investigation
techniques (81 %), procedures and records (81 %), asset protection (80.2 %), public
Speaking/presentations (78.7 %), pre-screening/pre-employment background
investigations (73.6 %), surveys/audits (72.5 %), privacy issues/ethics (71.6 %), and

discretion/business ethics (71.4 %).

4.3 Section III Hiring Plans and Preferences

A total of 12 questions in Section III were designed to gather information
regarding hiring plans and preferences of security practitioners. Survey participants were
asked to identify what types of graduates would be in most demand for meeting their
hiring needs. Forced choice and open-ended questions were utilized to determine the
respondents' undergraduate personnel needs. Their responses were rated on a scale from
0 to 5 (0 = no demand, and 5 = high demand).

For the purpose of this study, the responses were combined so that (0 & l = Minor
Demand, 2 & 3 = Adequate Demand, and 4 & 5 = Most in Demand).

The respondents were presented with six undergraduate degrees, and asked to rate
each degree as to which would be most in demand for meeting their needs. Figure 4.12
contains the Six different educational degrees that were presented in the survey, and the

results. The educational background that was considered most in demand for meeting the

53

respondents’ hiring needs was a degree in criminal justice/security with coursework in

business, with 70.1 percent of the respondents selecting it to be “most in demand”.

Degmsj ’ ' Nbst

Criminal Justice/Security 70.1%
w/BusineS

24.9% 44.8% 30.2%

24.8% 48.8% 26.4%

Figure4.12 Urdergradmtedegrwsnnstindemarri

 

5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of this survey indicate that an undergraduate degree in criminal
justice/security with an emphasis in business was most preferred by security
professionals. Security professionals considered the most important subject areas to be
those that are necessary for future security executives to be leaders, capable of responding
to diverse business management issues. An analysis of the data on specific subjects
considered “most important” revealed that a security manager needs to understand and be
able to apply subjects beyond the traditional criminal justice\security courses, and to have
knowledge in business, management, statistics, English, and communications subjects,
which prepare a prospective security practitioner for dealing with a changing business
climate where a security manager must be able to justify expenditures, and in some cases
their security department’s existence. This can be seen in the following areas of expertise
chosen as most important for the duties of a security manager; effective writing skills,
security administration, leadership, procedures and records, asset protection, public
speaking/presentations, surveys/audits, discretion/business ethics, budgets (capital &
expense), planning/evaluation, Total Quality Management, negotiation skills, and
business presentations.

Of the 43 subjects which were considered most important, the majority (12), were
business. While it can be noted that business had the most subjects to choose from in the
survey, other areas such as criminal justice\security which also contained numerous
subjects, had 5 subjects considered most important. There is no question that traditional

54

55

criminal justice\security subjects dealing with physical security, investigations, and other
criminal justice and security subjects are important, however, this study shows a need by
security practitioners for a balance between security and business subject areas.

These findings also support previous research conducted by the Rand Corporation
and Hallcrest System, which examined security related issues. Their findings identified
management, English, and communications as a weaknesses within the security
profession. It also supports the report fiom the Private Security Task Force that points
out the need for “specialized training and education” in security management issues,
stating that “security management persons at the administration and supervisory levels
must perform such duties as organizing, directing, and controlling security services.
Supervisors and managers of all types and at all levels should interact to understand the
overall corporate structure and interconnecting functions”.

As noted in the findings section of this study, a common core curriculum for
security professionals was impossible to discern from the data. The diversity of subjects,
that individuals felt they needed, could not be organized into manageable topic or subject
areas. This does not suggest that the development of a core curriculum should be
abandoned. Certainly, alternative methodologies exist for developing academic curricula
and additional research on this issue is necessary. The findings Show the need for
curriculum changes that include new more diversified course offerings, that can help
address the requirements and needs identified by security professionals such as business,
accounting, and computer science. The study implies that core courses in security need to

be augmented with the selection of electives from the subj ects/topics identified in the

56

study, and around students interests. Based on the findings, security curriculum should
be designed to include subject offerings from other university departments, specifically
through Business, Communications, and Computer Science, to better prepare graduates to
meet the demands of the changing security environment. Though the finding from this
study show that security professionals still Show an emphasis on traditional
security/police administration curricula (Physical Security, Investigations, and Personnel
Security), respondents have also ranked business course work fairly high in comparison
with coursework in criminal justice and social science. This finding would suggest that
there is compatibility of security professionals’ perceptions with recent trends and efforts
within academics to incorporate these subject offerings into the undergraduate security
curriculum.

In summary, it is recommended that additional research in the area of security
education be conducted that attempts to further identify a core curriculum of subject
offerings, in conjunction with a joint university and industry/ government Sponsored
working group, to examine the status of security education in America. The primary
purpose of this working group would be to define an academic core curriculum
responsive to the existing and projected needs of the security industry. The working
group needs to be comprised of select practitioners and academicians, familiar with the
role, functions, and trends in security to provide the broadest possible perspective,
regardless of their affiliation. Although a handful of universities and organizations such
as The School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University; through the LaMPS

Program, and the American Society for Industrial Security are trying to accomplish such

57

efforts, it is apparent through review of the literature, existing research, and current
knowledge and expertise in the security field, that more work is needed. Future research
in this area could further identify security practitioners educational preferences based on
industry types they work in, their educational backgrounds and expertise, job functions
within a organization, and amount of years as a security practitioner.

In today’s cost-conscious environment, security managers must meet the
challenge of maintaining or increasing security levels with reduced budgets. Within the
government and industry sector, this is particularly challenging because of changing
missions, reorganizations, and realignments. Security managers must not only justify
which resources are to be used and how they are to be allocated, but must also
demonstrate that their configuration meets the protection levels set by the organization.
By using tools and methodologies based on cost-benefit and other quantitative
techniques, the security manager can meet this challenge. Innovative tools and
methodologies can help security managers evaluate which security measures and
configurations afford the best protection within their budget. Using risk-based tools and
methodologies, security managers can assess both the cost and relative effectiveness of
particular security measures or equipment, and compare alternative configurations to
achieve an optimal solution. It is in this sense that theoretical models such as the Value
Added Model process are designed to assist security directors to redirect their orientation
from being security engineers to security managers, who function as part of the overall
process of supporting investment decisions which improve the potential for an

organization’s financial growth. In effect, such methodologies act as an operation

58

procedure which aids in the selection and management of security investments such that
they realize, jointly, effective operational performance and optimal financial efficiencies.
It is the opinion of the researcher that one of the primary reasons that the security field
lacks such theoretical models and risk-based approaches needed to justify and cost-
effectively apply security, is that the practitioners themselves lack the understanding and
background needed to comprehend the value of and the application of such approaches.
In order to understand and apply such theories, security managers and security
professionals need an educational background that includes subjects such as finance,
accounting, economics, risk management and other business related theories, in order to
understand the application of complex models such as the VAM and other finance

theories that provide a basis in which to justify their decisions.

APPENDIX A

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

CURRICULUM AND DISTANCE EDUCATION SURVEY

LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN SECURITY (LaMPS)
SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING, MI 48824

The School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University is revitalizing its security curriculum through the creation
of a Leadership and Management Program in Security (LaMPS). To ensure that the curriculum addresses the
knowledge and skills necessary to be a successful security manager, we are asking for your input on this survey
instrument. Part I of the survey asks for your identification of the most important areas or subjects that a student
should focus on in an undergraduate or graduate program. Part 11 concerns distance education, a graduate degree
program delivered by satellite or similar technologies. Part III focuses on training. The results of the survey will be
widely distributed so that they will be helpful to educational institutions, including the School of Criminal Justice, that
seek to respond to the needs of the security profession.

Question responses will not be made known to anyone outside of the School except in summary form that does
not allow identification of your particular company or you. We will treat information about you and your
company as confidential. We do need to keep track of who has responded to the survey so we know how well
our sample reflects industry and government opinions.

Your cooperation in completing this questionnaire will provide the School and the security field with valuable
information that will be used to formulate an effective security management curriculum.

[lass us; a 32 [1211121119 [ill in 1h: anglers.

lfyou have any questions about this survey, fell free to call Dr. Kenneth Christian, Coordinator for Security Education,
or Dr. Merry Morash, Director of the School of Criminal Justice, at 517-355-2192.

Please return surveys to:

Curriculum and Distance Education Survey
School of Criminal Justice

560 Baker Hall

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824

PLEASE RETURN THIS SURVEY
BY NOVEMBER 27, 1992.

60

Name

 

Title

 

Company

 

Address

 

City State Zip

 

Phone

Please fill in appropriate circles with
a #2 pencil.

1. Answer the following questions for all security
operations for which you are responsible

Are you responsible for:

O 1. Corporate Level Security Responsibilities
0 2. Security Operations In A Division

0 3. Security Operations Of A Particular Site
0 4. Other

 

(please specify)

2. Which categories best describe your job
function? (Check as few as possible)

0 1. CEO/CFO

O 2. lnformation/Data/Computer Security
0 3. Consulting

0 4. Education

0 5. Marketing/Sales

O 6. Purchasing

O 7. Security/Loss Prevention Management
0 8. Financial Management

0 9. Administrative Management

0 10. Network/Communications

O 11. Physical/Facility Security

0 12. Data Security or EDP Audit

0 13. Disaster Recovery Specialist

0 14. Access Control Management

0 15. Government Titled Personnel

0 16. Sales Personnel

0 17. Other

(please specify)

 

61

3. Classification of company’s primary type of
business or industry ( Check one only)

0 l. Architectural/Engineering Firm

0 2. Communication Service (including Telephone,
Cable, Media)

0 3. Banking and Financial

0 4. Commercial Real Estate

0 5. Entertainment or Sports Facility

0 6. Educational Institution

0 7. Food Services

0 8. Government (Federal, State, Local)
0 9. Health Care

0 10. Hotel/Motel/Lodging

O 11. Insurance

0 12. Industrial/Manufacturing

O 13. Oil, Gas, Mining Extraction

O 14. Real Estate

0 15. Research and Development

0 16. Retail

0 17. Security Consulting Firms

0 18. Guard/Security Service Companies
0 l9. Pharmaceutical

0 20. Transportation (Land, Sea, Air)

0 21. Utility/Energy (Gas, Electric, Nuclear, Water)
0 22. Museum/Library/Archive

O 23. Warehouse/Distribution Center

0 24. Other

(please specify)

 

4. Are you THE top or most senior security
executive for your business/organization (not just
at your location)?

0 l.Yes 02. No

5. Does your job involve working with government
classified materials?

0 1. Yes 0 2. No
6. Is your company among the Fortune 1000?
01. Yes 0 2. No

7. What region are you located ?

0 1. Northeast 0 2. Southeast
0 3. Northwest 0 4. Southwest
0 5. Midwest

8. What is your approximate budget for the
security department or for security expenditures,
including contracted security services? (Check only
one)

0 1. Under $50,000

0 2. $50,001 - $100,000

0 3. $100,001 - $250,000

0 4. $250,001 - $500,000

0 5. $500,001 - $1,000,000
0 6. $1,000,001 - $1,500,000
0 7. $1,500,001 - $2,500,000
0 8. More than $2,500,000

9. Number of security employees that you have
responsibility for: (Check one only)

0 1. 1-19 05. 25-499

0 2. 20-49 0 6. 500-999

0 3. 50-99 0 7. 1000 or more
04. 100-249

62

10. Please indicate ALL systems on-site at this
location (Check all that apply)

0 1. S/370 or Compatible

0 2. AS/400 or Mid-range

O 3. DEC VAX/VMS

O 4. Workstations

O 5. IBM PCs or Compatible
O 6. Apple (Macs)

0 7. LANS

O 8. Other

(please specify)

 

PART I:

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Listed below are questions regarding the importance of specific areas of expertise that may or may not
pertain to your duties as a security manager. Most of the questions simply require that you fill in the appropriate circle
rating scale number. The higher the number you fill in, the higher you rate this as an important subject area for the
security management field. For example, by filling in circle number (5), you would be suggesting that this is one
of the most important subjects that a prospective security manager should understand. By filling in circle
number (0), you imply that this subject rates as one of the least important.

HOW IMPORTANT IS EDUCATION IN
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND SECURITY?

1. Criminal Justice System
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5

2. Causes of Illegal Dishonest Behavior
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5

3. Research Methods

Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5

4. Police Organization and Practices
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

5. Juvenile Behavior

Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5

6. Corrections Organizational and Practice
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5

7. Criminal Law Process

Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

8. Forensic Science

Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

9. Minorities, Crime and Social Policy
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5

10. Comparative and Historical Criminal Justice
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

11. Women as Victims, Offenders, Employees
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

12. Investigation Techniques, Procedures and Records
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

13. Security Administration

Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5

l4. Asset Protection Management

Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 I 2 3 4 5

15. International Security and Law

Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Other Suggestions:

 

 

63

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION IN
INVESTIGATIONS AND INTELLIGENCE

1. Operations Security 5. Intelligence Gathering and Analysis
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

2. Fraud, Waste and Abuse 6. Counterintelligence

Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5 Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

3. Evidence Collection 7. Drug-Free Workplace

Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5 Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

4. Privacy Issues and Ethics Other Suggestions:

 

Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

 

Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION IN

SOCIAL SCIENCE
1. Psychology of Individuals 7. Foreign Policy
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5
2. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 8. International Relations
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5 Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5 Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5
3. Labor and Employee Relations 9. US. Government
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5 Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5
4. Human Resources (compensation, recruiting, benefits) 10. American History
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5
5. Group Dynamics and Behavior 11. Policy Analysis
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5 Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5
6. Organizational Sociology/Behavior 12. Diverse Cultural Groups in US.
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

64

l3. Diverse Cultural Groups Outside U.S.
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5

14. Geography
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 I 2 3 4 5

Other Suggestions:

 

 

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION IN

1. Accounting Sequence
Bachelor: 0 I 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5
2. Business and Contract Law
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5
3. Profit and Budget Analysis (ROA, ROI, financial
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5
4. International Finance
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5
5. Business Presentations
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5
6. Statistical Analysis
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5
7. Marketing Techniques
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5

65

BUSINESS

8. Strategic Planning

Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

9. Business Intelligence

Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5

10. Acquisition, Divestiture, Mergers and Teaming
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5

11. Total Quality Management
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

12. Leadership

Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5

13. Management By Objectives (MBO)
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

14. Performance Appraisals

Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

15. Personnel Management and Organizational 23. Discretion and Business Ethics

Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5 Bachelor: 0 I 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5 Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

16. Labor Unions 24. Budgets (capital and expense)
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5 Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

17. Labor Forecasting 25. Spreadsheets

Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 I 2 3 4 5 Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

18. Participatory Management 26. Cost Analysis, Cost Comparison
Bachelor: 0 I 2 3 4 5 Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

19. Motivation Techniques 27. Risk Assessment for Insurance
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5

20. Negotiation Skills 28. Crisis Management

Bachelor: 0 I 2 3 4 5 Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 I 2 3 4 5 Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

21. Employee Training Other Suggestions:

Bachelor: 0 I 2 3 4 5

 

Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5

 

22. Planning & Evaluating
Bachelor: 0 I 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION IN
COMPUTER SECURITY MANAGEMENT

1. Compute Diseases (virus, worms, etc.) 3. Computer Hardware/Software Applications
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5

2. Computer Networks and Vulnerabilities 4. Telecommunications Security

Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

66

5. Encryption Techniques

Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 I 2 3 4 5
6. Computer Operations (PC and Mainframes)
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

7. Data Center Disaster Recovery Management
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Other Suggestions:

 

 

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION IN
GOVERNMENT SECURITY

1. Defense Industrial Security Program (DISP)
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5
2. National Industrial Security Program (NISP)
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 i 2 3 4 5

3. Government Contracting and Security Process
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Other Suggestions:

 

 

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION IN
INFORMATION SECURITY

1. Computer Security and Audits
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5
2. Classification Management
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5
3. Information Control technology
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 I 2 3 4 5

4. Proprietary and Document Protection
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5
5. Patent, Trademark, Copyright Law Application
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Other Suggestions:

 

 

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION IN
PHYSICAL SECURITY

I. Surveys and Audits

Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 I 2 3 4 5
2. Hardware (Alarms, barriers, CCTV, etc.)
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 I 2 3 4 5

67

3. Environmental Hazards - MSDS
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5
4. OSHA, Safety and Health

Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

5. Crisis Management Plans
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5
6. Fire Protection

Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5
7. Plant Protection

Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5
8. Operations Security
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 I 2 3 4 5

9. Systems Security Engineering

Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5

10. Disaster and Recovery Management

Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 I 2 3 4 S

11. Technical Security (emanations, biometrics, etc.)
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5

Other Suggestions:

 

 

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION IN
PERSONNEL SECURITY

1. Personnel Security Process

Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5

2. Pre-Screening and Prc-Employment Background
Bachelor: 0 I 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

3. Single Scope Background Investigations
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

68

4. Adjudication
Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

Other Suggestions:

 

 

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION IN

COMMUNICATION
1. Public Speaking 5. Computer Preparation of Graphics
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5
2. Effective Writing 6. Public Relations and the Media
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5
Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5 Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5
3. Typing - Word Processing Other Suggestions:

Bachelor: 0 l 2 3 4 5

 

Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

 

4. Group Dynamics
Bachelor: 0 1 2 3 4 5

Masters: 0 l 2 3 4 5

69

PART II:
DISTANCE DELIVERY OF A MASTERS DEGREE

This next section is designed to determine the needs in industry for mgtgr’s level education combining
business and security expertise. We want your opinion about the best way to meet industry needs. In particular, we
want to know what ”mix" of on-campus coursework, transfer courses, and technologies like satellite courses would
best meet the needs of you and your company.

NEED FOR MASTERS LEVEL EDUCATION
COMBINING BUSINESS AND SECURITY EXPERTISE

For the following questions, try to estimate your company as a whole. The master's program would have a
dual emphasis on both business and security.

Indicate Number
of people

W if employees in your company could complete the degree

through a 4 month leave of absence to be spent at the Michigan State University campus,
along with a combination of transfer courses an courses delivered by satellite or similar
technologies,
estimate

(a) how many employees would be interested in the program?

(b) how many employees would the company release with salary to attend the program?

(c) how many employees would the company release with salary plus living/tuition support?
((1) would you personally be interested in enrolling in such a program?

No Interest... Minor Interest... Some Interest... High Interest
0 I 2 3 4 5

WWW if the employee could complete the degree through two 3-week
leaves of absence to be spent at the Michigan State University campus, along with a

combination of transfer courses and courses delivered by satellite or similar technologies,
estimate

(a) how many employees would be interested in the program?

(b) how many employees would the company release with salary to attend the program?
(c) for how many employees is corporate funding available for the program?

(d) would you personally be interested in enrolling in such a program?

_
_——_
——

No Interest... Minor Interest... Some Interest... High Interest
0 I 2 3 4 5

70

PART III
NEW EXECUTIVE TRAINING NEEDS

ASIS currently provides training for high level managers and executives on trends and innovations in security. We
want to know if there is additional need for 3-5 day, academically oriented seminars for security executives, with a
specific focus on management and skill development.

Questions concern personal interest. What do you fell is the need for such seminars in the following areas?

* Total Quality Management Applied to the Security Setting

No Need... Minor Need... Some Need... High Need
0 I 2 3 4 5

* Marketing Security Within the Corporation

No Need... Minor Need... Some Need... High Need
0 I 2 3 4 5

* New Technologies for Protecting Security in the Industrial Setting

No Need... Minor Need... Some Need... High Need
0 I 2 3 4 5

* Computer and Telecommunications Security

No Need... Minor Need... Some Need... High Need
0 I 2 3 4 5

* Finance and Tax Laws Regarding Security Protection for the Non-Financial Manager

No Need... Minor Need... Some Need... High Need
0 I 2 3 4 5

* Meeting Management Skills

No Need... Minor Need... Some Need... High Need
0 I 2 3 4 5

* Computer Security Training and Law - Case Studies

No Need... Minor Need... Some Need... High Need
0 I 2 3 4 5

* Facilitator and Intervention Management Skills

No Need... Minor Need... Some Need... High Need
0 I 2 3 4 5

* Effective Organizational Design and Management Development

No Need... Minor Need... Some Need... High Need
0 I 2 3 4 5

71

* Presentation and Marketing Skills

No Need... Minor Need... Some Need... High Need
0 I 2 3 4 5

* Crisis Management Models - Case Studies

No Need... Minor Need... Some Need... High Need
0 I 2 3 4 5

* International Criminal Justice System Overview

No Need... Minor Need... Some Need... High Need
0 I 2 3 4 5

* Other Training Needs? DESCRIBE

 

 

72

HIRING PLANS AND PREFERENCES

As you look at your probable hiring in the security area in the next five years, how many new bachelor’s and graduate
degree recipients do you anticipate hiring?

Estimated number of new hires
What types of graduates would be most in demand for meeting your needs?
* Undergraduate degree in Criminal Justice/Security
No Demand... Minor Demand... Some Demand... High Demand
0 I 2 3 4 5

* Undergraduate degree in Business

No Demand... Minor Demand... Some Demand... High Demand
0 1 2 3 4 5

* Undergraduate degree in Computer Science

No Demand... Minor Demand... Some Demand... High Demand
0 I 2 3 4 5

* Undergraduate degree with a major in Business and coursework in Security

No Demand... Minor Demand... Some Demand... High Demand
0 I 2 3 4 5

* Undergraduate degree with a major in Criminal Justice/Security and coursework in
Business

No Demand... Minor Demand... Some Demand... High Demand
0 I 2 3 4 5

* Undergraduate degree with a major in Computer Science and coursework in Security

No Demand... Minor Demand... Some Demand... High Demand
0 I 2 3 4 5

* Other undergraduate background? DESCRIBE:

 

 

* Master's degree in Criminal Justice/Security Management

No Demand... Minor Demand... Some Demand... High Demand
0 I 2 3 4 5

73

 

* Master's degree in Business (MBA)

No Demand... Minor Demand... Some Demand... High Demand
0 I 2 3 4 5

* Master's degree in Computer Science

No Demand... Minor Demand... Some Demand... High Demand
0 l 2 3 4 5

* MBA combined with coursework in Security

No Demand... Minor Demand... Some Demand... High Demand
0 I 2 3 4 5

* Master's degree in Criminal Justice/Security and coursework in Business

No Demand... Minor Demand... Some Demand... High Demand
0 I 2 3 4 5

* Master's degree in Computer Science and coursework in both Security and Business

No Demand... Minor Demand... Some Demand... High Demand
0 I 2 3 4 5

* Other Graduate background? DESCRIBE:

 

 

74

This last section is designed to allow you, as a professional in the field, the chance to provide any comments or
$11 ggestions on the knowledge or skills that you believe graduates should have or need to concentrate on.

If additional space is needed, please feel free to add additional pages.
Thank you for your time and participation in this survey.

COMMENTS:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

75

APPENDIX B
SECTION I (CURRICULUM INFORMATION)
DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS

APPENDIX B

SECTION I (CURRICULUM INFORMATION)

DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS

IMPORTANCE OF .UCATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND SECURITY

criminal Justice System

Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 49 5.9 6.0
QU ITE IMPORTANT 3 284 34.0 35.0
lyi<2>£3T IMPORTANT 5 478 57.2 58.9
24 2.9 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 4.058 Mode 5.000 Std dev
Variance 1.482
Va 1 id cases 811 Missing cases 24
cats-.. of Illegal and Dishonest Behavior
Valid
\féaLJ.IJe Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 60 7.2 7.5
QU I TE IMPORTANT 3 297 35.6 37.0
MOST IMPORTANT 5 446 53.4 55.5
32 3.8 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 3.961 Mode 5.000 Std dev
Va riance 1.598
\féinl_j.d cases 803 Missing cases 32
Eta-Inelarch Methods
Valid
\7é321a1e Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 93 11.1 11.6
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 401 48.0 49.9
MOST IMPORTANT 5 310 37.1 38.6
31 3.7 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 3.540 Mode 3.000 Std dev
Variance 1.716
Vr€3.1_id cases 804 Missing cases 31

77

Cum
Percent

6.0
41.1
100.0

1.217

Cum
Percent

7.5
44.5
100.0

1.264

Cum
Percent

11.6

61.4
100.0

1.310

78

Police Organisation and Practices

Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 124 14.9 15.3
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 366 43.8 45.2
MOST IMPORTANT 5 320 38.3 39.5
25 3.0 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 3.484 Mode 3.000 Std dev
Variance 1.961
Valid cases 810 Missing cases 25
Juvenile Justice
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 270 32.3 33.3
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 368 44.1 45.4
MOST IMPORTANT 5 173 20.7 21.3
24 2.9 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 2.761 Mode 3.000 Std dev
Variance 2.130
Valid cases 811 Missing cases 24
Corrections Organizational and Practice
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 362 43.4 44.7
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 337 40.4 41.6
MOST IMPORTANT 5 111 13.3 13.7
25 3 0 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 2.380 Mode 1.000 Std dev
Variance 1.954
Valid cases 810 Missing cases 25
Crieinal Law Process
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 40 4.8 5.0
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 268 32.1 33.2
MOST IMPORTANT 5 500 59.9 61.9
27 3.2 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 4.139 Mode 5.000 Std dev
Variance 1.379
Valid cases 808 Missing cases 27

Cum
Percent

15.3
60.5
100.0

1.400

Cum
Percent

33.3

78.7
100.0

1.460

Cum
Percent

44.7
86.3
100.0

1.398

Cum
Percent

5.0

38.1
100.0

1.174

79

Forensic Science

Value Label Value Frequency
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 195
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 380
MOST IMPORTANT 5 225
35
Total 835
Mean 3.075 Mode 3.000
Variance 2.097
Valid cases 800 Missing cases 35
Minorities, Crime, 5 Social Policy
Value Label Value Frequency
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 99
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 396
MOST IMPORTANT 5 308
32
Total 835
Mean 3.521 Mode 3.000
Variance 1.759
Valid cases 803 Missing cases 32

Comparative/and Historical Criminal Justice

Value Label Value Frequency
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 224
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 418
MOST IMPORTANT 5 155
38
Total 835
Mean 2.827 Mode 3 000
Variance 1.875
Valid cases 797 Missing cases 38

women as Victims, Offenders, Employees

Value Label Value Frequency
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 118
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 405
MOST IMPORTANT 5 275
37
Total 835
Mean 3.393 Mode 3.000
Variance 1.817
Valid cases 798 Missing cases 37

Percent

23.4
45.5
26.9

2

Percent

47.

Percent

Percent

Valid
Percent

24.4

47.5

28.1
Missing

Valid
Percent

12.3

49.3

38.4
Missing

Valid
Percent

28.1

52.4

19.4
Missing

Valid
Percent

14.8

50.8

34.5
Missing

Cum
Percent

24.4
71.9
100.0

1.448

Cum
Percent

12.3
61.6
100.0

1.326

Cum
Percent

28.1
80.6
100.0

1.369

Cum
Percent

14.8

65.5
100.0

1.348

80

Investigation Techniques, Procedures and Records

Value Label Value Frequency Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 16 1.9
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 135 16.2
MOST IMPORTANT 5 643 77.0
41 4.9
Total 835 100.0
Mean 4.579 Mode 5.000 Std
Variance .827
Valid cases 794 Missing cases 41
Security Administration
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 7 .8
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 140 16.8
MOST IMPORTANT 5 639 76.5
49 5 9
Total 835 100.0
Mean 4.608 Mode 5.000 Std
Variance .702
Valid cases 786 Missing cases 49
Asset Protection Management
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 11 1.3
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 147 17.6
MOST IMPORTANT 5 639 76.5
38 4.6
Total 835 100.0
Mean 4.576 Mode 5.000 Std
Variance .780
Valid cases 797 Missing cases 38
International Security 8 Law
Value Label Value Frequency Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 172 20.6
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 383 45.9
MOST IMPORTANT 5 231 27.7
49 5 9
Total 835 100.0
Mean 3.150 Mode 3.000 Std
Variance 2.031
Valid cases 786 Missing cases 49

Valid
Percent

2.0
17.0
81.0

Missing

Valid
Percent

.9
17.8
81.3

Missing

Valid
Percent

1.4
18.4
80.2

Missing

Valid
Percent

21.9

48.7

29.4
Missing

~————.--.—-

Cum
Percent

2.0
19.0
100.0

.909

Cum
Percent

.9
18.7
100.0

Cum
Percent

1.4
19.8
100.0

Cum
Percent

21.9

70.6
100.0

1.425

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION IN INVESTIGATIONS AND INTELLIGENCE

Operational Security
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.361
Variance 1.060
Valid cases 807
Fraud/Haste/Abuse

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.214
Variance 1.241
Valid cases 812

Evidence Collection
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.027
Variance 1.533
Valid cases 812

Privacy Issues/Ethics
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.382
Variance 1.055
Valid cases 802

Value Frequency Percent
1 19 2.3
3 220 26.3
5 568 68.0
28 3.4
Total 835 100.0
Mode 5.000 Std
Missing cases 28
Value Frequency Percent
1 29 3.5
3 261 31.3
5 522 62.5
23 2.8
Total 835 100.0
Mode 5.000 Std
Missing cases 23
Value Frequency Percent
1 54 6.5
3 287 34.4
5 471 56.4
23 2.8
Total 835 100.0
Mode 5.000 Std
Missing cases 23
Value Frequency Percent
1 20 2.4
3 208 24.9
5 574 68.7
33 4.0
Total 835 100.0
Mode 5.000 Std
Missing cases 33

81

Valid
Percent

2.4
27.3
70.4

Missing

Valid
Percent

3.6
32.1
64.3

Missing

Valid
Percent

6.7
35.3
58.0

Missing

Valid
Percent

2.5
25.9
71.6

Missing

Cum
Percent

2.4
29.6
100.0

1.029

Cum
Percent

3.6
35.7
100.0

1.114

Cum
Percent

6.7
42.0
100.0

1.238

Cum
Percent

2.5

28.4
100.0

1.027

82

Intelligence Gathering/Analysis

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.045
Variance 1.487
Valid cases 804
Counterintelligence

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.323
Variance 2.124
Valid cases 805

Drug-Free Mbrkplace
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.171
Variance 1.357
Valid cases 811

Valid
Value Frequency Percent Percent
1 49 5.9 6.1
3 286 34.3 35.6
5 469 56.2 58.3
31 3.7 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mode 5.000 Std dev
Missing cases 31
Valid
Value Frequency Percent Percent
1 159 19.0 19.8
3 357 42.8 44.3
5 289 34.6 35.9
30 3.6 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mode 3.000 Std dev
Missing cases 30
Valid
Value Frequency Percent Percent
1 39 4.7 4.8
3 258 30.9 31.8
5 514 61.6 63.4
24 2.9 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mode 5.000 Std dev
Missing cases 24

Cum
Percent

6.1
41.7
100.0

1.220

Cum
Percent

19.8
64.1
100.0

1.458

Cum
Percent

4.8

36.6
100.0

1.165

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE

Psychology of Individuals

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.233
Variance 1.215
Valid cases 806

Value Frequency
1 27
3 255
5 524

29

Total 835

Mode

Missing cases 29

Valid
Percent Percent
3.2 3.3
30.5 31.6
62.8 65.0
3.5 Missing
100.0 100.0
Std dev

Cum
Percent

3.3

35.0
100.0

1.102

Organisational Sociology/Behavior

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.847
Variance 1.480
Valid cases 798

Foreign Policy
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 2.573
Variance 2.016
Valid cases 805

International Relations
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 2.644
Variance 2.104
Valid cases 797

U.S. Government
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.545
Variance 1.740
Valid cases 796

Value
1
3
5

Total

Mode

Missing cases

Value
1
3
5

Total

Mode

Missing cases

Value
1
3
5

Total

Mode

Missing cases

Value
1
3
5
Total

Mode

Missing cases

83

50
360
388

Frequency

307
363
135

Frequency

353
151

Frequency

94
391

Frequency Percent

6.

Percent

36.8
43.5
16.2

Percent
.1
42.3
1

6

Percent

.3
46.8
37.2

7

Valid
Percent

6.3
45.1
48.6

Missing

Valid
Percent

38.1

45.1

16.8
Missing

Valid
Percent

36.8

44.3

18.9
Missing

Valid
Percent

11.8

49.1

39.1
Missing

Cum
Percent

6.3
51.4
100.0

1.216

Cum
Percent

38.1
83.2
100.0

1.420

Cum
Percent

36.8
81.1
100.0

1.451

Cum
Percent

11.8

60.9
100.0

1.319

84

American History

Value Label Value
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 189
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 418
MOST IMPORTANT 5 194
34
Total 835
Mean 3.012 Mode 3.000
Variance 1.915
Valid cases 801 Missing cases 34
Policy Analysis
Value Label Value Frequency
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 93
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 423
MOST IMPORTANT 5 278
41
Total 835
Mean 3.466 Mode 3.000
Variance 1.654
Valid cases 794 Missing cases 41
Diverse Cultural Groups in U.S.
Value Label Value Frequency
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 104
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 371
MOST IMPORTANT 5 319
41
Total 835
Mean 3.542 Mode 3.000
Variance 1.840
Valid cases 794 Missing cases 41
Diverse Cultural Groups Outside U.S.
Value Label Value Frequency
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 279
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 375
MOST IMPORTANT 5 141
40
Total 835
Mean 2.653 Mode 3.000
Variance 1.995
Valid cases 795 Missing cases 40

Frequency Percent

Percent

11.1
50.7
33.3

9

Percent

Percent

44.

Valid
Percent

23.6

52.2

24.2
Missing

Valid
Percent

11.7

53.3

35.0
Missing

Valid
Percent

13.1

46.7

40.2
Missing

Valid
Percent

35.1

47.2

17.7
Missing

Cum
Percent

23.6
75.8
100.0

1.384

Cum
Percent

11.7
65.0
100.0

1.286

Cum
Percent

13.1

59.8
100.0

1.356

Cum
Percent

35.1

82.3
100.0

1.413

GOOGIAPhY
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 2.882
Variance 2.029
Valid cases 798

85

Value Frequency Percent

1 227 27.2

3 391 46.8

5 180 21.6

37 4.4

Total 835 100.0
Mode 3.000 Std

Missing cases 37

Industrial[Organisational Psychology

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.923
Variance 1.466
Valid cases 800

Labor/Iaployee Relations
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.230
Variance 1.189
Valid cases 800

Human Resources
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.673
Variance 1.621
Valid cases 805

Value Frequency Percent

1 47 5.6

3 337 40.4

5 416 49.8

35 4.2

Total 835 100.0
Mode 5.000 Std

Missing cases 35

Value Frequency Percent

1 24 2.9

3 260 31.1

5 516 61.8

35 4.2

Total 835 100.0
Mode 5.000 Std

Missing cases 35

Value Frequency Percent

1 73 8.7

3 388 46.5

5 344 41.2

30 3.6

Total 835 100.0
Mode 3.000 Std

Missing cases 3

Valid
Percent

28.4

49.0

22.6
Missing

Valid
Percent

5.9
42.1
52.0

Missing

Valid
Percent

3.0
32.5
64.5

Missing

Valid
Percent

9.1
48.2
42.7

Missing

Cum
Percent

28.4
77.4
100.0

1.424

Cum
Percent

5.9
48.0
100.0

1.211

Cum
Percent

3.0
35.5
100.0

1.090

Cum
Percent

9.1

57.3
100.0

1.273

Group Dynamics/Behavior
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.954
Variance 1.469
Valid cases 801

Accounting Sequence
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.801
Variance 1.579
Valid cases 804

Statistical Analysis

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.647
Variance 1.532
Valid cases 794

Marketing Techniques
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.332
Variance 1.882
Valid cases 802

86

Value Frequency

1 47

3 325

5 429

34

Total 835
Mode 5.000
Missing cases 34

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION IN BUSINESS

Value Frequency

1 62

3 358

5 384

31

Total 835
Mode 5.000
Missing cases 31
Value Frequency

1 65

3 407

5 322

41

Total 835
Mode 3.000
Missing cases 41
Value Frequency

1 133

3 403

5 266

33

Total 835
Mode 3.000

Missing cases 33

Valid
Percent Percent
5.6 5.9
38.9 40.6
51.4 53.6
4.1 Missing
100.0 100.0
Std dev

Valid
Percent Percent
7.4 7.7
42.9 44.5
46.0 47.8
3.7 Missing
100.0 100.0
Std dev
Valid
Percent Percent
7.8 8.2
48.7 51.3
38.6 40.6
4.9 Missing
100.0 100.0
Std dev
Valid
Percent Percent
15.9 16.6
48.3 50.2
31.9 33.2
4.0 Missing
100.0 100.0
Std dev

Cum
Percent

5.9
46.4
100.0

1.212

Cum
Percent

7.7
52.2
100.0

1.257

Cum
Percent

8.2
59.4
100.0

1.238

Cum
Percent

16.6

66.8
100.0

1.372

Strategic Planning
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.967
Variance 1.382
Valid cases 798

Business Intelligence
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.748
Variance 1.566
Valid cases 791

Value
1
3
5

Total

Mode

Missing cases

Value

1
3
5
Total

Mode

Missing cases

Acquisition/Divestiture/Mergers

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 2.888
Variance 1.975
Valid cases 800

Total Quality Management

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.139
Variance 1.464
Valid cases 797

Value

1
3
5

Total

Mode

Missing cases

Value

1
3
5
Total

Mode

Missing cases

38
336
424

Frequency

62
371

Frequency

221
403
176

48
247
502

87

Frequency Percent

Percent

Percent

Frequency Percent

Valid
Percent

4.8
42.1
53.1

Missing

Valid
Percent

7.8
46.9
45.3

Missing

Valid
Percent

27.6

50.4

22.0
Missing

Valid
Percent

6.0
31.0
63.0

Missing

Cum
Percent

4.8
46.9
100.0

1.175

Cum
Percent

7.8
54.7
100.0

1.251

Cum
Percent

27.6
78.0
100.0

1.405

Cum
Percent

6.0

37.0
100.0

1.210

Leadership
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.599
Variance .722
Valid cases 798

Management By Objectives

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.984
Variance 1.613
Valid cases 799

Performance Appraisals
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.104
Variance 1.438
Valid cases 806

88

Personnel Management Organizational Development

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.200
Variance 1.274
Valid cases 795

Valid
Value Frequency Percent Percent
1 8 1.0 1.0
3 144 17.2 18.0
5 646 77.4 81.0
37 4 4 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mode 5.000 Std dev
Missing cases 37
(NBC)
Valid
Value Frequency Percent Percent
1 61 7.3 7.6
3 284 34.0 35.5
5 454 54.4 56.8
36 4 3 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mode 5 000 Std dev
Missing cases 36
Valid
Value Frequency Percent Percent
1 45 5.4 5.6
3 271 32.5 33.6
5 490 58.7 60.8
29 3 5 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mode 5.000 Std dev
Missing cases 29
Valid
Value Frequency Percent Percent
l 31 3.7 3.9
3 256 30.7 32.2
5 508 60.8 63.9
40 4.8 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mode 5.000 Std dev

Missing cases 40

Cum
Percent

1.0
19.0
100.0

Cum
Percent

7.6
43.2
100.0

1.270

Cum
Percent

5.6
39.2
100.0

1.199

Cum
Percent

3.9

36.1
100.0

1.129

Business/Contract Law
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.901
Variance 1.464
Valid cases 797

Labor unions
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.651
Variance 1.675
Valid cases 805

Labor Forecasting

Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.112
Variance 1.888
Valid cases 803

Participatory Management
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.960
Variance 1.451
Valid cases 798

89

Value Frequency
1 47
3 344
5 406
38
Total 835
Mode 5.000
Missing cases
Value Frequency
1 80
3 383
5 342
30
Total 835
Mode 3.000
Missing cases
Value Frequency
1 168
3 422
5 213
32
Total 835
Mode 3.000
Missing cases
Value Frequency
1 45
3 325
5 428
37
Total 835
Mode 5.000
Missing cases

Percent

Percent

Percent

Percent

Valid
Percent

5.9
43.2
50.9

Missing

Valid
Percent

9.9
47.6
42.5

Missing

Valid
Percent

20.9

52.6

26.5
Missing

Valid
Percent

5.6
40.7
53.6

Missing

Cum
Percent

5.9
49.1
100.0

1.210

Cum
Percent

9.9
57.5
100.0

1.294

Cum
Percent

20.9
73.5
100.0

1.374

Cum
Percent

5.6

46.4
100.0

1.205

Motivation Techniques
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.269
Variance 1.128
Valid cases 802

negotiation Skills
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.109
Variance 1.406
Valid cases 808

Employee Training
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.353
Variance 1.115
Valid cases 807
Planning/Evaluation

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.232
Variance 1.138
Valid cases 797

90

Value Frequency
1 20
3 253
5 529
33
Total 835
Mode 5.000
Missing cases 33
Value
1 42
3 276
5 490
27
Total 835
Mode 5.000
Missing cases 27
Value Frequency
1 24
3 213
5 570
28
Total 835
Mode 5.000
Missing cases 28
Value
1 19
3 268
5 510
38
Total 835
Mode 5.000

Missing cases 38

Percent

Frequency Percent

Percent

Frequency Percent

Valid
Percent

2.5
31.5
66.0

Missing

Valid
Percent

5.2
34.2
60.6

Missing

Valid
Percent

3.0
26.4
70.6

Missing

Valid
Percent

2.4
33.6
64.0

Missing

Cum
Percent

2.5
34.0
100.0

1.062

Cum
Percent

5.2
39.4
100.0

1.186

Cum
Percent

3.0
29.4
100.0

1.056

Cum
Percent

2.4

36.0
100.0

1.067

91

Frequency Percent

Discretion/Business Ethics
Value Label Value
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 20
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 209
MOST IMPORTANT 5 573
33
Total 835
Mean 4.379 Mode 5.000
Variance 1.057
Valid cases 802 Missing cases
Budgets (Capital & Expense)
Value Label Value Frequency
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 20
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 257
MOST IMPORTANT 5 522
36
Total 835
Mean 4.257 Mode 5.000
Variance 1.136
Valid cases 799 Missing cases
Spreadsheets
Value Label Value Frequency
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 81
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 391
MOST IMPORTANT 5 327
36
Total 835
Mean 3.616 Mode 3.000
Variance 1.665
Valid cases 799 Missing cases
Profit/Budget Analysis
Value Label Value Frequency
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 68
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 337
MOST IMPORTANT 5 396
34
Total 835
Mean 3.819 Mode 5.000
Variance 1.648
Valid cases 801 Missing cases

Percent

Percent

Percent

Valid
Percent

2.5
26.1
71.4

Missing

Valid
Percent

2.5
32.2
65.3

Missing

Valid
Percent

10.1

48.9

40.9
Missing

Valid
Percent

8.5
42.1
49.4

Missing

Cum
Percent

2.5
28.6
100.0

1.028

Cum
Percent

2.5
34.7
100.0

1.066

Cum
Percent

10.1
59.1
100.0

1.291

Cum
Percent

8.5

50.6
100.0

1.284

 

 

Cost Analysis/Comparison
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.731
Variance 1.536
Valid cases 791

92

Risk Assessment for Insurance

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.640
Variance 1.671
Valid cases 791

Crisis Management
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.294
Variance 1.057
Valid cases 790

International Finance
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 2.451
Variance 1.952
Valid cases 798

Value Frequency

1 60

3 382

5 349

44

Total 835
Mode 3.000
Missing cases 44
Value Frequency

1 79

3 380

5 332

44

Total 835
Mode 3.000
Missing cases 44
Value Frequency

1 14

3 251

5 525

45

Total 835
Mode 5.000
Missing cases 45
Value Frequency

1 334

3 349

5 115

37

Total 835
Mode 3.000

Missing cases 37

Percent

Percent

Percent

Percent
0
41.8
8
4

Valid
Percent

7.6
48.3
44.1

Missing

Valid
Percent

10.0

48.0

42.0
Missing

Valid
Percent

1.8
31.8
66.5

Missing

Valid
Percent

41.9

43.7

14.4
Missing

Cum
Percent

7.6
55.9
100.0

1.239

Cum
Percent

10.0
58.0
100.0

1.293

Cum
Percent

1.8
33.5
100.0

1.028

Cum
Percent

41.9

85.6
100.0

1.397

 

 

93

Business Presentations

Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 42 5.0 5.2
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 287 34.4 35.8
MOST IMPORTANT 5 473 56.6 59.0
33 4.0 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 4.075 Mode 5.000 Std dev
Variance 1.415
Valid cases 802 Missing cases 33

Cum
Percent

5.2

41.0
100.0

1.190

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION IN COMPUTER SECURITY MANAGEMENT

Computer Diseases

Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 66 7.9 8.4
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 327 39.2 41.7
MOST IMPORTANT 5 391 46.8 49.9
51 6 1 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 3.829 Mode 5.000 Std dev
Variance 1.646
Valid cases 784 Missing cases 51

Computer Operations (PC and Mainframes)

Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 50 6.0 6.4
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 285 34.1 36.5
MOST IMPORTANT 5 446 53 4 57.1
54 6 5 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 4.014 Mode 5.000 Std dev
Variance 1.514
Valid cases 781 Missing cases 54

Data Center Disaster Recovery Management

Valid

Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 57 6.8 7.3
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 298 35.7 38.0
MOST IMPORTANT 5 429 51.4 54.7
. 51 6.1 Missing

Total 835 100.0 100.0

Mean 3.949 Mode 5.000 Std dev

Variance 1.581

Valid cases 784 Missing cases 51

Cum
Percent

8.4
50.1
100.0

1.283

Cum
Percent

6.4
42.9
100.0

1.230

Cum
Percent

7.3

45.3
100.0

1.257

94

Computer Networks/vulnerabilities

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.004
Variance 1.445
Valid cases 777

Value Frequency

1 43

3 301

5 433

58

Total 835
Mode 5.000
Missing cases 58

Computer Hardware/Software Applications

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.964
Variance 1.461
Valid cases 782

Telecommunications Security

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.995
Variance 1.411
Valid cases 782

Encryption Techniques
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.154
Variance 1.992
Valid cases 779

Value Frequency

1 45

3 315

5 422

53

Total 835
Mode 5.000
Missing cases 53
Value Frequency

1 40

3 313

5 429

53

Total 835
Mode 5.000
Missing cases 53
Value Frequency

1 166

3 387

5 226

56

Total 835
Mode 3.000

Missing cases 56

Percent

Percent

Percent

Percent

Valid
Percent

5.5
38.7
55.7

Missing

Valid
Percent

5.8
40.3
54.0

Missing

Valid
Percent

5.1
40.0
54.9

Missing

Valid
Percent

21.3

49.7

29.0
Missing

Cum
Percent

5.5
44.3
100.0

1.202

Cum
Percent

5.8

46.0
100.0

1.209

Cum
Percent

5.1
45.1
100.0

1.188

Cum
Percent

21.3

71.0
100.0

1.411

 

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION IN GOVERNMENT SECURITY

Defense Industrial Security Program (DISP)

Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 93 11.1 12.5
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 294 35.2 39.5
MOST IMPORTANT 5 358 42.9 48.1
90 10 8 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 3.711 Mode 5.000 Std dev
Variance 1.918
Valid cases 745 Missing cases 90
National Industrial Security Program (NISP)
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 92 11.0 12.4
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 290 34.7 39.2
MOST IMPORTANT 5 358 42.9 48.4
95 11 4 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 3.719 Mode 5.000 Std dev
Variance 1.918
Valid cases 740 Missing cases 95
Government Contracting and Security Process
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 113 13.5 15.1
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 294 35.2 39.3
MOST IMPORTANT 5 341 40.8 45.6
. 87 10 4 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 3.610 Mode 5.000 Std dev
Variance 2.059
Valid cases 748 Missing cases 87

Cum
Percent

12.5
51.9
100.0

1.385

Cum
Percent

12.4
51.6
100.0

1.385

Cum
Percent

15.1

54.4
100.0

1.435

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION IN INFORMATION SECURITY

Computer Security & Audits

Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 29 3.5 3.7
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 284 34.0 36.7
MOST IMPORTANT 5 461 55.2 59.6
61 7.3 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 4.116 Mode 5.000 Std dev
Variance 1.288
Valid cases 774 Missing cases 61

Cum
Percent

3.7

40.4
100.0

1.135

 

96

Classification Management

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.592
Variance 1.569
Valid cases 774

Value Frequency

1 71

3 403

5 300

61

Total 835
Mode 3.000
Missing cases 61

Information Control Technology

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.769
Variance 1.612
Valid cases 772

Proprietary and Document
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.191
Variance 1.343
Valid cases 784

Value Frequency

1 64

3 347

5 361

63

Total 835
Mode 5.000
Missing cases 63

Protection

Value Frequency

1 37

3 243

5 504

51

Total 835
Mode 5.000
Missing cases 51

Patent]Trademark/Copyright Law

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.302
Variance 1.950
Valid cases 781

Value Frequency

1 140
3 383
5 258

Total 835

Mode 3.000

Missing cases 54

Percent

Percent

Percent

Percent

Valid
Percent

9.2
52.1
38.8

Missing

Valid
Percent

8.3
44.9
46.8

Missing

Valid
Percent

4.7
31.0
64.3

Missing

Valid
Percent

17.9

49.0

33.0
Missing

Cum
Percent

9.2
61.2
100.0

1.253

Cum
Percent

8.3
53.2
100.0

1.270

Cum
Percent

4.7
35.7
100.0

1.159

Cum
Percent

17.9

67.0
100.0

1.396

Surveys/Audits
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.407
Variance 1.004
Valid cases 806
Fire Protection
Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.026
Variance 1.532
Valid cases 799
Plant Protection
Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.180
Variance 1.393
Valid cases 793

Operations Security
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.328
Variance 1.066
Valid cases 789

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION IN PHYSICAL SECURITY

Value Frequency Percent

1 17 2.0
3 205 24.6
5 584 69.9
29 3.5
Total 835 100.0
Mode 5.000 Std
Missing cases 29

Value Frequency Percent

1 53 6.3
3 283 33.9
5 463 55.4
36 4.3
Total 835 100.0
Mode 5.000 Std
Missing cases 36

Value Frequency Percent

1 42 5.0
3 241 28.9
5 510 61.1
42 5 0
Total 835 100.0
Mode 5.000 Std
Missing cases 42

Value Frequency Percent

1 17 2.0
3 231 27.7
5 541 64.8
46 5.5
Total 835 100.0
Mode 5.000 Std
Missing cases 46

97

Valid
Percent

2.1
25.4
72.5

Missing

Valid
Percent

6.6
35.4
57.9

Missing

Valid
Percent

5.3
30.4
64.3

Missing

Valid
Percent

2.2
29.3
68.6

Missing

Cum
Percent

2.1
27.5
100.0

1.002

Cum
Percent

6.6
42.1
100.0

1.238

Cum
Percent

5.3
35.7
100.0

1.180

Cum
Percent

2.2

31.4
100.0

1.032

-‘

98

Systems Security Engineering

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.924
Variance 1.454
Valid cases 786

Value
1 45
3 333
5 408
49
Total 835
Mode 5.000
Missing cases 49

Disaster/Recovery Management

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.171
Variance 1.240
Valid cases 777

Technical Security
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.542
Variance 1.708
Valid cases 778
Hardware

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.358
Variance 1.091
Valid cases 807

Value

1 26

3 270

5 481

58

Total 835
Mode 5 000
Missing cases 58
Value Frequency

1 89

3 389

5 300

57

Total 835
Mode 3.000
Missing cases 57

Value

1 22

3 215

5 570

28

Total 835
Mode 5.000

Missing cases 28

Frequency Percent

Frequency Percent

Percent

Frequency Percent

Valid
Percent

5.7
42.4
51.9

Missing

Valid
Percent

3.3
34.7
61.9

Missing

Valid
Percent

11.4

50.0

38.6
Missing

Valid
Percent

2.7
26.6
70.6

Missing

Cum
Percent

5.7
48.1
100.0

1.206

Cum
Percent

3.3
38.1
100.0

1.114

Cum
Percent

11.4
61.4
100.0

1.307

Cum
Percent

2.7

29.4
100.0

1.045

 

Environmental Hazards
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.938
Variance 1.507
Valid cases 802
OSEA/Safety/Eealth

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.959
Variance 1.551
Valid cases 799

Crisis Management Plans
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.235
Variance 1.177
Valid cases 797

99

Value Frequency
1 51
3 324
5 427
33
Total 835
Mode 5.000
Missing cases 33
Value Frequency
1 55
3 306
5 438
36
Total 835
Mode 5.000
Missing cases 36
Value Frequency
1 23
3 259
5 515
38
Total 835
Mode 5.000
Missing cases 38

Valid
Percent Percent
6.1 6.4
38.8 40.4
51.1 53.2
4.0 Missing
100.0 100.0
Std dev
Valid
Percent Percent
6.6 6.9
36.6 38.3
52.5 54.8
4.3 Missing
100 0 100.0
Std dev
Valid
Percent Percent
2.8 2.9
31.0 32.5
61.7 64.6
4.6 Missing
100 0 100.0
Std dev

Cum
Percent

6.4
46.8
100.0

1.227

Cum
Percent

6.9
45.2
100.0

1.245

Cum
Percent

2.9

35.4
100.0

1.085

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION IN PERSONNEL SECURITY

Personnel Security
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.288
Variance 1.080
Valid cases 792

Value Frequency

1 16

3 250

5 526

43

Total 835
Mode 5.000

Missing cases 43

Valid
Percent Percent
1.9 2.0
29.9 31.6
63.0 66.4
5.1 Missing
100.0 100.0
Std dev

Cum
Percent

2.0

33.6
100.0

1.039

 

100

Pre-Screening/Pre-Employment Background Investigations

Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 12 1.4 1.5
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 198 23.7 24.9
MOST IMPORTANT 5 584 69.9 73.6
41 4.9 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 4.441 Mode 5.000 Std dev
Variance .928
Valid cases 794 Missing cases 41
Single Scope Background Investigation
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 35 4.2 4.4
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 308 36.9 39.1
MOST IMPORTANT 5 445 53.3 56.5
47 5 6 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 4.041 Mode 5 000 Std dev
Variance 1.355
Valid cases 788 Missing cases 47
Adjudication
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 53 6.3 6.9
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 357 42.8 46.4
MOST IMPORTANT 5 359 43.0 46.7
66 7 9 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 3.796 Mode 5.000 Std dev
Variance 1.512
Valid cases 769 Missing cases 66

Cum
Percent

1.5
26.4
100.0

.963

Cum
Percent

4.4
43.5
100.0

1.164

Cum
Percent

6.9

53.3
100.0

1.229

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION IN COMMUNICATION

Public Speaking/Presentations

Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 10 1.2 1.3
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 160 19.2 20.1
MOST IMPORTANT 5 627 75.1 78.7
38 4 6 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 4.548 Mode 5.000 Std dev
Variance .801
Valid cases 797 Missing cases 38

Cum
Percent

1.3

21.3
100.0

.895

Public Relations 5 Media
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.077
Variance 1.415
Valid cases 802

Effective writing
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.826
Variance .328
Valid cases 793

Typing/Mord Processing
Value Label
LEAST IMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 3.723
Variance 1.604
Valid cases 802
Group Dynamics

Value Label

LEAST IMPORTANT
QUITE IMPORTANT
MOST IMPORTANT

Mean 4.091
Variance 1.366
Valid cases 794

101

Value
1 42
3 286
5 474
33
Total 835
Mode 5.000
Missing cases
Value Frequency
1 1
3 67
5 725
42
Total 835
Mode 5 000
Missing cases 42
Value Frequency
1 68
3 376
5 358
33
Total 835
Mode 3 000
Missing cases 33
Value Frequency
1 37
3 287
5 470
41
Total 835
Mode 5.000
Missing cases 41

Frequency Percent

Percent

Percent

Percent

Valid
Percent

5.2
35.7
59.1

Missing

Valid
Percent

.1

8.4

91.4
Missing

Valid
Percent

8.5
46.9
44.6

Missing

Valid
Percent

4.7
36.1
59.2

Missing

Cum
Percent

5.2

40.9
100.0

1.189

Cum
Percent

00H

.573

Cum
Percent

8.5
55.4
100.0

1.266

Cum
Percent

4.7

40.8
100.0

1.169

 

102

Computer Preparation of Graphics

Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
LEAST IMPORTANT 1 72 8.6 8.9 8.9
QUITE IMPORTANT 3 471 56.4 58.4 67.3
MOST IMPORTANT 5 264 31.6 32.7 100.0
28 3 4 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 3.476 Mode 3.000 Std dev 1.200
Variance 1.441

Valid cases 807 Missing cases 28

APPENDIX C

SECTION III (HIRING PLANS AND PREFERENCES)
DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS

APPENDEKCI

SECTION III (HIRING PLANS AND PREFERENCES)
DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS

Undergraduate degree in criminal justice/security

Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
MINOR DEMAND 1 70 8.4 9.1
ADEQUATE DEMAND 3 184 22.0 23.8
MOST DEMAND 5 518 62.0 67.1
63 7.5 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 4.161 Mode 5.000 Std dev
Variance 1.702
Valid cases 772 Missing cases 63
Undergraduate degree in business
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
MINOR DEMAND 1 159 19.0 20.7
ADEQUATE DEMAND 3 309 37.0 40.2
MOST DEMAND 5 300 35.9 39.1
67 8.0 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 3.367 Mode 3.000 Std dev
Variance 2.259
Valid cases 768 Missing cases 67
Undergraduate degree in computer science
Valid
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent
MINOR DEMAND l 190 22.8 24.8
ADEQUATE DEMAND 3 374 44.8 48.8
MOST DEMAND 5 202 24.2 26.4
69 8 3 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0
Mean 3.031 Mode 3.000 Std dev
Variance 2.049
Valid cases 766 Missing cases 69

104

Cum
Percent

9.1
32.9
100.0

1.305

Cum
Percent

20.7
60.9
100.0

1.503

Cum
Percent

24.8

73.6
100.0

1.431

105

Undergraduate degree with a major in business and coursework in security

Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
MINOR DEMAND 1 92 11.0 11.9 11.9
ADEQUATE DEMAND 3 254 30.4 32.8 44.7
MOST DEMAND 5 428 51.3 55.3 100.0

61 7 3 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0

Mean 3.868 Mode 5.000 Std dev 1.391
Variance 1.936
Valid cases 774 Missing cases 61

Undergraduate degree with a major in criminal justice/security and
coursework in business

Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
MINOR DEMAND 1 59 7.1 7.8 7.8
ADEQUATE DEMAND 3 168 20.1 22.2 29.9
MOST DEMAND 5 531 63.6 70.1 100.0

77 9.2 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0

Mean 4.245 Mode 5.000 Std dev 1.251
Variance 1.565
Valid cases 758 Missing cases 77

Undergraduate degree with a major in computer science and coursework in
security

Valid Cum
Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
MINOR DEMAND 1 193 23.1 24.9 24.9
ADEQUATE DEMAND 3 347 41.6 44.8 69.8
MOST DEMAND 5 234 28.0 30.2 100.0

61 7 3 Missing
Total 835 100.0 100.0

Mean 3.106 Mode 3.000 Std dev 1.483

Variance 2.198

Valid cases 774 Missing cases 61

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Academic Security and Loss Prevention Programs Available. (1980). Seem
W9 3(3), 43'44'

Anderson, M. C. (1992). A Prudent Approach to Industrial Security: The Background
and Promise of the National Industrial Security Program. Befigdigalgflhe
l i ' a

Bilek, A. J., Klotter, J. C., and Federal, R. K. (1980). W.

Cincinnati: Anderson.

Bilek, AJ- (1976)- BMW National
Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. Washington,

DC: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

Calder, J. D. (1980). The Security- -Criminal Justice Connection: Toward the Elimination
of Separate-but-Equal Status MW, 3 25- 52

Cookingham, V. P. (1989, November). Accounting: The Language Of Business.
Wm, 13(11), 103.

Criscuoli, E. J. (1988, July). The time has come to acknowledge security as a
profession. Ir ‘ . . . . . .

Science, _23, 98 10.

Cunningham W C Taylor T H (1985) W
W. Portland, OR: Chancellor Press.

 

Cunningham, W. C., Strauchs, J. J, Van Meter, C. W. (1990). Willi.
WW. Stoneham, Mass: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Davidson, C. H. (1989). Toward a New Discipline of Security Management: The Need
for Security Management to Stand Alone as a Management Science. Sgggijy

Jamaal 1(1) 3-12

Duncan, K., Gale, 8., Tofflemire, J ., & Yaksick, R. (1992). The A818 Foundation
Atkinson Security Project. 36.911111101321131, 3(1), 1-6.

Fisher, R. J., & Green, G. (1991). W. (5th ed.). Boston:
Butterworth.

107

108

Gallati, Robert R. J. (1983). W. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Green, G. (198]). 111W. Woburn, MA: Butterworth.

Green, G., & Fisher, R. J. (1987). W. (4th ed.). Boston:
Butterworth.

Hanewicz,W. (1978). -. ' ° -.
W. Washington, DC: The ASIS Foundation

Healy,R- 1.; Walsh, T. J- (1971). WWW
Approach, (pp. 24—33). United States: American Management Association.

 

Heskett, R. 1., (1990). Searching for the Model Security Cunicula. Win11,
1(4), 247-248.

Heskett R. I., (1993). Security Management as a Graduate Curriculum. W,
51(1), 34-3 8.

Hess, K. M. and Wrobleski H. M. (1982). W. St. Paul,
MN: West Publishing Co.

Kakalik, J., & Wildhom, S- (1971). Waking
W, (V 01. 1). Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation.

Morley H. N., Vogel R. E., & Huegel B. L. (1993). The Higher Education Dilemma
for the Private Security Professional: Delivery Methodologies and Core
Curriculum from the Practitioner’s Perspective. Miriam, 4(3), 122-127.

Post, R.S., & Kingsbury, AA- (1970) WWW
Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Taylor, W. (1967). W. New York: Norton.

Timm, H. W., &Anderson, D. B. (1989, December). A Study of Security.
Wm, 75

Tim, H. W., Christian, K. E. (1991). Wig. Belmont,
CA: Brooks/Cole.

109

Tofilemire, J ., Duncan, K., & Gale, S. (1992). The ASIS Foundation Benchmark
11 Survey Study- mama, 1(1), 45-56-

Tyska, L. A., & Fennelly, L. J. (987). W. Palm Springs,
CA: ETCPublications.

Zalud, B. (1990, September). What's Happening to Security? 33m, p.42-45.

The American Psychological Association (APA) publication manual, third edition, was
the style of writing used for preparation of this thesis.