2 thoughts on “Ontario Certification Presentation and Comments

  1. sbandy32

    I really have a few concerns about the CPTED Ontario Certification. My original CPTED training was at NCPI in 2003 with the NCPI staff, along with Randy Atlas and Stan Carter. Later class work with Red Robidas and assessments with Jeff Fryrer and Larry Dison were also carried out, including an assessment of a local variety store and the University of Louisville Music Building. We were there for the entire seven weeks of the NCPI Physical Security program at the time. Before we even attempted anything in CPTED, we went through the three weeks of Level One and Level Two Physical Security training. This gave us a very good knowledge base on which to build. My worry with a stand alone CPTED Certification is that students who are not trained in the basics of physical security might get certified in CPTED, yet now be able to incorporate that into a more comprehensive plan. For example, how much time will be given not only to lighting sources, but to such issues as Color Rendering Indexes and Lighting standards? Will the ASIS International standards for various situations from the Protection of Assets Manual be used, or will our organization try to find their own, opening themselves up for liability should the two conflict? These are just the tip of the iceberg for us, but we must remember that the rest of the security industry sees CPTED as a child of security.

  2. MargN

    My comments are based on the Certification Program Proposal document handed out at the recent Zone Meeting in Ottawa. Reference sbandy32’s comments, however, I do agree that a background in physical security is ideal for both pro-active and reactive assessments by security and law enforcement professionals. An awareness of CPTED principles at the design and planning stages, by architects and city planners is also beneficial because it can prevent costly reworking of design or retrofits after incidents. Possibly these differences will be manageable at the level of the Membership Categories. I am not familiar with the Crowe book ( I will look at it). The reference that I use is Randall I Atlas’ 21st Century Security and CPTED, which is an excellent resource that addresses designing for critical infrastructure protection and crime prevention. Some other brief comments on this document are: Section 5.0 references the requirement for course trainers to use “subject matter experts”. How will this expertise be assessed and by whom? In 6.0 I suggest creating 2 bullets from the second one, i.e. design skills, AND, site landscape and architectural plan review. I would also add bullets for core competencies of Criminal Laws and Regulations, Trespass, and Investigative skills. In 7.0 I suggest that a process for recertification be developed as well. 8.0 described the “work journal”. Some private sector orgs will have a proprietary interest and concern about their security plans and vulnerabilities. Many government organizations classify their security plans. I expect it will be difficult for applicants to describe their projects in a public forum and you may find that this requirement will become a significant obstacle for individual certification. In the “course criteria” section of Level 2 it stipulates that students cannot take level 2 until six months have passed since they took level 1. Presumably they are in field placement or mentorship (who arranges this?) during that period. I wonder if the momentum might be lost with a six month gap? You have made a good start at creating this course. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Leave a Reply