ACCESS CONTROL

1
ACCESS CONTROL
2
Campus Security

• Post-9/11, the University Police were charged
  with many different areas of security concerns.
• One of these areas was an overall approach to
  campus security/access control.

3
Reasons

• Post-9/11
• Whole campus approach to security
• Federal regulations regarding select agent labs
• More and more people wanting security/access
  systems
• In one month after 9/11, we received requests for
  1,200 after-hours passes.
• People wanted to know who was in their buildings
  and why.
• More calls for security services (not lock-outs)
• Security was locking approximately 1,100 doors
  between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. (not being able to do
  other security services).

4
Policy Group

• There were 2 groups formed to look at access
  control.
• The first was the Policy Group, which is made up
  of Deans, Associate Deans, and Directors from
  across the campus.
• It is co-chaired by Chief Sue Riseling and
  Associate Vice Chancellor Alan Fish.

5
Technical Group

• The Technical Group is made of FPM Major
  Projects, Physical Plant, Medical School, DoIT,
  Electric Shop, State Division of Facilities, and
  UW-Madison Police.
• It is co-chaired by Assistant Chief Kuschel and
  Faramarz Vakili, Associate Director for Physical
  Plant.

6
Building Evaluations

• The Policy Group took on large issues. The
  biggest, which was just completed, was the
  evaluation of 300 buildings on campus.
• They were broken down into 3 areas
• Red (critical)
• Blue (moderate)
• Green (normal)
• (2,300 evaluation sheets were sent out)

7
ASSESSMENT OF RISKEvaluation Sheet
Department_______________________ Building
Name____________________ Circle Appropriate
Answer Whole Building, Part of a Building (List
what part, room s, floor numbers etc)
_________________________________ Room ______
Name of Person completing form____________________
___ Contact _______________ Email_______________
_________ Questions or help with this form?
Contact Sgt. Kurt Feavel 262-4520
8
ASSESSMENT OF RISKEvaluation Sheet (back)

• INSTRUCTIONS
• Complete Building Name and Department Name in
  appropriate space provided.
• Some larger or segmented buildings are best
  assessed in parts. If so, complete as many
  Evaluation Sheets as necessary indicating areas
  assessed on each sheet.
• Indicate name of person completing the evaluation
  sheet, their telephone number, and an email
  address where they can be contacted if necessary.
• Starting from the left hand side, the evaluator
  should work their way down each column and mark
  the box in each column that most appropriately
  identifies the building risk. We understand the
  subjectivity of this but ask the evaluator to be
  as objective as possible.
• For cash, please include the approximate amount
  on the line beneath the box. Check the most
  significant box even if that amount may only
  occur during select times.
• In the section below, please list any
  clarifications or comments that you may have
  pertinent to any of the checked boxes or this
  assessment of risk.
• All information collected will be kept
  confidential.
• If you have questions about the completion of
  this form contact Sgt. Kurt Feavel, University of
  Wisconsin Police, 262-4520, email
  kdfeavel_at_wisc.edu. Thank you.
• Comments
• Forward completed forms to
• University of Wisconsin Police
• Sgt. Kurt Feavel
• 1429 Monroe St.
• By January 30, 2004

9
Risk Levels
10
Risk LevelsAdditional Clarification
11
Building Evaluation Review Form

• Building ______________________________________
  _________________________________
• Low Concern low risk of attack, low risk (life,
  health, property), low level of controversy for
  the facility. (green)
• Medium Concern building with interior area(s)
  that have security measures for key equipment,
  some access controlled areas/rooms, mixed use
  facilities. (blue)
• High Concern risk of attack with high cost,
  damage to the institution and public image some
  level of controversy for the facility or work.
  (red)
• Highest Concern life, death, severe injury,
  reputation of the institution financial loss
  risk, risk of attack, Federal guideline to
  secure, perceived high threat, sophisticated
  groups ELF/ALF. (red)
• Agree with self-assessment Yes _______
  No ________
• MOVE Red to Blue ______________________________
  ____________________________
• MOVE Red to Green _____________________________
  ____________________________
• MOVE Blue to Red ______________________________
  ____________________________
• MOVE Blue to Green ____________________________
  ____________________________
• MOVE Green to Red ____________________________
  ____________________________
• MOVE Green to Blue ____________________________
  ____________________________
• Need for Further Review? Yes _______ No
  ________
• Comments
• __________________________________________________
  ______________________________
• __________________________________________________
  ______________________________

12
Final Report
13
Phases of this Project

• A smaller group of the Technical Group took on
  electronic access control.
• Self education
• Hired outside experts/consultants
• Developed a Request For Proposal (RFP)
• Went through the selection process
• And the winner is

14

• Integrated Technology Group (ITG)
• Vendor
• Andover Systems
• Manufacturer

15
Current Systems

• Approximately 30-35 buildings on campus have
  access control systems.
• The manufacturers vary across the board.
• They are stand-alone systems, which means that
  they dont talk to each other.
• There were no standards for these systems.
• There were various forms of access, from cards to
  fobs to punch codes.
• There was very little control on where the work
  stations (computers) were located or who had
  access.

16
Current System
Primate Center
Engineering Center
Safety Department
Biotech
UW Police
Hospital
17
The New System

• 75,000 users (actually over 1,000,000)
• 150 buildings (actually more than that)
• Ability to be a centralized system that can be
  decentralized
• Ability to communicate with other data sources,
  i.e. Human Resources, DoIT
• Camera integration
• Alarming
• Redundancy and back-up power
• Badging capabilities

18
New System
Super-User
Supernodes
DoIT
S.A. Labs
Vet School
Social Science
Housing
19
Business ServicesHow to Get an Alarm System
Installed

• If you are thinking of installing an Access
  Control or Alarm System in your facility, please
  review the following campus requirements, which
  must be met prior to processing your requisition.
• You are required to have a completed Security
  System Survey document on file prior to the start
  of any work. The Crime Prevention Office performs
  this survey free of charge. To arrange for this
  survey and obtain this document, please call
  Crime Prevention Specialist James Hooker at
  265-3797 or Michael Gruber at 262-3062. More
  information is also available on the UW-Madison
  Police Department web site at http//www.uwpd.wisc
  .edu/crimeprv/alarmapp.htm.
• The security survey will determine the need for
  an alarm system, and any appropriate physical
  controls that are necessary to improve the area.
  The Crime Prevention Specialist will help you
  assess your needs, and if appropriate, provide
  the necessary alarm application form. They will
  coordinate with the UW Electric Shop, who will
  assess your system compatibility needs prior to
  any installation of an alarm system. This will
  ensure a successful connection with our host
  system. All intrusion alarm systems must report
  directly to the UW Police Departments
  Communications Center.

20
Business Services (continued)How to Get an
Alarm System Installed

• Complete the Alarm Application Form and return it
  to
• Police Communications Operator
• UW Police Department
• 1429 Monroe Street.
• Please attach a copy of your Alarm Application
  Form on the back of your requisition.
• This process ensures coordination and open
  channels of communication among all parties
  (customer, UW Electric Shop, UW Purchasing Dept.,
  UW Police Dept. and applicable vendors). By
  following this procedure, we should offset any
  potential for design conflicts, resulting in a
  successful alarm installation that meets your
  needs.

21
Lots of Issues Remaining

• Access cards
• Who gets systems
• Priority of systems to be put in (over 1,000,000
  in systems need to be installed)
• How does data flow from one system to another,
  and who does it?
• Will there be a one-card system?
• Public/private venues, i.e. University Square 4

22
Issues (continued)

• We have just completed a Policies and Procedures
  document for the red-level access control areas.
  This document spells out who does what, who has
  authorization, etc.
• We are in the process of developing a standards
  document which will provide architects and
  engineers with the technical information to
  assist in system design.

23
Photo ID Cards

• Policy Group decided the Police Department would
  make IDs for the first year.
• We are at approximately 6,000 cards.
• Developed the process for production, scheduling,
  and authorization of photo ID cards

24
Current Situation

• As we speak, several of our high area buildings
  are going on-line.
• The central server is up and running.
• The high security server is up and running.
• The cameras and DVRs are up and running.
• We are reviewing policy and procedure by the
  lessons we have learned and re-evaluating install
  processes.