A Magic Risk Calculator?

May 2005

My office received an interesting telephone call the other day from a national correspondent from the District of Columbia press corps who wanted to speak with Steve, one of our vice presidents. Steve is a 23-year veteran of the U.S. Secret Service. His last assignment before retiring was managing the security detail for George W. Bush and his family during his father's administration. If Hillary Clinton decided to run for president, the reporter wanted to know, would she face a higher level of risk on the campaign trail than her counterparts?

by David Nicastro
Secure Source, Inc.

Steve would have loved to give the reporter a simple yes—the one answer that might give the reporter enough material for a compelling story. Instead, he had little choice but to give the correct answer, the one that never fails to frustrate the person asking the question: "It depends."

If, for example, Sen. Clinton goes to the same union halls, elementary schools, senior citizen homes, and other campaign stops that her opponents visit, then the level of risk she faces will be similar to the level of risk they face. However, were Sen. Clinton to insist on completing an extended tour of, say, Saudi Arabia, while her opponents stay home, then her level of risk is going to skyrocket.

But, the reporter replied, won't she attract a greater number of would-be attackers who could be sent over the edge, as it were, by the prospect of a controversial female president? Wouldn't that cause a need for increased security?

The question brought back some colorful memories for Steve, who spent a good portion of his career assessing presidential threats made by all different types of unstable people, similar only because they managed to contact the White House. What most people don't know, Steve said, is that there is a constant stream of unstable people who contact the White House and make threats or other off-color remarks, no matter who happens to hold office. While it is entirely possible that Sen. Clinton could attract a unique type of threat, the response will always be the same: Each threat will be assessed and the appropriate level of response taken.

That said, Steve noted, Sen. Clinton may currently have a higher level of risk than many of her colleagues in the Senate, in part, because she is the subject of more controversy and, therefore, has a higher public profile.

Assessing Risk in the Private Sector

Naturally, the security measures in place at the White House and around our nation's dignitaries are exceptional. Still, the process of assessing risk that Steve explained to the reporter is really the same process we use in the private sector to assess threats against CEOs, celebrities, and other high net-worth individuals.

Like Sen. Clinton, not all executives or high-net worth individuals face the same level of risk, although they all face some degree of risk. The key challenge is matching the protection and prevention measures with the appropriate risk level. Next, it's important that the individual understands the risk level so that the right security measures can be applied to their lifestyle. The fact is the chance of a private citizen being targeted for kidnapping or other conspiratorial crimes is extremely low in this country. Yet at the same time, many high-net worth individuals are not properly protected against the lesser threats—accidents, disgruntled employees, former business partners—that are most likely to occur.

Determining the Appropriate Level of Risk

Oftentimes, people who ask me this question are under the impression that I am equipped with some sort of "risk calculator" into which I can input a few numbers and—presto!—a number pops up that tells me exactly how much risk a person faces. That way, the cost of insuring against that risk or implementing the proper security measures can be easily identified, right? Oh, what a wonderful world it would be if such a device existed!

Unfortunately, calculating risk is not as easy as, say, calculating a mortgage payment. Simply put, there are too many variables associated with each person to make calculating personal risk an automatic process. How much risk a person faces depends on their activities and a myriad of other factors.

Often I am amazed by the common belief among high-net worth individuals that they are not at risk because they are not "high-profile enough." For example, I recently had a meeting with a 47-year-old CEO of a middle-market company. I'll call him John. John is married with two children. He resides primarily in a large Texas city, but he has a vacation home in Puerto Vallarta. John keeps a pretty low profile—outside of the office, he goes skiing and plays golf or tennis for fun. His home is located in a gated community, manned by a guard.

"I don't see a need for any more security," he told me. "It's not like I'm Tiger Woods."

That last part, of course, is true. John is not as high profile as Tiger Woods. That's why it would be excessive if he surrounded himself with armed bodyguards at all hours of the day and drove around town in an armed vehicle. But John was neglecting to consider a couple of variables that increase his risk level.

While the presence of a guard at the neighborhood's exterior gates certainly creates an appearance of security, my unannounced visit to John's house demonstrated the reasons why existing security measures need to be continually tested: I followed a yard crew right through the gate, which was left open and unmanned. When I arrived at his house, the garage door was open. John and his family were exposed and unaware.

Another big variable is John's wife. While John himself keeps a low profile, his wife is very active in a variety of philanthropic causes that require her attendance at public events and society balls, which in turn cause her name and photograph to appear in local newspapers.

Last, John has two young children who are driven to school each day by their nanny. John has not required the nanny to complete a protective driver training course that teaches students how to avoid and react to possible kidnap scenarios, common accidents, and other hazards. Worse, he's never conducted a complete due diligence investigation into the nanny. Today, he does not have detailed information about her background, her family, or her associates. John is even less knowledgeable about the cleaning and yard crew, a group of six people who have full access to the house and whose presence on the property is not monitored.

It is a well-established fact that household staff members and other "insiders" are the most likely people to carry out a crime against a high net-worth individual.

Examples in the Media

One need only look to "Late Show" host David Letterman as an example. In March police arrested a former painter Letterman had hired to perform work inside his Montana ranch after evidence emerged that the painter was planning to kidnap Letterman's son and hold him for $5 million ransom.

Perhaps the most well-known example of the "insider threat" is the fatal kidnapping of former Exxon President Sidney Reso. Arthur Seal, a debt-ridden ex-employee, kidnapped Reso after watching his home for months. On the day of the kidnapping, Mr. Reso had decided to drive himself to work. The kidnapping occurred at the end of Mr. Reso's 250-foot driveway, when he left his car to retrieve his newspaper.

In Dallas, the fatal kidnapping of local restaurateur Oscar Sanchez earlier this year reminded us that you don't have to be a high-profile executive—or even an executive at a Fortune 500 company—to be at risk of attack. Mr. Sanchez was kidnapped in January after a former employee rear-ended him in a staged fender bender on a public street near Mr. Sanchez's home.

These cases all attracted lots of media attention—mostly because kidnapping is still an extremely rare and, thus, newsworthy event in this country. Compared to countries like Russia, Colombia, and Mexico, where kidnappings are frequent, kidnappings in the United States are rare because the kidnappers are seldom successful in getting away with the ransom money.

Though these cases are extreme examples, they help illustrate how risk varies by the individual. In hindsight, there's no question that a 24-hour security detail and professional driver were appropriate for Mr. Reso. If only Mr. Reso had stuck to his practice of using a professional driver, he might still be alive today. As the owner of a local restaurant chain, however, Mr. Sanchez didn't need as much of a security presence as Mr. Reso. His death, however, may have been prevented if he was simply more aware of the threats his employees presented or, perhaps, had he taken an evasive driving course. David Letterman's case is a great example of why very thorough due diligence screenings need to be conducted on all household staff, including contractors.

Asking the Right Questions

These examples help explain why "It depends" is the most common answer security professionals give to questions of risk. This is also why the process of determining a person's risk level starts with questions. The following are some examples of the questions we typically ask in our "executive risk assessment questionnaire."

• Do you have current family profile information (photos, fingerprints, voice tape, and hand writing samples)?

• Has a security vulnerability assessment ever been conducted at your business or office?

• Who has access to your residence other than your immediate family?

• Where is your mail received and who opens it?

• Have you ever tested your home security system?

• Do you routinely conduct background checks on staff and contractors?

• What routines do you follow like going to work or taking the kids to school?

• Have you ever been threatened by a former employee or other person?

• Would you notice if someone is following you to study your routine?

• Do you obtain travel advisory information before traveling to a foreign location?

Once questions like these are answered, the task of creating a layered security program becomes a matter of matching the right security measures/procedures with the lifestyle of the family. And that is where the value of a seasoned security professional comes in. The security measures taken can range from taking simple safety precautions, like testing the home security system, to arranging for 24-hour a day, portal-to-portal armed protection.

A good security plan does not end with the implementation of the proper security measures. As time passes, it is vital that the plan be tested and updated, if necessary. This process can range from replacing the battery of a stun gun to testing the effectiveness of an executive protection detail with unannounced visits. Factors outside of an individual's home must also be considered. For example, if a disgruntled employee is terminated, a protection specialist should be brought in to assist with the termination. Similarly, if a disgruntled employee issues a threat on the executive's life, at a minimum the executive's security detail may need to be provided with a current photo of the employee.

Conclusion

As the example of Hillary Clinton illustrates, calculating risk is not a precise science. Until such a time as someone invents a magic risk calculator, the question of how much risk does a person face can only have one answer: "It depends." The most important thing to realize is that an informed person is best equipped to integrate a multi-layered approach to mitigating security risks in their daily life.

---

Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.