As security projects go, correctional facilities present a unique set of circumstances for security systems integrators and their fellow A&E partners and just as daunting a challenge to the end user. Not only are you subject to stringent timelines, tight budgets, along with state and federal oversight but the project team must keep the current systems up and running throughout the entire project.
So it was for Jarod Schechter, Captain and Support Division Commander for Sedgwick County’s Sheriff Depart and his project team as they partnered with Mead & Hunt, a national firm offering design services in the fields of planning, design, architecture and engineering and integrators from Stanley Convergent Security Solutions, in an extensive and broad-based retrofit of the Sedgwick County Adult Detention Facility.
The project has been recognized by Security Technology Executive and SD&I magazines, along with SecurityInfoWatch.com and SecuritySpecifiers.com as the Elliot A. Boxerbaum Memorial Award winner for best security project of 2017 (see sidebar for full details on the award).
Bringing Security into the 21st Century
At 468,000 SF and 1,200 beds, the Sedgwick County ADF is the largest correctional facility in the state of Kansas. More than 25 years old, the original proprietary door control systems were failing and the obsolete security system was in serious need of an upgrade and required replacement.
This project involved a complete upgrade and replacement of existing Simplex jail security system while making effective reuse of the existing cable infrastructure. Another major job was the complete replacement of the existing video surveillance system requiring a total replacement of the antiquated analog video system to an advanced digital system technology that was needed to help reduce operational liabilities through the addition and updating of more than 500 surveillance cameras and the addition of a video storage system which the facility had done without for the past three decades.
“At the beginning of the project and planning phase, the most important thing is we brought in staff from all different levels of the facility; from line staff to deputies, from supervisors to Lieutenants and administrators to really look at how we do the job, what are the most efficient processes and how can we improve. If we are going to design an entirely new system then how should it look and how should it function. We didn’t want to be limited by technology; instead, we wanted to find technology that would do what we needed it to do and find people like Stanley who was willing work with us in creating technology design to function like we needed it to work, function and look,” says Captain Schechter.
“We had a lot of meetings with the A&E team leading up to the project letting them know our expectations as they related to cameras and controls and the ability to have off-the-shelf cameras since we didn’t want to be tied into one particular system and vendor. Realistically we were looking for any type of plug-and-play IP camera as long as Stanley could detect an IP address to load into their system,” Schechter continues.
As large and complicated as this project was, Schechter says his staff had a very good relationship with Stanley throughout. As part of the project, they flew his team out to Stanley headquarters in Indianapolis and mocked up the entire jail in a warehouse area.
“They had every single terminal up so we were able to go from housing unit to housing unit to see how everything functioned. We deliberately brought deputies who would be operating these systems as well because they would be the personnel that would tell us if everything functioned correctly. That was a big key to this project. We were able to fix all these issues on the ground in their facility before anything shipped and knock out the majority of the punch list items. We were able to solve a lot of those integration issues onsite,” he says. “The biggest thing I took away from this project was we should have given more time on the timeline for the integration programming on-site at Stanley. Some things got somewhat backlogged, but it didn’t hinder the project, it was just one of those lessons learned.”
Corrections vs. Commercial
For Stanley Convergent Security Solutions sales engineer Mickey Wydick and his correctional systems division, this project was a challenge but one that is not unfamiliar. They do installs and retrofits for correctional facilities, jails and courthouses around the country, having done more than 600 in the 13 years he has been with the group. Wydick says the biggest difference in working a commercial project versus a correctional facilities project is that on the commercial side you have downtime.
“You can work at night – from 12 to five in the morning – and not have anyone to deal with on a commercial project. But a correctional facility is obviously a 24/7 around the clock operation; they don’t close. Our engineers are in there working around the inmates being escorted the majority of the time,” says Wydick. “Doing this in an existing, working facility is difficult because the customer would like to keep the current systems up and running as long as possible to eliminate any downtime. And in a correctional facility, there is no allowance for downtime. That was another big piece of the project we had to navigate through. I think for the most part we were able to keep the existing system online until the actual switch over to the new system.”
Other differences the team faced working within the confines of an active correctional facility compared to commercial market sectors included, contractors having to inventory their tools at the beginning and end of each workday and contractors on this project were also trained to conduct themselves in accordance with the laws stipulated under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA).
Movement within the facility was restricted. Especially when headcounts were taken or when tactical teams were responding to incidents. Special provisions had to be made during the cutover of critical perimeter security systems. These unique construction requirements, and others like them, required significant collaboration between the owner, design, contracting and manufacturing teams to be successful.
Like 911 centers, jails are 24/7/365 high-security facilities that cannot be shut down during the construction period. All work must be performed within the confines of a working correctional facility while allowing operations to continue in a safe and secure manner. This requires a delicate balance of construction phasing, watchful security escorts, and skilled contractors knowledgeable about the intricacies of working in a high-stress, high-security detention environment.
Electronic system cutover is the critical and sensitive stage of the delivery when the old security system is brought off-line and the new security system became operational. Using a phased approach, non-critical systems such as lighting, utility, and water control were brought over first. Slowly incorporating, more system critical components like door control, duress alarm, and video surveillance systems. Mission critical systems such as perimeter security were done on third shift when inmates were locked down and the facility was less vulnerable.
The logistics involved in upgrading a security system in an existing jail can be daunting and overwhelming. With more than 30 years of detention-grade security experience, Mead & Hunt drew from lessons learned on past projects to assemble and coordinate a team that not only delivered a successful project but did so with minimal disruption to existing security or operations.
“It is a special niche field. It’s different from a commercial-grade security platform because it is PLC-based -- integrated security through a PLC platform, whereas a commercial-grade project integrate as well but it would be through a card access platform,” says Jeff Pronschinske, security project leader for Mead & Hunt, who points out that it is more industrial-grade, which is characteristic of corrections-type projects. “When I do correctional-grade security, some of it bricks and mortar – brand new projects coming right out of the ground – and those projects are less complicated. But when you get involved with these retrofits where you have an existing facility in which the electronics are so incredibly outdated that it is a matter of going in trying to bring them into the 21st century and the digital age. They are highly complex and complex projects that you just can’t go in close the doors of the facility. They have to stay operational, so you have to be extremely creative while you implement new technologies within the confines of a working correctional facility.”
The facility opened in 1988 and according to both Wydick and Pronschinske, the technology had remained frozen in time. From the door controls to the video system, it was substandard technology.
“Technology has just changed so drastically since then. Everything in the facility was analog, it was all hardwired. The door controls were hardwired to these dip-switch control panels that allowed you to open and close doors using a physical switch,” explains Pronschinske, who saw the team reuse a substantial amount of the existing coax cable infrastructure while tearing out the existing mechanical dip-switch panels and replacing them with computer touchscreens.
Also, the entire camera system was all analog and had no recording features.
“That is a major liability in 21st-century corrections. There are so much more liability concerns in today’s correctional facilities than there were in the late 1980s. The general practice now is you put an inmate on camera from the time he enters your facility all the way through the time he’s released. All movements and what he’s doing need to be recorded. It is done to protect that county from any potential liability related to each inmate and the inmates themselves,” Pronschinske adds.
Schechter adds that his facility team had involvement in talking about the functionality and programming that they wanted. “We would then turn that over to Jeff and tell him what our vision and ideas were and he would wind the reality stand around that letting us know what we could actually do.”
Inside the End-User/Consultant/Integrator Relationship
In a project of this size and complexity, the systems integrator counts on a quality security consultant and detail-oriented A&E team since the job is mostly specification-driven.
“As an integrator on this project, we followed the lead of the consultant {Jeff} and did our best to meet the specs that were laid out. When planning the job we looked at the totality of the system,” explains Wydick. “We consider it one system although there are many facets that are involved in access control, door controls, and video and so on. It is an integrated system that is completely interconnected, communicating and working together to eventually reveal the final product.”
In addition to an antiquated electronic security system, the project also involved a complete renovation of the existing master control, construction of new security electronics equipment rooms, and implementation of a centralized UPS system. Security systems for the detention market differ from those used in commercial sectors. Both correctional and commercial grade security systems involve the integration of low voltage security systems under a single GUI (Graphic User Interface). In commercial markets, security integration is accomplished using the card access controllers that alarm to card access subscription PCs. In detention markets, security integration is accomplished using a PLCs (Programmable Logic Controllers) and industrial-grade relays that alarm to touchscreen workstations.
The backbone of a detention-grade security system is its PLC Controller. PLC controllers are built with industrial-grade electronic components that are incredibly reliable. With a shelf-life of anywhere between 25-30 years; their failure rate is extremely limited. PLCs have been used successfully in detention markets for decades. They are also widely used in manufacturing, mining and water resources.
The benefit of using a PLC controller for a security system backbone is that they can integrate a greater variety of low voltage security systems under a single GUI. Card access systems are typically able to integrate simple contact closures such as electronic locking hardware, duress alarms and video surveillance systems. PLC controllers can further expand system integration to also include facility-wide paging systems, door control intercoms, and emergency mass notification systems. Most importantly, they can do so in an open-architecture, non-proprietary, non-restrictive manner.
Upgrades to security electronics system also included a complete replacement of the existing door control system while making effective re-use of the existing cable infrastructure. System implementation also included upgrades from analog to new digital video surveillance and door control intercom systems
“A lot of up-front planning is needed. We had numerous meetings with the county and correctional officials before the project started, continuous meetings on-site and just as many meetings at Stanley to get our heads around how to create the best and safest project plan for this retrofit. If Stanley, the facility owner and the security consult all agree on a collaborative game plan, it certainly makes the rest of the project go a lot smoother. Planning is key to a successful project,” Wydick says. “For instance, any time you have a nasty retrofit project like this, if there are cabling structure and technology that can be reused and modified, we will do that. If we can reuse door control cabling and intercom cabling that helps the retrofit go smoother and is less expensive for the client.”
Pronschinske stresses that the single most important step is designing a detention-grade electronic security system is specifying components that are non-restrictive and non-proprietary. The goal was that when the system was replaced, the county would have technology they could either maintain themselves or competitively bid for future maintenance and expansion.
All hardware and software components were specified to be “off-the-shelf” and non-proprietary. These include industrial-grade non-proprietary PLCs, standard DIN-mounted industrial grade mechanical relays and standard 24VDC or 120VAC power supplies. This allowed the county, at the end of the project, the ability to be able to purchase their own parts from an electronics distributor of their choice.
Sedgwick County Sheriff Jeff Easter knew that when he took office in 2012 that a complete overhaul of the facility was certainly a necessity and, in fact, was in already in the planning stages.
“I didn’t understand some of the needs of the project when I got there since I was new, but as time went on it was evident that we needed not just the cameras, but an entire retrofit of the master control rooms with a complete overhaul of cabinets to carpentry,” says Sheriff Easter. “We are very happy with every aspect of the project and are just now getting ready to do some modifications down in our work-release facility, setting up the electronics just like we have in the main facility. It has saved us a lot of time, headaches, not to mention lawsuits, by having the new (digital) camera system and the deputies love the new master control system since it is so much easier to use than before. It has made the facility a lot more safe and efficient. We can see everything and we can react a lot quicker. “
Steve Lasky ([email protected]) is the Editorial Director of Southcomm Security Media, which includes print publications SD&I, Security Technology Executive and Locksmith Ledger International – as well as the world’s top security web portal, SecurityInfoWatch.com. He is a 30-year veteran of the security industry and a 26-year member of ASIS.
