Churches
By: Ashley Evans

I believe the component that deserves the most attention overall in the listed environment's would be that of the physical security feature. For example if the church had a metal detector then no one would get threw with a gun so there for there would not be any shootings. When it comes to arson there should be a carbon minoxide detector even though that isn't going to detect an actual bomb. The components that I consider less pertinent for these particular environments during a vulnerability assessment would be personnel security, information security, and interdepartmental dependencies. My reasoning for removing personnel security from the list is due to the minimal likelihood events like these would occur on a regular basis and pose a risk.Hiring security personnel or a law enforcement officer to monitor-guard a church during service is unrealistic and extremely cost-effective. Moreover, churches maintain the majority of their order of operation with the assistance of donations from members of the church and normally these funds help pay for utilities, food, and in some cases, the salaries of priests, pastors and other religious leaders. However if there were people willing to volunteer to be security then it would be a different story. It would work if there were under cover officers or security guards to help protect people at church. Even though in my opinion less people would show at church if they knew there were officers or security guards. I think that the information security would be the less pertinent because I don’t think that any vandal or anybody who wants to hurt people within the church by shooting at them would be concerned with any documents or paperwork within any church. I don’t think that any disturbed person who wants to do a shootout would be concerned with any paperwork or documents that would be within a