A mong the many outcomes of the terrible events of September 11, 2001, is a renewed interest in the safety and security of hotels. This has always been an im-

portant issue, but it has become a top-of-the-mind matter for hotel guests and managers alike. For one thing, experts have warned that hotels themselves may become targets of terror- ism.1 In response to those concerns, some hotel operators have created new security procedures, such as conducting more detailed background checks on their employees. Hilton Ho- tels now requires customers to show a photo ID on check in, for instance, while Starwood Hotels and Resorts has raised

The Safety and Security of U.S. Hotels

A Post-September-11 Report

BY CATHY A. ENZ AND MASAKO S. TAYLOR

security standards in its parking garages.2 Industry experts have added their advice to the discussion by urging hotel operators to revise and update their safety and security plans for provid- ing a safe environment for guests.

Safety and security standards are made up of two major elements: (1) physical-safety attributes and (2) organizational systems and plans to ensure safe operation. This report fo- cuses chiefly on the first element, physical attributes, which includes the installation of specialized equipment and the provision of materials and information outlining safety and security procedures. The second element, organizational sys- tems and plans, includes employing and training safety and

U.S. hotels have a reasonably solid panoply of safety and security equipment—but there also are surprising gaps.

1 For example, see: Hotel Security Report, Vol. 19, No. 11 (October 2001), p. 1.

2 Ruthanne Terrero, “Hotels Step up Security: Prepare for Future Events by Training Employees,” Hotel Business, October 21–November 6, 2001, p. 15.

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

HOTEL MANAGEMENT HOTEL SAFETY AND SECURITY

120 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly OCTOBER 2002

The continuous flow of people in and out of

a hotel poses a longstanding challenge to the

property’s security and the guests’ safety.

security personnel, and establishing plans and procedures relating to safety and security issues.

Before we turn to our main topic, physical- safety and -security attributes, we touch on changes in hotels’ organizational systems and plans. To examine that aspect of safety, we con- ducted a study of general managers’ post- September-11 activities, investigating the degree to which they had altered their organizational sys- tems and plans.3 As a part of a larger survey to gain insights into hotel operators’ reactions to September 11, we asked hotel operators whether

they had reevaluated security procedures, made changes to their procedures, tightened security for guests, or added security staff. In contrast to media reports that hotels had enhanced their safety and security measures, our own study (con- ducted one month after September 11) revealed that over one-third of general managers surveyed had done nothing to alter their security proce- dures, and 25 percent had done nothing to tighten security for their guests. As we discuss below, this finding, though potentially disturb- ing, may be due to the possibility that many ho- tels already have reasonably complete security procedures in place.

The results, shown in Exhibit 1, revealed that GMs were not doing a large amount of reevalua- tion of their security procedures (only 29 per- cent indicated they had done a great deal), and even fewer were substantially changing their pro- cedures (only 12 percent reported making a great deal of change). When it came to adding em- ployees, about 70 percent of the GMs responded that they had made no additions to their secu- rity staff. While the overall picture would sug-

gest that little effort was devoted to rethinking safety and security, some hotels reported making a great deal of change. For example, luxury hotels, upscale hotels, convention and con- ference hotels, and airport hotels added security employees and either reevaluated or changed their procedures.

Already in place. While the data from our post-September-11 survey show considerable variations in U.S. hotels’ responses, what they do not reveal is the degree to which hotels had installed safety and security equipment before the terrorist attack. It is possible, for instance, that many hotels had already made considerable in- vestments in safety and security features (in ad- dition to any policies and procedures they may have developed). To explore the question of safety and security features in U.S. hotels, we devised a safety index and a security index, and then ex- amined how hotels scored on those indexes. Our purpose was to quantify the physical-safety and -security features in hotels and compare hotels by price segment, location, hotel type, age, and property size. This article details our findings.

Elements of Hotel Safety and Security The continuous flow of people in and out of a hotel poses a longstanding challenge to the property’s security and to the safety of the people in that hotel. Given the semi-public nature of hotel buildings, it is difficult to distinguish among guests, legitimate visitors, and people who are potential threats. In preserving customer-service standards, moreover, hoteliers may find it awk- ward to lock the doors at certain times or to re- quire identification for entry to the building. Indeed, maintaining the highest possible stan- dards of safety may stand in conflict with pre- serving hotels’ hospitable and welcoming im- age—creating potentially negative effects on customer service. While the lack of safety and security standards can be a liability, security that is too strict (or obtrusive) may ruin customers’ service experiences. Customers may say that they prefer hotels with high standards of safety and security, but at the same time they may be irri- tated when such standards cause inconvenience. As a consequence, hotel operators need to strike a sensitive balance between safety and accessible, friendly service.

3 For a discussion of this study and its findings regarding GMs’ attitudes and actions, see: Masako S. Taylor and Cathy A. Enz, “Voices from the Field,” Cornell Hotel and Restau- rant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 1 (February 2002), pp. 7–20.

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

OCTOBER 2002 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 121

HOTEL SAFETY AND SECURITY HOTEL MANAGEMENT

EXHIBIT 1

Percentage of hotel GMs who implemented selected security strategies after September 11

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0 Not at all Not much A great deal

Reevaluated security procedures

Changed security procedures

Tightened security

Added safety and security staff

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

HOTEL MANAGEMENT HOTEL SAFETY AND SECURITY

122 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly OCTOBER 2002

Twin concepts. While the words “safety” and “security” are commonly used interchangeably, the two concepts differ in their focus. Safety in- volves protecting employees and customers within the hotel property from potential injury or death. Safety issues deal with the effects of accidents, hazardous materials, and fire, for ex- ample.4 In addition to the safety issues we just

mentioned, hotel security goes beyond protect- ing employees and guests and is also concerned with preserving guests’ possessions and the prop- erty itself. Security issues involve such matters as theft and violent crime. Indeed, some experts include safety as a category of security issues.5

We follow the experts’ lead in that regard and treat safety as a particular form of security that focuses on the protection of guests from injuries (whether from accidents or criminal activity).

EXHIBIT 2

Safety and security indexes

Physical Feature Weighting Physical Feature Weighting

Sprinklers 0.30 Electronic locks 0.40

Smoke detectors 0.25 Interior corridors 0.20

Safety materials 0.20 Security cameras 0.20

Safety videos 0.15 Safety materials 0.10

Security cameras 0.10 Safety videos 0.10

Safety Index Security Index

Note: To obtain a score, each weighted item is multiplied by 1 if the feature is present and 0 if the feature is absent. The resulting scores are summed and multiplied by 100 for a final index score. For example, a property with sprinklers and smoke detectors would have a safety-index score of 55 (out of a possible 100). See Exhibit 11 on page 136 for an example of how to use the indexes.

4 See: Dan M. Bowers, “Security Fundamentals for the Safety Engineer,” December 2001, pp. 31–33; and Raymond C. Ellis, Jr., and David M. Stipanuk, Security and Loss Prevention Management (East Lansing, MI: Educational Institute of the AH&MA, 1999). 5 Ellis and Stipanuk, op. cit.

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

OCTOBER 2002 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 123

HOTEL SAFETY AND SECURITY HOTEL MANAGEMENT

In conducting our study, we distinguish hotels’ safety attributes (e.g., sprinklers, smoke detectors, and guest-safety instructions) from se- curity features (e.g., electronic locks and interior corridors). We devised two indexes, one measur- ing safety amenities and the other assessing secu- rity equipment. We realize that an inventory of various physical-safety and security features is by no means exhaustive. (For example, appropriate lighting is an important safety feature that is not a part of our index and, in fact, is often over- looked.6 Other omitted safety features include fire extinguishers, accident-prevention and warn- ing signs, and glass protection, to name a few.) Moreover, the mere presence of such equipment as electronic locks and security cameras does not guarantee guests’ security in the absence of per- sonnel who are well trained to implement a fully developed emergency plan. On the other hand, a hotel would be hard pressed to implement an effective security plan in the absence of appro- priate security equipment.

The Indexes To develop the indexes of physical standards of hotel safety and security (shown in Exhibit 2), we drew from the American Hotel & Lodging Association’s 2001 Lodging Survey prepared by RealTime Hotel Reports.7 This annual survey is distributed to general managers throughout the United States. All hotels in the United States, whether members of AH&LA or not, were given the opportunity to participate in the survey, and the four-page survey was distributed to 38,002 properties. The final sample was representative of the population of U.S. hotels in geographic dispersion, but underrepresented small hotels (i.e., those with fewer than 75 rooms). Of the 7,923 hotels that responded to the lodging sur- vey, a total of 2,123 hotels were included in this investigation—only those that responded to the

survey by answering all safety and security ques- tions and did not leave any blanks.

Respondents were asked to indicate whether their hotel has specific safety and security fea- tures (among other amenities), including elec- tronic locks, sprinklers, smoke detectors, safety materials, safety videos, interior corridors, and security cameras.

Because some features are more important than others to a hotel’s safety and security, we weighted each feature on its relative importance to hotel safety or security, based on our consul- tations with hospitality-industry property- management experts. For example, we accorded greater weight in the safety index to sprinklers and smoke detectors than to safety-instruction materials, such as in-room safety videos. In the security index, electronic locks received the great- est weight, while security cameras and interior

6 An old, but authoritative discussion of the principles of security lighting can be found in: Abe H. Feder, “Lighting for Security,” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 1 (May 1972), pp. 13–21.

7 The Lodging Survey was funded by the American Hotel and Lodging Foundation and the data were collected by RealTime Hotel Reports, now a part of Smith Travel Research.

8 To determine how important the weightings were to our study results, we ran the analyses with indexes composed of equally weighted safety and security items. The pattern of results was the same as that found when the features were given weights according to their importance. With the equally weighted features significant differences were found for price segments, location type, hotel type, size, and age of the properties. We also combined the two indexes into one with equal weights for all features and again found a similar pattern of results.

We accorded the highest weights to electronic locks, sprinklers, and smoke detectors, while also considering inte- rior corridors and security cameras.

corridors earned lower weights. As shown in Ex- hibit 2, we set the range of both weighted in- dexes from 0 (no physical safety or security fea- tures reported) to 100 (all of the safety and security features are present).8

The average safety-index score for our sample is 66.4 (with a standard deviation of 19.9), while the average security-index score is 59.6 (with a standard deviation of 29.4). These numbers sug- gest that U.S. hotels score generally higher on physical-safety attributes than they do on secu-

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

HOTEL MANAGEMENT HOTEL SAFETY AND SECURITY

124 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly OCTOBER 2002

EXHIBIT 3

Safety Index

1st 2nd 3rd 4th Minimum Maximum Standard

Quartile Quartile Quartile Quartile Score Score Mean Deviation

All Hotels 7.1% 18.8% 39.1% 34.9% 0 100 66.4 19.9

Price Segments

Luxury 1.6% 1.6% 26.2% 70.6% 25 100 81.8 11.3 Upscale 0.0% 5.1% 36.2% 58.7% 45 100 79.1 11.3 Midprice, full service 2.0% 24.8% 45.7% 27.6% 20 100 65.4 17.7 Midprice, limited service 0.0% 3.3% 45.5% 51.2% 35 100 77.6 10.9 Economy 4.6% 18.6% 41.4% 35.4% 25 100 66.1 18.6 Extended Stay 1.6% 2.4% 38.1% 57.9% 25 100 78.4 12

Location Type

Urban 5.9% 15.9% 33.1% 45.1% 0 100 69.0 20.1 Suburban 5.5% 12.7% 42.5% 39.3% 0 100 69.8 18.5 Airport 1.6% 3.9% 36.7% 57.8% 25 100 77.4 13.4 Highway 7.5% 20.9% 43.3% 28.3% 25 100 63.2 19.3 Resort 10.1% 29.4% 38.7% 21.9% 0 100 61.2 20.5

Hotel Type

All Suite 3.0% 4.3% 39.6% 53.2% 25 100 75.9 14.7 B&B, Small Inn 13.7% 26.6% 46.0% 13.7% 0 85 58.2 20.3 Convention* 2.5% 11.3% 44.8% 41.4% 20 100 73.0 16.7 Extended Stay 10.3% 10.3% 40.2% 39.3% 25 100 68.4 20.5 Motel 12.6% 29.4% 40.1% 17.9% 0 100 56.6 19.8 Villa, Condo 9.1% 48.5% 28.8% 13.6% 25 85 55.3 18.2 Standard 1.5% 12.6% 38.0% 47.9% 25 100 73.4 16.1

Hotel Size (rooms)

20 to 39 23.9% 40.8% 29.1% 6.2% 0 90 47.7 18.5 40 to 74 9.9% 21.2% 42.0% 26.8% 0 100 63.0 20.3 75 to 149 2.9% 15.7% 42.7% 38.7% 25 100 69.3 17.7 150 to 249 0.7% 12.2% 41.0% 46.2% 25 100 74.0 15.1 250 or more 1.9% 3.8% 29.8% 64.4% 20 100 78.8 14.0

Hotel Age (years)

Less than 7 0.7% 3.6% 38.1% 57.6% 20 100 78.5 11.6 7 to 14 4.2% 11.7% 41.0% 43.1% 0 100 71.7 17.8 15 to 21 4.1% 23.2% 41.6% 31.1% 25 100 65.6 18.6 22 to 28 12.1% 29.3% 38.5% 20.1% 25 100 57.9 20.1 29 or more 14.0% 28.6% 37.3% 20.1% 0 100 57.3 20.9

* Includes conference centers. Note: Quartile ranges for both indexes are: First quartile, 0–25; second quartile, 26–50; third quartile, 51–75; fourth quartile, 76–100.

Descriptive data for safety and security indexes (continues on the next page)

Exhibit continues on next page

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

OCTOBER 2002 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 125

HOTEL SAFETY AND SECURITY HOTEL MANAGEMENT

Security Index

1st 2nd 3rd 4th Minimum Maximum Standard

Quartile Quartile Quartile Quartile Score Score Mean Deviation

All Hotels 16.0% 22.9% 29.1% 32.0% 0 100 59.6 29.4

Price Segments

Luxury 0.8% 11.9% 24.6% 62.7% 10 100 79.2 18.2 Upscale 2.2% 5.8% 32.6% 59.4% 10 100 78.7 17.2 Midprice full 1.6% 18.9% 48.4% 31.1% 0 100 71 16.8 Midprice limited 0.0% 10.4% 41.7% 47.9% 30 100 76.4 16 Economy 7.4% 21.1% 35.4% 36.0% 0 100 66.4 24.4 Extended Stay 2.4% 15.1% 42.1% 40.5% 10 100 72.9 18.1

Location Type

Urban 10.5% 21.3% 27.9% 40.2% 0 100 65.0 27.8 Suburban 11.2% 18.0% 31.7% 39.1% 0 100 65.3 27.5 Airport 2.3% 7.0% 33.6% 57.0% 10 100 78.4 16.9 Highway 13.6% 25.2% 34.1% 27.2% 0 100 59.2 27.8 Resort 30.2% 31.0% 22.3% 16.6% 0 100 45.7 30.6

Hotel Type

All Suite 6.0% 17.4% 30.2% 46.4% 0 100 70.5 24.0 B&B/Small Inn 34.5% 43.2% 13.7% 8.6% 0 90 36.1 26.1 Convention* 5.9% 15.3% 38.9% 39.9% 0 100 70.0 23.5 Extended Stay 16.8% 29.0% 31.8% 22.4% 0 100 56.0 28.3 Motel 26.0% 28.4% 28.4% 17.3% 0 100 48.2 30.4 Villa/Condo 54.5% 31.8% 9.1% 4.5% 0 90 28.0 25.4 Standard 3.6% 15.8% 32.0% 48.6% 0 100 73.2 21.3

Hotel Size (rooms)

20 to 39 52.9% 36.7% 6.2% 4.2% 0 90 25.5 23.3 40 to 74 21.8% 25.9% 28.1% 24.2% 0 100 53.4 30.5 75 to 149 6.6% 20.7% 35.5% 37.2% 0 100 67.3 24.1 150 to 249 3.5% 18.1% 38.9% 39.6% 10 100 71.5 20.2 250 or more 3.4% 12.0% 25.5% 59.1% 0 100 76.5 21.4

Hotel Age (years)

Less than 7 2.2% 10.6% 33.8% 53.3% 0 100 76.4 18.5 7 to 14 8.8% 26.9% 27.9% 36.4% 0 100 64.0 26.7 15 to 21 11.9% 28.3% 31.1% 28.7% 0 100 59.7 27.5 22 to 28 21.8% 21.3% 34.5% 22.4% 0 100 54.3 30.1 29 or more 28.9% 29.2% 23.9% 18.0% 0 100 46.6 30.9

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

HOTEL MANAGEMENT HOTEL SAFETY AND SECURITY

126 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly OCTOBER 2002

EXHIBIT 4

Mean safety and security scores by price segment

Luxury Upscale Midprice, Midprice, Economy Extended

full limited stay

service service

Safety index Security index

82 79 79 79 65 71 78 76 66 66 78 73

100

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

OCTOBER 2002 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 127

HOTEL SAFETY AND SECURITY HOTEL MANAGEMENT

rity features. The standard deviations also show that there is greater variation across hotels’ secu- rity scores than in their safety scores. In addition to the means and standard deviations, the range of index scores from the minimum to the maxi- mum are provided in Exhibit 3 (previous pages). That exhibit breaks the index scores into four quartiles and provides the frequency distribution of scores in each quartile. These are provided for the overall indexes, but are also broken down by price segment, location, hotel type, property size, and age.

As the frequencies in Exhibit 3 show, a large percentage of hotels scored high on both indexes.9

More than one-third of the hotels earned a score of 76 or higher on the safety index (35 percent) and not quite one-third did so on the security index (32 percent). On the other hand, substan- tially more hotels scored low on security than they did on safety. Under 10 percent of the hotels scored lower than 25 on the safety index, in con- trast to the 16 percent that scored lower than 25 on the security index and the 14 percent that scored 10 or less on that scale. To determine which hotel types are characterized by high or low safety and security features, we examined several different categories separately.

Categorical Differences Exhibit 4 shows the overall safety and security scores for each hotel segment. Our survey revealed that the highest safety and security scores are for luxury and upscale hotels. It is not surprising that high-price hotels contain more of the safety and security features than hotels in other price seg- ments. What is surprising is that these hotels are less likely than others to have what we consider to be the most important single safety feature— sprinklers (57.2 percent in luxury and 60.3 per- cent in upscale, compared to approximately 70 percent in economy and extended-stay hotels).

That said, luxury hotels and upscale hotels are more likely than other hotel segments to possess all of the physical-security features on our list. Luxury hotels are the most likely to have four of

the five security features: namely, electronic locks (68.3 percent), security cameras (69.8 percent), safety materials (99.2 percent), and safety videos (9.5 percent). Upscale hotels also tend to have the full array of security features. Although up- scale hotels are not as likely as luxury hotels to have electronic locks (63.0 percent) or security cameras (59.4 percent), they are more likely to have interior corridors (92.8 percent). Midprice

hotels without food and beverage facilities (i.e., limited service) scored high on the security in- dex, primarily because of the high percentage of hotels that feature electronic locks (78.8 percent) and interior corridors (88.6 percent).

Economy hotels and midprice hotels with food and beverage (i.e., full service) generally have lower safety scores than do hotels in other seg- ments (again, see Exhibit 4). Although those two segments have higher percentages of hotels with sprinklers than high-price hotels, economy and full-service midmarket hotels are less likely than others to have the full array of physical-safety features on our list. Still, the full-service midprice hotels are more likely to have sprinklers (65.4 percent) than are luxury or upscale hotels and are just as likely to have in-room safety materials (87.4 percent). However, the midprice proper- ties frequently are not equipped with security cameras (49.6 percent) or safety videos (2.0 per- cent). Similarly, economy hotels are the most likely of all segments to have sprinklers (67.1 percent) and just as likely as high-price hotels to have security cameras (59.4 percent). Again, though, safety videos are almost never available in economy hotels for in-room instruction (0.6 percent).

Our examination of managers’ reactions to- ward safety and security issues after the Septem- ber 11 events, in concert with this work on physi- cal features of hotels, reveals that the hotels which we found to be safer and more secure in their

Despite a high percentage with sprinklers, economy hotels and full-service midprice hotels generally have lower safety scores than do hotels in other segments.

9 The intercorrelation between the two indexes is r = .63, indicating a meaningful relationship between the indexes but not such an excessive conceptual overlap as to necessi- tate combining the indexes into a single measure.

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

HOTEL MANAGEMENT HOTEL SAFETY AND SECURITY

128 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly OCTOBER 2002

EXHIBIT 5

Extent of GMs’ security reevaluation by segment

5 (Yes, a lot)

4 (Yes, often)

3 (Somewhat)

2 (Not much)

1 (Not at all)

3.5 3.5 2.9 3.0 2.7 2.8 3.0 2.9 3.5 2.7 2.1

Lu xu

U ps

ca le

Fu ll-

se rv

ic e,

m id

pr ic

Ec on

om y

Ex te

nd ed

s ta

U rb

Su bu

rb an

Ai rp

or t

Hi gh

w ay

Re so

physical attributes were also the hotels where managers proactively responded to the terrorist attacks by making changes to their safety and security policies. Exhibit 5 shows that managers at luxury and upscale hotels, in particular, reevalu- ated their safety and security strategies, while the management of hotels in the economy, full- service midprice, and extended-stay segments did little reassessment after September 11.

In summary, hotels in the high-price segments of the lodging industry are most likely to possess a full array of physical safety and security fea- tures, with the highest safety and security scores occurring in the luxury and upscale segments.

However, it is important to note that the most- essential safety and security features are also widely available in the limited-service hotels that we studied. Indeed, midprice limited-service properties scored better on both indexes than did their full-service counterparts.

We believe that one reason for the strong showing of limited-service properties is that many midprice limited-service properties have been built relatively recently. However, to determine whether price-segment differences are really due to the intervening variable of hotel age in some segments we conducted analyses on segment dif- ferences controlling for hotel age. Our results

Li m

ite d-

se rv

ic e,

m id

pr ic

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

OCTOBER 2002 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 129

HOTEL SAFETY AND SECURITY HOTEL MANAGEMENT

EXHIBIT 6

Mean safety and security scores by age of hotel

Under 7 7 to 14 15 to 21 22 to 28 29 or more

Years since construction

Safety index Security index

79 76 72 64 66 60 58 54 57 47

100

reveal that significant differences in safety and security do exist across segments when taking into consideration the influence of hotel age. We now turn to an examination of safety and security fea- tures for hotels according to the age of the prop- erty. As we discuss subsequently, we also wanted to determine whether a property’s geographic location made a difference in its safety and secu- rity score.

Age of Hotel Recently built hotels generally have higher safety and security scores than do old properties. The percentage of hotels with electronic locks, sprin-

klers, and interior corridors declines dramatically with property age (see Exhibit 6). Almost all of the hotels built in the last seven years (92 per- cent) have electronic locks, compared to 51 per- cent of the hotels built more than 29 years ago. Similar patterns can be observed for such fea- tures as safety materials and security cameras, al- beit to a lesser degree. For example, 95 percent of the hotels built in the last seven years have in- room safety materials, compared to 80 percent of the hotels that are more than 29 years old. (It goes without saying that retrofitting old hotels with safety materials is easier and less expensive than adding, say, sprinklers or interior corridors.)

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

HOTEL MANAGEMENT HOTEL SAFETY AND SECURITY

130 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly OCTOBER 2002

Location and Region The extent to which a hotel has safety and secu- rity features depends heavily on its location type (see Exhibit 7). Airport hotels earned the high- est safety scores (77) and security scores (78). Moreover, airport hotels were more likely than other properties to be equipped with the entire list of safety and security features. Virtually all airport hotels are equipped with electronic locks (95.3 percent) and safety materials (96.9 percent). General managers in airport hotels were also most aggressive in reevaluating safety and secu- rity procedures after September 11 (again, see Ex- hibit 5).

The resort anomaly. The picture is mixed among hotels of other types, although resorts came out particularly low on both scales. Resort hotels had the lowest average safety index (61) and security index (46) of all. The reason that resorts as a group scored so low is that so many of them lack a key safety feature—that is, sprin- klers—and a key security feature—namely, elec- tronic locks. Just 52.5 percent of the resorts we surveyed had sprinklers and a similar percent- age, 52.9 percent, reported having electronic locks. Resorts were also weak on interior corri- dors (46.5 percent) and security cameras (62.5 percent). That security-camera percentage for

EXHIBIT 7

Mean safety and security scores by type of location

Urban Suburban Airport Highway Resort

Safety index Security index

69 65 70 65 77 78 63 59 61 46

100

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

OCTOBER 2002 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 131

HOTEL SAFETY AND SECURITY HOTEL MANAGEMENT

EXHIBIT 8

Mean safety and security scores by geographic region

New Middle South East East West West Mountain Pacific

England Atlantic Atlantic North South North South

Central Central Central Central

Safety index Security index

65 55 79 6565 60 68 64 70 68 70 67 65 63 68 66 66 59 67 58

100

resort hotels is as many as 30 points lower than the percentage for hotels in other locations.

These results do not necessarily mean that re- sorts are cavalier about guest safety and security. Instead, one must examine the characteristics of one set of hotels compared to other property types. It is interesting to see, for instance, that urban hotels did not score as high on safety and security as did suburban hotels. Hotels located on highways and those classified as resorts also scored low compared to those in other locations. The customers at airport hotels, as an example, are most likely focused on getting a convenient and secure rest—perhaps during an impromptu

hotel stay. On the other hand, customers at re- sorts may be in reasonably safe locations—often gated and remote. Instead of convenience, resort guests may well be focused more on their own relaxation and the property’s aesthetics and am- bience. The relatively low percentage of resort hotels with electronic locks, security cameras, and interior corridors may indicate that those features are less important to a guest than they would be in an airport or urban location

Geography. Another approach to analysis by hotel location is to explore whether safety and security vary among hotels in different geographic regions. As shown in Exhibit 8, the quick re-

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

HOTEL MANAGEMENT HOTEL SAFETY AND SECURITY

132 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly OCTOBER 2002

EXHIBIT 9

Mean safety and security scores by hotel type

Safety index Security index

76 71 58 36 73 70 68 56 57 48 55 28 73 73

100

0 All Suite B&B or Conference or Extended Motel Villa or Standard

Small Convention Stay Condo

Inn Center

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

OCTOBER 2002 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 133

HOTEL SAFETY AND SECURITY HOTEL MANAGEMENT

sponse to this issue is that we found little sub- stantial variation in safety and security scores by region. A comparison of safety scores for hotels in different parts of the United States indicates no significant differences from one region to an- other. The similar safety scores across regions may be due to brand standardization and consistency of safety features of hotels throughout the coun- try. The role of governmental entities in regulat- ing safety and security equipment does not ap- pear to influence hotels’ decisions to provide specific features. With the exception of local fire codes, hotel operators’ decisions regarding secu- rity equipment (e.g., locks and security cameras) appear to be governed by franchise requirements, while requisite safety equipment is also deter- mined by corporate standards (and in some cases building codes). The modest geographic varia- tion that exists does not appear to be attribut- able to local legislative factors, given the general absence of legislation and the efforts of corpora- tions to devise and impose their own standards.

Despite the overall similarities, however, we did find some differences on security-index scores among geographic areas (again, see Exhibit 8). The highest average security indexes are found in hotels located in the east-north-central region (with a mean index of 68) and east-south- central region (67). These scores are primarily due to the high percentage of hotels in those re- gions with interior corridors (81.9 percent in the east-north-central region and 65.2 percent in the east- south-central region) compared to hotels in other regions.

New England hotels have below-average safety-index scores and the lowest security-index scores of all geographic areas. These findings are attributable to the low incidence of electronic locks (54.5 percent), security cameras (35.6 per- cent), and safety materials (78.8 percent) in this region’s hotels. Such low scores may be explained in part by the high ratio of small hotels in the region. Approximately 20 percent of New England hotels are small inns or bed and break- fasts. Looking at the other coast, hotels in the Pacific region were the least likely to have inte- rior corridors (51.4 percent) and less likely to have sprinklers (57.9 percent) than hotels in the other regions, contributing to the low scores for Pa- cific properties.

Hotel Types We found that safety and security scores varied according to hotel type. All-suite hotels, confer- ence and convention hotels, and standard full- service hotels were the specific hotel types that scored among the highest on the safety and se- curity indexes, as Exhibit 9 reveals. These hotel types were most likely to possess a full array of safety and security features. However, we found differences among those three hotel types based on whether they featured sprinklers, electronic locks, or interior corridors. All-suite hotels, for instance, are the most likely to have sprinklers (86 percent), while standard hotels constitute the highest percentage of hotels with electronic locks (86.7 percent) and interior corridors (83.7 percent).

Motels as a class have the lowest safety and security scores. In particular, we found that few motels have sprinklers (37.9 percent) or interior

All-suite hotels, conference and convention hotels, and standard full-service hotels had high scores on the safety and security indexes.

corridors (39.9 percent). In marked contrast, convention and conference hotels not only score high on the safety and security indexes but were active in reevaluating their safety and security procedures after the terrorist attacks.

Condos and B&Bs. Also scoring low on se- curity features were condos (and villas) and small inns (including B&Bs). Again, few of these types of accommodation have electronic locks (28.8 percent for condos and 30.2 percent for small inns) or security cameras (18.2 percent for con- dos and 23.7 percent for small inns). In addi- tion, only 39.4 percent of villas and condos sur- veyed have sprinklers. As is the case with resorts, however, these findings may be attributable to the markets that condos and small inns serve. B&Bs and small inns, for example, focus on pro- viding the experience of a home away from home, and the aesthetics and ambience of the proper- ties might be harmed by obvious or excessive at- tention to security. Along that line, to attract vacationers, the operators of villas and condos may feel that they differentiate themselves from

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

HOTEL MANAGEMENT HOTEL SAFETY AND SECURITY

134 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly OCTOBER 2002

traditional hotel products by avoiding common amenities (such as electronic locks and security cameras). In short, their low safety scores may reflect a conscious decision to signal the guest that these specialized accommodations constitute a distinct product that requires only modest safety measures by their very nature.

Hotel Size Matters Large hotels generally have more safety and se- curity equipment than do hotels with few rooms, as Exhibit 10 shows. The features included in the indexes are more likely to be installed in large

hotels than in small hotels, with the exception of safety videos. In particular, we found a substan- tial difference in the safety and security scores of hotels with fewer than 40 rooms and those in all other size categories. Electronic locks are installed in 88 percent of the hotels with 250 or more rooms, for instance, compared to 19.4 percent of hotels with fewer than 40 rooms. The con- trast also carries over to moderate-size hotels. The percentage of hotels with 40 to 74 rooms that have electronic locks (62.3 percent) is three times greater than that 19.4-percent figure for small hotels. The same can be said for sprinklers and security cameras.

Hotels with the Most Safety and Security Equipment When we combine the profiles of hotels by size, type, and location, it appears that large luxury hotels located in urban areas have significantly higher safety- and security-index scores than do other hotels. The age of luxury hotels did not affect the degree of physical safety or security that they offered, despite the general tendency of new hotels to rack up high scores. The fact that luxury hotels have consistently high physical-safety and -security scores for both new and old properties may be attributed to frequent renovations and investments that allow managers to update safety

and security equipment in those properties. Up- scale hotels also score high on our safety and se- curity indexes—particularly large, new airport hotels. Unlike luxury hotels, the age of upscale hotels does make a difference in a hotel’s score, with new hotels featuring more safety and secu- rity equipment than found in old ones. In sum- mary, large, urban, luxury hotels and new, large, upscale airport hotels are the hotels carrying the highest safety and security scores.

Among the hotel types that have room for improvement, old resort and small economy motels tend to offer the least safety and security equipment. Aside from the age and size of these properties, motels that are in resort locations (safety index of 51 and security index of 35) and in urban locations (safety index of 54 and secu- rity index of 47) have significantly lower average safety and security indexes than do motels in other locations. Because urban locations have a disproportionately high number of old proper- ties, the low index scores associated with urban motels may be a function of age more than of location. Finally, resort-area motels offer the least desirable combination of safety and secu- rity features.

Conclusion Our safety and security indexes offer a prelimi- nary glimpse of the equipment installed by the U.S. lodging industry to protect guests and em- ployees and to provide a secure environment. While the indexes focus on the existence of vari- ous features and not on the effectiveness of their use, our coincident study of GMs’ reactions to security concerns offers some insight into how managers are reevaluating their safety procedures (or are not doing so).

We found four characteristics that distin- guished high-scoring hotels from low-scoring properties, namely, price segment, location, num- ber of rooms, and age. On balance, luxury and upscale hotels, airport and urban hotels, large properties, and new hotels are most likely to maintain a high level of safety and security ameni- ties. In contrast, old, small, economy, and resort motels are the properties least likely to provide the safety and security features that we studied.

We encourage general managers to review their own properties on the physical features we used

On balance, luxury and upscale hotels, airport and urban hotels, large properties, and new hotels are most likely to maintain a high level of safety and security amenities.

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

OCTOBER 2002 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 135

HOTEL SAFETY AND SECURITY HOTEL MANAGEMENT

to create our indexes. Using the weightings noted in Exhibit 2 and the data provided in Exhibit 3, it is possible to calculate your own safety and se- curity score and then compare your hotel’s in- dexes to those of other hotels in your hotel type, price segment, age category, location, and room size. The example in Exhibit 11 (overleaf ) shows a calculation of the safety index for a hypotheti- cal upscale hotel. While we would not advocate that the indexes that we have created are defini- tive indicators of safety and security, they do of- fer a point for contrast and comparison. (Again, we emphasize that hotels offer many other safety features in addition to those we studied.)

EXHIBIT 10

Mean safety and security scores by size of property

20 to 39 40 to 74 75 to 149 150 to 249 250+

Number of rooms

48 25 63 53 69 67 74 72 79 76

100

Safety index Security index

The scores on the indexes alone do not tell the full story, however. Safety and security equip- ment is useful only to the extent that a hotel also has a complete plan for its use, maintenance, and upgrade. The fact that some hotels score high on the indexes does not guarantee that they are physically safe and secure, since those hotels must also have appropriate management policies. With careful policy implementation, on the other hand, low-scoring hotels could, in fact, be safe and se- cure. What the indexes show is only the equip- ment that a given set of hotels may bring to bear in conjunction with a set of safety and security policies.

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

HOTEL MANAGEMENT HOTEL SAFETY AND SECURITY

136 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly OCTOBER 2002

We note again, however, that the hotels in categories that earned high scores on physical features (e.g., airport hotels) were also those cat- egories where the managers were most actively reevaluating their procedures after the terrorist attacks. This may suggest that managers whose hotels are not well equipped may not be in a position to alter or upgrade their emergency plans. Alternatively, the confluence of equipment and planning may suggest that high-scoring hotels expressly consider it their mission to provide their customers with a safe and secure environment.

The events of September 11 have focused many Americans’ attention on their security when traveling. Likewise, many sectors of the hotel industry are also giving greater scrutiny to safety, with revised check-in policies and enhanced lobby security. Nevertheless, the actual effects of a given set of safety and security policies and equipment is not clear. While some operators are reviewing policies and procedures, others may be reluctant to disturb their existing protocols because of the risk of destroying their property’s ambience. For economy hotels in particular, the challenge of balancing the needs of price-sensitive customers and the desires of profit-focused owners with needed safety enhancements is not easily resolved.

For all hoteliers, the challenge lies in making careful choices that provide appropriate standards for safety while not interfering with the hospitality and service levels that customers have come to expect. As crucial as physical-safety and -security features are for protecting customers and securing their possessions, hospitable service is also essential to customers’ satisfaction. While the airlines, for example, have no choice but to in- convenience customers with careful and some- times intrusive security procedures, hoteliers gen- erally wish neither to compromise basic security standards nor interfere with their service concept. We believe that the traveling public should be appreciative that so many hotels have equipped their physical facilities with essential safety and security features—even though many of those fea- tures are not required by any building code. We hope that this preliminary study will help both operators and the general public to have a better understanding of the scope and profile of safe and secure hotels in America. �

EXHIBIT 11

Sample safety index for a hypothetical upscale hotel

Feature Weighting × Present (1), Absent (0) = Subtotal

Sprinklers 0.30 × 1 = 0.30

Smoke detectors 0.25 × 1 = 0.25

Safety materials 0.20 × 0 = .00

Safety videos 0.15 × 0 = .00

Security cameras 0.10 × 1 = 0.10

Score .65

Safety Index

The hypothetical upscale hotel has sprinklers, smoke detectors, and

security cameras, but not safety materials or safety videos. Thus, its

score is .65, which is multiplied by 100, for an index of 65. For a com-

parison, the mean safety index for upscale hotels is 78.2, as shown in

Exhibit 4 (page 126).

Cathy A. Enz, Ph.D., is the Lewis G. Schaeneman, Jr., Professor of Innovation and Dynamic Management at the School of Hotel Administration at Cornell University, where she is also the executive director of the Center for Hospitality Research ([email protected]), and where Masako S. Taylor, MMH, is a Ph.D. candidate ([email protected]). The authors gratefully acknowledge the assis- tance of Brian Ferguson of Smith Travel Research in providing access to this comprehensive database collected by RealTime Hotel reports prior to its acquisi- tion by Smith Travel Research.

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/