Which option is more cost-effective for an institution regarding security?

Choosing to build security systems into the design of a building is more cost-effective in the long run for several key reasons. Integrating security measures during the initial design phase allows for a seamless implementation that is tailored to the specific needs and layout of the building. This proactive strategy helps to ensure that security features are not an afterthought, which can often lead to costly retrofitting or modifications if added later.

Furthermore, when security is considered during the design phase, it can potentially reduce the overall costs associated with installing inadequate or ineffective systems later on, as a well-thought-out design incorporates all necessary elements from the beginning. This approach also provides an opportunity to leverage the building's architecture to enhance security, such as designing natural surveillance and creating barriers that deter unauthorized access while maintaining aesthetic value.

In contrast, the other options might seem appealing initially but can lead to higher long-term costs. Relying on outside organizations for safety training or using off-duty law enforcement officers might save money upfront but may not provide the continuous, tailored training that staff require over time. Installing access controls only on exterior doors could leave vulnerabilities at internal access points, requiring additional expenses in the future to address these gaps. Therefore, considering security in the architectural design phase establishes a strong foundation