Rebuilding the foundations of security; Dr Mark Button, of ICJS (Institute of Criminal Justice Studies ) at the University of Portsmouth, outlines points in his forthcoming next book.
For many the Private Security Industry Act 2001 was to be the saviour of the industry, bringing in a new era of professionalism and higher standards – a new private security industry. Indeed in the SIA’s first Corporate and Business Plan, 2003-2006, John Saunders the then Chief Executive made clear his vision for the SIA in implementing the Act:
Perhaps the Act’s most important contribution is that it provides sound foundations for introducing fundamental changes, creating a private security industry that is healthier, more successful, dynamic and fit to pursue new market opportunities. Above all, an industry that is respected and proud of its reputation.
The days when many aspects of the private security could be described as ‘sub-prime’ were to be numbered. Low quality security guards, probably one of the best symbols of the industry, who were poorly trained, sometimes criminals and rarely in the job long enough were to become a thing of the past. Yet a realistic assessment of the industry today would still identify some of the following:
? The vast majority of security guards having undertaken only the basic industry training of four days, working over 50 hours per week, with limited commitment to the industry and consequently high labour turnover.
? Many security managers with no specialist security qualifications operating in a sector with a weak professional infra-structure, compared to other managerial specialisms.
The revolution in the private security envisaged by Saunders and hoped by so many has given way to gripes on a range of issues relating to the SIA and no major changes.
? Ambitions and mentality of regulation: concerns have been raised concerning the standards created by the SIA, which have built on the already existing voluntary standards and have not stretched the industry. Concerns have also been raised of how close the SIA is to certain sections of the private security industry.
? Training: the standards of training have been criticised as not adequate. The three days classroom and one on the job mandated for security officers is minimal when compared to many EU countries and adds only one extra day on the pre-regulation voluntary standard. Criticism has also been made of the administration of the exams where training providers can administer their own tests, creating potential conflicts of interest.
? Voluntary Approved Contractors Scheme: firms do not have to be ‘approved’, it is purely a voluntary measure.
? In-house security officers: a major part of the security industry is still exempt as in-house officers do not need to be regulated.
? Security systems: also another major sector exempt from regulation.
? Costs and bureaucracy: there has been criticism of the costs of a licence as well as the length of time it takes for the SIA to process them.
? Loopholes: some loopholes have been exploited such as criminals who would not be entitled to run a security company becoming ‘security consultants’ where no licence is currently required.
Regulation is not the only foundation upon which sound security is built, although it is a significant, if not the most important part. There also needs to be a rebuilding of the foundations relating to the professional infra-structure as well as measures to tackle security inequity. These three key areas for rebuilding the foundations of security are explored in my latest book, Doing Security, to be published by Palgrave and in my view hold the key to bring about the fundamental changes so many desired.
Reforming regulation
Despite the criticisms of the SIA there are some quite simple steps that could be made to enhance regulation, without even resorting to greater compulsory measures, although the latter will also be required. The missing sectors should be brought within the fold of regulation. Higher standards of compulsory training for all licence holders based upon competences are necessary along with the introduction of mandatory training for the managers and leaders of security too. Companies should also be subject to regulation. The voluntary system at present means there is no major sanction for firms that flout regulations. For example if a firm regularly breached the regulations relating to employees, if that firm was an approved contractor it might lose that status, but could still continue trading, but even more concerning if it wasn’t there would be no sanction at all. In most regulated industries the firms’ licence is also at stake where breaches of regulation can lead to penalties and even revocation of the licence. For example, in the financial services sector where regulation is conducted by the Financial Services Authority (FSA), Norwich Union was fined a record £1.26 million by the FSA in 2007 over failure to protect customers personal information, which put them at greater risk of fraud.
There are also voluntary measures that can be introduced to enhance the quality of regulation. In an industry obsessed with status higher level licences based upon the completion of higher standards of training for both guards, door supervisors and managers will reap rewards. In Finland where guards who complete the recognised vocational training are entitled to where the letter ‘A’ on their epaulettes (Government Decree on Private Security Services 534/2002 Section 9 (2)). This has proved very successful in Finland encouraging staff to do the additional training and giving greater status to successful candidates who can display the ‘A’. One must also remember that this is on top of the minimum training for a security guard of 100 hours! Different grades of security officer and the completion of certain specialist training should enable security officers to display certain recognised badges by the SIA, with an offence for those displaying such badges they are not entitled too.
Creating a professional infra-structure
Many of the traits of a profession are absent when it comes to security managers. There is not a dominant professional association representing the majority of managers (although the SyI and IIS merger brings this a step closer), there are no recognised industry qualifications that most managers undertake to enter the industry, there is no code of ethics and for most there is not a professional mentality. That is a process of work based upon evidence based actions utilising the very latest research. One only has to compare the other managerial specialisms and their progress towards a Royal Charter (which for most is the distinguishing criteria for a profession), security management lags well behind.
There are a number of initiatives that could be pursued to close this gap. First basic entry level training (which may also include measures that enable those with appropriate experience or qualification to be recognised) should be mandated. In the NHS every Trust must employ an Accredited Security Management Specialist (ASMS) who has undergone a 5 week training course equivalent to one third of the first year of a degree. This should be the norm for the wider industry. On top of this voluntary licences should be created based upon higher levels of achievement which entitle a higher designation, such as ‘Senior Security Manager’ or ‘Advanced Security Manager’.
There is also much the professional associations can do. Mergers to create one very strong and powerful voice that it becomes impossible to be not a member should occur. That body should do more to increase the status of the higher levels of study. It should also do more to promote the professional way of doing things. The SyI is doing much, but a comparison to some of the other bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development provides the route map for the SyI to achieve this.
Tackling security inequity
This last aspect to rebuilding the foundations of security for most security practitioners will be something they have never thought about. However, the fact is most forms of private security are situational crime prevention measures and their success results in displacement to less protected areas (in varying degrees according to the offender and the type of crime) – effectively a form of pollution. The least well off whether businesses or communities inevitably suffer greater victimisation as a result. There are compelling reasons to enhance the security of the least well off. Leaving some communities to be the greater victims of crime effectively enables criminal to develop their skills and expand. Crimes in such areas often send out signals increasing the fear of crime elsewhere. For the benefit of all it is also not possible to spend all our time in the safer areas.
Therefore what I would advocate is a tax on security with that money been allocated to fund to enable communities (whether residential or businesses) in the most deprived areas to bid for that money to enhance their own security. My own preferred model would be for communities to establish ‘security unions’ modelled upon credit unions who would used these funds to purchase security. They may also secure additional finance from their own activities and bids to other grant making bodies: statutory and non-statutory. For those in the security industry alarmed at yet another increased cost through the tax they would be off set by the likely boom in as yet under-developed aspect of the security market.
Tackling these three areas will do much to enhance the quality of security in society and achieve many of the original aims envisaged when regulation was introduced. Much of this article has been critical, but there are many examples of good practice and high quality in the security industry. The challenge is to make these the norm not the exception.
These ideas are developed in more depth in Doing Security which is available from http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?PID=280575 from October.
About the author: see the ICJS website:
http://www.port.ac.uk/departments/academic/icjs/staff/title,1115,en.html
