Security Security training in the UK – some observations by Ian Houston.
Professional Security Magazine’s July 2009 edition featured an interview with Mike Bluestone, the new Chairman of The Security Institute (TSI); it also contained a report on the SIA’s recent conference in Manchester – an event entitled, ‘The SIA Journey: Have We Gone Far Enough?’ One theme common to both articles was the need for high quality security training: for the TSI, to help attain chartered status; for the SIA (and the audience) to have quality training delivered to the SIA licensees.
However worthwhile these aspirations are, and despite the profusion of training providers out there, achieving them may not be as straightforward as it might seem.
I say this because of some work I did last year as part of my masters degree course in Security Management at Loughborough University. That work, undertaken in summer 2009 for my Diploma Project, was an investigation into the provision of training for the UK’s security practitioners and its outcomes. Like much research, its conclusions were mixed: there is great demand for training and much training provision to support this demand. However, the training that is available may not cover all the necessary disciplines within the security profession (outside that mandated by the SIA), is of variable quality and some may not be deliver what they appear to promise.
Quality training is vital. Not only does it improve the competence of the individual receiving it but it also improves recruitment and retention rates and provides ‘value added’ by giving the customer a quality product capable of meeting a variety of threats. It also improves the standing of security as a viable career choice rather than as a second job for retirees from the police or military. (There is also an increasing argument that a record of training could reduce legal liability in the event of litigation by being a demonstration of ‘best efforts’).
I also feel that the issue of training is important in light of the potential for the SIA to extend its licensing remit to encompass Security Consultants. While the SIA currently has no plans for this, it does have the statutory power to do so and the publication of BS 8549, Code of Practice for Security Consultancy would make regulation easier by providing a ready framework of licensing criteria. Indeed, the Manchester conference’s strap-line ‘Have We Gone Far Enough?’ suggests that they do have longer-term aspirations regarding licensing.
It was in this light that I approached my study.
Data was derived from e-mail surveys sent to the three main stakeholder groups in security training: the Students, the Businesses that purchase training and the Training Providers. The period covered was the Financial Year 2007/08.
Students were defined as UK-based individuals who had undertaken, or continued any form of professional security-related training in the period. This training was delivered by an external provider (ie. not provided by in-house resources) and was purchased, either by the student or on his behalf. There were 77 responses.
Business users were defined as those who actually approved any security-related training that either they or any of their staff had purchased in the period from an outside provider. Respondents represented companies that were all UK-based, either as the UK arm or multi-nationals, UK Stock Exchange listed companies, Small-to-Medium Enterprise companies or Limited Liability Partnerships or Sole Traders. There were 30 responses.
Training providers were defined as UK-based companies providing security-related training for UK-centred operations. Companies involved in personal or corporate security training for use outside the UK (such as hostile environment training) or training conducted outside UK were excluded, as were security-related recruitment companies and training materials providers.
Although all three groups provided much useful data, I will focus here on just one aspect of training provision, that of course accreditation.
The Training Provider survey was distributed via e-mail by the author, to training providers listed in the Security Institute’s 2007 Yearbook; to companies located through a Google search for "Security Training" and by a random sample of training providers listed on the SIA website. It sought to establish the ‘quality’ of the training. Questions asked included types of courses offered; frequency; duration; numbers attending; pass/fail rates and if the course(s) were accredited by any official body.
All surveys concerned five categories of training: Academic Training (to deliver a UK-accredited qualification); Vocational Training (which may or may not provide any certification); Technical Training (which may or may not provide any certification); SIA-mandated training and Other Training. Training Providers were specifically not asked about costs of courses or to provide the particulars of any specific course.
Despite efforts to make the survey as neutral as possible, the response was disappointing. Out of the 250 e-mails sent out, only 22 responded, with just 19 providing any usable data. Many others took the trouble to reply (but not complete the survey) to explain why they would not participate, mainly citing either ‘commercial confidentiality’ or ‘company policy’ for their non-participation. This lack of response was surprising, especially since the survey only took some 15 minutes to complete and contained only questions a diligent customer might ask before buying a course.
The most immediate finding was the plethora of SIA-related training that is offered. The SIA website listed approximately 3,500 locations offering some form of licensing-related training. While it is true that the actual number of providers is less than the number of locations, with many providers using multiple locations, the sheer scale of training provision must raise questions about quality vs. quantity. This was a point touched on at the Manchester conference and echoed in my findings, with SIA-related training providers reporting pass rates in excess of 91pc. (As shown in the figure below). Little wonder that the SIA website reported processing 15,000 licenses in June 2008 and 10,000 in July 2008.
The pass rates for virtually all of the courses are extremely high. Most providers have a 91 per cent-plus pass rate for their courses. The low pass rates for the CVIT (Cash and Valuables In Transit) and Vehicle Immobiliser (vehicle clamper) course can be explained by the very low number of courses reported (with one provider having run both courses for less than one year).
This consistently high pass rate must raise questions regarding the fundamental purpose of the current SIA-mandated training and its rigour. Some providers commented that the bar is too low and pass rates certainly suggest this. However, this poses the question: ‘What is the purpose of the SIA training?’
A number of respondent comments from all three surveys suggested that the SIA training should be some form of filter winnowing suitable candidates from unsuitable ones, thereby helping to raise standards. But an alternative view (and possibly the SIA’s) is that it is simply a mechanism to guarantee a minimum level of competency in candidate skills. Certainly this view would seem the most cost-effective one: the place for discrimination is at the interview where the decision is made to recruit or not rather than have a nugatory spend to train an unsuitable candidate.
Of equal concern, and possibly more relevant to the TSI’s aspirations for chartered status is the standing of the training that is available. Mike Bluestone referred to the need for the TSI to attract "academically qualified" members and this term may need elaboration.
Within the UK, all formal qualifications are underwritten by the various national education regulators and given a grade on the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) based on the content of the course and what it provides to the student. The NQF has nine levels (Entry to Level 8), and its higher levels (4 to 8), broadly overlap with another accreditation framework, the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications, which deals with qualifications awarded by universities and the like.
While the SIA training is pegged against the NQF criteria, the same cannot be said for all other training. And it may be that there are many situations where SIA-licensed security personnel are more qualified, in a formal sense, than their managers. Therefore, academically-inclined TSI members will need to be wary as not all courses offered by providers have any formal academic standing and, consequently, are unlikely to be accepted in support of the TSI’s bid for chartered status.
All Academic courses were accredited by one or more bodies. While all the modular courses led to a degree, there was marked variance in the marking schemes, with some courses apparently accepting a pass mark in the 51per cent – 60pc bracket while others have a pass mark of 81pc-plus.
It was not the study’s intention to discuss how subjects were accredited (and the accreditation authorities were different for each provider) and this data was a ‘first pass’ from an extremely small sample. However, the apparent anomalies raised by this spread of pass marks do suggest that students/purchasers could ‘shop around’ to find a less demanding course to gain the same level of qualification.
Of the 34 vocational courses offered, eight claimed no formal qualification. Of the 26 that did claim an accreditation, only 24 were able to give a formal accreditation for the qualification claimed.
This discrepancy between the qualification claimed and its stated accreditation suggested either that some trainers misunderstood the relationship between claiming a formal qualification and accreditation or have had their course approved by an organisation that is not a formal accreditation authority.
This trend was repeated in Technical Training with only nine out of 24 courses demonstrating formal accreditation. One provider stated that there was no need for their technical courses to be formally accredited because they catered to a specific customer group and their courses were not generally commercially available.
Under ‘Other Training’, 15 providers offered 100 separate courses, although this finding distorted by one provider offering 52 Facilities/Health and Safety courses. The vast majority were accredited and aligned with the NQF.
Yet again, there appeared to be some misunderstanding regarding what constituted accreditation. One provider stated that certain courses were accredited either because his company was the preferred supplier for a professional organisation and/or he had accredited them based upon his membership of certain professional organisations. This does not detract for the content or quality of the courses (which was not explored) but it does illustrate how the term may be interpreted by the training community. It also shows that providers deliver training falling outside the current regulatory and accreditational framework.
This lack of understanding regarding the concept of formal course accreditation was repeated in both the Student and the Business User surveys. Five Respondents gave their ASIS CPP and PSP certifications as formal ‘Academic’ qualifications, rather than as ‘Vocational Training’, suggesting that there is misunderstanding regarding the status of various courses and their position on the NQF – or if they have any formal UK standing at all. This lack of awareness was echoed elsewhere by other Students who equated a ‘Certificate of Course Attendance’ with a formal qualification. While certain courses may be highly regarded by the profession (e.g. the ASIS certifications), are ‘Best in Field’ or ‘Preferred by…’ and cater to a particular market, (eg. TSCM or other specialist courses) their lack of formal accreditation weakens their claims to excellence and utility in the increasingly-regulated UK security market.
It is also true to say that the situation is not helped by the terms providers themselves use. One national provider advertised a particular course as a ‘Diploma’. Yet, when asked where the course was on the NQF, admitted that the course was, in fact, a ‘Certificate’ (NQF Level 2).
What does this means for the UK security community?
For those occupying SIA-licensable posts, probably nothing. They are receiving the required training and getting the right ticks in the right boxes. However, for those who occupy other, usually managerial posts, it could mean that you or your company have spent money on a course that, regardless of its quality, has no standing as a UK-recognised professional qualification.
But, is even this an issue? Well, yet again, possibly not. If a student is happy with a course, considers it worthwhile and it meets the training need; and he is not bothered about its formal standing within the UK national framework, then that course has delivered. But, if a person is looking for nationally-recognised qualifications to prosper their career (or support an application for a TSI Fellowship, for example), then they should be asking the course provider about course accreditation and where any proposed course sits on the National Qualification Framework. It is only by consumer pressure such as this that we can encourage Training Providers to get their courses accredited.
There are benefits for all in this approach. Students will get formal qualifications that are nationally recognized (and which may help when/if licensing is extended); Business Users will get much better value for money from their training budget, and it will enable them to compare like-with-like when drafting job descriptions and recruiting; and Training Providers will be able to offer a value-added product to discriminating consumers. And the Security Industry as a whole will benefit as rising standards encourage increasing professionalism.
The 77 students who responded to my survey had a total maximum of £427,000 expended on their professional development. That is a lot of leverage to help encourage the accreditation of training for the UK’s professional security community.
Ian Houston CPP, MSyI, MIL, Dip Sy Mgmt
Director, Houston Security Consulting.
