Readers of Professional Security will be more than aware that the impending cuts in the financial resources of the UK’s 43 police forces (‘services’?) could result in a glut of applications for work, or even a vast increase in the number of security firms and consultancies, from recently deposed law officers. David Palmer FIPI F.Inst.L.Ex Principal, the Institute of Professional Investigators, writes.
As senior officers retire earlier than they expected, and lower ranks have their services dispensed with, you can take one of two possible views on the situation.
1.There are too many potential competitors out there, now; or
2.There’s a lot of valuable experience and knowledge and I can utilise that.
I am not in a position to address the corporate/commercial pros and cons of the former argument, not being part of the wider security industry, except to say that ‘competition is good’. Unless they can undercut your charges, of course.
In the second case, I think I can make some observations. And the first is, if you are considering the employment of a ‘retired’ officer – make sure you know what you want.
All police officers have experience in dealing with people, convincing, manipulating, interpreting and talking with them. They can all elicit information, to a degree. They can study and interpret the Law. They can identify with and create systematic working practices, and they are usually disciplined – they’ll turn up for work at the appointed time.
However, if you want a particular type of work done, you need to consider your target for recruitment carefully. If you want an investigator, I say aim at Detective Sergeant or Constable level. If you want an investigations manager, aim a bit higher – DI and DCI. If you want a PR ‘name’, go for the QPM-nominee and pay accordingly.
I say this because there is (or was) a preconception that senior detectives do all the investigation and interview work in policing. That was true when I started (in 1986) but those tasks have now been devolved, and appropriate training provided and accredited, to the lower ranks. Murderers are now interviewed by detective constables (DCs), not detective chief superintendents. (Except on the telly). Major frauds are dealt with by NPIA-accredited financial investigators –DCs and detective sergeants. Major investigation rooms are managed by detective sergeants and inspectors, but such is the working methodology in these places that a lot of the work is done by DCs. It is only recently that investigators in the police have been subject to accredited courses (The Initial Crime Investigator’s Development Program) and other, higher courses for senior investigating officers.
Investigation management – identification of trends, management of resources, overseeing of investigation leads, authorising budgetary spending, inter-agency liaison and some investigatory decision-making – is now dealt with by the higher-ups. That is not to say they do not manage and oversee strategy of the investigation – they do – but the hands on witness-interviewing, statement taking and evidence gathering and exhibit management is done at the coal-face by DCs and DSs.
If you want a proper, security-qualified manager, forget it. Police officers can provide great security advice IF they have done the crime prevention courses (and I’ve been very impressed by knowledge of the DC with responsibility for crime prevention in my own force), but just because they were a DCI does not mean they know the first things about premises security, facilities management, industrial espionage or fire and crime prevention. They will adapt quickly in environments they are hitherto unfamiliar with, but they cannot be as good as a properly qualified security practitioner, any more than the latter could be a DCI. They are different beasts. Of course, if the said applicant has obtained relevant qualifications this way of thinking may not apply, but, in general, rank does not necessarily equal competence outside one’s own profession.
The Institute of Professional Investigators would respectfully recommend that if you are considering the employment of a professional investigator, you look not at their rank but at their qualifications and experience – with some heavy emphasis towards the former. Any applicant claiming responsibility for a marvellous investigative feat would quite possibly be overlooking the fact that such a success was only possible because of the teams with which he or she worked; even inside the service stories abound about job applicants taking credit for the work done by others (and it’s quite amusing when an interview panel spots this). Did you know that after the rank of inspector there is no rank-directed examination process? Any relevant qualifications will quite possibly have been specifically sought by the applicant, which we would say is a positive sign of some one who is driven, and recognises the benefits and rewards of professionalism. Or they may have had role-related training – again, relevant but arguably police-orientated and possibly not what you actually need as an employer or service-provider.
In conclusion, then, look for what you want, but be precise. Manager or practitioner? Make sure you get what you need, and not a ‘name’. It’s your bottom line that is at stake.
(The content and sentiment of this article is that of the author and not necessarily that of any party or organisation connected with him.)
