The motto of the International Foundation for Protection Officers (IFPO) is “Knowledge to Protect”. This message is delivered both by the certifications and e-learning we deliver but it is supported by academic research, writes Mike Hurst, IFPO UK director.
At the start of 2021, the IFPO Board of Directors commissioned the security research firm Perpetuity Research, led by Prof Martin Gill CSyP, to undertake an international research project that, nine months later resulted in the report “The Competence of Frontline Security Professionals and What they say a About Their Work”. This is the first in a series of research projects that the IFPO plan over the next few years.
This work could not have been possible without the generous support of our sponsors.
The research was undertaken to better understand the perspectives and experiences of frontline security personnel with the aim of highlighting key considerations for enhancing their capabilities. It explored the range of tasks that they undertake, the perceived difficulty of those tasks and of the competence of their colleagues, and the effectiveness of training. It also looked at other key issues impacting on frontline security personnel, namely licensing, the use of force (including carrying weapons), and involvement with non-security tasks.
The findings are based on 10,625 responses to a survey of security officers/guards, from nine countries: Canada, Ecuador, India, Ireland, Nigeria, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, the UK, and the USA; supplemented by online one-to-one interviews with 42 security professionals. Just under 2,000 of the responses came from the UK. The report often refers to officers or guards. Whilst we here, are now using the word Officer, in some countries this is not allowed and the word guard is used.
The survey explored six ‘typical’ tasks of the work of security officers/guards and found that carrying out –
– access control is the most common (54 per cent did this often);
– followed by undertaking physical patrols (48pc did this often),
– customer service (44pc did this often),
– monitoring and managing alarms and emergencies (39pc did this often),
– enforcing rules (39pc did this often) and finally
– basic investigations (32pc did this often).
The full report runs to 105 pages, including the Executive Summary, but for the purposes of this article, I shall focus on the UK and Ireland. However, I would encourage strongly that anyone who has an interest in the future development of the security profession read the full report which can be found at www.ifpo.org,
Some key findings were:
– Respondents from the UK (along with Nigeria) more likely than average to disagree that licensing is a waste of time.
– UK respondents held comparatively negative attitudes; they were least likely to see security as a career and the least satisfied with the pay
– UK and also Ireland respondents were less likely than average to indicate they receive on-going training.
– Respondents from the UK most commonly indicated they had not received site-specific training after being assigned to their site.
– UK respondents were also the least likely to indicate they receive site-specific training after being assigned to their site while 20pc of UK respondents received no site-specific training at all.
– The use of force was considerably less common among the UK respondents than the average.
Interestingly though, across all the six key tasks explored they more commonly indicated these were ‘core’ (something they did ‘often’). They were more likely to perceive undertaking physical patrols and customer service to be ‘easy’.
– 19pc of UK respondents indicated it followed work in the military or law enforcement/police, compared with the average across all nine countries of 33pc;
– 13pc of UK respondents indicated they work part time; and
– 10pc indicated it was a secondary job.
Customer service was most often a core part of the role for uniformed security officers and least often a core part of the role for door supervisors/bouncers and cash-in-transit/ armoured car guards. Whilst there are many positives shown in the report, there are, I feel many areas that should be of concern, primarily but not exclusively around the subject of training.
This is a new report and there will be many security organisations looking at the findings and how they impact the way we move forward in developing security career pathways, improving the perception of security and security officers and we look forward to engaging with them to achieve our shared ambitions.
Visit https://www.ifpo.org/research-project/.
