ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT SECURITY & LOSS PREVENTION

Chapter 2 - The Business, Careers, and Challenges of Security and Loss Prevention

Security and Loss Prevention: An Introduction, 5th Edition

by Philip P. Purpura

Challenges of the Security Industry

During the 1970s, business and government leaders increasingly viewed the growing private security

industry as an ally of the criminal justice system. Both crime-fighting sectors have mutual and overlapping

functions in controlling crime. With this thinking in mind, the U.S. Department of Justice provided financial

support for the production of important research reports. The Rand Report (U.S. Department of Justice,

1972 : 30) focused national attention on the problems and needs of the private security industry. This report

stated, "the typical private guard is an aging white male, poorly educated, usually untrained, and very

poorly paid." This conclusion has met with criticism because the research sample was small, and, thus, did

not represent the entire security industry. However, with the assistance of this report and its

recommendations, the professionalism of private security improved.

The Rand Report was a great aid (because of limited literature in the field) to the Report of the Task Force

on Private Security (U.S. Department of Justice, 1976b ). This report of the National Advisory Committee on

Criminal Justice Standards and Goals represented the first national effort to set realistic and viable

standards and goals designed to maximize the ability, competency, and effectiveness of the private

security industry for its role in the prevention and reduction of crime. A major emphasis of the report was

that all businesses that sell security services should be licensed and all personnel in private security work

should be registered.

The task force's urging of stricter standards for the security industry reflected a need to reduce ineptitude

and industry abuses, while striving toward professionalism. The task force focused on minimal hiring,

training, and salary standards that are still problems today. These minimal standards enable companies to

reduce costs and provide potential clients with low bids for contract service. Thus, professionalism is

sacrificed to keep up with competition. The task force recommended improved hiring criteria, higher

salaries (especially to reduce turnover), and better training, among other improvements. Both studies

recommended state-level regulation of the security industry in general as a means of creating more

uniformity.

Another major study of the security industry funded by the U.S. Department of Justice was titled Private

Security and Police in America: The Hallcrest Report (Cunningham and Taylor, 1985 ). It focused research

on three major areas: (1) the contributions of both public police and private security to crime control; (2) the

interaction of these two forces and their level of cooperation; and (3) the characteristics of the private

security industry. Several industry problems and preferred solutions were discussed in this report, as

covered in subsequent pages.

The U.S. Department of Justice funded a second Hallcrest Report titled Private Security Trends: 1970

–2000, The Hallcrest Report II (Cunningham et al., 1990 ). This report provided a study of security trends to

the 21st century. Some of its predictions are listed next. This list can assist us in thinking critically about

security today.

◾ Crime against business in the United States will cost $200 billion by the year 2000.

◾ Since the middle 1980s, companies have been less inclined to hire security managers with

police and military backgrounds and more inclined to hire those with a business background.

◾ During the 1990s, in-house security staffs will diminish with an increased reliance on contract

services and equipment. ◾ The negative stereotypical security personnel are being replaced with younger, better-

educated officers with greater numbers of women and minority group members. However, the

problems of quality, training, and compensation remain.

◾ The false-alarm problem is continuing. There is a massive waste of public funds when police

and fire agencies must respond to current levels of false alarms. Between 97% and 99% of

all alarms are false.

Upon selecting at least one prediction of the Hallcrest Report II, is the prediction true today?

Cooperation between Public Police and Private Security

The following statements are from Law Enforcement and Private Security: Sources and Areas of Conflict

(U.S. Department of Justice, 1976a : 6):

A persistent problem noted by several research reports involves disrespect and even conflict

between public and private police.

Some law enforcement officers believe that being a "public servant" is of a higher moral order

than serving private interests. … They then relegate private security to an inferior status. … This

perceived status differential by law enforcement personnel manifests itself in lack of respect

and communication, which precludes effective cooperation.

These problems persist in the 21st century, even though many public police work part-time in the private

security industry and, upon retiring, secure positions in this vocation. To reduce conflict, the Task Force

Report and the Hallcrest Reports recommended liaison be implemented between public and private police.

During the 1980s, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs’ Association, and

the American Society for Industrial Security began joint meetings to foster better cooperation between the

public and private sectors ( Cunningham et al., 1991 ). This effort continued into the 1990s. Suggested

areas of increased cooperation included appointing high-ranking practitioners from both sectors to increase

communication, instituting short training lessons in established training programs, and sharing expertise.

According to a 2004 national policy summit on public police and private security cooperation, only 5–10%

of law enforcement chief executives participate in partnerships with private security ( U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2004 ). Although both groups have a lot to offer

each other, they are not always comfortable working together. Police continue to criticize security over their

lower standards for screening and training, and they may see security as a threat to their domain. Police

often fall short of understanding the important role of private security. At the same time, some security

personnel see police as elitists and claim that police are not concerned about security until they seek a

position in the security field. Here are observations by participants of the 2004 national policy summit:

◾ Issues include respect (that is, law enforcement's lack of respect for security), trust, training

differentials, and competition.

◾ Community policing calls on law enforcement to develop relationships with various sectors of

the community. Police departments meet regularly with local clergy, business groups,

neighborhood associations, and other groups. They do not seem to meet regularly with

groups of corporate security directors and managers of security businesses.

◾ Information sharing is difficult. Corporations do not feel they receive timely information from

police, and they fear that information they give to the police may end up in the newspaper.

Police fear that the corporate sector may not treat law enforcement information discreetly.

◾ There is much role confusion between the public and private sectors, such as confusion

about what will be done in an emergency. If a company's plant suffers an explosion, police

may immediately declare it a crime scene, and then the company's security staff may not be

able to respond as needed. Likewise, in the post-9/11 era, law enforcement officers show up

to conduct risk assessments but often are not as knowledgeable about them as private

security. ◾ A city may simultaneously have some outstanding partnerships but also some

counterproductive relationships. The 9/11 attacks helped in building relationships. The true

measure of success, however, is whether a partnership accomplishes something and is

lasting.

◾ Both parties have a responsibility for improving partnerships.

◾ Each side should educate the other about its capabilities, before a crisis erupts, so each will

know when to call on the other and what help to expect (and to offer). Integrated training may

break down some barriers.

Cooperation between both groups takes many forms and occurs at many levels of government. To varying

degrees, both groups share information with each other, attend each other's conferences, and plan

together for protection and emergencies. They even work side-by-side at certain sites, such as downtown

districts, government buildings, and special events.

An improved partnership between both groups can be beneficial to our nation by improving planning and

emergency response and by sharing information, expertise, and training. At the 2004 national policy

summit, public police and private security leaders recommended that both groups should make a formal

commitment to cooperate. Also, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and/or the U.S.

Department of Justice should fund relevant research and training; create an advisory council to oversee

partnerships to address tactical issues and intelligence sharing, improve selection and training for private

security personnel, and create a national partnership center; and organize periodic summits on relevant

issues. On the local level, immediate action should be taken to improve joint response to critical incidents;

coordinate infrastructure protection; improve communications and data interoperability; bolster information

sharing; prevent and investigate high-tech crime; and plan responses to workplace crime ( U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2004 : 3–4).

The 9/11 attacks caused the federal government to develop numerous programs and strategies to enhance

homeland security. The federal government expanded its role in regulating certain aspects of private

industries to protect against terrorism and other risks, especially since the private sector owns 85% of U.S.

critical infrastructure. Federal law enforcement agencies are working with private sector executives,

including security executives, to control terrorism. The U.S. Treasury Department, for example, has

directed companies in not only the finance business, but also brokerage firms, casinos, and other

businesses, to reduce terrorist financing by taking specific steps at their own expense, such as establishing

or expanding anti-money-laundering programs. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration provide guidelines

to the food industry to prevent terrorist attacks on the nation's food supply.

To facilitate communications and to share information on homeland security with private industry, the

federal government hosts conferences and training sessions. Federal initiatives include disaster-

preparedness grants involving coordination efforts of local governments and businesses.

Another initiative is the Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs). These are generally private

sector networks of organizations that the federal government has helped to create to share information on

threats to critical industries and coordinate efforts to identify and reduce vulnerabilities.

A variety of other public-private sector information-sharing programs is operating. For example, the

Homeland Security Information Network-Critical Infrastructure (HSIN-CI) enables key executives in the

public and private sectors to receive alerts and notifications from the DHS via phone (landline and

wireless), e-mail, fax, or pager. It is set up on a regional basis with regional Web sites, and not every

region receives the same alerts.

Regulation of the Industry

The security vocation has its share of charlatans, who tarnish the industry, and as with many types of

services offered the public, government intervention has taken the form of licensing and registration. The

Task Force Report and Hallcrest Reports recommend regulation of the security industry by all states. To

protect consumers, the majority of states have varied laws that regulate, through licensing and registration,

contract security officer services, private investigators, polygraph and other detection of deception

specialists, and security alarm businesses. Security consultants are generally not regulated, but consumers should verify professional memberships and certifications. Although government regulation

does not guarantee that all security practitioners will perform in a satisfactory manner, it does prevent

people who have criminal records from entering the profession. Those applicants who have lived in

multiple states should have their backgrounds checked for each jurisdiction. Attention to this type of

background investigation varies.

Another way in which the industry is regulated is through local, state, and federal agencies that contract out

private security services and mandate various contract requirements (e.g., education, training, and

character) to enhance professionalism and competence. Certain industries are regulated by government

and require stringent security standards. For example, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issues

rules and standards that must be followed by licensees of nuclear reactors to ensure safety and security. A

variety of businesses, institutions, and other organizations also issue requirements. However, the lowest

bidder on a contract may be selected and professionalism may be sacrificed.

Attempts have been made through Congress to pass a national law to regulate the security industry. Rep.

Bob Barr (R-GA) introduced H.R. 2092, The Private Security Officers Quality Assurance Act of 1995. It

languished in Congress in various forms when Rep. Matthew Martinez (D-CA) introduced a similar bill.

Known as the Barr-Martinez Bill, if passed, it would have provided state regulators with expedited FBI

criminal background checks of prospective and newly hired security officers. The minimal training

standards of the bill were stricken, which would have required 8 hours of training and 4 hours of on-the-job

training for unarmed officers and an additional 15 hours for armed officers. Critics argued that states are

against such a national law and state regulations are sufficient. Finally, Congress passed the Private

Security Officer Employment Authorization Act of 2004 (included in the National Intelligence Reform

Act of 2004) that enables security service businesses and proprietary security organizations in all 50 states

to check if applicants have a criminal history record with the FBI, which may emanate from one or more

states. (National training requirements were not included in the legislation.) This law is significant and it

adds strength to criminal records checks of security officer applicants. Traditional name-based searches

can result in false positives (i.e., an applicant's name is incorrectly matched to an offender's name or

similar name) and false negatives (i.e., an applicant's name does not result in a match because the

applicant is using a different name or a database was omitted from investigation). Because applicants may

use different names and other bogus identifying information, fingerprints provide increased accuracy in

background investigations. Security firm access to the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification

System (IAFIS) under the act also includes access to the Violent Gangs and Terrorism Organization File.

Although not all security organizations are required to check these fingerprint databases for their

applicants, the effort and expense prevents litigation and the possibility that an applicant is a terrorist or

other criminal. Cost is one of several factors that influence the extent of background investigations

(Friedrick, 2005 : 11).

Which government agency (or agencies) in your state regulates the private security industry? What

are the requirements for contract security ("guard") companies, private detectives, and security alarm

installers?

The Need for Training

Numerous research reports and other publications have pointed to the need for more training of personnel

in the security industry. Training of all security officers should be required by law prior to assignment .

Training topics of importance include customer service, ethics, criminal law and procedure, constitutional

protections, interviewing, surveillance, arrest techniques, post assignments and patrols, report writing,

safety, fire protection, and specialized topics for client needs. Firearms training is also important, even

though a small percentage of security officers are armed.

The harsh realities of the contract security business hinder training. Low pay and the enormous turnover of

officers lead many security executives to consider costly training difficult to justify. With liability a constant

threat and with insurance often unaffordable, many security firms are simply gambling by not adequately

preparing their officers for the job. Security training is inconsistent and sometimes nonexistent. The Task

Force Report and the Hallcrest Reports stress the need for improved recruitment, selection, pay, and

training within the security industry. Efforts in Congress and in the legislatures of many states have been aimed at increasing training.

However, there has been no success in Congress for a national training mandate, and state training

requirements vary. Because quality training means increases in costs in the competitive contract security

business, such legislation has often been controversial.

Security Letter (McCrie, 2005 : 2) reported that the United States lags behind other countries on security

training. The Province of Ontario, Canada, requires 40 hours of training. Training hours required in Europe

are Hungary: 350; Spain: 260; Sweden: 120; United Kingdom: 38; France: 32; and Germany: 24. In the

United States, the required hours are AK: 48; CA, FL, and OK: 40; ND: 32; NY: 24; IL: 20; LA and VA: 16;

MN and OR: 12; AZ, CT, GA, and UT: 8; AR: 6; NC, NV, SC, TN, and WA: 4; TX: 1; and 29 other states

and DC: 0.

In essence, what we have seen following these national reports and recommendations is an industry that

needs to do more to help professionalize the industry and security personnel. It is easy to forget about

these reports and recommendations as a businessperson under pressure to reduce expenses and turn a

profit while facing employee turnover, the pressure to ensure security officers are on client posts, and

competition from low bidders. Furthermore, the security industry plays a strong role in influencing

government laws and regulations that can result in added expenses for businesses. Unfortunately, we

have seen changes resulting from many lawsuits claiming negligent security. Fear of such litigation

motivates the industry to change. On the bright side, many security service companies are professional,

set high standards for themselves, and have improved the industry. It is hoped that these companies

continue to set an example to be followed by others.

ASIS International, in its effort to increase professionalism and develop guidelines for the security industry,

published Private Security Officer Selection and Training (ASIS International, 2004 ). This guideline was

written for proprietary and contract security and regulatory bodies. Its employment screening criteria

include 18 years of age for unarmed and 21 years of age for armed security officers; high school diploma,

GED, or equivalent; fingerprints; criminal history check; drug screening; and other background checks. The

training requirements include 48 hours of training within the first 100 days of employment.

Ethics

A code of ethics is a partial solution to strengthen the professionalism of security practitioners. Such a code

helps to guide behavior by establishing standards of ethical conduct. Twomey, Jennings, and Fox (2001 :

28–31) describe ethics as a branch of philosophy dealing with values that relate to the nature of human

conduct. They write that "conduct and values within the context of business operations become more

complex because individuals are working together to maximize profit. Balancing the goal of profits with the

values of individuals and society is the focus of business ethics ." Twomey and colleagues note that

capitalism succeeds because of trust; investors provide capital for a business because they believe the

business will earn a profit.

Customers rely on business promises of quality and the commitment to stand behind a product or service.

Having a code makes good business sense because consumers make purchasing decisions based on

past experience or the experiences of others. Reliance on promises, not litigation, nurtures good business

relationships.

Twomey and colleagues write of studies that show that those businesses with the strongest value systems

survive and do so successfully. Citing several companies, they argue, "bankruptcy and/or free falls in the

worth of shares are the fates that await firms that make poor ethical choices."

A host of other problems can develop for a business and its employees when unethical decisions are

made. Besides a loss of customers, unethical decisions can result in criminal and civil liabilities. Quality

ethics must be initiated and supported by top management, who must set an example without hypocrisy.

All employees must be a part of the ethical environment through a code of ethics and see it spelled out in

policies, procedures, and training.

International business presents special challenges when promoting ethical decision making because

cultures differ on codes of ethics. Business management must take the lead and research and define

guidelines for employees. Another challenge develops when a security practitioner's employer or supervisor violates ethical

standards or law. What you do not want to do is to become part of the problem and subject yourself to a

tarnished reputation or criminal and civil liabilities. When faced with such difficult dilemmas, refer to your

professional background and its code of ethics.

The Web is a rich source of information on ethics. The Task Force Report and ASIS International are

sources for codes of ethics for the security profession. The former has one code for security management

(as does ASIS International) and a code for security employees in general. A sample of the wording,

similar in both codes, includes "to protect life and property," and "to be guided by a sense of integrity,

honor, justice and morality…." ( U.S. Department of Justice, 1976b : 24). Management, supervision, policies,

procedures, and training help to define what these words mean.

Here are guidelines for ethical decisions:

◾ Does the decision violate law, a code of ethics, or company policy?

◾ What are the short-term and long-term consequences of your decision for your employer and

yourself?

◾ Is there an alternative course of action that is less harmful?

◾ Are you making a levelheaded decision, rather than a decision based on emotions?

◾ Would your family support your decision?

◾ Would your supervisor and management support your decision?

The False Alarm Problem

Another persistent problem that causes friction between public police and the private sector is false alarms.

It is generally agreed that more than 95% of all alarm response calls received by public police are false

alarms. However, the definition of "false alarm" is subject to debate. It often is assumed that, if a burglar is

not caught on the premises, the alarm was false. Police do not always consider that the alarm or the

approaching police could have frightened away a burglar.

The Task Force and Hallcrest Reports discussed the problem of false alarms. Many police agencies

nationwide continue to spend millions of dollars each year in personnel and equipment to respond to these

calls. For decades, municipalities and the alarm industry have tried various solutions. Police agencies have

selectively responded or not responded to alarms. City and county governments have enacted false alarm

control ordinances that require a permit for an alarm system and impose fines for excessive false alarms.

The industry claims that the end users cause 80% of the problems. It continues its education campaign

while trying a multitude of strategies, such as offering a class for repeat offenders instead of a fine, setting

standards of exit delay at no fewer than 45 seconds and entry times of at least 30 seconds, and audio and

video verification of alarms. Since the industry is installing 15% more systems each year, these efforts

must continue ( Southerland, 2000 : 1).

Martin (2005 : 160–163) writes that jurisdictions across North America are adopting ordinances and policies

that specify a nonresponse policy to unverified alarm activations. As an alarm industry advocate, he argues

that this change places a financial burden on businesses and increases the risk of burglary. In Salt Lake

City, a person must be physically present on the property to visually verify that a crime is in progress,

before the police accept a call for service; CCTV confirmation is not considered sufficient. Martin sees

public police as more qualified to respond to alarms than private security officers. Martin refers to the

strategy of Enhanced Call Verification to reduce false alarms. This strategy requires two calls from the

alarm-monitoring center to the user to determine if an error has occurred, before police are called.

Many issues affect the "false alarm" problem. Solutions include user training, proper equipment, fines, and

Enhanced Call Verification. A key question is: Who will pay for alarm response—the public or the users?

What do you think are the most serious problems facing the private security industry and what are

your solutions? Search the Web

Several security associations exist to promote professionalism and improve the security field. Go to

the Web site of ASIS International ( www.asisonline.org ), formerly the American Society for Industrial

Security, founded in 1955. With a membership over 33,000, it is the leading general organization of

protection executives and specialists. Its monthly magazine, Security Management , is an excellent

source of information. This association offers courses and seminars. ASIS International offers three

certifications: Certified Protection Professional (CPP); Physical Security Professional (PSP); and

Professional Certified Investigator (PCI). For each certification, the candidate must pay a fee for

administration, meet eligibility requirements, and successfully pass an examination.

Whereas ASIS International is the leading professional association of security executives and

specialists, the International Foundation for Protection Officers (IFPO), founded in 1988, is the leading

professional association of security officers who are on the front lines of protecting businesses,

institutions, other entities, and our infrastructure. The IFPO ( www.ifpo.org ) has global reach and

serves to help professionalize officers through training and certification. It has developed several

distance delivery courses and programs: the Entry Level Protection Officer (ELPO), the Basic

Protection Officer (BPO), the Certified Protection Officer (CPO) program, the Security Supervisor

(SSP) program, and the Certified Security Supervisor (CSS) program. All programs are designed for

self-paced home study and some are available on-line. Many corporations and institutions have

included these programs in their professional development programs for security personnel. The IFPO

publishes Protection News , a quarterly newsletter of valuable information, trends, and commentary.

How does each group promote professionalism and improve the security field?

Here are additional Web sites related to this chapter:

Bureau of Justice Statistics: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm

Ethics Education Resource Center: www.aacsb.edu/resource_centers/EthicsEdu/default.asp

Federal Bureau of Investigation: www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

International Association of Chiefs of Police: www.theiacp.org/

International Association of Security and Investigative Regulators: www.iasir.org

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics: www.scu.edu/ethics

National Association of Security Companies: www.nasco.org

National Fire Protection Association: www.nfpa.org/

Security Industry Association: www.siaonline.org/

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/

Use of content on this site is subject to the restrictions set forth in the Terms of Use .

respective copyright holder.

Feedback | Privacy and Cookie Policy | v.4.0.78.212