2
The Business, Careers, and Challenges of Security and Loss Prevention
KEY TERMS
• asset
• risk
• threat
• hazard
• all-hazards preparedness concept
• metrics
• Private Security Officer Employment Authorization Act of 2004
• ethics
After studying this chapter, the reader will be able to:
1. Explain the risks and losses facing our society.
2. Define and illustrate metrics and explain why it is important.
3. Describe the security industry.
4. Define and explain privatization.
5. Describe the types of employment available in the security and loss prevention vocation.
6. Explain the limitations of the criminal justice system.
7. List and discuss the challenges of the security industry.
The millions of employees in the security and loss prevention vocation protect people, assets, and the operations of enterprises.
Introduction
Security is “big business” globally, and there are many career opportunities and challenges in this profession. Several drivers are affecting the growth of this industry:
• Crimes, fires, accidents, and natural and other disasters pose threats to the general public and the public and private sectors worldwide.
• Offenders from throughout the world are constantly seeking to exploit vulnerabilities that they can pinpoint in government, businesses, institutions, nonprofits, and individuals.
• The 9/11 attacks, other terrorist threats, and the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations illustrate the need for global security and safety.
• Government laws and mandates to improve homeland security and protect critical infrastructure and key assets are placing increasing responsibilities on protection programs.
• The challenges of risk management, such as increasing insurance premiums, are forcing businesses, institutions, and organizations to enhance their security and loss prevention programs to reduce risks.
• There is increased pressure on the security and loss prevention vocation and industry to improve professionalism, performance, and value to enterprises.
This chapter begins with basic definitions as a foundation for an explanation of what this business is about and what it seeks to accomplish. Subsequent paragraphs explain the importance of metrics as a way to show the value and performance of security and loss prevention. Another important topic in this business is customer service (explained in Chapter 5). The practitioners in this vocation must be mindful of value, performance, and customer service as vital strategies to survive in this business. These strategies are important for both proprietary and contract security organizations.
Businesses, often referred to as the private sector, exist to generate profit. Government, often referred to as the public sector, serves the general public and is supported by tax dollars. Both sectors contain security and loss prevention programs to protect people, assets, and the operations of enterprises from a broad variety of threats and hazards that can result in harm and losses. Here we emphasize protecting people connected in some way to organizations, as opposed to protecting the general public through the efforts of our armed forces and law enforcement agencies and other first responders. The people in organizations are referred to as employees or human resources. They must be protected if an enterprise is to continue its operations and pursue its objectives. However, other groups of people are connected to organizations and require protection. Examples are customers, vendors, and visitors. In fact, people are not required to be on the premises to receive protection, as in the case of an organization protecting customer information as required by law. From a business perspective, an asset is a resource controlled by an organization that can produce economic benefit. Examples are many and include cash, stocks, inventory, property, equipment, patents, copyrights, and goodwill. The operations of enterprises refer to the utilization of human resources and assets to pursue organizational objectives.
The practitioners in the security and loss prevention vocation must be mindful of value, performance, and customer service as vital strategies to survive in this business.
Quinley and Schmidt (2002: 4), from the insurance and risk management discipline, define risk as “a measure of the frequency or probability of a negative event and the severity or consequences of that negative event.” Leimberg et al. (2002: 82), from the same discipline, define risk as “exposure to damages that arises from property damage or bodily injury.” Haddow and Bullock (2003: 15), from the emergency management discipline, use the definition of risk from the National Governors Association: “… susceptibility to death, injury, damage, destruction, disruption, stoppage and so forth.” ASIS International (2003: 5), from the security discipline, defines risk as “the possibility of loss resulting from a threat, security incident, or event.” Risk is defined here as the measurement of the frequency, probability, and severity of losses from exposure to threats or hazards. The management and measurement of risk are important processes that are continually being developed. These topics are explained in subsequent chapters.
A threat is a serious, impending, or recurring event that can result in loss, and it must be dealt with immediately. For instance, management in a corporation is informed that an employee stated that he intends to kill other employees, or, in another corporation, an increase in workplace violence occurs. A retailer typically incurs losses from internal theft and shoplifting. The expansion of e-commerce presents retailers with additional security concerns.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2004: 66) defines hazard as “something that is potentially dangerous or harmful, often the root cause of an unwanted outcome.” The U.S. Department of Justice (2000: 37) defines hazard as “any circumstances, natural or manmade, that may adversely affect or attack the community’s businesses or residences.” Hazard is defined here as a source of danger that has the potential to cause unwanted outcomes such as injury, death, property damage, economic loss, and environmental damage that adversely impact our society.
Table 2-1 depicts several threats/hazards that can cause losses. The frequency and cost of each loss vary. Each type of threat/hazard has its own specialist to work toward solutions. For instance, a rash of robberies in a liquor store may require additional public law enforcement assistance and the installation of a more sophisticated alarm system from the private sector. Numerous injuries at a manufacturing plant may require assistance from a safety specialist. The loss prevention manager—a specialist in his or her own right or with the assistance of a specialist—must plan, implement, and monitor programs to anticipate, prevent, and reduce loss.
Table 2-1. Threats/Hazards
| Criminal Acts | Natural Disasters | Miscellaneous |
Another important term is all-hazards. It refers to multiple types of hazards, including natural disasters (e.g., hurricane) and human-made events (e.g., inadvertent accidents, such as an aircraft crash, and deliberate events, such as the terrorist bombing of an aircraft). Another type is technological events. An example is an electric service blackout resulting from a variety of possible causes. The term all-hazards is important because it relates to the all-hazards preparedness concept. This means that different hazards contain similarities, and organizations can benefit, to a certain degree, from generic approaches to emergency management and business continuity. This provides an opportunity for efficient and cost-effective planning. In other words, how you prepare for one hazard may be similar for other hazards. This topic is covered in greater depth in a later chapter.
METRICS
Since the business of security and loss prevention is to protect people, assets, and the operations of enterprises, it is imperative that management in this vocation develop methods to measure security and loss prevention, loss events, and the cost of losses. Senior executives are sure to ask for evidence of the program’s successes, effectiveness, return on investment, and when losses do occur, the cost and why it occurred. Methods of measurement can also be used to brief senior executives, help support a budget increase and additional resources, and justify human resources (e.g., proving one’s value to the organization). Senior executives are also interested in what is driving the security and loss prevention program. Is it risks, legal requirements, regulations, or other factors?
Methods of measurement are referred to as metrics. These measurements show the value and performance that security and loss prevention brings to the business enterprise. Metrics are a vital component of quality management and essential when communicating with senior executives. Examples of metrics related to security are numerous and depend on business objectives and need. What may be a high priority metric for one business may not be important in another business.
Modern technology provides the opportunity to remotely monitor global operations, collect data, and report. In addition, the Web provides easy access to a variety of information and data to assist metrics.
Internal Metrics
Internal metrics focus on measurements within an organization. Examples of internal metrics include the annual number of theft incidents and the monetary value of company assets recovered; the percentage of employees hired and then released each year because it was later learned that they had falsified their backgrounds; the number of malfunctions of an access control system each month; and the number of contract security officers that are replaced each year due to poor performance.
Kovacich and Halibozek (2006: xxvii) define a security metric as “the application of quantitative, statistical, and/or mathematical analyses to measuring security functional costs, benefits, successes, failures, trends and workload—in other words, tracking the status of each security function in those terms.” They describe two basic methods of tracking costs and benefits. The first is through recurring costs from day-to-day operations, such as security officer duties and investigations of loss of assets. Metrics can depict trends, such as whether the cost of protection is going up or down. The second method is through formal project plans that have a set schedule of beginning and ending dates, with specific objectives and costs that serve to track (i.e., metrics) time, expenses, and accomplishments.
Wailgum (2005) writes that metrics provide the numbers and context on performance of the security function. He adds that metrics vary by security executive, organization, and industry. Wailgum offers examples of how metrics are used by various businesses. He refers to a retail chain of thousands of stores. One metric used is the number of robberies per 1,000 stores. This figure is compared to the rates of other similar retail chains. Another metric is cash loss as a percentage of sales for every retail unit. The retailer uses many other metrics.
Wailgum provides another illustration through a utility company that uses metrics to gauge its compliance with federal regulations. It compares performance on “readiness reviews” among different facilities. Readiness reviews assess whether employees understand threat plans and what to do when the threat level is raised or lowered. It also covers physical security and emergency action plans, among other areas. Another example is penetration testing to breach security. How far can someone reach without a badge? Can someone talk his or her way around delivery procedures? These evaluations can be quantified and compared over time.
Metrics are subject to methodological problems. This means that measurements are not perfect and subject to a host of factors that may result in inaccuracies. Factors that can distort metrics include variations and inconsistencies in the use of definitions, exclusion of indirect losses, inconsistencies in reporting, bias, miscalculations, the possibility of fraud, and difficulty when making comparisons among organizations. Furthermore, metrics may produce more evidence about the way in which the enterprise is managed than about actual events and losses. For instance, one company that maintains a zero tolerance for violence in the workplace shows data indicating numerous incidents of threats and violence, while another similar company, with a corporate culture that almost ignores the problem, shows few incidents.
Why Emphasize Both Direct and Indirect Losses?
The methodology of metrics should include direct and indirect losses. Businesses, institutions, and organizations can suffer extensive direct losses from threats and hazards. Additionally, indirect losses can be devastating and often surpass direct losses. Direct losses are immediate, obvious losses, whereas indirect losses are prolonged and often hidden. A burglary at a business, for example, may show the loss of, say, $1,000 from a safe. However, on close inspection of indirect losses, total losses may include the following: damage to the door or window where the break-in occurred; replacement of the destroyed safe; insurance policy deductible; increase in insurance premium; loss of sales from a delay in opening the business; customer dissatisfaction; and employee time required to speak with police, insurance representatives, and repair people. Depending on the seriousness of the loss, additional indirect losses could include adverse media attention, permanent loss of customers, employee morale problems, turnover, and negative reactions from shareholders. Security practitioners can help justify their position and their value to the business community by demonstrating total losses resulting from each incident and all hazards.
External Metrics
External metrics focus on society-wide measurements. Examples include the risk of crimes or natural disaster in a geographic area. External metrics help enterprises make business decisions, such as the geographic location for business investment and the types of insurance to purchase. They have many uses for security and loss prevention programs, including planning and budgeting for strategies to prevent crimes, fires, and accidents.
Several external sources measure risk, society-wide loss events, and the cost of losses. Public and private sector organizations collect data and publish reports that may or may not be available to the general public. The U.S. Department of Justice publishes crime statistics that are easily accessible on the Web. The U.S. Department of State publishes information on terrorism and safety in other countries that is also easily accessible on the Web. Risk management and insurance firms offer services for a fee that estimate risks and costs from all-hazards. A government agency may withhold data and reports due to reasons of national security, whereas a corporation may see its data and reports as proprietary information and/or subject to sale. As with internal metrics, methodological problems exist with external metrics.
Here we take a look at some public and private sector organizations that serve as a gauge of risks facing not only society, but also business enterprises, institutions, and other organizations within society. An emphasis is placed on the risk of crimes, fires, and accidents because, traditionally, security and loss prevention practitioners have expended considerable time and resources on these problems. However, as explained in this book, our world is becoming increasingly complex and practitioners are facing a broader variety of risks.
Crimes
In 1930, Congress passed the first legislation mandating the collection of crime data. The task was assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), within the U.S. Department of Justice, and each year the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) provides data on crime trends. It helps to calculate quality of life in communities throughout the country; set government policy; plan funding; and gauge the effectiveness of anticrime strategies. The data are collected by police agencies that report it to the FBI. There are many weaknesses of the UCR, and the data have been called notoriously inaccurate. Examples of UCR problems are as follows: it represents reported crimes, and many crimes are not reported to police; only local and state crimes are reported, not federal crimes or crimes at institutions (e.g., jails and prisons); definitions of crimes vary among states; and the data have been subject to political manipulation. To improve the UCR, the FBI is refining a newer system—the National Incident-Based Reporting System—that collects data that are more specific. In 1972, because of the shortcomings of the UCR, the National Crime Victim Survey (NCVS) began to collect crime data from households. It was found that there was a significantly higher rate of crime than what was reported in the UCR. Forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and larceny were reported by the NCVS at rates two to three times greater than rates reported in UCR data. NCVS data are gathered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Fagin, 2005: 34–41).
Although the methodology of collecting crime data by official sources is problematic, crime is a serious problem, and millions of crimes are committed each year in the United States. In 2004, the UCR showed 1,367,009 violent crimes and 10,328,255 property crimes. Both categories showed a decrease in crime by about 1% from the previous year (FBI, 2006). Other sources of crime data are available from individual states, educational institutions, and self-report surveys conducted by researchers who use questionnaires to gather anonymous input on crimes committed by offenders.
Barkan (2006: 75) writes that crime data gathered outside the United States is highly inconsistent. Some nations gather crime data similar to the United States, while other nations do not collect such data. Three major sources of international crime data are the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), the World Health Organization, and the United Nations. The collection of global crime data also suffers from methodological problems.
Chamard (2006: 2) notes that there are few studies on the victimization of businesses in the United States, even though crime costs the U.S. economy at least $186 billion annually and businesses suffer disproportionately from crime in comparison to households and individuals. She argues that the UCR underreports crimes against businesses. Chamard refers to a British study of small businesses that found that nearly two-thirds had suffered some form of victimization over a five-year span. She reports on cross-national surveys that suggest, “retail businesses may have an overall burglary risk that is ten times greater than the risk faced by households.”
Fires
Fire represents another serious hazard facing organizations. Two major sources that measure the fire problem are the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA). The National Fire Data Center (NFDC) of the USFA periodically publishes Fire in the United States, a 10-year overview of fires in the United States. It is designed to motivate corrective action, set priorities, serve as a model for state and local analysis of fire data, and serve as a baseline for evaluating programs. Because of the time it takes for states to submit data, the publication lags the date of data collection.
The U.S. Fire Administration (2005) reported that the U.S. fire problem is one of the worst in the industrial world. In 2005, the fire problem resulted in the following losses: 3,675 civilian deaths and 17,925 injuries; 115 firefighter deaths while on duty; 1.6 million fires reported and many went unreported; property loss at about $10.7 billion; and there were 31,500 intentionally set structure fires resulting in 315 civilian deaths. Furthermore, fire killed more Americans than all natural disasters combined and 83% of all civilian fire deaths occurred in residences (U.S. Fire Administration, 2006).
Accidents
Accidents pose another serious hazard facing organizations and their employees when on and off the job. The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (2006) reported 4.4 million injuries and illnesses among private sector firms in 2003, with about 32% of work-related injuries occurring in goods-producing industries and 68% in services. The same year recorded 5,559 worker deaths, including 114 additional deaths from the previous year among self-employed workers and 61 more from workplace violence.
The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (2006) reported that society-wide there are about 160,000 deaths each year from injuries, and millions more people are injured and survive. In 2000, the 50 million injuries that required medical treatment will ultimately cost $406 billion, including $80.2 billion in medical care costs and $326 billion in productivity losses.
THE SECURITY INDUSTRY
The security industry is a multibillion-dollar business. Every decade seems to bring an increased need for security. Internal theft, computer crime, street crime, terrorism, natural disasters, and so on bring greater demands for protection. In the United States, thousands of companies provide contract security services and investigations. In addition, there are manufacturers of products and systems and thousands of alarm installation firms.
The Freedonia Group (2006), a market research firm, publishes “World Security Services.” It reported the following:
• U.S. demand for private contracted security services will grow 4.3% annually through 2010. This is a $39 billion industry. Guarding and alarming monitoring will remain dominant. Other services include security consulting, systems integration, armored transport, prison management, and private investigations.
• World demand for private contracted security services will grow 7.7% annually through 2008 based on heightened fears of global terrorism and rising crime. This is a $95 billion industry. Guarding will remain dominant.
• U.S. demand for electronic security products and systems will grow 8.7% annually through 2008. This is a $10 billion industry.
• World demand for electronic security products and systems will grow at 8.4% yearly through 2008. This is a $49 billion industry.
The American Society for Industrial Security, known as ASIS International (ASIS), is a major organization of security professionals who are at the forefront of improving the security industry through education and training, certifications, research, security guidelines, and global collaborative initiatives. The ASIS Foundation funded research by Eastern Kentucky University, with support from the National Institute of Justice, to focus on three primary areas: (1) the size and economic strength of the various security sectors, including security services and providers of security technology; (2) changes in security trends pre and post 9/11; and (3) the nature of the relationship between private security and law enforcement. Preliminary findings included the following (ASIS Foundation, 2004):
• Company security budgets in the United States increased 14% from 2001 to 2002, decreased slightly in 2003, and increased 10% in 2004.
• More companies are purchasing computer/network security systems (40%), burglar alarms (26%), and closed-circuit television (CCTV; 24%) than any other types of security systems or products.
• Ninety percent of companies stated that security-related contacts with law enforcement had remained the same.
In 2005, the final report was released, and it contained results of four different nationwide surveys: (1) all U.S. companies; (2) ASIS companies (ASIS members identified as security managers for companies); (3) ASIS security services (ASIS members identified as managers of companies that provide security services); and (4) local law enforcement agencies. A sample of the findings is listed next (Collins et al., 2005):
• In the next fiscal year, all three types of companies expected increases in security budget/revenue.
• ASIS companies were about 20% more likely than all U.S. companies to report increased investments in security as a result of the 9/11 attacks.
• Over one-half of ASIS companies indicated an increased emphasis on information security following the 9/11 attacks, compared to 31% of all U.S. companies.
• Of all U.S. companies, finance–insurance–real estate continue to be most impacted by 9/11, in comparison to transportation–communication–utilities, agriculture–mining–construction, manufacturing, and wholesale–retail.
• For all U.S. companies, the top three concerns were computer/network security, liability insurance, and employee theft. For ASIS companies, the top three were access control, property crime, and a tie between workplace violence and terrorism.
• One-half of ASIS companies reported increased contact with police agencies since 9/11, whereas only 10% of all U.S. companies reported increased contact. The researchers concluded that larger companies and those with professional security personnel have been much more likely to develop public-private partnerships than smaller companies have.
• The least common type of contact with police agencies among ASIS companies and U.S. companies was on cyber-crimes. The researchers surmise that the reason could be attributed to limited knowledge of cyber-crime by police or inadequate response.
Contract versus Proprietary Security
Contract security refers to businesses that seek a profit by offering a host of security services to businesses, institutions, and organizations. Examples of services include security officers, investigations, consulting, and monitoring alarm systems. Depending on its unique needs and weighing several factors, an entity requiring security may prefer to establish its own security, known as proprietary (in-house) security, of which there are thousands. In addition, an organization may use both contract and proprietary security (see Figure 2-1).
FIGURE 2-1 Businesses often employ both proprietary and contract security personnel.
The Report of the Task Force on Private Security (U.S. Department of Justice, 1976b: 146–147 and 249–257) lists several factors to consider concerning contract versus proprietary security officers. Contract security generally is less expensive, although there are exceptions. The service company typically handles recruitment, selection, training, and supervision. Hiring unqualified security officers and rapid turnover are two primary disadvantages of contract services. Many contract officers are “moonlighting” and subject to fatigue. Questions concerning insurance and liability between the security company and the client may be hazy.
A major advantage of a proprietary force is that greater control is maintained over personnel, including selection, training, and supervision, and of course, such a force is more familiar with the unique needs of the company. Salaries and benefits, however, often make establishment of a proprietary force more expensive.
Research is needed to ascertain the number of security officers employed in both contract and proprietary security in the United States and the impact the 9/11 attacks has had on these numbers. Wagner (2006: 2) reports that 1.5 million are employed in the nation’s security companies. The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (2004: 1–2) states that studies of the private security industry suggest there may be as many as 90,000 private security organizations employing about 2 million security officers and other practitioners in the United States. Parfomak (2004: 8–9)writes that overall employment of U.S. security officers has declined, although increases have occurred in certain infrastructure sectors. He notes that there was a sharp increase in demand for security officers following the 9/11 attacks, but it was short term. For decades, security officers have outnumbered public police in most locales.
The U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2006: 6) reports 1.1 million employed in police protection, in 2003, as follows: 157,000 federal, 106,000 state, and 856,000 local. According to the FBI (2006), in 2004, 14,254 state, city, university and college, metropolitan and nonmetropolitan county, and other law enforcement agencies employed 675,734 sworn officers and 294,854 civilians, who provided law enforcement services to more than 278 million people nationwide. The FBI-UCR Program defines sworn law enforcement officers as individuals who carry a firearm and a badge, have full arrest powers, and are paid from government funds. Civilians working in law enforcement agencies perform a variety of functions (e.g., dispatch, records) at a lower cost than if sworn officers performed the tasks.
Privatization is the contracting out of government programs, either wholly or in part, to for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. There is a growing interdependence of the public and private sectors. A broad array of services is provided to government agencies by the private sector today, from consulting services to janitorial services. Both government and the private sector are operating hospitals, schools, and other institutions formerly dominated by government. For crime control efforts, we see private security patrols in residential areas, private security officers in courts, and private prisons. Business people make themselves attractive to governments when they claim that they can perform services more efficiently and at a lower cost than the public sector.
Privatization is not a new concept. In the late 1600s, much security and incarceration for early urban areas was supplied by the private sector. By the 1700s, government dominated these services. Today, privatization can be viewed as a movement to demonopolize and decentralize services dominated by government. This movement to privatize criminal justice services encourages shared responsibility for public safety (Bowman, 1992: 15–57).
Another factor fueling the privatization movement is victim and citizen dissatisfaction with the way in which government is handling crime. Increasing numbers of citizens are confronting crime through neighborhood watches, citizen patrols, crime stoppers, hiring private attorneys to assist prosecutors, and dispute resolution.
Critics of privatization argue that crime control by government is rooted in constitutional safeguards and crime control should not be contracted to the private sector. Use of force and searches by the private sector, punishment in private prisons, and liabilities of governments and contractors are examples of the thorny issues that face privatization.
Since the 9/11 attacks, and because U.S. military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq have strained U.S. military resources, private security companies have been increasingly guarding military installations in the United States. Supporters note that these private security officers are supervised and trained by Department of Defense (DOD) specifications, and they provide an invaluable service. Critics argue that there is concern about the caliber and training of these security officers and some work for American subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies. This concern led to a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation that found that some contractors had hired felons and that training records had been falsified. The GAO found that the contracts cost 25% more than contracts later put out for bid. And, the Army relied on what the contractors said they were doing and provided very little monitoring. The DOD pledged to improve management and oversight of private security officers (Marks, 2006; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2006).
Private military and private security companies (PMPSCs) are providing a wide variety of services for a profit in geographic areas facing conflict. These firms are growing rapidly worldwide. Governments, corporations, organizations, and individuals are relying on these companies for many reasons. A national government, for example, may need additional personnel because human resources and expertise are stretched to the limit and a rebel group is gaining strength. A corporation, organization (e.g., nonprofit aid group), or individual may require protection for operations in a foreign country containing an insurgency and weak police and military forces. In addition, a country may be dangerous because of a hodgepodge of self-defense forces, mercenary units, militias, and vigilante squads that maintain their own agendas. The uncontrolled proliferation of conventional arms has hastened the growth of armed groups (Purpura, 2007).
Zarate (1998) writes that the term mercenary is difficult to define and United Nations members disagree on its definition. He refers to a mercenary as “a soldier-for-hire, primarily motivated by pecuniary interests, who has no national or territorial stake in a conflict and is paid a salary above the average for others of his rank.” Zarate sees the legal issues involving mercenaries as unclear, but views the legal status of companies that provide military and security services—such as training, security and other noncombat activities—as outside the mercenary concerns of the international community.
Zarate offers two concerns: (1) PMPSCs could be hired by insurgents or foreign governments to destabilize an established regime, or a government could hire a PMPSC to suppress a national liberation movement (e.g., group fighting colonialism or racism); and (2) PMPSCs that assist multinational corporations will act solely for the benefit of the corporation in foreign countries and create semi-sovereign entities supported by the government. He adds that PMPSCs are regulated in most countries. In the United States, regulations are stringent, and registration with the U.S. government is required.
In Iraq, companies helping to rebuild the country with multibillion dollar U.S. government appropriations initially relied on U.S. forces for protection. However, the growing insurgency forced U.S. forces to be redirected, and companies quickly sought assistance from PMPSCs (Flores and Earl, 2004).
The hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan provide excellent opportunities for PMPSCs, and especially those firms with employees possessing military backgrounds that can provide support to the U.S. military and train the armies of weak countries. The U.S. Army (2006: 6–4 and 8–17) notes, “training support from contractors enables commanders to use Soldiers and Marines more efficiently.” The support includes institutional training, developing security ministries and headquarters, and establishing administrative and logistic systems. In addition, theater support contractors (i.e., local vendors in hostile areas) supply a host of products and services. Examples are concrete security barriers, fencing, construction, sanitation, and trucking. As the United States pursues a global war on terrorism, with limited armed forces, private contractors are in demand.
What are your views on privatization?
Careers: Loss Prevention Services and Specialists
Many services and specialists from the private sector can help the practitioner develop an effective loss prevention program. These services and specialists can be proprietary or attainable through outside sources. Table 2-2 lists various facilities requiring security and loss prevention programs. Since the 9/11 attacks, many of these facilities have been referred to as “critical infrastructure.” Table 2-3 lists security and loss prevention services and products from the private sector. Table 2-4 lists specialists and consultants who can aid loss prevention efforts. These tables are not conclusive because protection programs are becoming increasingly specialized and diversified. Therefore, additional specialization will evolve to aid these programs.
Table 2-2. Locations Requiring Security and Loss Prevention Programs
Table 2-3. Security Services and Products from the Private Sector
| Services | Products |
• Armored Transportation (see Figure 2-2) • Business Continuity/Emergency Management • Detection of Deception (e.g., polygraph) • Risk Analysis/Security Survey |
Table 2-4. Specialists and Consultants Who Can Assist Loss Prevention Efforts
Most loss prevention managers are generalists, which means that they have a broad knowledge of the field plus specialized knowledge of the risks facing their employer. When feasible, these managers should develop a multidisciplinary staff to assist in protection objectives. The staff should represent various specializations as appropriate, such as security, safety, and fire protection.
Manufacturers make products, which, in turn, are sold, either to wholesalers, distributors, or directly to consumers. Professionals within the manufacturing security specialty are responsible for issues involving not only sales transactions, but also transport issues, ordering and purchasing of raw materials, and the protection of resources against loss or theft. Manufacturers are becoming increasingly aware of the potential for loss. Prevention of loss can be accomplished only through employing competent security directors and managers who can help integrate the security function into the total operation instead of allowing it to remain isolated. Depending on the products being manufactured, individuals in this specialty may work in a variety of environments, including exposure to varying weather conditions and involvement with chemical processing areas.
Entry-level management positions generally require at least an associate’s degree and often a bachelor’s degree. Most positions require two-plus years of general security experience and may require some specialty-specific training or experience. A Certified Protection Professional (CPP) designation is preferred for many positions. The salary range for most positions is $30,000 to $50,000.
FIGURE 2-2 Employees wear bullet-resistant vests and personal hold-up alarms to help protect them as they pick up and deliver valuable shipments
Mid-level management positions generally require a bachelor’s degree and five-plus years of general security experience and may require some specialty-specific training or experience. A CPP designation is required or desired for many positions.
Source: Courtesy of ASIS International (2005). “Career Opportunities in Security.” www.asisonline.org.
The Limitations of the Criminal Justice System: Implications for Loss Prevention Practitioners
Federal, state, and local governments spent over $185 billion for criminal and civil justice in 2003 (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006: 1). Despite this huge sum, many theories underpinning crime prevention and law enforcement measures have come under increased scrutiny. For example, the strategy of deterrence has been questioned. This criminal justice system strategy seeks to prevent crime through state-imposed punishment. This model points out that offenders rationally consider the risks and rewards of crime prior to acting. Numerous offenders simply find that “crime pays,” because the certainty of punishment is a myth and the odds are in the offender’s favor. John E. Conklin (2001: 466), a criminologist, writes: “People have imperfect knowledge of the maximum penalties for various crimes, but their perceptions of the severity of sanctions, the certainty with which they will be administered, and the promptness of punishment influence their choice of behavior.” Since the impact of deterrence is questionable, crime prevention is a key strategy to reduce losses.
Another limitation of the criminal justice system is that tight budgets and limited resources and personnel are the main reasons why public safety agencies play a minor role in private loss prevention programs. Public police agencies cannot afford to assign personnel to patrol inside business establishments or watch for employee theft. An occasional (public) police patrol and a response to a crime are the primary forms of assistance that public police can provide to businesses. Prosecutors are unwilling to prosecute certain crimes against businesses because of heavy caseloads. Consequently, public protection is being supplemented or replaced by private security and volunteer efforts in many locales.
Law enforcement agencies expend much of their resources on street crime, traffic problems, and other issues of public safety. Although some law enforcement officers maintain an expertise in security, computer crime, accounting, fraud, intelligence, and other specializations helpful to businesses, the number of officers possessing such backgrounds is too few to assist the volume of threats facing the private sector.
Besides public police agencies, other first-responding agencies—fire departments, emergency medical services, and emergency management agencies—also have limited resources. Consequently, the private sector must develop security and loss prevention programs and hire specialists to ameliorate all-hazards.
The United States employs an average of 2.3 full-time law enforcement officers for every 1,000 inhabitants in communities ( FBI, 2006).
The primary differences pertain to the employer, the interests served, basic strategies, and legal authority. Public police are employed by governments and serve the general public. Tax dollars support public police activities. On the other hand, private security personnel are employed by and serve private concerns (e.g., businesses) that provide the funds for this type of protection. There are exceptions to these general statements. For instance, government agencies sometimes contract protection needs to private security companies to cut costs. Also, public police often are involved in efforts to assist business owners in preventing crimes through security surveys and public education.
Another difference involves basic strategies. Public police devote considerable resources to reactive strategies to crimes. This entails rapid response to serious crimes, investigation, and apprehension of offenders. Law enforcement is a key objective. In contrast, private security personnel stress the prevention of crimes; arrests are often de-emphasized. These generalizations contain exceptions. For instance, public police have introduced proactive strategies to reduce crime through aggressive patrol methods and enhanced information systems that assist police officers on the street in identifying suspects they encounter.
The legal authority of public police and private security personnel is another distinguishing characteristic. Public police derive their authority from statutes and ordinances, whereas private security personnel function commonly as private citizens. Public police have greater arrest, search, and interrogation powers. Depending on the jurisdiction and state laws, private security personnel may be deputized or given special commissions that increase powers.
In your opinion, what are the most serious problems of the criminal justice system, and what are your solutions?
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?
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/
Case Problems
2A. As Manager of Loss Prevention for five retail stores, you are seeking a promotion to Regional Director of Loss Prevention. The position involves responsibilities for several more stores and subordinates. You are scheduled for an interview soon for the position, and an interview topic will be metrics. Before studying metrics related to the company and your work, you seek to go back to the basics of metrics to serve as a foundation. Prepare a list of five general questions on metrics and answer the questions to prepare for your interview. Examples of basic questions are: What are metrics? What are the purposes of metrics?
2B. As a city police detective specializing in white-collar crime, you enjoy the challenges of your work and look forward to retirement in five years to become an insurance fraud investigator. You often work with the private sector, and you are frequently in contact with corporate security investigators. As an active member of a local police-security council, you are assigned the task of developing a plan to improve police-security cooperation at all levels in the city. What are your specific plans that you will present to the council?
2C. As a uniformed security officer, how would you handle the following situations?
• Another security officer says that you can leave two hours early during second shift and she will “punch you out.”
• You are assigned to a stationary post at a shipping and receiving dock, and a truck driver asks you to “look the other way” for $500 cash.
• A security officer that you work with shows you how to make the required physical inspections around the plant without leaving your seat.
• During the holidays, a group of coworkers planning a party on the premises asks you if you want to contribute to a fund to hire a stripper/prostitute.
• You are testifying in criminal court in a shoplifting case, and the defense attorney asks you to state whether you ever lost sight of the defendant when the incident occurred. The case depends on your stating that you never lost sight of the defendant. You actually lost sight of the defendant once. How do you respond?
• Your best friend wants you to provide a positive recommendation for him when he applies for a job where you work, even though he has an arrest record.
• You see your supervisor take company items and put them in the trunk of her vehicle.
2D. As a corporate security manager, how would you handle the following situations?
• Two contract security officers fail to show up for first shift. The contract manager says that screened and trained replacements are unavailable, but two new applicants are available. You are required to make an immediate decision. Do you accept the two applicants, who lack a background investigation and state-mandated training?
• A vendor offers you a condo at the beach for a week if you support his firm’s bid for an access control system. You know that the system is not the best and that it will cost your company slightly more than the best system. The condo will save you about $1,500 on your summer vacation. What is your decision?
• Your employer is violating environmental laws. You know that if the government learns of the violations, your company will be unable to survive financially criminal and civil action and pollution controls. You will certainly lose your job. What do you do?
• While reviewing CCTV video footage, you see your boss inappropriately touching a coworker who recently filed a sexual harassment suit against the boss, who vehemently denied the allegations. You placed the pinhole-lens camera in the office supply closet to catch a thief, not expecting to see your boss touching the coworker. No one knows of the placement of the camera and the video footage, except you. Your boss, who is the vice president of finance, has been especially helpful to your career, your excellent raises and bonuses, and the corporate security budget. What do you do?
• You are testifying in a case of negligent security concerning a manufacturing plant in your region of responsibility. The plaintiff’s attorney asks you if any security surveys have ever been conducted at the site where the murder occurred. You know that a survey conducted prior to the murder showed the need for increased security at the site. Such information would secure a victory for the plaintiff. What is your response to the question?
REFERENCES
ASIS Foundation , (2004). The ASIS Foundation Security Report: Scope and Emerging Trends, Preliminary Findings. www.asisonline.org . [retrieved January 6, 2005.]
ASIS International , (2003). General Security Risk Assessment Guideline. www.asisonline.org . [retrieved May 10, 2006.]
ASIS International , (2004). Private Security Officer Selection and Training. www.asisonline.org . [retrieved January 3, 2005.]
Barkan S, (2006). Criminology: A Sociological Understanding. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall;.
Bowman G et al, (1992). Privatizing the United States Justice System. Jefferson, NC: McFarland Pub;.
Chamard S, (2006). “Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety Problems”. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing; [April).]
Collins P et al, (2005). “The ASIS Foundation Security Report: Scope and Emerging Trends”. Alexandria, VA: ASIS, International;.
Conklin J, (2001). Criminology. 7th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon;.
Cunningham W et al, (1991). Private Security: Patterns and Trends. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice; [August].
Cunningham W et al, (1990). Private Security Trends: 1970–2000, The Hallcrest Report II. Boston: Butterworth–Heinemann;.
Cunningham W, Taylor T, (1985). Private Security and Police in America: The Hallcrest Report. Portland, OR: Chancellor Press;.
Fagin J, (2005). Criminal Justice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon;.
FBI , (2006). Crime in the United States, 2004. www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported . [retrieved May 8, 2006.]
Flores T, Earl J, (2004). “What Are Security’s Lessons in Iraq?”. Security Management.48.
Freedonia Group , (2006). “World Security Services”. http://freedonia.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0285 . [retrieved May 8, 2006.]
Friedrick J, (2005). “New Law Empowers Security Firms, Private Employers with Information”. Security Director News.2.
Haddow G, Bullock J, (2003). Introduction to Emergency Management. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann;.
Kovacich G, Halibozek E, (2006). Security Metrics Management: How to Manage the Costs of an Assets Protection Program. Boston: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann;.
Leimberg S et al, (2002). The Tools & Techniques of Risk Management & Insurance. Cincinnati, OH: The National Underwriter Co;.
Marks A, (2006). “Security at Military Bases: A Job for Private Firms?” The Christian Science Monitor (April 27). www.csmonitor.com/2006/0427/p02s01-usmi.htm . [retrieved April 28, 2006.]
Martin S, (2005). “What’s Best for Alarm Response Policies?”. Security Management.49.
McCrie R, (2005). “Training: Ontario Introduces a Bill Requiring 40 Hrs. Pre-Assignment”. Security Letter.XXXV.
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control , (2006). “The Economic Costs of Injuries”. www.cdc.gov/nipc/factsheets/Cost_of_Injury.htm . [retrieved May 8, 2006.]
Occupational Safety & Health Administration , (38; Health Administration, 2006). “OSHA Facts”. www.osha.gov . [retrieved May 8, 2006.]
Parfomak P, (2004). “Guarding America: Security Guards and US Critical Infrastructure Protection” (November 12). www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL32670.pdf . [retrieved March 6, 2006.]
Purpura P, (2007). Terrorism and Homeland Security: An Introduction with Applications. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann Pub;.
Quinley K, Schmidt D, (2002). Business at Risk: How to Assess, Mitigate, and Respond to Terrorist Threats. Cincinnati, OH: The National Underwriter Co;.
Southerland R, (2000). “Dispatch to Nowhere”. Access Control & Security Systems Integration.1.
Twomey D, Jennings M, Fox I, (2001). Anderson’s Business Law and the Regulatory Environment. 14th ed. Cincinnati, OH: West Legal Studies;.
U.S. Army , (2006). Counterinsurgency (FM-324). Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army;.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security , (2004). National Response Plan. www.dhs.gov . [retrieved January 12, 2005.]
U.S. Department of Justice , (2000). Critical Incident Protocol—A Public and Private Partnership. www.ojp.usdoj.gov . [retrieved November 18, 2003.]
U.S. Department of Justice , (1976a). Law Enforcement and Private Security: Sources and Areas of Conflict. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office;
U.S. Department of Justice , (1976b). Report of the Task Force on Private Security. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office;
U.S. Department of Justice , (1972). Private Police in the United States: Findings and Recommendations 1. (The Rand Report). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office;
U.S. Department of Justice , Bureau of Justice Statistics , (2006). Justice Expenditure and Employment in the United States, 2003 (April). www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/jeeus03.pdf . [retrieved May 17, 2006.]
U.S. Department of Justice , Office of Community Oriented Policing Services , (2004). National Policy Summit: Building Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships to Prevent and Respond to Terrorism and Public Disorder. www.cops.usdoj.gov . [retrieved January 4, 2005.]
U.S. Fire Administration , (2005). Fire in the United States 1992–2001, 13th ed.. www.usfa.fema.gov/statistics/reports/pubs/fius13th.shtm . [retrieved May 8, 2006.]
U.S. Fire Administration , (2006). “The Overall Fire Picture, 2005”. www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/quickstats/ . [retrieved November 10, 2006.]
U.S. Government Accountability Office , (2006). Contract Security Guards: Army’s Guard Program Requires Greater Oversight and Reassessment of Acquisition Approach (April). www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-284 . [retrieved April 5, 2006.]
Wagner D, (2006). “Private Security Guards Play Key Roles Post-9/11.” The Arizona Republic (January 22). www.azcentral.com . [retrieved January 30, 2006.]
Wailgum T, (2005). “Where the Metrics Are.” CSO (February). www.csoonline.com . [retrieved February 9, 2005.]
Zarate J, (1998). “The Emergence of a New Dog of War: Private International Security Companies, International Law, and the New World Order”. Stanford Journal of International Law.34.