• multinational and multicultural workforce
• United States Commission on National Security/21st Century
After studying this chapter, the reader will be able to:
1. Discuss security and loss prevention in the future.
2. List at least 10 trends affecting security and loss prevention.
3. Discuss security and loss prevention education, research, and training.
4. Explain how to seek employment opportunities in the security and loss prevention profession.
Seeking to accurately predict the future is difficult and risky. However, a professional will consider many variables when making educated guesses to anticipate future events. What follows here are possibilities for the future to which the reader can apply critical thinking skills.
Periodically, we hear older, experienced folks speak about how much simpler life was years ago. However, this view is subject to debate because technology, for example, has made life and work easier in many ways. At the same time, security and loss prevention practitioners face numerous problems in their work today, brought about by numerous factors. These factors include the needs of businesses as they seek to survive and return a profit, globalization, an array of threats and hazards, limited security budgets, and government laws and regulations. Our world is likely to continue to be increasingly complicated, and as difficult as it may be at times, problems should be perceived as challenges that have solutions and/or present opportunities.
As we know, technology has enhanced security in many ways. We have “smart cards” and “smart cameras,” and we will see many more systems and devices that contain “smart security,” which means that never-ending enhanced technology will be built into systems and devices. We will see increasingly “smart”—fences, contraband detection systems, WMD sensors, robot guards, and cybersecurity. Artificial intelligence will continue to surpass human capabilities. For instance, rather than security officers watching numerous CCTV monitors and becoming fatigued, the artificial intelligence that we have today will continue to help them to spot events deserving attention and response. Facial recognition systems will improve and eventually be capable of identifying offenders wherever they may be while they are moving.
Future integrated security systems will perform an array of loss prevention activities beyond what is accomplished today. For example, if an intruder enters a building, not only will a system pinpoint the entry location, via a series of sensors, and activate CCTV, but also simultaneously, it will dispatch a robot to apprehend the intruder and positively identify the intruder and his or her background.
Access control systems will no longer use cards. An individual will stand in front of sophisticated sensors, and positive identification will be made by the analysis of a number of biometric characteristics: bone structure, teeth, and body odor, to name a few. It would be especially difficult for an offender to duplicate several of these characteristics. The same sensors could be placed at many locations to monitor personnel, such as parking lots, building entrances, elevators, high-security locations, copying machines, lunchrooms, and restrooms. Obviously, with such a system, it would be possible to know exactly where all employees are at every minute of every workday. If a fire developed or a crime occurred, the recorded location of everyone would aid loss prevention personnel. However, will employees welcome IT records revealing how many times and for how long they visit the restroom or other locations? Suppose a system had the capability to record every conversation, every day, within a building. This could give management the opportunity to “weed out” employees who are counterproductive to organizational goals. In addition, because this system would be capable of “recognizing” any conversations pertaining to losses, the loss prevention department could review these conversations and investigate vulnerabilities. With these possibilities in mind, one realizes the blessing and burden of technology. Are such intense measures worth sacrificing privacy? Certainly not. Countermeasures must strike a balance between preventing losses and protecting privacy. In the future, as today, the courts will be watching and ruling as technological innovations and loss prevention strategies are applied.
As we progress in the era of the automatic factory (AF), loss prevention methods will change to meet the new technology. The AF operates machines that transform raw materials into finished products with limited human input. Robots with self-contained computers are an essential part of the AF. Activities such as material handling, assembly, inspection, and quality control are automated. Human input comes from a computer control center. Widespread use of “just-in-time production” also contributes to manufacturing’s need for fewer workers. Production is based on the needs of retailers, which avoids costly inventory holding and producing items that do not sell well (U.S. Department of Labor, 2000: 31).
The future use of robots is promising. They operate 24 hours a day without a coffee break or vacation. A salary and fringe benefits such as hospitalization and pensions are unnecessary for robots. Also, robots are immune to heat, cold, noise, radiation, and other hazards.
Imagine loss prevention for a plant operated by only three managers and six technicians. If internal pilfering occurred, the number of suspects would be narrowed to nine, excluding robots. Parking lots, frequently a source of crime and requiring traffic control, would be smaller. Fires and accidents, which are often caused by human error, would be reduced.
Can you describe an example of a clash between technology and civil liberties? What were the issues and solutions?
To begin with, the primary drivers of security and loss prevention practitioners, programs, and services are the needs and objectives of organizations and the changes within our society and world. Protection at a hotel will differ from protection at a nuclear power plant. The loss prevention needs of a retail chain in the United States will differ from the loss prevention needs of a multinational corporation with business interests in the Middle East. Although the protection needs of organizations differ, there are trends that affect all security and loss prevention programs.
The 21st century will continue to see no shortage of threats and hazards facing businesses and institutions. The list that follows presents trends and challenges that impact protection programs and the types of specialists required for security and loss prevention and, thus, employment opportunities:
• The challenges of crimes, fires, accidents, and disasters will remain but increase in complexity.
• Terrorism will become increasingly sinister and surprising because of the proliferation of WMD, mass casualties, severe economic harm, and its successes.
• Security and loss prevention metrics (see Chapter 2) will grow in importance to measure and enhance the success of protection programs. Campbell (2007: 60) writes: “Metrics are a tool used to facilitate influence, to demonstrate, argue, support, and convince.”
• We often hear about security and loss prevention departments “doing more with less.” Budget cuts are a fact of life requiring prioritization and creativity. The challenges can be enormous. However, “doing more with less” has its limitations, and a variety of outcomes is possible. Examples are victimization of people, financial losses, and ethical and legal issues.
• Risk analysis will become more challenging. Improved research methodologies for risk analyses must be sought for better decisions.
• Research shows that security managers are gaining new duties including risk management, safety, background investigations, and travel security. They are also harnessing their computers for broader applications such as incident tracking, sharing information internally via an intranet, and conducting training (“Security’s Burden Increases,” 2001: 18).
• Many security departments are facing either placement under another department (e.g., facilities management), outsourcing, or even elimination.
• The market for security services and systems will continue to grow globally (see Chapter 2). Although many businesses and institutions will maintain proprietary security departments, we will see an increase in the outsourcing of partial and entire security departments. Service firms will continue to provide security officers, investigations, integrated systems, and cybersecurity, among other services.
• Numerous specializations will grow in importance. Examples are risk management, business continuity planning, emergency management, life safety, fire protection, homeland security, protection of critical infrastructures and key assets, border security, cybersecurity, fraud prevention and investigation, workplace violence prevention, personnel protection, and information security.
• The cycle of protection will remain: as new technology is developed, offenders will exploit it, and security specialists and offenders will remain in constant competition—one group striving to protect, the other striving to circumvent defenses. Both sides will win “battles,” but neither will win the “war.”
• Cybercrime will increase. The number of cybercrime cases reported to police will also increase and require additional resources and training for police, prosecutors, and judges. “The largest computer crime problem affecting local law enforcement representing the largest number of victims and the largest monetary loss will be Internet fraud, including fraud via identity theft.” Virtual crimes will require new criminal and civil laws and new methodologies for prevention and investigation. Organized crime and terrorist groups will increasingly become involved in cybercrime (Taylor et al., 2006: 354–383).
• Public police, especially on the local level, will continue to lag behind the technical expertise of cybercriminals. Consequently, the private sector will continue to fill the void.
• Information security will increase in intensity. Taylor et al., (2006: 374) write: “The character of espionage will continue to broaden into the arenas of information warfare, economic espionage, and theft of intellectual property.”
• As we become a cashless society, offenders will be ready to gain illegally from system weaknesses.
• E-business will increase along with protection needs.
• Senior management in criminal organizations is becoming increasingly well educated and trained. Criminals increasingly will have college degrees and experience in IT, engineering, money management, investments, accounting, and law. In addition, offenders will use just about all the technology available to government and businesses.
• Criminal entrepreneurs, who seek illicit profits from a wide variety of enterprises and launder the proceeds, are becoming increasingly knowledgeable of the operations of financial institutions and related vulnerabilities. They will continue to infiltrate and manipulate financial institutions for their own purposes (e.g., money laundering), as this target becomes a top priority. Financial security professionals will continue to be challenged not only by external offenders but by internal ones as well.
• Counterfeiting will continue to be a huge business for organized criminals, especially in designer clothes, software, entertainment items, vehicle parts, and medical supplies. Counterfeiters have production facilities and distribution networks ready for new product lines.
• Twenty-first century crime groups increasingly will own shares of multinational corporations and be involved in management decisions. This will create new challenges for security professionals.
• Satellites increasingly will assist security through instantaneous communications throughout the world. People and assets will be more easily tracked. Such technology will assist in the investigations of kidnappings and hijackings.
• Corporate and institutional changes have had an impact on employee morale. The objectives of generating profit and improving quality while downsizing, and other workplace issues, have taken a toll on loyalty among workers. Loyalty has been an asset to protection programs. Its deterrent value today must be questioned and studied. New innovative strategies are required.
• Women, the elderly, and the disadvantaged will make up a greater portion of the workforce. Such groups present new challenges for security. Women and the elderly require protection not only in the workplace, but also at home and while traveling. Cases of domestic violence, sexual harassment, and stalking are likely to occupy more of the security professional’s time. Women and the elderly will be involved in more workplace crime. If increasing numbers of disadvantaged workers are employed, they may bring with them problems of gangs and illegal drugs (“Here Comes the 21st Century: What Does It Hold for Security?” 1997: 4–7).
• More research is needed on issues of minority group members and women in security positions. The majority of women in one study of women security managers felt they experienced relatively high levels of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and on-the-job stress; they also felt they were not paid the same as men for the same work. Despite these issues in this male-dominated vocation, the study showed three-fourths of the women surveyed were satisfied with their careers (“Survey Studies Women in Security,” 1996: 87–88).
• Security must adapt to a multinational and multicultural workforce. As the workforce changes, security professionals must be aware of diversity and use it to the advantage of the business. Good communication can improve security and business, and even help develop new markets.
• Global markets require security to be aware of each culture and related risks.
• Twenty-first century police will spend most of their resources and time curbing violent crimes, while their efforts against property crimes will take a lower priority. Consequently, the private sector will fill the void.
• More and more citizens and business people are realizing that the police have limited ability and resources to curb crime. Police are primarily “reactive”; that is, they respond to calls for service and investigate. They often are under great pressure to solve serious cases. Because of limited resources, police are not able to be more “proactive.” Again, the private sector will fill the void.
• A panel of law enforcement specialists predicted that, in 2035, private security agencies will perform more than 50% of all law enforcement responsibilities (Tafoya, 1991: 4).
• Ritter (2006: 8) writes: “There’s no question that terrorism, the growth of multicultural populations, massive migration, upheavals in age-composition demographics, technological developments, and globalization over the next three or more decades will affect the world’s criminal justice systems.”
• First responders (i.e., police, firefighters, and EMS) will continue to have limited resources. Businesses and institutions must prepare for emergencies.
• As the world’s population increases, competition for natural resources (e.g., oil, drinking water) will intensify.
• Three key factors to assist protection professionals today and in the future are a broad-based education (e.g., business, security, IT), the skill to show that protection strategies have a return on investment, and the flexibility to deal with rapid change.
• Trends affecting the security and loss prevention profession point to employment opportunities in many organizations (both proprietary and contract), government agencies, and in many specialized areas.
The United States Commission on National Security/21st Century (1999: 1–8), commonly known as the Hart-Rudman Task Force on Homeland Security, produced a series of reports. Phase 1 focused on trends in the future, as outlined in the following list. Phase 2 explained an American strategy based on U.S. interests and objectives. Phase 3 recommended comprehensive institutional and procedural changes throughout the executive and legislative branches in order to meet the challenges of 2025.
1. Institutions designed for another age may not be appropriate for the future.
2. Authoritarian regimes will increasingly collapse as they try to insulate their populations from free-flowing information and new economic opportunities.
3. An economically strong United States is likely to remain a primary political, military, and cultural force in the world through 2025.
4. Weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass disruption (e.g., information warfare) will continue to proliferate.
5. Adversaries will resort to forms and levels of violence shocking to our sensibilities. Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers.
6. Emerging technologies, such as advances in biotechnology, will create new moral, cultural, and economic divisions and an antitechnology backlash.
7. Energy, especially fossil fuel, will continue to have major strategic significance.
8. Minorities will be less likely to tolerate prejudicial government. Consequently, new states, international protectorates, and zones of autonomy will be born in violence.
9. Space will become a competitive military environment.
10. U.S. intelligence will face more challenging adversaries, and even excellent intelligence will not prevent all surprises.
The National Intelligence Council, which reports to the Director of National Intelligence and serves in a strategic thinking role, reports from its “2020 Project” that the magnitude and speed of change from globalization will be a defining feature of the world to 2020. Other trends noted by this group are: new global players of increasing influence will be China and India; political Islam will have an increasingly significant impact; there will be a sense of insecurity, including terrorism; and the U.S. will retain enormous advantages that no other state will match, however, more countries will be in a position to make the U.S. pay a heavy price for military action. Furthermore, more firms will become global; the world economy is likely to continue to grow; large pockets of poverty will persist globally; and governments will struggle to keep up with change (Flynn, 2007).
What trends do you anticipate in the security and loss prevention profession?
Five Wars of Globalization
As in the past, the private sector, as well as the public sector, will continue in the future to contend with what Naim (2003) calls the “five wars of globalization.” These are the illegal trade in drugs, arms, intellectual property, people, and money. He emphasizes that religious zeal or political goals drive terrorists, whereas profit drives the other wars, and all of the wars result in murder, mayhem, and global insecurity. According to Naim, governments have been fighting the five wars for centuries and losing them. He does not include terrorism in this statement. Naim explains why governments cannot win the five wars of globalization:
• Criminal cartels can manipulate weak governments by corrupting politicians and police.
• International law, including embargoes, sanctions, and conventions, offer criminals opportunities to profit from illegal goods.
• Al-Qaida members are stateless and so are criminal networks involved in the five wars. Whereas terrorists and other criminals can seek refuge in and take advantage of porous borders, traditional notions of sovereignty frustrate governments.
• These wars pit governments against market forces. Thousands of independent, stateless organizations are motivated by large profits gained by exploiting international price differentials, unsatisfied demand, or the cost advantages resulting from theft (i.e., no cost to produce the product).
• These wars pit bureaucracies against networks. The same network that smuggles illegal drugs may be involved in counterfeit watches that are sold on the streets of Manhattan by illegal immigrants. Highly decentralized networks can act swiftly and flexibly, while often lacking a headquarters and central leadership to be targeted. Governments often meet the challenge by forming task forces or creating new bureaucracies.
Naim claims that governments may never be able to eliminate the international trade from the five wars, but they can and should do better. He offers four areas capable of producing ideas to meet the challenges from these wars:
• Negotiate more flexible notions of sovereignty. Since stateless networks regularly violate laws and cross borders to trade illegally, nations should develop agreements to “manage” sovereignty to combat criminal networks.
• Naim calls for stronger multilateral institutions (e.g., multinational police efforts such as Interpol). However, nations do not trust each other, some assume that criminals have infiltrated the police agencies of other countries, and today’s allies may become tomorrow’s enemies.
• The five wars render obsolete many institutions, legal frameworks, military doctrines, weapons systems, and law enforcement techniques that have been applied for numerous years. Rethinking and adaptation are needed to develop, for instance, new concepts of war “fronts” defined by geography and new functions for intelligence agents, soldiers, and enforcement officers.
• In all five wars, government agencies battle networks motivated by profits created by other government agencies that create an imbalance between demand and supply that makes prices rise and profits skyrocket. Since beating market forces is next to impossible, reality may force governments, in certain illegal markets, to change from repressing the markets to regulating them. In addition, creating market incentives may be better than creating bureaucracies to curb the excesses of markets. In certain instances, technology can possibly be used to replace government policies (e.g., encryption to protect software on CDs).
What can businesses and protection programs do to prevent and reduce losses from the “wars of globalization”?
How relevant is a college education to the loss prevention careerist? A college degree will not guarantee a job or advancement opportunities. However, with a college degree, a person has improved chances of obtaining a favored position. If two, equally experienced people are vying for the same professional loss prevention position and person A has a college degree while person B does not, person A probably will get the job. Of course, other characteristics within a person’s background will improve job opportunities. Education and experience are top considerations. Training also is important. Two other characteristics are personality and common sense. As used here, personality pertains to one’s ability to get along with others. Many consider this factor to be one-half of a person’s job. Common sense is a subjective term that is used widely. It refers to an analysis of a situation that produces the “best” solution that most people would favor.
Although business degree programs are an excellent location for security and loss prevention courses, the criminal justice (CRJ) degree programs at hundreds of campuses in the United States today are the greatest driving force behind security and loss prevention academic programs. Many institutions offer criminal justice degrees with an emphasis in security and loss prevention. In addition, several institutions maintain distinct departments focusing on security and loss prevention degree and certificate programs.
During the late 1960s, many police science degree programs advanced to law enforcement and then to CRJ degree programs. As CRJ programs developed, so did the spectrum of course offerings: from primarily narrow police science courses, CRJ programs began offering courses relating to the entire justice system (i.e., police, courts, corrections). CRJ programs became multidisciplinary because the answers to complex problems are more forthcoming from a broader spectrum of study. Likewise, security and loss prevention academic programs will evolve into broader-based, multidisciplinary programs and include the study of business, risk management, cybersecurity, terrorism, and homeland security.
Since the 9/11 attacks, hundreds of new academic and training programs have been implemented. Universities, four-year colleges, and two-year colleges have increased their offerings of degree programs, certificates, and courses in homeland security (HS), emergency management (EM), and related disciplines. Other sources of education and training include proprietary schools, corporations, government agencies, unions, and associations. Despite an increase in education and training programs relevant to HS, there is no consensus of what constitutes a common body of knowledge to establish HS as an academic discipline. Furthermore, course content in this field of study varies among institutions and training programs. HS in higher education is being developed in a wide variety of academic disciplines and focusing on various audiences and needs. Part of the problem is that the DHS is continuously developing its mission under changing circumstances and events. In addition, the public and private sectors are trying to determine what knowledge and skills are required for HS. Also, perspectives on HS differ among specialists.
In reference to academic programs in EM, these programs have a longer history than academic programs in HS. Both are evolving at an erratic pace with no uniformity, while being influenced by catastrophic events followed by government action.
The many issues of HS were discussed and debated at the 2005 ASIS Academic-Practitioner Symposium, whose attendees work to enhance education and research in the discipline of security. David Gilmore, a security practitioner and educator who chairs the annual event, expressed the sentiment of most participants that the concept of HS is not clearly defined and its meaning varies (Davidson, 2005: 74). Dr. Wayne Blanchard, who hopes to make EM a legitimate academic discipline, spoke at the symposium. He noted that most EM academic programs are oriented toward the public sector, but the private sector is larger, and perhaps academia should offer more programs on preventing and responding to emergencies in the private sector. He was asked how HS differs from EM. “Dr. Blanchard observed that since EM covers all hazards, all actors, and all phases, a program dealing only with terrorist threats would not be considered an EM program. However, such distinctions and definitions change over time. The work done by FEMA used to be called civil defense, then emergency management, and perhaps one day might be called homeland security” (ASIS International, 2005: 23).
Over several years, an HS body of knowledge and standardization of curricula will evolve to strengthen HS as an academic discipline. At the same time, diverse academic departments will continue to clash as decisions are made as to which department will house HS. EM has been going through such an evolutionary process for a longer period, and it will continue. Although a major source of direction for HS education and training is the National Strategy for Homeland Security, future events, challenges, legislation, and government policy will shape curriculum design (Purpura, 2007: 452–454).
The criminal justice profession is one source for research direction for the security and loss prevention profession. The following perspectives on criminal justice research are verbatim from the National Institute of Justice Journal (Ritter, 2006: 8–11).
David Weisburd [University of Maryland] believes that the nature of criminal justice in 2040 will depend in large part on the primary research methodology. Is the criminal justice community better served by relying on the experiences and opinions of practitioners (the clinical experience model) or by research that tests programs and measures outcomes (the evidence-based model)?
Currently, the clinical experience model is the research path most frequently followed. Policies and technologies are based primarily on reports from practitioners about what they have found to work or not work. Sharing approaches and programs that seemed to work in one community with another community allows for quick application of successful ideas. The downside of this model is that a program may be widely adopted before scientific research demonstrates its efficacy in more than one place or application. For example, in one youth program aimed at reducing delinquency, counselors and parents believed that the treatments were effective, based on initial measures of success. However, subsequent evaluation revealed that participation in the program actually increased the risk of delinquency.
In the evidence-based model, a new program undergoes systematic research and evaluation before it is widely adopted. Now dominant in medicine—and becoming more popular in other areas such as education—the evidence-based model has been used successfully in criminal justice. For example, hot-spot policing (a policy adopted in the early 1990s that focuses police resources in high-crime areas) was preceded by studies that demonstrated its effectiveness.
But the evidence-based model also has shortcomings. Research requires a large investment of time and money, and many practitioners understandably would rather spend resources implementing an innovation than wait for confirming research. Time—always a precious commodity for policymakers and practitioners—can be a particularly frustrating component of the evidence-based model. Credible research requires time to adequately test an approach, often in more than one jurisdiction, before communities can adopt it on a large scale.
“Policymakers want to improve things while they have the power,” Weisburd says. “They are under pressure to make an impact—so there is tension between the slowness of the evidence-based process and the pressure to move quickly.”
Weisburd proposes making the evidence-based model “more realistic.” He believes this can be done by
• Streamlining the process of developing evidence and conducting evaluations.
• Building an infrastructure to ensure that studies do not reinvent the wheel.
• Devising methods for getting studies off the ground faster, such as encouraging funders to help in the development of high-quality randomized experimental studies.
• Reinforcing a culture that emphasizes the exploration of which programs and practices do and do not work.
Weisburd also argues that federal investment in the scientific evaluation of new practices and programs must be increased. Researchers and practitioners must insist that “if you want us to make intelligent policy and not waste money by prematurely innovating in hundreds of departments, you must give us more money.”
In what ways can the perspectives of Weisburd be applied to research in the security and loss prevention profession?
The most practical question for loss prevention researchers to address is as follows: What strategies are best to prevent and reduce losses from crimes, fires, accidents, and other threats and vulnerabilities? Ongoing evaluative research is instrumental in strengthening successful strategies while eliminating those that are less useful.
Additional directions for research include protection against terrorism, WMD, protection of critical infrastructures, key assets and “soft targets,” IT security, security metrics, model training programs, determination of the most appropriate courses for relevant degree programs, effective job applicant screening, model statutes for licensing and regulation of the security industry, model for regulatory bodies, criteria for the selection of security services and systems, evaluation of services and systems, legal issues and liabilities, strategies to improve public–private sector cooperation, privatization, private justice system, centralized data bank for compiling loss statistics, the feasibility of tax deductions for implementing loss prevention strategies by a variety of entities and residential settings, and the use and effect of robots and other technological innovations.
As well as college and university criminal justice and loss prevention programs sharing these research questions, other curricula are capable of providing valuable input. They include business, risk management, insurance, emergency management, safety, fire protection, public health and medicine, architecture, landscape architecture, and engineering degree programs. A multidisciplinary research effort is most beneficial. Without adequate research, loss prevention practitioners will be hindered in their decision-making roles.
Universities have been actively fulfilling the research needs of homeland security and defense. Funding for university research for homeland security and defense is provided by federal departments (e.g., DHS, DOD) and agencies (e.g., CIA, EPA) and the private sector and state governments.
The DHS is involved in numerous research initiatives through its Office of Science and Technology. The DHS partners with other government agencies, universities, and industry to find and develop innovative ideas. A major area of focus is protection against catastrophic terrorism that could result in large-scale loss of life and major economic harm.
Homeland Security Presidential Directive-7 (HSPD-7) calls for a national critical infrastructure protection research and development (R&D) plan. The National Plan for Research and Development in Support of Critical Infrastructure Protection (The Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy and The Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate, 2004) is essentially a roadmap for investment and protection that integrates cyber, physical, and human elements. This R&D plan was developed in coordination with the National Infrastructure Protection Plan.
Through the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress mandated the DHS to enhance U.S. leadership in science and technology aimed at homeland security issues. This goal is supported through DHS funding of undergraduate and graduate fellowships and scholarships, and establishing DHS Centers of Excellence (HS-Centers). HS-Centers (i.e., universities) are overseen by the Office of University Programs within the Science & Technology directorate and are designed to create learning and research environments that bring together experts who focus on numerous topics including WMD, risk analysis related to the economic consequences of terrorism, infrastructure protection, biological threats and diseases, agro-security, and the behavioral aspects of terrorism and its consequences.
Larger sources of research on homeland security issues are the over 700 federally funded research and development laboratories and centers throughout the United States. These sites include federal labs, college and university labs, and private industry labs. Each year billions of dollars support homeland security R&D.
What directions for research can you suggest for the security and loss prevention profession?
The future direction of training largely depends on organizational needs and objectives, threats and vulnerabilities, technological innovations, and loss prevention strategies. Practitioners will need to know how to operate in an environment of new countermeasures and complex systems. But even though loss prevention will change, many key topics taught in the training programs of today also will be taught tomorrow. Strategies against crimes, fires, accidents, and disasters will still be at the heart of training programs.
State involvement in training proprietary and contract service practitioners probably will increase for greater public safety. Uniformity in training will ensure that practitioners receive adequate information on basic topics such as laws of arrest, search and seizure, use of force, weapons, fire protection, safety, and emergency response. An interdisciplinary group would be the best choice to provide input for state-mandated training programs.
The training curriculum of tomorrow will continue to cater to the ever-increasing goal of professionalizing loss prevention personnel. The end product will be a thoroughly knowledgeable and skilled practitioner, able to provide a useful service to the community. Greater mutual respect will follow as public police and private-sector personnel share similar characteristics in education, training, salary, and professionalism.
Improved training helps to prevent costly liability suits; for example, from excessive force used by a uniformed officer. The quality of training, in terms of duration, intensity, and topics covered, is a prime consideration in such liability cases.
Programmed, self-paced instruction with the aid of computers will increase. This type of instruction is cost-effective, especially when an organization is faced with the challenge of turnover. Furthermore, new employees who learn quickly can move through the instructional program without having to wait for slower students. A varied training program may include not only programmed, self-paced instruction, but also lectures, audiovisual productions, role-playing, and demonstrations. Distance learning online will increase in popularity as students learn from remote locations.
Every state should maintain a security institute, preferably at a college or university. Three goals of a security institute are as follows:
1. Develop and conduct college and continuing education courses based on the needs of customers.
2. Work with the state government agency that regulates the private security industry to develop training programs, conduct research, and professionalize the field.
3. Offer the institute’s service area crime prevention initiatives involving security and criminal justice college students who are an unrealized and underutilized national resource to control crime.
Many employment opportunities can be found in the security and loss prevention profession. Chapter 2 provides information on this industry and career specializations. The related profession of criminal justice, which includes police, courts, corrections, probation, and parole, plus the growth of privatization, provides opportunities and specialization for employment applicants.
Entry-level security officer positions vary widely in pay, benefits, and training. Generally, these positions do not pay as well as public police. However, there are many opportunities for employment and advancement and many part-time positions; the hours offer some flexibility; and the duties are less risky than public policing. Supervisors in security have mastered the tasks of security officers, possess broader skills, and have good human relations qualities. Managers generally have more education, training, experience, and responsibilities than supervisors do. They are involved in planning, budgeting, organizing, marketing, recruiting, directing, and controlling. Other careers in this profession include sales, self-employment (e.g., private investigations, consulting), and government security. The career boxes in previous chapters, courtesy of ASIS International, offer salary ranges for various positions.
• Online services: The Internet is a major source of employment information. There are several advantages: offerings are broad, time is saved by reviewing opportunities open worldwide, it is more up-to-date than most publications, and you can respond electronically. Be aware that confidentiality is limited. Look for services that are free.
• Periodicals: Within these sources, trends in employment and employment opportunities are common topics.
• Professional associations: Professional organizations serve members through educational programs, publications, and a variety of strategies aimed at increasing professionalism.
• Trade conferences: People with a common interest attend trade conferences, which are advertised in trade publications. By attending these conferences, a loss prevention practitioner or student can learn about a variety of topics. The latest technology and professional seminars are typical features. Trade conferences provide an opportunity to meet practitioners who may be knowledgeable about employment opportunities or are actively seeking qualified people.
• Educational institutions: Security and loss prevention and criminal justice degree programs are another source of employment information. Usually, these programs have bulletin boards, near faculty offices, that contain career opportunities. College or university placement services or faculty members are other valuable sources.
• Libraries: A wealth of information for a career search is available at libraries. Examples include periodicals, newspapers, telephone books, directories, books on career strategies, and online services.
• Government buildings: Public buildings often contain bulletin boards that specify employment news, especially near personnel offices. Government agencies frequently search for practitioners to maintain security and safety at government buildings and installations.
• Newspapers: By looking under “security” in classified sections, one can find listings for entry-level positions. In large urban newspapers, more specialized positions are listed.
• Public employment agencies: These agency offices operate in conjunction with the U.S. Employment Service of the Department of Labor. Personnel will provide employment information without cost and actually contact recruiters or employers.
• Networking: An informal network consists of people the applicant knows from past educational or employment experiences. It is a good idea for any professional to maintain contact, however slight, with peers. When employment-related challenges develop and solutions are difficult to obtain, networking may be an avenue for answers. Likewise, this mutual assistance is applicable to employment searches.
• Telephone books: The addresses and telephone numbers of both private and public entities are abundant in telephone books. By looking up “security,” “guards,” “investigators,” and “government offices,” one can develop a list of locations for possible employment opportunities.
• Private employment agencies: Almost all urban areas have private employment agencies that charge a fee. This source probably will be a last resort, and one should carefully study financial stipulations. At times, these agencies have fee-paid jobs, which mean that the employer pays the fee.
1. Read at least two current books on searching for employment and careers; both the novice and the experienced person will learn or be reminded of many excellent tips that will “polish” the career search and instill confidence.
2. Begin your search by first focusing on yourself—your abilities and background, your likes and dislikes, and your personality and people skills.
3. If you are new to the security and loss prevention profession, aim to “get your foot in the door.” As a college student, look for an intern position, work part-time, or do volunteer work. Aim to graduate with experience. As a retired government employee, or if you are beginning a new career in security, market and transfer your accumulated skills and experience to this profession.
4. Most people will enter new careers several times in their lives.
5. Searching for a career opportunity requires planning, patience, and perseverance. Rejections are a typical part of every search. A positive attitude will make or break your career.
6. When planning elective courses in college or when training opportunities arise, consider that employers want people with skills (e.g., writing, speaking, interviewing, information technology).
7. Many students do not realize that a college education and some training programs teach the student how to learn. Although many bits of information studied and reproduced on examinations are forgotten months after being tested, the skills of how to study information, how to read a textbook or article, how to critically think and question, how to do research and solve problems, and how to prepare and present a report are skills for life that are repeated over and over in one’s professional career. In our quickly changing information age, these skills are invaluable.
8. If you are fortunate enough to have a choice among positions, do not let salary be the only factor in your decision. Think about career potential and advancement, content of the work, free training, benefits, travel, and equipment.
9. Exercise due diligence on potential employers. For example, speak to present employees and check the organization’s financial health.
10. Five key factors influencing an individual’s chances for promotion are education, training, professional development and certification, experience, and personality.
11. Avoid quitting a job before you find another. Cultivate references, even in jobs you dislike; such jobs are a learning experience (Purpura, 1997: 366–384).
The employment situation in the security and loss prevention profession reflects a bright future. Good luck with your career!
Here are Web sites relevant to this chapter:
Academy of Security Educators and Trainers: www.asetcse.org/index.htm
ASIS International: www.asisonline.org
Central Intelligence Agency: www.cia.gov
Department of Homeland Security, Research & Technology: www.dhs.gov
FEMA Emergency Management Institute: http://www.training.fema.gov/emiweb/edu/
LawEnforcementJobs.com: www.lawenforcementjobs.com/content.cfm?ESID=find&ACTION=&SearchBy=location&SearchWhereClause=AND+S.StateID=42#joblist
National Academic Consortium for Homeland Security: http://homelandsecurity.osu.edu/NACHS/index.html
Nation Job Network: www.nationjob.com/security/
The Homeland Security/Defense Education Consortium: www.hsdec.org
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook: www.bls.gov/oco
U.S. Office of Personnel Management: www.usajobs.gov/homeland.asp
World Future Society: www.wfs.org
Yahoo! Hot Jobs: http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/jobs-Law_Enforcement_Security-all
19A. As a contract security supervisor with a major security service firm, you are faced with a major career decision. You have a bachelor’s degree and have been with your present employer for a total of 7 years: 2 years part-time while in college, and 5 years full-time since graduating. These years have been spent at a hospital where you would like to advance to site security manager, but you face competition from one other supervisor, who also has a bachelor’s degree, the same certifications and training that you possess, and about the same years of experience. The present contract site security manager is a former detective who wants to retire within the next year or two. You have repeatedly asked managers from the security service firm (i.e., your employer) about advancement opportunities, but nothing is available. Recently, you were offered the position of in-house security and safety training officer with a nearby, urban school district. The pay is $800 less annually than what you are earning now. However, you would receive additional insurance and retirement benefits and work only day shifts, Monday through Friday. You would be the only college-educated officer on the school district security force, which is primarily composed of contract officers. The director of security is the only other in-house security officer, a retired police officer with no college degree. What career choice do you make?
19B. As a regional loss prevention manager with a major retailer, you have 12 years of retail loss prevention experience. You earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees and a CPP. The territory you work covers nearly 100 stores in six southeastern states. You are on the road each day responding to challenges and wish you could spend more time with your spouse and two children. After 8 years with the same company, and no chance for advancement, you decide to consider an offer as loss prevention director with a major retailer in the New York City area. The pay is $8,000 more than what you are earning now, with similar benefits. You would have additional responsibilities, but you would travel much less. Your spouse and children do not want to move because of family and friends. What career choice do you make?
ASIS International , (2005). “Proceedings of the 2005 Academic/Practitioner Symposium”. Alexandria, VA: ASIS International;.
Campbell G, (2007). “Security Metrics in Context”. Security Technology & Design.17.
Davidson M, (2005). “A Matter of Degrees”. Security Management.49.
Flynn D, (2007). “Mapping the Global Future: Report of the National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project”. Strategic Insights.VI.
“Here Comes the 21st Century: What Does It Hold for Security?”. Security Management Bulletin..
Naim M, (2003). “The Five Wars of Globalization”. Foreign Policy..
Purpura P, (1997). Criminal Justice: An Introduction. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann;.
Purpura P, (2007). Terrorism and Homeland Security: An Introduction with Applications. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann;.
Ritter N, (2006). “Preparing for the Future: Criminal Justice in 2040”. NIJ Journal..
“Security’s Burden Increases”. Security Management.45.
“Survey Studies Women in Security”. Security Management..
Tafoya W, (1991). “The Future of Law Enforcement? A Chronology of Events”. C J International.7.
Taylor R et al, (2006). Digital Crime and Digital Terrorism. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall;.
The Executive Office of the President , Office of Science and Technology Policy , The Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate , (2004). The National Plan for Research and Development in Support of Critical Infrastructure Protection. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ST_2004_NCIP_RD_PlanFINALApr05.pdf . [retrieved April 1, 2007.]
United States Commission on National Security/21st Century , (21st Century, 1999). New World Coming: American Security in the 21st Century (September 15). http://www.fas.org/man/docs/nwc/nwc.htm . [retrieved March 31, 2007.]
U.S. Department of Labor , (2000). “Futurework: Trends and Challenges for Work in the 21st Century.” Occupational Outlook Quarterly (Summer). http://www.bls.gov/opub/ooq/2000/Summer/art04.pdf . [retrieved March 29, 2007.]