Forcing The Training Issue

[SecTrainer]

WARNING: LONG POST

This post is to open the floor for comment on a topic that you probably can tell from my forum name is near and dear to my heart - training. It also has other implications, as you will easily see, particularly with respect to the question of arming officers in venues where the risk profile clearly indicates they should be armed.

Specifically, the topic here is this: How can we force state licensing regulators to adopt higher training standards?...and a suggestion for an attack on this problem that I believe has real merit.

THE PROBLEM: I think most of us are agreed that the mandatory minimum training requirements, even in the most aggressively-regulated states, are far too low. If you remove the economic questions and look at training strictly on the basis of what security officers should be taught, it's a slam-dunk to make the case for a 120-hour academy as the minimum. Please note that this is only three weeks, and with one additional week for site-based training, we're talking about taking all of one month to train a security officer. It's hard to see how anyone could argue that this is "too much".

Let's dispense with the question of "observe and report" officers first: Even officers who might initially be assigned to "observe-and-report" positions should be trained to a standard that allows the security company or security department manager to post them to more "response-oriented" positions as manpower needs change and as the security environment changes. This is just good personnel planning - not to have certain people "locked into" certain assignments.

And, when you include customer service, hazardous condition recognition, disaster awareness, and countersurveillance training in the curriculum, all of which are absolutely mandatory even for "observe and report" officers, you're talking about more training than they now receive.

THE CASE AGAINST HIGHER STANDARDS: Having said that, we now must turn around and acknowledge that both security companies and their clients have used the "economic case" for many years as a sufficient argument to keep training mandates low. In reply, those of us who argue for higher standards have generally attacked the "economic case" directly - for instance, by arguing that better selection and training results in better service and lower liability, so that insufficient training investment represents a form of "false economics".

Our case is demonstrably true, yet it remains the fact that this argument has rarely been very successful, even if true. Direct costs are much easier for companies to see and think about than future benefits...or even future liabilities, much less the potential differences in benefits and liabilities that will result from the lower standards versus higher standards.

A NEW AVENUE OF ATTACK: The point I am leading up to is this: Might there not be an argument to be made for our case if we were to attack the low standards on the basis of inadequate occupational safety for security officers as well as the employees or visitors they protect? Before you answer that question, let me say that occupational safety is an area of both public policy and federal/state law that has real teeth behind it, has powerful agencies enforcing it at both federal and state levels, and has a great deal of public support as well, all of which would be pressed into the service of our own case if made from that point of attack, and which are all MISSING from our "false economics" position, which garners no public support at all.

There's nothing bogus about the occupational safety argument, either. Is it not the case that we know very well that officers and other citizens are injured and/or killed every week who might otherwise not be if the security officer who was present had been properly trained and equipped? Is it not the case that the low standards (and resulting presumed ineffectiveness of security officers)actually encourage violent criminals to dismiss the presence of a security officer when the criminal is doing his own "risk assessment"? Interviews with convicted violent felons clearly show that this is the case. They will attack a facility with a security officer present (especially if unarmed) much more readily than they would attack the same facility with a police officer present....period. The difference, of course, is that they know the police officer is much more likely to mount a successful response.

One other point - firefighters have already successfully used this form of attack (occupational safety for themselves) to achieve higher training standards and better equipment, with very good results. The other powerful tool they have used is union pressure.

I think it would be a relatively simple and effective campaign to begin to make the safety case for higher training standards, and such a campaign would be relevant at both the federal (OSHA) and state levels. I'm not sure what the actual current statistics are, but I believe we now have officers being killed and injured at a rate equal to or greater than that of law enforcement - a fact that SHOULD and WOULD receive great national attention if it were occurring, say, to secretaries or factory workers.

Ways to raise the national consciousness and achieve official action on this front are quite evident:

1. Begin to bring lawsuits against security agencies and their clients who impose constraints on behalf of injured and/or deceased officers for promoting unsafe working conditions (among which, training is a recognized aspect, for instance in the area of Hazmat and other work-related dangers, so the precedent is there).

2. Begin to bring this case, specifically, to lawmakers and regulators at both the federal and state levels. PLEASE NOTE - I am talking about regulators in the field of OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, not SECURITY LICENSING. This is a different group of people, who are relatively indifferent to "we can't afford it" kinds of arguments that businesses like to make, and much more inclined to say "Well, you'd better find a way to afford it, buster, because you sure won't be able to afford the fines!".

3. Hold a National Day of Mourning for slain security officers. During this day, which would of course be well-publicized in the press, all security officers would wear a mourning band (no comments about the cops objecting, please - they wouldn't dare object) and the names of the slain officers, together with a brief vignette about each, would be circulated to all major news outlets, together with an exposee article about the low standards for safety and training that have been promulgated by the state regulators. Expose these people for dereliction of duty, is basically what I'm talking about, although it doesn't have to be put in those terms.

The more I think about it, the more I think this sort of "rear attack" on the occupational safety basis, together with continuing pressure directly on the "false economics" argument, would create a very effective pincer-like action that would catch state security-licensing regulators in a very uncomfortable squeeze, and perhaps even impose mandates on THEM from a different direction - from the folks in the office down the hall from them who regulate workplace safety.

Please think about this for a bit before commenting. Look into the general support and the almost unbelievable power that the domain of occupational safety enjoys (for instance, that OSHA can walk in and shut down the business without further adieu when it finds violations - which not even the IRS can do). Think about the actions that I've suggested, and give me your comments, and perhaps some ideas for other actions that this approach might make possible. Thank you!

[hrdickinson]

...Whew!!!! ;)

[Bill Warnock]

Gentlemen, hark back to the days when some counties, townships, cities, normally of small size, gave a man a badge, credentials, some without photographs and gun or he had to buy one, and maybe, not always, a uniform and he was now a police officer or deputy sheriff.
Remember also the numerous court cases, federal and state, that were harshly critical of police actions and upon determining the individual or individuals had little or no training, mandated training. At first there was 30, then 60 and then miracle of miracles 120 hours of various types of training. No two agencies had the same type or depth of training.
Then came physical standards and finally, psychological standards that men and finally women had to meet.
In the beginning, some smaller governmental agencies filed for bankruptcy due to the law suits against them and were forced to give up their law enforcement agencies.
It will take several court cases and rulings to accomplish the same for private security.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Mr. Security]

I welcome any additional training that may be required, as long as wages are commensurate with the qualifications mandated. In other words, I'm not interested in additional schooling for a 10/hr position. Hopefully the hourly rate will be at a livable wage.

[SecTrainer]

I welcome any additional training that may be required, as long as wages are commensurate with the qualifications mandated. In other words, I'm not interested in additional schooling for a 10/hr position. Hopefully the hourly rate will be at a livable wage.

It's sort of a chicken-or-the-egg question, but usually higher training and selection mandates must precede higher wages, rather than the other way around. Or, at best, higher wages closely follow institution of higher training and selection standards. The only thing I know of that can substitute for this fundamental economic relationship (higher standards --> higher wages) is a union contract. At times, an artificially tight labor market can artificially raise wages, but these typically come right back down again when unemployment rises and the labor market slackens. All in all, aside from a union contract or a temporary tight labor market, the most fundamental questions that determine salaries for any occupation are: "How much training or education do you have to have to do this job, and how tough are the selection standards?"

The old adage my daddy told me was this: "If anyone can walk in off the street and do the job you're doing, you ain't gonna be paid very much." By raising the training and selection standards, it becomes less possible for "someone to walk in off the street and do my job"...consequently, wages typically rise as companies compete for individuals who have the credentials necessary to work in that state.

[SecTrainer]

It will take several court cases and rulings to accomplish the same for private security.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

OSHA and state job safety actions (with their accompanying fines) are wonderful substitutes for privately-initiated lawsuits, Bill. All of them acting together on the industry, I believe, WOULD serve as the needed wakeup call to the fact that we are, without the slightest question in my mind, exposing security officers to unacceptable risks by our "do-it-cheaper" model of doing business.

I'm not actually terribly worried about dozens of security companies or their clients going bankrupt because of such actions, nor of losing security positions. At first, there would be a period of adjustment, of course, and perhaps a few severely undercapitalized companies might go under...they probably should. However, the market has a way of accommodating these changes, and it would have to accommodate because all of the drivers for clients to purchase security would still be operant...government mandates, negligence liability, loss risks, etc., etc.

What I fear the most is that, should it be possible to get OSHA to hold hearings on new regulations, there will be no shortage of "security consultant/expert" prostitutes, who depend for their incomes on the security industry and/or its clients, stumbling up to the podium or witness stand in their hooker heels and miniskirts (a frightening thought by itself) to hotly deny, on the strength of miles of charts and graphs, of course, that there are any safety issues, and that the whole thing would die the horrible death that only "special interests" can inflict on higher standards.

Ever watch cable news and some of the so-called "security experts" they dig up for their segments? You'll no doubt see them again in these hearings and in court, and among their credentials they will cite that they have been seen on "numerous television segments"...I know, because that's what's on their websites now. How's that for circular reasoning? "I'm on TV because I'm an expert, and I'm an expert because I've been on TV".

[davis002]

SecTrainer,

I absolutely agree with everything you said. As far fetched as everything you said may sound, it truly isn't. The toughest part would be the start, and proving to the general public why this is a very important issue.

This might also be a task for FOPSO if we can get it up and running.

[DarkMetalWolf]

I personaly would love to have more training requirements, however, I must agree:

I welcome any additional training that may be required, as long as wages are commensurate with the qualifications mandated. In other words, I'm not interested in additional schooling for a 10/hr position. Hopefully the hourly rate will be at a livable wage.
__________________

We are a market driven labor force. In Ca. it almost cost $800 to $900 to recieve your initial guard card, gas permit, baton training and a firearms permit along with "basic" training. Then the cost of maintaining the permits can cost as much as $500 per every two years. This would not be so bad if the average wage was not $8 to $12 dollars an hour. More training is useless without the wage to go with it. A person who is trained in everything does not give it all for $10. bucks an hour and to be treated like crap from the company they work for. I think this will be a long process from our want of high training standards and the pay to go with it. :confused:

[Bill Warnock]

SecTrainer, I have seen enough TV Security Experts to last a lifetime. As a retired MP colonel told me, "Last month they were hanging siding, today they are in security, glib and ready for exploitation. They announce they can conduct a comprehensive physical security in under two hours and if there is no wind making waves, walk on the water."
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[SecTrainer]

SecTrainer,

I absolutely agree with everything you said. As far fetched as everything you said may sound, it truly isn't. The toughest part would be the start, and proving to the general public why this is a very important issue.

This might also be a task for FOPSO if we can get it up and running.

The toughest part of any undertaking is the initial phase. In the case of an organization, it's very difficult to get people to join and pay dues when there are not yet any significant benefits coming from the organization, which of course it can't provide without dues-paying members!

We're like the man who says to the stove: "If you'll give me some heat, I'll give you some wood". This man has it all backwards, of course, but that's human nature. We'd rather shiver in the cold than to come to terms with the fact you must put the wood in first (make the investment), and then you'll get the heat (the benefits). This is simply the way stoves work, and they can never work the other way around.

Organizations require the initial members to be visionaries - people who can see the benefits even before they become reality...and who believe in them enough to invest in them, and to work to turn their vision into reality. Sadly, visionaries are rare - and we do everything we can in society to stomp on them whenever we do find them, because they disturb the established order of things, and we can't have that.

[davis002]

The toughest part of any undertaking is the initial phase. In the case of an organization, it's very difficult to get people to join and pay dues when there are not yet any significant benefits coming from the organization, which of course it can't provide without dues-paying members!

We're like the man who says to the stove: "If you'll give me some heat, I'll give you some wood". This man has it all backwards, of course, but that's human nature. We'd rather shiver in the cold than to come to terms with the fact you must put the wood in first (make the investment), and then you'll get the heat (the benefits). This is simply the way stoves work, and they can never work the other way around.

Organizations require the initial members to be visionaries - people who can see the benefits even before they become reality...and who believe in them enough to invest in them, and to work to turn their vision into reality. Sadly, visionaries are rare - and we do everything we can in society to stomp on them whenever we do find them, because they disturb the established order of things, and we can't have that.

Kevin Jordan quit FOPSO... thought you might want to know that.

[SecTrainer]

SecTrainer, I have seen enough TV Security Experts to last a lifetime. As a retired MP colonel told me, "Last month they were hanging siding, today they are in security, glib and ready for exploitation. They announce they can conduct a comprehensive physical security in under two hours and if there is no wind making waves, walk on the water."
Enjoy the day,
Bill

I would estimate that a comprehensive physical security survey of a typical small manufacturing plant (say, up to 500 employees) might well take a week or more from start to finished report, and especially so if the survey addresses supply chain security issues.

Heck, you could easily spend two days just in your initial interviews, reviewing the facility's history, studying the plant drawings, getting relevant crime statistics and response capability information from the police, and observing the different shift traffic/work patterns before you ever looked at a single lock on a single door or set foot on the roof to take a gander at the vents.

[SecTrainer]

Kevin Jordan quit FOPSO... thought you might want to know that.

Yes, I did know that, thanks. I didn't know the gentleman so I've no idea whether that's a positive or negative thing...or if it makes no difference at all.

Given the struggles that have already marked the brief history of FOPSO, I'm not sure it should not simply be scrapped in favor of a different model, or one that doesn't carry what already seems to be some negative baggage.

[Eric]

The safety connection is very interesting and should be further looked into.

The Ontario Canada Occupational Health and Safety Act lists duties for Managers and Supervisors - take every precaution resonable in the circumstances for the protection of the worker - I believe the Canadian Criminal Code bill C45 (criminal liability of organizations)provides some teeth as well.

We see many Law & Security type (one & 2 year programs) from Colleges with many graduates.

Yet many business owners want to pay minimum. Can we stop the underbidding process?

Hopefully Neil will be along shortly to discuss his ideas towards the insurance industry offering basic guidelines which may be another way to go.

[Bill Warnock]

I would estimate that a comprehensive physical security survey of a typical small manufacturing plant (say, up to 500 employees) might well take a week or more from start to finished report, and especially so if the survey addresses supply chain security issues.

Heck, you could easily spend two days just in your initial interviews, reviewing the facility's history, studying the plant drawings, getting relevant crime statistics and response capability information from the police, and observing the different shift traffic/work patterns before you ever looked at a single lock on a single door or set foot on the roof to take a gander at the vents.
Young man, you read my mind. It takes that long or longer especially if you have to bring power or TSCM folks to the site.
As I've mentioned before, I send a prospective client my 100+ page guide well in advance of a site visit and still it takes time, if, operative word, if, you want to do it correctly. Sifting through detailed photographs on site takes up a better part of two days. I am adverse to having film sent home for development. I'd prefer the client do that and then we can all look at the same photograph at the same time. In and out briefings take time as does the final report writing, hence the gray hair.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Curtis Baillie]

Young man, you read my mind. It takes that long or longer especially if you have to bring power or TSCM folks to the site.
As I've mentioned before, I send a prospective client my 100+ page guide well in advance of a site visit and still it takes time, if, operative word, if, you want to do it correctly. Sifting through detailed photographs on site takes up a better part of two days. I am adverse to having film sent home for development. I'd prefer the client do that and then we can all look at the same photograph at the same time. In and out briefings take time as does the final report writing, hence the gray hair.
Enjoy the day,
BillSomething I got out of your post. Do you really send "prospective clients" your 100 page guide before they have hire you? If so...what keeps them from using your materials to conduct their own in-house survey? You're right about the amount of time required. I do not do assessments for manufacturing - my practice is limited to the retail sector and surveys for "mom and Pop" operators can last for days. I recently completed a survey for a 70 store chain that took over 300 hours, or about 35 days. There is no quick fix!

[Bill Warnock]

Something I got out of your post. Do you really send "prospective clients" your 100 page guide before they have hire you? If so...what keeps them from using your materials to conduct their own in-house survey? You're right about the amount of time required. I do not do assessments for manufacturing - my practice is limited to the retail sector and surveys for "mom and Pop" operators can last for days. I recently completed a survey for a 70 store chain that took over 300 hours, or about 35 days. There is no quick fix!
Curtis that is exactly what I do. I want them to conduct their own in-house survey. I have shared it with many forum members who have asked for it. Most of that survey was developed when I was in the Air Force, as a civilian employee for all the services and US Marshals Service. Therefore, it was developed on government time using government assets. When retiring, the interesting goodies were left behind. I know where the line is and have never crossed it, nudged it a bit, never crossing it. Plus I have added to it from publications subscribed to and from many of the forum members with credit given in all instances. Therefore, freely given - freely shared.
No client wants a consultant to raise, so they do all the leg work, see a problem, correct it and continue. I set the ground rules with the client's legal, personnel and security folks involved from the get-go. I point out things they have missed and put it in a written report. That is the only fair way to do it. The client pays for my knowledge and experience.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Curtis Baillie]

Thanks for your response.

[SecTrainer]

Curtis that is exactly what I do. I want them to conduct their own in-house survey. I have shared it with many forum members who have asked for it. Most of that survey was developed when I was in the Air Force, as a civilian employee for all the services and US Marshals Service. Therefore, it was developed on government time using government assets. When retiring, the interesting goodies were left behind. I know where the line is and have never crossed it, nudged it a bit, never crossing it. Plus I have added to it from publications subscribed to and from many of the forum members with credit given in all instances. Therefore, freely given - freely shared.
No client wants a consultant to raise, so they do all the leg work, see a problem, correct it and continue. I set the ground rules with the client's legal, personnel and security folks involved from the get-go. I point out things they have missed and put it in a written report. That is the only fair way to do it. The client pays for my knowledge and experience.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

I think I'd have to agree that many clients don't want to pay $80 an hour plus expenses to have the security consultant tell them to re-mount their exterior doors with the hinges on the inside, or to position their cash register where it's visible from the street, and this isn't the best use of the consultant's time, IMHO.

Many aspects of physical security are obvious once the client knows what to look for, but where the consultant comes into the picture is in four areas, I believe:

1. Conducting the risk analysis that involves the vulnerabilities and the business drivers in order to be able to say how the identified deficiencies should be prioritized, explaining and evaluating the myriad possible correctives for each deficiency and then recommending a solution that is optimal from a security and a business standpoint.

2. Evaluating business process, policy and procedural deficiencies, which are much harder for a "non-expert" to identify than the more obvious physical deficiencies. It's very easy for the non-expert to see that his exterior doors were mounted with the hinges to the outside. It's not so easy for him to see that his employee parking policy, package/purse/bag policy (or lack thereof), etc. are enabling employees to steal from him more easily than they otherwise could.

3. Integrating system-based solutions so that they make sense in terms of their combined function and cost.

4. Project management, when major solution projects are needed.

[Curtis Baillie]

I think I'd have to agree that many clients don't want to pay $80 an hour plus expenses to have the security consultant tell them to re-mount their exterior doors with the hinges on the inside, or to position their cash register where it's visible from the street, and this isn't the best use of the consultant's time, IMHO.

Many aspects of physical security are obvious once the client knows what to look for, but where the consultant comes into the picture is in four areas, I believe:

1. Conducting the risk analysis that involves the vulnerabilities and the business drivers in order to be able to say how the identified deficiencies should be prioritized, explaining and evaluating the myriad possible correctives for each deficiency and then recommending a solution that is optimal from a security and a business standpoint.

2. Evaluating business process, policy and procedural deficiencies, which are much harder for a "non-expert" to identify than the more obvious physical deficiencies. It's very easy for the non-expert to see that his exterior doors were mounted with the hinges to the outside. It's not so easy for him to see that his employee parking policy, package/purse/bag policy (or lack thereof), etc. are enabling employees to steal from him more easily than they otherwise could.

3. Integrating system-based solutions so that they make sense in terms of their combined function and cost.

4. Project management, when major solution projects are needed.Then why do I still have many clients tell me - "I never thought of that"?

[SecTrainer]

Then why do I still have many clients tell me - "I never thought of that"?

This statement was made in the context of the conversation about sending the client a "pre-consultation checklist". I should have said that once they're told what to look for as far as obviously-visible things are concerned, they don't need to spend their money on having the consultant do that...they can do it themselves. Many crime-prevention sites provide such checklists anyway, presumably on this same assumption.

So, with reference to Bill sending something out to the client as a "pre-consultation activity" that essentially compiles this information, doing so permits the client to focus the consultant's time on things that call for expertise, not simple things that anyone can discover by merely looking - again, once they know what to look for. That's why your clients say "I never thought of that", and Bill's probably don't say that to him, at least nearly as often. He's already told them what to think about.

I should probably also have said (and I think Bill implied) that this doesn't mean the consultant doesn't do a followup physical survey himself. I will leave it to Bill to correct my understanding of his process if I'm wrong.

[Bill Warnock]

This statement was made in the context of the conversation about sending the client a "pre-consultation checklist". I should have said that once they're told what to look for as far as obviously-visible things are concerned, they don't need to spend their money on having the consultant do that...they can do it themselves. Many crime-prevention sites provide such checklists anyway, presumably on this same assumption.

So, with reference to Bill sending something out to the client as a "pre-consultation activity" that essentially compiles this information, doing so permits the client to focus the consultant's time on things that call for expertise, not simple things that anyone can discover by merely looking - again, once they know what to look for. That's why your clients say "I never thought of that", and Bill's probably don't say that to him, at least nearly as often. He's already told them what to think about.

I should probably also have said (and I think Bill implied) that this doesn't mean the consultant doesn't do a followup physical survey himself. I will leave it to Bill to correct my understanding of his process if I'm wrong.
SecTrainer you are correct. The guide sent to them is the same guide, word-for-word that I use when performing the survey. I got that idea from seeing how AF IG's work. The command has all the IG checklist for that particular command or major subordinate command and each subordinate commander is required by the wing or base commander to ensure all those areas for which he or she is responsible. Then there are "The Inspector General Briefs" that published by the HQ USAF or a major command such as ACC or MAC inform the entire service or a command of common deficiencies noted or items of new interest that will be the subject of inspection on the next IG or Operational Readiness Inspection.
Now what I do is send the prospective client the checklist I am going to use if and when they decide to hire me. I do not sandbag a client, no trick questions or gobbledygook.
The same type of information is in that guide. The TSCM materials you received is sent to a client so they can check that phase of the inspection should they want that depth. That is coordinated with the technicians who would actually perform that phase. That technical group may suggest the perspective client use a precheck form for a specific need.
The same type material is sent to the client from the power quality technician. The client has to have those records available before the start of the survey.
Security inspections take time and effort on the part of both the survey team as well as the client's. The inbriefing consists of all the elements of that business who have been well briefed by the person who owns or runs the enterprise. Then you and they fan out and review all their work and inspect on your own with them at your side. Step-by-step-by-step is the orderly manner to do your inspection. You need a photograph, you point out what you need and they do it and you or a team member marks down on his or her notes what the photograph is, from what direction under what light conditions and the reason for the photograph and its importance to them and the survey.
Somebody always goes with us, no slight of hand, they see what I see.
I visit the site in the middle of the night or at other times. If the lights are to stay on at all times or just certains ones, I want to see that for myself as I encourage the client to do as well before my arrival. If someone is falling down on the job, he makes corrective action.
That's all I do. Everyone is thoroughly briefed beforehand, no surprises and few if any ruffled feathers.
You asked me what time it was and I told you how to build a watch. But I thought clarification was necessary.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[SecTrainer]

You asked me what time it was and I told you how to build a watch. But I thought clarification was necessary.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

I appreciate the detail, Bill - it confirmed what I had understood about your process in somewhat broader strokes.

[Bill Warnock]

One final note. We should encourage our clients to conduct a periodic self-inspection to ensure quality of operations. You might think, well what about us, we'll not get much work that way. Yes we will, someone not caught up in their day-to-day operations can come in and look at things afresh. That is why I encourage the client to develop a comprehensive guide for themselves and keep it up to date.
Preparedness - preparedness - preparedness!
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[SecTrainer]

One final note. We should encourage our clients to conduct a periodic self-inspection to ensure quality of operations. You might think, well what about us, we'll not get much work that way. Yes we will, someone not caught up in their day-to-day operations can come in and look at things afresh. That is why I encourage the client to develop a comprehensive guide for themselves and keep it up to date.
Preparedness - preparedness - preparedness!
Enjoy the day,
Bill

Something else here, too. The "educated" client makes a much better partner in client/vendor relationships, which will usually sooner or later come into play as the consultant recommends solutions in the way of security systems or services that will usually be purchased from third-party vendors, not the consultant.

Even if the consultant continues to provide some interface between his client and the third-party vendor, it will be the client/vendor relationship that becomes predominant on a day-to-day basis, and the consultant usually fades into the background. As such, you want to leave your client with the savvy to manage that contract from their side successfully on their own, and that means educating them.

[Bill Warnock]

Something else here, too. The "educated" client makes a much better partner in client/vendor relationships, which will usually sooner or later come into play as the consultant recommends solutions in the way of security systems or services that will usually be purchased from third-party vendors, not the consultant.

Even if the consultant continues to provide some interface between his client and the third-party vendor, it will be the client/vendor relationship that becomes predominant on a day-to-day basis, and the consultant usually fades into the background. As such, you want to leave your client with the savvy to manage that contract from their side successfully on their own, and that means educating them.
Excellent perspective! Let me add to that:
If newer or additional security equipment is needed, the client should be encouraged to prepare a “Functional Purchase Description” for each required security system or item.
You as the consultant should provide the basic structure as a template for further development. The wording of the functional purchase description should state compliance testing is the responsibility of those bidders determined responsive utilizing a NIST accredited testing laboratory in that specialty. A functional purchase description should be the collaborative work of security, procurement, personnel, safety, legal and insurance underwriter with the consultant in an advisory role. A signed coordination sheet should be filed with the master copy of the document. The wording of the functional purchase description should state the client reserves the right to conduct tests using a NIST accredited testing laboratory utilizing the exact compliance testing protocol as the bidders.
It is strongly recommended the security consultant not design, install, service, or maintain security equipment with an end user. Consulting services in this venue should be limited to the engineering or contracting firm. To do otherwise, would remove his or her mantle of independence and impartiality.
It must be emphasized that you as a security consultant have allegiance to no one except the client with the intent to serve all who request your assistance.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Bill Warnock]

I am reminded of the old saying, "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will be able to feed himself from then on." Give the client the tools to better perform his mission and he will be able to stand on his own two feet. He will call upon you to help him tweak and peak his program. The word gets out to his fellow security managers and you wind up with more work than you really want or need.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Dragonfyre024]

I welcome any additional training that may be required, as long as wages are commensurate with the qualifications mandated. In other words, I'm not interested in additional schooling for a 10/hr position. Hopefully the hourly rate will be at a livable wage.

This is exactly the issue as I see it when it comes to officers and training standards. There is without a doubt that the responsibilities of security officers has grown greatly just within the last couple of years alone. However, the rate in which security officers are paid has not to equal the amount of responsibilities. In addition, if pay rates were to increase I am about willing to put money on the fact that better quality individuals would be hired rather than what I like to call the, "hot body," syndrome.

I as a trainer definitely want to raise the training standards and I am charged in my current duties as doing as such for now. But the chief complaint I've heard from my officers is that if they are going to be raised to the next level, at least give them the pay rate that would be respectful for receiving that training.

[john_harrington]

I would estimate that a comprehensive physical security survey of a typical small manufacturing plant (say, up to 500 employees) might well take a week or more from start to finished report, and especially so if the survey addresses supply chain security issues.

Heck, you could easily spend two days just in your initial interviews, reviewing the facility's history, studying the plant drawings, getting relevant crime statistics and response capability information from the police, and observing the different shift traffic/work patterns before you ever looked at a single lock on a single door or set foot on the roof to take a gander at the vents.

SecTrainer,

This is a great topic!

I agree with your time estimate for the assessment pricing- if it is straightforward. It really depends on the depth of the report and amount of presentations. I have worked on assessments with fees of $5K and others at $250K

Regarding training for SOs- It is a subject that I am constantly discussing with clients. Most problems are usually due to a lack of training, not because of negligence by the security officer.

Perhaps collectively the writers of RFPs for contract security officers need to specify the level of training that each SO is to receive. Unfortunately, many RFPs are written by purchasing departments with little detail or knowledge of scope.

[john_harrington]

Something else here, too. The "educated" client makes a much better partner in client/vendor relationships, which will usually sooner or later come into play as the consultant recommends solutions in the way of security systems or services that will usually be purchased from third-party vendors, not the consultant.

Even if the consultant continues to provide some interface between his client and the third-party vendor, it will be the client/vendor relationship that becomes predominant on a day-to-day basis, and the consultant usually fades into the background. As such, you want to leave your client with the savvy to manage that contract from their side successfully on their own, and that means educating them.

Bill W and SecTrainer,

I have been responding as I read this thread so bear with my multiple posts.

You have nailed the goal of any security consulting organization in my opinion-nice!

John

[Bill Warnock]

Bill W and SecTrainer,

I have been responding as I read this thread so bear with my multiple posts.

You have nailed the goal of any security consulting organization in my opinion-nice!

John
John, we thank you. You are as part of your scope of work teaching security officers. If they should see a light out and is to be on at all times and it is constantly replaced, that should ring a bell.
In the old army, the discrepancy was, "Floor dirty." Corrective Action: Cleaned Floor. Several repeat inspections, same thing over and over again.
What is now emphasized is: "What we will do to preclude this discrepancy from occurring again."
Now back to the light out. John, if it keeps going out, the question must be asked why? Things just don't happen, there is a cause. Could be bad socket, bad switch, bad wiring, neutral not secured tightly to the binding post. If the whole circuit has problems even more problems.
Door found taped open repeatedly. Do something! That is management's job to correct what the field tells them.
Look for the indicators. Something to keep that in mind is a joke my Air Police supervisor told us some 45 years ago. "If she moans and her nails lightly scratch your back, those are indicators, you're doing something right. Folks there are always be indicators to indicate something is either right or wrong." The French in the analogy was modified in both instances.
In this business we must learn, "if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it."
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Bill Warnock]

John to follow-up on my last missive, when you are told you have a medical condition and your turn WebMD or a like site for additional information are you perhaps bypassing the doctor to then treat yourself? Of course not. You are merely seeking to educate yourself so as to be a better informed patient. That is the analogy that I and some others use when we sent our guides to a prospective client so they can get started on either correcting existing deficiencies or to boost their confidence or reassurance they are on the right track. From those checklists, if properly formated, they will learn of other sources they might not have thought of.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[john_harrington]

John to follow-up on my last missive, when you are told you have a medical condition and your turn WebMD or a like site for additional information are you perhaps bypassing the doctor to then treat yourself? Of course not. You are merely seeking to educate yourself so as to be a better informed patient. That is the analogy that I and some others use when we sent our guides to a prospective client so they can get started on either correcting existing deficiencies or to boost their confidence or reassurance they are on the right track. From those checklists, if properly formated, they will learn of other sources they might not have thought of.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

Bill,

We also send our VA clients an extensive worksheet 2 weeks or more before starting an assessment. Like you, we have found it to be a great tool as well as a way to be competitive.

Regards

[junkyarddog]

THE CASE AGAINST HIGHER STANDARDS: Having said that, we now must turn around and acknowledge that both security companies and their clients have used the "economic case" for many years as a sufficient argument to keep training mandates low. In reply, those of us who argue for higher standards have generally attacked the "economic case" directly - for instance, by arguing that better selection and training results in better service and lower liability, so that insufficient training investment represents a form of "false economics".

Our case is demonstrably true, yet it remains the fact that this argument has rarely been very successful, even if true. Direct costs are much easier for companies to see and think about than future benefits...or even future liabilities, much less the potential differences in benefits and liabilities that will result from the lower standards versus higher standards.




Only a comprehensive study done by professional analysts (aka MBA's) could really determine whether or not higher training standards would be more profitable to the customer than lower training standards. And this by sector to sector, likely a case by case analysis.

We don't fight fires. For as hard as higher training standards for the purpose of occupational safety is pushed, security companies will lobby back even harder. They will produce "documented proof from experts" who analyze statistics, demonstrating that current levels of training are entirely sufficient in meeting standard occupational safety.

as far as "detect, observe, report" security goes....

Lets assume it works and now "security companies" must train their S/O's a minimum of 120 hours. The cost gets passed onto the customer. Once the new standards are formed, someone will simply start a service that does the same exact thing- or at least to the same exact affect- that security companies do. But they will not call themselves "security". Not being "security" and not having to pay for the extensive training, they will low-ball their "security" competitors and dominate the industry.



Let's dispense with the question of "observe and report" officers first: Even officers who might initially be assigned to "observe-and-report" positions should be trained to a standard that allows the security company or security department manager to post them to more "response-oriented" positions as manpower needs change and as the security environment changes. This is just good personnel planning - not to have certain people "locked into" certain assignments.


If 90% of your business is contracting out "observe and report" S/O's, why on earth would you dispense with observe and report S/O's? You might as well just drop 90% of your customers.

My view is that the best way to have more training mandated, is to couple higher screening, training and salary mandates with financial off-sets for security companies. Likely in the form of government grants. On the flip side, the bonus for the government would be the right to use security officers as needed in emergencies to fill marginal roles, freeing more highly skilled and trained government personnel for more critical duties and buttressing manpower overall. This idea at least gives security companies incentive to see the legislation gets pushed through.

[Bern Wheaton]

The sad truth is there will never been a good training for security ever or any company will follow through with .the monitory training of eight hours and off you go to your post which the training here depends on the contract some could be up to four hours and some are two weeks. But then it depends on who trains you? And if they are any good at training!

I had a Friend once who tried to make all the Security company's into a union and that is how it would have to work they all would have to agree ,be for it would become a union, he was fired in a week and they found a good reason to fire him!

If it is a high tech company they will pay for you to get that training to work on there site .But security company's at least the ones I see ,just want body's to cover there post and then you got the high turn overs of security guards.

Someone new every day,never the same face,clients and employees alike frown on this!

It would be nice to have all security company's have to get a monitory rule to train all security equal on everything instead of some silly security bible telling them the do's and dont's. and when you can have vacation! how many sick day you can't have!

These security manuals do not explain anything in the real world of security.
And what your stepping into! training is the most important part of any security officer life and if you wish to stick with it as a life time career.

If you are not Trained right you are look down on ,and the sad truth is this where we get the rap as security guards ,wanna be and rent a pigs, With out proper training and recognition for what we do and who we are it will never change

[ValleyOne]

OSHA will never rid the market of under bidding. In an industry where a LOT of owners/managers would step over their own mother (if they had one) to slit the throat of a competitor, how can you stop this?

These types will always weasel their way into stealing accounts from competitor's who; "Charge way to much, I can do the SAME THING for a whole lot less. I'll could save you so much money, it's really just a waste to pay for the company you have, or are considering. Because I charge a fair and honest price."

I know of a company that is still charging people the same as he did when he started out nearly 15 years ago, and even back then he was low balling everyone. So now the market is conditioned to paying nearly $90 per month for three hits a night!!!:mad: :mad:

I like the idea of bringing OSHA into the fray though.

[Maelstrom]

These types will always weasel their way into stealing accounts from competitor's who; "Charge way to much, I can do the SAME THING for a whole lot less. I'll could save you so much money, it's really just a waste to pay for the company you have, or are considering. Because I charge a fair and honest price."

IMHO You pay peanuts... you get monkeys! :D

We obviously need to educate our clients as to what exactly quality/reliable service really is, the benefits of a contracting company who treats it's employee's well (in regards to pay, equipment, conditions & training) & the inherent risks going with fly-by-nighters :cool:

As to the training comment someone made, our company uses the 'buddy system' pairing up employees to teach them the ropes, with the frequency of the 'buddy shifts' determined by the degree of difficulty each site presents :)

[Ron Jessee]

oh good lord I agree. Some of the NCOs I've had to deal with have been, how shall I put it- a bit 'off'. Gold chains, trousers pulled down mid thigh, and just about any kind of uniform blunder you can think of point to a single thing. With these people, it's just another $6.50 per hour paycheck, and they will do anything possible to make things easy on themselves.

That's a big reason why DPS has been called in to enforce TBPS codes. And why the public and law enfocement community see us mainly as "Bad News Bears" type characters. Decent pay, and for heaven's sake actual training (not just certification tests) might actually seperate the fry cooks from the actual officers.

And I can't even find a decent source of information on Texas Private security regs.