Migrating from "Observe and Report" to action

[Jedi]

One of the terms I hate to see in any message, article, or publication is "in a post 9/11 world...", but I am going to start there anyway. The reality is that much has change in emphasis and awareness since our Country was attacked on that September morning. One specific area is our realm of security. With the increasing awareness of violent incidents ranging from mall shootings to large scale terrorist attacks, the leadership of many organizations are looking to their security staff for strategies that go beyond prevention.

This is a paradigm shift from the conventional belief that the role of security guards is to prevent by presence then observe and report if an incident occurs. It is now not acceptable, in many organizations, for security to become voyeurs when an incident unfolds.

As a rather recent example, an incident occurred in the parking lot of a very large retailer where a verbal disagreement between two individuals ended up in one running the other over with a car. The family of the victim immediately asked where the retailer's security was while this incident unfolded. That same question was echoed by all of the media outlets reporting the story.

Unfortunately, if the security guards from the organization were following the instructions provided in state mandated training, they were doing exactly what was expected of them, as described in California's BSIS Powers of Arrest manual "If you can’t prevent an incident, the proper action is to observe and report."

It is a very muddy bog that we tread into when the organizations expectation moves past, or contrary to, those set by the licensing authority. The concept of replacing observing and reporting an incident with taking action to resolve an incident is in opposition of policies but in line with the public expectation. So how do you do it?

As the desire and even need for private "police" agencies (which are really just security patrol companies) grows, the legislature needs to update the policies and laws governing the security industry to be in line with the new role of security. Some states have already realized this and started to take steps to correct it, but most are way behind the times. It is time that action is taken.

Of course, this is my personal view on this... what do you all think?

[Limo LA]

As the desire and even need for private "police" agencies (which are really just security patrol companies) grows, the legislature needs to update the policies and laws governing the security industry to be in line with the new role of security. Some states have already realized this and started to take steps to correct it, but most are way behind the times. It is time that action is taken.

Of course, this is my personal view on this... what do you all think?

My personal view is based on

Fact 1
BSIS Security minimum required training 40 Hrs +
versus
Level 3 reserve Peace officer minimum 162 +
Level 2 reserve 390 hrs
Level 1 730 hrs+ 400 hrs field training.(Still not full peace officer power granted)

information from below
http://www.post.ca.gov/Training/Reserve_Peace_Officer_Program/requirements.asp

Minimum 162 hours trained reserve peace officer are still Almost "prevent and report" status.

From California POST


Level III Penal Code sections 830.6(a)(1) and 832.6(a)(2)
Level III reserve officers may perform specified limited support duties, and other duties that are not likely to result in physical arrests, while supervised in the accessible vicinity by a Level I reserve officer or a full-time regular officer. Additionally, Level III reserve officers may transport prisoners without immediate supervision.

Level II Penal Code sections 830.6(a)(1) and 832.6(a)(2)
Level II reserve officers may perform general law enforcement assignments while under the immediate supervision of a peace officer who has completed the Regular Basic Course. These officers may also work assignments authorized for Level III reserve officers without immediate supervision.

Level I Penal Code sections 830.6(a)(1) and 832.6(a)(1)
Level I reserve officers may work alone and perform the same duties as full-time regular officers.


Full Peace officer training would be 664 hours (only basic) +,+,+
http://www.post.ca.gov/Training/Mandates.asp

MY personal view
clients need for Security industry is very wide area (level).
Some clients want just security who is wearing T-Shirts or jacket shows "Security" siting or standing. because they don't want to pay much.
Some clients want Off-duty or at least Reserved officer type highly trained S/O and willing to pay higher rate.

So as S/Os are in very wide variety.
from still look like high school kids or retired old man who may not run for 50 yards to looks like SWAT or Secret service Agent.

And All of those S/O are in one category and licensed as "California Registered Security Officer".

My hope is BSIS will set up level of Security license.
Level 1 officer, Level 2 officer.... so on.
40 hours minimum trained officer is fine for some clients.
if clients want "Almost" Police power S/O, they have to contract and pay for 300 hours required training Level 1 Security officer and pay $40/hour (Example).
Because 300 hours minimum training required license S/O will not work for minimum wage.
Hopefully, if client pays $40/hour, S/O may receive $25 to $28 / hour.
if someone who doesn't step up level of license (unarmed minimum training license), he (she) would be still paid for minimum wage.

State should regulate minimum training (include field training) for different Level of license and grant little more power to higher level S/Os.

Also state need to issue separate license for Personal protection (Body Guard, Executive protection) than all same one type of Guard Card.
and I hope BSIS will get power to issue "on duty CCW" for personal protection S/O.
Because CCW issued by Sheriff and CCW for Personal protection S/O's are for different purpose.

[bigshotceo]

I think that the first problem in going beyond "observe and report" is that it simply cannot be worked into the current security framework, which is what some "progressive" companies are trying to do. When you consider that most companies only give 40 hours of training (if you're lucky), little to no defensive/communications equipment, and no legal/financial/medical support if things go wrong, I think that it's irresponsible for most companies to expect anything more than "observe and report".

Then comes the money issue. If you want more than "observe and report" guards, AND you want to do it properly and responsibly, it's going to cost a lot of money in wages/benefits, equipment and training. How many clients are realistically willing to pay, for example, $60/hr for a guard? Also, how can you prevent companies from undercutting and outbidding each other, and creating the same "race to the bottom" we currently see in private security?

The final question is this: who will you hire to be your hands-on/private police guards? Remember, comparing most security jobs to public police/private police jobs is comparing apples to oranges. 90% of the time the type of person who takes a security guard job (often a student, retired, looking for a 2nd job, recently laid off, etc...) is not interested in hands-on/private policing. If you're going to fill this role you're probably going to need the type of person who's more interesting in policing. If you're going to attract these people, though, you need to be competitive with what public police agencies are offering. This means better wages, benefits, job stability, etc.

[NRM_Oz]

There are some serious issues on liability here if you say "YOUR RULES ARE ...... " and the S/O oversteps the boundaries due to operational requirements such as the removal of persons from your premises. I lost 1 contract when I had my company as it came to dollars and cents for front of house security. It was far cheaper for them to use S/O's than it was to pay a professional receptionist who worked for 8 hours a day. Amazing huh ?

Public perception believes the word SECURITY requires you to act like a police officer to assist them but if you had asked them to leave a premises you are nothing but dirt as you are just an S/O. What makes things worse is when you go from Action to O / R duties based on previous incidents, management stupidity or bad contract negotiations by your employer.

[Maelstrom]

Sadly common sense & SOPs don't always co-exist harmoniously :(

Receptionist/Security... sounds like a bad dose of 'multi-skilling' OR double the opportunity to take the heat over someone else's short comings ;)

[Jedi]

At the heart of the matter, I think a huge problem is that the security industry is too varied in missions. It encompasses everything from someone watching a gate open and close in between their naps to heavily armed defense contractors providing for our nuclear stockpiles; from simple window intrusion alarms to complex network intrusion detection software/hardware; from investigating employee theft of a pack of gum to developing threat matrix of the next likely terrorist attack.

Just looking at the security guards/officers, what Limo LA has suggested makes some sense. After all, you have different levels of assignments, why not have different training requirements and expectations, from a regulatory stand point, for those completing the assignments. So lets discuss how we structure this.

[N. A. Corbier]

Folks, you're looking at state licensing from the wrong angle. The licensing and training requirements aren't there to turn out cops.

They are there to protect society from security firms. That's why they exist.

That's why your state gives as little as 4 hours of training, or up to 40. That's why the training is more about what your limitations are.

That's why there are no "defensive tactics" or "officer survival" courses. The entire point of the training is to protect society from security guards.

Florida was thinking of a "tiered" system, with certifications for things like providing first aid or arresting people.

This isn't to benefit the guard. It is because they don't trust the security firms to adequately teach how to do these things, so they'll mandate the training through law.

That's the whole point of state training: You people can't be trusted to teach, so we'll require it.

POST courses are designed to teach someone how to do something. Security Licensing courses are to teach untrained individuals what they can't do.

[Bill Warnock]

Nathan IMO you are on the mark. When attending both Air Police and Sheriff's Academies they stressed both what you were allowed do and how to do it and what you weren't allowed to do. The security guard companies who hire only those who can see lightning and hear thunder place emphasis on observing and reporting. And still some companies and/or guards manage to screw that up. Call police or 911. OK, call police, what is the phone number and where is the phone I am to use? OK, dial 911, again where is phone? Most importantly, what information is the guard supposed to provide. I read on one guard order, and Nathan, I'm not making this up, the police or 911 will talk you through the problem. Underlined, that is their responsibility. Continuing, under no circumstances are you to get involved. To do so will result in your termination.
In examining another post order it stated, and again, I'm not making this up, you are to notify your immediate supervisor and nobody else. There was neither name nor phone number.
Now sit down for this one! When I submitted my report, the woman who hired me said with a straight face, "Mr. Warnock, I didn't think you would be looking that close."
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[SecTrainer]

Folks, I'm really kind of ashamed of us all here. Mounting an effective response to a security threat is NOT "POLICING", and as professionals we should all know that. This is a subject for another thread, though.

If a client wants "observe and report", one thing we should be doing is making sure that this is really what they want. In my experience, a little conversation on that topic often results in a change of mind because there are actually damned few clients that REALLY want strict "O&R".

You: "Then, if our officer were to see a small fire in the electrical closet and could extinguish it, they are only to report the fire, and watch it engage the whole floor before the fire department can arrive and set up?"

Client: Well, no, of course not. We'd like them to report it and then extinguish the fire.

You: "I see. Then, if our officer were to see an unrecognized vehicle parked toward the back of your employee lot with someone inside, they are to simply watch as the occupant of this vehicle snatches up one of your female employees leaving work? Oh, and report it, of course!"

Client: Well, umm, no, not exactly.....

You: "I see. Then, if our officer were to observe one of your disgruntled ex-employees entering the facility with an automatic rifle, they should report this, and maybe just count the dead bodies before the police can possibly arrive - you being probably among the dead, as the owner/manager? You do know, Mr. Client, that most of these incidents are over before the police arrive?"

Client: "Well, not quite...no, that wouldn't be very satisfactory."

You: "I see. NOT quite exactly 'observe and report', eh? Observe, report and respond is what it seems to me you want, Mr. Client. OR & R, not O&R."

[Bill Warnock]

SecTrainer as usual, you have cut to the chase. We do not sell true security to the client; however, having said that, in most instances a procurement type does all the hiring of companies with little or no contact where the rubber meets the road. Shame on the collective US.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Limo LA]

Especially, Clients of Personal Protection service don't expect S/O to observe and Report when their children are about to be kidnapped or client himself is about to be shot.
No client hire Personal Protection Service for observe and report. If it was, it can be done by Nanny or House keepers.

They are definitely expecting immediate Reaction and immediate Protection.
But Security Officer's privilege (Right) is no more than Clients themselves and almost same as other bystanders by law.
and I think little difference between S/O and clients'mind is that "Prevention" is second for client's mind, but it is (should be) first in S/O's mind.

[Limo LA]

They are there to protect society from security firms. That's why they exist.



Thank you for reminding me that.
Yes, licensing agency (bureau)'s duty is protect public from us (Some of us who would illegally and poorly operate Security service to public)

I think Peace officer (LEO)'s privilege and power are given because they are working for public agency.

California BSIS clearly stated that (off duty) P/O who are working as Private security officer may not have peace officer's privilege and power while he (she) is on duty as private security officer.

If Someone who is not employed by public agency, even who finish POST or have PhD. of Police science, They do not have privilege as exception for duty to retrieve, not protected as waiver for arresting result (waived from civil or criminal liability for his arresting activity), do not have power as force of arrest (people may not resist to P/O's arrest thru if it's lawful or not but people can resist to citizen's arrest).

Peace officer's privilege and power (and protection) are not because training or license to him (her), it was given to Public agency's duty.

If I'm not mistaken, USC (Private University) use to have USC police.
I don't know since but they changed it's name to USC department of public safety.
None of Private University or college use word "police" anymore as I know.
Only public (State) university (and school district) has Police department and it stated in Penal code section 830
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=38569111867+9+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Even Oregon, Nevada, Arizona LEO are stated as California peace officer and has power and privilege as California Peace officers but
Someone who work for Private companies are Security officer and doesn't have any police power even who use to be (or current) peace officer.

and some of Private security officer who work for public agency as Security officer (not peace officer) are exempted for requirement of having BSIS issued Guard Card and/or BSIS firearm/Baton permit because they work for Public agency, "almost" treated as Peace officers.

[SecTrainer]

Folks, you're looking at state licensing from the wrong angle. The licensing and training requirements aren't there to turn out cops.

They are there to protect society from security firms. That's why they exist.



Nathan, I'm afraid I can't quite agree with this characterization, unless we were to adopt the position that all occupational regulation is designed to protect the public from <bad actors in whatever occupation>, in which case we have only said the obvious. That is, in fact, what the state does, but it doesn't explain everything.

Every occupation has limits and/or conditions of some kind on what its practitioners are allowed to do, and these limits and conditions will often form the bulk of the government regulations regarding that occupation, as would be expected. The state--especially as regulator--is not generally in the business of commanding affirmative duties (although there are exceptions - see SPECIAL VENUES below), but is in the business of proscribing certain forbidden activities, and also setting conditions for the performance of certain other activities.

Since these form the "boundaries" of the occupation's activities, it is very important that practitioners understand exactly where those boundaries lie. Hence, the state says "Your people must know the boundaries and demonstrate at least certain fundamental skills". It is a very different thing between saying "We are here to ensure that security companies operate within proscribed boundaries" and saying "we are here to protect the public from security companies". Indeed, the state regulations exist in order to ENABLE security companies to operate (the alternative would be to prohibit them altogether) and to give the public some measure of CONFIDENCE that security companies will operate in certain ways.

Beyond describing such boundaries, however, the state is basically silent with respect to most occupations. The legal assumption is that whatever is NOT forbidden or constrained in some way by law (which as a practical matter includes the interpretations handed down by case law) is legally permissible. That the state requires X hours of mandatory training that includes (but is not usually limited to) training in the legal constraints does NOT preclude the security company from offering more training in a wide variety of additional skills, etc. The state PRESUMES that the company will train its people beyond the minimums IF the company believes such training is appropriate to the duties the officers are to perform. (The civil law areas of torts and negligence make the same presumption, incidentally.)

Now...do we have a number of security companies that do the minimum training and nothing more? Yes, we certainly do. But that is a company's BUSINESS decision and has nothing whatever to do with the state.

Thus, we have two different forces at work here. One is the state's interest in seeing that services meet at least minimum standards. This is really the lesser of the two forces and only sets the "floor" for training. Beyond this there are a vast number of duties and their attendant additional training options that are both legally permissible for, and available to, the security company. The company makes business decisions about which, if any, of these additional options to employ based primarily on what it sees the cost:benefit ratio to be. The business forces have MUCH more influence than state regulations do on expectations with respect to SO duties and the relevant training provided.

SPECIAL VENUES: There are times when the government does mandate certain duties and training beyond the "minimums". These are often federal in origin and usually apply to certain "high-risk" industries. At times, the government stops short of issuing a mandate and instead publishes "standards" or "recommendations". It is unwise, from a liability standpoint, for a security company to ignore these "suggestions" merely because they are not absolute mandates.

BOTTOM LINE: When it comes to occupational and business regulation, the state is interested in establishing the minimum standards or expectations, and as such it must ensure that all practitioners demonstrate awareness of the proscribed boundaries. Within those boundaries, however, there is wide latitude for companies to act according to their business interests and it's not the state minimums that are driving those decisions - it's the marketplace, the power of which vastly eclipses the power of the state.

So, with a real estate company, for instance, there are certain requirements about the knowledge and experience that a broker must have, constraints on the way he does business, etc. It would be strange, however, to say that these requirements and constraints are set in order to "protect the public from real estate brokers". Rather, they are what ENABLE real estate brokers to do business and the public to have some measure of confidence that they operate in the public interest. I suppose that you might say that the state is protecting the public from BAD real estate brokers, but you really do need that qualifier in there to make the statement true. The state has no interest in protecting the public from ETHICAL real estate brokers, nor does it have any objections if the broker implements policies and training for his people that go far beyond the minimums.

[N. A. Corbier]

I can name at least one state where the stated goal of the licensing board is specifically to protect the citizens of the state from unregulated activity. Other states also take this strange road, as well.

This is what I'm getting at. We have one state that specifically comes out and says it. "We are here to protect society from rogue guards."

[HotelSecurity]

I can name at least one state where the stated goal of the licensing board is specifically to protect the citizens of the state from unregulated activity. Other states also take this strange road, as well.

This is what I'm getting at. We have one state that specifically comes out and says it. "We are here to protect society from rogue guards."

That is the reason for Quebec's new law. I do not think it was necessary, setting up an agency to do it. We were always regulated. That is what law suits are for.

[Jedi]

First off, SecTrainer, I agree with you completely that security and policing are very different animals. I used the term private "police" agencies, as that is a public perception of what a patrol company provides.

Now, in continuing my role as a devil's advocate here...

If we are all in agreement that the role of the state/government is to legislate the minimal standards, then is there a need to define standards as an industry for the next level? If so, how do we go about accomplishing it? Sure, there are organizations like IAHSS and ASIS who have market specific certifications, but these fall short when it comes to hands on training. For LEO, California POST has a rather rigid training curriculum that every academy must conform to. Is it time for a National/International SOST (Security Officers Standards and Training)?

[SecTrainer]

All occupational regulations exist to protect society from unregulated activity. This is a very different thing from saying that security regulations exist to protect society from security companies.

[SecTrainer]

For LEO, California POST has a rather rigid training curriculum that every academy must conform to. Is it time for a National/International SOST (Security Officers Standards and Training)?

Not only California - POST standards are everywhere. They differ from state to state, and were initiated in large part by the passage of the federal Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The Omnibus act established LEAA, the Law Enforcement Assistance Agency, and provided funding in the form of grants for the states to establish training standards, etc., among many other things. Federal money for law enforcement agencies was usually tied to certain conditions, and money talks so the agencies complied with the conditions in order to get the do-re-mi.

Prior to the Omnibus act, policing in many parts of the country was in much the same state that the security industry finds itself now. Not a few police departments gave officers from 60 to 90 hours of training, and hired any breathing soul who applied. Wages were often little better than unskilled labor positions. Corruption was common in many departments, at least on a petty scale.

Something had to be done, and the law enforcement industry knew it, but they weren't going to do it "because it cost too much". "We just can't afford it!" was the common cry of the police chief/mayor/city councilman, etc.

It took federal money to move local law enforcement agencies off the dime. So, where is the money to drive higher training standards in our industry going to come from? We don't have federal funding kicking our industry in the seat of the pants like the police did, and I sure don't see it coming from anywhere else.

Setting standards is neither easy nor cheap. It involves, first, establishing some sort of authoritative body. Who would establish such a body? Then, this body has to do a lot of very hard work that has to be paid for somehow. How would this work be paid for?

I believe that there are good reasons (here's the phrase you don't like) post-9/11 for the federal government to step in and intervene in the rather sorry state that the security industry has allowed itself to get into. There's a lot of critical infrastructure that's way, way, WAY below anything that could be called "best practices" with respect to security. Unfortunately, most of the CI in this country is privately owned, not government-owned, and I think there's a less than 1% chance the feds will step in. Don't ask me why, because I just don't know.

[NRM_Oz]

Our recent state laws were changed due to the mindless idiots behind a state run education body, an industry association, a union and sheer panic of law suits from the actions of a S/O. There was minimal input through the industry from those who have spent the majority of their career in casual or full time positions and making people with 30+ years industry experience, justify their existence is purely a waste of time.

Have wages and education levels increased with these new responsibilities ?

Yes this has added another 1.5 days to the training course which now runs for 9 days (incluing 1st aid) and all this for earning 15% above minimum wage. Why would an ex LEO migrate over to an industry where he is going to earn less money than someone who has just obtained their licence ?

If you have ever heard the term "Rules for some and rules for others" you will understand why it is easier to have a blanket policy of hands off or observe and report or just basically ring 911 (or OOO for us).

[Limo LA]

I can name at least one state where the stated goal of the licensing board is specifically to protect the citizens of the state from unregulated activity.

I don't know your ONE was California, but State of California
Bureau of Security and Investigative Service is under Department of Consumer affairs.

DCA (Department of Consumer Affairs) web site states as


The Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) is here to protect and serve California consumers while ensuring a competent and fair marketplace. DCA helps consumers learn how to protect themselves from unscrupulous and unqualified individuals. The Department also protects professionals from unfair competition by unlicensed practitioners.


also


To protect and serve consumers, the Department issues licenses in more than 100 business and 200 professional categories, including doctors, dentists, contractors, cosmetologists and automotive repair facilities. The Department of Consumer Affairs includes 40 regulatory entities (nine bureaus, one program, twenty-five boards, three committees, one commission, and one office). These entities establish minimum qualifications and levels of competency for licensure. They also license, register, or certify practitioners, investigate complaints and discipline violators. The committees, commission and boards are semiautonomous bodies whose members are appointed by the Governor and the Legislature. DCA provides them administrative support. DCA's operations are funded exclusively by license fees.


at least in California, our business is not regulated by neither DOJ nor Department of Public Safety (Which we don't have, but something like those type of department)

And I also understand SecTrainer say.
BSIS (Licensing Agency) is not protecting public from Security industry like "Department of Fish and game" protect wild life from fishers and hunters.

But Sadly, California BSIS is under Department of Consumer Affairs whose main goal is "Protect public from many type of business".

They (BSIS) also do sting operation to enforce unlicensed, illegal and under qualified companies and person to protect consumers.

[Jedi]

Unfortunately, most of the CI in this country is privately owned, not government-owned, and I think there's a less than 1% chance the feds will step in. Don't ask me why, because I just don't know.

This is one of the gravest concerns I have. After all, private companies run our power, gas, water, sewer, waste disposal, telecommunications, and health care. These businesses are not protected by Police... they are protected by private security companies. Some of these companies take it very seriously and provide extensive training and tools for their officers... but that is actually a rarity. Looking specifically at health care, as that is where my experience is, I have found that the security companies providing officers are mostly warm body shops. There is no understanding of the rising threat to the CI and consequently there is no training provided to the officers to bring them up to a higher level. Add to this the administrations' "it will never really happen" mindset, and our hospitals are a gaping whole in our nations emergency response system.

I discussed this in a recent conversation with a CT expert from the FBI. The conclusion we came to was that unless there is a bad incident, the change will not be coming from the .gov side of things. So we are left, again, to our own devices, so to speak, in fixing this. That isn't a good thing either. Between SIA, ASIS, IAHSS, and what ever other security organizations are out there, I doubt that there will be an active willingness to come together to start setting broad standards. Even if they do, money will always be the primary concern, since the membership is made up, largely, of the executives from security companies who are looking at keeping their company alive in the competitive market.

[SecTrainer]

This is one of the gravest concerns I have. After all, private companies run our power, gas, water, sewer, waste disposal, telecommunications, and health care. These businesses are not protected by Police... they are protected by private security companies. Some of these companies take it very seriously and provide extensive training and tools for their officers... but that is actually a rarity. Looking specifically at health care, as that is where my experience is, I have found that the security companies providing officers are mostly warm body shops. There is no understanding of the rising threat to the CI and consequently there is no training provided to the officers to bring them up to a higher level. Add to this the administrations' "it will never really happen" mindset, and our hospitals are a gaping whole in our nations emergency response system.

I discussed this in a recent conversation with a CT expert from the FBI. The conclusion we came to was that unless there is a bad incident, the change will not be coming from the .gov side of things. So we are left, again, to our own devices, so to speak, in fixing this. That isn't a good thing either. Between SIA, ASIS, IAHSS, and what ever other security organizations are out there, I doubt that there will be an active willingness to come together to start setting broad standards. Even if they do, money will always be the primary concern, since the membership is made up, largely, of the executives from security companies who are looking at keeping their company alive in the competitive market.

Of course, there are problems when the government steps in, too. In the area of food supply security, the Dept of Agriculture implemented such a bizarre, beauraucratic program for food producers to "identify" the food that they produce (so it can be traced back to the source) that no one can even understand it.

The two main problems underlying all of this are that:

1. Security is regarded by business as a cost center, not a revenue center.

2. It is very difficult to quantify the "value" of security by traditional metrics that business executives learn to use in MBA programs. Other cost centers (for instance, Human Resources) can more easily do so, although they have problems with this also.

A third problem, which is not insignificant, is the public image of the security officer as Old Gus, the security guard snoozing at the Mayberry Bank, whose rusty revolver fell apart whenever he pulled it out, or the image of security as a refuge for losers and wannabes who couldn't make it in any other job, or the image of security as a do-nothing part-time job for Gramps when he retires from the glue factory.

In fact, the security industry has only itself to blame for all of these images because of the grain of truth that exists in all of them, and because the security vendors have literally TRAINED business executives to believe that price is the only important consideration when selecting a vendor.

Instead, they should have been educating clients regarding the vast difference between poor security services and professional services, and running their businesses as if there really were a difference. By this, I mean that when a client sees you rush a new officer into service in two days to fill a post, wearing a uniform three sizes too big and obviously not having a clue what the job is about...when a client sees that your supervisors are not knowledgeable about the principles of supervision and they do not exercise proper oversight...when they see that your officers are not properly equipped, or equipped with cheap gear...when they see your patrol vehicles aren't clean and properly maintained...well...all of those things go to reinforce the negative images and stereotypes.

In short, if you run a cheesy, poorly-capitalized, "warm-body" operation that's always teetering on the brink of failure and has cash flow problems, has no real management expertise, has no standards for hiring and training officers, provides no employee support or benefits, can barely staff its accounts because of 60% annual turnover, etc., the client is GOING TO KNOW THAT'S THE KIND OF OPERATION YOU RUN WITHIN A MONTH OF SIGNING THE CONTRACT, and from that first experience on they figure "Hey - I guess that's what security is all about, so why should I pay for anything else?" WE HAVE TRAINED THEM TO THINK THIS WAY, WHETHER WE INTENDED TO DO SO OR NOT because the number of security companies that fit the above description EXACTLY is unfortunately greater than the number that do not. You go looking for a security company today, and the chances are excellent you're going to run across more than one operation like I just described. It's pathetic.

You know as well as I do that we've got people on this very forum who aren't sure how they're going to pay next month's rent or their credit card bills, who have no business training or savvy whatsoever, who have no financial resources whatsoever, but one day they get sick of their boss and think "Screw him! I'll just start my own security company! How hard could it be?". They scrape up the money for a magnetic sign to slap on their rust-bucket (if it will stick), buy an old light bar off eBay, and off they go..."in search of clients", with less planning than a 6-year-old would put into a lemonade stand.

Now don't get me wrong...I admire dreams and aspirations, and I believe everyone should have a chance to pursue a dream IF it's got some practical reality behind it whatsoever, but you gotta distinguish between a "dream" and a "pipe dream" - an expression that came out of the practice of smoking dope in water pipes. If you're just smoking dope, enjoy the pipe dream while it lasts but then get yourself a job. There's only a few ways to start a business, and about a million ways not to.

My advice to all you guys who want to start your own businesses is this: First, pay your dues, by which I mean three things:

1. Gain significant experience (I think at least 5 to 10 years) working for and moving your way up to at least mid-management level in a solid, well-run operation, whether that's a security company or a proprietary security department. As a substitute for this, military or other government security force experience is a much BETTER substitute than police experience as a rule.

2. Get business training and/or education. This does NOT have to be a college degree or an MBA. The American Management Association has a number of well-regarded self-study certifications that will teach you how to think about business. These are not free, but the Small Business Association can also point you to many FREE courses for business owners or those who want to be business owners. Take every course you can take. Check out this resource (SmallBizU - Kutztown campus of the University of Pennsylvania) for free courses (and there are MANY others):

http://www.kutztownsbdc.org/course_listing.asp

I have checked out several of their courses before recommending them and they aren't just "fluff". Look at "Entrepreneurial Strategies" for example - lots to think about in that course.

There is also an entire universe of excellent business publications (books, journals, newsletter, e-zines, forums, etc.) you should start to familiarize yourself with. Find out who is writing well-regarded books, like Tom Peters and others, and start to read what they say about the practice of business management. Cost? Most library cards are free so get one and use it!

Above all, get a handle on the basic concepts of marketing (several of the "Guerilla Marketing" books by Jay Conrad Levinson are excellent, by the way), delivering customer satisfaction, contract management, cash flow management and the myriad laws pertaining to employees.

3. Cultivate sources of credit and financing, starting with yourself. Clean up your credit rating if need be and keep it clean. Stay with one bank for a LONG period of time, and take the trouble to get to know your banker. You might not realize it, but you can make an appointment with your banker at any time and discuss...perhaps YEARS before you make your move...your aspirations and hopes, and ask for their advice about how you should proceed. If you can, you might consider taking out a very small loan from the bank (which you do not need) and paying it back promptly. Gradually increase the amount you borrow, do not SPEND it, make the first few payments on time and then pay it off early (not immediately, but within a few months - the bank has to earn something!). In this way, it will only cost you a small amount of interest to build up a history of loan repayment in this way - a price well worth paying. Having a record of 5 or 10 such loans on the records of your bank will never be a bad thing to have.

Other sources of credit and financing are investors and potential partners. You might meet such people in many ways, from church to special interest groups, clubs like Rotary, volunteer organizations, etc., so any kind of social networking you can do has the potential to bring you into contact with someone who would one day be interested in helping or investing or participating with you.

Pursuing a dream in a methodical, smart, savvy way is a very different thing from chasing your dreams willy-nilly all over the countryside. Don't be impulsive! You don't just start a business because you're pissed off at your boss or because you wake up one Tuesday morning thinking what a wonderful thing it would be to be rich. You also do NOT start your own company because you "think you might have a client", or someone says "Hey, you ought to go into business for yourself!", which is easy for THEM to say.

[SecTrainer]

I'd like to give you a concrete example of a forum member who would probably be in a position to start his own company, although I do not know anything about his business training or his financial position, of course.

Do a search on Black Caesar's posts, and read them. Here is someone who has a range of experience in various subdomains of the security field and in the "gray" area of private/public policing as well as LE itself. His posts reflect maturity and judgment, and he has obviously taken the trouble to understand the law in his state pertaining to the field very well. He has had leadership responsibilities.

One other very interesting characteristic of BC that you might not notice at first is that he is also obviously well-versed in doing Internet research, a skill that is becoming increasingly vital to anyone who needs answers to questions.

An individual like BC doesn't have to have all the pieces in his own hand when he starts thinking about starting his own business, because he is capable of doing two things:

1. Putting together a resume that would attract the attention of small business lenders, investors and potential partners. So, if he does not happen to have the capital to start a business in his own bank account, he can probably get it.

2. Easily filling in any gaps in his business knowledge that would be crucial to that side of running a security company. So, if he needs to gain such knowledge, the learning curve should be very manageable.

This is what I mean by paying your dues. Good buildings start with good designs and solid foundations, and so do successful businesses.

[NRM_Oz]

Agreed - he has the extensive experience behind his career in a variety of roles which together with his formal training is why he would be marketable as service provider who can sell his corporate services to a growing market. From his knowledge and posts, you know this is one bloke who had been there and done it and has not hidden behind a desk job in his previous roles.

BC, your cheque cleared last night .......... ok just kidding but being honest in my previous statement.