Private Security and Terrorism

[Black Caesar]

Article

Well, at least the issue is getting some attention.

[SecTrainer]

Article

Well, at least the issue is getting some attention.

Thank you very much for posting this. The situation discussed here is, in fact, a national scandal. DHS, the IACP, the DOJ and others have talked and talked and talked about "partnering" with the private security industry, but the talk has meant precious little.

As of now, almost six years after 9/11, my company, for instance, has never received one direct communication from any of these agencies about "partnering" in any way. Yes, we receive the national security assessment reports and occasional special notices sent out by DHS and the DOJ, but there has been no national effort to engage the private security industry in any meaningful way in homeland security.

The security industry is not alone in this void. The same agencies talk up a storm about "critical infrastructure" and how important it is to protect these sectors, but in reality they tell the companies occupying these sectors (financial institutions, hospitals, telecom companies, utility companies, transportation companies, etc.) that they're on their own when it comes to implementing higher levels of security. Basically, this amounts to an "unfunded mandate".

Of course, the national scandal with respect to the underqualification, under-training, under-equipping, under-supervising, under-compensating of security officers has nothing to do with homeland security...it's a scandal all on its own, and it was a scandal long before 9/11 brought domestic and transnational terrorism into focus.

[sgtnewby]

The same agencies talk up a storm about "critical infrastructure" and how important it is to protect these sectors, but in reality they tell the companies occupying these sectors (financial institutions, hospitals, telecom companies, utility companies, transportation companies, etc.) that they're on their own when it comes to implementing higher levels of security. Basically, this amounts to an "unfunded mandate".

I actually called the guy that authored the "Explosive Detection K-9 Program" grant for DHS because the grant explaination kept talking about "critical infristructure" and "mass transit." I told him that I had been (at the time) researching hospital security k-9 units for about a year and a half and asked if hospitals qualify for the grant funding. He said "no, not to my knowlege." I then asked if hospitals were even considerred "critical infristructure" and his response was, "I guess we never thought of it that way." duh... This is what we have to work with.....

[SecTrainer]

I actually called the guy that authored the "Explosive Detection K-9 Program" grant for DHS because the grant explaination kept talking about "critical infristructure" and "mass transit." I told him that I had been (at the time) researching hospital security k-9 units for about a year and a half and asked if hospitals qualify for the grant funding. He said "no, not to my knowlege." I then asked if hospitals were even considerred "critical infristructure" and his response was, "I guess we never thought of it that way." duh... This is what we have to work with.....

Now, that's discouraging.

[sgtnewby]

Now, that's discouraging.

You're telling me. Try pitching an idea to hospital brass that a program that has never been done in the states history is a good idea, that it can cost up to $90,000.00 (dogs, training, squads, equipment included), and no grant money is available because the government "never thought of it (hospitals as critical infrastructure) that way." I again dare to say, duh...

[SecTrainer]

You're telling me. Try pitching an idea to hospital brass that a program that has never been done in the states history is a good idea, that it can cost up to $90,000.00 (dogs, training, squads, equipment included), and no grant money is available because the government "never thought of it (hospitals as critical infrastructure) that way." I again dare to say, duh...

I'd have to research the DHS grants to say definitively, but I know that it has been very hard for any private entities (other than companies developing devices like bomb-sniffers, robotic planes, etc. for public agencies or the military) to get a sniff of the $billions in grants funded by Congress for homeland security. Meanwhile, what are the public agencies doing with the money? Well, we have landlocked police departments getting patrol boats, 6-man rural sheriff's departments getting $200,000 mobile command posts and armored personnel carriers...and a whole bunch of other things like that.

[FireEMSPolice]

My mall got a DHS grant. Sensormatic installed 3 cameras (2 PTZ on the exterior and 1 black & white stationary in a corridor). It also got us "barriers" at all 5 entrances. The barriers are planters. Though they look decorative, I think they make the entrances look busy and the kids keep picking out the flowers. Sad thing is, I can move these things by myself with little effort. The idea is to keep a vehicle from striking the mall. If any car was out of control and aiming at the building at high speed, the rims would get damaged from the curb, the front end would get damaged by the planters but would still strike and enter the mall. My tax dollars at work.

[IrishCop]

Reference the Reported Article.

An excellent report and I look forward to reading Forum Member's comments in relation to its contents.

In my opinion the Private Security Industry is not yet ready to take on the Protective Security responsibilities for Government Infastructures as described in the Article, 'Private Security Weak Link Against Terrorism'

And for as long Government Contract Agencies continue to accept the 'lowest tender' and Security Companies continue to employ itinerant workers to be hired and fired according to the season they never will.

[Christopherstjo]

Interesting article.... unfortunately it is nothing new in our industry.

[OccamsRazor]

Franklin Bullock, 51, a guard at the busy bus and rail commuter station in Kent, Washington, near Seattle, said he's had no drills with police and fire responders despite terrorist bombings of trains and buses overseas.

True. I used to work that contract while awaiting my license. There's more training for railroad safety issues than anything else.

A supervisor once tested Bullock by walking him down the platform to see whether he would spot a package he could hardly miss. It had "BOM" written on it. That was the end of his useful hands-on training, Bullock said.

I don't even remember getting that much.

"Everybody's so afraid he's going to make a mistake," said the $25,000-a-year guard, who spent most of his working life as a security guard or correctional officer. "There's no security at all."

No, it's more a combo of apathy and no oversight. That, and the transit agency was more concerned with counting passengers on the trains than securing the stations. The guard there doesn't cover the bus areas, though.

But, I disagree with the pay listed. That contract is paying about $27,500 to start, $29,100 midpoint and $31,200 top out.

[Christopherstjo]

Let's be truthful in that there are too many clients and employer's who merely want security to be nothing more than window dressing to lower insurance rates and be the fall guy to take the blame when s**t hits the fan. As a result, the "warm body" syndrome is alive and well and proper training, screening and oversight takes the far back seat because these things cost money.

[DarkMetalWolf]

Show me the money!

As a result, the "warm body" syndrome is alive and well and proper training, screening and oversight takes the far back seat because these things cost money.

And there it is..........it is always about how much money it would take out of the CEOs pocket! I have worked for a company that could not pay or train his employees more because HE could not afford it.....but takes flights, gets hotel rooms and rents cars to a differnt state for about 75 % of the year thru company funds, not to mention pays all of the wife and his medical, dental and eye car bills out of the company funds. Sorry, can not afford it for the employees. This is very unfortunate for Security, untill this attitude changes with owners, our field will always be like it is now. Employees wanting change with pay, training and bennies, the owners want more in their pocket! I, as an owner, have put training and safty as my first priority for my officers. If we as owners took a stand this way, we could change this " warm body syndrome ". I am willing to make a little less money so all of my people will go home tonight and when the $hit hits the fan, they will through training, react to the situation correctly and hopefully with grace and not panic.

[HotelSecurity]

It's even worse in a situation that I'm close to, where the upper management works on a system of bonises. They get them only if the company stays below the budget.

[SecTrainer]

I, as an owner, have put training and safty as my first priority for my officers. If we as owners took a stand this way, we could change this " warm body syndrome ". I am willing to make a little less money so all of my people will go home tonight and when the $hit hits the fan, they will through training, react to the situation correctly and hopefully with grace and not panic.

I'm not sure how far you can go with this, though. For instance, suppose an owner of a company with 100 officers was taking home $200,000 a year and decided to take home only $100,000. Assuming even distribution of the "extra" $100,000 for wages to the 100 officers, the difference would amount to $1000 per officer per year, which is $19.23 per week, or 48 cents an hour.

What I think really needs to happen is that security agency owners need to start bidding jobs at rates that cover all of the following:

1. Good wages for officers with a sliding payscale for seniority, education and training.

2. Decent benefits.

3. Proper equipment. Up-to-date technology.

4. Appropriate training in all areas of the security function, including medical responder or advanced first aid, emergency response, terrorism awareness and hazmat awareness.

5. Adequate supervision.

6. A decent profit for the company.

What's happening now is that companies believe they can only get business if they underbid everyone else. Where can that possibly lead to except a mad race to the bottom? And, where can they cut costs except on the back of the security officer? This is no way to run a railroad, and it would be to the BENEFIT of company owners if they realized that this model of doing business is not healthy and it's not good for the industry.

[echo06]

I actually called the guy that authored the "Explosive Detection K-9 Program" grant for DHS because the grant explaination kept talking about "critical infristructure" and "mass transit." I told him that I had been (at the time) researching hospital security k-9 units for about a year and a half and asked if hospitals qualify for the grant funding. He said "no, not to my knowlege." I then asked if hospitals were even considerred "critical infristructure" and his response was, "I guess we never thought of it that way." duh... This is what we have to work with.....

I was advised that K-9's are covered under the DHS however, they must be EOD trained in order to qualify for it.