Ready for regulation?

In addition, there's no united voice to speak on behalf of the security sector, and it's not clear that there's much unanimity on what exactly constitutes that sector. For example, before the Private Security Industry Act 2001 came along, how many of you would have linked wheel clampers and door supervisors directly with the security industry?

There are different representative associations and groups with various competing claims to be the 'voice of the industry'. There are also several inspectorates as well, and at least some practitioners remain confused about what the differences between them are in the real world.

Fragmentation has led to genuine and tangible confusion that has brought with it some real consequences. There are significant barriers to career development and the education and training of security personnel, and the security world – in the broader sense – has never sharpened its act enough to offer clearly-defined career structures.

Inevitably, fragmentation has also given rise to the low, slow inward flow of investment.

Plainly, there's plenty of scope for clients to be confused. Indeed buyers are all-too-often unaware of the true meaning of different standards and certifications.

It was against this backdrop that Perpetuity Research and Consultancy International (PRCI) recently conducted a survey on behalf of the Security Industry Authority (SIA), posing the central question: "How geared up is the security industry for regulation?"

The survey methodology used
The research was conducted over a relatively short time period, involving extensive discussions and consultation with different parts of the industry and its key stakeholders.

Focus group discussions were supplemented by a series of one-to-one interviews, postal surveys carried out and further information elicited via letters and e-mails as well as responses to invitations placed on the PRCI web site. The final survey sample numbered 500 participants.

First of all, we began by examining the present state of the security sector by taking a look at two key aspects of self regulation, namely vetting and training.

Vetting will not be a requirement of the SIA licence, although there is a stipulation for an identity check. What we want to show here is that vetting procedures aren't as closely adhered to as they could – and should – be. Indeed, some interviewees were starkly honest in their replies to questions concerning compliance with existing vetting standards, claiming that the six-to-ten-year vetting simply cannot be fully completed due to mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcies and – in some cases – a lack of the necessary systems.

Moreover, not all respondents were convinced of the value of the five-year check. It is time consuming, they say, with some companies claiming they carry out preliminary checks to spot things that may lead to the disqualification of the candidate (such as gaps in employment records) and then deploy those members of staff on site while the other elements of vetting are pursued. Some claimed that all new recruits are kept under close watch by a trained supervisor during this period.

Two other problems were raised concerning the vetting process. The first was the danger of security companies and in-house professionals being labelled as 'racist' if satisfactory searches couldn't be completed on those applicants who have lived or worked abroad.

The other centres on confusion surrounding the Data Protection Act and similar legislation. Recent events alone have revealed that police confusion about what elements of information can and cannot be stored or passed on – particularly in the wake of the Soham case involving Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr – pretty much mirrors the dilemma faced by security companies themselves.

Typically, the subject of vetting was met with responses like: "The current five-year vet doesn't work. It isn't done, and it isn't happening. We can lie, to be honest"... "What you do is wait until you have completed the ten-year vet and then cook the books"... "We often use agency staff that aren't vetted or trained but they're available immediately and the client doesn't know any different"... "Vetting could be made easier with good application forms, telephone interviews, simple credit checks and an interview by a skilled member of staff".

To counteract these views, there were those practitioners who noted that vetting is possible if proper structures were to be put in place and there was a genuine commitment to undertaking the task properly. Some clients, particularly those working in more sensitive areas, were adamant that this is an essential element of 'good' security and a requirement for which they'd pay more even though it would not be required as part of SIA licensing.

We must remember that training can do a good deal more than merely equip members of security staff for the workplace. It’s a way of building up loyalty to the company. Given the widespread lament that high staff turnover leads to wastage of training effor

Perspectives on training
In respect of training, the SIA has determined that the necessary proficiency in requisite skills has to be adequately and independently assessed before a licence is issued. In other words, there can be no deployment of a security officer on site without a licence.

According to our findings, based on interviews within the industry this requirement isn't without its challenges since not all current members of staff have been adequately prepared for their role.

Indeed, initial training is – in some cases – accorded a low priority, with some respondents admitting it's skipped altogether. A major finding. On nearly every occasion the reason given for this was the commercial imperative, although it was claimed that the need for training of some staff was minimal (principally because these operatives undertake routine duties away from the public eye).

It wasn't our remit to research the extent of such occurrences, but according to several people we interviewed the practice of not providing recruits with adequate training appears to be pretty widespread.

A former trainer, while reflecting on previous employment, noted: "We've sent people in under cover to look at training and it's dreadful. Some are claiming money for three days and actually doing only six hours. Even then it's mostly video-based learning."

One company suggested it refuses to issue members of staff with any training certificates as it "makes them more marketable".

In an effort to tap into the perspectives of employees a questionnaire was sent out to a sample of them. 30 responses were received. This was supplemented by a focus group discussion and some additional one-to-one interviews. Of the 30 respondents, ten hadn't received any training at all in the previous two years while for another 13 this was limited to anything between one and five days. Two respondents had attended training for more than 15 days during this period.

When questioned as to whether they'd asked for training that hadn't been given, 23 respondents answered with seven suggesting their requests hadn't been met.

During the focus group discussion, a number of interviewees who claimed not to have been trained at all were in-house employees, while some managers noted that there is clear evidence (from having employed staff under the TUPE Regulations) that certain companies are somewhat less than diligent when it comes to training.

When viewed in light of all this, regulation represents a real challenge because competency will be required as a condition of the licence. The costs will be additional to the licence fee, and an additional burden for those currently skipping on training.

Arguably the biggest problem – and certainly the one highlighted most often by interviewees – is that the security industry continues to operate on the basis of 'lowest price wins the contract'.

This has undoubtedly driven standards down over the years. During our discussions with the industry the most common concern was that standards are forced down because clients are much less concerned with procuring a solid and efficient security operation than they are with buying that service on the cheap. All-too-often, the cheapest quote wins the contract. What, therefore, is regulation going to bring to the private security industry's party?

What licensing will mean
The SIA will assess all applicants for a licence against pre-defined criteria (namely whether they have a criminal conviction, whether they are who they say they are and what degree of competence they possess for the tasks at hand). These criteria will be assessed and a final decision made either to grant or refuse a licence. If granted, that licence will then have to be produced for the employer and carried at all times when on duty.

Interestingly, there was scepticism that the criminal records check could be completed speedily. Any period in excess of two weeks was generally viewed by respondents to our research as being likely to seriously deter potential applicants.

The identity check has generated a whole raft of other concerns as well, but by far the main one rounds on ratifying the identity of those workers from overseas. Many practitioners we spoke to want to know how this might be achieved to the right standards, and the degree of confidence which the SIA holds in other countries' systems.

The client leaves purchasing of the service to the procurement department to obtain the cheapest quote possible, the security company receives the prescriptive contract and does its job and what’s best for ensuring good security is left somewhere in the m

The direct costs of the licence are indeed the cost of the licence itself (£190 per applicant), the costs of recruiting members of staff who then fail to be awarded a licence – as they are deemed to have failed the SIA's regulation criteria – and the costs of ensuring that both current and new members of staff meet the competency requirements. Given the state of affairs pertaining at some security companies, those costs may be quite steep.

Further, examples of indirect costs are those linked to recruiting in a different way, new recruits taking longer to become embedded in the company culture and ways of working and security companies needing to work at retaining the interest of recruits.

Recruitment procedures examined
We made an attempt to determine from where companies presently recruit, and where those who leave actually go. Alas, this proved to be rather difficult for several reasons, including the fact that accurate records haven't been kept or aren't actually accessible.

That said, one major company had recently undertaken a review and concluded that around one third of employees had been recruited from within the security sector while around 60% of those who leave the firm then go on to vacate the industry altogether.

Whereas previously a new recruit could begin working in the sector almost immediately, under the terms and conditions of SIA licensing there'll be a delay (at least for those who don't possess a licence). This brings with it a number of far-reaching implications, the severity of which will depend on the robustness of the licensing system and the amount of time it takes. There was a good deal of concern here, not so much about the SIA – who many practitioners feel will be able to streamline an effective application process – but more about those upon whom the SIA is already (and likely to be) dependent.

There are also some hidden costs which might double up as opportunities. At least one major problem is the cost of staff turnover, which in some cases is above 100%. We asked companies to calculate the true costs of wastage. Although it took some time for a number of them to provide us with this data, several did make the effort to respond. In some cases, the costs of turnover extended to £3,400 per every person leaving.

New perceptions of security?
Clearly, those members of staff that might be persuaded to stay on can save their host company a good deal of money. There's a possibility that the SIA licence will provide a new perception of security (indeed, it is designed in part to do just that). In turn, that may well raise employees' perceptions of themselves and the value of what they do on a daily basis. Moreover, an employee with a licence will be a valuable commodity.

In the private security industry's Brave New World, staff will be far more costly to replace. Thus the argument suggests that these forces will combine to raise standards and reduce turnover (thereby saving costs). However, precisely because there will be additional requirements governing who will be allowed to practice, it's likely that future members of the security staff will need to be recruited from different types of labour pool, and that attracting them will require better conditions of service than are often available at present.

Some imagination and not a little skill is needed here, but what will turn out to be a drawback for the least efficient companies must prove to be an advantage for the best.

The latter will already be thinking about how they might respond. Indeed, the quality of management in the industry could now be a major issue going forward: good companies will invest in highly-skilled and qualified security managers and effective security systems with which to support their efforts.

There's also a good deal of talk about openings that will result from the extended police family (or, as BSIA chief executive David Dickinson imaginatively calls it, the "extended security family"). We're both hopeful and sceptical. In reality, these opportunities will be dependent upon the police actually relaxing control rather than just talking about doing so. The latter is easy, but the former is sensitive.

There's another angle to all of this which, as research consultants, we're particularly keen to highlight. One real test for security in the future is for us all to be able to prove that it's really making a difference. You could be forgiven for believing that, in some cases, no-one really cares about this at the moment.

The overall effect will be dynamic
It's abundantly clear that parts of the security industry are in a poor state. Margins in the manned security sector, for example, are squeezed tight and there would appear to be little scope for absorbing the extra costs imposed by regulation.

Reducing headcounts is an option, but many feel that where this could be done it already has been, thus the scope for any radical change is minimal. Others feel that opportunities still remain to be explored in this area.

There remains a fundamental need for identifying the role of security officers, the reasons for their deployment in every case, their relationship to (and within) the client organisation and key performance indicators.

With the advent of licensing it's vital that a strong inspection regime is in place. Indeed, some of PRCI's work abroad suggests that one of the most common failings of regulatory regimes is a lack of follow-up inspection.