The Broken State of Physical Security Guarding in the US: Time for a Change

Recently, I came across a LinkedIn post featuring a photo of a security guard asleep at their post in a San Francisco office. The post's author used this image to promote a technology solution, arguing that replacing security guards with remote monitoring and virtual interventions is the answer. It all sounds great on paper—AI-enabled systems monitor your premises and remotely deter trespassers, with law enforcement called in when needed.

But let's face reality. Expecting already depleted law enforcement agencies to respond swiftly to routine security issues is wishful thinking—unless you're fortunate enough to operate in a city with abundant police resources. I was a beat cop for years, and the majority of all alarms I was dispatched to were false. Those were the good ol' days when cops responded to alarms. Some departments will not send officers unless there's a crime in progress.

In the corporate security world, I've always advocated for leveraging technology like AI-powered access control, video analytics, and integrated systems to enhance security capabilities. These tools are invaluable for early detection and assessing threats. However, one critical question remains: who will rapidly respond to an incident?

If your answer is "call the cops," good luck. Response times vary widely, and in many cases, law enforcement isn't available to handle routine security matters. This brings us back to the role of on-site security guards.

But here's the catch: not all security guards are created equal.

The physical security guarding industry in the US often feels like a race to the bottom—a "warm body" to fill a post. Most states have minimal training and zero basic fitness requirements for unarmed security personnel besides passing a basic written test to obtain a guard card. This is a stark contrast to private security standards in Europe and other parts of the world, where officers are highly trained and often serve as a supplement to public safety.

In the U.S., unarmed security is largely unregulated, and many security companies prioritize profit over capability, often providing low-cost labor to meet demand. This issue is worsened when businesses hiring these companies focus on cutting costs, driving the industry to rely on underqualified, poorly trained staff. The result? A "race to the bottom" that compromises the quality and effectiveness of security. If the industry were regulated with even minimal standards for training and qualifications, it would force companies to invest in skilled personnel, ensuring higher-quality security services—at a justifiable cost.

The guarding industry needs to rethink its business model. Companies can—and should—raise the bar by implementing stricter standards in their statements of work. Requirements like physical fitness, situational awareness, report writing, and customer service skills should be the norm, not the exception. These aren't unreasonable expectations—they're the foundation of effective security operations.

As for the photo of the sleeping security guard, I can't help but feel for that individual. We don't know their story—whether it was exhaustion, a medical issue, or something else entirely. My mother worked as a security officer and juggled multiple jobs to help put food on our table - I wondered if she ever took a cat nap while on shift because of pure exhaustion. Shaming this guard publicly on LinkedIn, especially as a way to pitch a product, is unproductive and, frankly, distasteful.

How about raising the standards in the security guarding industry so companies get what they're paying for? Yes, higher standards come with higher costs, but isn't the safety and security of your employees and physical locations worth the investment? Organizations readily spend millions on cyber defense—why not commit similarly to physical security? After all, protecting people and assets is just as critical as protecting data.

The physical security industry doesn't need shame—it needs change. The future isn't about replacing humans with technology; it's about finding the right balance of skilled, well-trained security officers paid a fair wage and supported by advanced technology. That's how we create resilient, effective security systems.

It's time to move beyond the "warm body" security officer approach and set higher standards for the industry.

What are your thoughts? How do we fix the broken state of physical security guarding?