“Security and Protective Services… Standards… What Standards!” … Is there a Workable Framework and Solution?

The title is intended to be a double entendre… (1) ‘What standards need to be applied by what benchmarking and who should be involved in creating benchmark standards.’ (2) ‘There are currently no meaningful, quantifiable, or qualifiable standards and neither quality assurance mechanisms nor consensus or transparency in the security/protection industry, not just at the national but also international levels.’

Where the UK and SIA are concerned, I have ‘no skin in the game’ nor am I impacted by the SIA in a positive or negative manner. However, I believe in having high standards of competency, proficiency, and capability and expect integrity, robust governance, transparency, as well as quality assurance and control, as the security and CP/EP spaces involve the protection and safeguarding of life and property (tangible and intangible), which is why I have written this article.

I looked at the situation and reviewed/analyzed it, as if for an ‘After-action’ critique and report, and the following article was spawned, to provide ‘a perspective’ which hopefully sparks a debate as to its merits or otherwise.

Most other professional bodies involved in the safety and well-being of people (e.g. police, nurses, social workers, paramedics, etc.) have at the administrative AND operational levels, clear and concise required qualifications, benchmarked standards, governance and transparency directives, legislation, rules, regulations, codes of conduct/ethics and compliance directives, as well as meaningful enforcement/complaint mechanisms, and sanctions frameworks, that are fairly strictly and robustly administered.

In many jurisdictions, there are also ‘anti-corruption agencies,’ independent ‘industry-specific regulators’ and ‘professional standard boards/agencies’ which have ‘teeth’ as additional layers of oversight.

There are no independent complaints nor sanctioning frameworks with ‘teeth’ either… so since there are no consequences/penalties for ‘bad behaviour’ or ‘poor, deceptive and/or cowboy practices’ that effectively increase preventable and avoidable endangerment and malpractice, whilst critically reducing professionalism, competence, proficiency, and survivability… we have created the unacceptable lack of meaningful standards, unprofessional/unethical behaviour/practices, where profits supersede performance, which is the situation we are now in!

We are also selling services but there is no ‘trading standards’ framework, which has resulted in disingenuous, false, and blatantly inaccurate ‘performance claims’ and ‘false marketing spiel’ … as examples ‘we provide international standard services’ … there are no benchmarked international standards – so how can such be provided, ‘our operatives are highly trained’ … very subjective statement and purposely vague and trained for what? There are many other ‘statements’ which would not pass the smell test, nor the ‘reasonable person’ test applied by trading standards or the courts. The ‘false advertising’ is prevalent and pervasive.

The United Kingdom does have an anti-monopoly regulating framework, but only in a narrow focus range – Ofcom, Ofgem, ORR (railways), and Ofwat. Why is there not a monopolies regulator in the security industry, as large multinational and national security/man guarding companies are devouring smaller companies and it has gone past the point to now be possible to be ‘Too large to fail’, as an example the G4S failure for the London Olympics… requiring public funds and military intervention to prevent disastrous failure, monumental embarrassment at the Governmental level, yet G4S were not sanctioned and barred from major public contracts for a period of time… nor being made liable for costs or receiving financial penalties!

The security and protection spaces, by and large, have ‘none of the above,’ which is ridiculous and unacceptable as both protect and safeguard life and property and the very few ‘regulations’ are primarily administrative measures not operational oversight/control measures. In addition, self-regulation clearly does not work.

There are also the ‘annual awards’… but none for actual operational performance (!?!) and the awards are not decided by a large and diverse peer group but by a small group of generally self-serving, vested interest and self-promoting individuals. It just diminishes the worth of the award, and it is obvious to most, that the awards are for ‘self-aggrandizement,’ or the person can use them to ‘bamboozle’ potential clients for monetary gain …. Could almost be said to be fraud!

I am not a believer in self-serving/superficial awards… but yes for awards such as bravery, actions above and beyond, life-saving, and meaningful achievements that have positively impacted others. Nor a believer/fan of creating administrative hurdles, red tape, restrictions, industry protectionism, excessive/fettered control of practitioners which impede rather than facilitate what we have to do, should do, or is necessary to do, nor providing directives, that do not help the protectors and are ill-thought through with unintended outcomes which then aid the bad actors, especially when created by un-informed persons with little or no proven subject matter expertise, knowledge and/or operational experience (gained from all roles/responsibilities, positions and command levels, all operating environments and threat levels).

We also have the less than desirable situation where certifications/qualifications are concerned which just mainly require ‘attendance to pass’ or ‘lowest denominator standard’ or only shows that a person can ‘learn theory parrot fashion’, which allows them to then get a piece of paper and/or collect ‘letters after their name’, but does not show they understand the theories, that the person can apply the theories practicably in the real world operating and stress-inducing environments, or have real subject matter expertise or has any critical real-world operational experience.

As an example, to illustrate the above is a person I know who undertook Scuba diving certifications and within 2 years took all the certification courses in recreational diving, up to Dive Master and Master Instructor, then the diving certification courses required for commercial diving. So, on paper, he was highly qualified, but he had no ‘operational experience’ nor ‘real world lessons learned (good and bad) for reference’… Would you want him to be insuring your safety and life 100meters underwater where there is no ‘bail out area/safety blanket,’ when life-threatening problems occur, or would you prefer a person with fewer pieces of paper or letters after their name, but extensive and verified operational experience?

Do not get me wrong I am a believer in qualifications/certifications, but they are only the ‘first rung of the ladder… not the pinnacle, and an indicator that you know the theories. It is only one of the elements needed to objectively quantify and qualify competency, proficiency, ability, capability, and experience levels, which should be the key assessment criteria… so how can those criteria be realistically and viably quantified and qualified?

The industry is currently in an atrocious state of affairs, which should be unacceptable, but complacency and intransigence are prevalent, as are vested interests… but what is the ‘middle ground’ at the minimum, to provide a balance to prevent rampant abuse by purveyors of security and/or protection, sanction those who do and promote quantifiable/qualifiable excellence?

We do not need to reinvent the wheel and to use an analogy, just replace some of its spokes, add others, and inflate the tire to the required pressure, so that it all becomes fit-for-purpose, suitable for use with sustainability and longevity, whilst also throwing in a ‘10,000-mile servicing’ to ensure maturity is heading in the right direction!

How about a framework with:

·?????? Industry Association Board of Governors and convener – with term limits (2-4 years) and a person from one company cannot be replaced by another person from the same company for a to-be-set period (another 2-4 years)

·?????? Licensed practitioners’ committee – a combination of volunteers and voted-in practitioners, with a set criterion of standards, time in the industry, operational experience, and verified qualifications/certifications – to review, amend, and stamp (or not) approval on industry rules, regulations, etc., being pushed forward by the board of governors. This type of Professional body already exists in other professions – Professional football, Golf, etc.

Others, where persons on the above cannot wear two hats and be on the following:

·?????? Independent Professional standards committee

·?????? Independent Trading Standards Committee

·?????? Independent Complaints Committee

·?????? Professional misconduct sanctions committee

·?????? Certifications and qualifications committee

·?????? Training curriculum and standards creation, review, and updating/enhancement committee.

·?????? Recognition of prior learning committee, curriculum, and approved qualified assessors.

·?????? Licensed security practitioners’ welfare committee

Then important oversight by persons/bodies outside the industry

·?????? A third-party anti-corruption complaints, investigation, and enforcement agency

·?????? Police committee – to prevent/detect/investigate criminality.

The industry then set up a charitable/endowment foundation to:

·?????? Assist those injured, and disabled in the line of duty and families of those killed in the line of duty and a scholarship fund to be given to ‘x’ number of children of practitioners each year, based on submissions annually and worthiness and/or needs situation.

An industry Voluntary provident fund

·?????? Every company and licensed practitioner can contribute with a minimum/maximum annual contribution level set, with the fund prudently invested in safe/low to medium risk instruments…. Thereby we have an industry pension scheme. The Funds in normal situations can be withdrawn after a stipulated age. The UK already has national insurance, which is for the OAP pension at 65, but that money is currently insufficient for any after-retirement lifestyle and is at the ‘barely able to live’ level. The industry provident fund then lets people put in as much as necessary, to finance their hoped-for after retirement lifestyle!

?

·?????? Logbook to be kept and maintained by all license holders (from top to bottom of the command-and-control structure – to log all ‘jobs’ undertaken, duration, and type (clear delineation – CP/EP, Door supervisor, security guard, system operator, etc.) to prevent ‘experience by association’, ‘false labeling’, ‘wannabe’ and/or ‘Walter Mitty’ claims. The log bog entries will require an official stamp from the employer or client, with severe penalties/sanctions for fraudulent/false/misrepresentation.

?

·?????? Points Demerit system for companies – similar as the driving points system with suspensions and cancellation of licenses when the set number of points are reached and/or the set number of repeat breaches are assessed.

?

·?????? ‘Trust advisor’ type system for clients/customers to rate companies and a separate framework for license holders – This framework will be problematic as it involves more subjectivity than objectivity and is too easily manipulated, so what can be done to safeguard the system’s governance, integrity, and transparency to ensure veracity and accuracy?

These are just my thoughts and there is currently nothing in the pipeline anywhere near resembling this viable and workable framework. It really comes down to the willingness and agreement that there is a need for change and justifying such to relevant government departments…. Even better if a coherent, logical, and detailed ‘White Paper’ is presented by an independent committee of informed and experienced persons who represent the full spectrum of stakeholders.

Anyway, it may be fanciful, wishful thinking, and too optimistic or even possibly na?ve, but it is ‘food for thought’ and open constructive debating! It is in the ilk of an ‘After-Action’ review/critique… which we use in our industry at the operational level and just such on a larger scale… but the principles, objectives, and mechanics are the same.

#closeprotection #executiveprotection #UHNW #bodyguards #Security #qualityassurance #professionalstandards #tradingstandards #vetting #recruiting #protectivesecurity #training #governance #certifications #qualifications #professionalism #servicequality? #duty of care #industrystandards #personalstandards

?