Chapter 3

Defining Security's Role

Goal: To provide the student with a synopsis of private security, its functions and services.

Objectives:

• Identify and define significant terms including types of hazards.
• Explain contractual and proprietary services, including the advantages and differences of each.
• Identify and explain individual security functions and services.
• Examine the relationship between private security and public law enforcement.

Lecture:

Traditionally, security deals with two categories of hazards:

• Natural hazards: Fire Earthquake Storm Etc., etc.
• Man-made hazards: Robbery, burglary, etc. Embezzlement Terrorism Espionage Etc., etc.

Does security stop or prevent these?  Not usually, especially in the sphere of natural hazards.  For example, the security manager does not prevent storms or make them stop.  But, traditionally, security is the function that coordinates responses to the effects of a storm on the organization.  Security helps plan for such an event and then activates the response plan at the right time. What about the man-made hazards?  There, the security manager and the security organization play more involved roles.  In the first lecture, I told you my definition of security: It is the use of people, hardware and software, and procedures to:

• Deter
• Detect
• Delay
• Assess
• Respond to the threat of criminal activity against a facility or organization.

Here are a few more terms to know:

• Vulnerability: the degree of exposure to a threat or threats.
• Risk: the likelihood that a threat or threats will occur.  (We'll have more discussion about risk later on.)

Security organization functions - look at the list on page 39 of the text.  The functions listed as 1, 2, and 3 are the ones security managers often refer to as "gates, guards (there's that word), and guns."

Now we'll turn to a discussion of proprietary (in-house) and contract security services.  In the former, the security employees at the Ajax Manufacturing Company are employees of Ajax and have the same benefits as all other employees at Ajax.  In the latter, the security employees are employees of Acme Security, Inc.,  and have benefits only from Acme.  Acme won the bidding process several years ago, beating out three other "guard service" companies.  In about two years from now, the contract will be up for bidding again.  Acme may or may not keep the contract.  In fact, if Acme has not done well, Ajax may not send them a Request for Proposal (RFP). Usually, even when there is a contract security service, there is proprietary security management.  That is, Ajax will probably have a security management team but the security officers will be Acme employees. There are also hybrids: perhaps Ajax has a proprietary security team but they augment for special situations. For example, Ajax has been the target of demonstrators, so the Ajax security manager contracted with Acme for some extra security people until the demonstrations are over. The text does a good job of identifying the differences between contract and proprietary security services, the primary vocational division in the industry. It also discusses very well the problems that exist between private security and law enforcement personnel. While some animosity still exists, the tremendous growth of private security and its improvements in training and selection have significantly reduced these tensions. Much of this comes from understanding the differences between contract and proprietary services. The Hallcrest II report predicted that  industry would move away from proprietary security officers to more contract security officers.  In other words, the Ajax Manufacturing Company would eliminate its own in-house security officers and hire a Pinkerton or Burns (actually, Pinkerton and Burns have been bought by a European company, Securitas) or Guardsmark (or other "brand") security officer provider.  

ASSIGNMENT: As an assignment, tell me in your own words why you think a company would do this.  Can you think of any concerns that might arise in the process?

In my own career, I have worked with both proprietary and contract outfits.  I can see advantages and disadvantages to both.  In my personal view, I prefer the proprietary security officer because I think there is less opportunity to develop the "us vs. them" that can happen between the company's other employees and the contract officer.  There are also often significant differences between benefits, pay, etc., between contract and in-house employees.  This means that the cost of the contract officer is less but that officer gets lower pay and fewer (or no) benefits.  This may lead to the contract officer feeling like a second-class citizen and to high turnover.  ( Keep in mind that the corporate world is a tough world and senior management is not concerned about what employees' benefits are.  But what the security manager has to do if pushed to outsource is put in the contract terms and conditions (called "T's and C's") requirements to limit turnover, low performance, etc., and that will require the vendor to provide a realistic pricing schedule.  This discourages them from low-balling and then just hiring anyone to fill the positions.)   On the other hand, sometimes the proprietary staff might be too "chummy" with employees and be more likely to act in collusion with non-security employees in a criminal activity. Look at pages 40-43 in the text for pro and con discussions regarding contract and proprietary security. There used to be comments made about airport security screeners, who were usually contract employees paid at a very low scale.  Now, with the government taking over and making these people federal employees, there are problems finding enough people to meet the requirements.  And there are still mistakes made by screeners. What about arming security officers?  Where I work, we have armed officers.  These are required by our government contracts.  We are also in a very isolated location and it could take 30-60 minutes for law enforcement to respond.  Of course, this means we must have very thorough and documented (always document) training!.  The training involves use-of-force training (when and when not to use a weapon) and actual live firing on an NRA-type law enforcement course.  Many companies, due to liability issues, have moved away from arming officers. What are some tasks that security officers (proprietary and contract) perform?  Well, they do the following:

• Traffic control - both pedestrian and vehicle
• Visitor control
• Dispatching and sometimes serving as an after-hours phone operator
• Emergency response
• Patrols (foot and motorized) - Patrols usually involve some method of proving that locations have been checked.  These days there are computer-based watch tour systems: the room or facility has a button that contains an embedded chip that identifies it as, say, "exec office area."  The officer carries a small "wand" that looks like the handlebar grip on a motorcycle.  He or she touches the wand to the button and the wand records the date, time, and the officer's identification.  After the shift, the wand's memory is downloaded into a computer for record keeping.)
• Escorts (of valuable or hazardous cargos, money, etc.)
• Executive security

What about private security and law enforcement?  Sometimes one will hear, "Private security officers are just cop wannabe's."  Is that true?  In my experience, there are some people who get into the field who are just that.  But does that make them ill-suited?  I don't think so, at least not in all situations.  I think management and training can resolve most of these issues.  I know security officers who have been cops but came to private security for the pay (often private security pays more than public sector police agencies) and the opportunities to move into other functions at the private sector plant.  For example, an officer at Ajax Manufacturing may be able later to apply for a manufacturing job at Ajax.  Sometimes, even contract officers are allowed to apply for jobs at the place they are assigned to.  What about the private security officer who thinks he or she is there to "bust" people and be a "cop"?  First, these types probably wouldn't be good cops, either.  Second, they usually get weeded out.  I remember a young man that came to my outfit years ago.  He started out OK but gradually got heavy-handed.  He began wearing short black leather gloves; would talk about being "Top Gun," and brag about how many speeding tickets he could write on plant each day he was on duty.  He gradually ran into disciplinary problems at the company and finally came to the conclusion on his own that maybe he needed to work elsewhere.  (Had he not reached that conclusion, I had, and he would have been gone anyway.)

Is there a wall between private security, i.e., plant security management and local and federal law enforcement?  In my experience, there is if you, the plant security manager, make one.  If you go out and meet with the FBI, the local military base security people, the State Police in your area, and the local police and sheriff, you can form a formal or informal partnership that can help all members.  Since 9-11, this relationship has been more important and has been easier to maintain.  We all need to keep each other informed on the threats and the appropriate responses.  For example, my plant is a government contractor and we are near Hill Air Force Base.  The Hill AFB security people and my office talk and meet regularly.

ASSIGNMENT: Answer Review Questions 4 and 5 on page 52 in the text.