Security Industry (EP/CP) To Regulate, or Not...that is the question!

I'm well aware that this particular subject is wrought with emotion and controversy in our industry, and likely this post will bring out some immediate personal feeling and responses.   I can assure you that most of these feelings depend upon which 'side of the table' you happen to sit on. Or, it may depend on something as simple as the locations where you live and where you work. 

I can say after many years of working in the Executive/Close Protection fields (and that includes sub-fields like back-ground  investigations and surveillance work)  I have certainly formed my own opinions as well, concerning regulations and training.  Blogging and publishing articles within the security industry and participating in our professional organizations has also given me a unique view into various conversations,  chat groups and other perspectives concerning the issue of the need for standards and regulations.

To regulate our industry, or not. That is not an easy onion to peel.

Coming from a long back-ground of Law Enforcement (LE) and Military, I can assure you I am very familiar and acquainted with regulations, certifications and standards.  I was recently reminded of this when culling through the stacks of my own certificates and certifications as a part of my own efforts to supply my current state of residency's regulatory requirements.  A tedious process to be sure, but it also made me really think about this whole topic.

On the surface, who wouldn't agree that some measure of standardization or  minimum training requirements for a working professional is a good idea?

Those of us who've been in highly regulated fields, such as LE or the military can relate to the fact that you must demonstrate proficiency in order to be thought of as 'competent'. Those fields have very methodical ways to track and document your training, and your competence/proficiency.

When you hire a detail of EP guys or gals, what do you really know about their proficiency? What do you know about their level of skill or expertise? Not a whole lot. We trust our vendors and companies to vet these individuals, and trust them to send us highly skilled people as a part of paying top dollar for their services. 

Lets take a look and dig a little deeper in the subject.....

Like many you you reading this, I started my formal (part time) career in Executive/Close Protection (EP/CP) while working my full time LE job.  I won't mire the conversation down with a debate over state regulations, and the pro's and cons of what some do and do not have in place. That could be a blog series in and of itself!   I could not attempt to answer all those questions, nor have the time to do so. Every state is different and varies depending on where you live. 

Let's just say my own western rocky mountain state had no regulations or standards concerning the private security industry (when I started).  It was like the old western TV series with Paladin (for those us who remember "Have Gun - Will Travel").  No! I was no alive either from 1957 to 1963, but the re-runs were great!  The good ole wild wild west. And so my introduction to our industry was very much a free-for all in terms of who might show up on any given job.

Lets take a look at the minimal to unregulated state:

Because of my very structured experience in the military and law enforcement, I approached my transition to security work with an assumption that I needed 'credentials' to demonstrate competency.  I found a private sector school, and headed off to Israel for my certification certificate. Mind you, I made that choice based on what I saw going on in the marketplace, and as a way to set myself apart. I wanted top-level work, and I wanted my clients to see me as being uniquely qualified to fit those roles. 

And, sure enough, as I continued to build my career, my credentials did indeed serve me well. Companies and Clients assessed my experience and decided if THEY wanted to utilize my services. My training was noted, and did help me to secure the type of work that I wanted. To stay competitive in the industry, I continually trained and attended more schools to ensure my client value remain high.  

Then the wars began ("War on Terror" Afgan/Iraq) from 2003 to Present.  And again, to stay competitive in the industry, I "signed up" as a DOS contractor for more training at the lovely "Crucible"  at that GREAT undisclosed location (not my favorite spot, as those of you who've also had the pleasure will understand).   I did my time as a contractor in the Middle East, and again, I saw value in the marketplace at home for the experience I continued to bring to the table. 

I should note, that I did not just rest on the laurels of my previous training. Throughout my career, I have placed a high value on continuing education and training, and regardless of whether that training may be mandated at some point, I would argue it just makes sense to make yourself a competitive/competent professional.

My training, my credentials, my efforts to keep myself educated and current were my own. There was no governing body telling me what was required. Rather, the marketplace was my road map, and it served me well.

Now, I say 'it served me well', because I was constantly listening, reading, networking and ensuring that I was well-aware of the market, well-aware of my competition. Not everyone approached our field in this manner. In fact, for many, they just assume that because they toted a gun in Afghanistan, that they should therefore be earning 6 figures 'guarding' a celebrity.

Notice, that in my description of my career path, there was never a point where any regulatory or government agency, (state or federal) got involved in private sector business.  Of course I paid my taxes, and dealt with the normal business side of things.  At that point in my my career, only self-doubts or just not doing it, stood in my way of being successful.

Now let's consider a career in a more regulated structure.

There is a philosophy that more regulation  puts us all on the same playing field, and  ensures things are fair.  Well...I would say, 'that depends.'

I have moved a few times during my career, and have transitioned from a non-regulated state, to a fully regulated state in terms of licensing requirements for all providers in the security field. I say 'licensing' requirements, to make the distinction that a license is not the same as a credential or a competency (at least as I interpret it).

In my current state of residence, it is the Dept of Agriculture that serves as the state sanctioned body over ALL private security regulations and licensing. Yes, Agriculture (as in citrus and timber)...why not a not a law enforcement agency or Dept of Public Safety, I can't begin to figure out. So when I learned of the specific 'who' was in charge of security regulations, that was a bit baffling and concerning from the beginning. 

True to form, the process relies on filing applications, paying fees, photocopying certifications, etc. There are separate licenses for each type of security service, so if you are someone like me, you end up paying and applying for licenses (aka 'permission) for the same multiple things that you have already been doing for many years. And then a nice man or lady at the State Ag office will put it all together, and send it off for an official approval.  Oh, and not  before handing me back the 3 EP school certificates and all of the past training certificates.  Then the clerk advising me "these are not necessary", but we will need a check made out to Dept of Agriculture.   When you ask questions at the Agriculture office about the field, about credentials, about the process, they will likely give you a blank stare, and refer you back to the statute and SOP that they are required to follow.

For example. Who actually makes the approval? The committee of course. Who's on the committee? Don't know. What do they base their approval on? Whether or not you are qualified. What determines 'being qualified'? Well, your application of course...

So how much do these lovely folks know about security? Not a darn thing. What do they know about all the paper credentials I produced? Not a darn thing. Could you fake it? Maybe. I can't say for sure. But what I do know is that when the same office that manages the pesticides on your peaches is the one that tells you whether or not you have a 'right to carry on a job, or the right to even do the job....that causes me some heartburn.

From what I've observed thus far, the licensing is more about fees and paperwork than any real consideration of ensuring that practitioners are truly capable or qualified. Does this paper shuffle make our industry better? That's debatable.

If the idea is truly to keep things equitable, to set a high standard, I would argue that the market already does that. Corporations, vendors, individuals, etc. already weed out the people that are not qualified to do this work. If you aren't professional, if you don't know your stuff, if you have a crappy attitude, you will not continue to work in this industry. Period. No license from the Department of Agriculture is going to change that.

Now. I need to play a bit of 'devil's advocate' here. As one of the pet peeves I've had for many years is the complacency many in our industry have, regarding developing and maintaining their skills. I've had knock-down, drag out disagreements with guys on my teams about their own professional development. Because the reality is, if you don't take charge of your career and invest in your own training, very few employers or vendors are going to do it for you.

Personally, I don't believe we need regulations to deal with that. We need to cultivate a higher level of professionalism in the field, where the peer pressure alone will push people to do what needs to be done in terms of skill development and competency. I'm telling you, if you find yourself on a detail with people who are 'the real deal', who know their craft, who show up as professionals, you will quickly find yourself painfully aware of any gaps in your own acumen.

Yes, a few jokers will always slip through here and there, but they don't last long. Longevity and success is closely correlated with your depth and breadth of skill. If you aren't willing to invest in yourself and your own development, why in the world would anyone else?

So far, my personal experience with regulation has not impressed me a whole lot.

However, I do have high standards. The people I work for have high standards.

I think as an industry, our focus is best spent on 'circling the wagons' in terms of expectations in the workplace, expectations of our candidates, on the quality and availability of training, and the commitment to weed out those who are not willing to rise to the challenge of our field moving forward.

I'm all about mentoring and developing talent. However, I learned early in my career, that you can only run with the willing. People will either step up for their career because they take it seriously enough to do so, or else they will assume that people 'owe them a job' because of some mistaken sense of self-importance. Pretty clear distinctions between the two people, and regulations actually give the complacent guy an equal status as the one who wants to continue to improve! Once you secure those papers, you are good to go! Not a lot of motivation to do more once that's done.

Now, back to the fundamental question. To regulate, or not...

Be careful what you wish for.

I could imagine a scenario where a couple of large companies position themselves to be the arbitrators of what is 'acceptable' in terms of standards, and those standards would likely be crafted in their favor. Meaning all of the smaller, boutique-sized firms won't be able to 'pay to play' and maintain their credentials. Think Verizon and AT&T. Small firms have a tough time competing when the big guys are the ones making all the rules.

So if I have to choose between government and bureaucracy (I'll pass), or big players squeezing little guys out, I personally will still choose a free-market solution every time. I think our clients are discerning enough to know the difference between a class-act and a 'wanna-be'. And I'm sorry, if you don't know what you are doing in this field, it is clear from word-go. Wanna-Be's don't last long. They can't. 

I don't believe in crafting rules for the 'lowest common denominator'. We should be policing ourselves for those players, and yes, we've all encountered them.  But do you really want a big brother dictating exactly how and what you do? And then making money on 'granting' you the right to continue to do what you do?

It's not as simple as just weeding out the bad actors, and you may just find yourself in a situation, where you yourself may not make the cut!