V.VVV... , , ,,, V. ,V _ ,, , V . . V ,, V V , V ,, , V V,, . ,V V , ,_ , , , , V ,,,,. , V ,V V V, , V .,. , ,, .V , ,VV V . , ,, , _ .,. , V V, V , ,, V , , . V V ,,,V,, . ,, V V. , V, , , , . ,, i, V , V V . . ,.,, , ,, V _ , V , V , , ,V , g _ , , V L. , , ,V . . . , V . n V . i . . V. In}, [Ill/IllIIIZIHQIIQIIIIIILIIQIIICLIWilli/111111”!!! THESlS This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN EVALUATION OF PRIVATE SECURITY TRAINING IN THE UNITED STATES presented by Carl Spencer Taylor has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. . Higher Education degree 1n /' ,. Mmék Major pr fessor Date April 29, 1980 0-7639 »“.L~- _' v l 1'.,47BK? (a 11W 1:: 9’), 5933; y} .1 it; 0; Umversrty 7 ;. Ethel: FlNE‘S: £5; per 1231 pry in». Place in (nu return tu ignore Charge from cércglanm recy’d: 05065 50 #2002. 3f : V -’3 ad i"t;'lv;) b5: ; ,. Va .4 9&0 52001 '. fiWWE’ Wei 0 4 02 i 3 f 2 S § § ? AN EVALUATION OF PRIVATE SECURITY TRAINING IN THE UNITED STATES BY Carl Spencer Taylor A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requiements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1980 l,— ABSTRACT AN EVALUATION OF PRIVATE SECURITY TRAINING IN THE UNITED STATES BY Carl Spencer Taylor The purpose of this study was to evaluate the status of private security training programs in the United States, to investigate if there was any legislation for regulating private security activities in the fifty states, to explore the status regarding the following: (1) Does your state regulate private security?; (2) Requirements by the state for private security personnel to have training; (3) If there is training required, how much is required?; (4) Are there any educational requirements?; (5) Exactly who does regulate private security in your state?; (6) Where does training take place?; (7) Are there any agencies other than state (perhaps local) agencies that regulate private security?;(8) Does private security training grant any type of special privileges byond that of the private citizen? (9) What is the goal of your training program? (10) Are there any physical limitations concerning candidates of private security? Carl Spencer Taylor (ll) Are there any re-training, qualifying, etc., for private security personnel? (12) What is the nature of the relationship between private security and public law enforcement? (13) Are there any restrictions on private security personnel? A questionnaire of thirteen questions was devel— oped as an instrument to solicit the feelings of the varius states regarding training of private security personnel. There was a two—judge panel selected for reliability in regard to the reviewing of the data. The major findings based on the responses to the questionnaires resulted in the following conclusions: (1) the majority of the states had some type of regulatory control of private security activities; (2) 35 percent had established training programs for private security personnel; (3) states that had required training hours varied greatly in their various requirements; (4) the majority did not have any educational requirements for private security personnel; (5) the State Police of most states regulate private security activities; (6) the majority of the regulatory states do not grant any special authority to private security personnel; (7) the majority had no physical limitations policies for private security personnel; and (8) firearms training is needed very badly for private security personnel in the United States. Carl Spencer Taylor The findings revealed the inconsistent, weak, and poor status of training of the private security field. These findings support the need for improvement in the area of private security training programs. DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, Mae. "MaeMae" you gave me my true education. Love always. Son No. One. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer expresses his sincere appreciation to Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker, Chairman of his doctoral committee, and to the members of the committee, Dr. Walter Johnson, Dr. Gary North, and Dr. Robert Trojanawicz for their assistance, patience, and understanding. The writer expresses his love and appreciation to his family for their support. Appreciation to all who pushed me during my slow periods. A special note for my typist, Nancy Heath, for remembering when I didn't. Above all, many thanks to the Creator, my source. Peace and many thanks to all of my special "family" who I can't name for lack of space. LIST OF LIST OF Chapter I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . Evaluation of Private Security Training Programs . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . Need for the Study . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . Introduction . . . . . . Need for a General Training Program Need for Firearms Training . The Need for Education in Private Security Training . . . . Summary . . . . . . . METHODOLOGY . . . . . . Population . . Development of the Instrument . Distribution of the Instrument . Procedure for Analyzing the Data Summary . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF DATA INTRODUCTION . . Question Question Question Question Question Question ONU'IthNH 0 iv Page vi vii I4 15 l6 18 18 18 27 32 37 4O 4O 41 44 45 46 47 48 51 52 54 55 57 Chapter Question 7 . . . . . . . . Question 8 . . . . . . Question 9 . Question 10 . . . Question 11 . . . Question 12 . . . . . . . . . Question 13 . . . . . . . . . Power of Arrest V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction . . . Findings and Conclusions . Additional Material Conclusion Recommendations . . . . . Training Model . . . . Implications for Future Research APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . Page 58 59 60 64 65 66 71 82 85 85 87 103 105 110 116 118 154 10. 11. 12. l3. 14. LIST OF TABLES Are Private Security Guards Regulated in Your State? . . . . . . . . . . . Does your State Require Any Training for Private Security Guards? . . . . . . If Yes, How Much Training? . . . . . . Please Indicate if Private Security Personnel Must Have Educational Qualifications . . . . . . . . . . What is the Specific Name of the Section or Division Doing the Regulating? . . . . . Where Does Training Take Place? . . . . Is Regulation Provided Just at the State Level, or Do Local Authorities Regulate or Grant Authority? . . . . . . . . Does the Training Grant Any Authority Beyond That of a Private Citizen? . . . . What is the Training Designed to Accom— plish . . . . . . . . . . . . Are There Any Limitations Concerning Physi— cal Qualifications of Candidates in Your Training Programs? . . . . . . . . . Are There any Reviews, or Qualifications After Private Security Licenses are Given? . What is the Relationship Between Public Law Enforcement and Private Security . . Are There Any Restrictions on Security Guards? . . . . . . . . . . . . Similarities of Firearms Training for Twelve States . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 49 52 53 55 56 58 59 60 61 65 66 67 71 79 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Original Questionnaire . . . . . . B. Final Questionnaire . . . . . . . C. Letter to Agency from Researcher . . . D. Letter from Lt. Baird . . . . . . E. Statewide Private Security Regulatory Boards and Agencies . . . . . . . F. Letter to Governors . . . . . . . G. Letter to Unanswered States . . . . H. Actual Names and Classification of Regulatory Agencies . . . . . . . I. Types of Power Granted Private Security Personnel Beyond that of a Private Citizen . . . . . . . . . . . J. Requirements for Firearms from the State of California . . . . . . . . K. Requirements from State of Texas for Firearms Certification . . . . . . L. Most Comprehensive Firearms Training Programs in the United States . . . . vii Page 119 121 125 127 129 134 136 138 143 145 149 152 x m“. '- — .ql IHHV‘“ CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Evaluation of Private Security Training Programs The private security business today plays a very important role in American society. There are over one million people employed by private security agencies. Presently, the private security industry is growing at a rate of 20 percent per year. The private sector of secur— ity has become annually a multi-billion dollar business. The full scope of private security ranges from such sim- ple assignments as guarding parking lots to complex situations such as guarding energy commodities such as oil fields, nuclear plants, etc. Some of the personnel in private security are well-trained, educated practition- ers of the criminal justice system. However, the majority of the people employed in "security guard" type positions are not trained or educated.1 The seriousness of private security in our society is explained by Governor Brendan T. Byrne in the Report of the Task Force on Private Security. 1National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals; Report of the Task Force on Private Security, 1976. L . There is virtually no aspect of society that is not in one way or another affected by private security. A business may employ guards to pro- tect persons and property from damage, injury, or loss. Special security services are obviously required in places of public accommodations, such as airports, schools, and commercial complexes. The pervasive involvement of private security plays a vital role in efforts to create a safe environ— ment in which to work and live. The inter-relation between private and public law enforcement agencies illustrates the obvious importance of striving to achieve uniformly high standards of quality for both personnel and performance.2 In the past two decades crime has soared into ten-million plus felonies in America. The increase in crime has placed a tremendous amount of pressure on the criminal justice system. The fact is that everyone's life has been affected by this surge of crime. The public has become very fearful regarding safety. There are businesses that are plagued by employee thefts and shop- lifting by the public. Large urban cities such as Detroit, Cleveland, and others are fighting for their survival, largely affected by heavy crime. The increase in crime has become an enemy that the American public cannot take lightly. There has been a large effort on the behalf of local, state, and federal levels to combat crime. Despite the combined efforts of various public agencies (local, state, federal, etc.) there appears to be more crime than 21bid., p. 89. N“ public law enforcement agencies can handle. This simple fact has led to the need for private security. The private security business has evolved into a major force in the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, with the rapid growth of private security agencies, it would appear that more than three quarters of private security guards and other private security personnel have had very little, if any, training. The Rand Corpora- tion did a survey which indicated that half of the secur— ity guards in the U. S. carried guns, but fewer than 20 percent of them had any weapon instruction or training. It is unfortunate when you come across incidents such as the one in Orlando, Florida, when a security guard shot up a life-size doll in a darkened classroom which he had mistaken for a person. The guard believed he was out numbered ten to one.4 Another incident in Michigan caused the death of a very prominent surgeon. The doctor was followed through traffic by a private security guard when the doctor failed to stop at a red light enroute to an emergency. During the pursuit, the security guard shot and killed the doctor.5 31bid., p. 87. 4George O'Toole, "Gun for Hire," Penthouse (April, 1977): 74. 5Detroit Free Press, 1969. There are as many private security guards in America as there are public police. In many big cities private security guards out number sworn officers. In New York's financial district private security personnel, mainly guards, out number the public police twenty to one.6 The demand for services by private security ser- vices are not likely to diminsh anytime soon. Between 1963 and 1969 American business doubled the money that it spent on security guards.7 Pinkerton, Inc., one of the very first in private security business in America, increased its gross receipts from $37 million to $193 million between 1965 and 1975.8 According to the inter- national Association of Chiefs of Police by 1990, 1,431,000 persons will be employed in some kind of secur— ity work in the private sector.9 The rise in crime has placed great demands on private security. A major out- growth of this demand is better trained personnel. 6O'Toole, Penthouse, p. 74. 7Ibid., p. 75. 8National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. Report of the Task Force on Private Secuirty, 1976, p. 90. 9A Report on the Regulation of Private Security Guard Service, prepared by the Private Security Advisory Council to the U. S. Department of Justice Law Enforce- ment Assitance Administration, May 1976, p. 24. There is a great deal of confusion and ignorance regarding the role of security guards, both by the public and also the guards themselves. Without the knowledge of what one is doing, the task cannot be performed well. Such is the case with many private security guards. Lt. James Baird, who heads the Michigan State regulatory body regarding private security guards, pointed out the major difference between private guards and public law enforcement officials. "The main function of private security is prevention, whereas public law enforcement is only involved in prevention after investigation and apprehension primarily.u10 Many times the public is victiminzed by private security personnel which miscon- strue their role as a preventive agent as opposed to that of a full police arrest type of authority. In order for security guards to do a good job, they must have knowledge of what they are to do. In order for private security guards to carry out their assignments, they must be trained before they are assigned to a job. The past ten years has shown the upward trend in crime. This ten-year growth has caused many private security companies to think money first, and quality second. Because private security is private business, 10Interview with Lt. James Baird, Head of Licens— ing of Private Security Guards and Detectives for the State of Michigan, State Police of Michigan, 7 August 1979. it has escaped the checks and balances that public agen- cies (law enforcement) must face. The majority of today's police departments require some type of training program before a sworn officer can start actual duty. There are no federal rules on private security training at present. Of the 50 states in America only thirty-two have established regulatory bodies to regulate and monitor private security activities.ll The regulations of each state varies from strict guidelines to very flexible rules. Without reservation, the require- ments for police officers are far more demanding. Espe- cially sensitive is the issue of firearms. In 1974 a study by the Institute for Local Self—Government revealed that 45 percent of licensed California private security agency heads admitted to providing no formal preassign- ment instruction in firearms use, and 40 percent indicated a lack of weapons retraining.12 The capability of the state to set and maintain effective law enforcement training standards has been established in most states. The same approach could be followed regarding private security train— ing. Each state should begin to set specific standards, appropriate to state and local needs, to provide cost—effective training for private secur— ity personnel. By doing so, states can help ensure 11 Ibid., p. B-l. 12O'Toole, Penthouse, p. 75. that facilities, curricula, and instructors are adequate to provide high—quality training for these personnel. There would be a great concern from the public if the fact was known how little, if any, training private security guards have. The question arises of why train- ing is important. Today private guards are a part of every American's life. The private security guard is everywhere; he/she is omni-present, from shopping malls, department stores, rock concerts, supermarkets, schools, churches, private clubs, etc. There is virtually no place in America that the services of private security have not touched directly or indirectly. Because of this omni-presence, the American public cannot afford the risk of poorly—trained security personnel from the private sector. The Washington Post described the typical security guard working in the nation's capital as "a transient from North Carolina en route to Detroit, who stopped here for a few days because he had run out of money."14 The Rand corporation, which has studied the private guard, describes him as an aging white male, poorly educated, usually untrained and very poorly paid. . . . He averages between forty and fifty-five years of age, has had 3Report on Task Froce, p. 87. 14"Your Security Guard," Washington Post 11 April 1977. little education beyond the ninth grade, and has had a few years of experience in private security. Of the private security personnel interviewed by the Rand researchers, 40 percent said that they were unemployed immediately prior to accepting their guard jobs.15 In the past ten years private security guards have increased their numbers more rapidly than the total popu- lation. Because of escalating crime, private security is booming. As a vice-president of the William J. Burns International Detective Agency explained, "We exist because public police departments are not big enough and don't have a large enough budget to provide protection for pri— 16 The private security field's main vate industry." problem is that of untrained personnel. One of the biggest complaints by security guard employers is the very high turnover rate, ranging from 20 to 200 percent. Annually, the turnover rate makes many employers very reluctant to invest the resources of money and time of training newly recruited personnel. Out of 275 security guards interviewed by Rand research- ers, two-thirds had received no training prior to start— ing work, and fewer than 7 percent had received 8 hours 15O'Toole, Penthouse, p. 76. l6Ibid., p. 76. l7Ibid. of training. Almost one in five guards were turned loose to perform his/her duties alone the first day on the job.18 These alarming facts show that an untrained guard could be dangerous also. There have been countless law- suits caused by security guards who are ignorant of their duties. Private security personnel generally have no more authority than the average American citizen in making arrests, detaining, searching, or the use of forces on suspect. Surprisingly, the Rand researchers found that half of the guards interviewed did not know this. Of the private personnel, 6 percent thought they had the same authority as public police. Many of the guards were ignorant of situations when citizens' arrest could be made. More than half of the guards interviewed did not really understand the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony or when deadly force could be acceptable in the line of duty. The Rand Report for LEAA (Law Enforce— ment Assistance Administration) cited many problems regarding poorly trained security guards. The alarming ignorance of security guards in the Rand Report were highlighted by such answers as "calling a security guard 19 a pig is a misdemeanor." More than 20 percent of the 18Report of the Task Force, 1976, p. 88. lgIbid., p. 106. 10 private security guards interviewed by the Rand research- ers admitted to having witnessed, or taken part in inci- dents of false arrest, improper detention, illegal searches, excessive force, or impersonation of a sworn police officer.20 The private security guard is a very common sight in today's large department stores through- out the nation. A great deal of the preventive security is done by private security companies. Many of those large department stores have suffered large losses from law suits for false arrest, to physical harm from poorly trained security guards. A very good example of how a poorly trained guard can cost a department store was revealed in an article published in a well-known magazine 21 In 1974 by George O'Toole entitled, "Gun for Hire." members of the security force of a New York City depart- ment seized a 24 year old bank teller leaving the store. She was accused of shoplifting and was taken to the store's security office where the security guards searched a shopping bag that she was carring. They found no stolen merchandise in it. The security guards contended that the bank teller was working with two other_women whom they had arrested, searched, and found to be carrying merchandise from the store; the guards claimed that the 20O'Toole, Penthouse, p. 110. ZlIbid., p. 110. 11 teller has passed the stolen goods to her accomplices. The two women admitted to shoplifting, but denied even knowing the bank teller. They repeated their denials to police later when they were taken to the local police station. Nevertheless, the store's security man pressed charges, and the bank teller was booked, arraigned, and brought to court on shoplifting charges. Not only were there the two women who testified that they were not working with the bank teller, but defense also pointed out thatthe shopping bag the young woman allegedly used to conceal the store's goods before passing them on to her accomplices happened to be constructed of transparent plastic and made an unlikely shoplifting tool. After deliberating for ten minutes, the jury acquitted the teller, who then charged the department store with a suit for false imprisonment, pointing out that her newly acquired arrest record prevented her from working in banks anymore. The young woman was awarded $1.1 million in damages.22 Another crucial problem for private security guards is the question of arrest power. Because of ignor— ance of legal power, many private guards have taken the law into their own hands. A poorly educated, poorly trained guard is a liability to all involved from the 221bid., p. 113. 12 guard himself/herself to the employer who had purchased his/her services. Unless the guard has been given arrest power from public law enforcement authorities, he/she is no different than any other private citizen. Dr. George R. Fleming, Jr., a New York psychologist, pointed out that many security guards today are rejected police applicants who see their role as a security guard an opportunity to express their fantasy of being a public law enforcement agent.23 Many lawsuits evolve from a private security guard searching a citizen without that citizen's consent. Despite the numerous lawsuits many merchants choose the two-dollar-hour-rent—a-cop. The increase of such suits may force merchants to re-evaluate the quality of training of private guard services. Although private businesses allege that they pay for private guard services, the public, however, pays a great deal of the cost because prices increase because of theft, shoplifting, etc. It is very debatable whether private security will attempt to improve its quality by training program devel- opment. The present system leaves a great deal of train- ing, hiring, and regulating to the individual company. The core of the training program development is the fact that there are not concrete guidelines established such as there are in public law enforcement training programs. 23Interview with Dr. George Fleming, Jr., a New York Psychologist, Assistant Director at Bedford-Street Mental Health Clinic, 4 August 1979. 13 The Rand Report on Private Security pointed out the many inconsistent regulatory actions from state to state. As of 1975, nine states had absolutely no regulations pertaining to private security. In many states, it was found in the Rand Research that in-house security (security that works directly for a business) was not included in the regulatory jurisdiction of pri- vate security licensing. The LEAA, which sponsored the Rand study, set up a Private Security Advisory Council to recommend uniform state legislation that would alleviate the abuses discovered by the Rand researchers.24 However, the council consisted mostly of representatives from the major contract-guard agencies and other private-sector security interests. It then published a Model Private Security Guard Licensing and Regulatory Statue, which falls short of the reforms suggested in the Rand study. Milton Lipson, a private-security specialist who teaches the subject at New York University said of the model statue: "It is not an attempt to install basic regula— tions for the industry, but rather is intended to fore- close further criticism."25 The problem of untrained security guards is very complex. The dangers are many; private security should 24Report on Private Security, p. 97. 25O'Toole, Penthouse, p. 75. 14 complement public police. However, it is usually just the opposite. In the June, 1978, Police Chief, Howard Shook, Chief of Police, Middleton Township, Levittown, Pennsylvania, spoke to the barriers between public and private police. Today, more than ever private security forces are contributing to public safety and security. . . . the future holds promise for more states to join in passing legislation setting minimum standards for formal education and training for private security practitioners.26 Chief Shook was speaking to a better day. When law enforcement agencies respect private security, it can only strengthen the criminal justice system. The need for training can be well illustrated by comments from a former guard beaten during a robbery. For $1.60 per hour I wouldn't stick my neck out again. Anybody who does is crazy. I stand around looking cute in my uniform. Don't let anybody tell you a guard doesn't need training. If I'd hadzit, I might had known what the hell was going on. 7 Statement of the Problem In this study the fifty states in the United States will be surveyed to find out if they have training pro- grams for private security personnel and if they do, what the content of such training programs are. This will 26Police Chief, June 1978, Shook, p. 8. Editorial on Private SEcurity and Public Police. 15 include how instructors are chosen, their qualifications, and what training materials are used. Further, the study will attempt to determine if there is legislation for regulating private security activities in the fifty states. Finally, based on the above survey, an attempt will be made to develop a training model which can be used by the various states to train private security personnel. Need for the Study The need for this study is to improve training of private security personnel in America. The introduc- tion points out the poor training of private security personnel. When private security guards are untrained, the cost is very high for the employer, the employees, and the American public. Untrained security guards have become a menace to law enforcement in America. Many people have been physically harmed because of over-zealous security guards. Because many duties and responsibilities of secur— ity guards are parallel to those of sworn police officers, their training should also be parallel. The economic fac- tor alone is reason for training of private security guards. Poorly trained guards so not function as security personnel in touch with security problems. In the Rand Report 16 (Volume I), it points out "there would be significant advantages in applying to private security work the same standards of conduct developed in constitutional decisions for arrest, detention, search, and interrogation by public police."28 The public should be protected from poorly trained personnel in the private security sector. If private security as an industry is to be effective and respected, it must establish guidelines and training goals that produce clear, strong, and professional products for the American society, both private and public. In closing, the unique part of this study is that the survey results and the training model will be dissem- inated to all of the states so this information can be useful to them in improving the status of private secur- ity in this country. Summary The development of a model training program for private security is essential for improvement of private security personnel. The accounts of problems caused by untrained security personnel indicate the need. In many ways the problems of private security parallel those of public police training programs. The fact is that today public law enforcement is constantly working to maintain its professional standards. These standards were 281bid., 107. 17 developed after research and are continuously reviewed to update training. In this regard private security has not even entered the "ball game." Even with training programs, there is a great deal of controversy over public law enforcement agents" activities throughout the nation. This controversy arises even after countless hours of training by law enforcement officials. Keeping this in mind, it is amaz- ing that private security personnel have been expected to maintain security prevention with very little educa- tion in security training programs. Improvement of pri- vate security personnel can only help Americans have a better opportunity at a safer environment in the United States. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction In this chapter a general review of the literature concerning the current status of training for private security personnel will be presented. Much of the mate- rial reviewed points to the fact that at the present time there is little in our way of consistent training programs in this area. Much of the literature is concerned with the need for both general and specific training programs in the private security business. Clifford Van Meter, who was the Executive Director of the Task Force on Private Security, informed the author that "there was not a great deal of literature on train- ing programs for Private Security personnel." Need for a General Training Program The literature review of training programs for private security personnel is very limited. The scarcity of material is indicative of the very little attention to 1Interview with Clifford Van Meter, Executive Director of the Task Force on Private Security, 19 Decem— ber 1979. 18 19 training which has been given to the general field of private security. Today, the lifeguard at any controlled beach gets more formal training for his job than the security officer at the same recreation site. . . any uniformity among state laws regarding experience or training is presently nonexistant. The fact appears to be quite simple; there has not been sufficient demand for private security training programs. However, there is a distinct contradiction to the seemingly poor attention to training programs. The intro- duction of this study points out the countless tragic incidents caused by poorly trained security guards. One only needs to realize that one million untrained "any- thing" can cause quite a problem for society. The recent boom in the past five years in the security guard business has a great deal to do with why training programs are not up to date. Another factor is that the private security business has no "watchdog" agency to regulate its activi- ties. The hiring of competent trainees is also a problem. Georgia State Representative Richard G. Lane recalls what led him to introduce a 1973 state law regulat- ing the private guard industry. There were felons and ex-felons working in banks, and most guards had no training and knew nothing about what they could do legally, he says.3 2John D. Peel, Fundamentals of Training for Security Training (Springfield, 111.: Thomas Publishers, 1971), p. 20. 3"A Drive to Raise the Caliber of Security Guards," Business Week, 15 May 1978, p. 131. 20 The boom in the security business can be directly linked to the increase of crime in America. The security increase is growing at an 8 to 10 percent rate annually. Private security has answered the need placed on the field by the public by increasing to 10,000 privately owned security firms. As stated earlier, there are more than one million persons employed in private security today--one and a half times the number of public law enforcement agents in America. The need for more security and better trained personnel seems to be an outcome of public law enforcement being unable to handle rising crime in America. Many of the problems faced by police departments today are not always police problems, particu- larly private business protection for 24 hours, or patrolling construction sites, etc. Since public law enforcement cannot meet all these demands, private security has filled the gap. "In police departments across the country, the work load gets progressively heavier with every call for service not associated with law enforce- ment--there inevitably results a corresponding reduction in the amount of time available for preventive patrol."4 Although private security business has grown, the training for security personnel has not kept in pace. 4 Peel, The Training, pp. 22—23. .w . 21 Rising crimes against industry and government, higher insurance rates, and the search for protection against skyjacking, bombings, and violent demonstration have con- tributed to the growth. But most of all, says Clarence M. Coster, Associate Administrator of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, "There is a greater public consciousness of the need for security in Homes, busi- nesses, on the street, and in the air."5 Because of the increased involvement of private security in our society, many observers have begun to scrutinize the quality of private security in America. Law enforcement officials have called for higher pay scales and more rigid personnel standards, along with stronger licensing laws and better training for guards, including instruction in the use of firearms.6 Another factor that shows the need for training is the uncertainty of roles and functions of private security personnel. In 1972 the Rand Corporation con— ducted a sixteen—month study on the private security industry for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administra- tion. One of the first conclusions was the following: ". . . typical private guard is an aging white male, 5"Private Police Forces in Growing Demand," U. S. News and World Report, 29 January 1973, p. 54. 61bid., p. 55. 22 poorly educated, usually untrained, and very poorly 7 paid." Sending someone to do any task without training leaves little hope for successfully accomplishing the task. Training is a vital factor in job performance. The Report on the Task Force on Private Security con— ducted by the National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals stated "every major research project reviewed and every study conducted for this report points to a serious lack of personnel training at all levels of private security."8 The parallel between private security and that of public law enforcement is interesting. Both public police and private security guards work to prevent crime and in actuality, prevention of crime is the major responsibility of private security. There are other similarities such as the fact that many guards in private security carry firearms, as do public law enforcement agents. Both pri- vate and public agents come in contact with the public and many times are involved directly in criminal cases and must be able to identify evidence and know local laws. The conclusion from the similarities is that there is as much need for training private security personnel as there is for training public law enforcement personnel. 7Ibid., p. 54. 8Report of the Task Force on Private Security, p. 67. 23 The parallel between private security and public police comes to a very abrupt halt when the subject of training enters into the picture. The President's Com- mission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, recommended a minimum of 400 hours of classroom work given in a four to six month time table for all public law enforcement agents. This recommendation has been followed nationwide, although the minimum requirement varies from state to state. However, the importance of training is understood much more clearly by public police in America than by private security. A job that has the importance and seriousness of law enforcement must have training. Although private security may not function exactly the same, there is a certain amount of duplication, enough to justify more than no required hours for private security training as opposed to 300 hours plus for public law enforcement. With all the training police receive, they still have numerous problems. Author John Donald Peel in his text, The Training, Licensing, and Guidance of Private Security Officers stated: Since police departments in the United States have encountered difficulty in meeting this standard, especially where it has not been made mandatory, and since security officers rarely have an oppor— tunity for training comparable to that which is open to police recruits in the same locality, it is not difficult to imagine the average level of security officers training in the United States.9 9Peel, The Training, p. 31. 1| 24 Many times the public takes many things for granted regarding public law enforcement, and private security. Public law enforcement agencies generally make certain that their roles and functions are very clear to their personnel. Because of numerous law suits, tragic mishaps, etc., public law enforcement developed in-depth training programs. The clear definition of roles became essential, and was accomplished through some type of pre- employment training. The parallel between police ser- vices and private security services are interrelated enough to at least duplicate the concept of pre-employment train— ing. Public law enforcement has learned from experience that untrained personnel are a liability. A Study in 1975 by the Institute for Local Self-Government, Private Security and the Public Interest, stated that most guard companies use "low quality, under trained personnel, drawn from an economically poor labor pool and, consequently, activities of such personnel lead to abuses of author— ity."lo Compared to public policemen who usually have several months, and hundreds of training hours prior to being sent out on patrol, private security guards receive eight to twelve minimum hours of training. Many 101976 Report of the Task Force on Private Security, p. 99. 25 times this training is on the job, immediately after being hired. by the security agency. Some of the major problems for private guards is their function, identity, responsibility, or simply who am I? The problem of iden- tity is described vividly in a Cleveland study stating that the average contract security employee is "over 50 years old, with a ninth or tenth grade education, no previous experience, and little ability to absorb train- ing." In essence the report says he is "a janitor with a badge."11 Whereas police are trained to deal with the unexpected, private security personnel guards are ill- equipped to cope with crisis situations. Thepmoblem of a security guard performing numer- ous tasks is part of the identity crisis. In the case of policemen, they know what their boundaries are. John Peel reveals part of the problem in his text, In discharge of his (or her) duties, the security officer is likely to be, among other things, in the same tour of duty a guide,receptionist, liai- son officer, escort, locksmith, and public rela— tions representative. At one time or another, depending on the needs, preferences, or vulner- ability of his employer, he may be engaged in traffic control, patrol, investigation, protec- tion of a crime scene, identification of evidence apprenhension of offenders, and the support of scores of laws and ordinances about which he is supposed to have at least a working knowledge. Further, every security task on the premises which ll"A Drive to Raise the Caliber of Security Guards,"p. 131. 26 cannot, by some trimmings, be fitted into one of the above categories, is tossed by the employer into the bin of troubles marked MISCELLANEOUS and handed into the keeping of the security officer on duty.12 In the Rand study, "97 percent of the guards who responded to its questionnaire failed to pass a simple examination designed to test their knowledge of basic legal procedure in job-related situations."l3 According to author John Peel, the low status of guard work may stem from conquion of duties of the security officer We might reasonably conclude, therefore, the con- fusion which is sometimes observed in security officers, especially untrained security officers, stems from lack of understanding of functions and authority, and the limits on functions and author- ity. Not always, it must quickly be added, is this lack the fault or the choice of the security offi- cers, but the unhappy fact remains that, so far from being able to handle problems as they arise and having a working knowledge of local laws and ordinances, a distressing number of security offi— cers do not even have a clear understanding of their own employers' position on certain common property violations such as "trespass or pilferage."l4 Without any hesitation one can easily determine that there is no clear "role model" of private policemen. The fact that private security is very ambiguous in terms of defining functions for personnel heightens the neces- sity for training. The public many times feel that 12Peel, The Training, p. 13Michael T. Klare, "The Boom in Private Police," The Nation, 15 November 1975, p. 486. 27 private security personnel look like public police, so they should provide the same types of services. This can become very dangerous for the welfare of all involved. The public may expect assistance, only to be told that is not the function of the security officer. The other extreme is the security officer who becomes overly aggres— sive and begins to extend his limited responsibilities, functions to emulate those of a sworn police officer. The establishing of training requirements for private security personnel, would at least lay the foundation for concrete guidelines for the public to be aware, and the discipline to adhere to. Need for Firearms Training In an article by Michael T. Klare, The Boom in Private Police, the author pointed out that the Rand Study on private security showed that most armed guards receive little or no training in the use of firearms, and that the overwhelming majority of "rent—a-cops" are totally unfamiliar with the basic laws governing their work.15 Because of this ignorance of their role in the security discipline, many guards abuse their authority. The abuse of this authority has hadeamajor impact on the 15Klare, "The Boom in Private Police," p. 490. 28 American society. Unfortunately, the number of incidents have escalated in recent years. It is probably inevitable that as more and more employers hire full or part-time security officers, or contract for protective service from a private security supplier, and as the total number of security officer increases, that the difficulties resulting from lack of training tend to multiply disturbingly.l6 The results of non-training of private security personnel has left the public exposed to numerous abuses. The Rand Report disclosed that poor training leads to abuses of authority--such as ". . . unnecessary use of force, improper search and interrogation, false reporting "17 One of the most shocking and improper survelliance. parts of the article by Klare was the fact that every major city in the United States has been victimized where armed guards "lost their cool" in an argument and shot an irate customer or bystander who challenged their 18 Who is the blame for this tragic piece of authority. history in private security? The security agency that hires an officer and immediately sends him on assignment, with a gun, certainly does not have the private security discipline at heart. "Today it is the security officer l6Peel, The Training, p. 143. l7Klare, "The Boom in Private Police," p. 490. l8Ibid. 29 who . . . buys a gun and reports to a housing develop- ment . . . a drive-in restaurant restraint to protect it. This security officer has been done a great injustice."19 The subject of private security training cannot be discussed without firearms training. The lack of fire- arms training for security officers is becoming the number one complaint in many states. The fact that public police are outnumbered by private security officers three to one should be reason enough for mandating nationwide mini- mum training requirements. The private security field has been plagued with a poor image which, in large part, stems from the fact that "half of the private security guards are armed, fewer than one—fifth receive any train- 20 It is amazing that the public police ing in firearms." are required pre-employment training in firearms, and yet private security officers,many who are ex-felons, have no mandatory firearms training. Many local authorities are trying to do away with guards carrying firearms. However, the no-gun concept is not being accepted every— where. The gun issue is extremely sensitive, and has led several cities to tighten regulations. The economics of 19JohnD. Peel, Fundamentalgf Training for Security Officers (Springfield, Ill." Charles C. Thomas, 1970), p. 37. 20 Klare, "The Boom in Private Police," p. 488. 30 private security has caused many firms to hire "janitors with badges." Keeping costs low in the competitive con- tractual services actually attracts low-status type recruits. The low-cost of hiring poor, low-status type recruits plus the poor training equals trouble for the American public. In Washington, D.C., a series of shoot- ings led city officials in 1973 to re—evaluate security ordinances, the final outcome was much stricter security licensing law. Another example of municipalities tighten- ing regulations on private security is in Boston. The ordinance in Boston, "establishes rules training, dress, and gunhandling rules for 'special officers'--private guards who have the power to arrest suspects on their employers' premises."21 The use of firearms is one of the most crucial areasimiprivate security. When private security personnel carry firearms and are untrained, they (the guards) become a serious liability for themselves and their employers. .A countless number of innocent bystanders have been shot by private security officers who had no train- ing in firearms. A study which was conducted in Califor— nia by the Institute for Local Self-Government in 1974 found that 45 percent of licensed California security 21 "A Drive to Raise the Caliber of Security Guards," p. 131. 31 agencies admitted to providing no formal pre-firearms training, and 40 percent revealed that there were no firearms re—qualifying rules. The study also revealed that 55 percent of the guards surveyed said that they sometimes carry firearms, but only 8 percent had received firearms training in their present jobs.22 The issue on firearms training can only prepare intended employees for using weapons if necessary. This training cannot guaran- tee that nothing will happen because training has taken place; however, firearms training is the foundation which private security must build its discipline. Because guns, firearms, etc., have made such an impact on the public, many states have required minimum training before granting licenses to armed guards. The following is a very good example of the type of action that has led states to re-examine their stand on private security personnel carry firearms: One guard who shot two people within two weeks in Philadelphia complained that the detective agencies were 'taking young jitterbugs off the streets, putting guns in their hands and giving them no training. The companies are cleaning up, man, and they agght to spend some of that money to train 1.13.." 22Task Force on Private Security, p. 107. 23Private Security Task Report, pp. 107-108. 32 Presently, the state of Pennsylvania and other states require that armed guards be given psychological exams as part of licensing requirements. Not only is it important for private security personnel to understand the workings of weapons, but also the legal implications of carrying firearms. The chapter on private security and firearms in the task report: Private Security con— cluded "employees should not be allowed to carry firearms while performing private security duties unless then can demonstrate competency and proficiency in their use."24 The Need for Education in Private Security Training The training of private security personnel without question is in great need. One of the key factors in training personnel is the quality of recruits. Although it is not the focus <1f this study, some type of screen- ing is a must if a more qualified candidate is to be hired. A starting point for a better trained recruit for private security could be education. Education? Sur— prisingly, many security firms hire personnel with 39 educational background. There is a severe problem in private security when 40 percent of personnel responded in the Rand 24Task Report, p. 108. 1 . - -f_l ‘mmv 33 Security study, that "I was unemployed, and this was the best job I could find."25 Private security has lost the battle, before it gets started, when it employs recruits simply because they are warm bodies who can fill a posi- tion. What do you get when you hire an individual with a poor educational background? Unfortunately, poorly educated persons may work out in some jobs, yet it is not fiar to the poorly educated recruit nor to the clients they serve. Once again, the parallel of private security and public law enforcement clearly shows that public law enforcement has solid educational requirements, whereas private security has no concrete educational requirement. The numerous incidents involving private security personnel questions the readiness of the discipline to cope with security problems. Before any training can take place, it must be determined if the person is trainable. It makes no common sense, much less business sense, to employ anyone who cannot understand instruction, local laws, etc. While some in the private security field feel that too much emphasis is placed on screening, and train— ing, one only needs to look at any newspaper advertising, "Guards Wanted, Immediate employment; No experience "26 necessary. 5 . . Task Report: Private Security, p. 65. 26"Private Police Gowing Demand, U. S. News and World Report, 29 January 1973. 34 When an employee does not know his function or what he is being paid for, the product, whatever it may be, hasn't much chance for success. The Rand study found that half of the guards surveyed did not know they had no more authority than any other American private citizen.27 Problems such as the above may be corrected by proper training. However, problems, such as using deadly force, arresting, etc., need the assistance of screening the candidate before hiring him. A security guard tried to arrest an alleged shop- lifter in the Queens branch of another New York department store. The suspect, a seventeen year old boy, resisted and was beaten by the guard. He died of a fractured skull, contusions, and lacera- tions of the brain, and cerebral edema.28 The employer in this incident was at a loss for words over the incident. The employer's company allegedly enforced a strict "hands-off" policy. Evidently this particular employee did not understand, or was not capable of understanding instructions. The Task Force Report on Private Security recom- mended that security recruits should have "a high school diploma, and be able to pass a written examination to determine if they can understand and perform duties 27P'Toole, Penthouse, p. 76. 28Ibid. 35 assigned."29 The setting of minimum qualifications for applicants can help weed out people who are not really interested in private security beyond the point of just another job. Today, many police departments are using education as a means to promote their personnel. The high school degree is becoming past history for many police departments. The shift from high school diplomas to college bachelor degrees is becoming mandatory for many public law enforcement agencies.30 The discipline of private security will eventually have to establish some type of basic educational requirement. What it will take is unknown; hopefully, it will not take many more tragedies as reported in this study. There was a time when many police departments did not have any mandatory educational requirements. However, times have changed and public law enforcement realizes the importance of comprehensive training for its recruits. Private security should take heed considering the fact private security outnumbers public police in America. Mr. Norman Jasper, a security consultant, warned industries, businesses, 29 Task Force Report on Private Security, p. 83. 30Kenneth E. Christian, "A Comparison of the Behavior Styles of College-Educated and Non-College Police Officers" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Uniersity, 1976), p. 128. 36 etc., that they "get what you pay for."31 The Rand study pointed out that uneducated applicants gravitate to private security simply for "a job."32 The poor educa- tional background many times means poor skills in basic reading and writing which relates directly to poor per- formance on the job for many private security personnel. Actually educational qualifications are the minimum pre- employment requirements for private security. The litera- ture has revealed, however, that in order for training to be effective, personnel must have some type of educa— tional foundation. The training of private security personnel is a must, if the discipline is to establish itself positively in law enforcement. The problem involving private secur- ity applicants is explained very well by private security author John D. Peel: Across the nation private security applicants do not usually have to meet minimal education stand- ards, nor do they have to take a written entrance examination. In places where an education standard is listed, requirements range from bare literacy to four years of high school. However, all around us we see state legislatures moving to strengthen municipal police performance by imposi- tion of mandatory minimum training laws. These minimum training laws, supported locally by legis- lative committees responsible for such, represent an unmistakable trend toward more formal education 31"Private Police Forces in Growing Demand," p. 55. 32"The Guard You Hire may be Dangerous," Business Week, 4 December 1971, p. 25. 37 for law officers. It is a trend which private security will ignore at the high cost of impairing the place it holds in law enforcement. The current thinking of police administrators is clearly reflected in the support of various programs funded by the government for law officers, in the incentive pay plans being developed by individual police departments, and in the back-to-school-for-promotion movements making newspaper headlines. The clock will not turn back and, while we may choose to inno- vate too bravely, we will soon find our program in trouble if we do not at least require our appli- cants to have a high school diploma or its equi- valent. In our deliberations about the question we will be wise to take note of the police expe- rience; where educational requirements have been made optional, not mandatory, they have been widely ignored. If we do not choose to establish an education requirement at the high school graduate level, at least let us test each of our applicants for the purpose of screening out those who are obviously not worth training. Tests exist which can determine whether an applicant has the necessary intelligence to com- plete with understanding our training program, and can obtain for us an inventory of the applicant's personality traits. If we do not make use of such tests, we may be guilty of turning into the streets armed and licensed morons with law enforcement powers, and there is no rational excuse for that.33 The educational factor is the starting for devel- opment of a solid training program for private security personnel. Summary Since personnel is the foundation of the private security industry, training is very vital in improvement 33Peel, The Training, pp. 133-134. 38 of the field overall. In the past fifteen years the growth of private security has outgrown public law enforcement. The screening and pre-employment qualifica- tions can only improve the respectability of private security. In order to attract more competent personnel standards must be set. There is no question of the importance that pri- vate security plays in our society. Today, private security personnel seemingly "omnipresent," always visible. Concluding that private security service is vital to the day to day activity for various segments of American society, both public and private. With all of the activity of private security the need for better trained personnel is essential if private security is to improve its image. The main reason for developing a training program for private security personnel is to give security candidates knowledge, judgment and skills to perform their functions clearly. The literature reviewed shows a definite void in terms of literature and material available. A great deal of the material simply repeats the fact that more literature, and up-dated material is needed for this snow- balling industry. If private security is not careful, there is agreat possibility that because training programs have not kept up to standards of public law enforcement, problems may explode and cause severe regulating and 39 watchdogging by someone or something outside of the private security industry. This literature review can only re-affirm that the Task Report on Private Security concluded: "Previous research has revealed that training for private security personnel is either minimal or non-existent."34Private security personnel outnumber public law agents, yet private security has not even established minimum train- ing requirements and in some locales not even qualifica- tion requirements. This is very disturbing to many both in private security and public security. 34Task Report 1976, p. 78. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The major purpose of this study was to evaluate the status of training programs for private security personnel in the fifty United States. An instrument was developed to facilitate the achievement of the objectives of the study as stated in the first chapter. This chapter will outline the methodology that was used in the study. This includes: (1) population selected, (2) the development of the instrument, (3) how the instrument was utilized, and finally (4) how the data were analyzed for similarities and differences. Population It was not necessary to draw a sample for this particular study because the total population was used. Each state of the fifty United States was surveyed with respect to individual status regarding training programs for private security personnel. The regulatory agency for private security of each state was contacted. Those states which did not have any such agency to regulate private security were 40 41 still included in the study. In such cases those states were represented by whatever their governors deemed appro- priate to represent their states regarding private secur- ity. Development of the Instrument A questionnaire was developed for this study. It included a cross-section of questions that could evaluate the status of a training program for private security. There were thirteen questions developed for the question- naire. The questionnaire reflected the concerns of the study with regard to the following: 1. 2. Is private security regulated in your state, yes or no? Requirements by the state for private security personnel to have any type of training. If there is any training, how much is required? Are there any educational requirements? Exactly who does regulate private security in your state? Give exact name of agency. Where does training take place in your state? Are there any agencies other than state (perhaps local) agencies that regulate private security? Does private security training grant any type of special privileges beyond that of the private citizen? What is the goal of your training program? 42 10. Are there any physical limitations con- cering candidates of private security? 11. Are there any re-qualifying rules; training etc., for private security personnel? 12. What is the nature of the relationship between private security and public law enforcement? . 13. Are there any restrictions on private security personnel? These questions are included from the final questionnaire which was mailed out. (For final questionnaire, see Appendix B.) The original questionnaire was given to members of the doctoral committee on October 23, 1979. (See Appendix A for original questionnaire.) The original questionnaire consisted of five questions. After meeting with each committee member for suggestions to improve the questionnaire, the writer solicited the assistance of Lieutenant James Baird of the Michigan State Police. Lt. Baird is the director of the licensing agency for Private Detective and Security Guards in the State of Michigan. After meeting with Lt. Baird, the questionnaire was modified and again it was submitted to the committee members on November 12, 1979. The revised questionnaire was extended from five questions to thirteen questions. Lt. Baird suggested some key points that could serve not only this study, but also other private security training concerns for the future. After conferring with 43 the chairperson of the committee, the final draft of the questionnaire was reviewed by Lt. Baird on November 22, 1979. Upon his approval and the committees' approval, the questionnaire was approved on December 7, 1979. (See Appendix B.) A cover letter was also prepared to accompany the questionnaire. (See Appendix C.l.) The purpose of the letter was to explain to each regulatory agency the pur- pose of the study. Attached also was a letter from the State of Michigan State Police Commanding Officer, Lieutenant James L. Baird of the Private Security and Investigation Section. (See Appendix C.2.) Lt. Baird felt that this letter would assist the study by (l) clar- ifying its purpose, goals, etc., and (2) insured a greater return of the questionnaire, appealing to the law enforce- ment agencies who would receive it. The letter from Lt. Baird explained that this information would be very helpful for the State of Michigan in its effort to improve the status of training programs. The first four questions were written to be 'answered simply by yes or no. The eight essay questions that required a written answer followed, and the remain- ing question required only a check mark concerning the place of training. The final approved questionnaire was ready to be distributed as of December 14, 1979. 44 Distribution of the Instrument The questionnaire and instructions for its com- pletion were distributed by U. S. mail to the regulatory agencies of each state in the United States of America on December 14, 1979. The researcher was assisted by Lt. James L. Baird of the Michigan State Police, in finding an up-dated list of the regulatory agencies of each state. There were thirty-four states that had a regulatory agency listed. The remaining sixteen states which were not included on the Private Security Boards and Agencies listing were sent questionnaires in care of the governor. (See Appendix E for Statewide list of private Security Regulatory Agencies.) Each of the sixteen states was sent a complete questionnaire package including the cover letters as were the other thirty-four states. However, the executive officer, in this case the governor of each state, was wirtten an individual letter explaining that since his particular state did not have any listed regulatory agency for private security, that the material was being forwarded to him as the executive officer of the state. The letter requested that the governor should answer the questionnaire himself or forward the questionnaire to the state agency, if any, which could answer the questionnaire. Questionnaires to these sixteen states were mailed at the same time as the 45 other thirty-four states. (See Appendix F for letters to governors.) The deadline for returning the questionnaire was January 16, 1980. As of January 17, 1980, thirty- eight questionnaires were returned. On Jaunary 28, 1980, a follow-up letter was sent to the remaining twelve states which had not returned questionnaires. (See Appendix G for letter to unanswered states.) The deadline for this follow-up letter was February 28, 1980. As of March 1, 1980, the researcher had received ten more questionnaires, bringing the final total number of responses to forty- eight. Procedure for Analyzing the Data Analysis Of the data was done in two parts. First, all materials sent to the researcher from the various regulatory agencies which were relevant to this study were analyzed for content. In order to obtain some degree of reliability with respect to the content analysis, the researcher employed a two-judge panel from the Michigan State Police. These judges were currently involved in the matter of regulating private security agencies. The content analysis, as developed by the researcher and, after being reviewed by the two-judge panel, was then presented in terms of similarities and differences of the various regulatory agencies. 46 Secondly, responses to each of the thirteen ques- tions on the questionnaire were analyzed. The various responses were tabulated and then, where appropriate, were reported in percentages to determine similarities and differences in the regulatory programs. Summary The population, the design of the instrument, how the instrument was distributed, and how the data was processed have been described in this chapter. Chapter IV contains the analysis of the data. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA INTRODUCTION The data presented in this chapter were gathered through a nationwide survey of Regulatory Agencies for private security personnel. A mailed questionnaire was used to collect information concerning training programs for private security personnel. The data were analyzed in two parts. First, responses to each of the thirteen questions on the question- naire were analyzed. The various responses were tabulated and then, where appropriate, were reported in percentages to determine similarities, and differences in regulatory programs. Second, all materials sent to the researcher from the various regulatory agencies which were relevant to the study were analyzed for content. In order to obtain some degree of reliability with respect to con- tent analysis the researcher employed a two-judge panel from the Michigan State Police. These judges were cur- rently involved in the matter of regulating private security agencies. The content analysis was developed by 47 48 the researcher, after being reviewed by the two-judge panel, was then presented to determine the similarities and differences of the various regulatory agencies. Question 1 The first question consisted of four parts. These were: (1) Does the state regulate private security agencies, (2) Is the state planning to develop regulations (for those states who have no current regulating), (3) What is the state trying bodevelop as regulations, and (4) Is there any reason for the state not having any regulations with respect to private security agencies. Forty—eight states responsed and these responses appear in Table 1. It may be observed from Table 1 that 67 percent of the states do have regulations that govern private security agencies. Sixteen, or 33 percent, of the states which responded do not. Of the 16 states which do not have regulations, 6 or 37 percent, are currently consid- ering regulations. Seven, or 44 percent are not consid— ering regulations, and three, or 19 percent, indicated the question was not applicable. In response to the question of what the six states are planning to develop in the way of regulations, one state, or 17 percent, indicated certain minimum 49 TABLE l.--Are Private Security Guards Regulated in Your State? Part A: States Regulating Private Security States that Regulate States that Do Not Regulate N/A % 32 67 16 33 0 0 Total I33 Part B: Is there any consideration or planning to develop any regulations for private security minimum training requirement? (This question only applies to the states who had no regu- lation of private security.) States Considering Regulations Are Planning No Planning N/A % 6 37 7 44 3 19 Total I00— Part C: What is your state trying to develop? (This question applies only to those states who have no regulating of private security, yet they are planning to establish some type in the near future.) Minimum Training Man: Firearms Comp. Security Requirements Training Training N/A % l o 17 2 1 33 3 50 Total _3 :33 50 TABLE l.--Continued Part D: Is there any reason for your state not having regulations of private security? (This applied only to the states that had no regulating of private security and are not planning to start regulation.) Reasons for State(s) not having regulating agency 12.... 33.22:.. :2:a:.. N. Reason N/A ESrfEES? % 2 20 l 10 3 30 2 20 l 10 Total 100 51 training requirements. Two states, or 33 percent, indi- cated mandatory firearms training. The other three states, or 50 percent, indicated a comprehensive security training program. Of the ten states which do not have regulations regarding private security agencies, their responses for having no regulations were as follows: Two states, or 20 percent indicated there was no legislation for aregulatory agency. One state, or 10 percent, indicated there was no business for such agencies in the state. Three states, or 30 percent, indicated legislation is pending. Two states, or 20 percent, gave no reason, one state, or 10 percent, indicated the question was not applicable. In addition, one state, or 10 percent, indi- cated no funding was available. Question 2 The second question asked whether there was any requirement for the training of private security guards. Forty-eight states responded and the results of these responses appear in Table 2. It can be seen from Table 2 that seventeen states, or 35 percent, do require some type of training. Thirty-one, or 65 percent, do not. - Am“. 52 TABLE 2.—-Does your State Require Any Training for Private Security Guards? States Requiring Training for Private Security Guards States that require No requirement N/A % 17 35 31 65 O 0 Total 100 Question 3 In the third question, the states were asked to indicate how much training was required for private security personnel. The responses of the seventeen states which require some type of training appear in Table 3. As may be seen from the Table, two states, or 12 percent, require 8 hours or less of firearms training. An additional two states, or 12 percent, require 9 to 15 hours of firearms training. One state, or 6 percent, required two years of experience in the private security field. Another state (only one) required a written exam, plus security experience for training requirements before a license could be issued by the state. One state, or 6 percent, training consisted of 4 hours pre-employment for guards that are unarmed. There was one state that required 12 hours for armed security officers. Three states, or 18 percent, required 140 hours of academy training for all candidates of private security. One state, or 6 percent, required 8 hours of pre-employemnt; 53 TABLE 3.--If Yes, How Much Training? Amount of Training for Private Security Personnel Amount/Type of Training NO. of States Percent 10. 11. 12. 13. Firearms only; 8 hours or less 9 to 15 hours firearms training Two years experience Written exam plus experience Four hours for unarmed Twelve hours for armed One hundred forty hours of academy Eight hours of pre-employemnt; within 90 days an additional 32 hours of classroom training Thirty-five hours for certified with firearms; 23 hours for certified with lethal weapons other than firearms Member of police department for three years; or not less than one year's training at accredited college/university Eighty hours of pre-employment One hundred thirty six hours for arrest power Eight hours--watchman; 16 hours security guard; 40 hours specialist; 4 hours unarmed; 24 hours armed guard Total 2 H +4 H F4 N I... 12 12 0(3me 18 54 within 90 days an additional 32 hours of classroom train- ing. One state, or 6 percent, requested 35 hours for certification with lethal weapons other than firearms. Another 6 percent or one state required 3 years experience as a police officer; or not less than one year training at an accredited college/university. One state, or 6 percent, required 80 hours of pre-employment training. Another 6 percent or one state requires 8 hours for watchman; 16 hours for security guard; 40 hours for specialist; in addition this state requires 136 hours on legal procedures etc., for arrest power on in—house basis only. One state, or 6 percent, required unarmed guards to have 4 hours of training;24 hours for armed guards. Question 4 The fourth question was concerned with the educa- tional qualifications required for private security per— sonnel. Forty-three states responded to this question. An additional five states gave a response indicating that this question was not applicable. The results of this response appear in Table 4. It may be seen from Table 2 that five states, or 12 percent, require a high school diploma. None of the states requires any college education. Two states, or 5 percent, require training at a special academy. One state, or 2 percent, requires an eighth grade education. 55 TABLE 4.--Please Indicate if Private Security Personnel Must Have Educational Qualifications? Educational Requirements for Private Security Personnel Educational Requirements N/A No. of States % A. High school diploma 5 12 B. Years of college 0 C. College degree 0 D. Special Academy* 2 E. Other 8th grade 1 F. No-Educational qualification 35 73 Not Applicable _5_ ____ _10 5 43 100 *Does not require high school diploma Thirty-five states, or 73 percent, have no educational qualifications. An additional five states, or 10 percent, responded that the question was not applicable. Question 5 The fifth question asked for the specific names of the state agency which regulates private security agencies. Responses to this question appear in Table 5. As can be seen from Table 5, of the 32 states which regulate private security agencies, two states, or 6 percent, regulate them through the Attorney General's Office. 56 TABLE 5.-—What is the Specific Name of the Section or Division Doing the Regulating? Names of Divisions Regulating State Private Security Classification No.of States Percent l. Attorney General 2 6 2. Department of Commerce 2 6 3. Department of Public Safety 5 l6 4. Board of Private Detectives and Guards 7 22 5. Department of Registration and Education 1 3 6. Consumer Affairs 1 3 7. State Police 8 25 8. Department of Professional and Occupational Licensing l 3 9. Department of State 1 3 10. Secretary of State 2 6 11. State Law Enforcement Division 1 3 12. State Bureau of Investigations __1 .__3 Total 32 100 .. u (I 'mk“- Note: For actual state name for regulatory agency, see Appendix H. l 57 Two states, or 6 percent, regulate through the Department of Commerce. Five states, or 16 percent regulate through the Department of Public Safety. Seven states, or 22 percent, regulate through the Board of Private Detective and Guards. One state or 6 percent regulate through the Department of Registration and Educa- tion. Another state, or 3 percent, operates private security through the Bureau of Consumer Affairs. Eight states, or 25 percent, regulate through the State Police. One state, or 3 percent, regulate through the Department of Professional and Occupational Licensing. Two of the states, or 6 percent, regulate through the Department of State. One state, or 3 percent, regulate through the Secretary of State. Another state regulates private security through the State Law Enforcement Division. One state, or 3 percent, regulates through the State Bureau of Investigation. Question 6 The sixth question asked where the training takes place for private security personnel, seventeen states, or 55percent responded to this question. Responses to this question can be seen in Table 6. As can be seen from Table 6, seven states or 29 percent conducted training at a college/university facility, another twelve states or 38 percent conducted 58 TABLE 6.--Where Does Training Take Place? No. of At an . Public Private N/A % States Univer31ty Fac111ty Paollity 7 x 29 12 x x 39 5 x 16 24 x 20 Note: Some states trained at more than one type of facility. training at public facility and/or at private facilities; five states, or 16 percent, use private facilities only. Twenty-four states responded that this question was not applicable. (Table 6 does not include private security agencies, private training facilitieswasthis survey was focused on what the state was requiring.) Question 7 This question asked if regulation was provided at the state level, or do local authorities regulate or grant authority? Responses for this question can be seen in Table 7. As can be observed from Table 7, twenty-four states or 50 percent are regulated only at the state level. Six states, or 13 percent are regulated at the .1 59 TABLE 7.--Is Regulation Provided Just at the State Level, or Do Local Authorities Regulate or Grant Authority? Level of Regulating Power: State or Local? State Local Both No 9 Regulation Regulation Regulation ° 24 50 6 l3 2 4 16 33 Total States 48 100 local level, two states or 4 percent are regulated at both state and local levels; sixteen states or 33 percent have no regulating of private security. Question 8 Question 8 asked whether private security person- nel was granted any authority beyond that of a private citizen. Thirty-five states responded to this question. See Table 8 for responses. Twenty states, or 57 percent, responded that their state gave no authority beyond that of any private citizen; eight states, or 23 percent, responded that was not applicable. Seven states, or 20 percent, responded "yes" to giving authority beyond that of a private citizen. Thirteen states did not respond to this question. 60 TABLE 8.--Does the Training Grant Any Authority Beyond That of a Private Citizen? Does training grant any authority beyond that of a private citizen? NO No. of States Yes No Response N/A % 20 x 57 8 x 23 7 x 20 35 Total 100 Note: For the types of power granted beyond private citizens, see Appendix I. Question 9 In Question 9 the states were asked to indicate what their training was designed to accomplish. The responses of the thirty—four states which responded to this question are shown in Table 9. As may be seen from the table, one state, or 3 percent, training was designed to give security officers 30 hours of general laws and arrest powers. Another state, or 6 percent, was designed to give 2 hours for power of arrest and 7 to 14 hours for firearms training. One state, or 6 percent, training goals were 8 hours for watchman, 16 hours for security guards, 40 hours for specialists, also if security agencies desired, their 61 TABLE 9.--What is the Training Designed to Accomplish? (This questionapplies only to the States that had some type of training programs for private security personnel.) Goals Set to Accomplish N0. of States Percent 1. 10. ll. 12. Thirty hour training emphasis on general laws and arrest powers. Two hours for power of arrest; 7 to 14 hours firearms. 136 hours for power of arrest. Knowledge of state laws. Power of arrest search and seizure. Learn basics of security business. Serve as a screening. Protect the general public from incompetence. Comprehensive security training consist of at least 25 hours basic course for certifi- cation. Firearms only. Provide the working officers with minimum knowledge of legal arrest procedures and firearms training. Familiarization with fire- arm and legal implications of possible use--range qualification is also mandatory. 62 TABLE 9.--Continued Goals Set to Accomplish No. of States Percent 13. Develop minimum standard for security guards. 3 14. To make those in the private sector who use lethal weapon incidence to their employment more proficient in the handling of the weapon, and aware when lethal force is warranted. 3 15. Some knowledge of state laws, first aid, and use of firearms. 3 16. See actual survey 3 17. Safety 3 N/A 50 Total 100 fl... 63 personnel to have in-house arrest power, they must have 136 hours on procedures, laws, etc., on powers of arrest. Another state, or 3 percent, the only goal was knowledge of state laws. One state, or 3 percent, training was designed to give security officers powerf at least 25 hours of basic course from certified training manual and actual certification." One state, or 3 percent, reported their training goal was to give candidates firearms training only. Another state, or 3 percent, indicated that train- ing was designed to "provide the working officers with minimum knowledge of legal arrest procedures and fire— arms training. One state, or 3 percent, reported train- ing goals were "familiarity with firearms and legal implications of possible use-range qualifications is also mandatory." Another 3 percent, or one state, responded that their training was designed to "develop minimum standards for security guards." One state, or 3 percent, indicated their training was designed to accomplish the 64 following: "To make those in the private sector who use lethal weapon incidence to their employment more proficient in the handling of the weapon, and aware, when lethal force is warranted." One state, or 3 percent, responded that their training was designed to give private security personnel "some knowledge of state laws, first aid and use of firearms. Another 3 percent or one state reported their goal in training was to teach security officers "safety." One state, or 3 percent, reported that their training was designed "to provide unarmed or armed security guard with very general information con- sidered to be the very minimum necessary in order to per- form as a security guard. Eight hours pre-employment training and 32 on-the-job training hours." Fourteen of the 48 states responding to the questionnaire did not respond to Question 9. Seventeen states, or 50 percent, indicated that this question was not applicable. Question 10 Question 10 asked if there were any limitations concerning physical qualifications of candidates in their training programs. Forty-eight states responded. The results of those responses can be seen in Table 10. As can be seen, five states, or 10 percent, had some type of limitations concerning physical qualifica- tion; eighteen states or 3 percent had no limitations, 65 TABLE lO.—-Are There Any Limitations Concerning Physical Qualifications of Candidates in Your Training Programs? Physical limitations for candidates for PSP No. of States There are limit No limit N/A % 5 x 10 18 x 38 25 x 52 48 Total 100 and 25 states or 52 percent responded that this question was not applicable to their state. Question 11 Question 11 asked if there were any reviews, or qualifications after private security licenses are given. (This question was only for those states that regulated private security agencies.) See Table 11 for results of responses. As can be seen in Table 11, sixteen states, or 32 percent required some type of review for private security agencies, twelve states, or 38 percent had no reviews, and four states, or 12 percent, responded that Question 11 was not applicable. 66 TABLE ll.--Are There Any Reviews,or Qualifications After Private Security Licenses are Given? (Applies only to states that have regulating agencies of Private Security Companies.) No. of States Yes No Review N/A % 16 . x 50 12 x 38 4 x 12 32 Total 100 Question 12 Question 12 asked what was the relationship between public law enforcement and private security. Forty—eight states responded, and the results of their responses appear in Table 12. All remarks are direct quotes from the survey. As may be seen from the table, two of the states, or 4 percent, responded that their relationship between public and private law enforcement was "Private security act as a supplement to law enforcement with limitations on arrest and search powers. One state, or 2 percent, indicated that the relationship varies from city to city within the state. Another state, or 2 percent, responded that the relation was "appears O.K.," private security guards limited as to police powers. Three states, or 6 percent, responded the relation was "not good." Two 67 TABLE 12.--What is the Relationship Between Public Law Enforcement and Private Security? Classification of Relation Number of States N/A Percent 1. Private security act as a supplement to law enforce- ment with limitations on arrest and search powers. Varies from city to city. Appears okay; private security guards limited as to "police" powers. Not good Unknown Many security guards in this state are off—duty or retired peace officers so relationships between the two are basically positive. However, the most difficult problem we deal with is security guards who over estimate their authority. Distant. The private sector is jealous of public officers. Public officers look down on security as very unpro- fessional (no training, few requirements). Not real good. In some locations, excellent and in other locations not so good. 68 TABLE 12.--Continued Classification of Relation Number of States N/A Percent 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. l7. 18. The relationship is limited. One is public; the other is purely private. A member of the law enforcement community has been a member of the board for many years. Addi- tionally, local law enforcement agencies are utilized as a source of information doing the back— ground investigation of license applicants. There is generally, what appears to be a reasonably good level of cooperation in matters of mutual inter— est. Completely different organizations. Public law enforcement has become an ally of the private sector in just a few short years. Law enforcement now demands that the private security companies become licensed. Good Working relationship Only regulatory Mandatory relationship between public and private TABLE 12.--Continued 69 Classification Number of of Relation States N/A Percent 19. No relationship 10 20 20. Good relationship based on cooperation between both the public and private agencies. 7 l4 3 Totals 45 3 100 70 states, or 4 percent, indicated the relationship was "unknown." One state, or 2 percent, reported that "many security guards in this state are off-duty, or retired peace officers so relationships between the two are basically positive. However, the most difficult problem we deal with is secuirty guards who over estimate their authority." Another state, or 2 percent, felt that the relation was "distant. The private sector is jealous of public officers. Public officers look down on secur- ity as very unprofessional (no training, few require- ments)." Four states, or 8 percent, simply stated that the relationship was "not real good." One state, or 2 per- cent responded "In some locations, excellent and in other locations not so good." Another state, or 2 per- cent, indicated that the relationship was "limited." One state, or 2 percent, responded that the relation as "one is public and the other is purely private." Another state, or 2 percent, responded as follows: "A member of the law enforcement community has been a member of the board for many years. Additionally, local law enforcement agencies are utilized as a source of information doing the background investigation of license applicants. Thre is generally, what appears to be a reasonably good level of cooperation in matters of mutual 71 interest." One state, or 2 percent, responded "com- pletely different organizations." One state, or 2 per- cent, simply stated "good." Two states or 2 percent classified the relationship as a "working relationship." Another state, or 2 percent, responded "only regulatory." Three states or 6 percent indicated there was a "manda- tory relationship between public and private." Ten states or 20 percent indicated that there was "no relationship." Seven states, or 14 percent, indicated that their rela- tionship was good based on cooperation between both the public and private agencies. Three states responded that Question 12 was not applicable. Question 13 Question 13 asked if there were any restrictions on security guards. Forty-eight states responded and the results of those responses can be seen in Table 13. TABLE 13.--Are There Any Restrictions on Security Guards? No. of States Yes No Restrictions N/A % 22 x 46 17 x 35 9 x 19 48 Total 100 Note: For actual detailed-type of restriction from the various states, see Appendix J. 72 As can be seen in Table 13, twenty-two states or 65 percent responded that they did have some type of restrictions on private security guards. Seventeen states or percent had no restrictions on private security guards and nine states responded that Question 13 was not applicable to them. Analysis of Additional Materials Fifteen states submitted various additional mate— rials concerning the regulating of private security agen— cies. The researcher reviewed these materials for content and developed five areas for content analysis. The five areas were (1) firearms, (2) power of arrest, (3) licens- ing qualifications, (4) educational requirements, and (5) physical limitations. These areas were then sub- mitted to a two-judge panel to determine the accuracy of the researchers analysis. The panel consisted of Sgt. Tom Endelman and Lt. James L. Baird of the Michigan State Police. The two State Police are both assigned to the Licensing Unit of Private Security Guards and Investiga— tors. Lt. Baird is the commanding officer of the Licens- ing unit for private security. Both Lt. Baird and Sgt. Endelman are very active in the regulating of private security in the state of Michigan. Because of their professional involvement in private security regulation, the researcher selected them as the two-judge panel. 73 The two-judge panel reviewed the researchers content analysis of the material on March 18, 1980. After reviewing the material, the panel recommended that of the five areas the researcher had recommended that two of the areas should be removed. Those two areas were (1) educational requirements and (2) physical limitations. The two judge panel made their recommendation to remove those two areas because the two areas were not repre- sented by any significant material or means. The panel and the researcher agreed that the following areas should be selected for content analysis. The areas were: (1) firearms training, and’(2) power of arrest. These two areas will be reviewed for their content analysis. Firearms Training There was a very significant amount of material pertaining to firearms training. The subject of fire- arms and private security guards has proven to be very controversial. The researcher found firearms to be the top priority of many states, law-enforcement agencies, etc., in regard to private security training. More than half of the thirty—two states that regulated private security responded (64 percent) to desiring firearms regulations. (This fact is interesting when one remem— bers that 17 states have some type of training. Yet 74 100 percent of the thirty-two regulating states separated private security guards from having "blanket rights" to carry or operate firearms.) Of the seventeen states that required training, twelve states, or 7 percent had fire- arms training required in their training programs. The actual hours required by these various states ranged from 2 hours to 35 hours for firearms training. Many states covered the same areas in firearms training; however, the allotment of actual hours varied. The vari- ous states required different hours, yet the focus of training was very similar for the majority of the states requiring firearms training. The average firearms train- ing program consisted of the following: (1) legal ramifi- cations of carrying and using firearms; (2) the use of deadly force; when security officers can and cannot use force; (3) liability of firearms use. Of the states that had firearms training, 30 percent required that security officers not only have knowledge of firearms usage legally, but also firearms care. Another ZOpercent of the regulating states required candidates to be certified by the states approved firearms course. Part of the require- ment certification (If candidates is Range qualification for 20 percent. The researcher selected three states or 17 percent from the seventeen states that had training programs for 75 their stern firearms training programs. (A fourth state, Michigan has very realistic firearms training require- ments in its pending legislation on private security agencies.) The three states selected were Pennsylvania, California, and Texas. These three states selection was based on additional requirements these states required in their firearms training programs. The State of Pennsylvania requires that all candi- dates receive training from an approved school, course, and instructor. The school, course, and instructor must be approved by the commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police. However, before an applicant can take a fire- arms training course, the applicant must be approved by the Commission of private security police. The firearms training is designed to give basic knowledge to the candi- date. It is not the actual firearms training that is unique, but the screening which the State of Pennsylvania does on all security applicants. In Chapter 21, Section 21.11 it states the following: Section 21.11. Applications for written approval to enroll in an approved program, that is, basic course with or without firearms, shall be made on a form to be supplied by the Commissioner. . . . This form can be obtained at any Pennsylvania State Police Station, except the Turnpike and Interstate Stations. (1) The appropriate section of the application shall be completed and signed by the applicant. 76 (2) The appropriate section of the application shall be completed and signed by the appli- cant's supervisor, except self-employed appli- cants. (3) The appropriate section of the applica— tion shall be completed and signed by a licensed doctor of medicine or osteopathy. . . - This form must be submitted to the Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Training and Education, by the examining physician. (4) The appropriate section of the application shall be completed and signed by a licensed psychologist. . . . This form must be sub— mitted to the Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Training and Education, by the examining psychologist. (5) The application shalee filed with the Commissioner and accompanied by two color photographs, an application fee of $35, two completed fingerprint cards, and documentary proof of equivalent training, if applicable. This screening of applicants before their admittance into a certified training program is very progressive. The screening of applicants gives a great deal of credibility and professionalism to the private security business in Pennsylvania. The psychological testing of applicants is a start in an attempt to combat "rent—a—cop," "hired gun," stereotypes. The difference in Pennsylvania is quite clear: an applicant must have some type of physical and mental coordination in relation to carrying and using a firearm. California requires that all of its candidates attend a certified training program also. The material that California sent to this researcher consisted of the 77 following: (1) carrying of firearms, (2) qualification firearms card, and (3) maintenance of firearms. Calif- ornia also requires each security officer candidate to pass a written exam. The exam consists of the material covered in Section 699.5 of the Private Investigator Act with Rules and Regulations for the State of California. (See Appendix J for Section 699.5.) After passing the written exam and pending that the candidate has met all of the qualifications required by the Bureau of Collection and Investigative Services, the candidate is issued a "Firearms Qualification Card." This card is required by California for any private security personnel. This card is one way of monitoring applicants who are seeking to become armed private security officers. Although this procedure used by California cannot be compared to that of public law enforcement, it does stop "Joe Blow" from obtaining or carrying a firearm on the pretext that "I'm a private security guard." The difference regarding firearms and private security personnel in California is that California regulates firearms licensing of private security personnel. California was one of four states that required certified firearms training that was directly regulated by the state agency. The state of Texas was the most different in terms of firearms regulation. Texas had its firearms 78 regulation tailored to its program somewhat like Pennsylvania and California. The similarity of the Texas program com— pared to Pennsylvania is mainly the testing of the appli- cant's mental state by psychological testing. The Texas Board of Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies in their training manual, section G, p. 8, says: "These qualifications for persons . . . may include mental standards. . . ." In comparison of Texas and California, all applicants of any private security personnel must pass written examinations and successfully complete firearms training from a certified training school. Texas has the very similar type of screening before allowing an applicant to enter a certified train- ing school. The difference in Texas firearms training is that it is a part of the overall training program. In Texas in order to become a "commissioned security officer," the candidate must successfully finish a certified school. Once this certified training school is completed, the candidate is a bona fide commissioned security officer which automatically gives the C80 the right to carry and use a handgun in the line of private security work. Twelve states that had firearms training, only two states gave private security personnel privi- leges to carry handguns when certified by these two stated-—Arkansas and Texas. See Appendix K for Texas 79 requirements for security officers. The twelve states that have firearms requirements and training have basic similarities. (See Table 14 for similarities). TABLE l4.--Similarities of Firearms Training for Twelve States Type of Firearms Training NO' Of Percent States 8 hours or less legal ramifications 2 l7 9 to 15 hours firearms legal limita- tions range qualification handgun maintenance 2 17 Written exam on handgun usage; handgun safety 1 8 12 hours on legal limits, gun safety and maintenance 1 8 140 hours academy including firearms training of at .30 hours (range qualification, written exams) 3 23 35 hours range qualification legal limits 1 8 24 hours firearms legal limits etc. 1 8 16 hours firearms legal maintenance 1 8 Twelve states of the seventeen regulating states have firearms training. All twelve of these states have the following as similarities in their firearms training: (1) legal limiations on the use of firearms and liabilities 80 of firearms for security personnel; (2) some type of range practice and procedure and (3) firearms safety and maintenance. Four states,or 33 percent, required addi- tional firearms training. Two states granted private security personnel the right to carry firearms upon completion of certified school. These were the only two states that directly allowed firearms usage because of private security certification by the state. Two states, or 17 percent, require applicants to pass testing on mental and physical capabilities as they relate to usage of a firearm. All of the twelve states that required firearms covered the basics of firearms training. (Basics being gun maintenance, firearm usage by security personnel, and legal limitations involving firearms.) Two states (Texas and Arkansas) granted the privilege of carrying and using firearms as it related to private security work. Those two states regulate fire- arms licensing built into their training programs. When an applicant was admitted into their training program (meaning that the applicant had been screened and cleared to attend the academy) and had successfully completed the training, the applicant was then granted the right to carry a firearm. Four states, or 40 percent, regulated and granted firearms authority for private security personnel. The other eight states or 60 percent, required 81 firearms training from their certified schools. One state, or 11 percent, had very strict rules at three levels that made this state very different from the other states. The three levels were (1) pre-employment testing, (2) completion of rigorous qualifying firearms test (including written exams and range qualification), and (3) re-qualifying firearm test (range qualification) and written exam. A candidate must score at least 70 percent on all parts of the firearms training course. This state by far had the most in-depth, organized and comprehensive firearms training of the material sent to the researcher. See Appendix L for state that has the most comprehensive firearms training program. The importance of firearms training is crucial to the field of private security. The high number of acci- dents involving private security personnel must stop. The materials reviewed by the researcher was very well organized. The contents for the most part covered the essentials for security personnel. However, the amazing fact is that only twelve states have firearms training as a part of their overall training programs. The fire- arms programs that exist are only a start for private security training. In development of a firearms training, private security must keep in sight the role of private security in relation to firearms use and training. In an 82 article from the American Handgunner May/June 1979, the author Massad F. Ayoob pointed out a very important fact: "A security patrolman's tactical needs are different from those of a police officer. . . . He has little more authority than the average citizen."1 The contents of the firearms material was very similar in what the respondent's sent regarding firearms training. The com- munication of basic firearms knowledge was the general concensus from the twelve states that had firearms train- ing. Power of Arrest The material sent to the researcher on the power of arrest was limited. However, the states that responded had well-organized training on the powers of arrest for private security personnel. Three states, or 8 percent, had power of arrest, training requirements for candidates of private security. One of the three states, or 2 per— cent, required 136 hours on legal limitations of private security personnel, state laws, relationship to public law enforcement agents, etc. After completion of the 136 hours on arrest powers, the private security personnel has authority on whatever premise the private security personnel has been assigned. The arrest power is only lMassad F. Ayoob, "Training for Private Police," American Handgunner (May/June 1979): 48. 83 good for in-house assignments, not for the general public. This is a very important factor. In fact, this means that the private security personnel is only authorized for certain facilities and this power is not to be con- fused with that of public law enforcement agents. All three states emphasized greatly that arrest power was not to be confused with those arrest powers of any public law enforcement agencies. One state or 2 percent pointed out that private security personnel should know when to use force in order to prevent a crime and also understand the legal system in order to function property in his/her role as a private security officer. All three states in their material regarding power of arrest authority made it very clear that the role of private security is prevention, that is before the crime. The purpose of powers of arrest training is to educate private security personnel on the legal system and how it affects private security. All of the material was very simple and simi— lar. Private security personnel must understand its limitations. In the State of Texas Commissioned Security Officer Training Manual, 1978, p. 63, it best summarizes the type of material sent to the researcher: The primary concerns of the security officer is crime prevention. Very often, the security officer is the one who discovers a crime is being committed or has been committed. In order for him/her to determine whether or not there actually is a crime in progress, the security officer must know what 84 the legal definition of that crime is. . . . It must be emphasized that a commissioned security officer has no authority other than of a private citizen. Once a crime has been committed, it becomes a matter for the public police. The materials that were sent to the researcher on arrest power of private security personnel helped to clarify the very ambiguous question of what powers does private security personnel have. In actuality, the three states that have training on powers to arrest are no different than the twenty states or 41 percent that responded that their state gave private security personnel no powers different from the average citizen. What the three states training on arrest power has done is to serve as an education for private security personnel on how to handle situations in a prevention manner. The three states agreed unanimously that understanding powers of arrest were essential for any private security officer. All of the materials regarding powers of arrest prepare private security personnel for public contacts and crises. The implementation of training programs that include powers of arrest authority can help reduce false arrest, illegal searches, and millions of wasted hours and money for all concerned. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction There is an increasing amount of money and research devoted today for the training of public law enforcement personnel. The increasing crime rate in America has placed a great burden on public law enforce— ment personnel. Because of the increasing incidence of crime, public police departments are being spread very thin. Their services which included assisting businesses and residential crime prevention have decreased tremen- dously. A good example of this situation is in Calif— ornia where "police are no longer required to answer burglar alarms at private residences, and though they often try, theyjust have too much else to do to be able to respond quickly. This is why intensive private patrols are the coming thing."1 The private security business has boomed because of the crime problem of the past decade. The demand for lMassad F. Ayoob, "Training for Private Police," American Handgunner (May/June 1979): 48. 85 86 protecting residential property, businesses etc., has become more the responsibility of private security than public police. Today prevention is the key role of pri- vate security. Police law enforcement must divide its effort in these three areas: (1) investigations of crimes, (2) appre- hension of criminals, and (3) prevention of crimes. In general, there is quite a great deal of training involved for personnel of public law enforcement. The training is essential for public agents in order to cope with the crime problems of today. There are as many private security guards as there are public police in America today. The major difference is that of the one million private security employees, more than three—quarters of them have little or no training in law enforcement. The private security field has been criticized for the lack of training of personnel. The general image of private security has been poor. In the article, "Training for Private Police," the author summarizes the general feeling regarding private security: "Private security police, as a whole, have never had much of a reputation for professionalism. They tend to be under- qualified, underpaid, and undertrained."2 There have 2Ayoob, "Training for Private Police," p. 48. 87 been numerous problems caused by untrained security personnel. As indicated in Chapter II, the problems of false arrest, illegal searches, physical brutality, and even death have been linked directly to poorly trained private security personnel. This problem of ill-prepared personnel has caused many states to establish minimum training standards for private security personnel. In view of the above, this study was undertaken to determine what the various states require in terms of regulations and what the relationships of private security agencies are to the various states. All fifty states were surveyed and of them, forty-eight responded. Findings and Conclusions The questionnaire consisted of thirteen questions; each question was analyzed and reported in percentages and given in Chapter IV. Each of the thirteen questions will be summarized and the conclusions will be presented in this chapter. Question 1 showed that 32 states or 67 percent do regulate the activities of private security agencies. Part B of Question 1 looked at the remaining sixteen states that didn't regulate private security. Six of those states or 37 percent were considering some type of regulation. Seven states or 44 percent were not consid- ering regulatory action. In Part C, the six states that 88 were considering regulations indicated that in general they were trying to establish minimum requirements for regulating private security agencies. Part D questioned the reason the seven states did not have any regulations. (Actually ten states were the remaining states left, how- ever, three states responded that the question was not applicable.) Three states, or 30 percent of the seven states, responded that legislation was pending. One state or 10 percent, indicated that there was no business for private security in that state. Two states, or 20 percent, indicated that there was no legislation for providing regulation of private security. One state, or 10 percent, responded that there were no funds avail- able to create any agency for private security regula- tions. The researcher concludes that Quesion 1 shows that more than half of the states in the United States are regulating private security agencies. From this study it shows 67 percent have definite regulations with respect to private security agencies. Six states, or 37 percent, are currently considering regulations and this is a very positive sign. Ideally speaking, a total national regu— lation of private security agencies is needed. From Question 1, it can be concluded that there are basic regulations of private security in almost 70 percent of the states. This is a positive start, yet the regulating 89 standards of the various states must improve in order to upgrade the private security profession. Considering the above, it can be concluded that although more than half of the states are regulating the activities of pri- vate security agencies, there is a great deal of variation in what the states require in the way of regulating pri- vate security agencies. Although regulating exists, there is very little consistency, and uniformity of regulating standards of the various states. Question 1 shows that some action has taken place; however, the field of pri- vate security has a great deal of work ahead. The second question asked if there was any train— ing required for private security guards. Thirty-one states, or 65 percent, responded that no requirements were needed in their particular state. Seventeen states, or 35 percent, responded that their particular states had some type of training required for security guards. According to the literature cited in Chapter II, this question shows very clearly that there is a great need for more training of private security guards. As reported earlier in Chapter I, numerous incidents have been caused by untrained private security personnel. There is In: wonder that negative incidents have plagued the private security business when only 35 percent of the U. S. states have established training programs. 90 The need is definitely there for more training of private security personnel. The third question asked how much training was required. Seventeen states, or 35 percent, responded to Question 3. The amount of training varied a great deal. The amounts ranged from the minimum of less than 8 hours to the maximum of 140 academy hours (see Table 3). There was a great deal of variation between those ranges. It was concluded from this question that there is a real need to establish a minimum requirement that can cover the essentials of private security needs. As long as there is such variation in training requirements, the private security field will lack professional stability in its training program development. The fourth question asked if the various states required educational qualifications. One state or 2 per- cent, responded there was the requirement of an eighth grade education. Five states, or 12 percent, required a high school diploma. Thirty-five states, or 73 percent, responded that they had no educational qualifications. Two states, or 5 percent, required educational require- ments are fulfilled by completion of their (the state's) special academy. The conclusion from this question is that there are no educational requirements in the majority of the U. 8. states for private security personnel. The 91 quality of private security agencies has suffered greatly because many of its employees have poor educational back— grounds. The fact that the majority of the states lack educational requirements may be the reason that many private security employees are merely looking for any job available. By not having any educational standards, it is rather difficult to have quality personnel. As reported in Chapter II, many simple facts are confusing for many security guards. The understanding of laws, ordinances, etc., reading materials and writing of reports can present quite a problem if the employee has no educational background. Many public law enforcement agencies are requiring a college degree for applicants.1 The screening process for many public police agencies does not even start until an applicant has met the qualifi- cation of a high school diploma. The majority of the private security sector does not establish minimum edu- cational requirements. It would seem from the analysis of Question 4 that the type of candidates currently attracted to private security have proven to be of lower educational backgrounds. Education is one of the key factors in establishing professional training development. 1Kenneth E. Christian, "A Comparison of the Behavior Styles of College Educated and Non-College Police Officers" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976). 92 Question 5 asks for the specific name of the regulatory agency. Two states, or 6 percent, regulate through the Attorney General's Office. Two states, or 6 percent, regulate through the Department of Commerce. Five states, or 16 percent, regulate through the Depart- ment of Public Safety. Seven states, or 22 percent, regulate through the Board of Private Detectives and Guards. One state, or 3 percent, regulate through the Department of Registration and Education. One state, or 3 percent, regulates through the Bureau of Consumer affairs. Eight states, or 25 percent, regulate through the State Police. One state, or 3 percent, regulates through the Department of Professional and Occupational Licensing. Two states, or 6 percent, regulates through the Department of State. One state regulates through the State Law Enforcement Division. One state, or 3 percent, regulates through the State Bureau of Investigation. In this study the researcher found that the name Department of Public Safety is the same as State Police. Considering the above, it can be concluded that the State Police regulates the majority of the private security agencies in the United States. The researcher found through a review of the literature that a law enforcement agency was ideal for serving as the regulatory agent. When a public law enforcement agent regulates private 93 security activities, the coordination is easier because of the accessto criminal background records, fingerprint- ing, firearms knowledge, and information of local and state laws. However, all of the agencies named in this question do regulate private security activities. It is very important that regulating be done by a professional division that is knowledgable of the problems faced by private security. Question 6 asked where training takes place for private security personnel. Twenty-four states, or 50 percent, responded to this question. Seven states, or 29 percent, trained at a college or university facility. Twelve states, or 38 percent, trained at public facilities. Five states, or 16 percent, used private facilities for training purposes. Some states utilized all three types of facilities named in this question. The researcher concluded that sufficienttraining facilities are neces- sary if candidates are able to learn the basic security training. Adequate training facilities are a necessity in order for the training to be given. This is especially important in the case of firearms training. The seventh question asked if regulations were provided at the state level or if local authorities regu- late or also grant authority. Twenty-four states, or 50 percent, regulated at the state level. Six states, or 94 13 percent, regulated at the local level. Two states, or 4 percent, regulated at both state and local levels. Sixteen states, or 33 percent, have no regulating of private security. In all forty-eight states, or 100 percent, responded to Question 7. One conclusion from Question 7 is that more than half of the states provide some type of regulation of private security activities. Where there are both state and local regulations it can be concluded that such regu— lations should be done in coordination. If local and state authorities do not coordinate and work harmoniously, the regulating will suffer. The researcher concludes, however, that the majority of the states regulate private security at the state level. In Question 8 it was asked whether private secur- ity personnel were granted any special authority beyond that of a private citizen. Twenty states, or 57 percent, responded that their particular state gave no special authority beyond that of a private citizen. Seven states, or 20 percent, responded that their state did give special authority to private security personnel. Eight states, or 23 percent, indicating QueStion 8 was not applicable. The majority of the regulatory states do not grant any authority to private security personnel. This question and its responses goes directly to the 95 concerns of Chapter II, in showing that although private security personnel have no authority different from that of any private citizen, many employees of private secur— ity do not know this simple fact. In the cases of where private security personnel are given special authority, it was for a specific place, area, etc. The states that granted special authority were very adament about spelling out the fact that private security personnel were not public law enforcement officials. Only seven states gave special authority, and in all seven cases, the authority was limited. Question 9 asked what the training was designed to accomplish for the regulatory agency. In one state, or 3 percent, training was designed to give security officers 30 hours of general law and arrest powers. One state, or 3 percent, the goal was to have 2 hours of training for powers of arrest, and 7 to 14 hours for firearms training. In. one state, or 3 percent, the goals were 8 hours for watchmen, 16 hours for security guards, and 40 hours for specialist; also included was the option foriflmesecurity agency, if desired, to have their personnel attend 136 hours of training on powers of arrest for in—house authority only. One state, or 3 percent, this goal was knowledge of state laws. One state, or 3 percent, training was to give security 96 officers power of arrest, search and seizure. One state, or 3 percent, indicated their training was for presonnel to "learn basics of security business." One state, or 3 percent, the goal was for screening of candi- dates. In another state, or 3 percent, the goal was "to protect the public from incompetence." One state, or 3 percent, the goal was to give a "comprehensive security training consisting of at least 25 hours of basic courses from certified training manual and actual certifi- cation." One state, or 3 percent, indicated their goal was firearms training only. One state, or 3 percent, indicated training was to "provide the working offices with minimum knowledge of legal arrest procedures and firearms training." One state, or 3 percent, reported training goals were familiarity with firearms and legal implications of possible use; range qualifications are also mandatory." One state, or 3 percent, responded "Develop minimum standards for security guards." Another state, or 3 percent, indicated training was "to make those in the private sector who use lethal weapons inci- dent to their employment more proficient in the handling of the weapon, and aware, when lethal force is warranted." One state, or 3 percent, responded that their training was designed to give private security personnel "some knowledge of state laws, first aid, and use of firearms." 97 In one state, or 3 percent, the goal was to teach private security personnel "safety." And still another state, or 3 percent, designed training to "provide unarmed or armed security guards with very general information con— sidered to be the very minimum necessary in order to perform as a security guard, eight hours pre~employment training and 32 hours on—the-job training." Seventeen states, or 50 percent, indicated that this question was not applicable. Fourteen of the 48 states responding to the questionnaire did not respond “to Question 9. In considering the above, it can clearly be seen how the states varied in their goals for training. In keeping with the literature review in Chapter II, the researcher concluded that there is a great need for establishing a minimum standard that will establish some acceptable general goals across the nation. Finally, it can be concluded from Question 9 that although the general areas are similar, the time allotments and actual hours differ greatly among the states. Question 10 asked if there were any physical limitations for candidates of private security. Forty- eight states responded. Five, or 10 percent, had some type of physical limitations and 25 states, or 52 percent, responded that this question was not applicable. Eighteen states, or 38 percent, had no physical limitations 98 requirements. The five states that had physical qualifi- cations were mainly concerned if candidates were in physical condition to operate firearms. There were very vague qualifications beyond the firearms handling issue for those five states. Considering the escalating fatali- ties linked to private security personnel and firearms, there is a great need to watchdog carefully the physical condition of candidates. The researcher found no pro- vision in any of the materials sent by the various states regarding physical limitations for (1) physical handi- cppers (deaf, crippled, or blind) and also no restric- tions regarding epilepsy, seizures, etc. The researcher has concluded that because of the wide spectrum of assign— ments of the private security field, physical condition should parallel that of public law enforcement or military standards. In Question 11, the states were asked whether or not any reviews or re-qualifications were given after private security personnel were licensed. Sixteen states, or 50 percent, required some type of review. Twelve states, or 38 percent, had no reviews of any type. Four states, or 12 percent, responded that Question 11 was not applicable. Thirty-two states responded. Once mini- mum standards are set, there is a need to check and make certain that those standards are kept in some type of 99 order. Of the regulating states, 50 percent required some type of review. This is a good sign in order to maintain the regulation standards of the particular state. How- ever, the entire number of states with regulations should review personnel to make certain that standards are main- tained and do not regress. The area of private security is very sensitive in terms of the various jobs secure throughout our communities. The main area of review for private security personnel should be firearms training. This is the one crucial area that training must be very stern. As reported in Chapters I and II, many negative incidents have involved private security personnel and firearms. Hopefully, one day private security will have comprehensive training programs. There is a great need for having a review and re-evaluation part of the compre- hensive training program for private security personnel. Question 12 asked what was the relationship between private security and public law enforcement. Forty-eight states responded. Two of the states, or 4 percent, responded that their relationship between public and private law enforcement was "private security act as a supplement to law enforcement with limitations on arrest and search powersJ' One state or 2 percent indicated that the relationship varies from city to city within the state. Another state, or 2 percent, responded that the 100 relation "appears O.K.," private security guards limited as to police powers. Three states, or 6 percent, responded that the relation was "not good." Two states or 4 percent, indicated the relationship was "unknown." One state, or-2 percent, reported that "many security guards in this state are off duty or retired peace offi- cers so relationships between the two are basically posi- tive. However, the most difficult problem we deal with is security guards who over estimate their authority." Another state or 2 percent, felt that the relation was "distant. The private sector is jealous of public officers. Public officers look down on security as very unprofessional (no training, few requirements.)" Four states, or 8 percent, simply state that the relation was "not real good." One state, or 2 percent, responded "in some locations, excellent and in other locations not so good." Another state, or 2 percent, indicated that the relationship was "limited." One state, or 2 percent, responded that the relation as "one is public the other is purely private." Another state, or 2 percent, responded as follows. "A member of the law enforcement community has been a member of the board for many years. Additionally, local law enforcement agencies are utilized as a source of information doing the back- ground investigation of license applicants. There is 101 generally, what appears to be a reasonable good level of cooperation in matters of mutual interest." One state, or 2 percent, responded "completely different organiza- tions." One state, or 2 percent, simply stated, "good." Two states (2 percent) classified the relationship as a "working relationship." Another state, or 2 percent, responded "only regulatory." Three states, or 6 percent, indicated there was a "mandatory relationship between public and private." Ten states, or 20 percent, indi— cated that there was "no relationship." Seven states, or 14 percent, indicated that their relationship was good based on cooperation between both the public and and private agencies. Three states responded that Question 12 was not applicable. Considering the above, it can be concluded that for the most part, the relationship in 13 states, or 27 percent,is fair. Thirteen states or 27 percent responded that they really didn't know. Another 19 states, 40 percent, felt the relationship was poor or bad. The material sent to the researcher indicated that there was a great deal of real distance between the two sectors. The public law enforcement agencies tend to feel superior to the private security business in general. The estab- lishment of bona fide training standards would be of great assistance in improving the image and respect of 102 private security. This seemed to be the general concensus of many law enforcement officials regarding private security agencies. The professional law enforcement and privates security personnel have quite a ways to go before they complement each other professionally. Question 13 asked if there were any restrictions on security guards. Twenty-two states, 46 percent, indi- cated there were restrictions on security guards. Seven- teen states, or 35 percent, responded that there were no restrictions on security guards. Nine states, or 19 per- cent, responded that Question 13 was not applicable. The researcher concluded that because of the many different assignments in the private security field, each employee should qualify for whatever that position may be. Giving blanket privileges to private guards is a very bad policy for private security. Restrictions are necessary for regulating firearms in particular. In Chapter II there were many examples of the damage a private guard can do when he/she doesn't understand their restrictions and limitations. The majority of public law enforcement agencies have some type of restrictions. Private security personnel have no restrictions are really not regulated if they can run and operate free of restrictions. It can be concluded that although half of the states have security guard restrictions, there is a great need for 103 the entire Unites States involvement in restricting and regulating the activities of private security guards. Additional Material Conclusion The two areas that were analyzed for content on the basis of their judgement of the two-judge panel were (1) firearms training and (2) powers of arrest. In these areas of firearms training, the study revealed that twelve states had some type of training. However, those twelve states differ so greatly that it was difficult to find similarities outside of the fact that the training pertained to firearms. This shows the need to establish some basic minimum training requirements for firearms for all the states. Training of 8 hours or less at one end of the firearms requirement and 30 hours of actual firearm range qualification, written examinations, etc., plus 120 more hours of academy training is quite a dif- ference in set requirements for firearms training. There is such a wide difference that in some of the twelve states, some require well-trained personnel and thus require very little training for private security person- nel. The final conclusion is that set mandatory fire— arms training requirements that are firm in pre—training selection, testing, etc., are needed. The firearms train- ing should parallel the requirement for public law 104 enforcement agencies. This is because firearms are very crucial in any discipline, whether it is public or private. The material that was reviewed regarding powers of arrest was very similar for the states that had train- ing on powers of arrest. All of the states took great steps to point that private security personnel were not public law enforcement officials. This fact, plus the very clear instruction of what private security could do and could not do as private security personnel, erased the confusion for private security personnel role in the criminal justice system today. The training materials sent to the researcher emphasized the importance of the preventive role of private security. It was very clear from each of the three states or percent that preventing crimes was private security's main purpose. The states that provided training or in—house arrest powers were very thorough and clear on what to do, and when to do it (pertaining to in-house arrest situations). However, in—house arrest authority was emphasized not to confuse that authority with police powers of public police. Unlike the wide-sprectrum of training in firearms, the powers of arrest reviewed by the researcher had stayed within the similar requirements. The main conclusion from this area is that power of arrest should be a mandatory 105 part of a comprehensive training program for private security personnel. Recommendations The following recommendations are suggested, based upon a review of the literature, the returned question- naires, and analysis of the additional materials which were submitted. 1. Every state which has or is planning to regu- late private security activities should operate through one agency only. 2. There should be some type of cooperation among the various states on setting similar standards for pri— vate security regulations. There should not be the great difference of standards of requirements, as seen in this study, between the states; standards. 3. There is a need for each state to regulate and enforce private security activities. The minimum training requirements and regulation standards should come from the state level. It is apparent that this is not the case currently. As revealed in this study, many states claimed they regulated private security activities. However, regulation begins and ends with merely collect— ing license fees for private security agencies. This study shows a need for each state to have similar regu— lating standards at the state level. have any type of firearms training. Therefore, there is a great need for strict regulations on the use of lethal/ firearms weapons by private security personnel. No state 5. This study in Chapter IV showed the extreme differences in what the various states requried in their individual regulations and standards. These differences show there is a need for the creation of an independent evaluative agency for reviewing training of private secur- ity personnel. This agency would "watchdog" every state with respect to the quality of training, contents of training, and make suggestions on proposed legislation 107 7. As revealed in this study, the various regu- lating states have many different standards on screening applicants for security positions. Some states have absolutely nothing in respect to pre-employment standards. In Chapter II, it is pointed out that some states have no restrictions on former felons. In order to establish some type of quality of personnel, there is a need for strict screening