As a licensed security and safety practitioner for the past 27 years, I define my firm’s practice not by size or volume, but by core values and above all, service integrity. I entered the industry after a wonderful career in big city law enforcement and learned early on to follow my gut instincts, ask lots of questions, and take no relationship for granted. My first decade in business, like a baby’s first steps, were marked with unpredictable opportunities, growth, and awareness. Like most entrepreneurial ventures, there are the common missteps typically followed by a professional apology and the desire to get it right the next time. Along the way, you develop an intuitive awareness about the risks and rewards of running your own company and your obligations as a licensed professional.
While I can go on and on about my personal and professional journey, I will save that story for another time. For now, I’d like to focus on the risk, liability and rewards associated with contract security and why some of the largest most recognizable industry security providers are not always the best and brightest companies to partner with. No, I have no axe to grind with publicly traded security companies with gross sales in the billions of dollars, but at the end of the day, we are licensed security & safety professionals with an obligation to provide sound advice, valued services and above all keep clients safe!
The issue that I am most concerned about is how the size and unlimited financial resources of these global security companies have shaped and established current best practice standards for an entire industry. When a client’s tolerance to risk is determined by how deep their pockets are to litigate lawsuits, are clients really making safe decisions for their constituents and themselves? Are clients even aware of how these large security companies make critical business decisions associated with officer deployment, training, supervision and related security & safety considerations? Does a new client receive any level of education, empowerment and an assessment on existing risks within the community and at a specific job site?
Unfortunately, this problem is not limited to the large volume-based security companies. Too many small/mid-sized security companies are driven to increase billable hours, forsaking the safety of their officers and clients to curry the recognition of these global security giants with dreams of self-enrichment and acquisition. While no one should be denied access to these opportunities, at what cost does the industry and our constituents pay for this “ignorance is bliss attitude”?
During a recent homicide of a young man at a local shopping mall, a surviving family member asked the question, “how does an 18-year-old kid get gunned down in plain sight, under CCTV camera surveillance, while a security officer in close proximity and several other officers within radio reach, stood idly?”. This child’s mother was no security expert, but her question does suggest that someone failed to do their job.
According to law enforcement sources, and any reasonable person, this mall would be considered an at-risk environment with an excess of 200 complaints per year and a recent shooting just weeks before this homicide occurred.
While I am not a privileged party to the lawsuits filed against the mall owner and/or security company, my discovery material is limited to many professional assumptions, gut instinct and a common pattern and practice I’ve observed associated with volume-driven security providers. Yes, after close to 40 combined years in the safety business, I will risk the dismissal of my assessment as nothing more than Monday morning quarterback syndrome to seek out the truth. What is clear by these crime stats is there appears to be sufficient and reasonable notice to all parties associated with operating this mall that there were large gaps in their security program, and they needed to take a deeper look at how they were managing your safety.
To begin with, large guard service contracts have little to do with security and safety, crime stats or murder and mayhem. For the business owner seeking to reduce their general liability exposure, the assumption is, hiring security guard(s) will reduce and/or mitigate the risks associated with managing everyday people and occurrences. I see this simply as a false sense of security for both ownership and their constituents. For most business enterprises, guard services are the inconvenient cost of doing business and rank low on the operational food chain. With the bar already set low and few expectations, guards are placed by these companies with little more than new uniforms, and little else. To make matters worse, guards are being paid minimum wage, or slightly above, and have these jobs as a result of low margin bid contracts. They are assigned to job sites with no particular expertise and put in unfamiliar environments with little training, supervision, and any prior experience. You see these same officers at air and sea terminals, government buildings and other high traffic at risk environments. The next time that officer interacts with his employer will most likely be when he/she turns in their uniforms and picks up their last check.
We live in a capitalistic society where opportunities are often limited to the wealthy and qualifications are assessed by the size of the enterprise, where a product or service is determined to have little value until it can be exploited or commoditized. With security companies cannibalizing each other for any opportunity to secure new business or waiting for the next catastrophic event to inflate fear, industry credibility is at an all-time low with clients unwilling to invest in better managed security companies and solutions.
Security providers must be held to a higher standard and have an intrinsic responsibility to their clients that transcend this dangerous value system we have become accustomed to. Affirmed by many courts and juries, civil and criminal across the country, offering for sale and compensation a false sense of security and safety is tantamount to being an accessory to the crime or co-conspirator of sorts. Security companies that practice predatory contract bidding have not only damaged the integrity of an industry, but put people’s lives at risk. Before signing any contract, security professionals have an enormous obligation and responsibility to prospective clients to educate, empower and illuminate them on the risks and rewards of any security solution they are offering.
Before you shop around for a security company or sign off on your next security contract, ask yourself what are the risks and rewards of having a uniform security officer at your door who is underpaid, untrained and unsupervised? Question the security providers you are vetting about their past litigation history for failing to adequately address any of the above and how they assess risk before they decide who shows up in uniform at your property. As a brand, an organization can suffer irreparable damages when it doesn’t do the hard work. With unfiltered access to social media (the new court of public opinion) negative reviews are certain to accelerate a company’s quick demise, and at the least, build brand distrust. Bottom line, accepting a company’s expertise at face value or their ability to protect human life based on their stock value, size, or some other carefully crafted marketing material, is a recipe for failure.
As illustrated by this mall shooting and other similar incidents across the country, there are no second chances for victims of violent crimes. Organizations will no longer be able to hide behind harmless and indemnification clauses or pass along ownership responsibilities to third party contractors. With access to social media the curtain has been pulled back on these companies & practices, and the court of public opinion is how juries will decide these wrongful death cases and your company’s future.
