The Growth of Private Security

The growth of private security has been well documented in two reports referred to as the Hallcrest Reports. Hallcrest I (Cunningham & Taylor, 1985) and Hallcrest II (Cunningham, Strauchs & Van Meter, 1990) both noted the tremendous growth in private security and revealed that there were three times as many private security professionals as there were public police.

Figure 2.1 Private security v.s. public police

This growth has continued. In fact, the Department of Labor estimates that by 2012, there will be more private security guards in America than high school teachers. Taking note of this dramatic figure, economists have suggested that "roughly one in four in the United States economy is now engaged in guard labor -- providing security for people and property and imposing work discipline" (Bowles & Jayadev, 2007, p. 1). Notably, from 1890 to 2002, the guard labor force went from being 6 percent to 26 percent of the overall labor force (see Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2 Increase of guard labor force as a percentage of the labor force

Observers of this trend argue that the increase has very little to do with rising expenditures for homeland security, but more to do with America's dependence on formal or official entities to handle order maintenance (Bowles & Jayadev, 2007). Unlike the United States, other countries rely less on the police and security guards; therefore, they have much smaller guard workforces. In the end, whatever the reason for the growth, the private security industry has become rather formidable and, because of quality control issues, has garnered attention from the public and state legislatures around the country.

Concerns regarding quality control have led to two significant developments. First, there has been an attempt within the industry to professionalize security workers. To do so, organizations such as the American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS) (link) have created training programs for security professionals to enhance their skills in various areas of the professions. Also, various certifications, such as the Certified Protection Professional (CPP), have resulted in an increased focus on the standardization of knowledge for those persons who work in the security industry. Second, outside observers have also taken on the issue of ensuring quality in the security industry (click to see the requirements for CPPs). This has come in the form of state regulation of private security personnel, especially security guards. There is, however, no national standard related to minimum requirements for security personnel. Each employer follows the state guidelines along with their own on-the-job training. In most instances, on-the-job training tends to work because there is a preference in the industry for those with military backgrounds and/or prior experience as a police officer. The emphasis on hiring former military or municipal police has largely been found either in those positions requiring weapons training or for management level positions in which their specialized training in investi gations and other facets of police work is viewed as a big plus.

There has been a downside to this hiring practice, though. In short, the problem that develops with hiring former military and security personnel is one of disparate approaches between how the private and public policing institutions operate. As outlined in Table 2.1 (see below), the typology categorizes the two distinct types of security personnel. As you can see, the security guards who fit the "crime fighter" type, alligning in some ways with the policing profession, are less satisfied with their jobs than those who fall into the "guard" type.

Table 2.1: The Rank And File Security Groups

Overall, private security professionals tend to provide a great service to corporations and citizens. And, as with the public sector, they have their fair share of problems. Even so, it is incumbent on the numerous private security corporations to ensue they hire the most qualified employees to meet the needs of society.