Discuss the extent of security’s growth in this country. What are some of the reasons for professionalization of the field of private security? There are several reasons for the growth and professionalism of private security in this country. The main reason is the need for an increase in security due to the public funding for police agencies disappearing, requiring the public and corporations to depend more on private security. Another reason is the increase of media attention to violent events like terrorism and active shooter incidents, as well as the need for executive protection. As city and state governments try to cope with budget deficits and failing support from the public, people have turned to security for their safety needs.
…show more content…
The professionalism of security is a relatively new focus, which is required for new emerging threats to people’s property and businesses. With more pressure on organizations to provide security, to provide for a safe environment to help business, but also through potential legal pushback, the growth and professionalism of the field seems to be only increasing in the future.
How does the level of training and regulation for security personnel compare with that of the police? While security is increasingly put into similar situations as police forces, the amount of training required for police compared to security is radically different. Security is held to lower standards from their original appointment through continuing education than police. Corporations using security are continually learning the importance of utilizing quality security who are required by their employers to be trained throughout their appointment period with the …show more content…
The Smithsonian Institute report stated, “The major advantage of contract staff is that replacing unfit employees is easier– no union grievance procedure and contract security can provide an ease of management and ready replacement of troubled employees.” While reduced or increased staffing can be difficult to manipulate, with having to lay off officers and potentially re-hire them when work increased, having an outside organization handle these staffing situations takes pressure off human resources and talent acquisition operations. Fischer’s text states, “In-house forces rarely have this flexibility in staffing. If they have extra people available for emergency use, such staff are an unnecessary expense when they are idle. Similarly if there were a temporary decrease in the need for officers, it would be hardly efficient to dismiss extra people only to rehire additional officers a short time later when the situation changed
The professionalism of security is a relatively new focus, which is required for new emerging threats to people’s property and businesses. With more pressure on organizations to provide security, to provide for a safe environment to help business, but also through potential legal pushback, the growth and professionalism of the field seems to be only increasing in the future.
How does the level of training and regulation for security personnel compare with that of the police? While security is increasingly put into similar situations as police forces, the amount of training required for police compared to security is radically different. Security is held to lower standards from their original appointment through continuing education than police. Corporations using security are continually learning the importance of utilizing quality security who are required by their employers to be trained throughout their appointment period with the …show more content…
The Smithsonian Institute report stated, “The major advantage of contract staff is that replacing unfit employees is easier– no union grievance procedure and contract security can provide an ease of management and ready replacement of troubled employees.” While reduced or increased staffing can be difficult to manipulate, with having to lay off officers and potentially re-hire them when work increased, having an outside organization handle these staffing situations takes pressure off human resources and talent acquisition operations. Fischer’s text states, “In-house forces rarely have this flexibility in staffing. If they have extra people available for emergency use, such staff are an unnecessary expense when they are idle. Similarly if there were a temporary decrease in the need for officers, it would be hardly efficient to dismiss extra people only to rehire additional officers a short time later when the situation changed