Vocational training in the private security industry and allied professions

Feb 12, 2019 Letters

---

 

DEAR EDITOR,

I would like to bring clarity to a long outstanding and equally confusing topic, that of vocational training in the private security industry, and allied professions – namely the Joint Services and other agencies in that conceptual web. Having perused security training in several countries over the last twenty-five years, I will narrow my discussion to a mere few, for purposes of simplicity. In the laws of most countries, there is some piece of legislation or common law provision, for governing the local security industry.
In Guyana, it is the Watchman’s Act. Over the many years, security providers have been referring to their security operatives as Watchmen, Security Guards and Security Officers respectively, without realizing that there is a certain statutory training requirement, attached to each category, at least in theory. And which carries with each certain legal obligations. Poor understanding of the various categories of security personnel have over the years, exposed many local security contractors to untold litigation and misery.
For example, a Security Watchman need not be trained at all, since his role is to patrol, observe and report. Owning to the rudimentary nature of his employment he may not be literate, or actually know how to write reports or statements. However, once he continues to function within the specified limits of his engagement, he can never be accused of dereliction of duties, and hence expose his employers, if a company, to liability litigation.
Internationally, Security Guards on the other hand, have customarily received various degrees of training by way of security regulations, and the defunct National Guard Service of Guyana, stood prominently among them.
So even in the absence of an agreed upon, or statutory provision, most security guards receive from three to five days of induction training, often in accordance with standards set by the government, the Qualifications Authority or Accreditation Council, Industry Lead Bodies or Sector Education Training Authorities, as they are called in some jurisdictions.
Security training is generally delivered using the outcome-based, industry-specific modality, in most developed societies, and the Commonwealth; with Israel, the United States and Canada being notable exceptions, because they are on a different qualifications framework, given their educational civilizations.
Nonetheless, the latter countries still stand out favourably, when an international comparability analysis is carried out, as their curricula usually provide for the cultivation of certain specific core competencies, Critical Cross Field Outcomes (CCFO) and Exit Level Outcomes (ELO).
Most security providers these days fancy referring to their security personnel as Security Officers, however, only the government or a municipal authority, or organization sanctioned by either of them can determine how security officers ought to be trained in a particular jurisdiction.
Usually, security officers receive very detailed training, the departure from, or transgression thereof, results in serious consequences for the officer, Contract Company, and very often, the Client Company as well.
Then security training must be fit for purpose, this could only be achieved through the strict adherence of certain regimes, these are Accreditation, Equivalency and Articulation (AEA) and Quality Control (QC).
The training curricula or unit standard must have a definite period for review and all training must have a level descriptor which denotes its consumption audience, and provision for the Recognition of Prior Learning or Current Competencies – which has to do with the awarding of credit for past learning of any sort.
So while space does not allow for a comprehensive study of the subject at hand, a cursory view shows the complex nature of training in the security and allied sectors and seeks to explain the high degree of personnel error in these sectors, as is the case with unnecessary police killings, the not so recent death of a senior intelligence officer and his wife; the high accident rate for drivers in the sector and among emergency workers, such as fire fighters and ambulance drivers, and exceptionally poor investigative procedures by supposedly highly specialized agencies.
More significantly, a recent competency void almost resulted in the death of the newly-appointed Commissioner of Police, while in transit. The government’s lack of understanding of the private security industry, and its inability to properly police the sector has exposed the industry to the risk of domination by foreign security companies, who will enter the market under the pretext that they are here to fill the void for specialist security services; such as cash-in-transit risk management, bomb incident management, CCTV management and audits, security driving, crisis management, and intelligence-related services among others, and they do have a point.
Solution: review the current security regulations to provide for the introduction of a Security Industries Authority, and a Security Industries Council, security industry trade association; and professional associations, and compulsory training and licensing for various categories of workers in the local security industry.

Clairmont Featherstone

---

---