A Statutory Analysis of State Regulation of Security Guard Training Requirements

Abstract

Security guards outnumber police by almost three to one, and they perform many of the same functions as police officers and many even carry a firearm, but to what extent do states regulate the private security industry? Prior research has examined state statutes regulating security guard hiring requirements; this article builds on this research by examining state statutes regulating security guard training requirements. This article compares the change in state regulation of security guard training since 1999. We are interested in determining what threshold requirements the states have seen fit to establish for training in the security industry and whether these threshold requirements provide adequate protection for the public.

Keywords

security guard security officer private security statute training

Introduction

In America, the private security industry has grown to an immense size. Currently, private security guards outnumber public police guards by an almost three-to-one ratio (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015d; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2014). This tremendous growth has resulted in a large body of private citizens wielding some of the coercive power (and weapons) of the police. While security guards enjoy some of the same law enforcement powers granted to the police, including the authority to detain and search, the majority of courts have held that security guards are not bound by the same legal and procedural requirements as the police (Bilek, Klotter, & Federal, 1982; Chaiken & Chaiken, 1987; Shearing & Stenning, 1983). Many scholars have concerns about ceding powers traditionally restricted to the police to private entities (Rushin, 2012; Shearing & Stenning, 1983; Sklansky, 1999). State legislatures share this concern, and many states have enacted statutes to regulate the operations of the private security industry (Meehan, 2015).

In a prior article, we examined state statutes related to the hiring of private security guards (Klein & Hemmens, 2016), and we found that states have recently enacted a vast amount of new regulations concerning the hiring of security guards. In this article, we examine state statutes related to the training of private security guards and determine how these statutes have changed since 1999. The provisions of all 50 states are compared and evaluated. Our focus is on state regulations regarding the training of security guards. We exclude from examination local ordinances regulating security guards as our focus is on a state-level comparison. We are interested in determining what threshold requirements the states have seen fit to establish for training security guards, and whether these threshold requirements provide adequate protection for the public. To further contextualize our findings, we also compare our results concerning the training of security guards with the commonly mandated training of public police officers.

The History of Private Security

Private police have existed for hundreds of years. Indeed, public police forces are a comparatively recent development, originating in Europe during the 19th century (Ricks, Tillet, & VanMeter, 1988). Prior to the development of a public police force, law enforcement activities, including investigation, pursuit, and apprehension, were conducted by private citizens. When the Anglo-Saxons settled in England, they implemented a compulsory system of communal responsibility for law enforcement and community protection (Peel, 1971). Families were organized into groups and overseen by the “shire reeve,” an ancestor of our modern day “sheriff.” Around the year 1200, the night watchman and “hue and cry” system developed. Under this system, if a felony was committed, every adult male member of the community, upon request, was required to help the sheriff pursue and apprehend the fleeing felon (Peel, 1971).

Americans have historically utilized private security for several reasons. Before the rise of professional policing in the early 20th century, businesses often turned to private security and private detective agencies for investigative, policing, and protection services. However, the use of private security and policing firms became tainted as some agencies were used for activities such as “strike busting” (Bilek et al., 1982; Joh, 2006; Maahs & Hemmens, 1998; Peel, 1971; Sklansky, 1999). Despite this unfortunate association, private security continued to grow as crime rates rose and industry expanded.

The number of private security agencies grew steadily until the 1960s, when they began to expand at a tremendous rate, fueled by societal crisis including civil rights demonstrations, protests against the Vietnam War, and an increase in both juvenile and adult crime (Bilek et al., 1982). By 1975, there were almost twice as many private security personnel as public police officers (National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, 1976). By 1975, the number of private security personnel exceeded public law enforcement by almost two to one (National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, 1976), and private security guards today outnumber the public police by a ratio of 3:1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015d; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2014).

As private security began to grow at a phenomenal rate, state legislatures began to enact statutes regulating the industry. The result was that by 1975 at least 38 states had some form of legislation controlling private security agencies. Review of these statutes indicated there was a tremendous diversity in the scope of coverage among the jurisdictions (National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, 1976). Studies from this period are unanimous in calling for increased statutory regulation and state oversight of private security, as well as a nationalization of security industry standards and practices (Buikema & Horvath, 1984; Cunningham & Taylor, 1985; National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, 1976; Newby, 1981).

Statutory Regulations

The private security industry today is regulated in some manner in nearly every state (Meehan, 2015; Rushin, 2012), but these regulations vary in nature, content, and detail. The state regulation of the private security industry gained impetus following several early studies, which found that the state regulations were often lacking effective mechanisms for oversight and control (Buikema & Horvath, 1984; Cunningham & Taylor, 1985; National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, 1976; Newby, 1981), and states responded by increasing statutory regulations to regulate many aspects of the private security industry (Maahs & Hemmens, 1998; Klein & Hemmens, 2016). The increase in regulations continues until this day, and the private security industry itself has responded favorably to this increase in regulation.

Traditionally, the American public has viewed the private security industry with suspicion due to the industry’s association with union busting in the early part of the 20th century as well as its reputation as an industry with relatively low standards for employment (Joh, 2006; Maahs & Hemmens, 1998; Peel, 1971; Sklansky, 1999). In an effort to counter this distrust, the private security industry has taken steps to legitimize itself. An increase in governmental regulation represents one method that the security industry has used to effect this legitimization. Private security managers and executives view an increase in statutory regulation as a way to increase the professionalism of the industry, weed out unprofessional firms, and increase public trust (Meehan, 2015; Thumala, Goold, & Loader, 2011). Pressure from the security industry, the public, and academia has resulted in an increase in statutory regulations, but precisely what these regulations require is unclear and understudied.

Hiring Regulations

We subdivide the statutory regulation of private security personnel into two categories: (a) hiring regulations and (b) training regulations. Our prior article examined hiring regulations; in this article we turn our attention to training regulations. Our analysis of hiring regulations demonstrated that the states have steadily increased statutory regulations relating to the hiring and licensing of line-staff security guards, which make up the bulk of the private security industry (Klein & Hemmens, 2016). However, these regulations still allow for the hiring of uneducated and low-skilled workers. Security guards often make salaries that are comparable to janitors, factory workers, and other low-skilled occupations (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015b), and the private security industry as a whole remains classified as a “low-skilled” occupation (David, Katz, & Kearney, 2006). Most likely, this stems from the placement of the private security industry in the market economy.

The private security industry must market an affordable product while meeting the demands of the consumer (White & Gill, 2013), and statutory regulations that prevent the hiring of unskilled and less-educated workers would significantly increase the price of the security industry’s product as individuals with more education routinely garner higher salaries (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015a, 2015c). We surmised that statutory regulations concerning the hiring of private security guards are constructed in a manner to allow for the continued hiring of relatively unskilled workers, which allows the security industry to provide an affordable product. However, it is possible that the security industry could make up for these occupational deficits by instituting extensive training programs for their security guards.

Training Regulations

The public views the coercive powers of the security industry with suspicion, and citizens often view the security guards in a negative manner. The public often characterizes the security guard as untrained and ill-prepared caricatures of the public police (Cunningham & Taylor, 1985; Mulone, 2013; Shearing & Stenning, 1983). The idea that security guards are untrained is also professed by security industry leaders who routinely call for more training to further improve and legitimize the private security industry (Cobbina, Nalla, & Bender, 2013; Thumala et al., 2011). Private security guards have the potential for abuses of power, and when this is coupled with the relatively low educational standards to enter into the occupation, it is logical to see why both the public and security professionals have ambivalent feelings about the legitimacy of the security industry.

However, in-depth and rigorous training programs for newly hired, line-staff security guards could offset the low educational standards contained within the hiring and licensing statutes (Thumala et al., 2011). Security firms could theoretically train their officers in either a classroom or academy setting, and this training could impart the knowledge, skills, and critical thinking abilities necessary to wield the coercive power of a private police or security agency. One possible way to ensure that firms are completing this sort of training is to statutorily mandate a certain amount of training, whether by hours or by subjects, that officers must complete before being licensed to work in the field (Maahs, Hemmens, Scarborough, & Collins, 1999). These statutory mandates are currently constructed in one of two possible ways. First, legislatures could require private security firms to carry out a mandated curriculum, which would push the responsibility of training onto the firms themselves. Second, the statutes could mandate that states certify or construct independent training academies to fulfill all statutory obligations.

Maahs et al. (1999) conducted a statutory analysis of the state regulation of the training of unarmed and armed security guards. These scholars found that only 16 (32%) states had any regulations for the training of unarmed security guards, and just 22 (44%) states had any regulations for the training of armed security guards. The authors expressed concern about the lack of required training for security guards in general and were particularly alarmed by the lack of training for armed security guards. However, the authors ended on a hopeful note, stating their belief that the regulation of security guard training would increase in the coming years. This article seeks to determine if this hypothesis has come true.

Prior Research

Our current article seeks to update the work of Maahs et al. (1999) and determine whether the authors were correct in surmising that the statutory regulation of security guard training would continue to grow. In our prior article, we found that the statutory regulation of the hiring and licensing of security guards has shown dramatic growth since 1999 (Klein & Hemmens, 2016), and we now seek to determine if these trends appear in the statutory regulation regarding training. Since 1999, other scholars have addressed the regulation of security guard training, but these other studies are either international in nature or do not conduct in-depth statutory analyses. For example, Rushin (2012) conducted a statutory analysis that examined the regulations concerning hiring, training, operations, and management, but the author failed to differentiate between these specific categories. Combining these categories hides changes within each category. Furthermore, Meehan (2015) analyzed the economic impact of both statutory and administrative regulations in the private security industry, but the author did not provide any details of these regulations.

The topic has also been addressed in an international perspective, but these studies only mention the statutory regulations of security guard training in the United States as an aside. Two studies utilized interviews with security guards in the United Kingdom (Button, 2007) and Canada (Manzo, 2009). The authors found that security guards often reported varied perceptions of the legitimacy of their training, but these authors only mentioned the regulation of training in the United States when discussing the relative lack of training of officers in a global, comparative perspective. Button (2007) did briefly examine the statutory training regulations of American states. The author found them to be severely deficient when compared with most European countries, which sometimes require 120 hr of classroom training (Van Steden, 2007). While citing regulatory deficiencies, these authors failed to elucidate the exact nature of the statutory regulation of security guard training in the United States.

Nalla and Crichlow (2014) provided the most relevant piece of research for the current study. The authors purport to provide an update of Maahs et al. (1999), but Nalla and Crichlow’s work suffers from several methodological issues. The authors failed to provide a clear methodology, combine statutes that regulate security managers and line officers, and comingle data sources. When explaining their methodology, the authors state, “Data for 2010 were obtained from original statutes published online and telephone calls to security guard licensing organizations” (p. 14). The authors fail to elucidate which online databases supplied their statutes, and they also fail to list which licensing agencies they contacted. Finally, the authors utilize city data to define the state-level statutory regulations for several jurisdictions. For example, the officers utilize the regulations for St. Louis, Missouri to define the regulations for the entire state of Missouri. Nalla and Crichlow’s research provides some interesting findings, but the differences in methodology may explain the differences in our findings, which may be more accurate, focused, and relevant and also update all of the categories featured in the original work by Maahs et al. (1999).

Method

We utilized a two-step methodology to determine the current state of statutory regulations concerning the training of both unarmed and armed security guards. First, using the LexisNexis legal database, we conducted a keyword search in the statutes of each state. To ensure that we found all applicable statutes, we used the following keywords: “Security Guard,” “Security Officer,” “Private Security,” and other variations of these terms.

Second, we then conducted an Internet search of each state’s government website for the applicable governing agency for private security firms. We then used these websites to find all applicable administrative regulations concerning the training of private security guards. We combined the data obtained from the 50 state statutes and the state administrative websites to create a comprehensive database regarding security guard regulation.

We then bifurcated these results into two categories: “Unarmed” and “Armed” and compared these results with the data from the 1999 study. Our methodology seeks to replicate the methodology of Maahs et al. (1999), which allows for a comparison of findings. However, our presentation of the results slightly differs to facilitate a comparison of findings. We provide an overview and summary of our results in the next section.

Results

Unarmed Security Guard Training

Tables 1 and 2 present the results for the statutory analysis of the training regulations for unarmed security guards. The results are split into two tables. Table 1 presents statutory regulations concerning requirements for training programs. These regulations concern such procedural necessities as certification, program mandates, and specified time requirements for training. The category of “Mandated Program” refers to statutory regulations that specify some sort of particularized curriculum or program for the training of unarmed security guards. “Teacher Certified” refers to statutes that require trainers to be certified by the state. “Classroom Training” refers to statutorily required pre-assignment classroom training, and this category is delineated by a numerical classification that refers to the amount of hours required. “Written Exam” refers to a regulation that requires a potential guard to pass a written exam to successfully complete training. “Post-Assignment” refers to training that must be completed “on-the-job” or after assuming a security position, and “Continuing Education” refers to training that is either required yearly or at the renewal of a license. These last two categories also feature a numerical classification that refers to the amount of hours necessary to complete this training.

Table 1.

Unarmed Security Guard Training Program Requirements.

	Mandated program	Teacher certified	Classroom training	Written exam	Post-assignment	Continuing education
Alabama	X	X	4	X	4	8
Alaska	X		8		40
Arizona	X		8			8
Arkansas	X	X	8
California	X	X	8		32	8
Connecticut	X	X	8
Delaware	X	X	16	X
Florida	X	X	40	X
Georgia	X		24
Hawaii	X		8			4
Illinois	X	X	20
Iowa						12
Louisiana	X	X	8	X
Minnesota	X	X	12			6
Montana	0
New Jersey	X	X	24			8
New Mexico	X	X	8
New York	X	X	8		16	8
N. Carolina	X	X	16
N. Dakota		X	12
Oklahoma	X	X	20	X	20	8
Oregon		X	14	X		8
S. Carolina	X	X	4	X
Tennessee	X	X	4
Texas	X	X	30	X
Utah	X	X	24	X
Vermont	X	X	40	X
Virginia	X	X	18	X
Washington	X	X	8	X	8	4
West Virginia	0

Note. The following states (n = 21) feature no statutory requirements for Unarmed Security Guard training: Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. States in Bold have instituted new statutory requirements since 1999. A Bold entry represents a new requirement for 2016. X indicates the existence of a statutory provision regulating this aspect of security guard training.

Table 2.

Unarmed Security Guard Curriculum Requirements.

	Role/duties	Law/liability	Patrol/police	Report writing	Ethics	Terrorism/homeland security	Defensive tactics	Technology
Alabama	X	X	X		X	X		X
Alaska	X	X	X
Arizona	X	X	X		X	X
Arkansas	X	X		X
California	X	X		X	X	X	X
Connecticut	X	X
Delaware		X	X	X		X
Florida		X	X		X
Georgia	X	X	X			X		X
Hawaii		X	X		X	X
Illinois		X	X		X	X	X
Iowa		X ^a
Louisiana	X	X		X
Minnesota	X	X	X		X			X
New Jersey			X		X	X	X
New Mexico	X	X	X
New York
N. Carolina	X	X	X	X	X			X
N. Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma		X	X	X
Oregon	0	0	0	0
S. Carolina		X
Tennessee	X	X	X
Texas		X		X
Utah	X	X	X	X	X
Vermont	X	X	X	X	X			X
Virginia	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Washington	X	X	X	X			X

Note. The following states (n = 24) feature no statutory specifics for the curriculum for training Unarmed Security Guards: Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. States in Bold have instituted new statutory requirements since 1999. A Bold entry represents a new requirement for 2016. X indicates the existence of a statutory provision regulating this aspect of security guard training.

Required only during continuing education.

Each category in Table 1 shows substantial increases in regulations as compared with the data from 1999. The majority of states (29, or 58%) now statutorily require some sort of training for unarmed security guards. Furthermore, 13 (+26%) additional states, which did not have any statutory requirement for training in 1999, have instituted statutory requirements regarding training. Twelve (+24%) states have implemented mandated programs since 1999, while two (4%) states no longer feature this requirement. Twenty-five (50%) states now feature this requirement. Relatedly, 13 (26%) new states now require a security guard trainer to be state certified. Twenty-three (46%) states now feature this requirement.

Twenty-three (+46%) states have either increased the hours required for classroom training or have instituted new statutory minimums for classroom time, and a total of 27 (54%) states now mandate a minimum or specific number of hours of classroom training. These states require an average of M = 14.89 hr of classroom training. Nine (+18%) new states now require a written examination to successfully complete training. Twelve (24%) states now require a written examination. Five (+10%) new states now require on-the-job or post-assignment training. Six (12%) states now require post-assignment training, and these states require an average of M = 20 hr of this type of training. Finally, 10 (+20%) states now require continuing education either annually, biannually, or a renewal of licensure. Eleven (22%) states now require continuing education, and these states require an average of M = 7.45 hr of this type of training.

These results show that states have increased their training requirements for unarmed security guards since 1999, and Table 2 features a description of what different types of training states statutorily require in their security guard training curriculums. The category of “Role/Duties” refers to any class concerning the statutorily prescribed roles, duties, or organizational mandate of security guards. These classes contain information relating to the traditional occupational role of unarmed security guards. “Law/Liability” refers to classes featuring instruction concerning the legal aspects of the security industry. These classes feature topics related to use of force, law of arrest and seizure, and civil and criminal liability. “Patrol/Policing” refers to classes containing tactics related to law enforcement, privatized patrol, emergency response procedures, and loss prevention. “Report Writing” refers to classes featuring instruction on how to write incident reports. “Ethics” refers to classes specifically designed to instruct potential officers in the various ethical issues surrounding the security industry. “Terrorism/Homeland Security” refers to classes designed to train security guards in the vagaries of domestic and international terrorism as well as other homeland security issues. The category of “Defensive Tactics” refers to any class that features instruction in officer safety, defensive tactics, or arrest and control tactics. Finally, the category of “Technology” refers to classes that feature instruction in the various sorts of technology commonly used by security guards.

Table 2 illustrates that states have instituted many new regulations concerning the training curriculum for unarmed security guards. Twenty-three (+46%) states, which did not have any curriculum requirements in 1999, now feature statutorily mandated training curriculums. Only one state (−2%) has removed the curriculum requirement since 1999. Twenty-six (52%) states now feature a specifically mandated curriculum. Fourteen (+28%) new states now require that recruits be trained in the role and duties of security guards. Sixteen (32%) states now require this sort of training. Eighteen (+36%) new states now require a curriculum that contains training in law and liability. Twenty-four (48%) states now feature this requirement. Fifteen (+30%) new states now require training in patrol and policing tactics. Eighteen (36%) states now feature this requirement. Nine (+18%) new states now require a curriculum to contain instruction in report writing. Twelve (24%) states now feature this requirement. Nine (+18%) new states now require training in ethics. Twelve (24%) states now feature this requirement. Eight (+16%) new states now require a curriculum to contain training in terrorism and homeland security. Nine (18%) states now feature this requirement. Only five (+10%) states now require training in defensive tactics or security technology.

These results show that states have significantly increased the statutory requirements for the training of unarmed security guards. Thirteen (+26%) states moved from having no training requirements to implementing new statutory regulations. While this increase is impressive, the number of states implementing new statutory curriculum requirements is even larger. Twenty-three (+46%) states moved from having no specified curriculums to statutorily requiring a specified curriculum.

However, these gains still illustrate several shortcomings. First, 21 (42%) states feature no statutory requirements for the training of unarmed security guards. Second, 24 (48%) states do not define any sort of curriculum for officer training programs. The discussion section features an analysis of these increases and deficits, but first we examine the results from the statutory analysis concerning the training of armed security guards.

Armed Security Guard Training

Tables 3 and 4 present the results of the analysis concerning the statutory regulation of the training of armed security guards. These results are divided into two tables. Table 3 presents the program requirements for armed security guard training, and Table 4 presents the specific curriculum requirements for armed security guard training. The statutes of every state require all the training outlined in these tables to be completed after or in addition to the unarmed training described in Tables 1 and 2. Therefore, the armed training hours outlined in this section will be added to the unarmed training hours described in the last section.

Table 3.

Armed Security Guard Training Program Requirements.

	Mandated program	Teacher certified	Classroom training	Written exam	Range test	Continuing education
Alabama	X ^a	X	4	X	X	2
Alaska		X	8
Arizona		X	16			8
Arkansas		X	16
California	X	X	12	X	X
Connecticut		X	8		X
Delaware		X	40		X
Florida	X	X	28	X	X
Georgia	X		7		X
Hawaii	X ^a
Illinois	X		20		X
Iowa	X ^a
Louisiana	X	X			X
Maine	X ^a
Massachusetts	X ^a
Minnesota	X	X			X
Montana	X		0	X	X
Nevada	X				X
N. Hampshire	X	X	4		X
New Mexico	X		16		X
New York	X^a		47	X		8
N. Carolina	X		20	X
N. Dakota	X ^a
Ohio	X		20		X
Oklahoma	X	X	32	X	X
Oregon	X	X	24	X	X
Pennsylvania	X^a
S. Carolina	X				X
Tennessee	X	X	8		X
Texas	X	X	15		X	6
Utah	X	X	16	X	X	16
Vermont	X		16		X	6
Virginia	X	X	24	X	X
Washington	X^a
West Virginia	0
Wisconsin	X		36		X

Note. The following states (n = 14) feature no statutory requirements for Armed Security Guard training: Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming. States in Bold have instituted new statutory requirements since 1999. A Bold entry represents a new requirement for 2016. X indicates the existence of a statutory provision regulating this aspect of security guard training.

These states require a certification from an organization outside of the security industry (National Rifle Association, Criminal Justice Certification, State Police, etc.).

Table 4.

Armed Security Guard Curriculum Requirements.

	Role/duties	Law/liability	Use of force	Safety	Operations	Alternatives to deadly force	Defensive tactics	Technology
Arizona			X
Arkansas		X	X
California			X	X	0			0
Florida		X			X			X
Georgia		X			X		X
Illinois			X		X
Louisiana		X	X	X	X		X	X
Minnesota			X		X	X		X
Montana		X	X		X		X
Nevada		X	X	X	X
New Hampshire		X	X		X
New Mexico		X		X	X
N. Carolina	X	X		X	X		X
Oklahoma		X			X
S. Carolina		X		X	X
Tennessee		X		X	X
Texas	X	X		X	X	X		X
Utah		X		X	X		X
Vermont		X		X	X
Virginia		X	X	X	X		X
Wisconsin		X	X

Note. The following states (n = 29) feature no statutory specifics for the curriculum for training Armed Security Guards: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. States in Bold have instituted new statutory requirements since 1999. A Bold entry represents a new requirement for 2016. X indicates the existence of a statutory provision regulating this aspect of security guard training.

Table 3 presents the results for the procedural requirements for armed security guard training programs. Thirteen (+26%) new states, which did not feature any statutory regulation in 1999, now require a specific training program for armed security guards, while one state (−2%) no longer has such a requirement. Thirty-six (72%) states now feature training requirements for armed security guards. The categories in this table mirror the regulations for unarmed security guards contained in Table 1, but this table does contain one new category: “Range Training” refers to statutorily mandated firearm training completed at a shooting range with a live fire proficiency test.

Thirteen (+26%) new states now feature a mandated program for armed security guards, and one (−2%) state no longer features this requirement. Twenty-nine (58%) states now mandate a program for the training of armed security guards. However, nine (18%) of these states do not mandate any specific curriculum beyond what is required through another type of licensure such as a concealed carry permit, criminal justice certification, or National Rifle Association (NRA) certification. Eleven (+22%) new states now require the trainers of armed security guards to be certified. Seventeen (34%) states now feature this type of regulation.

Fifteen (+30%) states have either instituted new hourly requirements or increased their hourly requirements for classroom training, while one (−2%) state no longer has an hourly requirement for classroom training. Twenty-two (44%) states now mandate a specific amount of hours for classroom training, and these states mandate an average of M = 17.3 hr of training. Four (+8%) new states now require the successful completion of a written exam for licensure. Ten (20%) states now feature this requirement. Thirteen (+26%) new states now require range training and qualification. Twenty-two (44%) states now require range training. Five (+10%) new states now require some form of continuing education. Six (12%) states now feature this requirement, and these states mandate an average of M = 7.8 hr of training.

Table 4 contains the curriculum requirements for armed security guard training programs. Once again, these curriculum requirements are for additional training that armed security guards must complete after finishing the requirements for unarmed security guard (contained in Table 2, above). Also, these skills can be imparted either in the classroom or on the firing range. The category of “Role/Duties” refers to a class detailing the prescribed occupational mandate for an armed security guard. “Law/Liability” involves coursework concerning the legal necessities and liabilities surrounding armed occupational activities. “Use of Force” refers to classroom training in the specific necessities of the use of force in practice and operation. “Safety” refers to classroom training in safely using and storing firearms. “Operations” refers to training in the actual mechanical operations of firearms, which includes topics such as firing, reloading, and other mechanical skills. “Alternatives to Deadly Force” refers to training in either physical or non-physical alternatives to utilizing lethal force. “Tactics” refers to training in tactical firearm skills such as dim-light firing, tactical reloading and firing, and other shooting skills. Finally, the category of “Technology” refers to coursework which details technological knowledge involving firearms such as maintenance and “field stripping.”

Fourteen (+28%) new states, which did not have any requirements in 1999, now statutorily mandate a specific curriculum for armed security guards. Twenty-one (42%) states now mandate a curriculum in some form. Only two (4%) states require specified classroom training in the roles and duties of an armed security guard. Six (+12%) new states now require training in the law and liability surrounding the use of firearms. Seventeen (34%) states now feature this requirement. Five (+10%) new states now require specified training in the law and practice of the use of force. Eleven (22%) states now feature this requirement. Four (+8%) new states now require training in firearm safety. Eleven (22%) states now feature this requirement. Six (+12%) new states now require training in the mechanical operations of firearms, while one (−2%) state no longer features this requirement. Seventeen (34%) states now feature this requirement. One (+2%) new state now mandates training in alternatives to use of lethal force. Only two (4%) states now feature this regulation. One (+2) new state now requires training in shooting tactics. Six (12%) states now feature this requirement. Two (+4%) new states now require training in the technological aspects of firearms, and one (−2%) state no longer features this requirement. Four (8%) now require this sort of training.

When comparing Tables 3 and 4, we see that a similar number of states have added regulations since 1999. Fourteen (+28%) new states now statutorily require a specific curriculum for armed security guard training, and 13 (+26%) new states now mandate some sort of specific program for the training of armed security guards. However, 14 (28%) states do not mandate any program for the training of armed security guards, and 29 (58%) states feature no specified curriculum for the training of armed security guards. A comparison of the training regulations for unarmed and armed security guards will further illustrate the gains in statutory regulations and the possible shortcomings of the current statutory climate.

Comparison of Unarmed and Armed Officer Training

These statutes show an increase in all categories. When comparing the statutory regulations for unarmed and armed security guards, we see similar changes in statutory regulations. In both the unarmed and armed categories, 13 (+26%) new states, which did not have regulations in 1999, now have statutory regulations of some sort, but the “new” states are not the same across these two categories. In terms of specified curriculums, more new states have instituted statutory requirements for the training of unarmed security guards. Twenty-three (+46%) new states now statutorily specify a curriculum for unarmed security guards, while only 14 (+28%) new states now specify a curriculum for armed security guards. This shows that states have instituted more statutory regulations for the training of unarmed security guards since 1999, and this holds true when comparing the amount of specific regulations in each table.

The categories of statutory regulations in the tables concerning unarmed security guards show higher average gains than the tables concerning armed security guards. The categories in Table 1 show an average increase of M = 13.7 new states in each category, and the curriculum requirements in Table 2 show an average increase of M = 9.75 new states per category. The tables concerning armed security guards show lower increases per category. The procedural requirements in Table 3 show an average increase of M = 10.2 new states per category. Furthermore, the individual curriculum categories in Table 4 only demonstrate an average increase of M = 3.1 states per category. Therefore, the states are routinely instituting more individualized statutory requirements for unarmed security guards as compared with armed security guards.

Since 1999, states have instituted more statutory regulations concerning the training of unarmed security guards but, as in 1999, more states still regulate the training of armed security guards. Thirty-six (72%) states regulate the training of armed security guards in some manner, but only 29 (58%) states regulate the training of unarmed security guards. However, the significant gains in statutory regulations concerning the training of unarmed security guards may decrease this disparity as more states are instituting new statutory regulations concerning unarmed security guards.

Discussion

Private security guards can wield a significant amount of coercive power, and both the public and security professionals have called for increased legislation and regulation to control and legitimize the security industry. The call for increased regulation has resulted in greater statutory control over the hiring and licensing of security guards (Klein & Hemmens, 2016) and, as this article demonstrates, the training of security guards. When compared with 1999, our results show significant increases in all areas of statutory regulation pertaining to the training of armed and unarmed security guards.

However, these results also illustrate several statutory deficiencies in mandated training programs and curriculums. Twenty-one (42%) states do not regulate the training of unarmed security guards in any manner, and 14 (28%) states do not regulate the training of armed security guards. This is a troubling finding, given the relatively low-skilled and uneducated occupational position of the private security guard and the tremendous power over liberty and life that a security guard possesses.

Furthermore, the statutorily mandated training for private security guards is often minimal. First, we examine the training requirements for unarmed security guards. Most states do call for a specified curriculum or program with certified teachers, but these states only require an average of M = 14.89 hr of classroom training. Only seven (14%) states require more than 20 hr of training, and only two (4%) states require 40 hr of training, which is the equivalent of one occupational workweek. This relatively low amount of classroom training also often has to cover many different topics, and some of these topics, such as criminal and civil law and liability, are exceedingly complex and often require semester-long training in a university environment. Therefore, it is apparent that even in the states that do currently require training, most private security guards are only getting minimal experience with any sort of practical or academic coursework.

These trends also continue when examining the training of armed security guards. Armed security guards receive additional training in the specifics of carrying and using a firearm in the realm of private security, but this additional training is often minimal. On average, states only require M = 17.3 hr of specified training for armed security guards. Only 9 (18%) states require 20 or more hours of armed security guard training, and a mere two (4%) states require 40 or more hours of armed training. While the majority of states do require range or shooting qualification, most states do not require any training in the tactical aspects of firearm use. Furthermore, only 11 (22%) states require training in the use of force, and two (4%) states require specified training in alternatives to lethal force. These training deficits could lead to dangerous situations as untrained security guards are carrying, and possibly using, lethal weapons with minimal education, experience, and training. A comparison with the training of public police officers further illustrates this point.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports that the average police academy contains M = 843 hr of training. The academy training of public police officers contains comparable training to all of the training categories featured in the analyses of this study. Public police academies required training >90% of the time in the majority of these categories, but these academies did only require training in homeland security and terrorism 85% of the time. The above hours refer only to training conducted within the academy, and they do not account for any additional field training hours, which can be extensive. In fact, the BJS reports that the average amount of field training hours to be M = 500 hr. When examining only academy training, we see that this number is far greater than the training that both unarmed and armed security guards receive. A comparison of averages reveal that unarmed security guards receive only 1.8% of the training that public police officers receive and that armed security guards receive only 3.8% of the training that public police officers receive. Furthermore, the BJS reports that the public police receive an average of 71 hr of specified firearm training, which is greater than the total training that most armed security guards receive (BJS, 2016).

It also bears to mention that nearly all police departments require at least a high school education, and more and more police departments are requiring some level of college education (BJS, 2015). However, statutory regulations of the private security industry often allow for the hiring of uneducated individuals and only five (10%) states require even a high school diploma (Klein & Hemmens, 2016). Therefore, it is safe to say that in the majority of states both unarmed and armed private security guards are operating with minimal education and receive training that is far below the standards assigned to public police agencies. Given the coercive powers, and potential dangers of excessive or lethal force, our analysis demonstrates that the lack of statutory requirements of training in the private security industry may manifest in dangerous situations. While the statutory regulations concerning training have increased since 1999, we feel that they still fall far short of what logic would characterize as necessary and effective.

Conclusion

The private security industry occupies an uncertain place in American criminal justice as private entities utilize coercive powers that are traditionally relegated to state authorities. In response to this uncertainty, states have instituted a variety of statutes to regulate the security industry. In a past study, we demonstrated that the statutory regulation of the hiring and licensing of security guards has increased since 1999 (Klein & Hemmens, 2016), and this current study shows the same trend in the statutory regulation of the training of private security guards. Since 1999, states have instituted a significant amount of new statutory regulations concerning the training of unarmed and armed security guards.

However, our analysis also demonstrates that there are still a significant number of states that have no training requirements for either unarmed or armed private security guards, and we also show that the training that other states mandate often falls short of what public police officers receive. When this lack of training is combined with the lack of educational requirements for the hiring of private security guards, we believe a potentially dangerous situation results as security guards, who are sometimes armed with deadly weapons, are operating in an ambiguous occupational environment without the necessary skills to ensure the safety of themselves and the public.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Michael S. Klein is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice and Criminology at West Texas A&M University. He received his PhD in criminal justice from Washington State University. His primary research interests are legal issues in criminal justice and corrections.

Leah Ruiz is a PhD student in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Washington State University. Her research interests include medico-legal system regulations and their influence on criminal justice, courts and public safety.

Craig Hemmens is chair and professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Washington State University. He has published 20 books and more than 200 articles and other publications. His primary research interests are legal issues in criminal justice.

References

Bilek

A. J.

Klotter

J. C.

Federal

R. K.

(1982). Legal aspects of private security. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.

Buikema

Horvath

(1984). Security regulation: A state-by-state update. Security Management, 28, 39-43.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2015). Local police departments, 2013: Personnel, polices, and practices. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd13ppp.pdf

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2016). State and local law enforcement training academies, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/slleta13.pdf

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015a). Earnings and unemployment rate by educational attainment. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015b). May 2014 national occupational employment and wage estimates United States. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#35-0000

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015c). More education still means more pay in 2014. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/more-education-still-means-more-pay-in-2014.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015d). Security guards. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes339032.htm

Button

(2007). Security officers and policing: Powers, culture, and control in the governance of public space. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.

10.

Chaiken

(1987). Public policing–privately provided. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

11.

Cobbina

J. E.

Nalla

M. K.

Bender

K. A.

(2013). Security officers’ attitudes towards training and their work environment. Security Journal, 29, 385–399. doi:10.1057/sj.2013.34

12.

Cunningham

W. C.

Taylor

T. H.

(1985). Private security and police in America (The Hallcrest Report). Portland, OR: Chancellor Press.

13.

David

Katz

L. F.

Kearney

M. S.

(2006). The polarization of the US labor market (No. w11986). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.

14.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2014). Full time law enforcement employees. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-74

15.

Joh

E. E.

(2006). The forgotten threat: Private policing and the state. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 13, 357-389.

16.

Klein

M. S.

Hemmens

(2016). Public regulation of private security: A statutory analysis of state regulation of private security guards. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0887403416649999

17.

Maahs

J. R.

Hemmens

(1998). Guarding the public: A statutory analysis of state regulation of security guards. Journal of Crime and Justice, 21, 119-134.

18.

Maahs

J. R.

Hemmens

Scarborough

K. E.

Collins

P. A.

(1999). Train in vain: A statutory analysis of security guard training requirements. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 22, 91-101.

19.

Manzo

(2009). Security officers perspectives on training. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 51, 381-410.

20.

Meehan

(2015). The impact of licensing requirements on industrial organization and labor: Evidence from the U.S. private security market. International Review of Law and Economics, 42, 113-124.

21.

Mulone

(2013). Researching private security consumption. European Journal on Criminal Policy Research, 19, 401-417.

22.

Nalla

M. K.

Crichlow

V. G.

(2014). Have the standards for private security guards become more stringent in the post 9/11 era? An assessment of security guard regulations in the US from 1982 to 2010. Security Journal. Advance online publication. doi:10.1057/sj.2014.21

23.

National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. (1976). Private security: Report of the task force on private security. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

24.

Newby

C. G.

(1981). Guard regulation. Security Management, 25, 23-27.

25.

Peel

J. D.

(1971). The story of private security. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

26.

Ricks

T. A.

Tillet

B. G.

VanMeter

C. W.

(1988). Principles of security. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.

27.

Rushin

S. R.

(2012). Transcripts from the C. Edwin Baker lecture on liberty, equality, and democracy: The regulation of private police. West Virginia Law Review, 115, 159-191.

28.

Shearing

C. D.

Stenning

P. C.

(1983). Private security: Implications for social control. Social Problems, 30, 492-506.

29.

Sklansky

D. A.

(1999). The private police. UCLA Law Review, 46, 1165-1223.

30.

Van Steden

(2007). Privatizing policing: Describing and explaining the growth of private security. The Hague, The Netherlands: BJu Legal Publishers.

31.

Thumala

Goold

Loader

(2011). A tainted trade? Moral ambivalence and legitimation work in the private security industry. The British Journal of Sociology, 62, 283-303.

32.

White

Gill

(2013). The transformation of policing: From ratios to rationalities. British Journal of Criminology, 53, 74-93.