Views of security buyers, suppliers and officers revealed in PRCI study

Published by Perpetuity Research and Consultancy International (PRCI), ‘The Security Industry in Perspective’ has already been dubbed “one of the most extensive surveys of views on the private security sector” to see the light of day.

Indeed, the study is an important crystallisation of opinions that have long been held about the sector.

The findings are based on three surveys of the security profession’s key stakeholders: corporate security managers who buy security (the buyers), directors and management of security companies (the suppliers) and security operatives, notably those working in the security guarding sector.

If this report is taken seriously, as it should be by the industry, it could act as a catalyst for initiating a debate on what the future UK security services sector ought tol ook like.

The report’s authors – namely Professor Martin Gill and Charlotte Howell of PRCI – firmly believe that the findings of the research will “surprise many”.

Professor Gill told Info4Security.com and Infologue.com: “Security is facing a challenging time. The evidence suggests that security is not in a poor state, but there are issues that need to be addressed. The security sector needs to respond in a more co-ordinated way in highlighting with evidence what you get from a good security company that you don’t get from a bad one, and it also needs to show how this can and is being achieved cost-effectively.”

Key conclusions from the study

• The Buyers (corporate security managers who buy security)

Over two fifths of those buyers questioned admitted they feel security is viewed as a ‘grudge purchase’.

Moreover, some feel that the status of security in their organisation is lower than that for other functions, including procurement and facilities management. Most accept that security is low priority, and their assessment of future spending is relatively pessimistic.

This isn’t good for security contractors selling into organisations where security is not viewed positively and where the internal specialists are not valued as much as other professionals.

What’s perhaps most striking is that although clients determine the conditions under which the guarding companies they use operate, and they feel they are trustworthy, they also believe the margins operated on by guarding companies are low and are also critical of pay rates for officers and quality of management.

The buyers questioned suggest that in-house services are of a higher quality but that contract security solutions are better value for money.

The evidence suggests the need for the contract security sector to provide more evidence of its effectiveness and value against a background where those buying security need to be persuaded of the reasons to do so rather than orchestrate their own operation.

• The Suppliers (directors and managers of contract guarding companies)

Directors/managers are concerned about how security is perceived by buyers, with almost two thirds feeling that: ‘Low margins change the focus of contract security directors/managers from security to cost control’. Around half of those questioned accept that: ‘Security is predominantly a grudge purchase.’

Moreover, more than two thirds cite the need to cut costs as a reason for severing contracts or changing suppliers in their area of security.

Directors/managers feel that staff turnover in the industry is extremely high but are less likely to agree that it’s a problem in their company.

Asked why people leave contract security work in their area of security, directors/managers outlined three reasons as being the most crucial: poor pay; limited opportunities for development and a feeling among staff that they aren’t appreciated.

• The Security Operatives (security officers – both in-house and contract – door supervisors and Public Space Surveillance security officers)

Security officers

• in 61% of cases the licence fee is paid for by the employer
• 8% have one or more jobs in addition to their security work
• a quarter are rostered to work more than 54 hours per week (a quarter of those questioned actually work over 60 hours per week)
• almost 50% of respondents said they also carry out non-security related functions
• 53% believe they will still be working in the sector in three years’ time
• 24% of responding security officers believe their pay to be above average for the area in which they live, 42% average and 32% below average
• 54% disagree (or strongly disagree) with the assertion that the public has a positive view of most people who conduct security work
• 56% agree (or strongly agree) with the assertion that: ‘Most of my colleagues are totally committed to providing a quality service’

Door supervisors

• 59% believe they will still be working in the security sector in three years’ time
• 20% of responding door supervisors suggest their pay to be above average for the area in which they live, 37% average and 44% below average
• 53% agree (or strongly agree) with the assertion that: ‘Most of my colleagues are totally committed to providing a quality service’

Public Space Surveillance security operatives

• 53% of those questioned believe they will still be working in the sector in three years’ time
• 27% believe their pay to be above average for the area in which they live, 40% average and 33% below average
• 62% disagree (or strongly disagree) with the assertion that the public has a positive view of most people who carry out security work

Facts about the PRCI research

The PRCI research is based on responses to online surveys (made available from 12 December 2011-20 February 2012). The response rates for each survey were 209 corporate security specialists, 509 suppliers (directors/managers) and 504 security operatives.

The study was conducted by Perpetuity Research under the umbrella of the Security Research Initiative which conducts a study each year into an important aspect of security.

To request a copy of the Survey of the Security Sector send an e-mail to Perpetuity Research with ‘Survey of the Security Sector’ as the subject headline