‘Security Guard Licensing’ is the title of a 60-page research report prepared for the Security Industry Authority (SIA) by IFF Research. The report presents the findings of interviews conducted with 200 suppliers of security guarding services and just over 400 officers (all of whom hold SIA licences) to elicit their perceptions of licensing’s impact in several key areas:
All interviews were carried out in the second half of March, with the 200 suppliers chosen from the SIA’s marketing and Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) databases. The respondents in this case were directors and managing directors.
For the officer survey, a geographically representative sample was randomly drawn from the Regulator’s database of licence holders. The response rate among security officers was 82%, and for suppliers 71%.
Impact on the workforce
Most suppliers feel that licensing has not had a negative impact on their ability to retain security officers but, on balance, recruitment appears to have become more difficult – mostly due to a shortage of licensed candidates. Only 17% of suppliers questioned have not taken on any new security officers since licensing became compulsory, with most reporting that less than a quarter of their pre-licensing workforce have left post-regulation.
There has certainly been a degree of labour turnover in the guarding sector since licensing, but it’s not unusually high (24% since licensing, compared to a national average of 18%). Around 50% of suppliers have seen an overall increase in their guarding workforce since licensing.
Only a fifth of officers said they have changed employer post-licensing, while another fifth have considered changing. Only a third of these officers admitted that this was due to better pay. Security officers who did not pay for any of the costs associated with their licence application or training were more likely to have not changed (or considered changing) their employer.
Most of the officers interviewed by IFF Research believe that licensing has either improved their working environment (by increasing the availability of work and future career options and opportunities) or not had any impact on it (most believe that their pay and conditions, and the treatment they receive from their employer, customers and the general public have stayed the same).
Skills and public perceptions
Suppliers are divided over whether or not licensing has improved security officers’ skills and/or reliability. Security officers themselves, on the other hand, are far more positive. Most feel they are now more able, have a better range of skills and more confidence and that they will enjoy better pay and conditions in the longer term due to licensing.
Officers are again hugely positive when questioned on the impact licensing has had on the general public’s view of the industry. There is general agreement among both groups that the public places greater trust in security officers now because of compulsory criminal records checks, and that the public is more aware of the role officers can (and do) play in helping to provide safe and secure communities.
Most suppliers require at least some of their security officers to complete further training beyond that which is sought for the SIA licence, although only one in every five require training and/or qualifications at Level 3 and above. First Aid, Health and Safety, physical intervention and generic/interpersonal skills are the most common areas for extra tuition.
Furthermore, two thirds of suppliers claim to offer their guards further training opportunities to update their skills (either periodically or on a continuous basis).
Suppliers are again divided as to whether additional subject areas should be demanded for the SIA licence (46% of those practitioners questioned were keen on the idea, and 53% against). One third of suppliers suggested that the SIA licence should require training at Level 3 or above.
Security officers were generally very positive about the quality of the course they attended to attain their licence, indicating that appropriate support and learning materials were provided and that they received the tuition they had been expecting.
Financial impact of licensing
Virtually all suppliers have incurred some costs due to licensing – the greatest have involved training, increased wages and payment for the licence application fees.
Again, most contractors have not been able to pass on (all) licensing costs to clients. Also, the majority of clients want to reduce their security provision because of increased costs. While there is a recognition that many customers know how licensing can benefit their organisations, the perspective of suppliers is that clients are (still) only interested in price.
For just over 50% of the 200 contractors questioned, turnover has remained unchanged. Around one fifth have suffered a decrease, with 13% claiming an increase. Two-in-five suppliers have either expanded the number of contracts in their previous sub-sectors or diversified to others. However, it appears that expansion has come at the cost of other suppliers, rather than any growth of the market. That is, the number of contractors reporting an increase in contracts in a given sub-sector was almost completely offset by the number of companies reporting a fall in business within the same sub-sector.
Have cost savings been made?
Two-fifths of suppliers suggested they had shaved costs on training because they have been able to recruit already-trained staff. This was the only area in which a majority of suppliers claimed to have saved money.
Two-thirds of suppliers explained they had incurred costs due to increased wages, mostly because of security officers moving between companies for better pay. However, only one-in-five of those officers interviewed have received a pay increase they perceive to be related (wholly or in part) to their licence.
