U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Train in Vain: A Statutory Analysis of Security Guard Training Requirements

NCJ Number
175784
Journal
International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice Volume: 22 Issue: 1-2 Dated: Spring-Fall 1998 Pages: 91-101
Author(s)
J Maahs; C Hemmens
Date Published
1998
Length
11 pages
Annotation
State statutory requirements for the training of security guards were studied by means of a comparison and assessment of the laws of all 50 States.
Abstract
The discussion noted that the United States currently has more than 10,000 security companies; these companies employ 1.8 million guards. Security guards already outnumber police by almost 3 to 1; this discrepancy is expected to continue to increase. Every State requires police officers to undergo rigorous training. Security guards perform many of the same functions as police officers and may even carry weapons. The statutory analysis revealed that 43 States have law regulating security guards, while 7 States do not. States vary widely regarding the minimum requirements for becoming a security guard. Half the States have minimum age requirements, often 18 years. Only two States impose a minimum education level; this level is eighth grade. The most common statutory requirement is for fingerprinting (24 States) and criminal records checks (21 States) of security guard applicants. Ten States require employee statements; 13 States allow a regulatory group to set any other necessary rules. Few States require employers to train their security guards; the ones that do vary significantly with respect to the specificity and amount of training necessary. Only 16 States require any training for unarmed guards; only 22 States mandate any training for armed security, Most States delegate at least some of the specific training requirements to another entity such as a board of directors or the attorney general. Findings revealed surprisingly little State regulation of security guard training and a lack of uniformity regarding the type or form of training. However, the increasing reliance on these quasi-police indicates that it would be reasonable for States to apply more stringent training requirements. Tables and 15 references

Downloads

No download available