Table Of Content

HEARINGS REGARDING PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS ED 8/1:103-16 4. earings RegardiRg Private Security... HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 1 FIRST SESSION HEARINGS HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 15 AND 17, 1993 Serial No. 103-16 Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor OCT r- 3 1 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 70-593tj WASHINGTON : 1993 ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-041268-4 7 HEARINGS REGARDING PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS 4. ED 8/1:103-16 tarings Regirding Private Securittf... HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION HEARINGS HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 15 AND 17, 1993 Serial No. 103-16 Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor OCT 13 r-^ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 70-593±^ WASHINGTON : 1993 ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice.Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-041268-4 COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan, Chairman WILLIAM (BILL) CLAY, Missouri WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania GEORGE MILLER. California THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan STEVE GUNDERSON, Wisconsin PAT WILLIAMS, Montana RICHARD K. ARMEY, Texas MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois MAJOR R. OWENS, New York PAUL B. HENRY, Michigan THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey SUSAN MOLINARI, New York JOLENE UNSOELD, Washington BILL BARRETT, Nebraska PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM, California JACK REED, Rhode Island PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan TIM ROEMER, Indiana HOWARD P. "BUCK" McKEON, California ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York DAN MILLER, Florida XAVIER BECERRA, California ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia GENE GREEN, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico RON KLINK, Pennsylvania KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona TED STRICKLAND, Ohio RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa SCOTTY BAESLER, Kentucky ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam Patricia F. Rissler, StaffDirector Jay Eagen, Minority StaffDirector Subcommittee on Human Resources MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California, Chairman DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan PAUL B. HENRY, Michigan ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey SUSAN MOLINARI, New York ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia BILL BARRETT, Nebraska LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California DAN MILLER, Florida CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico MAJOR R. OWENS, New York SCOTTY BAESLER, Kentucky (II) CONTENTS Page Hearings held in Washington, DC: June 15, 1993 1 June 17, 1993 87 Statement of: Chuvala, John, Associate Professor, Law Enforcement Administration, Western Illinois University; and Robert Shellow, Past President, Inter- national Association of Professional Security Consultants, President, Imar Corporation, accompanied by Ira S. Somerson, Member, Board of Directors 109 Ingber, Esq., Clifford, New York, NY; Monica Worth, WashiMnDgton, DC; Peter Everett, Esq., Fairfax, VA; and Bill Brill, Annapolis, 5 Keating, Thomas, Chairman and CEO, American Protective Services, Oakland, CA; Hugh Sawyer, President, Wells Fargo Armored Service Corporation, Atlanta, GA; and Eugene R. Fink, Chairman and CEO, Winfleld Security Corporation, New York, NY 48 Kneip, Robert C, Senior Vice President, Wackenhut Corporation, accompanied by Michael Goodboe; and Roger Comstock, President, Burns International 89 Lipman, Ira, President, Guardsmark, Incorporated; Phillip J. Wunder, President, National Council ofInvestigation and Security Services, Inc.; and Ben Poitevent, Assistant General Counsel, Division of Licensing, Florida DepartmentofState 130 Prepared statements, letters, supplemental materials, et cetera: Brill, Bill, Annapolis, MD, prepared statement of 32 Chuvala, John, Associate Professor, Law Enforcement Administration, Western Illinois University, prepared statement of 112 Comstock, Roger, President, Burns International, prepared statementof... 104 Everett, Esq., Peter, Fairfax, VA, prepared statement of 16 Fink, Eugene R., Chairman and CEO, Winfield Security Corporation, New York, NY, prepared statement of 72 Fischer, Chairman and President, Guardsman, Inc., prepared statement of 167 Ingber, Clifford J., Partner, Ingber & Ingber, New York, NY, prepared statement of 7 Keating, Thomas, Chairman and CEO, American Protective Services, Oakland, CA, prepared statement of 51 Kneip, Robert C., Senior Vice President, Wackenhut Corporation, prepared statementof 94 Lipman, Ira, President, Guardsmark, Incorporated, prepared statement of 134 Martinez, Matthew G., a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of 3 Poitevent, Ben, Assistant General Counsel, Division ofLicensing, Florida Department ofState, prepared statement of 146 Sawyer, Hugh, President, Wells Fargo Armored Service Corporation, At- lanta, GA, prepared statement of 66 Shellow, Robert, Past President, International Association ofProfessional Security Consultants, President, Imar Corporation, prepared statement of 122 Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, additional material supplemental to Dr. Chuvala's and Mr. Fischer's testimony 193 Worth, Monica, Washington, DC, prepared statement of 11 Wunder, PhillipJ., President, National Council ofInvestigation and Secu- rity Services, Inc., prepared statementof 156 (III) HEARING REGARDING PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1993 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., Room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Matthew G. Martinez, Chair- man, presiding. Members present: Representatives Martinez, Kildee, Scott, Romero-Barcelo and Baesler. Staff present: Lester Sweeting, staff director/counsel; Elizabeth Romero, staffassistant; Lee Cowen, professional staff member. Chairman Martinez. It is now 9:30 a.m. and we will be joined soon by a couple of my colleagues who have indicated they are on their way. I will go ahead and read my opening statement and get the meeti—ng started. Hopefully, by the time I have finished my statement here we have one of our members already, Mr. Baesler. Good morning. This morning the subcommittee meets to take testimony regarding the necessity for stricter controls over the preemployment screening of persons hired to be private security guards and the need for better minimum training requirements for those personnel. The private security industry is one of the fastest growing industries in the Nation. Private property owners, medium and large sized companies, shopping malls, schools, public buildings and even Federal, State and local government agencies are turning increasingly to the use of private security forces in lieu of public police departments to protect their property and customers. In recent weeks and months, we have seen news reports showing private security officers patrolling the streets of neighborhoods and small towns. National labor statistics indicate that more jobs will be created in the private security field than any other categories over the next decade. While the vast majority of private security officers are unarmed and do not deal directly with the public, it is the side of the industry that is armed and in uniform and that is dealing directly with the public that is becoming more visible every day and more alarming for its lack of adequate training and preemployment clearance. (1) While Americans' respect for law enforcement may ebb and flow, in general, Americans believe that those people who are in uniform represent well trained people who are not criminals themselves. What we are learning from the news reports, however, and what we will learn during these hearings, is that due to a lack of minimum standards there are a significant number of these private security officers who are minimally trained and whose backgrounds are not checked before they are given a badge, a uniform, and a firearm and placed on patrol. While we would expect the vast majority ofsecurity officers to be professional and have appropriate backgrounds to perform those duties, we know that there are persons who are felons or have pending charges against them, yet they can be hired and put to work in public areas, and in some cases given firearms. Some persons hired to guard premises and protect the assets of the employer, or others, from theft are actually convicted criminals whose crimes include burglary, robbery, drug charges, et cetera. Even those officers who have no criminal records, however, may represent a threat to public safety if they are not trained in proper methods of response to potentially violent situations. A security guard at a school or shopping mall must be able to deal effectively with altercations with or between young people, especially in these days of almost universal availability of handguns. It may not be enough to know what the property line is or what the posted rules as to eating, smoking or other activities in public areas might be, and how to check to see if an area is locked or how to read a video camera shot. All too often, the knowledge necessary to control a violent situation or to subdue a violent person without major injury is critical to the prevention oftragedy. Even more critical might be the knowledge to recognize a potentially violent situation as it develops and to know what actions are likely to resolve the situation in a peaceful manner. Yet, we are told that due to the costs and competition, the training and background checks are too expensive to put in place. Eleven States have absolutely no laws on the books dealing with the background checks or minimum training requirements for security officers, including armed security officers. A number of States have only minimum rules in place. Some States such as Florida have stringent requirements which are effectively enforced. I believe that all States should have minimum requirements for training and background checks. I do not believe that the Federal Government should manage the licensing, training and background checks for security personnel. Indeed, because conditions differ among the States, each State should be in a position to establish how stringent their rules should be, and I believe they should do it. H.R. 1534, which Congressman Owens and I have cosponsored in this Congress, would establish the minimum standards we feel are appropriate. States would be free to establish much more stringent rules, should they so desire. Another critical aspect of this legislation is access to FBI sources to ensure that persons being considered for these sensitive positions do not have criminal activities in their past and are not currently wanted in connection with a criminal charge. States and private employers generally cannot access these national criminal data banks without specific authority in Federal statutes. The banking industry already has such authority and our proposal is to extend that authority to the security and protection industry as well. I believe that this is a reasonable approach to protect the public and to assist both the employer and fellow employees in ensuring that criminals are not unknowingly allowed into these jobs. Noth- ing would be worse than to find that a private security guard hired to protect a school building was wanted in connection with crimes against young children, or that a guard at an armored car facility, with access to significant amounts ofcash and other valuables, had a long history ofconvictions for larceny. As I mentioned, this is the first of two hearings we will hold this week. Because of the press of legislative business elsewhere in the House, we decided that we could not devote an entire day to this issue. However, since we have a great deal of interest in this issue, we scheduled two separate sessions. Today, we will hear from private citizens who have knowledge of the problems that can arise when guards are insufficiently trained or inadequately screened for those positions. We will then hear from some of the senior officers of the major national and local guard firms, which will continue into Thursday's session. We have asked for testimony from two recognized experts from the research arena who will discuss their studies of various programs, including the approaches of some foreign countries, and what they might suggest as minimum training standards. Finally, again on Thursday, we will hear from two associations of smaller companies and a representative from one State government who will describe his State's background check and the regu- lations regarding training in his State. I would like to state that all of the written testimony submitted by our witnesses at these hearings will be entered into the record in its entirety and that the committee welcomes the submission of additional statements from any interested party on the issues brought out in these hearings. The record will remain open for 10 days to receive any such information. I would now like to turn to my colleagues for any remarks they may have. [The prepared statement of Hon. Matthew G. Martinez follows:] Statementof Hon. Matthew G. Martinez, a Representative in Congress from THE StateofCalifornia Good morning. This morning the subcommittee meets to take testimony regarding the necessity for stricter controls over the preemployment screening of persons hired to be private security guards and the need for better minimum training requirements for those personnel. The private security industry is one ofthe fastest growing industries in the coun- try. Private property owners, medium and large sized companies, shopping-malls, schools, public buildings and even Federal, State and local government agencies are turning increasingly to the use of private security forces in lieu ofpublic police departments to protect property and customers. In recent weeks and months, we have seen news reports showing private security officers patrollingthe streets ofneighborhoods and small towns. 4 Job Training Partnership Act programs statistics show that morejobs will be created in the private security field than most other categories over the next decade. While the vast majority of private security officers are unarmed and do not deal directly with the public, it is the side ofthe industry that is armed and in uniform and that is dealing directly with the public that is becoming more visible every day and more alarming for its lack ofadequate training and preemployment clearance. While Americans' respect for law enforcement may ebb and flow, in general, Americans believe that those people who are in uniform represent well trained people who are not criminals themselves. What we are learning from the news reports, and what we will learn during these hearings, is that due to a lack of minimum standards, there are a significant number of these private security officers who are minimally trained, and whose backgrounds are not checked before they are given the badge and uniform and placed on patrol. While we would expect the vast majority ofsecurity officers to be professional in appearance and have appropriate backgrounds to perform those duties, we know that there are persons who are felons or have pending charges against them, yet they can be hired and and working in public areas, carryinga firearm. Some persons hired to guard premises and protect assets of the employer or others from theft are actually convicted criminals whose crimes include burglary, robbery, drug charges, etcetera. Even those officers who have no criminal records, however, may represent a threat to public safety if they are not trained in proper methods of response to potentially violent situations. A security guard at a school or shopping mall must be able to deal effectively with altercations with or between young people, especially in these days of almost universal availability ofhandguns. It may not be enough to know what the property line is, what the posted rules as to eating, smoking or other activities in public areas might be, and how to check to see ifan area is locked or how to read a video camera shot. All too often, the knowledge ofhow to handle a violent situation, how to subdue a violent person without major injury to the person or one's self, is critical to the prevention oftragedy. Even more critical might be the knowledge of how to recognize a potentially violent situation as it develops and to know what actions are likely to resolve the situation in a peaceful manner. Yet, we are told that, due to costs and competition, the training and background checks are too expensive to put in place. Eleven States have absolutely no laws on the books dealing—with the background checks or minimum training requirements for security officers including armed security officers. A number ofother States have only minimum rules in place. Some States, such as Florida, have stringent requirements, which are effectively enforced. I believe that all States should have minimum requirements for training and background checks. I do not believe that the Federal Government should manage the licensing, training and background checks for security personnel, however, because conditions differ among the States, and each State should be in a position to establish how stringent those rules should be. H.R. 1534, which Congressman Owens and I have cosponsored in this Congress, would establish the minimum standards we feel are appropriate. States would be free to establish much more stringent rules, should they so desire. Another critical aspect of this proposed legislation is access to FBI sources to ensure that persons being considered for these sensitive positions do not have criminal activity in their pasts and are not wanted currently to answer criminal charges. States and private employers generally cannot access these national criminal data banks without specific authority in the Federal statutes. The banking industry already has such authority and our proposal is to extend that authority to the security and protection industry as well. I believe that this is a reasonable approach to protect the public and to assist both the employer and fellow employees in ensuring that criminals are not unknowingly allowed into thesejobs. Nothing would be worse than to find that a private security guard hired to protect a school building was wanted in connection with crimes against young children, or that a guard at an armored car facility, with access to significant amounts of cash and other valuables, had a long history of convictions for larceny.