The contemporary security agency was first conceived in the 1850s, but it was not until the early twentieth century that the sector began to be regulated. The majority of the existing legislation governing private security firms was not enacted until around 1950. Regulation can be beneficial or harmful, as it is in most businesses, but the advantages outweigh the costs, both for security providers and for the general public.
The concept of the security agency that we see today can be linked directly to the formation of the Pinkerton Agency in 1850. The Pinkerton Agency was founded to combat crime when there was no law enforcement. It swiftly grew into a nationwide organization. The firm had more agents than the US Army in the post-civil war years, and it was even hired by the US government to help the Department of Justice battle crime.
It's easy to see why the somewhat unregulated private security environment of the 1800s would soon be followed by more regulation. In 1915, California became the first state to license and regulate private investigators. However, other states were reluctant to follow, and most states did not have substantial control until the end of the twentieth century. Even now, restrictions differ greatly from one state to the other.
The training necessary for new security officers' licensing is a good illustration of regulatory discrepancy. Some states require 48 hours of instruction, while others do not. Although unarmed guards do not, armed guards must meet certain training standards in some states. Some states have no state-level licensing requirements, letting each community develop and enforce its standards. Colorado has no licensing requirements, although Denver does.
This regulatory uncertainty, relatively liberal laws in some states can be a problem for businesses seeking trustworthy security. Organizations want to know that the police they hire are trustworthy, dependable, and well-trained. It is easier to determine the quality of individuals who will be assigned if there are at least minimal qualifications.
Hence increased regulation may be on the horizon due to the industry's growth and some negative news. There will likely be a desire for more extensive examinations and checks in many areas, and states without standards may decide to implement them. The need for training will almost certainly increase, particularly in areas currently lacking. When it comes to vetting and training standards, it's critical to strike a balance between reasonableness and quality.
To learn more about private security personnel regulation, visit our blog page.
