Preparing for the front line

08 Jun 07

Conflict management forms a key part of staff training, not to mention the Security Industry Authority’s ‘Licence to Practise’, yet until now physical intervention has been an almost taboo subject in most security forums.

The reality is that many security operatives – in particular some of those operating within licensed retail settings, at events, within retail profit protection scenarios and in NHS-based environments – use physical intervention. The problem is that not too many of them have received proper guidance and training.

At long last, a Guide to Best Practice on this sensitive issue – aimed squarely at employers and entitled ‘Physical Intervention: Reducing Risk’ – has been published by the British Institute of Innkeeping (BII) in close co-operation with Skills for Security. It’s endorsed by Commander Chris Allison MBE of the Metropolitan Police Service (also head of the licensing portfolio at the Association of Chief Police Officers) and the Security Industry Authority (SIA).

The initial drive for guidance emanated from the licensed retail sector, where physical intervention is a foreseeable part of a door supervisor’s role and where much concern and litigation has surrounded its use. The BII began to address training in physical intervention in 2000, and it was at an SIA Stakeholder Group meeting some five years later – chaired by Linda Sharpe of Skills for Security – that I was asked to lead a project that would deliver much needed guidance for employers.

The most significant point for me was that the industry representatives (purchasers and providers of services) populating the Stakeholder Group all agreed that this was indeed a major area of concern.

The guidance benefits employers by showing practical steps that can be taken to better protect staff and customers from harm – and businesses from potential litigation. Although aimed directly at the licensed retail sector, the guidance represents the benchmark in relation to physical intervention in security functions. Stefan Hay (director of business development and communications at Skills for Security) is convinced that this guidance as it stands extends well beyond door supervision, and is a ‘must’ for all roles where physical intervention is both necessary and legitimate.

The Project Group that developed the guidance included representatives from leisure operators and security service providers. The BII and Skills for Security played major roles supported by subject specialists and several key Stakeholders.

Factors influencing training

The guidance is relevant to two key audiences: employers that have internal security functions, or who manage contract provision at their sites/venues and security companies that provide security personnel. It is not intended to be used as a definitive guide on the subject of physical intervention, nor on how to combat violence in the workplace on a general level.

Let’s be clear. Most security operatives do not need training in physical intervention. As such, this guidance places great emphasis on alternative personal and organisational strategies to reduce the need for such intervention. We must also be clear in stating that, even with preventative policies and controls in place, if physical intervention remains foreseeable employers must provide realistic guidance and teach safe methods. They are likely to face hefty negligence claims if they do not address this issue.

The tasks and activities performed by door supervisors carry inherent risks, such as ejecting a customer and intervening in disputes and fights. It is hard to imagine a risk assessment of this role that would not, therefore, highlight the overriding need for physical intervention training that addresses these scenarios.

Other security roles for which physical intervention is common are those where suspected thieves are confronted and, in particular, where they may be arrested and detained. A number of factors will influence the training need in such environments (for instance the retail sector), including whether or not staff require skills in disengagement and escorting or comprehensive restraint training.

It was inevitable that police forces would need to provide equipment and training for new support roles including those of Police Community Support Officers as they are performing increasingly front line activities.

Many security operatives work within the NHS and, in particular, recognised high risk environments such as A&E and certain mental health settings. If it’s foreseeable that they will lay hands on patients or visitors then they must be appropriately trained.

Managers often argue that by teaching such skills they are more likely to be used and abused. In the experience of Maybo in all of the settings mentioned, balanced training has – in the majority of cases – reduced incidents and the use of physical skills.

Assessing the risk

The guidance encourages an evidenced, objective approach to assessing training needs in this area that is firmly anchored in risk assessment of the role and tasks performed. Factors to be considered in a training needs analysis addressing violence include risk assessment findings, employer and venue/site operator policy, job role expectations, specific tasks and activities performed, an analysis of reported incidents and the existing knowledge and/or skills of members of staff

This assessment process will highlight the knowledge and skills gap and, therefore, determine the training need.

Work-related violence is a complex risk to manage. As such, the guidance outlines how employers can assess the risks, formulate policy and identify training needs. In doing this it considers three levels of control measure designed to manage access: primary controls, secondary controls and tertiary controls.

Primary controls refer to action that can be taken to prevent conflict situations arising or reduce their likely frequency. They tend to be planned, and address the root causes of frustration and conflict.

At an organisational level this includes establishing policies, safe systems of work, carrying out risk assessments, delivering good service, addressing design, access control and staffing levels and providing staff with the necessary training.

At an individual level, though, primary controls involve understanding the risks, delivering positive service, complying with safe practice guidance and putting training and learning to good and effective use.

Secondary controls focus on the actions taken by staff to prevent conflict escalating to violence. Typically, they involve the use of communication and conflict management skills, defusing and calming strategies or team tactics designed to de-escalate and/or ‘normalise’ a conflict situation.

Tertiary controls refer to action taken when violence is occurring – and after it has occurred – to prevent or reduce the potential for physical and psychological harm. Typically, this will involve disengagement or other physical intervention tactics, the invocation of emergency procedures or the implementation of exit and containment strategies.

Tertiary response includes providing post-incident support for the victims and managing the situation through to recovery. Incident reporting, review and learning will provide feedback for the review of primary preventive measures in a continuous improvement cycle.

Consulting staff and customers

When we have tackled the root cause of a problem through non-physical preventive controls, incident frequency can be reduced. Where a significant ‘residual risk’ remains, however, tertiary level controls may be needed and should be adequately prepared for.

Consulting staff and customers during risk assessments is vital in terms of developing a truer picture and establishing the underlying ‘root cause’ of incidents. This will provide the insights necessary to tackle the causes of conflict and factors that fuel escalation and risk. It is often the case that front line staff will suggest simple, creative and cost-effective solutions to the problems they are facing. They are also more likely to embrace safe working practices that they have contributed to and view to be workable.

Identifying causation is the real key to minimisation and prevention. An example of ‘primary’ thinking and establishing the ‘root cause’ is highlighted in the following example from the guidance relating to security at a licensed venue. It is the Five Why’s Approach...

(1) Question: Why have incidents increased?

Answer: “We have had several incidents at the door on club nights”

(2) Question: Why did these occur?

Answer: “People became angry and irritated at being refused entry”

(3) Question: Why were they not allowed in?

Answer: “Not complying with the Dress Code, and usually wearing jeans”

(4) Question: Why did they become enraged?

Answer: “They had queued for a long time”

(5) Question: Why was the queue so long?

Answer: “On club nights we don’t have sufficient staff and this slows entry”

This simple questioning approach has unlocked the problem and suggests a number of potential control measures that will reduce the risk of conflict and violence – and, by definition, the need for physical intervention.

Defining the training need

Employees undertaking security functions will have completed much of the training they need to deal with conflict as part of obtaining their SIA licence. This should be supported by company and premises-specific instructions.

The SIA training requirement for door supervision represents a minimum standard and, as such, the obligation remains with employers to provide additional guidance and training highlighted as being necessary through the normal Health and Safety risk assessment procedures.

Training needs to be relevant and commensurate with the risks faced. The risk assessment process itself will provide key information that should underline the training needs analysis. Training itself carries a risk of injury, further reinforcing the need for an objective basis on which to decide upon those members of staff who require physical intervention training (and to what level).

For the security officer there are, broadly speaking, two areas of physical skills training: defensive skills and holding skills.

Defensive skills: Non-restrictive skills to help avoid and protect (oneself or another) against unlawful assault and enable disengagement. Certain guiding skills may be non-restrictive.

Holding (restrictive) skills: Restrictive interventions (including escorting/restraint).

Staff should not undertake training in physical skills unless they have first trained in primary and secondary prevention (including conflict management skills). Additional areas to be considered in training needs analysis address awareness of potential weapons (including edged and concealed weapons), searching procedures and safe methods, training and guidance on equipment used (for example communications equipment, protective equipment and mechanical restraints such as handcuffs, if issued) and training in the management of specific customer groups (children, for example).

Staff must be provided with clear principles on the use of force. Essentially, they should use the least aversive intervention practicable in achieving the desired objective. There is presently much debate surrounding use of restraint devices such as handcuffs. The guidance does not recommend use of such equipment, but emphasises that should they be employed, staff must receive comprehensive training and guidance.

Members of staff in the Five Why’s example may have felt the need for protective equipment (like stab vests), yet the analysis shows they can reduce primary exposure to the risk through other simple steps. Protective vests only provide partial safety, as was highlighted in the tragic murder of a retail security officer in Norfolk last Christmas. The officer concerned was stabbed in the neck.

If (despite other controls) a significant residual risk remains, then it follows protective vests would need to be considered.

The legal and business case

The Private Security Industry Act 2001 states that staff need to “have the training and skills necessary to engage in the conduct for which they are licensed”.

The SIA has no immediate intention to include physical intervention training within license requirements, but has made it clear that employers need to assess the risks related to the role and provide any necessary training over and above the minimum requirement of the Licence to Practise.

A key driver is compliance with statutory legislation and common law in relation to Duty of Care. The licensing objectives provide a further driver. Violence needs to be managed like any other workplace hazard – it just happens to be one of the more complex and dynamic hazards. Employers will face scrutiny from the enforcement agencies in relation to violence prevention and management (most particularly following a RIDDOR incident).

Perhaps the most significant driver for the new guidance was increasing litigation by staff and customers in relation to injury and claims of excessive force. Recent case law shows both employers and employees are vulnerable if they fail to reduce risk and adopt safer methods of intervention. Case law has, in particular, reinforced the vulnerability of the venue owner in addition to the security provider through vicarious liability.

Vicarious liability is well established in case law, yet many employers either fail to see – or choose to ignore – its implications. It’s long established that if an employee, acting in the course of their employment, injures another, even if that employee’s actions go well beyond what they are trained for, their employers are held vicariously liable and have to meet any consequent award of damages.

If excessive force is used by one of your staff (either directly employed or obtained through a contracted company), you are extremely vulnerable in any subsequent legal action.

Simply relying on the fact that members of staff have gained an SIA licence – or that provision of security staff has been contracted out – does not absolve employers from their responsibilities and potential legal liability.

Employers need to be alert to increasing actions initiated by staff members who claim that they have not been provided with adequate training for their role, and that this contributed to their harm. Some claims are also based on a lack of management action and support following trauma or violence.

Choosing a training model

The new guidance does not refer to specific training models or companies, but does provide guidance on what to look for in choosing a credible and appropriate system for your needs.

Employers must be confident in the training provided as at some point it will be challenged legally. Tough questions will be asked about its credibility and, specifically, its relevance, risk controls, medical and legal implications, audit trail and supporting policies and guidance.

External accreditation of training – for example by an awarding body – is important, but it doesn’t automatically mean that all of these rigours are in place.

Some skills sets are highly aversive. These may have a place but carry complexity and risk (and often exclude the day-to-day skills for escorting and avoiding assault that staff would most benefit from).

Get the latest stories first with info4security's newsletters: Click to signup

Post and bookmark this story at the following sites:

What is this?

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit	Google	Newsvine