security industry authority acs review 2011 · snap surveys – sia – acs strategic review 2011...

Security Industry Authority

ACS Review 2011

Final Report

May 2011

Prepared by

Snap Surveys

Alex Green

[email protected]

Snap Surveys – SIA – ACS Strategic Review 2011 (03338R/V3) 2

CONTENTS

1 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 3

1.1 NON-APPROVED CONTRACTORS ........................................................................... 3

1.2 APPROVED CONTRACTORS .................................................................................. 7

1.3 BUYERS OF SECURITY ....................................................................................... 11

2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 13

2.1 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 13

2.2 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ..................................................................................... 13

2.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT ............................................................................. 15

3 NON-APPROVED CONTRACTORS’ SURVEY ............................................................ 16

3.1 COMPANY PROFILE ........................................................................................... 16

3.2 CLIENTS AND THE SECURITY INDUSTRY .............................................................. 22

3.3 ACCREDITATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS ............................................................ 27

3.4 THE APPROVED CONTRACTOR SCHEME (ACS) ...................................................... 29

3.5 CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS AND THE ACS ........................................................... 33

4 APPROVED CONTRACTORS’ SURVEY .................................................................... 36

4.1 COMPANY PROFILE ........................................................................................... 36





5 BUYERS’ SURVEY ................................................................................................. 61

5.1 COMPANY PROFILE ........................................................................................... 61

5.2 THE PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY AND CLIENTS ................................................. 64

5.3 YOUR SECURITY PROVIDERS .............................................................................. 68


6 MERGED FILES ..................................................................................................... 77

6.1 COMPANY PROFILE ........................................................................................... 77





7 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 95

APPENDIX 1: Questionnaires

APPENDIX 2: Approved contractor’s comments

APPENDIX 3: Security contractor’s comments

APPENDIX 4: Buyer’s comments

APPENDIX 5: Approved contractor tabulations

APPENDIX 6: Security contractor tabulations

APPENDIX 7: Buyer tabulations

APPENDIX 8: Merged tabulations


1 SUMMARY

1.1 NON-APPROVED CONTRACTORS

1.1.1 Company profile

The most commonly covered sector was security guarding (71%), followed by

door supervision (54%), key holding (35%), and CCTV (25%).

Over half of the non-approved contractors said that they work for micro sized

firms (56%), 22% for small, 19% for medium and only 3% for large

organisations.

Security contractors were most likely to describe their organisation as regional

(35%) or local (30%). Around a fifth (19%) described their firm as international.

37% of approved contractors said that they were based in London or South East

England, 16% were based in central England, and 24% were based in the North

East or North West.

Security contractors were asked for their approximate turnover for the 2009-2010

financial year; 40% of respondents said that their turnover was between

£100,000 and £500,000, 10% between £500,000 and £999,999 and 10% £1m or

more. 40% said that their turnover or amount of business had increased since

March 2010, while 43% said it had decreased and 17% said it had stayed the

same.

Nearly a fifth of contractors (17%) said that their approximate profit margin for

the last tax year was 0%, while 39% said that it was between 1 and 20% and

another third (33%) said that their margin lay between 21 and 40%.

42% of the non-approved contractors questioned said that the number of staff

employed by their organisation had increased since March 2010; a quarter (24%)

said it had decreased, while around a third (34%) stayed the same.

Average hourly wages for frontline staff varied; but the most common wage was

between £5.94 and £6.49 per hour (16%), although the same proportion said

they would prefer not to disclose their frontline staff wage (16%). 32% said that

their frontline staff received between £7.50 to £9.99 per hour.

There were large variations in terms of average hourly charge rate for frontline

staff; but the most common rates were between £10.00 and £12.99 per hour

(23%). 14% said that their charge rate was less than £7.00, while 20% said it

was £13.00 or more. Again, a fifth (20%) of the contractors questioned preferred

not to disclose their charge rate.

In terms of welfare and benefits available to front line staff, contractors were most

likely to say that front line staff were paid above national minimum wage (83%),

were paid for time off to receive work related training (38%), had access to

special leave for emergencies (38%), or received holiday entitlement above the

minimum (33%).


In terms annual leave for front line staff; similar proportions of respondents said

that their staff received between 16-20 days holiday (26%), 21-25 days (23%)

and 26-30 days (26%).

1.1.2 Clients and the security industry

The majority of contractors (68%) said that they provide security for 10 or less

clients, 14% said they provide for between 11 and 50, 10% for 51 to 300 clients,

and 8% to over 300 clients.

Around half (51%) of the contractors questioned said that they never gained work

from approved contractors during 2010; 33% said that they did so seldom or

occasionally, and 14% did so frequently or consistently. Similarly, the majority of

the contractors questioned (60%) said that they never lost work to approved

contractors during 2010; 19% said that they did so seldom or occasionally, and

13% did so frequently or consistently.

When asked what method contractors used most often to gain new security

business, respondents were most likely to say networking (40%) and advertising

or marketing (22%). 10% said that they didn’t use any of the methods listed.

Contractors were asked what they thought were the most important factors to

potential clients when they are selecting security suppliers. They were most likely

to say:

o Total cost of service (95% important)

o Recommendation from other buyers (90% important)

o Compliance with the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (79% important)

o Well known or established company (79% important)

o Suppliers existing client base (77% important)

Security contractors were asked how important they thought various methods

were for differentiating between security suppliers:

o 98% said face to face meeting with company representatives was

important

o 97% said comparison of quality of service offered for price was important

o 74% said a tender exercise was important

o 65% said examination of accreditations or certifications held was important

o 64% said that some other method of differentiating between security

suppliers was important

o 54% said examination of company website or promotional material was

important.

When asked about changes to trends in security buying during 2010, over half of

the non-approved contractors (54%) said that they had experienced greater

emphasis being placed on cost. Almost half (46%) said that that had experienced


delays in payment of monies owed, while around a quarter (24%) had seen a

move from manned security to security systems buying.

The vast majority (84%) of contractors said that their organisation had a positive

relationship with the Police, while 10% said that their relationship was mixed.

38% of security contractors said that they felt cash-flow problems could threaten

their business over the next twelve months to two years, while 30% said they

may suffer due to market contraction. 18% of non-approved contractors said that

they felt their business may be threatened by something else.

1.1.3 Accreditations and certifications

22% of security contractors said that they were affiliated with the Chambers of

Commerce, while much fewer were associated with ASIS, BSIA or the Security

Institute (8% each). Over half of those questioned (56%) said that they weren’t

affiliated with any of the organisations or initiatives listed.

Similarly; the majority of non-approved contractors said that they didn’t hold any

of the accreditations or certifications listed. Those that did hold an accreditation

were most likely to hold ISO9001:2008 (19%), SAFE Contractor (17%) or

Investors in People (11%).

Nearly a third of respondents (32%) said that they intended to achieve the SAFE

Contractor accreditations over the next twelve months to two years, while 30%

said they would apply for ISO9001 certification and a quarter (24%) said they

intended to achieve Investors in People accreditation. Over a quarter (27%) said

that their organisation didn’t intend to achieve any of the accreditations listed.

Almost half of the non-approved suppliers questioned (44%) said that the ACS

was the most important accreditation that a security supplier can hold, with 22%

specifying ISO9001:2008 instead.

1.1.4 The Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS)

Nearly half of the non-approved suppliers (43%) said that they were considering

applying for ACS status, while 32% were not and 25% were unsure.

44% agreed that the ACS had helped to raise standards in the private security

industry overall, and 56% disagreed.

When asked what they considered to be the main benefits of the ACS, 44% said

new business opportunities, 35% said use of the ACS mark and 24% said

differentiation from other security suppliers. 29% said that they didn’t consider

any of the factors listed as benefits of the SIA ACS.

In terms of benefits to the private security industry as a whole; security suppliers

were likely to say that it had benefited from the ACS through a common standard

being introduced (35%), good practice being promoted throughout the industry

(35%), the exclusion of ‘rogue’ companies (33%) and an improved industry image

(33%). 27% said that they hadn’t seen any benefits to the private security

industry overall.


1.1.5 Customer requirements and the ACS

Only 13% of contractors said they had central government contracts. Of these the

majority (75%) said these contracts didn’t require them to hold any of the

certifications or accreditations listed.

25% of respondents said they had local government contracts. Of these the



62% of respondents said they had private sector contracts. Of these, just over

half (56%) said these contracts didn’t require them to hold any of the

certifications or accreditations listed. Almost a fifth (18%) said that these

contracts required them to hold an ISO9001 accreditation, and 15% SAFE

Contractors certification.

The vast majority of non-approved contractors said that they hadn’t lost central,

regional or local government to approved contractors in the last 2 years, while

14% said they had lost work.


1.2 APPROVED CONTRACTORS


The most commonly covered sector was security guarding (91%), followed by key

holding (51%), door supervision (37%) and CCTV (28%).

Over half of the approved contractor respondents said that they work for medium

sized firms (56%), 14% for small, 22% for large and 8% work for micro sized

firms.

Almost half of those questioned (43%) described their organisation as national,

34% as regional, 14% as local and only 9% as international.


England, 21% were based in the North East or North West, and 17% were in

central England.

38% said that their company turned over £1m or more, 18% said £500-£999,999,

and 23% said they turned over between £50,000 and £499,999. Half (52%) of the

approved contractors questioned said that their turnover or amount of business

had increased since March 2010, while 31% said it had decreased and 17% said it

had stayed the same.

Three quarters of approved contractors said that their approximate profit margin

for the last tax year was between 1 and 20%, while only 19% said that it was

more than 20%.

When asked whether they agreed or disagreed that their change in turnover has

been influenced by their ACS status; 47% agreed, but over half (53%) disagreed.

Around half (48%) of the approved contractors questioned said that the number

of staff employed by their organisation had increased since March 2010, while

34% said it had decreased and 17% stayed the same.

The most common wage was between £5.94 and £6.49 per hour (31%), while

21% said that they paid over £8.00 per hour. In terms of average hourly charge

rate for frontline staff, the most common rates were between £8.50 to £9.99 per

hour (28%) and £10.00 to £12.99 per hour (29%).



had access to special leave for emergencies (65%), were paid for time off to

receive work related training (57%), or had access to a pension with company

contributions (41%).

Almost half (46%) of approved contractors said that their front line licensable staff

currently received between 16 and 20 days annual paid leave (excluding paid

bank holidays), and a further 37% said they received between 26 and 30 days.


1.2.2 Clients and the security industry

20% of approved contractors said that they provide security for 10 or less clients,

34% said they provide for between 11 and 50, 32% for 51 to 300 clients, and

14% to over 300 clients.

Almost half (47%) of the approved contractors questioned said that they never

gained work from non-approved contractors during 2010; 41% said that they did

so seldom or occasionally, and 6% did so frequently or consistently. Similarly,

42% of the approved contractors questioned said that they never lost work to

non-approved contractors during 2010; 29% said that they did so seldom or

occasionally, and 22% did so frequently or consistently.

When asked what method contractors used most often to gain new security

business, respondents were most likely to say networking (28%) and responding

to tender notices (28%).

Approved contractors were asked what they thought were the most important

factors to potential clients when they are selecting security suppliers:


o Recommendation from other buyers (85% important)

o Suppliers existing database (80% important)

o Well known or established company (77% important)

o Local offices and or local management (76% important)

Approved contractors were asked how important they thought various methods

were for differentiating between security suppliers:


important





important


suppliers was important.

41% of approved contractors said that the issue most threatening their business

over the next two years is likely to be market contraction, 24% said that they

would be threatened by cash-flow problems, and 10% said that inflations would

be an issue.

When asked about changes to trends in security buying during 2010, three

quarters of approved contractors (74%) said that they had experienced greater

emphasis being placed on cost, almost half (48%) said that they had experienced


delays in payment of monies owed, while 41% had seen a move from manned

security to security systems buying.

The vast majority (81%) of approved contractors said that their organisation had

a positive relationship with the Police, while 15% said that their relationship was

mixed and only 1% (1 respondent) said that they had a negative relationship.

1.2.3 Accreditations and certifications

39% of approved contractors said that they were affiliated with the Chambers of

Commerce, 37% with Project Griffin and 31% with BSIA. 23% said that they

weren’t affiliated with any of the organisations or initiatives listed.

ISO9001:2008 was the most commonly held accreditation among SIA approved

contractors; held by three quarters of respondents (76%). Over half (57%) said

they held the SAFE Contractors accreditation, and around a quarter (24%) held

NSI Gold. 28% said that they held some other accreditation or certification.

A third of respondents (33%) said that their organisations’ didn’t intended to

achieve any of the accreditations listed, over the next twelve months to two years.

14% said they intended to achieve ISO 9001, 13% Investors in People and 12%

SAFE Contractors certifications.

The majority of respondents (57%) said that the ACS was the most important

accreditation that a security supplier can hold, with a quarter (26%) specifying

ISO9001:2008 instead.


Approved contractors were asked whether they agreed or disagreed that their

company standards are higher as a result of the ACS; 68% agreed and 32%

disagreed.

The majority (72%) of respondents agreed that the ACS has helped to raise

standards in the private security industry overall; while 28% disagreed. Again,

those who were planning on renewing their ACS status (79%) were more likely to

agree than those planning not to (0%), or those who were unsure (48%).


differentiation from other security suppliers, 44% said new business opportunities,

and 43% said use of the ACS mark. Respondents were least likely to cite easier

recruitment of staff (9%) and reduced staff turnover (2%) as benefits.

In terms of the private security industry as a whole, respondents were most likely

say that it had benefited from the ACS through a common standard being

introduced (62%), good practice being promoted throughout the industry (59%),

and the exclusion of ‘rogue’ companies (53%).

The vast majority of approved contractors (84%) said that they were planning to

renew their ACS status, while 3% disagreed and 13% were unsure.


1.2.5 Customer requirements and the ACS

When asked what overall proportion of their clients require ACS status, the most

common response was between 1 and 20% of clients (35%). 13% said that none

of their clients require ACS, and 21% said between 81 and 100% require it.

19% said they had central government contracts. Of these 43% said that over

80% of their clients required ACS status, while only 11% said that none of them

do. The majority (86%) said that these contracts required them to hold an

ISO9001 accreditation, 29% SAFE Contractors and 23% NSI Gold.

50% of respondents said they had local government contracts. Of these, over a

third (36%) said that 1-20% of the clients required ACS status, 32% said that

over 80% did, while only 11% said that none of them did. The majority (70%)

said that these contracts required them to hold an ISO9001 accreditation, 30%

SAFE Contractors and 24% NSI Gold.

91% of respondents said they had private sector contracts. Of these, 29% said

that 1-20% of the clients required ACS status, less than a fifth (18%) said that

over 80% did, and 15% said that none of them did. The majority (68%) said that

these contracts required them to hold an ISO9001 accreditation, 40% SAFE

Contractors and 16% NSI Gold.

Two thirds of approved contractors said that they hadn’t lost central, regional or

local government to non-approved contractors in the last 2 years. 14% said they

had lost work, and 20% were unsure.


1.3 BUYERS OF SECURITY


When asked about their organisation, 21% of buyers said that their company is in

the retail sector, 16% said other public sector and 14% said local government.

31% classified their organisation as ‘other services’.

The majority of buyers interviewed were from large companies (61%), and around

a quarter were from medium sized firms (26%). 31% worked for international

companies, 25% for national firms, with 31% described their organisation as

‘local’.

Responses were received from buyers across the UK, but they were most likely to

be from security buyers based in London and the South East (43%). Around a fifth

were based in central England (19%), with the same proportion located in the

North West or North East (20%).

Buyers were most likely to say that they used Security guarding services (61%),

CCTV (46%) and cash and valuables in transit (45%). Vehicle immobilisation and

Close protection services were the least commonly used (2% and 3%

respectively).

1.3.2 The Private Security Industry and Clients

Buyers were asked what they considered important when selecting and buying

from security suppliers. The five most important factors were:


o Compliance with Security industry act (92% important)

o SIA ACS status (88% important)

o British standards (87% important)

o Security operative conditions (85% important)

Buyers were asked what they saw as the most appropriate method for

differentiating between security suppliers:



important




important


suppliers was important.


1.3.3 Your Security Providers

Over half (60%) of the buyers questioned said that they only use one security

provider. 31% said that they use two or three security providers and 9% use four

or more.

When asked what proportion of their security providers are SIA approved, the

majority of buyers (87%) said that over 80% were. Only 3% said that none of

their suppliers were SIA approved.

The majority (85%) of buyers said that they require contractors to be SIA

approved suppliers. Those who said that their suppliers should be SIA approved

were then asked why that was the case. The most common response was that SIA

approval provided buyers with reassurances in terms of quality and management

(76%), that it excludes ‘rogue’ and criminal companies (66%), it denotes a higher

standard of contractor (65%) and indicates increased the professionalism of

security operatives (63%).

Buyers were asked whether they required their security suppliers to hold any

accreditations other than ACS status. 34% said that they stipulated IS09001, 25%

BSIA, 17% Investors in People and 17% SAFE Contractor accreditations, whereas

43% didn’t require their suppliers to hold any of the certifications listed.

When asked what they felt was the single most important accreditation that a

security supplier could hold; over half (57%) said that the SIA Approved

Contractor Scheme was the most important.

When respondents were asked who in their organisation makes the major

decisions on security buying, they were most likely to say a director or board of

directors (27%) or a procurement manager (20%).

91% of respondents said that they were satisfied with their security suppliers,

while only 4% were dissatisfied.

Buyers were most likely to say that the security guards provided to them change

occasionally (48%) or seldom (32%), while 9% said that they never change and

2% said that they are constantly changing.


72% of buyers said that they were aware of the ACS and 28% were not.

The majority of respondents (68%) agreed that approved contractors had higher

standards than non-approved contractors, while 8% disagreed and 24% were

unsure.

Buyers were asked what they considered to be the main benefits of the ACS to the

private security industry overall. The most popular responses were; common

standard for use throughout the industry (71%), promotes good practice in the

industry (55%) excludes ‘rogue’ companies (55%), and excludes companies with

poor practices (51%). 9% of buyers said that they saw no benefits of the ACS to

the private security industry.


2 INTRODUCTION

The Security Industry Authority (SIA) commissioned Snap Research Services to

conduct a review of the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) in 2011.

The objective of the SIA's Approved Contractor scheme is to raise performance

standards and to assist the private security industry in developing new opportunities.

The scheme is voluntary and was developed in consultation with representatives from

across the industry; it only covers those parts of the industry that are regulated by

the SIA and the Private Security Industry Act.

The purpose of this research was to capture a snapshot of the current characteristics

of the industry, to provide a valuable benchmark from which to measure any future

changes to the scheme and to regulation.

2.1 METHODOLOGY

Data was collected via three online surveys, one for approved security contractors,

one for non-approved contractors and one for buyers of security.

Approved contractors – 1,516 ACS companies contacted

Non-approved contractors - 750 security contractors contacted

Buyers - approx 1,954 buyers of security contacted

In addition, all surveys were publicised through press releases, directs emails, e-

newsletters and the SIA website. It should also be pointed out that ACS companies

were asked to share and raise awareness of the survey among their clients in order to

increase response rates, and as such the sample base of buyers may be partially

skewed. This could have an effect in terms of buyer respondents’ ACS awareness and

use of ACS companies, so results should be interpreted with this in mind.

The three surveys were closed on Tuesday 26th April. There were 143 respondents to

the approved contractor survey (9% response rate), 63 to the non-approved

contractor (8% response rate), and 232 to the buyers’ survey (12% response rate).

The data was then analysed by Snap Surveys. The principal contacts for this project

were Siana Bretherton at the SIA and Alex Green at Snap Surveys.

Snap Surveys certify that this research was conducted in accordance with

ISO9001:2008 and ISO20252:2006.

2.2 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Figures in this report are generally calculated as a proportion of respondents who

answered each question – that is, excluding "No Reply". "No Opinion" and "Don't

Know" responses have been excluded from the base when calculating most results.

The data has been Z-tested at 95% confidence level. The Z-test is a statistical test

which determines if the percentage difference between subgroups is large enough to

be statistically significant or whether the difference is likely to have occurred by

chance.

http://www.the-sia.org.uk/home/acs/voluntary.htm

http://www.the-sia.org.uk/home/acs/acs_developed.htm


Base sizes for some questions are low – particularly those in the non-approved

contractors’ survey – so results should be interpreted with caution.


2.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT

The main body of the report is divided into the following sections, which look at the

survey results in detail:

Non-approved contractors’ survey

Company profile

Clients and the security industry

Accreditations and certifications

The Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS)

Customer requirements and the ACS

Approved contractors’ survey

Company profile





Buyers’ survey

Company profile

The private security industry and clients

Your security suppliers


Merged surveys

Company profile





The appendices contain a copy of the questionnaires, listings of comments, and data

tabulations.


3 NON-APPROVED CONTRACTORS’ SURVEY

This section of the report looks at the questionnaire for security contractors’ who are

not SIA approved. Due to the low base sizes for most questions in this section, there

are few mathematically significant differences between subgroups, so results should

be interpreted with caution.

3.1 COMPANY PROFILE

This section of the report profiles non-approved security contractors by sectors

covered and company size. It also asks contractors about changes in company

turnover during the last financial year.

3.1.1 Sectors covered

Security contractors were asked which sectors their business covered. The most

commonly covered sector was security guarding (71%), followed by door supervision

(54%), key holding (35%), and CCTV (25%).

Security Guarding

Door Supervision

Key Holding

Public Space Surveillance (CCTV)

Close Protection

Vehicle Immobilisation

Cash and Valuables in Transit

Other

25%

35%

54%

71%

17%

2%

27%Base: All respondents (63)

QA. Sector(s) covered by your business

3.1.2 Company size and type

Over half of the non-approved contractor respondents said that they work for micro

sized firms (56%), 22% for small, 19% for medium and only 3% for large

organisations.

Micro (up to 10 employees)

Small (11-25 employees)

Medium (26-250 employees)

Large (over 250 employees

56%

22%

19%

3%

Base: All respondents (63)

QB. Your company size


Security contractors were most likely to describe their organisation as regional (35%)

or local (30%). Around a fifth (19%) described their firm as international.

International

National

Regional

Local

19%

16%

35%

30%


QC. Your organisation type

3.1.3 Location


England, 16% were based in central England, and 24% were based in the North East

or North West England.

England - London and SE

England - Central

England - NW

England - NE

Scotland

England - SW

Wales - South

Wales - North

Northern Ireland 2%

2%

5%

6%

10%

37%

16%

14%

10%


QD. Where in the country are you based?


3.1.4 Turnover

Security contractors were asked for their approximate turnover for the 2009-2010

financial year – due to the potentially intrusive nature this question it was made

optional, and as such has a very low base size. Responses were very varied, but 40%

of respondents said that they turned over between £100,000 and £500,000, 10%

between £500,000 and £999,999 and 10% £1m or more.

0

£1 - £9,999

£10,000 - £24,999

£25,000 - £49,999

£50,000 - £99,999

£100,000 - £249,999

£250,000 - £499,999

£500,000 - £999,999

£1m or more 10%

10%

20%

20%

10%

10%

15%

5%


Q3. What was your approximate turnover from security work for the 2009-2010financial year?

40% of the contractors questioned said that their turnover or amount of business had

increased since March 2010, while 43% said it had decreased and 17% said it had

stayed the same.

Increased a lot

Increased a little

Stayed the same

Decreased a little

Decreased a lot 22%

12%

28%

17%

21%


Q2. Since March 2010 has your organisation's turnover or amount of businessincreased or decreased?

Contractors who said that they were considering applying for ACS status (24%) were

significantly less likely than those who said they wouldn’t be applying for ACS status

(60%) to say that their turnover or amount of business had decreased over the last

year.


Nearly a fifth of contractors (17%) said that their approximate profit margin for the

last tax year was 0%, while 39% said that it was between 1 and 20%. Another third

(33%) said that their margin was between 21 and 40%. However, these results

should be interpreted with caution as the question received a very low number of

replies (18 responses).

0%

1-20%

21-40%

41-60%

61-80%

81-100% 6%

6%

17%

39%

33%


Q4. What was your approximate profit margin on security work for the 2009-2010 financial year?

3.1.5 Staff pay and benefits

42% of the non-approved contractors questioned said that the number of staff

employed by their organisation had increased since March 2010, a quarter (24%) said

it had decreased, while around a third (34%) stayed the same.

As above, contractors who said that they were considering applying for ACS status

(12%) were significantly less likely than those who said they wouldn’t be applying for

ACS status (47%) to say that their staff levels had decreased over the last year.

Increased a lot (since March 2010)

Increased a little (since March 2010)

Stayed the same (no differencesince March 2010)

Decreased a little (since March2010)

Decreased a lot (since March 2010) 10%

14%

29%

34%

14%


Q7. Since March 2010 has the number of staff employed by your organisationincreased or decreased?


Average hourly wages for front line staff appeared to vary by organisation, but the

most common wage was between £5.94 and £6.49 per hour (16%), although the

same proportion said they would prefer not to disclose their frontline staff wage

(16%). 32% said that their frontline staff received between £7.50 to £9.99 per hour.

£5.93 or less per hour

£5.94 - £6.49

£6.50 - £6.99

£7.00 - £7.49

£7.50 - £7.99

£8.00 - £8.49

£8.50 - £9.99

£10.00 - £12.99

£13.00 - £14.99

£15.00 or more

Prefer not to say 16%

4%

12%

11%

11%

11%

5%

16%

9%

7%


Q8. What is the average hourly wage you pay your front line licensable staff?

There were large variations in terms of average hourly charge rate for frontline staff;

but the most common rates were between £10.00 and £12.99 per hour (23%). 14%

said that their charge rate was less than £7.00, while 20% said it was £13.00 or

more. Again, a fifth (20%) of the contractors questioned preferred not to disclose

their charge rate.


£5.94 - £6.49

£6.50 - £6.99

£7.00 - £7.49

£7.50 - £7.99

£8.00 - £8.49

£8.50 - £9.99

£10.00 - £12.99

£13.00 - £14.99

£15.00 or more


13%

7%

23%

16%

4%

4%

5%

5%

4%


Q9. What is the average hourly charge rate for your front line licensable staff?



were paid for time off to receive work related training (38%), had access to special

leave for emergencies (38%), or received holiday entitlement above the minimum

(33%). 10% of respondents said that their front line staff didn’t receive any of the

benefits listed.


Paid above national minimum wage

Paid time off for work-related training

Access to special leave for emergencies etc

Holiday entitlement above the minimum

Access to at least 4 weeks sick pay for security guards

Bonus scheme

Access to a pension with company contributions

Access to death in service benefit

Other

None of the above

33%

38%

38%

83%

15%

13%

12%

6%

10%


Q11. Which, if any, of the following welfare and benefits apply to your front linelicensable staff (this may be after a qualifying minimum or probationary period)?

There were no significant differences between subgroups, due to low base sizes.

3.1.6 Annual leave

Responses were very varied in terms annual leave for front line licensable staff.

Similar proportions of respondents said that their staff received between 16-20 days

holiday (26%), 21-25 days (23%) and 26-30 days (26%).

0

15 or less

16 - 20

21 - 25

26 - 30

31 - 35

Over 35 3%

26%

17%

6%

23%

26%


Q10. How many days paid annual leave do your front line licensable staffcurrently have as a minimum (excluding paid bank holidays)?

There were no meaningful differences between the amounts of paid leave received by

front line staff across the different sectors covered by the private security industry.


3.2 CLIENTS AND THE SECURITY INDUSTRY

This section of the report looks at the relationship between security contractors and

their clients; how many clients they have and what they think is important to clients

when selecting suppliers. It also looks at work lost and gained to approved

contractors, their relationship with the Police and general trends in security buying.

3.2.1 Number of clients

The majority of contractors (68%) said that they provide security for 10 or less

clients, 14% said they provide for between 11 and 50, 10% for 51 to 300 clients, and

8% to over 300 clients. As expected, larger companies were more likely to provide

security for larger numbers of clients.

1-2

3-5

6-10

11-25

26-50

51-100

101-300

Over 300 8%

3%

6%

6%

25%

29%

14%

8%


Q1. How many clients do you provide security for?

3.2.2 Work lost and gained

Around half (51%) of the contractors questioned said that they never gained work

from approved contractors during 2010; 33% said that they did so seldom or

occasionally, and 14% did so frequently or consistently.

Similarly, the majority of the contractors questioned (60%) said that they never lost

work to approved contractors during 2010; 19% said that they did so seldom or

occasionally, and 13% did so frequently or consistently. There were no clear patterns

across subgroups for either question.

Never

Seldom

Occasionally

Frequently

Consistently

Don't know 8%

5%

60%

5%

14%

8%


Q6. How often during 2010 has your company lost work to a contractor that is anSIA Approved Contractor?

Never

Seldom

Occasionally

Frequently

Consistently

Don't know

51%

3%

30%

11%

3%


Q5. How often during 2010 has your company gained work from a contractor thatis an SIA Approved Contractor?


When asked what method contractors used most often to gain new security business,

respondents were most likely to say networking (40%) and advertising or marketing

(22%). 10% said that they didn’t use any of the methods listed.

Networking was most commonly used in the close protection sector (82%), compared

to 33% to 44% of those in other sectors.

Networking

Advertising/marketing

Cold-calling

Responding to tender notices

Buying out contracts/firms

Other

None of the above 10%

8%

2%

40%

22%

10%

10%


Q14. What method of gaining new security business do you use MOST often?

3.2.3 Important factors when selecting security suppliers


potential clients when they are selecting security suppliers. They were most likely to

say:

Total cost of service (95% important)

Recommendation from other buyers (90% important)

Compliance with the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (79% important)

Well known or established company (79% important)

Suppliers existing client base (77% important)

Total cost of service (62)

Recommendation from other buyers (62)

Compliance with the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (63)

Well-known/established company (61)

Supplier's existing client base (60)

Local offices and/or local management (62)

Security operative conditions (e.g. hours, wages, training) (61)

British Standards (62)

Other (42)

Other accreditations (52)

ISO9001 certification (59)

SIA Approved Contractor (ACS status) (59)

SIA Approved Contractor Scheme assessment score (59)

Additional services offered (e.g. cleaning, technical services etc) (60)

SIA Approved Contractor Scheme assessment report (59)

68 27 32

53 37 10

56 24 13 8

36 43 20 2

28 48 22 2

32 39 24 5

31 33 20 16

23 34 27 16

33 17 24 26

15 29 27 29

15 25 32 27

19 20 31 31

10 25 25 39

15 18 37 30

12 20 32 36%

Very important (%) Quite important (%) Not very important (%) Not at all important (%)

Base: All respondents excl. Don't know

Q12. In your experience, how important do you think the following are to client/potential clients whenselecting security suppliers?


Non-approved contractors were least likely to think that clients would rate the SIA

Approved Contractor Scheme assessment score (36% important), additional services

offered (33% important), and ACS assessment report (32% important) as important

when selecting security suppliers.

Due to the low bases size there were very few significant differences between

subgroups, although non-approved contractors who said that they were considering

applying for ACS status were more likely than those not applying to say that

compliance with the Private Security Industry Act 2001, ACS status, ACS assessment

score, ACS assessment report and additional services offered were all important.

3.2.4 Differentiating between security suppliers

Security contractors were asked how important they thought various methods were

for differentiating between security suppliers:

98% said face to face meeting with company representatives was important

97% said comparison of quality of service offered for price was important

74% said a tender exercise was important

65% said examination of accreditations or certifications held was important

64% said that some other method of differentiating between security suppliers

was important

54% said examination of company website or promotional material was important.

Face to face meeting with companyrepresentatives (63)

Comparison of quality of service offered forprice (63)

A tender exercise (62)

Examination of Accreditations/certifications

held (63)

Other (33)

Examination of company website orpromotional material (63)

34 40 18 8

17 37 40 6

42 21 27 9

60 37 22

27 38 27 8

71 27 2



Q13. How important are the following methods for differentiating between security suppliers?

There were no significant differences between subgroups due to low base sizes.


3.2.5 Trends in security buying

When asked about changes to trends in security buying during 2010, over half of the

non-approved contractors (54%) said that they had experienced greater emphasis

being placed on cost. Almost half (46%) said that that had experienced delays in

payment of monies owed, while around a quarter (24%) had seen a move from

manned security to security systems buying.

8% said that they hadn’t experienced any of the trends listed.

More emphasis on cost

Delay in payment of monies owed

A move from manned security to security systems buying

Change to shorter contracts

More emphasis on added value

Demand for integrated services, e.g security and cleaning

Change to longer contracts

Other

None of the above

Don't know 6%

8%

5%

2%

21%

13%

54%

46%

24%

22%


Q20. Have you experienced any changes to trends in security buying during 2010?

3.2.6 Relationship with the Police

The vast majority (84%) of contractors said that their organisation had a positive

relationship with the Police, while 10% said that their relationship was mixed and no

respondents said that they had a negative relationship with the Police.

Positive relationship

Negative relationship

Mixed relationship

Don't know

84%

10%

6%


Q25. Would you say that your organisation has a positive, negative or mixedrelationship with the Police?


3.2.7 Issues threatening your business

38% of security contractors said that they felt cash-flow problems could threaten

their business over the next twelve months to two years, while 30% said they may

suffer due to market contraction.

Cash-flow

Market contraction

Interest rate rise

Inflation

Staff turnover

Credit rating

Other

Don't know 3%

18%

2%

38%

30%

5%

5%


Q19. What one issue MOST threatens your business over the next twelve monthsto two years?

18% of non-approved contractors said that they felt their business may be threatened

by something else over the next two years. These respondents were asked to specify

what they thought this might be. A selection of these responses is shown below:

"The costs of accreditation for compliance to ACS... if a company does not have

contracts then they can't get ACS, if a company does not have ACS, they cannot

obtain contracts"

"Larger national companies undercutting smaller companies"

"Clients NOT paying invoices be it government run or Subcontracted"

"Cheap Security with poor standards being acceptable to some security buyers"

"SIA goalposts and the cost of the courses and cost of keeping the SIA in business will

put me out of business"


3.3 ACCREDITATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

This section of the report looks at what current accreditations or certifications security

contractors hold, which ones they plan to hold in the future, and what they think is

the most important accreditation that a security supplier can hold.

3.3.1 Current affiliations and accreditations

22% of security contractors said that they were affiliated with the Chambers of

Commerce, while much fewer were associated with ASIS, BSIA or the Security

Institute (8% each). However, over half of those questioned (56%) said that they

weren’t affiliated with any of the organisations or initiatives listed.

Chambers of Commerce

ASIS

BSIA

Security Institute

British Institute of Facilities Management

Project Griffin

Institute of Risk Management

Security Watchdog

British Parking Association

Security Benevolent Fund

UKCMA

IPSA

Other


8%

2%

2%

2%

3%

3%

6%

6%

22%

8%

8%

8%


Q15. Which of the following organisation(s) and initiatives does your companybelong to or have affiliation with?

8% said that they were affiliated with some other organisation or initiative; these

respondents were asked to specify what they associated with. Their responses are

shown below:

"ACIEA, IFL, BBA"

"Ex Police in Industry & Commerce"

"NASDU"

As above the majority of non-approved contractors said that they didn’t hold any of

the accreditations or certifications listed. Those that did hold an accreditation were

most likely to hold ISO9001:2008 (19%), SAFE Contractor (17%) or Investors in

people (11%).

ISO9001: 2008

SAFE Contractors

Investors in People

ISO170001

Contract Quality Marque

NSI Gold

Other

None of the above

Don't know 5%

59%

19%

8%

3%

3%

17%

11%

6%


Q16. What other accreditations/certifications does your organisation hold?


8% said that they held some other accreditation or certification; these respondents

were asked to specify what they associated with. Their responses are shown below:

"ACIEA, BBA, AIFL, Skills for Security, CHAS, UKAS(applied) Investors in People"

"CITY AND GUILDS AND INVEST NI ACCREDITATION"

"Construction Line - Achilles"

"Link Up, CHAS, Construction line"

"REC"

3.3.2 Future accreditations and certifications

Nearly a third of respondents (32%) said that they intended to achieve the SAFE

Contractor accreditations over the next twelve months to two years, while 30% said

they would apply for ISO9001 certification and a quarter (24%) said they intended to

achieve Investors in People accreditation.

Over a quarter (27%) said that their organisation didn’t intend to achieve any of the

accreditations listed, over the next twelve months to two years.

SAFE Contractors

ISO9001: 2008

Investors in People

ISO17001


NSI Gold

Other

None of the above

Don't know 14%

27%

16%

5%

6%

32%

30%

24%

10%


Q17. What accreditations/certifications does your organisation intend to achieveover the next 12 months to 2 years?

3.3.3 Most important accreditations

Almost half of the non-approved suppliers questioned (44%) said that the ACS was

the most important accreditation that a security supplier can hold, with 22%

specifying ISO9001:2008 instead.

Approved Contractor Scheme

ISO9001:2008

SAFE Contractors

National Security Inspectorate Gold

Investors in People

ISO17001

Other 13%

3%

3%

44%

22%

10%

5%


Q18. In your view what is the single most important accreditation/certification thata security supplier should hold?


3.4 THE APPROVED CONTRACTOR SCHEME (ACS)

This section of the report focuses on evaluating the Approved Contractor Scheme

itself and whether contractors were considering applying. It also asks non-approved

security suppliers to consider what benefits the ACS may bring to security contractors

and to the industry as a whole.

3.4.1 Applying for ACS status

Nearly half of the non-approved suppliers (43%) said that they were considering

applying for ACS status, while 32% were not and 25% were unsure.

Yes

No

Don't know

32%

25%

43%


Q30. Are you considering applying for the ACS status?

Respondents who said that they were considering applying for ACS status were asked

why. Most suggested that ACS status would make them more attractive to security

buyers, and that it would improve internal company standards:

"Because ACS is becoming more important in the eyes of buyers"

"Because it increases business opportunities"

"Because we now cannot find work without it but as a small business it is proving to

be a very hard process"

"Credibility and as an indicator of compliance, standards and quality of work"

"Licensing recommending only ACS approved companies in one region we cover"

"So we can generate more work"

"To improve our image and status in the public sector and security industry."

"To promote professionalism"

"To strengthen our brand image and make us more appealing to potential customers."

"Improved standards - tender opportunities"


Respondents who said that they were not considering applying for ACS status were

also asked why this was the case – their responses generally mentioned the costs

involved in applying for approved status:

"Cannot afford the additional cost"

"Only 2 employees"

"I don’t agree this is the way to better the industry"

"I don’t see a benefit"

"Uncertainty over the future of the sia and our clients of many many years will NEVER

require ACS.

They are all very happy with our own vetting and licensed status."

"It’s another tax. I've seen all that needs to be done to get approved status. The

majority of it is a complete joke and waste of time. Why make everything so difficult.

There is no need."

"Cost, yet another assessment for a dubious return - logo ha we do not even use SIA

logos due to their policy on its alleged misuse."

3.4.2 Standards in the private security industry

Responses were split when non-approved contractors were asked whether the felt the

ACS had helped to raise standards in the private security industry overall; 44%

agreed and 56% disagreed.

There were no clear differences between the contractors of different sizes or those

working in different industry sectors.

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

16%

28%

28%

28%

Base: All respondents excl. Don't know (50)

Q21. To what extent do you agree or disagree that ACS has helped to raisestandards in the private security industry overall?


Contractors were asked to explain the reasons for their answer. Those who agreed

were likely to mention common standards across the industry. Although responses

were very mixed:

"It provides a minimum in the standards and this will help to promote our industry."

"ACS encourages companies to provide a more comprehensive service."

"Most tenders have the question are we an ACS approved company? I feel that it has

raised standards, increased trust and made companies easier to work with rather than

against."

"It has required some businesses to look at their standards, documents processes,

follow procedures etc. Good businesses did this already though. ACS makes NO

allowance for small businesses with an ebb and flow of contracts or allows those that

have lost all ongoing contracts / that are just starting out to attain ACS status"

Those who disagreed were more likely to say that the ACS still has work to do in

terms of removing all illegal companies, or that it benefits larger companies more

than small firms.

"Because it has stopped the smaller companies from operating on there own and have

to sub contact from other companies at lower rates of pay."

"Has not affected my business"

"All ACS has done is alienate smaller concerns in favour of national providers with

often very little local presence beyond sales and marketing activity. They are

contractual in as much yes we can deliver the earth but woe betide anyone who asks

for more - it will cost you dear."

"I don’t think it has achieved anything, I know good companies that are not in the

ACS and awful companies that are in it."

"I think any system where you buy into accreditation is wrong. Work should be gained

by merit and reputation. The ACS has simply enabled the bigger companies to ride

roughshod over smaller companies in many instances and is not about the client at

all."

"The smaller companies such as ourselves struggle with cash/profits already and I

think it is another unnecessary expense. As long as all staff are licensed that should

be enough."

"We are aware of a number of very poor quality organisations that have gained ACS"


3.4.3 Benefits of the ACS

When asked what they considered to be the main benefits of the ACS, 44% said new

business opportunities, 35% said use of the ACS mark and 24% said differentiation

from other security suppliers. Respondents were least likely to cite easier recruitment

of staff (6%) and reduced staff turnover (2%) as benefits.

29% said that they didn’t consider any of the factors listed as benefits of the SIA

ACS. Respondents who said that they weren’t planning to apply for ACS status were

the most likely to say that this was the case.

New business opportunities (e.g. clients require ACS)

Use of ACS mark

Differentiation from non approved contractors

Use of licence dispensation

ACS assessment highlights areas to improve

Improved operational performance

Reduced insurance premiums

Improved management control

ACS forums and newsletters

Easier recruitment of staff

Reduced turnover

Other


3%

2%

6%

8%

10%

14%

14%

16%

44%

35%

24%

17%


Q23. What do you consider to be the main benefits of the ACS to a securitysupplier?

In terms of benefits to the private security industry as a whole, responses were very

mixed. Security suppliers were likely to say that it had benefited from the ACS

through a common standard being introduced (35%), good practice being promoted

throughout the industry (35%), the exclusion of ‘rogue’ companies (33%) and an

improved industry image (33%).

27% said that they hadn’t seen any benefits to the private security industry overall

from the Approved Contractor Scheme. As above, respondents who said that they

weren’t planning to apply for ACS status were more likely to say this was the case.

Common standard for use throughout the

industry

Promotes good practice in the industry

Excludes ‘rogue’ companies

Improved image of the industry

Excludes companies with poor practices

Improved standard of security services

Increased buyer confidence in the industry

Increased professionalism of security operatives

Increased public confidence in the industry

Other


5%

22%

24%

25%

25%

25%

35%

35%

33%

33%


Q24. What do you consider to be the main benefits of the ACS to the privatesecurity industry overall?


3.5 CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS AND THE ACS

This section asks non-approved security contractors whether they have any central

government, local government or private sector contracts, and if these contracts

require contractors to hold any specific certifications or accreditations.

3.5.1 Central government contracts

Only 13% of contractors said they had central government contracts. Of these the



BSIA

Investors in People

ISO170001

ISO9001: 2008

SAFE Contractors


13%

25%

13%

13%

13%

Base: All respondents with central gvt. contracts (8)

Q26b. Do these contracts require you to hold any of the following accreditations,certifications or memberships?

3.5.2 Local government contracts

25% of respondents said they had local government contracts. Again, of these the



ISO9001: 2008

BSIA

Investors in People

SAFE Contractors

Other


13%

13%

6%

6%

6%

Base: All respondents with local gvt. contracts (16)



3.5.3 Private sector contracts

62% of respondents said they had private sector contracts. Of these, just over half

(56%) said these contracts didn’t require them to hold any of the certifications or

accreditations listed. Almost a fifth (18%) said that these contracts required them to

hold an ISO9001 accreditation, and 15% SAFE Contractors certification.

ISO9001: 2008

SAFE Contractors

BSIA

Investors in People

ISO170001

Other

None of the above

3%

10%

15%

13%

56%

10%

18%

Base: All respondents with private sector contracts (39)


3.5.4 Central, regional and local government contracts lost

The vast majority of non-approved contractors said that they hadn’t lost central,

regional or local government to approved contractors in the last 2 years, while 14%

said they had lost work. There were no significant differences between those working

in different sectors or in different sized firms.

Yes

No 86%

14%


Q29. Have you lost any central, regional or local government contracts to anapproved contractor in the last 2 years?


3.5.5 Further comments

Security contractors were given the opportunity to submit further observations or

feedback. A wide range of responses were received; a selection of which is shown

below:

"Approved Contractorship should be mandatory in the security industry and business

registration scheme that may take place, it should be mandatory that hey have

quality assurance."

"ACS is like any other management system and using it to assess performance is

missing the main point. It's how motivated and focused the security operatives as

well as how well they are trained that will improve performance but not how much

paperwork a company shows to have. Customers are interested in securing their

businesses and if a company can provide this, it does not matter if they have ACS or

not."

"I think it sometimes hard for small companies to reach the ACS mark without a huge

cost. Even if there standards are sometimes higher than the SIA's. Would like to see

more help for new businesses gain the ACS without such a large cost."

"I think licensing is good but do not think that ACS is fair it is creating a rich man

poor man situation and putting un necessary pressure on the small companies"

"Rogue companies still exist as does poor practice and this occurs within ACS

companies as well as non ACS. Training and licensing of security managers and

owners should be a priority so they have the knowledge to lead people at least to a

Level 3 qualification. The requirement that the companies are licensed maybe not

through ACS but through another scheme with a registered owner see point above on

training."

"The sia is totally unaware of the reality of some companies they ""approve"" as

contractors. Companies known to myself operate without any conscience towards

their obligations to staff clients or rules they must adhere to until an assessment is

due when they suddenly spend several weeks bringing paperwork up to date and

displaying a professional front for the sole purpose of seeming legitimate often

""losing"" staff so they are not found to be substandard"

"There should be an easier way for MICRO businesses to gain the ACS, but with

regular checks to the growth and adjustments made as and when the company grows

in size"

"We do not believe the SIA is in touch with the needs of the smaller security

contractor. As with other security organisations they seem to concentrate on the

larger companies to the exclusion of the smaller ones."


4 APPROVED CONTRACTORS’ SURVEY

This section of the report looks at the approved contractors’ questionnaire.

4.1 COMPANY PROFILE

This section of the report profiles SIA approved contractors (ACS companies) by

sectors covered and company size. It also asks contractors about changes in company

turnover during 2010 and whether respondents feel ACS status influences their

turnover.


Approved contractors were asked which sectors their business covered. The most

commonly covered sector was security guarding (91%), followed by key holding

(51%), door supervision (37%) and CCTV (28%).

Security Guarding

Key Holding

Door Supervision

Public Space Surveillance (CCTV)

Close Protection



Other

28%

37%

51%

91%

11%

5%

2%



Respondents from large firms were significantly more likely to say that they cover the

CCTV and door supervision sectors, than those in medium, small or micro firms.


Over half of the approved contractor respondents said that they work for medium

sized firms (56%), 14% for small, 22% for large and 8% work for micro sized firms.




Large (over 250 employees

56%

8%

14%

22%




Almost half of those questioned (43%) described their organisation as national, 34%

as regional, 14% as local and only 9% as international. Those who cover the key

holding sector (42%) were more likely than others (6% to 33) to describe their firm

as international.

International

National

Regional

Local

9%

43%

34%

14%



4.1.3 Location


England, 21% were based in the North East or North West England, and 17% were in

central England.


England - Central

England - NW

Scotland

England - NE

England - SW

Wales - South

Wales - North

Northern Ireland

1%

1%

43%

17%

13%

8%

2%

7%

8%



Large companies were the most likely to be based in London or the South East

England (74%), compared to those working in smaller organisations (27% to 42%).


4.1.4 Turnover

Approved contractors were asked for their approximate turnover for the 2009-2010

financial year – due to the potentially intrusive nature this question it was made

optional, and as such has a very low base size. 38% said that the company turned

over £1m or more, 18% said £500-£999,999, and 23% said they turned over

between £50,000 and £499,999.

As expected large (67%) and medium sized firms (42%) were significantly more likely

than small or medium companies (both 0%) to say that they turned over £1m or

more.

0

£1 - £9,999

£10,000 - £24,999

£25,000 - £49,999

£50,000 - £99,999

£100,000 - £249,999

£250,000 - £499,999

£500,000 - £999,999

£1m or more 38%

18%

12%

8%

3%

21%


Q3. What was your approximate turnover from security work for the 2009-2010financial year?

Half (52%) of the approved contractors questioned said that their turnover or amount

of business had increased since March 2010, while 31% said it had decreased and

17% said it had stayed the same.

There were very few differences between subgroups, although respondents who

described their organisation as international (75%) or national (59%) were more

likely than those in regional (48%) or local firms (28%) to say that their turnover or

business had increased, while those in local firms were the most likely to say it had

decreased.

Increased a lot

Increased a little

Stayed the same

Decreased a little

Decreased a lot 11%

16%

36%

17%

20%


Q2. Since March 2010 has your organisation's turnover or amount of businessincreased or decreased?


Following this, contractors were asked whether they agreed or disagreed that their

change in turnover has been influenced by their ACS status; 47% agreed, but over

half (53%) disagreed.

Contractors who said that they were planning on renewing their ACS status next year

were more likely to agree that it influenced their change in turnover, whereas those

who were unsure whether to renew their status were the most likely to disagree that

ACS affected changes in turnover.

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Disagree strongly

9%

37%

35%

18%

Base: All respondents excl. Don't know (158)

Q5. To what extent do you agree or disagree that your ACS status has influencedany change in your turnover?

Respondents were given the opportunity to explain their response to this question.

Those who agreed generally mentioned a requirement for ACS status in tenders, and

the fact that being approved provided opportunities to work for a wider range of

clients.

"ACS status tends to be mandatory in most large tenders"

"Local authorities are now demanding ACS contractors only in the tendering process."

"Many public sector contracts are awarded to only ACS companies."

"A small number of tenders have asked for ACS membership"

"Our clients expect us to have ACS approval"

"Without Approved Contractor Status I don't think we'd be have been asked to

tender, never mind considered."

"We use ACS and explain the benefits to our Customers of using an ACS company.

Always give the ACS Brochure"

Those who disagreed that ACS status affected their turnover generally mentioned a

lack of awareness of the ACS from clients

"ACS has had no impact to us and no one seems to know what it is."

"It has not really improved turnover but more helped keep existing work"

"No evidence to suggest that ACS status has had any influence on our ability to

secure new business or retain what we already have."

"No new clients have asked about ACS"

"Not enough companies are aware of ACS"

"The public is not aware or interested in ACS"


"Too many companies have ACS status so seen by most buyers as a tick box

therefore cheaper companies take the work"

"With 700 approved contractors, it is difficult to demonstrate a competitive edge. Too

much business is price driven"

Three quarters of approved contractors said that their approximate profit margin for

the last tax year was between 1 and 20%, while only 19% said that it was more than

20%. However, these results should be interpreted with caution as the question

received a low number of responses.

0%

1-20%

21-40%

41-60%

61-80%

81-100%

2%

6%

75%

17%


Q4. What was your approximate profit margin on security work for the 2009-2010financial year?


Around half (48%) of the approved contractors questioned said that the number of

staff employed by their organisation had increased since March 2010, while 34% said

it had decreased and 17% stayed the same.

Respondents covering the cash and valuables in transit sector were the most likely to

say that their staff number had decreased (22%), compared to those covering other

sectors (51% to 60%).





Decreased a lot (since March 2010) 8%

11%

37%

17%

27%


Q9. Since March 2010 has the number of staff employed by your organisationincreased or decreased?


Average hourly wages for frontline staff appeared to vary by organisation, but the

most common wage was between £5.94 and £6.49 per hour (31%), while 21% said

that they paid over £8.00 per hour.


£5.94 - £6.49

£6.50 - £6.99

£7.00 - £7.49

£7.50 - £7.99

£8.00 - £8.49

£8.50 - £9.99

£10.00 - £12.99

£13.00 - £14.99

£15.00 or more


1%

6%

10%

4%

10%

3%

31%

16%

12%


Q10. What is the average hourly wage you pay your front line licensable staff?

In terms of average hourly charge rate for front line staff, the most common rates

were between £8.50 to £9.99 per hour (28%) and £10.00 to £12.99 per hour (29%).


£5.94 - £6.49

£6.50 - £6.99

£7.00 - £7.49

£7.50 - £7.99

£8.00 - £8.49

£8.50 - £9.99

£10.00 - £12.99

£13.00 - £14.99

£15.00 or more

Prefer not to say

28%

14%

3%

14%

3%

29%

5%

1%

2%


Q11. What is the average hourly charge rate for your front line licensable staff?

In terms of welfare and benefits available to front line staff, approved contractors

were most likely to say that front line staff were paid above national minimum wage

(88%), had access to special leave for emergencies (65%), were paid for time off to

receive work related training (57%), or had access to a pension with company

contributions (41%). 5% of respondents said that their front line staff didn’t receive

any of the benefits listed.






Bonus scheme

Access to at least 4 weeks sick pay for security

guards


Other


9%

21%

23%

24%

30%

88%

65%

57%

41%


Q13. Which, if any, of the following welfare and benefits apply to your front linelicensable staff (this may be after a qualifying minimum or probationary period)?

Respondents covering the cash and valuables in transit sector were the most likely to

offer front line staff access to death in service benefits (88% vs 20-50%). Along with


those in CCTV (74%), those covering the cash and valuables in transit (88%) were

also most likely to offer paid time off for work-related training.

4.1.6 Annual leave

Almost half (46%) of approved contractors said that their front line licensable staff

currently received between 16 and 20 days annual paid leave (excluding paid bank

holidays), and a further 37% said they received between 26 and 30 days.

0

15 or less

16 - 20

21 - 25

26 - 30

31 - 35

Over 35

2%

37%

1%

1%

14%

46%



There were no meaningful differences between the amounts of paid leave received by

front line staff across the different sectors covered by the private security industry.



This section of the report looks at the relationship between approved contractors and

their clients; how many clients they have and what they think is important to clients

when selecting suppliers. It also looks at work lost and gained to non-approved

suppliers, approved contractors’ relationship with the Police and general trends in

security buying.


20% of approved contractors said that they provide security for 10 or less clients,

34% said they provide for between 11 and 50, 32% for 51 to 300 clients, and 14% to

over 300 clients.

As expected, larger companies were much more likely to provide security for larger

numbers of clients. Those in the cash and valuables in transit and CCTV sectors were

also more likely to have more clients, but this is probably linked to the fact that

companies in those sectors were the most likely to be large or medium sized.

1-2

3-5

6-10

11-25

26-50

51-100

101-300

Over 300 14%

16%

16%

13%

3%

6%

11%

21%




Almost half (47%) of the approved contractors questioned said that they never

gained work from non-approved contractors during 2010; 41% said that they did so

seldom or occasionally, and 6% did so frequently or consistently.

Similarly, 42% of the approved contractors questioned said that they never lost work

to non-approved contractors during 2010; 29% said that they did so seldom or

occasionally, and 22% did so frequently or consistently. There were no clear patterns

across subgroups for either question.

Never

Seldom

Occasionally

Frequently

Consistently

Don't know 8%

7%

42%

12%

17%

15%


Q8. How often during 2010 has your company lost work to a contractor that is notan SIA Approved Contractor?

Never

Seldom

Occasionally

Frequently

Consistently

Don't know 7%

3%

47%

26%

16%

2%


Q7. How often during 2010 has your company gained work from a contractor thatis not an SIA Approved Contractor?


When asked what method contractors used most often to gain new security business,

respondents were most likely to say networking (28%) and responding to tender

notices (28%).

Tender notices were most commonly used by large companies (54%), compared to

27% of medium, 8% of small and 7% of micro sized firms.

Networking


Cold-calling



Other


6%

1%

28%

28%

17%

14%


Q16. What method of gaining new security business do you use MOST often?



potential clients when they are selecting security suppliers:


Recommendation from other buyers (85% important)

Suppliers existing database (80% important)

Well known or established company (77% important)

Local offices and or local management (76% important)












Other (94)




92 6 2

35 49 13 2

18 62 18 2

24 53 22 1

25 51 23 1

42 29 20 9

28 38 23 12

26 34 25 15

15 38 30 17

23 30 28 18

11 35 42 12

19 22 40 18

9 33 41 17

7 12 40 40

7 8 44 42



Q14. In your experience, how important do you think the following are to client/potential clients whenselecting security suppliers?


Approved contractors were least likely that clients would rate additional services

(41% important), ACS assessment score (20% important), and ACS assessment

report (14% important).

Responses were fairly consistent across subgroups, but a few differences were

apparent:

Respondents in large companies (and as a result, often those covering the CCTV

and cash and valuables in transit sectors) were more likely than others to say that

compliance with the Private Security Industry Act 2001, ACS status, ACS

assessment score, ACS assessment report, British Standards, ISO9001

certification and other accreditations were all important to clients or potential

clients.

Predictably, respondents who said they weren’t planning on renewing their ACS

status were significantly less likely to think that supplier valued the ACS, than

those who were planning on renewing.


Approved contractors were asked how important they thought various methods were

for differentiating between security suppliers:





66% said examination of company website or promotional material was important


was important.




Examination of Accreditations/certifications

held (178)

Examination of company website or

promotional material (178)

Other (76)

71 27 11

30 26 30 13

55 39 6 1

37 46 14 3

14 52 28 6

31 50 15 4




Contractors from large companies (92%) were more likely than those in medium

(84%), small (73%) and micro sized firms (73%) to say that a tender exercise is an

important way of differentiating between security suppliers. Similarly, respondents


from small companies (65%) were less likely than others (80% to 90%) to say that

accreditations and certifications are important for differentiation.


41% of contractors said that the issue most threatening their business over the next

two years is likely to be market contraction, 24% said that they would be threatened

by cash-flow problems, and 10% said that inflations would be an issue.

Market contraction

Cash-flow

Inflation

Staff turnover

Interest rate rise

Credit rating

Other

Don't know 7%

13%

1%

2%

41%

24%

10%

3%


Q21. What one issue MOST threatens your business over the next twelve monthsto two years?

13% of respondents said that they would be threatened by some other issue, and

were asked to specify what that might be. An example of their comments is shown

below.

"Being under cut by cash paying competitors"

"Large organisations forcing the price down by using ridiculous tender prices"

"Market prices being forced downwards"

"Non payments by clients"

"Under cutting by very large companies"

"Low standard companies offering below market rates, clients squeezing rates even

further, further regulation, disbandment of the SIA"

"Being undercut by non sia companies"



When asked about changes to trends in security buying during 2010, three quarters

of approved contractors (74%) said that they had experienced greater emphasis

being placed on cost. Almost half (48%) said that they had experienced delays in

payment of monies owed, while 41% had seen a move from manned security to

security systems buying.








Other

None of the above

Don't know 2%

1%

4%

3%

24%

18%

74%

48%

41%

33%


Q22. Have you experienced any changes to trends in security buying during2010?

Respondents from large companies (56%) were significantly more likely than those in

medium (30%), small (27%) or micro sized firms (7%) to say that they had seen

clients put greater emphasis on added value.


The vast majority (81%) of approved contractors said that their organisation had a

positive relationship with the Police, while 15% said that their relationship was mixed

and only 1% (1 respondent) said that they had a negative relationship with the Police.

Respondents from large companies (95%) were the most likely to say that their

relationship with the police was positive, compared to 78% of medium, 77% of small

and 73% micro sized organisations.


Negative relationship

Mixed relationship

Don't know

81%

1%

15%

3%





This section of the report looks at what current accreditations or certifications

approved contractors hold, which ones they plan to hold in the future, and what they

think is the most important accreditation that a security supplier can hold.


39% of approved contractors said that they were affiliated with the Chambers of

Commerce, 37% with Project Griffin and 31% with BSIA. 23% of those questioned

said that they weren’t affiliated with any of the organisations or initiatives listed.

Large companies were more likely than smaller ones to say that they were affiliated

with the majority of the initiatives listed, including; Project Griffin, BSIA, Security

Institute, Security Watchdog, Institute of Risk Management and Security Benevolent

Fund. Instead, micro sized firms (40%) were more likely to say that they were not

affiliated with any of the initiatives listed, compared to 35% of small, 25% of medium

and 3% of large organisations.


Project Griffin

BSIA

Security Institute

Security Watchdog


IPSA

ASIS




UKCMA

Other


16%

3%

4%

6%

6%

7%

8%

8%

8%

39%

37%

31%

16%


Q17. Which of the following organisation(s) and initiatives does your companybelong to or have affiliation with?

16% said that they were affiliated with some other organisation or initiative; these

respondents were asked to specify what they associated with. A selection of

responses is shown below:

"British Security Association"

"BSI"

"EPIC"

"NSI"

"Safe Contractor"

"Pacesetters"

"Operation Trident, Operation Argus, BII"

"NASDU, NTIPDU,"

"Institute of Directors"

"FSB"


ISO9001:2008 was the most commonly held accreditation among SIA approved

contractors; held by three quarters of respondents (76%). Over half (57%) said they

held the SAFE Contractors accreditation, and around a quarter (24%) held NSI Gold.

As with the previous question, large firms were significantly more likely than smaller

companies to hold the majority of the accreditations listed, including; ISO9001, SAFE

Contractors, NSI Gold and Investors in People. Smaller firms were much more likely

to say that they didn’t hold and of the certifications listed.

ISO9001: 2008

SAFE Contractors

NSI Gold

Investors in People

ISO17001


Other

None of the above

Don't know 3%

11%

28%

1%

2%

76%

57%

24%

18%



28% said that they held some other accreditation or certification; these respondents

were asked to specify what they associated with. A selection of responses is shown

below:

"CHAS"

"14001 and 18001"

"Achilles"

"Contractor Plus"

"ISO 14001"

"Link Up"

"NSI Silver"

"OHSAS18001"

"Trading Standards 'Buy with Confidence'"

"SSAIB ACPO Registered"



A third of respondents (33%) said that their organisations’ didn’t intended to achieve

any of the accreditations listed, over the next twelve months to two years. 14% said

they intended to achieve ISO9001, 13% Investors in People and 12% SAFE

Contractors certifications.

16% said that they intended to achieve registration to ‘other’ accreditations, most

commonly ISO 14001 or ISO 8001.

ISO9001: 2008

Investors in People

SAFE Contractors

NSI Gold


ISO17001

Other

None of the above

Don't know 19%

33%

16%

3%

4%

14%

13%

12%

10%


Q19. What accreditations/certifications does your organisation intend to achieveover the next 12 months to 2 years?


The majority of respondents (57%) said that the ACS was the most important

accreditation that a security supplier can hold, with a quarter (26%) specifying

ISO9001:2008 instead.


ISO9001:2008

National Security Inspectorate Gold

Investors in People

SAFE Contractors

ISO17001

Other 4%

2%

57%

26%

8%

3%


Q20. In your view what is the single most important accreditation/certification thata security supplier should hold?



This section of the report focuses on evaluating the Approved Contractor Scheme

itself, and asks contractors to consider what benefits the ACS may bring to security

contractors and to the industry as a whole. Approved contractors were also asked

how the ACS has changed the way their company operates and whether they would

be renewing their ACS status.

4.4.1 How has the ACS changed the way your company operates?

Approved contractors were asked how the ACS had changed the way their company

operates. Comments were varied, but respondents mentioned the idea that ACS has

increased their professionalism and accountability and that it encourages organisation

of procedures. Other respondents suggested that the ACS hasn’t changed their

procedures because they were already operating at a high level.

"ACS has made the company focus more on accountability, service level, and staff

training and development. In conjunction with NSI Gold Passport programme we have

seen a year on year improvement in our operations which has lead to stream lining of

our business."

"Better quality procedures and some awareness of how we operate"

"Benchmarking and continuous improvement on ACS score/compliance each audit."

"Encouraged us to develop set standards and work in a systematic manner."

"Harder to employee new staff in fact it’s a nightmare"

"Improved business compliance, more focus for the middle management level, helps

promote

"Increase in cost owing to ACS costs and additional staffing to ensure compliance"

"It has developed our processes and quality system/manual"

"It has highlighted that companies must monitor its own processes."

"It has made us more professional"

"It has not"

"Just more time needed to collate data for the ACS audit"

"More paperwork, more costs"

"Processes and procedures are more formalised"

"The company can now prove it operates at a high level"

"Very little has actually changed in this respect"

"We follow the correct procedures and are far more organised"

"We have not changed"

"We were already operating quite a number of the procedures that are part of the

ACS accreditation, however, being audited on those procedures has ensured that they

are met, and gives accountability to those Managers responsible."


4.4.2 Company standards and the ACS

Approved contractors were asked whether they agreed or disagreed that their

company standards are higher as a result of the ACS; 68% agreed and 32%

disagreed.

As expected, those who said they were planning to renew their ACS status next year

(74%) were significantly more likely than those planning not to (0%), and those who

were unsure (40%), to agree that the ACS has raised their company standards.

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

32%

36%

25%

7%

Base: All respondents excl. Don't know(165)

Q24. To what extent do you agree or disagree that your company standards arehigher as a result of being an ACS company?

Approved contractors were asked to explain their reasons and indicate in which areas

standards were higher. Those who agreed that their standards had been raised

mentioned the fact that they now have formalised procedures in place, that general

areas for improvement are highlighted, and that work and quality is standardised.

"ACS has set us targets and made us look at the business in a different way and we

enjoy the challenge of audit. Our audits have been very useful and we have found our

auditors approach to have helped us/encouraged us to develop (Bill Gray NSI). We

believe this to be a massive positive."

"Administration and generally the whole operating of the company has risen to

another level and the results are quite transparent"

"As above. Standardised our systems of work and procedures etc"

"Better policies and procedures implemented"

"Company procedures are uniform and staff have adapted well to these on all our

sites. We promote ACS in every quarterly staff newsletter and remind staff on a

regular basis that a professional Company is an ACS Company. Most Clients

appreciate the personal touch they receive and we survey both Clients and staff every

quarter and implement changes based on this feedback. Our documentation has

significantly improved as we near our Year Three assessment."

"I don’t , the standard is simply measured now"

"It has targeted area of operation within our business and in doing so has aided us in

improving in these areas."

"More attention to detail in the recruitment process."

"Our standards have improved greatly i.e.: vetting and screening and risk

assessments"


"Procedures in place, inspections and checks and audits are done on a regular basis."

"Helped us to achieve and maintain tighter processes and control. Tighter key control-

management meetings-performance monitoring"

"It has targeted area of operation within our business and in doing so has aided us in

improving in these areas."

"We are able to identify improvement areas which we normally would not have

identified if we were not following ACS standard."


The majority (72%) of respondents agreed that the ACS has helped to raise standards

in the private security industry overall; while 28% disagreed. Again, those who were

planning on renewing their ACS status (79%) were more likely to agree than those

planning not to (0%), or those who were unsure (48%).

Companies describing themselves as local (57%) were less likely than others (69%

international, 83% national and 67% regional) to agree that the ACS has raise

industry standards.

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

22%

50%

22%

6%



Contractors were asked to explain the reasons for their answer. Those who agreed

were likely to mention improved training for staff, a reduction in illegally operating

companies, and common standards across the industry.

"ACS Companies are able to demonstrate compliance with the Law"

"ACS has helped focus a number of companies on the benefits to be gained from a

structured quality service"

"All staff have now received the required training and companies have to work within

clear guidelines and standards which has filtered down to the officers on the front

line"

"As most customers now insist on using ACS approved Contractors it means that

companies operating illegally have reduced in number."

"By showing that you are an approved contractor identifies that you taken the

commitment of security seriously."

"Everyone now has a common standard"


"I totally agree that we must have a standard to operate to, but I do not believe that

the ACS has been able to flex its full power and remove some of the more

questionable operations."

"We have nearly eradicated the cowboys"

Those who disagreed were more likely to say that the ACS still has work to do in

terms of removing all illegal companies, or that it benefits larger companies more

than small firms.

"Although ACS encourages companies to raise their standards, there are still 'rogue'

security companies operating within the industry - most rogue companies don't pay

taxes, don't have any overheads, sometimes they might not have company

insurances and there are a whole heap of other stuff, I could go on and on! - My

company which has held ACS approval since 2007 have to compete against these

companies and that is unfair and there by lowers the standards"

"It appears to be a paper work exercise which does not require confirmation by

potential clients"

"It has made very little difference as there are still companies that flaunt the rules we

have to follow"

"It was going to make a 'level playing field' for all security suppliers. Our sized

businesses are still not getting a look in, because the huge multi million pound

companies are simply cutting our throats and are even preparing to make losses on

jobs, as long as they win them. We cannot compete with their prices."

"The licensing of staff has changed the industry, not ACS"

"We are still seeing company's win contracts in my opinion that do not have the same

standards and certifications that our company hold."

"The ACS accreditation, which is extremely costly, does nothing that ISO:9001 does.

There should be a separation between SIA and ACS and any 'respect' the ACS may

have gained in recent times is now being eroded by its continuous reluctance to

properly disassociate itself from the pacesetters organisation that continues to use

ACS in their name. Further, companies should either 'pass' or 'fail'."




differentiation from other security suppliers, 44% said new business opportunities,

and 43% said use of the ACS mark. Respondents were least likely to cite easier

recruitment of staff (9%) and reduced staff turnover (2%) as benefits.



Use of ACS mark








Reduced turnover

Other


1%

2%

9%

13%

23%

32%

34%

34%

46%

44%

43%

39%


Q27. What do you consider to be the main benefits of the ACS to a securitysupplier?

Approved contractors covering the cash and valuables in transit (78%) and vehicle

immobilisation sectors (100%, but only 3 respondents) were the most likely to say

that the use of license dispensation was a benefit, compared to those in other sectors

(32% to 55%). Those in close protection were the most likely to say that the ACS

highlighting areas to improve was a benefit, while those in CCTV were more likely to

cite the ACS forums and newsletters as beneficial.

In terms of the private security industry as a whole, respondents were most likely say

that it had benefited from the ACS through a common standard being introduced

(62%), good practice being promoted throughout the industry (59%), and the

exclusion of ‘rogue’ companies (53%). Contractors were least likely to cite increased

buyer confidence in the industry (39%) and increased pubic confidence in the industry

(24%) as benefits of the Approved Contractor Scheme.

Common standard for use throughout the industry









Other


2%

24%

39%

41%

43%

44%

62%

59%

53%

44%




Large companies (69%) were the most likely to say that the industry had benefited

through the exclusion of rogue companies, when compared to smaller companies

(35% to 52%).

4.4.5 Renewing ACS status

The vast majority of approved contractors (84%) said that they were planning to

renew their ACS status, while 3% disagreed and 13% were unsure.

Large companies (95%) were more likely than medium (86%), small (65%) or micro

sized organisations (73%) to say that they would renew their AC status. Those in the

close protection sector (40%) were the least likely to say yes, compared to 67% to

100% of those in other sectors.

Yes

No

Don't know

3%

13%

84%


Q29. Do you intend to renew your Approved Contractor Scheme status when itnext comes up for renewal?

Respondents were asked to explain the reasons for their decision. Those who were

intending to renew their status suggested that ACS is becoming the minimum

standard within the industry, and as such is becoming vital to security contractors.

"ACS is the norm for us and as I have said before it should become mandatory."

"As one of the market leaders we feel it is our responsibility to support the scheme."

"Essential to remain at the forefront of the industry"

"Good business practise"

"If you do not go along with the 'Crowd' then you get left behind.....It is easier to

conform (And here I mean we want to and are not being driven elsewhere)...."

"Improvements in industry standards and to be recognised as the symbol of quality

supplier."

"In some tenders is a requirement"

"It's a must have to help to grow and retain business."

"This is the only way forward. Companies are aware of the ACS and now demand it as

a minimum."

"We cannot afford to not be ACS approved because we do not know how many of our

potential new customers or indeed our existing customers regularly check the website

for evidence of ACS qualification"

"Vital to our continued success"


One approved contractor responded who wasn’t planning on renewing their ACS

status:

"Until it is made compulsory we will not renew"

Those who were unsure whether to renew or not generally questioned whether the

cost and effort required maintaining their status was repaid by the benefits.

"Been an approved contractor for several years now and have really seen any

advantages, contracts still being gained by non approved contractors undercutting

costs. ACS needs marketing by the SIA to security buyers as many have no idea

what it is when you explain you hold ACS status."

"Expense and triviality of some sections...doesn't reflect operational output. Still

hasn't tackled the issue of ACS approved contractors utilising large scale sub

contracted staff."

"Not sure the cost is worth the benefits"

"The time and effort associated with the scheme has so far not been rewarded by a

related increase in work as a result of being ACS as it seems that the vast majority of

buyers (certainly those who would consider a small company like ours) have very

little interest or knowledge of ACS."

"Not sure of its worth for the price- too many companies paying to be approved with

no previous track record of good customer service"

"Still hoping for a benefit but unless recession ends the costs will not be worth it"



This section asks approved contractors whether they have any central government,

local government or private sector contracts, and if these contracts require

contractors to hold any specific certifications or accreditations.

4.5.1 Overall proportion of clients requiring the ACS

When asked what overall proportion of their clients require ACS status, the most

common response was between 1 and 20% of clients (35%). 13% said that none of

their clients require ACS, and 21% said between 81 and 100% require it.

Small companies were the most likely to say that none of their clients require ACS

status, whereas large firms were the most likely to say that it was required by 81-

100% of their clients.

0%

1-20%

21-40%

41-60%

61-80%

81-100% 21%

12%

12%

13%

35%

8%


Q31. What proportion of your clients overall require the ACS?


19% said they had central government contracts. Of these 43% said that over 80% of

their clients required ACS status, while only 11% said that none of them do.

The majority (86%) of contractors with central government contracts said that these

contracts required them to hold an ISO9001 accreditation, 29% SAFE Contractors and

23% NSI Gold. 11% said these contracts didn’t require them to hold any of the


ISO9001: 2008

SAFE Contractors

NSI Gold

Investors in People

BSIA

IPSA

ISO170001

Other


11%

3%

3%

9%

86%

29%

23%

14%

Base: All respondents with central gvt contracts (35)


0%

1-20%

21-40%

41-60%

61-80%

81-100% 43%

9%

11%

29%

6%

3%

Base: All respondents with central gvt contracts (35)

Q32a. What proportion of your central government contracts require ACS?



50% of respondents said they had local government contracts. Larger companies

were more likely than small organisations to say that this was the case.

Of these, over a third (36%) said that 1-20% of the clients required ACS status, 32%

said that over 80% did, while only 11% said that none of them did.

When asked whether these contracts required them to hold any specific certifications,

responses were very similar to those for central government contracts, with the

majority (70%) saying that these contracts required them to hold an ISO9001

accreditation, 30% SAFE Contractors and 24% NSI Gold. 21% said these contracts

didn’t require them to hold any of the certifications or accreditations listed.


91% of respondents said they had private sector contracts. Of these, 29% said that

1-20% of the clients required ACS status, less than a fifth (18%) said that over 80%

did, and 15% said that none of them did.

Once again, the majority (68%) of contractors with central government contracts said

that these contracts required them to hold an ISO9001 accreditation, 40% SAFE

Contractors and 16% NSI Gold. 23% said these contracts didn’t require them to hold

any of the certifications or accreditations listed.

Those in the smallest companies were the most likely to say that these contracts

didn’t require them to hold any of the certifications or accreditations listed.

ISO9001: 2008

SAFE Contractors

NSI Gold

BSIA

Investors in People

ISO170001

IPSA

Other

None of the above

12%

24%

30%

70%

10%

3%

1%

10%

21%Base: All respondents with local gvt contracts (90)


0%

1-20%

21-40%

41-60%

61-80%

81-100%

8%

2%

36%

11%

11%

32%

Base: All respondents with local gvt contracts (90)

Q33a. What proportion of your local government contracts require ACS?

0%

1-20%

21-40%

41-60%

61-80%

81-100% 18%

15%

15%

29%

12%

11%


Q34a. What proportion of your private sector contracts require ACS?

ISO9001: 2008

SAFE Contractors

NSI Gold

BSIA

Investors in People

ISO170001

IPSA

Other


10%

2%

5%

68%

40%

16%

12%





Two thirds of approved contractors said that they hadn’t lost central, regional or local

government to non-approved contractors in the last 2 years. 14% said they had lost

work, and 20% were unsure. There were no significant differences between those

working in different sectors or in different sized firms.

Yes

No

Dont know

66%

20%

14%


Q36. Have you lost any central, regional or local government contracts to a non-approved contractor in the last 2 years?


5 BUYERS’ SURVEY

This section of the report looks at the questionnaire for buyers of security.

5.1 COMPANY PROFILE

This section of the report profiles buyers of security by type of organisation, security

services used, company size and location.

5.1.1 Type of organisation

When asked about their organisation, 21% of buyers said that their company is in the

retail sector, 16% said other public sector and 14% said local government. 31%

classified their organisation as ‘other services’.

Other services

Retail

Other public sector

Local Government

Manufacturing

Financial services

Construction

Central Government

Night time economy 1%

1%

5%

8%

8%

31%

21%

16%

14%


QB. Type of organisation

As expected, large companies (20%) were significantly more likely than medium

(5%) and small firms (4%) to say that they work in local government.

Buyers who classified their organisation as ‘other’ were asked to specify their

company type. The majority of responses were based around facilities and property

management. A selection of responses is shown below:

"Area management"

"Charity"

"Education"

"Facilities Management"

"Leisure"

"Property Management"

"Hospitality"



The majority of buyers interviewed were from large companies (61%), and around a

quarter were from medium sized firms (26%).

As expected, buyers working for local or central government were the most likely to

work for large organisations (89%), while those working in other public sector (51%),

retail (50%) and other services were the least likely.

These results were reflected when buyers were asked what type of company they

worked for; with 31% working for international companies and 25% for national

firms. 31% described their organisation as ‘local’.

Those working in the manufacturing (74%) and financial services sectors (72%) were

the most likely to describe their firm as international, when compared to all other

sectors (3 to 35%).

5.1.3 Location

Responses were received from buyers across the UK, but they were most likely to be

from security buyers based in London and South East England (43%). Around a fifth

were based in central England (19%), with around the same proportion located in the

North West or North East England (20%).


England - Central

England - NW

England - NE

Scotland

England - SW

Wales - North

Wales - South

Northern Ireland 2%

2%

2%

5%

8%

43%

19%

12%

9%


QE. Where in the country are you based?

International

National

Regional

Local

31%

25%

13%

31%


QD. Your organisation type




Large (over 250 employees)

3%

10%

26%

61%


QC. Your organisation size


5.1.4 Security services used

Buyers were most likely to say that they used security guarding services (61%), CCTV

(46%) and cash and valuables in transit (45%). Vehicle immobilisation and close

protection services were the least commonly used (2% and 3% respectively).

Security Guarding

CCTV

Cash and Valuables In Transit

Key Holding

Door Supervision

Close Protection

Vehicle Immobilising

Other 6%

2%

3%

46%

45%

17%

28%

61%


QG. What type of security services do you use?

Differences apparent at the subgroup level included:

Buyers in the manufacturing (95%) and construction sectors (92%) were

significantly more likely than those in other sectors (38% to 68%) to use security

guarding services.

Those working in retail were the most likely to use CCTV services (60%)

Buyers in financial services (72%), central or local government (60%), and other

public sectors (59%) were more likely than others (17% to 52%) to use cash and

valuables in transit services.

International (81%) and national firms (73%) were more likely than regional

(52%) and local organisations (35%) to use security guarding, whereas local

(65%) and regional firms (55%) were more likely to use cash and valuables in

transit services.


5.2 THE PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY AND CLIENTS

This section asks security buyers which factors are most important to them when

selecting security suppliers, what they feel is the most appropriate method for

differentiating between suppliers and what proportion of their supplier are SIA

approved. Buyers were also asked about supplier accreditations, and whether they

are happy with their current suppliers.

5.2.1 Factors important when selecting security suppliers

Buyers were asked what they considered important when selecting and buying from

security suppliers. The five most important factors were:


Compliance with Private Security Industry Act 2001 (92% important)

SIA ACS status (88% important)

British Standards (87% important)

Security operative conditions (85% important)














Other (102)


60 39 1

65 27 6 2

58 30 9 4

44 42 10 4

39 46 12 3

37 45 16 2

29 51 18 3

36 40 19 5

22 54 21 4

36 39 20 5

34 41 21 4

10 54 32 4

13 25 41 21

20 17 42 22

7 16 48 29



Q1. Please indicate how important the following are to you when selecting security suppliers.

Buyers were least likely to say that suppliers existing client base (65% important),

other accreditations (38% important), ‘other’ (36% important) and additional services

offered (23% important) were important.

Responses were fairly consistent across subgroups, but a few differences were

apparent:

Buyers in the retail sector were the least likely to say that local offices or local

management were important

Respondents working in manufacturing were the most likely to say that

recommendations from other buyers (42%) were unimportant, compared to those

in other sectors (17% to 33%)


Those who said they were aware of the ACS (91%) were significantly more likely

than those unaware (70%) to say that security operative conditions were

important

Those not aware of the ACS (92%) were more likely to stress the importance of a

well know company and established reputation, compared to 78% of those aware

Large and medium sized firms (84% and 85%) were more likely than small (70%)

or micro sized companies (50%) to say that using a well know or established

company was important.

Larger firms were also more likely than smaller companies to say that ACS status,

ACS assessment score and the ACS assessment report were all important factors

to consider when selecting security suppliers


Buyers were asked what they saw as the most appropriate method for differentiating

between security suppliers:





60% said examination of company website or promotional material was important


was important.




Examination of Accreditations/certificationsheld (221)

Examination of company website orpromotional material (220)

Other (94)

69 29 2

68 26 51

58 33 7 2

42 48 8 1

11 49 33 7

21 22 44 13





There were very few differences between subgroups for this question, although

buyers working in large or medium firms were the most likely to value accreditations

and certifications held by suppliers, or some ‘other’ method of differentiation. Those

who said other were given the opportunity to specify the methods they used:

"Accreditations"

"Local Knowledge"

"Customer Focus and Management Account Handling"

"Relevant experience of provider in our field"

"Promptness and suppliers internal controls"

"Quality and dedication of guards supplied"

5.2.3 Reference sources

Buyers were asked what reference sources they used to keep informed about issues

and developments that would affect the use of security in their company. Almost half

(49%) said that they used word of mouth or personal recommendations, and 30%

used trade associations. 33% said that they don’t use any of the sources listed.

Word of mouth/personalrecommendation

Trade association

Security publication

Facilities Management publications

Business support organisations

Other


6%

13%

49%

30%

22%

21%


Q3. What reference sources do you use to keep informed about issuesand developments that would affect the use of security in your company?

There were no significant differences between respondents from different sized firms,

but buyers who were aware of the ACS were significantly more likely than those who

weren’t aware to say that they use word or mouth, trade associations, security

publications and facilities management publications as reference sources; while those

unaware of the ACS were significantly more likely to say that the didn’t use any of the

resources listed.

Respondents working in the financial sector were the most likely to say they use word

of mouth/personal recommendations (67% vs 31-56%) and also security publications

like Professional Security, Security Management Today and Infologue (50% vs 11 –

25%). Buyers in the manufacturing industry were the most likely to say that they use

‘other’ reference sources (26%), compared to 2% to 8% of those in other sectors.


Respondents were asked to name exactly which reference sources they use to keep

up to date with security information. A selection of responses is shown below:

"BIFM information"

"BSIA Website; Professional Security; SMT; Infologue"

"BSSA and Suffolk Trade Association"

"Facilities UK"

"FMUK"

"Networking with other company's"

"Other venues in the same industry"

"Purchasing Consortia"

"SIA"


5.3 YOUR SECURITY PROVIDERS

This section of the report looks at the security providers used by buyers of security.

Buyers were asked how many providers they use, what proportion of them are SIA

approved, and how satisfied they are with their current providers.

5.3.1 Number of security providers

Over half (60%) of the buyers questioned said that they only use one security

provider. 31% said that they use two or three security providers and 9% use four or

more.

There were no significant differences between firms of different size in terms of the

number of security providers used.

1

2

3

4

5+ 6%

60%

23%

8%

3%


Q4. How many security providers do you use?

5.3.2 Supplier certifications and accreditations

When asked what proportion of their security providers are SIA approved, the

majority of buyers said that over 80% were (87%). Only 3% said that none of their

suppliers were SIA approved.

0%

1-20%

21-40%

41-60%

61-80%

81-100% 87%

1%

3%

6%

1%

3%


Q5. What proportion of your security providers are SIA approved contractors?


The majority (85%) of buyers said that they require contractors to be SIA approved

suppliers. SIA approval was most likely to be required in large (90%) and medium

sized companies (84%), than in small (63%) or micro firms (67%).

Buyers who said that their suppliers should be SIA approved were then asked why

that was the case. The most common response was that SIA approval provided

buyers with reassurances in terms of quality and management (76%), that it excludes

‘rogue’ and criminal companies (66%), it denotes a higher standard of contractor

(65%) and indicates increased the professionalism of security operatives (63%).

Security buyers who said that they don’t require their contractors to be SIA approved

were asked why they don’t require their contractors to be approved. A selection of

their responses is shown below, but there were no clear themes among responses:

"Because in certain situations experience and reliability are more important and the

SIA does not cover certain areas where specialists operate - e.g pit security at gigs."

"I had no idea such an organisation existed"

"Not a lot of faith in SIA"

"We have a relationship that has lasted over 10 years, the subject of SIA approval

has never been raised although I know they have it."

"I have never seen any benefit in SIA. There should be legal regulations which the

company should achieve. The quality of the SIA approved guards has never really met

our standards and it is easy for us to carry out a CRB check on people we are using. I

would rather not have SIA as a licensing body but have them more as an inspection

body, a bit like HMRC. Have the regulations and if you are caught flouting them then

there is a big price to pay. All my staff complains about the length of time it takes SIA

to do anything and the lack of support and contact they have during any application

process. It has been sistered to the CSA"

"All I want is good quality security staff that do the job required of them, and to do it

to the best of there ability"

They were also asked if there was anything that would convince them to specify ACS

as a requirement for their contractors. There were very few responses, the majority

of which said ‘No’ or ‘Not really’.

Yes

No

85%

15%


Q6. Do you require that your security provider is an SIA approved contractor?

Provides reassurance on quality and management

Excludes 'rogue' and criminal companies

Higher standard of contractor



Reduces liability

Other

None of the above

66%

62%

6%

63%

65%

1%

40%

76%

Base: Respondents who require suppliers to be SIA approved (197)

Q6c. Why do you require your security provider to be an SIA approved contractor?


Buyers were asked whether they required their security suppliers to hold any

accreditations other than ACS status. 34% said that they stipulated IS09001, 25%

BSIA, 17% Investors in People and 17% SAFE Contractor accreditations, whereas

43% didn’t require their suppliers to hold any of the certifications listed.

ISO9001: 2008

BSIA

Investors in People

SAFE Contractors

NSI Gold

ISO17001

IPSA

Other


7%

6%

11%

13%

34%

17%

25%

17%


Q7. Do you require that your security provider holds any other certification,accreditation or membership?

There were few differences between subgroups for this question, although buyers in

the construction sector were the most likely to specify ISO9001:2008 (67% vs 22 –

47%) and SAFE Contractor accreditations (50% vs 3 – 31%). Similarly buyers in

financial services (28%) and construction (26%) were more likely than those in other

sectors (3% to 17%) to require NSI Gold certification from their suppliers.

Buyers who said that they work in ‘other public sector’ roles (59%) were significantly

more likely than most other respondents (17% to 47%) to say that they didn’t

require their contractors to hold any of the accreditations or certifications listed.

Those respondents who said they require other accreditations or certifications were

asked what these accreditations were. These responses are shown below:

"ISO14001"

"Not sure, this is covered by procurement"

"CHAS"

"CHAS, NICEIC"

"ACS Pacesetters"

"Relevant codes of practice"


Security buyers were asked what they felt was the single most important

accreditation that a security supplier could hold; over half (57%) said that the SIA

Approved Contractor Scheme was the most important.

SIA Approved Contractor Scheme

ISO9001: 2008

NSI Gold

Investors in People

SAFE Contractors

ISO17001


Other


3%

1%

2%

57%

11%

3%

2%


Q8. What is the single most important accreditation/certification that your securitysupplier should hold?

5.3.3 Decisions on security buying

When respondents were asked who in their organisation makes the major decisions

on security buying, they were most likely to say a director or board of directors

(27%) or a procurement manager (20%).

Buyers working in the central or local government sectors (37%) were the most likely

to say that a procurement manager made decisions on security buying, compared to

11% to 28% of other buyers. Conversely, those working in the manufacturing (42%)

and financial services sectors (39%) were more likely to say it was the responsibility

of a security manager, (compared to 3 to 19% of those in other sectors)

Director/Board of Directors

Procurement Manager

Security Manager

Facilities Manager

Specifier

Consultant

Other

Don't know 3%

15%

1%

27%

20%

17%

17%


Q9. Who in your organisation makes the major decisions on security buying?

15% said that someone other that those listed made decisions on security buying. An

example of their responses is shown below:

"Business Manager"

"Business Unit Heads of Security"

"Centre Manager"

"Chief Financial Officer"

"Head of Finance"

"Head of Service"

"Project Manager"


"Senior Facilities Manager"

"Site Manager"

5.3.4 Satisfaction with current security suppliers

91% of respondents said that they were satisfied with their security suppliers, while

only 4% were dissatisfied.

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied 1%

50%

41%

3%

5%


Q10. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your current security providers?

Respondents across all sectors were very positive, with those in the retail and other

public services sectors the least likely to be satisfied. Respondents using vehicle

immobilisation services (80%) were slightly less likely to say that they were satisfied

then other buyers (87% to 100%).

5.3.5 Security guard turnover

Buyers were most likely to say that the security guards provided to them change

occasionally (48%) or seldom (32%), while 9% said that they never change and 2%

said that they are constantly changing.

There were no significant differences between the responses of buyers from different

organisation types or sizes.

Constantly

Frequently

Occasionally

Seldom

Never 9%

2%

48%

9%

32%


Q11. How often do the security guards provided to you change?



This section of the report focuses on the Approved Contractor Scheme, and asks

buyers whether they are aware of the ACS, how it affects the standards of security

suppliers, what benefits the ACS may bring to the industry as a whole. Buyers were

also asked for any further observations or feedback on the scheme in general.

5.4.1 Awareness of the ACS

72% of buyers said that they were aware of the ACS and 28% were not.

Buyers in ‘other public sector’ roles were significantly more likely than most to say

that they were unaware of the scheme (54% vs 8 – 34%), as were buyers from

Wales (63%) when compared to those from other areas (17% to 41%).

Predictably, firms who described themselves as international (92%) or national (75%)

were more likely to be aware of the ACS than those working in local (51%) or

regional firms (66%).

Yes

No

72%

28%


QF. Are you aware of the SIA Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS)?

5.4.2 Standards of security contractors

The majority of respondents (68%) agreed that approved contractors had higher

standards than non-approved contractors, while 8% disagreed and 24% were unsure.

Strongly agree

Agree

Not sure

Disagree

Strongly disagree

32%

36%

6%

24%

2%


Q12. To what extent do you agree or disagree that approved contractors havehigher standards compared to non-approved contractors?


Respondents were asked to explain their answers to the above question and to

indicate in what areas standards are higher. Buyers who agreed that approved

contractors have higher standards highlighted differences in standards in a number of

areas, including quality of service, reliability and the level of training and experience:

"All areas, professionalism, training, the ability to carry out their duties"

"Approved contractors are not ex-convicts as was the case most of the time in the

past"

"Better trained staff"

"Good paper trail (or electronic) to see where money has gone. Efficient banking

procedures"

"Approved contractors should have to meet minimum standards."

"Better service"

"It has been proved that training is better, as is H&S knowledge and safe working"

"More professional, rigorous quality standards"

"Reliable guards, regular, very few changes"

"Training, Management ability, professionalism"

Respondents who disagreed that approved contractors have higher standards were

more likely to suggest that quality still varies from company to company, regardless

of accreditation, and that non-approved firms may still be reliable:

"There are vast differences in the ways that approved contractors work, treat their

staff and commit to a job which means that you can have an approved contractor who

has excellent standards and one that does not but no ability to differentiate on these.

This indicates that the regulation is good but there is no added value to the

accreditation system"

"We frequently use a company who are not SIA approved due to the costs involved

but the quality of work, their experience, advice and their reputation and reliability

are all as good if not better than the approved contractor."

"There are some excellent non ACS approved suppliers available"

"We used to employ our own on site Security staff but are now not able to due to

licensing"

"Never used non-approved so nothing to compare to"

"All security companies are the same; they employ BODIES at cheap rates. You

only get decent staff if you pay the right rate; it has nothing to do with training,

approved. Pay peanuts and get monkeys."



Buyers were asked what they considered to be the main benefits of the ACS to the

private security industry overall. The most popular responses were; common standard

for use throughout the industry (71%), promotes good practice in the industry (55%)

excludes ‘rogue’ companies (55%), and excludes companies with poor practices

(51%). 9% of buyers said that they saw no benefits of the ACS to the private security

industry.

Common standard for use throughout the industry









Other


26%

35%

3%

38%

47%

71%

55%

46%

55%

51%



Large (75%) and medium sized companies (74%) were more likely than small (46%)

or micro sized firms (33%) to say that the ACS has helped create a common standard

for use throughout the industry, as well as increase the professionalism of security

operatives (48% of large and 49% of medium firms, compared to 25% of small and

33% of micro firms).

Buyers in the financial services sector (17%) were the least likely to say that the ACS

improves the standards of security services, compared to 66% of central/local

government buyers and 75% of those in construction.


5.4.4 Further comments

Respondents were given the opportunity to submit further observations or feedback.

A wide range of responses were received; a selection of which is shown below:

"Being happy with my supplier and their services is the most important thing to me"

"Concerned the withdrawal of the SIA will create a vacuum which will draw rogue

companies back into the industry which would be extremely disappointing situation."

"If you want buyers to use the SIA standard as a benchmark then you need to issue a

guide on how to identify and select a good security company."

"It would be a complete waste of effort and time if the current system was not

continued. The industry would be set back 20 years."

"My experience is that the more local the security office is to the site, the better the

service and the more efficient the back-up. The guards supplied need to be familiar

with the type of operation / location / type of business / familiar with the local

community / surroundings that they are guarding and they should not be changed

unless at the request of the purchaser."

"Officers that hold a licence could commit an offence and it would not be picked up

until licence renewals. More stringent vetting processes required, i.e. all officers

licences should be annually checked by service providers."

"Standards of professionalism and accountability within this industry require to be

driven to a very high level in order for it to sustain the confidence and credibility, both

of buyers and the public."

"The SIA could do far more to promote the benefits of the ACS scheme"

"We are very small company but still need people we can trust."

"Would like to see the minimum requirement level raised to ensure a higher level of

achievement."


6 MERGED FILES

Some questions appeared in two or more of the surveys, and as such, the responses

are comparable. Responses to the three surveys have been merged, and where

appropriate are compared in this section of the report.

6.1 COMPANY PROFILE

This section of the report compares the profiles of approved contractors, non-

approved contractors and buyers of security. It asks respondents about sectors

covered, company size, and changes in company turnover during 2010.

6.1.1 Type of organisation

Looking at overall responses, around half were from buyers (49%), 38% were from

approved contractors and 13% were from non-approved contractors. As such, results

would be skewed towards the opinions of buyers and approved contractors when

looking at results as a whole.

Buyers

ACS

Non-ACS

49%

38%

13%


B1. Organisation type


Approved and non-approved contractors were both asked which sectors they covered.

The results show a few significant differences between their responses.

Security Guarding

Key Holding

Door Supervision

Public Space Surveillance(CCTV)

Close Protection



Other

71%

35%

54%

25%

17%

2%

27%

91%

51%

37%

28%

11%

5%

2%

3%

ACS (180)

Non-ACS (63)Base: All ACS and non-ACS respondents



Approved firms were significantly more likely than non-approved contractors to

say that they cover the security guarding (91 vs 71%) and key holding (51% vs

35%).

Non-approved contractors (54%) were significantly more likely than ACS firms

(37%) to say that they cover the door supervision sector.

Non-approved contractors (27%) were also more likely to say that they covered

some other sector of the private security industry to those listed, when compared

to approved firms (3%).


Respondents to all three surveys were asked to specify their company’s size.

Non-approved contractors (56%) were more likely than approved contractors (8%)

and buyers (3%) to classify their company as micro sized. Approved contractors were

the most likely to say that they work in a medium sized company, while buyers were

the most likely to work in a large firm.



Medium (26-250employees)

Large (over 250 employees61%

26%

10%

3%

3%

19%

22%

56%

8%

14%

56%

22%

ACS (180)

Non-ACS (63)

Buyers (232)Base: All ACS, non-ACS and buyer respondents


Reflecting this, buyers (31%) were the most likely to classify their organisation as

international, compared to 19% of non-ACS and 9% of ACS firms. Whereas approved

contractors (43%) were significantly more likely to classify their firm as national;

compared to 16% of non-ACS companies and 25% or buyers.

International

National

Regional

Local

31%

25%

13%

31%

19%

16%

35%

30%

14%

34%

43%

9%

ACS (180)

Non-ACS (63)

Buyers (232)Base: All ACS, non-ACS and buyer respondents (475)



6.1.4 Location

Responses were very similar across all three respondent groups, with respondents

most likely to say that their organisation was based in London or South East England.


England - Central

England - NW

England - NE

Scotland

England - SW

Wales - South

Wales - North

Northern Ireland

43%

19%

12%

9%

8%

5%

2%

2%

2%

37%

16%

14%

10%

10%

6%

5%

2%

2%

8%

13%

17%

43%

8%

7%

2%

1%

1%

ACS (180)

Non-ACS (63)

Buyers (232)Base: All ACS, non-ACS and buyer respondents (475)


6.1.5 Turnover

Approved and non-approved contractors were asked for their approximate turnover

for the 2009-2010 financial year – these questions were made optional, and as such

have a low base size.

Responses were quite different across the two respondent groups, with approved

contractors more likely to say that they achieved higher a turnover than non-

approved firms – however, this may be due more to the fact that ACS respondents

were significantly more likely to work for medium or large organisations, while non-

approved contractors were more likely to work for small or micro sized firms.

0

£1 - £9,999

£25,000 - £49,999

£50,000 - £99,999

£100,000 - £249,999

£250,000 - £499,999

£500,000 - £999,999

£1m or more

10%

15%

5%

10%

20%

20%

10%

10%

3%

21%

8%

12%

18%

38%

ACS (66)

Non-ACS (20)Base: All ACS and non-ACS respondents (86)

Q3. What was your approximate turnover from security work for the 2009-2010 financial year?


Responses from approved and non-approved contractors were not significantly

different when asked whether their firm’s turnover or amount of business had

changed since March 2010; 52% of approved firms said that it had increased,

compared to 40% of non-approved firms.

Increased a lot

Increased a little

Stayed the same

Decreased a little

Decreased a lot

12%

28%

17%

21%

22%

20%

17%

36%

16%

11%

ACS (178)


Q2. Since March 2010 has your organisation's turnover or amount ofbusiness increased or decreased?

Three quarters of approved contractors said that their approximate profit margin for

the last tax year was between 1 and 20%, while only 39% or non-ACS companies

said this was the case. There was a much larger variation in the responses received

from non-approved firms. However these results should be interpreted with caution as

the question received a low number of responses.

0%

1-20%

21-40%

61-80%

81-100%6%

6%

33%

39%

17%

6%

75%

17%

2%

ACS (64)


Q4. What was your approximate profit margin on security work for the 2009-2010 financial year?



Overall, 48% of approved companies said that their staff had increased since March

2010, compared to 42% of non-approved firms.

Non-approved companies (34%) were more likely than approved (17%) to say that

their staff numbers had stayed the same since March 2010.





Decreased a lot (since March 2010)

14%

29%

34%

14%

10%

27%

17%

37%

11%

8%

ACS (180)


Q9. Since March 2010 has the number of staff employed by yourorganisation increased or decreased?

Average hourly wages for frontline staff at non-ACS companies appeared to vary

greatly by organisation, while the most common wage in SIA approved companies

was between £5.94 and £6.49 per hour (31%).


£5.94 - £6.49

£6.50 - £6.99

£7.00 - £7.49

£7.50 - £7.99

£8.00 - £8.49

£8.50 - £9.99

£10.00 - £12.99

£13.00 - £14.99

£15.00 or more

Prefer not to say

5%

16%

9%

7%

11%

11%

11%

12%

4%

16%

12%

16%

31%

3%

10%

4%

10%

6%

1%

7%

ACS (162)

Non-ACS (57)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents (219)

Q10. What is the average hourly wage you pay your front line licensablestaff?


In terms of average hourly charge rate for frontline staff, responses from both groups

of respondents were very mixed, and there were no clear patterns in results.


£5.94 - £6.49

£6.50 - £6.99

£7.00 - £7.49

£7.50 - £7.99

£8.00 - £8.49

£8.50 - £9.99

£10.00 - £12.99

£13.00 - £14.99

£15.00 or more

Prefer not to say

5%

5%

4%

4%

4%

16%

23%

7%

13%

20%

2%

1%

3%

14%

28%

29%

5%

3%

14%

ACS (152)


Q11. What is the average hourly charge rate for your front line licensablestaff?

While responses from ACS and non-ACS respondents were fairly similar in terms of

the welfare and benefits available to front line staff, there were still a few differences.

Approved contractors were significantly more likely than non-approved contractors to

say that staff had access to special leave for emergencies, were paid for time off to

receive work related training, had access to a pension with company contributions,

and had access to death in service benefit.







Bonus scheme

Access to at least 4 weeks sick pay for security guards

Other


10%

15%

13%

33%

6%

12%

38%

38%

83%

5%

9%

23%

24%

21%

30%

88%

65%

57%

41%

ACS (164)


Q13. Which, if any, of the following welfare and benefits apply to your front line licensablestaff (this may be after a qualifying minimum or probationary period)?


6.1.7 Annual leave

Both approved and non-approved contractors were asked how many days paid annual

leave their front line licensable staff received. Responses were very mixed, with no

clear differences between the two respondent groups.

0

15 orless

16 - 20

21 - 25

26 - 30

31 - 35

Over 35

17%

6%

26%

23%

26%

3%

14%

46%

1%

1%

37%

2%

ACS (130)





This section of the report looks at the relationship between contractors and their

clients; how many clients contractors have and what they think is important to clients

when selecting suppliers. It also looks at work lost and gained during 2010,

relationships with the Police and general trends in security buying.


In terms of the number of clients they provide security for, non-approved contractors

(54%) were significantly more likely than approved firms (21%) to serve 5 or less

clients, whereas approved firms were more likely to provide security for larger

numbers of clients. However, this difference is likely to be related to the fact the ACS

firms were generally larger than non-ACS companies, rather than due to their ACS

status.

1-2

3-5

6-10

11-25

26-50

51-100

101-300

Over300

25%

29%

14%

8%

6%

6%

3%

8%

11%

21%

6%

3%

13%

16%

16%

14%

ACS (180)




SIA approved contractors were asked how often during 2010 they had gained work

from non-approved firms, while non-approved contractors were asked the same about

approved firms. Results were very similar, although approved companies (45%) were

slightly more likely to say that they had gained work from non-approved contractors

in the last year, than the other way around (33%).

Never

Seldom

Occasionally

Frequently

Consistently

Don't know 8%

5%

8%

14%

5%

60%

8%

7%

42%

12%

17%

15%

ACS (180)


Q8. How often during 2010 has your company lost work?

Never

Seldom

Occasionally

Frequently

Consistently

Don't know 2%

3%

11%

30%

3%

51%

7%

3%

47%

26%

16%

2%

ACS (180)


Q7. How often during 2010 has your company gained work?


Approved contractors were then asked how often they had lost work to non-approved

contractors in 2010, while non-approved firms were asked the equivalent. In this

case, non-approved firms (60%) were significantly more likely to say that they ever

lost work to approved contractors in 2010, than the other way around (42%).

When asked what method contractors used most often to gain new security business

the results were varied. However, the statistically significant difference was in terms

of responding to tender notices; which approved contractors were (28%) were

significantly more likely to use than non-approved firms (10%).

Networking



Cold-calling


Other


8%

2%

10%

22%

10%

40%

6%

6%

1%

28%

28%

14%

17%

ACS (180)


Q16. What method of gaining new security business do you use MOSToften?



Buyers of security were asked how important the various factors are to them when

selecting security suppliers, while approved and non-approved contractors were asked

how important they thought these various factors were to clients.

The table below shows how important respondents considered the various factors.

The three most and least important factors cited by each respondent group have been

highlighted:

% Important Approved Non-

approved Buyers

Total cost of service 98% 95% 98%

Compliance with Security Industry Act 71% 79% 92%

Recommendation from other buyers 85% 90% 76%

Well know/established company 77% 79% 82%

Local offices and/or local management 76% 71% 79%

British Standards 60% 56% 87%

Supplier’s existing client base 80% 77% 65%

Security operative conditions 47% 64% 85%

SIA approved contractor (ACS status) 53% 39% 88%

ISO9001 certification 65% 41% 74%

SIA ACS assessment score 20% 36% 75%

Other accreditations 53% 44% 38%

SIA ACS assessment report 14% 32% 76%

Other 41% 50% 36%

Additional services offered 41% 33% 23%

The most important factor for all groups appeared to be the total cost of the service;

which was deemed important by 98% of respondents overall, while additional services

offered (e.g. cleaning and technical services) was the least important overall (32%

important).

Buyers (88%) were significantly more likely than approved (53%) or non-approved

contractors (39%) to consider ACS status as important. The same applied for the

importance of ISO9001, compliance with the Private Security Industry Act, British

Standards, security operative conditions, the ACS assessment score and ACS

assessment report; which all appeared to be undervalued by contractors.

Conversely, buyers (76%) were the least likely to say that recommendations from

other buyers was important, compared to 90% of approved and 85% of non-approved

contractors.

Approved contractors (41%) were more likely than non-approved (33%) and buyers

(23%) to think that additional services offered were important.



All three respondent groups were asked how important they thought various methods

were for differentiating between security suppliers.

The table below shows how important respondents considered the various factors.

The three most and least important factors cited by each respondent group have been

highlighted:

% Important Approved Non-

approved Buyers

Face to face meeting 98% 98% 94%

Comparison of quality of service offered for price 94% 97% 98%

A tender exercise 83% 74% 91%

Examination of accreditations/ certifications held 81% 65% 90%

Examination of website or promotional material 66% 54% 60%

Other 57% 64% 44%

Respondents across all three groups rated the same three methods as the most

important, and as such there were few differences between subgroups.

Buyers of security were more likely than either group of contractors to say that they

thought examination of certifications held or tender exercises were important.


Approved and non-approved contractors’ responses were similar when asked what

issues they thought would threaten their business over the next two years, although

non-approved firms were slightly more likely to expect to suffer from cash flow

problems. Both agreed that cash-flow problems and market contraction were likely to

be the biggest threats.

Market contraction

Cash-flow

Inflation

Staff turnover

Interest rate rise

Credit rating

Other

Don't know

30%

38%

5%

2%

5%

18%

3%

3%

10%

24%

41%

2%

1%

13%

7%

ACS (175)


Q21. What one issue MOST threatens your business over the next twelvemonths to two years?



Again, responses from the two groups of contractors were very similar when asked

about trends in security buying during 2010, as both agreed that they had seen

greater emphasis on costs and experienced delays in payment of monies owed.

However, SIA approved respondents were more likely than those from non-approved

firms to say that they had seen a move from manned security to security system

buying, and also more emphasis on supplier cost.








Other

None of the above

Don't know 6%

8%

5%

2%

22%

13%

21%

24%

46%

54%

2%

1%

4%

3%

18%

24%

74%

48%

41%

33%

ACS (180)


Q22. Have you experienced any changes to trends in security buying during 2010?


The vast majority of both approved (81%) and non-approved contractors (84%) said

that their organisation had a positive relationship with the Police.


Negativerelationship

Mixed relationship

Don't know6%

10%

84%

81%

1%

15%

3%

ACS (180)





This section of the report looks at approved and non-approved suppliers’ current

accreditations, as well as those they hope to hold in the future. Along with security

buyers, they were also asked what they felt was the single most important

certification that a supplier can hold.


SIA approved suppliers were more likely than those non-approved to say that they

were affiliated with the Chambers of Commerce, Project Griffin and with BSIA.

Conversely, non-approved firms were more likely to say that they weren’t affiliated

with any of the organisations or initiatives listed.


Project Griffin

BSIA

Security Institute

ASIS


Security Watchdog

IPSA




UKCMA

Other

None of the above

22%

6%

8%

8%

8%

6%

3%

2%

3%

2%

2%

8%

56%

16%

31%

37%

39%

7%

8%

8%

8%

6%

6%

4%

3%

16%

23%

ACS (180) Non-ACS (63)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents (243)

Q17. Which of the following organisation(s) and initiatives does your company belongto or have affiliation with?

Approved contractors were significantly more likely than non-approved firms to say

that they hold ISO9001, SAFE Contractor, NSI Gold, and ‘other’ accreditations or

certifications, while non-approved firms were significantly more likely to say that they

didn’t hold any of the certifications listed (59% vs 11%).

ISO9001: 2008

SAFE Contractors

NSI Gold

Investors in People

ISO17001


Other

None of the above

Don't know 5%

59%

8%

3%

6%

11%

3%

17%

19%

3%

11%

28%

1%

2%

76%

57%

24%

18%

ACS (180)





Non-approved firms were more likely than approved companies say that they

intended to achieve ISO9001, SAFE Contractor, Investors in People or ISO17001

certification. However, this is likely to be due to the fact that approved firms were

more likely to hold these accreditations already.

ISO9001: 2008

SAFE Contractors

Investors in People

NSI Gold


ISO17001

Other

None of the above

Don't know

30%

32%

24%

5%

6%

10%

16%

27%

14%

10%

13%

12%

14%

4%

3%

16%

33%

19%

ACS (180)


Q19. What accreditations/certifications does your organisation intend toachieve over the next 12 months to 2 years?


Buyers, approved, and non-approved contractors were all asked what they thought

was the most important accreditation or certification a security supplier could hold.

There appeared to be a gap between the views of contractors and buyers:

Buyers (73%) were significantly more likely than approved (57%) and non-

approved contractors (44%) to say that the SIA Approve Contractor Scheme was

the most important accreditation a supplier could hold.

Conversely, approved (26%) and non-approved contractors (22%) were

significantly more likely than security buyers (14%) to say that ISO9001:2008

was the most important accreditation.


ISO9001:2008

National Security InspectorateGold

SAFE Contractors

Investors in People

ISO17001

Other

73%

14%

3%

3%

3%

1%

3%

44%

22%

5%

10%

3%

3%

13%

2%

8%

26%

57%

3%

4%

ACS (180)

Non-ACS (63)

Buyers (182)Base: All ACS, non ACS and buyer respondents (425)

Q20. In your view what is the single most importantaccreditation/certification that a security supplier should hold?



This section looks at contractors’ views on whether the ACS has raised industry

standards, as well as comparing contractors view with buyers in terms of the benefits

the ACS had brought to the private security industry.


As expected, approved contractors (72%) were significantly more likely than non-

approved firms (44%) to agree that the ACS has helped to raise industry standards.

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

16%

28%

28%

28%

6%

22%

50%

22%

ACS (167)




While both approved and non-approved contractors agreed that the ACS provided

benefits to security suppliers in terms of new business opportunities (both 44%),

approved suppliers were significantly more likely than non-approved suppliers to

suggest that the ACS provided benefits in terms of; differentiations from non-

approved firms, use of licence dispensation, improved operational performance,

improved management control, the ACS assessment highlighting areas to improve,

and ACS forums and newsletters.


Use of ACS mark









Reduced turnover

Other


3%

2%

6%

14%

8%

16%

10%

14%

17%

24%

35%

44%

13%

1%

2%

9%

13%

23%

32%

34%

34%

44%

43%

46%

39%

ACS (180) Non-ACS (63)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents (243)

Q27. What do you consider to be the main benefits of the ACS to a security supplier?


As above, non-approved contractors were significantly less likely than approved

contractors to say that they had seen benefits of the ACS to the private security

industry overall. Buyers tended to agree with approved contractors that there had

been benefits to the industry overall particularly in terms of:

- Common standards throughout the industry

- Promoting good practice in the industry

- Excluding ‘rogue’ companies

- Excluding companies with poor practices

- Improved standard of security standards

- Increased professionalism of security operatives

Common standard for use throughout theindustry









Other

None of the above9%

3%

26%

35%

38%

46%

47%

51%

55%

55%

71%

27%

5%

22%

25%

33%

24%

25%

25%

33%

35%

35%

9%

2%

24%

39%

44%

41%

43%

62%

59%

53%

44%

ACS (180)

Non-ACS (63)

Buyers (232)Base: All ACS, non ACS and buyer respondents (475)

Q28. What do you consider to be the main benefits of the ACS to the private securityindustry overall?



This section of the report looks at the client profiles of both approved and non-

approved security contractors, and whether their contracts require them to hold any

accreditations or certifications.


Similar proportions of approved (19%) and non-approved suppliers (13%) said that

they had central government contracts.

Both groups of contractors were then asked whether these contracts required them to

hold any specific accreditations, and gave significantly different responses. Approved

contractors (86%) were more likely than non-approved (13%) to say that these

contracts required them to hold ISO9001:2008, whereas non-approved firms were

significantly more likely to say that no accreditations were required (75% vs 11%).


SIA approved suppliers (50%) were twice as like as non-approved firms (25%) to say

that they held local government contracts.


hold any specific accreditations, and gave significantly different responses. Approved

contractors were more likely than non-approved to say that these contracts required

them to hold ISO9001:2008, SAFE Contractors, or NSI Gold certification, whereas

ISO9001: 2008

SAFE Contractors

NSI Gold

Investors in People

BSIA

ISO170001

IPSA

Other

None of the above

13%

13%

13%

25%

13%

75%

14%

23%

29%

86%

9%

3%

3%

11%

11%ACS (35)

Non-ACS (8)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents with central gvt contracts (43)


Yes

No

87%

13%

81%

19%

ACS (180)


Q32. Do you have any central government contracts?

ISO9001: 2008

SAFE Contractors

NSI Gold

BSIA

Investors in People

ISO170001

IPSA

Other

None of the above

6%

6%

13%

63%

13%

6%

21%

10%

1%

3%

10%

70%

30%

24%

12%

ACS (90)

Non-ACS (16)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents with local gvt contracts (106)


Yes

No

75%

25%

50%

50%

ACS (180)


Q33. Do you have any local government contracts?


non-approved firms were significantly more likely to say that no accreditations were

required (63% vs 21%).


Approved contractors (91%) were significantly more likely than non-approved

suppliers (62%) to say that they held private sector contracts.


hold any specific accreditations, and gave significantly different responses. Again,

approved contractors were more likely than non-approved to say that these contracts

required them to hold ISO9001:2008, SAFE Contractors, or NSI Gold certification,

whereas non-approved firms were significantly more likely to say that no

accreditations were required (56% vs 23%).


While two thirds of approved contractors (66%) said that they hadn’t lost central,

regional or local government to non-approved contractors in the last 2 years, an even

larger proportion of non-approved contractors (86%) said that they hadn’t lost these

contracts to approved firms. Instead, approved contractors were more likely to say

that they were unsure (20% vs 0%).

Yes

No

Dont know

14%

86%

66%

20%

14%

ACS (180)


Q36. Have you lost and central, regional or local government contracts in thelast 2 years?

ISO9001: 2008

SAFE Contractors

NSI Gold

BSIA

Investors in People

ISO170001

Other


13%

3%

10%

10%

15%

18%

23%

10%

2%

5%

68%

40%

16%

12%

ACS (163)

Non-ACS (39)Base: All ACS and non ACS respondents with private sector contracts (202)


Yes

No

62%

38%

9%

91%

ACS (180)


Q34. Do you have any private sector contracts?


7 CONCLUSIONS

Looking at the survey overall there were a few notable trends among responses:

In terms of profile, the main difference between contractors was that approved firms

were more likely to be larger than non-approved firms, and as such generally

provided security to more clients.

Predictably, non-approved contractors were significantly less positive in general about

the Approved Contractor scheme than approved firms and security buyers. They were

significantly more likely to say that they saw no benefits of the ACS to security

suppliers or the industry as a whole, less likely to agree that the ACS has helped to

raise industry standards and also less likely to think that clients consider ACS status

important.

Approved Non-

Approved Buyers

Agree or disagree that the ACS helped to raise

standards in the private security industry overall? 72% 44% -

Saw no benefits of the ACS to security suppliers 13% 29% -

Saw no benefits of the ACS to the security industry 9% 27% 9%

Increase in company turnover during 2010 52% 40% -

Increase in number of staff employed during 2010 48% 42% -

ACS is the most important accreditation a suppler

should hold 57% 44% 73%

SIA ACS is important to clients 53% 39% 88%

ACS assessment score is important to clients 20% 36% 75%

ACS assessment report is important to clients 14% 32% 76%

The other area of difference between contractors and buyers was highlighted when

contractors were asked how important they thought clients considered various

factors. The three factors that were highlighted by buyers as being the most

important were total cost of service, compliance with the Security Industry Act and

ACS status. Approved and non-approved contractors both suggested that cost was

one of the three most important areas, but only non-approved firms agreed with

buyers that clients would value compliance with the Private Security Industry Act

2001.

Buyers also appeared to value ACS status, the assessment score and assessment

report much more than either group of contractors expected.

A difference was also apparent when all three groups were asked about the main

benefits of the ACS to the private security industry, with buyers and approved firms

more likely than non-approved firms to cite; the exclusion of ‘rogue’ companies, a


common industry standard, the promotion of good practice in the industry, improved

standard of security services and the exclusion of companies with poor working

practice.

security industry authority acs review 2011 · snap surveys – sia – acs strategic review 2011...

Documents