A D.C. Council panel held a hearing yesterday on legislation that would require training and background checks for unarmed security guards hired by private companies in the District.
Privately hired security guards are currently not required to undergo training, and the Metropolitan Police Department, which oversees private security firms, does not have an electronic database of licensed guards and applicants. There are about 2,000 such guards now working in the District.
D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson, at-large Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary Committee that held the hearing, said he was in favor of creating standards for security guards.
“There’s a reason why you want to put someone in a uniform in the front desk of a building,” he said. “You want to convey a sense of safety. If you are going to do that, it only makes sense that there would be some minimum safety requirements.”
The legislation, titled the D.C. Enhanced Professional Security Amendment Act of 2005, would create a registry of licensed security guards and would require police to check the registry four times a year to make sure no guards have been convicted of or are wanted for a crime.
It would also require 40 hours of training before an applicant could get a license and eight hours of yearly refresher training.
Security companies would not be allowed to post a guard before the guard completed an FBI background check, and whistleblower protections would be put in place for officers who report unsafe conditions.
Security guards would be expected to know basic first aid and how to handle a variety of situations, such as detecting suspicious packages and directing building evacuations.
The bill was introduced by council member Jim Graham, Ward 1 Democrat, in October. It still faces a vote in the Judiciary Committee, but there is no timetable for the vote.
Representatives of private security firms in the District say the legislation is unnecessary since most companies have training programs already in place, and Metropolitan Police officials said that quarterly criminal checks could become burdensome.
The Service Employees International Union, which represents security officers nationwide, backs the legislation.
Cynthia Kain, a union spokeswoman, said there has been a nationwide movement to reform standards among private guards since the September 11 terrorist attacks.
“We can do better,” she said. “Companies may have their own training, but they will differ from company to company. We think there should be one standard that security officers, no matter what company they work for, should be able to achieve.”
The legislation does not apply to armed security guards, who are commissioned and have standards already in place.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.