Approved Contractor Scheme Benefits Survey … 2008 SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 2 CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS ..... 5 2 INTRODUCTION..... 11

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 1

Approved Contractor Scheme

Benefits Survey

February 2008

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 2

CONTENTS

1 SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS ................................................................ 5

2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 11

2.1 Background ........................................................................................ 11

2.2 Methodology ....................................................................................... 11

2.3 Analysis of results ............................................................................... 11

2.4 Structure of this report ........................................................................ 12

3 ACS COMPANIES ................................................................................. 13

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 13

3.2 Company profile .................................................................................. 13

3.2.1 Sector(s) covered ........................................................................ 13

3.2.2 Size of business .......................................................................... 14

3.2.3 Number of clients ........................................................................ 14

3.2.4 Client sites ................................................................................. 15

3.3 Questions about the ACS ...................................................................... 15

3.3.1 Proportion of clients that require the ACS ....................................... 16

3.3.2 Proportion of private sector clients ................................................ 17

3.3.3 Effect of approved status on company turnover ............................... 17

3.3.4 Proportion of turnover change ....................................................... 18

3.3.5 Change attributable to ACS status? ............................................... 19

3.3.6 Work gained from non-SIA approved contractors ............................ 20

3.3.7 Work lost to non-SIA approved contractors ..................................... 20

3.3.8 What are the main benefits of the ACS for your company? ............... 22

3.3.9 What changes has the ACS delivered to your company? ................... 23

3.3.10 How has the ACS changed the way your company operates ........... 24

3.3.11 Are your standards higher as a result of ACS status? .................... 25

3.3.12 Has the ACS raised overall standards in private security industry? .. 26

3.3.13 What benefits has the ACS brought to the security industry?..........27

3.3.14 What have the public gained from the ACS? ................................. 28

3.3.15 What is the general perception of the ACS within buyers of security

services? ............................................................................................ 29

3.3.16 Should the Fast Track route to approval now be phased out? ......... 30

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 3

3.3.17 Should any refinements be made to the ACS workbook to make it

more user friendly? .............................................................................. 31

3.3.18 Should approved contractors be required to conform to the relevant

British Standards? ............................................................................... 32

3.3.19 Is the 85% licensing requirement still the most appropriate level? If

not is it too high or too low? ................................................................. 33

3.3.20 Is it an appropriate time to raise the standards for some of the

workbook criteria? ............................................................................... 34

3.3.21 What characteristics does a “fit and proper” organisation have? ..... 35

3.3.22 What are the most important changes you would like to see made to

the ACS? ............................................................................................ 36

3.3.23 Are there any observations or feedback you would like to submit? .. 37

4 NON-ACS COMPANIES .......................................................................... 38

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 38

4.2 Company profile .................................................................................. 38

4.2.1 Sector(s) covered ........................................................................ 38

4.2.2 Size of business .......................................................................... 39

4.2.3 Number of clients ........................................................................ 39

4.2.4 Client sites ................................................................................. 40


4.3.1 Proportion of clients that require the ACS ....................................... 40

4.3.2 Proportion of private sector clients ................................................ 41

4.3.3 Turnover over the past year ......................................................... 42

4.3.4 Percentage change in turnover ...................................................... 42

4.3.5 Work gained from SIA approved contractor .................................... 43

4.3.6 Work lost to SIA approved contractor ............................................ 43

4.3.7 What does the ACS mean to you? .................................................. 45

4.3.8 Are you considering applying for the ACS status? ............................ 46

4.3.9 Why have you not pursued gaining the ACS status? ......................... 47

4.3.10 What do you consider to be the main benefits of the ACS .............. 48

4.3.11 What benefits do you think the ACS has brought to the security

industry? ............................................................................................ 49

4.3.12 Has the ACS helped to raise standards in the security industry

overall? ............................................................................................. 50

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 4

4.3.13 In your view what have the public gained from the ACS ................ 51


services? ............................................................................................ 52


the ACS? ............................................................................................ 53

4.3.16 Are there any other observations or feedback you would like to

submit? ............................................................................................. 54

5 BUYERS OF SECURITY .......................................................................... 55

5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 55

5.2 Company profile .................................................................................. 55

5.2.1 Sector(s) covered ........................................................................ 55

5.2.2 Size of business .......................................................................... 55

5.2.3 Number of security providers ........................................................ 56


5.3.1 Proportion of ACS approved security providers ................................ 56

5.3.2 Frequency of security providers contract review .............................. 57

5.3.3 Use of non-approved contractors ................................................... 58

5.3.4 Why does your policy allow the use of non-approved contractors....... 59

5.3.5 What does the ACS mean to you? .................................................. 60

5.3.6 What are the advantages and disadvantages of using ACS companies

compared to non-ACS? ......................................................................... 61

5.3.7 Standards in the private security industry ...................................... 62

5.3.8 In what areas are the higher standards? ........................................ 63

5.3.9 In what additional areas would you like to see higher standards ........ 64


industry overall? .................................................................................. 65

5.3.11 In your view what have service users gained from the ACS?) ......... 66

5.3.12 If you do not use ACS companies what would make you change your

mind? ...............................................................................................67


the ACS? ............................................................................................ 68

5.3.14 Are there any other observations or feedback you would like to

submit? ............................................................................................. 69

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 5

1 SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS

ACS COMPANIES

COMPANY PROFILE: Sectors most commonly covered by ACS companies

were „Security guarding‟ (92%) and „Key holding‟ (47%), while „Vehicle

immobilisation‟ (6%) and „Cash and valuables in transit‟ (2%) were the least

commonly selected. The majority of ACS respondents (60%) classified their

business as medium sized, while nearly a quarter (24%) classified their

company size as large, 12% as small, and only 4% as micro sized.

ACS respondents were most likely to provide security for 11-25 clients (21%),

51-100 (19%), or Over 300 (15%). 5% of respondents said they provide

security for 3-5 clients, and only 3% said they did so for 1-2. Respondents

were most likely to cover between 101-300 (20%), 26-50 and Over 300 (both

18%) client sites, and least likely to cover between 1-2 (3%), 3-5 (3%), and

6-10 client sites (7%).

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACS: Almost half of approved contractors (47%)

said 0-20% of their clients require the ACS, while 20% of respondents said

that 80-100% required the status. The majority of ACS respondents (56%)

said 81-100% of their clients were private sector. 21% of respondents said

that 61-80% of their clients were from the private sector, while 11% said 41-

60% were, 5% said that 21-40% were, and 7% said that 0-20% were.

51% of ACS respondents said that their company turnover had increased

since they became an SIA approved contractor, 13% said it had decreased,

and 36% said it had stayed the same. The most commonly cited increases in

turnover since ACS companies became approved were 6-10% (17%) and 11-

25% (15%), while the most commonly cited decreases were –25 to –11% and

–10 to –6% (both 4%). When asked what proportion of respondents‟ change

in turnover could be attributed to their ACS status, the majority of approved

respondents (59%) said none. 28% suggested that their status was

responsible for around 25% of the change, 6% said it was responsible for

around 50%, and only 4% of respondents said it was 100% responsible for

their change in turnover.

Over one third (36%) of ACS respondents said that they had occasionally won

work from non-approved contractors, while 31% said they had never done so.

Only 5% of approved contractors said that they consistently won work from

non-approved contractors. 41% said they never lost work to non-approved

contractors, while 31% of approved companies said they did so occasionally

and 2% said they did so consistently.

Common themes from the open ended answers included the fact that while a

significant proportion of respondents believed that the ACS shows a firm is

professional and maintains high quality standards, a large proportion of

respondents also felt that the ACS has brought limited or no benefit to their

company. Firms felt that the accreditation has increased their costs, is time

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 6

consuming, and has created more administrative work. A large proportion of

ACS companies said that the ACS hasn‟t changed the way they operate as

they were already maintaining high quality levels before they were approved,

while a smaller proportion said that they had improved or introduced new

procedures as a result of their status.

Widespread opinion was that public is generally unaware of the ACS, and that

while some buyers are aware of the accreditation many simply choose to

ignore it in favour of lower costs. Opinion on whether the Fast Track route

should be phased out appeared to be fairly evenly split, as it was on whether

the 85% licensing requirement should be changed. A number of respondents

suggested that British Standards and the ACS should be harmonised or

combined, in order to reduce the cost, administration level and number of

audits required. Some ACS companies felt that the ACS should be made

compulsory for all contractors, while a significant proportion suggested that

the ACS needs to be more widely advertised and communicated, in order to

increase awareness.

NON-ACS COMPANIES

COMPANY PROFILE: The sectors covered most commonly by non-ACS

companies were „Security Guarding‟ (77%), „Door Supervision‟ (41%), and

„Key Holding‟ (32%), while „Vehicle Immobilisation‟ (5%), and „Cash and

Valuables in Transit‟ (0%) were the least commonly covered. 36% of non-ACS

respondents classified themselves as micro sized businesses, while 26% said

they were small, 37% medium and only 1% large.

Non-ACS companies said they were most likely to provide security for 11-25

(23%) and 6-10 (21%) clients. 16% said that they provided security for 1-2

or 3-5 clients, while only 1% served over 300 clients. 27% of respondents

said they covered 6-10 client sites, and 24% covered 11-25. 51-100 and 101-

300 client sites were both covered by 5% of non-ACS companies, while 2%

said they covered over 300.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACS: 71% of non-ACS respondents said 0-20% of

their clients require the ACS, whilst 8% said 21-40, 9% said 41-60%, 4% said

61-80%, and 9% said 81-100% did so. 41% of non-ACS respondents said

that 81-100% of their clients were private sector, while 19% said that 0-20%

of them were.

58% of non-ACS respondents said that their turnover had increased over the

past year, while 14% said it had decreased, and 28% said it had stayed the

same. 23% of non-ACS companies said that their turnover had increased by

11-25%, and 10% said it had done so by 26-50%. Companies that

experienced a decrease in turnover were most likely to have done so by –50

to –26% (7%).

59% of non-ACS companies said they never gained work from an SIA

approved contractor. 11% said they had seldom done so, while 22% said

occasionally, 8% said frequently, and no non-ACS respondents claimed to

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 7

have done so consistently. The majority (62%) of non-ACS respondents said

that they had never lost work to an SIA approved contractor, while 14% said

they had seldom done so, 16% said occasionally and 8% said frequently. No

non-ACS respondent claimed to have consistently lost work to an SIA

approved contractor.

Common themes from the open ended answers included the view that for

some non-approved companies, the ACS represents a high standard of quality

and credibility, to which they aspire. However, a large proportion of non-ACS

respondents felt that the ACS is an expensive, unnecessary exercise, and a

waste of their time. A very large proportion of respondents said that they are

considering, or already in the process of applying for ACS status, yet a

significant proportion also said that they were not.

While many non-approved contractors felt that ACS accreditation would give

them recognition within the industry, respondents were likely to say that they

had not persued the accreditation because of financial reasons, suggesting the

cost of becoming accredited was too high, and offered minimal advantages in

return. One commonly held view was that the ACS has brought credibility to

the security industry, while a significant proportion of respondents felt that

the ACS is yet to bring any benefits to the industry, and has simply increased

the cost of operating within it.

With similar responses to the accredited companies, many non-approved firms

felt that the public has not gained anything from the ACS, and that few are

aware of its existence. They agreed that buyers are either unaware of the

ACS, or choose to ignore the accreditation in favour of lower costs. A large

proportion of respondents suggested that the SIA should improve its

communication, reduce the costs associated with the scheme, and simplify the

application process.

BUYERS OF SECURITY

COMPANY PROFILE: 71% of buyers covered the private sector, while 48%

said they covered the public sector. Buyers were most likely to be medium

sized businesses (37%), followed by micro (29%), large (19%) and finally

small (15%). The majority of buyers (53%) said that they only used one

security provider, while 16% said they used two, 7% said three, 4% said four,

and 20% used five or more.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACS: When asked what proportion of their security

providers are ACS approved, one third of buyers (33%) said they used no

approved providers, while a quarter (25%) said that 100% of their security

providers were ACS approved. When asked how frequently buyers of security

review contracts with security providers, 36% said they did so every 0-6

months. Almost one third of buyers (32%) said they reviewed contracts every

7-12 months, while 15% did so every 2 years, 12% every 3 years, and only

5% every 4 years.

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 8

49% of buyers said they had policies that allow the use of non-approved

contractors, while 51% did not. 52% of buyers agreed that the ACS has

helped to raise standards in the private security, while 48% disagreed.

Common themes from the open ended answers included the view that

approved contractors were often no better than unapproved, yet were more

expensive. Some buyers suggested that they value relationships built up over

time with non-ACS companies, higher than the accreditation itself. For a

number of buyers, the ACS represents certain professional standards within

the industry, and has given them more confidence in the industry as a whole.

However, a significant proportion of buyers regard the accreditation as an

expensive waste of time and money. Suggested advantages of the scheme

included the idea that ACS companies were better managed, meet

professional standards, and are more reliable. However, disadvantages were

also highlighted, including the opinion that ACS companies are more

expensive, require more paperwork, and don't necessarily provide a better

service.

Some buyers suggested that the ACS had increased standards in all areas

across the industry, while others pinpointed more specific areas including

customer care and more professional staff. Although respondents often felt

that the ACS has made the industry more professional and raised minimum

standards, a significant proportion claimed that the ACS has brought no

benefits to the industry as a whole, and is an expensive waste of time. While a

large proportion of buyers suggested that service users have gained nothing

from the ACS, fewer respondents suggested that users have gained from

increased professionalism and well trained staff. In terms of potential

improvements to the scheme, some buyers suggested that the scheme should

be mandatory, that enforcement and regulation should be stricter, and that

communication needs to be improved.

COMPARATIVE QUESTIONS

COMPANY PROFILE: The sector covered most commonly by both ACS and

non-ACS companies was „Security guarding‟ (92% and 77% respectively),

while „Close protection‟ (7% vs 10%), „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (6% vs 5%)

and „Cash and valuables in transit‟ (2% vs 0%) were least likely to be

covered. Respondents from all subgroups were most likely to classify their

business as medium sized. Non-ACS companies were more likely than others

to be either micro sized or small (62%), while ACS respondents were the most

likely to be either medium or large (83%).

Respondents from non-ACS companies were more likely to serve between 1

and 10 clients (53%) than those from ACS companies (21%), while approved

contractors (26%) were more likely than non-approved (9%) to provide

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 9

security for over 100 clients. Non-ACS companies were significantly more

likely to cover between 1 and 10 client sites (57% vs 14%), while ACS

companies were more likely to cover over 100 client sites (38% vs 7%).

Predictably, the majority of non-ACS companies said that 0-20% of their

clients (71%) do not require the approved status, while more surprisingly

47% of approved contractors also said that this was the case. Respondents

from ACS companies (32%) were more likely than those from non-ACS (12%)

to say that over 60% of their clients require the ACS. Around half (49%) of all

businesses said that 81-100% of their clients are from the private sector.

Non-ACS companies (19%) were more likely than ACS (7%) to say that 0-

20% of their clients are from the private sector, while ACS companies were

significantly more likely to say that over 60% of their clients were (78%) than

non-ACS companies (54%).

Non-ACS companies (58%) were slightly more likely than ACS (51%) to say

they saw an increase in turnover. Responses of ACS and non-ACS companies

appeared similar when asked what proportion their turnover had changed by,

with „no change‟ (31% vs 27%) and an increase of 11 to 25% (15% vs 23%)

being the most commonly selected. Non-ACS companies were more likely to

report a decrease of over 25% (10% compared to 4%), or an increase of over

25% (18% compared to 12%) than ACS companies. While 59% of non-

approved respondents said that they had never gained work from approved

firms, 31% of approved firms said the same about their counterparts. 62% of

non-ACS companies said that they had never lost work to approved firms,

while only 41% of ACS companies said the same. 44% of ACS companies said

that they occasionally, frequently or consistently lost work to non-approved

contractors, while only 24% of non-ACS companies said the same.

Generally the responses of buyers, ACS and non-ACS respondents were very

similar in terms of open ended questions. Many respondents said the ACS

gives a firm recognition within the industry and shows that they meet certain

quality standards, while others suggested it was an expensive waste of time.

While 52% of buyers suggested that the ACS has helped to raise industry

standards, 48% disagreed. While both approved and non-approved

respondents said that the ACS has had very little or no impact on industry

standards, some suggested that it had brought a universal quality standard to

the industry.

Respondents from ACS and non-ACS firms suggested that the public is

generally unaware of the ACS. They also suggested that most buyers were not

aware the accreditation, and that those who were choose to ignore it in favour

of lower costs. However, far more buyers appeared to be aware of the ACS

than approved and non-approved companies thought, although many of them

did admit to ignoring the accreditation in favour of lower costs. A variety of

changes were suggested for the ACS, including the idea that the scheme

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 10

should be made mandatory and that the ACS needs to be more widely

promoted, in order to increase public awareness and interest in the scheme.

Respondents from all subgroups agreed that the SIA‟s communication needs

to be vastly improved, as do slow administrative processes. Respondents from

the non-ACS and buyers‟ surveys both complained about immigrants working

in the industry illegally.

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 11

2 INTRODUCTION

The Security Industry Authority (SIA) commissioned Snap SurveyShop to carry

out research into the benefits of the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS), and

analyse the results. This report contains the research findings.

2.1 Background

The research was undertaken to establish whether the Approved Contractor

Scheme (ACS) is delivering on its purpose i.e. to raise standards in the private

security industry and therefore enhance public protection.

This research aimed to establish the drivers, value for money, interests and

benefits in the ACS. It also aimed to identify who uses ACS companies, why, and

what the impact of ACS is on buyers, end users and keys partners, in order to

determine future promotion and increased buyer recognition.

The research will provide input into an independent review of the scheme being

conducted on the SIA‟s behalf by the Office of Government and Commerce (OGC)

that will report in February 2008.

2.2 Methodology

This research comprised of three surveys, completed by three different groups of

respondents (approved companies, non-approved companies and buyers of

security). Firstly, companies registered on the Approved Contractor Scheme were

targeted by e-shot, as were the second group; Non-ACS companies. Thirdly, the

Communication of the online questionnaire was sent via a news release and

website link through approximately 4 to 5 media partners (including Security

Management Today (SMT), Infologue and the British Institute of Facilities

Management) to buyers of security.

A total of 301 responses were received, giving the ACS survey a response rate of

29% and the Non-ACS a rate of 19%, while the response rate for the buyers

survey is unknown.

Completed responses were collated and sent to Snap Surveys who carried out the

analysis. The principal contacts for the survey were Imogen Harwood at SIA and

Alex Green at Snap Surveys.

2.3 Analysis of results

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

answered each question – that is, excluding "No Reply".

Some subgroup base sizes are small and so results need to be interpreted with

caution.

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 12

2.4 Structure of this report

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

the survey results in detail:

- ACS Companies

- Company profile

- Questions about the ACS

- Non-ACS Companies

- Company profile


- Buyers of Security

- Company profile


- Comparative questions

- Company profile


The appendix contains a copy of the questionnaires, listings of respondents‟

comments, and full sets of data tabulations.

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 13

3 ACS COMPANIES

3.1 Introduction

This section of the report looks at the ACS questionnaire, and the responses of

companies registered on the Approved Contractor Scheme. It looks at the profiles

of ACS companies that took part in the survey, and their responses to various

questions about the scheme.

3.2 Company profile

This section of the report profiles ACS companies by sectors covered, company

size, and number of clients and client sites covered.

3.2.1 Sector(s) covered

ACS companies were asked which sectors their business covered. The most

commonly covered sectors were „Security guarding‟ (92%) and „Key holding‟

(47%), with „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (6%) and „Cash and valuables in transit‟

(2%) being the least commonly selected.

Sector(s) covered

Base: All respondents (121)

Security Guarding

Key holding

Door Supervision

Public Space Surveillance (CCTV)

Close Protection

Vehicle Immobilisation

Cash and Valuables in Transit

Other 6%

2%

6%

7%

92%

47%

26%

23%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 14

3.2.2 Size of business

The majority of ACS respondents (60%) classified their business as medium sized

(26-250 employees). Nearly a quarter (24%) classified their company size as

large (over 250 employees), 12% as small (11-26 employees), and only 4% as

micro sized (up to 10 employees).

Companies that covered „Public space surveillance‟ (71%), „Cash and valuables in

transit‟ (67%) and „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (57%) sectors were most likely to

classify themselves as large, whereas those that covered „Close protection‟ (13%)

were the most likely to classify themselves as a micro sized company.

3.2.3 Number of clients

When asked how many clients they provide security for, ACS respondents were

most likely to say 11-25 (21%), 51-100 (19%), and Over 300 (15%). 5% of

respondents said they provide security or 3-5 clients, and only 3% said they do so

for 1-2.

Looking at subgroups, companies that cover „Cash and valuables in transit‟ (100%

- although it should be noted that this was only three respondents), „Public space

surveillance‟ (29%), and „Key holding‟ (26%) were the most likely to provide

security for over 300 clients. Companies covering the „Vehicle immobilisation‟

sector were more likely than any others to provide security for 1-2 clients (14%),

3-5 clients (14%), and 6-10 clients (29%).


Your company size

Micro (up to 10 employees)

Small (11-26 employees)

Medium (26-250 employees)

Large (over 250 employees) 24%

60%

12%

4%

How many clients do you provide security for?


1-2

3-5

6-10

11-25

26-50

51-100

101-300

Over 300

12%

19%

12%

15%

3%

5%

13%

21%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 15

Predictably, micro firms (40% - again note should be taken that this is a small

base size) were more likely than small (20%), medium (7%) or large (0%)

companies to serve between 1 and 5 clients. Similarly, small companies were

most likely to serve 6-10 clients (40%), medium companies to serve from 26 to

100 clients (40%), and large firms to serve from 101 to over 300 clients (55%).

Less predictably however, micro sized companies were more likely to provide

security at the 11-25 client level (40%), than small (7%), medium (26%) and

large (10%).

3.2.4 Client sites

When asked how many client sites they cover, ACS respondents most commonly

selected 101-300 (20%), 26-50 and Over 300 (both 18%). ACS respondents were

least likely to say that they cover 1-2 (3%), 3-5 (3%), and 6-10 client sites (7%).

In terms of subgroups, there were few clear relationships between the number of

clients covered and the sectors covered by a company. For example, while

companies who cover the „Close protection‟ sector are the most likely to cover 1-2

client sites (14%), they are also the most likely to cover 26-50 (29%) and 101-

300 client sites (43%). It can be noted however that all companies covering the

„Cash and valuables in transit‟ sector said they covered over 300 client sites.

Again, relationships between the size of ACS businesses and the number of client

sites they cover were as expected. Micro companies were most likely to cover 1-2

client sites (40%), small to cover 3-5 and 6-10 (20% and 33% respectively),

medium to cover 26-50 (25%) and 51-100 (22%), and large companies to cover

101-300 and Over 300 (28% and 48% respectively). Again however, micro sized

companies were more likely to cover 11-25 client sites (40%) than small (7%),

medium (19%) or large companies (3%).

3.3 Questions about the ACS

This section looks at the responses of ACS companies when asked what

proportion of their clients require the ACS, if company turnover has been affected

by their approved status, and how regularly work is gained from or lost to non-

Number of client sites covered


1-2

3-5

6-10

11-25

26-50

51-100

101-300

Over 300

18%

16%

20%

18%

3%

3%

7%

15%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 16

approved contractors. These questions were followed by a series of open-ended

questions, which examine in more detail ACS companies‟ views on the scheme.

3.3.1 Proportion of clients that require the ACS

When asked what proportion of their clients require the ACS, almost half of

approved contractors (47%) said 0-20%. At the other end of the scale, 20% of

respondents said that 80-100% of their clients required the approved status.

In the majority of sectors, at least 50% of approved contractors stated that 0-

20% of their clients did not require the ACS. For example, companies covering

the „Cash and valuables in transit‟ (100%), „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (57%), „Other‟

(57%), „Key holding‟ (51%), and „Close protection‟ sectors (50%) felt this way,

suggesting that the ACS may not be valued by the industry as highly as the SIA

would like. However, 50% of companies in the „Close protection‟ sector also

stated that 81-100% of their clients required the ACS.

Micro sized companies were more likely to deal with clients who don't require the

approved status with 80% saying that 0-20% of their clients require the ACS,

compared to small (60%), medium (49%) and large (31%) companies.

Proportion of clients that require the ACS


0-20%

21-40%

41-60%

61-80%

81-100%

12%

12%

9%

47%

20%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 17

3.3.2 Proportion of private sector clients

When asked what proportion of their clients are private sector, the majority of

ACS respondents (56%) said 81-100%. 21% of respondents said that 61-80% of

their clients were from the private sector, while 11% said 41-60% were, 5% said

that 21-40% were, and 7% said that 0-20% were.

Companies covering the „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (86%), „Cash and valuables in

transit‟ (67%) and „Close protection‟ (63%) sectors were the most likely to have

81-100% of their clients in the private sector. However, companies covering the

„Vehicle immobilisation‟ sector (14%) were also the most likely to have 0-20% of

their clients in the private sector, slightly contradicting the information above.

Medium (60%) and large (59%) companies were more likely than small and micro

sized companies (both 40%) to have over 80% of their clients in the private

sector. No micro sized companies said that 0-20% of their clients were in the

private sector, compared to small, medium and large companies (all 7%).

3.3.3 Effect of approved status on company turnover

51% of ACS respondents said that their company turnover had increased since

they became an SIA approved contractor. 13% said that their turnover had

decreased, while 36% said it had stayed the same.

Micro sized companies (60%) were more likely than small (0%), medium (17%)

and large companies (3%) to say their turnover had decreased since they became

Proportion of clients that are private sector


0-20%

21-40%

41-60%

61-80%

81-100% 56%

7%

5%

11%

21%

Effect on company turnover


Increased

Decreased

Stayed the same

51%

13%

36%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 18

an approved contractor, whereas small companies (80%) were the most likely to

say their turnover had stayed the same. Medium (53%) and large companies

(69%) were significantly more likely than small and medium companies (both

20%) to report an increase in turnover since they achieved their approved

contractor status.

Companies covering the „Cash and valuables in transit‟ (100%), „Close protection‟

(63%) and „Door supervision‟ (63%) sectors were the most likely to have

reported an increase in turnover since they became approved contractors. Those

in the „Close protection‟ sector (25%) were the most likely to report a decrease,

whereas those in the „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (57%) and „Other‟ (43%) sectors

were the most likely to see no change in turnover.

3.3.4 Proportion of turnover change

When asked by what proportion their company turnover changed since they

became an approved contractor, ACS companies were most likely to say it stayed

the same (31%). The most commonly cited increases were 6-10% (17%) and 11-

25% (15%), while the most commonly cited decreases were –25 to –11% and –

10 to –6% (both 4%).

Only companies covering the „Key holding‟ (5%), „Security guarding‟ (5%), „Public

space surveillance‟ (4%) and „Door supervision‟ (3%) sectors saw a decrease in

turnover of over 25%. Companies in „Other‟ sectors (29%) were the most likely to

see an increase of over 50%, while those in „Cash and valuables in transit‟ (33%)

and „Door supervision (19%) were most likely to see increases in turnover of

between 11 and 25%.

Respondents from micro companies (20%) were the only ones to report decreases

in turnover of over 50% since they became approved contractors. Similarly, no

micro or small company reported an increase of over 25%, compared to 10% of

medium and 14% of large companies.

% change in turnover since became approved


More than -50%

-50 to -26%

-25 to -11%

-10 to -6%

-5 to -1%

No change

1 to 5%

6 to 10%

11 to 25%

26 to 50%

More than 50%

4%

4%

3%

1%

2%

31%

12%

17%

15%

8%

3%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 19

3.3.5 Change attributable to ACS status?

When asked what proportion of respondents‟ change in turnover could be

attributed to their ACS status, the majority of approved respondents (59%) said

none. 28% of respondents suggested that their approved status was responsible

for around 25% of their change in their turnover, while 6% said it was responsible

for around 50%. Only 4% of respondents said that their ACS status was 100%

responsible for their change in turnover.

Companies in the „Cash and valuables in transit‟ (100%), „Public space

surveillance‟ (64%) and „Key holding‟ (58%) sectors were the least likely to

attribute any change in their turnover to their approved status. Those companies

in „Close protection‟ (63%) and „Other‟ (43%) were most likely to attribute around

25% of their turnover change to their status, while those in „Vehicle

immobilisation‟ (14%) were the most likely to suggest their status was

responsible for around 50% of their turnover change. Companies in „Close

protection‟ (13%) were the most likely to suggest that their ACS status was

wholly responsible for their change in turnover.

Small (80%) and large companies (66%) were less likely than micro (20%) and

medium sized (54%) companies to attribute none of their change in turnover to

their approved status, while micro companies (20%) were the most likely to say

ACS status was 100% responsible.

% of change attributable to ACS status


None

Around 25%

Around 50%

Around 75%

All

3%

6%

28%

59%

4%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 20

3.3.6 Work gained from non-SIA approved contractors

When asked how often they had won work from non-approved contractors, over

one third (36%) of ACS respondents said they had done so occasionally, while the

second most commonly selected answer was never (31%). Only 5% of approved

contractors said that they consistently won work from non-approved contractors.

Respondents from companies in the „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (43%), „Cash and

valuable in transit‟ (33%) and „Security guarding‟ (32%) sectors were the most

likely to say that they had never gained work from a non-SIA approved

contractor. Firms in the „Close protection‟ sector (13%) were the most likely to

say that they consistently gained work from non-SIA approved firms.

There were few differences between the responses of small and medium

businesses in this case, however micro (20%) and large (24%) companies were

less likely to say that they never gained work from non-approved contractors than

small (40%) and medium (32%), and more likely to say they did so consistently

(40% and 7% respectively).

3.3.7 Work lost to non-SIA approved contractors

When asked how often they lose work to non-approved contractors, ACS

companies were most likely to say never (41%). 31% of approved companies said

that they occasionally lost work to non-approved contractors, while only 2% said

they did so consistently.

How often gain work from non-SIA approved contractor


Never

Seldom

Occasionally

Frequently

Consistently

3%

36%

25%

31%

5%

How often lose work to non-SIA approved contractor


Never

Seldom

Occasionally

Frequently

Consistently

11%

31%

15%

41%

2%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 21

No respondents from micro sized companies claimed that they never lost work to

non-approved contractors, compared to 55% of large, 47% of small, and 38% of

medium sized companies. Respondents from medium sized companies (4%) were

the only subgroup to say that they consistently lost work to non-SIA approved

contractors.

Companies in the „Cash and valuables in transit‟ (67%) and „Public space

surveillance‟ (54%) sectors were the most likely to say they never lost work to

non-approved contractors, while those in „Key holding‟ (19%) and „Close

protection‟ (25%) were most likely to say they seldom did so. A large number of

respondents in all sectors said that they occasionally lost work, while companies

in „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (57%) were most likely to say that they did so

frequently. While no respondents from companies covering „Cash and valuable in

transit‟, „Vehicle immobilisation‟ or „Other‟ said they consistently lost work to non-

SIA approved contractors, those firms in the „Close protection‟ sector (13%) were

the most likely to do so.

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 22

3.3.8 What are the main benefits of the ACS for your company? (open

ended)

The most common themes among the responses of ACS companies included the

view that being an SIA approved contractor is good for corporate image as it

shows that a firm maintains specific quality standards. Respondents were also

likely to mention the fact that they are able to deploy security staff while their

licence applications are being processed as a benefit. However, a significant

proportion of respondents said that the ACS has brought limited or no benefit to

their company.

Below is a representative selection of responses to this question; a full list is

available in the appendix.

"Ability to deploy up to

15% of staff on LDN"

"Because it requires competitor

companies to improve their

standards. Over time it will impact

on Security Officer wages."

"Can honestly say I have seen no benefits at

all, we were already UKAS ISO certificated and

in the first couple of years potential clients do

not appear to be interested in the ACS."

"Holding ACS enables us to

confirm our status within the

industry as one of the blue

chip companies."

"No benefits found to date.

Most of our end-users are

SME's and wouldn't know

anything about the SIA or ACS

if we hadn't told them."

"A good marketing tool for those clients that give a damn. It also puts you in a

different league to non-ACS companies and gives you credibility within the

industry. However, we still meet new clients who have no idea about the SIA or

ACS, which is frustrating considering the effort and expence of attaining and

keeping that status."

"An objective and rigerous

assessment of our ability to

provide guarding services."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 23

3.3.9 What changes has the ACS delivered to your company? (open ended)

A large proportion of ACS respondents said that becoming accredited has

increased their costs, is time consuming, and has created more administrative

work, while a significant amount said that is has delivered no changes. Fewer

respondents were reported that they have become more committed to quality and

communication.



"Better Quality Management as the workbook is a

good guide to operating properly. ACS Workshops

are useful for networking and seeing how others

tackle similar issues. More flexibility due to LDN's."

"ACS has enabled us to market

ourselves as a premier security

services provider for our region"

"Alot more paper work. More

thourough checks carried out and

more flexibility deploying staff."

"Increased bureaucracy,

administration and cost."

"It has helped us

to deliver a

more competent

and efficient end

product to our

clients."

"The ACS as made our and alot of the

other companies more professional in

the way we all deliver our servicers to

all our clients."

"The accreditation has increased our

overhead and administration costs with

no appreciable increase in revenue to

compensate. Clients are not willing to

pay increased rates as a result of our

company being ACS approved.

Furthermore, we have not been able to

increase payrates to the security

officers as we would have liked to or

that the security officers expected."

"It has enabled us to demonstrate to our clients and stakeholders

that we are an organisation which is committed to continual

improvement and development and reflects our determination to

improve the image and standing of our security industry"

"Need to comply to ACS requirements

which is time consuming. ACS is

aiming to drive us where we would

wish to go, but is forcing us to do

comply at their pace, rather than our

own. This is unsustainable financially

without prudent management."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 24

3.3.10 How has the ACS changed the way your company operates? (open

ended)

A large proportion of approved contractors said that the ACS hasn‟t changed the

way they operate as they were already maintaining high standards of quality.

Again, respondents mentioned that the ACS has increased costs and

administrative burdens. In this case a smaller proportion of respondents reported

that the ACS has positively changed their procedures and customer service.



"Completely, we now readily

embrace best practice ,ensure that

our staff are equipted to carry out

their assigned roles and promote the

professional image of an icreasingly

recognised industry that'as playing

an important role in the working life

of the nation"

"It has allowed managers to be

more focused on service

delivery and the care and

deployment of security

officers"

"ACS has not changed the

way we operate at all, but it

has affected how we market

ourselves."

"It has led to the appointment of a corporate head

of security where as previously it was developed at

local level and different throughout the company.

Now it is all standardised."

"Ensured we maintain a

professional approach at all time s"

"More Admin, more training,

more paperwork"

"Very little apart from

the licensing aspect"

"We have promoted ourselves as an ACS company

through varied means. However as stated, it has not

made any difference to any clientele. It has changed

the way this company operates in as much as we have

cut back in other areas to save cost in order to

continue implementing ACS."

"Yes - We only employ staff

who hold an appropriate

license and the requirements

of ACS has allowed us to

focus on our administrative

practices to ensure on-gonig

compliance."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 25

3.3.11 Are your standards higher as a result of being an ACS company? (open

ended)

Again, a large proportion of respondents said that their standards remained

fundamentally unchanged as they were already adhering to high quality

standards. A smaller proportion of ACS respondents said that they had improved

or introduced new procedures as a result of their approved status.



"definitely the standards are higher, the

ACS brought in more direct

responsibility within every organization

from top to bottom and it touches every

aspect of management you can think of

ranging from finance to health & safety

right through to the least person in

every organization has responsibility."

"Our standards are higher in that we are adhering to the legislation, and whilst this

can sometimes make operational decisons more difficult it is the only way as a

company we would want to operate post legislation. I do not believe our standards

are higher if you take of the legislation aspect as we always adhere to BS7499 and

ISO 9000. However, the extra checks and balances of ACS are a benefit."

"Not really, we already had fully

certificated, effectively run

management systems [to ISO 9001,

14001, OHSAS 1800 etc]"

"New policies and procedures

are in place in order to

comply with ACS, however

the standards of service

remain as they have always

been. Actual 'on the ground'

procedures and doing the job

is the same."

"High standards have always been a

priority and are largely unchanged"

"No we always have worked

to a very high standard"

"Yes people have more focus

and a managable template to

follow - due to enhanced

awareness of role."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 26

3.3.12 Has the ACS raised overall standards in the private security industry?

(open ended)

Opinion on whether the ACS has raised overall standards appeared to be mixed.

While some respondents said that said that the ACS had raised standards by

enforcing certain quality standards, others suggested the ACS has had no

significant impact, or that it was too early to tell. A small proportion of

respondents suggested that in order for the ACS to affect industry-wide

standards, the accreditation would (or in some cases should) need to be made

compulsory.



"Definitely it has, at least the

client has more confidence on

who is guarding their premises,

and valuables knowing that

they have met a required

standard."

"No because it is not

advertised enough and there

are still too many rouge

company in this area getting

away with breaking the rules”

"Marginally, futher improvements

will take more time as the SIA

improves its own disciplines"

"I think the ACS has raised all standards through

out the industry. Again alot of it as gone on

customer focus."

"I beleive overall it has, but hope that it will

grow and force the rogue element that still

meet no standards out of the industry."

"Cosmetically. The Industry is keen as a

whole to be seen as more professional.

It has been supported to an extent by

the SIA. However, the marketting of the

whole concept is sadly lacking"

"Yes, an acknowledged standard

used throughout the Security

Industry that promotes good

regulation"

"Not at the moment because there

is stll a lot of people that do not

realise what it means. More

advertising by the SIA is required"

"Yes I do, as some companies

wanting ACS for LDNs will have

had to improve certain areas for

their assessments."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 27

3.3.13 What benefits has the ACS brought to the security industry? (open

ended)

While a significant proportion of respondents said that they believed the ACS has

brought a universal quality standard, standardisation and increased awareness to

the security industry, respondents were more likely to say that they believed the

ACS had brought few or no benefits to the industry as a whole.



"An overall standard as far as guardin is

concerned. Keyholding and Alarm Response

Needs the support of the Approved

Contractors sheme and the SIA"

"ACS has provided the

groundwork, but we won't see

any major benefits unless we

have enforcement."

"Good sytem of regulation and guidance"

"Customers are at last starting

to recognise that ACS

companies meet a level of

standards & criteria"

"Not many in the short term. I think it

is probably going to take at least

another five, maybe ten years for the

benefits, or otherwise, of ACS to be

able to be fully evaluated and

understood"

"The introduction of the SIA/ACS is long overdue and

the benefits will be significant but only when the

controls introduced affect all those who work or are

involved in any aspect of the security industry. If this

does not happen then i think the overall effectiveness

and integrity of the scheme will be damaged"

"It has brought about trust,

confidence and most of all a

standard that is there to stay

from year to year."

"Standards and quality"

"Increased public awarness of

the fact that the industry is

trying to improve standards."

"Unfortunately we are still in

the early stages and we

believe that any advantages

that are to be gained will be

seen as the process

matures"

"It has set a common

standard."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 28

3.3.14 What have the public gained from the ACS? (open ended)

Common answers included the idea that the public is generally unaware the ACS

and it‟s aims, or that public gains will take time to become apparent. A significant

proportion of ACS companies suggested that the public has gained confidence and

trust in a more professional security industry, and that the accreditation is slowly

becoming more widely recognised.



"The knowledge that our industry is

professional"

"Generally if they are

aware of what the ACS

stands for and is set out to

acheive they may be more

inclined to use/trust an

ACS company"

"A little more confidence in the

industry due to regulation though

credibility has been harmed by the

recent media exposure of right to

work issues within certain security

providers."

"Assurance that the security industry is

regulated and is in the main made up of

professional security companies."

"I would like to think that the security

industry is better regulated and more trusted

but we see other security companies still

supplying men in a hut on a minimum wage,

doing the absolute bare minimum to just

about satisfy their client rating. People like

this are a laughing stock to the youth and the

public at large."

"Nothing Apart from making a nice imagie for

security companies, people dont know who the

SIA is and what you do! People working in

security have to, but general public dont know.

There our potential customers"

"No obvious gains to the public.

Reputable companies were working

to a high standard anyway."

"Very littel for the same reasons as

previously stated: many companies

are ignoring the rules, and some

have been accepted onto the ACS

under the fast track mechanism,

without being properly checked"

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 29

3.3.15 In your view, what is the general perception of the ACS within buyers of

security services? (open ended)

While a number of approved contractors suggest that buyers are aware of the

ACS and the quality standards it carries, a larger proportion of respondents

suggest that buyers are either unaware of the accreditation, or simply choose to

ignore it in favour of lower costs. Respondents have suggested that buyers do not

fully understand the ACS and as such are unaware of its potential advantages.



"It is starting to be a criteria

for participation"

"A large number of smaller

organisations are still unaware of the

sia let alone the acs"

"It is just another accreditation level"

"Another quango-type org'n

layering on higher costs"

"Not concerned with ACS

more concerned with price

and service."

"Due to lack of advertising from the S.I.A 90% of new

enquiries dont even know about S.I.A licences never mind

what A.C.S is, It needs Advertising on a national basis like

Television in the evenings, Also the consequences of using

unlicensed persons needs to be advertised."

"Slowly filtering through that

ACS companys are the ones

to use."

"The veiw that we get is that

if we are ACS approved

contractors then we must be

doing something right."

"They do not fully understand what it means.

Buying patterns haven't changed and, if

anything, organisations are buying purely on

price. There does not appear to be any premium

attached to ACS membership."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 30

3.3.16 Should the Fast Track route to approval now be phased out? (open

ended)

Opinion on whether the Fast Track route should be phased out appeared to be

fairly even split. While some respondents suggested that Fast Track had served its

purpose, others argued that it should never have existed in the first place. Some

suggest that Fast Track should remain in place as up-to-date qualifications are

worth recognition, while others argue that companies have had plenty of time to

meet the new quality standards.



"I do not believe it needs to

be phased out, as the same

principles apply now as did at

the inception. Perhaps I

would shorten the time for

the initial assessment, e.g.

within six months."

"I believe that in order for

companies to benifit, fast

track should be removed.

The standard route should

be used by all companies

wishing to achieve this

accrditation."

"Fast track should be phased out as most

companies have had the opportunity to be

in a position to apply now. Also the

requirements for ACS are higher."

"No, fast track should be allowed

because contrary to the SIA's beliefs,

a lot of companys already had

excellent quality systems and vetting

procedures in place before the SIA

was even dreamed of."

"As a Company who used the fast track

system to gain A.C.S. having first gained

I.S.O 90001 2000 it should remain. This

will enable companies to experience

systems introduced and improve before

the A.C'S.assessment."

"I think it should be phased out, a lot of companies these days dont

employ unlicensed guards anymore, the initial objective was to help

companies whose employee's are still going through lincensing process

then when their was a lot of back- log it should be phased out i recon."

"Not sure if this is relevant any longer."

"Yes it should be phased out,

as it has proven to be open to

abuse in the past. Also most

genuine quality accredited

companies are in the ACS

already."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 31

3.3.17 Should any refinements be made to the ACS workbook to make it more

user friendly? (open ended)

While a number of respondents suggested that the workbook is user friendly in its

current format, a large proportion suggested that it should be simplified in terms

of language and content. Fewer respondents suggested that some content could

be reduced to make it more applicable to smaller companies, and that it could

contain more practical examples.



"Consider workbook to be

userfriendly in its current

format."

"I fiound the workbook hard to go through,

it was not simple and a lot of the questions

were much the same, the range of answers

were not clear. I found it long and tedious"

"It is manageable and

covers the relevant areas

but it should be reviewed for

repetition and vagueness"

"Add more examples for each

criteria. Possibly provide companies

with a book to assist in their internal

auditting. Produce a workbook for

each sector with the same criteria

but with different examples that are

more applicable to the company in

question. The workbook and the

workbook guide could be combined."

"Once again too many grey areas and a

lot of questions that are not relevant to

the security industry."

"Terminology could be made

clearer, perhaps gaining the

crystal mark would be a

good move"

"There is repetition

throughout the workbook. It

can be shorten and

simplified. On line

completion is not easy."

"Yes. So many sections overlap and the termnology could be

better. Many sections are interprited differently by companys,

auditors and the ACS. From the ACS forums it is clear that

different companies do interprite section differently."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 32

3.3.18 Should approved contractors be required to conform to the relevant

British Standards (e.g. BS7858), and if so in what way? (open ended)

A large proportion of respondents from ACS companies said that they believed

approved contractors should meet relevant British standards as a minimum

prerequisite. However, a significant proportion of respondents suggested that

British Standards and the ACS should be harmonised, meaning that while

contractors would still be required to meet both standards, only one audit would

be required.



"In our opinion, since SIA/ACS are 'government' organisations the law

of the land where appropriate must always be included in any form of

approval. We are open to argument as to how best to achieve this.

We have also always believed that the present practice of inspecting

companies seperately for ACS and ISO 9000 should end and the two

inspections be harmonised. We believe that they are complimentary

schemes."

"All Security Companies should conform to

this standard it is important to the

Industry as a whole but still we have lots

of individuals who for some reason are not

and I cannot think why it’s not in the ACS"

"All Approved Contractors should

demonstrate full compliance with

all relevent standards which apply

to their scope."

"This should be one of the minimum requirements of ACS as

BS7858 has been a benchmark of measurement for a number of

years. All companies should be compliant with this irrespective

of thier status within the industry. Consideration should also be

given to other Britih Standard QMS accreditations such as

BS7499 or BS7984 as appropriate."

"It was hoped that the ACS would

supercede the BS standards.

Having both means additional costs

and paperwork. The ACS should be

a standard alone benchmark for

quality."

"Yes. ACS companies should be

operating to the highest standards

available if the SIA want ACS to

become the gold standard."

"No the SIA Licence should be

sufficient providing the checks

are completed correctly."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 33

3.3.19 Is the 85% licensing requirement still the most appropriate level? If not

is it too high or too low? (open ended)

Opinion varied greatly in this area, with ACS respondents suggesting levels from

0% to 100% were appropriate. A large proportion of respondents agreed that the

current level remains appropriate, while a smaller proportion suggested that this

level is too high for small companies and should be lowered.



"85% is a realistic figure. Although I

would suspect, like us, that most

companies are sitting much higher than

that figure. We are at 98.5%."

"Based on the size of our

company at the moment 85%

is too high. Industry Average

company size I believe it is

acceptable."

"About right"

"Initially it was perceived we would suffer from a lack

of 'licensed' staff and the build up to 85% was

considered valuable. However there does not appear to

be a lack of licensed applicants so I see no reason to

change this level."

"I think it is low enough to achieve some flexibility

and high enough to retain some standard so I think it

should stay at the current level."

"For close protection this rule does not

work and de-values the accreditation.

To achieve ACS status in close

protection licensing must be 100%"

"It seems fine at the

moment and is a good

level of compliance. Would

not object to a small rise in

the figure up to 90%"

"Should be brought down

to 75% at least as some

time jobs come in and 5 or

6 LDN's are not enough.

This definnatly needs to be

looked at."

"Yes. We feel that this is appropriate in general and special

cases would be assessed on an individual basis by the SIA"

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 34

3.3.20 Is it an appropriate time to raise the standards for some of the

workbook criteria? (open ended)

A large proportion of respondents suggested that current standards were

appropriate and should not be changed. Some suggested that companies should

be given more time to work towards the standards so the processes becomes part

of their everyday routines, rather than being continually updated. The other

commonly cited view was that the ACS schemes should represent the idea of

continual improvement, and as such, workbook criteria should be regularly

updated.



"As the ACS is voluntary and not to discourage

those applying for it, I believe further proof of the

ACS benefits are needed before any adjustment

in this area."

No - too soon. We need to give

adequate time for all companies

possible to become an ACS

approved contractor before

raising standards. Suggest

increasing standards in April

2010 and giving a minimum six

months notice of the intended

changes."

"It is always a good think to raise

standards but I would be worried that

things may become unachievable for

smaller companies if the requirements

become too stringent"

"I feel we are just getting

used to the existing

standards and have gone

through so much change in

the last few years that a

period of stability would be

good."

"No. A little time longer is needed to

stabilise, and sort out what is happening

with Fast Track. Once all companies are on

a level playing field, standard levels can be

looked at"

"The scheme is about continual

improvement and therefore the

answer is yes."

"yes additional training needs to

be implemented and qulity of

training, to find this out, book

yourself on a course and see the

qulity of this its appaling."

"Yes. If the standards do not increase, then the ACS will go

the way of the NSI and the BSIA."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 35

3.3.21 What characteristics does a “fit and proper” organisation have? (open

ended)

The responses of ACS companies varied greatly in this instance as respondents

interpreted „fit and proper‟ in a variety of ways. Common themes included

financial stability, fully trained staff, adhering to recognised quality standards,

good organisational structure and a culture of continuous improvement.



"A demonstrable commitment to providing

high quality service, a demonstrable

commitment to treating its staff and clients

well and financial stability."

"Integrity, responsibility, customer

satisfaction, profitability, good customer

retention, sound HR and Health and

Safety culture, ability to change in

accordance with customer requirements

and security needs."

"An aspiration to high

standards of excellence,

customer care and fully

trained and motivated staff"

"Financially prudent, adhere to standards

(don't play lip service), have a documented

internal audit process and comply with it."

"A 'fit and proper' organisation should be: - focussed on delivery of the

absolute best to any person(s) impacted upon - and not compliant purely

because they need to be! - concentrated on resolving of issues and ensuring

appropriate preventative measures are put in place. - targeted towards

continual self assessment and improvement as a minimum"

"Financially sound.

Complies to relevant

British Standards and in

rigourously inspected to

that standard."

"Honesty and

transparency in all its

dealings with staff,

clients and contractors"

"Quality Assurance Procedures for all processes Membership of

professional associations"

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 36


the ACS? (open ended)

Once again, opinion varied greatly in this area, although some common themes

were apparent. For example, a significant proportion of respondents suggested

that the ACS should be made compulsory for all contractors, and also that the

ACS needs to be more widely advertised/communicated in order to increase

awareness. A smaller proportion suggested that the costs of accreditation, and

the amount of administration work associated with the ACS should be reduced,

particularly for smaller companies who are struggling with the current levels.



"A review of its purpose and

delivery of the benefits it can

actually achieve rather than

those it notionally aspires too."

"Compulsory membership to all companies, or

relaxed rules for all companies. Keep the

playing field level and administrations costs

even for all secuerity companies in relation to

the SIA/ACAS"

"A dedicated telephone line for ACS

Companies not just the main number.

Decated team leader to contact at the

Document Handling Centre.Improved

communication"

"For it to be communicated

and become essential for

government and public bodies

to use only ACS approved

contractors."

"Enforcement and tougher

punishment on those

companies blatently

abusing the ACS scheme"

"Information on attainment

levels published. Regulation

and policing improved. More

publicity and contact with

security purchasers on

advantages of the scheme."

"More consultation"

"More communication about it, more

advertisement re the companies who are

approved, a system of company

participation, i.e. could the SIA not form a

small committee from the approved

companies who could assist in a number of

areas."

"On line system to be improved, enabling 90% of operational

issues to be dealt with on line thus freeing up the telephone

lines for urgent issues"

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 37

3.3.23 Are there any observations or feedback you would like to submit?

(open ended)

As this is a very general question, there were few recurring themes among the

responses submitted. A large proportion of ACS respondents said that they had

nothing further to add. Again, respondents mentioned high costs, communication

problems and a need for increased publicity of the ACS.



"ACS accreditation has yet to be

the recognised requirement by

the end user. Too many other

bodies such as the BSIA,

Security Watchdog, NSI etc are

hanging on!"

"Many have been made

over the past months

about illegal staff and

companies all have fallen

on deaf ears, whats the

point, our time is money"

"Better channels of

communication and speedier

administration."

"The ACS meeting in Bristol I found very

useful, Andrew Shepperd and his team are

also very helpful whenever I call. By far

the best people I have dealt with

connected to the SIA, which has not

always been pleasant, but they are getting

there, despite the bad press recently and

still get my vote."

"I believe the benefits of ACS need to be

higlhlighted, and the only way this will truly

happen if non acs companies who are operating

illegaly are procesuted or named and shamed.

There is an expense to the bsuiness post

licencing with ACS membership and companies

will become disallusioned if value for money

cannot be demonstrated."

"On licensing... We fear that the Sia will yet again, not be in a position

to handle the volume of licence renewals. The project anagment and

implementation of the schemes doesn't always deliver."

"We are very happy with

the benefits ACS has

brought to our internal

processes and audits."

"The sia appear to be very presumtios of their position and demand certain

things that can be very hard to achieve (ie they must interview clients) and

would be hard to achieve if the roles were reversed."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 38

4 NON-ACS COMPANIES

4.1 Introduction

This section of the report looks at the non-ACS questionnaire, and the responses

of companies who have registered interest in the ACS scheme in the past but

taken it no further. It looks at the profiles of non-ACS companies that took part in

the survey, and their responses to various questions about the scheme.

4.2 Company profile

This section of the report profiles non-ACS companies by sectors covered,

company size, and number of clients and client sites covered.


The sectors covered most commonly by non-ACS companies were „Security

Guarding‟ (77%), „Door Supervision‟ (41%), and „Key Holding‟ (32%), while

„Vehicle Immobilisation‟ (5%), and „Cash and Valuables in Transit‟ (0%) were the

least commonly covered.

„Security Guarding‟ and „Door Supervision‟ were more likely to be covered by

small businesses (81% and 56% respectively), while „Key Holding‟ was more

likely to be covered by medium businesses (38%) than other sized firms.

Sector(s) covered


Security Guarding

Door Supervision

Key holding


Close Protection



Other

10%

5%

0%

18%

77%

41%

32%

10%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 39


36% of non-ACS respondents classified themselves as micro sized businesses,

while 26% said they were small, 37% medium and only 1% large.


The number of clients that non-ACS companies provide security for was broadly

spread, peaking at 11-25 (23%) and 6-10 (21%). Following this, 16% of non-ACS

respondents said that they provided security for 1-2 or 3-5 clients. Predictably,

only 1% of respondents said that they served over 300 clients.

Looking at subgroups, micro sized businesses (32%) were much more likely than

small (7%) and medium (8%) sized businesses to only provide security for 1-2

clients. Small businesses, were most likely to serve 6-10 clients (44%), while

medium sized businesses were more likely than others to serve between 11 and

300.

Company size





Large (over 250 employees) 1%

37%

26%

36%

How many clients do you provide security for?


1-2

3-5

6-10

11-25

26-50

51-100

101-300

Over 300

8%

6%

10%

1%

16%

16%

21%

23%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 40

4.2.4 Client sites

The number of client sites covered by non-ACS businesses are spread in a similar

way to the number of clients served by the firms. 27% of respondents said they

covered 6-10 client sites, and 24% covered 11-25. 51-100 and 101-300 client

sites were both covered by 5% of non-ACS companies, while only 2% said they

covered over 300 client sites.

Predictably, micro businesses were more likely than others to only cover 1-2 and

3-5 client sites (33% and 25% respectively), while small companies were most

likely to cover 6-10 sites (44%). Medium sized businesses were more likely than

others to cover between 11 and 100 client sites.

There appears to be little correlation between the type of sectors covered by a

business, and the number of client sites they cover.


This section looks at the responses of non-ACS companies when asked what

proportion of their clients require the ACS, if company turnover changed over the

past year, and how regularly work is gained from or lost to SIA approved

contractors. These questions were followed by a series of open-ended questions,

which examine the views of Non-ACS companies in more detail.


When asked what proportion of their clients require the ACS, 71% of non-ACS

respondents said 0-20%. 8% said that 21-40% of their clients required the ACS,

while 9% said 41-60%, 4% said 61-80% and 9% said 81-100%.

Across all sectors covered by non-ACS businesses, respondents were most likely

to say that 0-20% of their clients required the ACS. It was also the most

commonly selected answer across all sizes of business.



1-2

3-5

6-10

11-25

26-50

51-100

101-300

Over 300

7%

5%

5%

2%

15%

16%

27%

24%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 41


41% of non-ACS respondents said that 81-100% of their clients were private

sector, while at the other end of the scale 19% said that 0-20% of them were.

Looking at subgroups, no particular security sectors appeared to lend themselves

more openly to private sector clients. Across all sectors, 81-100% was the most

commonly selected proportion of private sector clients. Similarly, 81-100% was

the most commonly selected proportion by micro (50%), small (26%) and

medium (44%), although respondents from small companies were equally likely

to say that 0-20% of their clients were private sector (26%).



0-20%

21-40%

41-60%

61-80%

81-100%

71%

8%

9%

4%

9%

Proportion of clients that are private sector


0-20%

21-40%

41-60%

61-80%

81-100% 41%

19%

12%

14%

13%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 42

4.3.3 Turnover over the past year

When asked, 58% of non-ACS respondents said that their turnover had increased

over the past year, 14% said it had decreased, and 28% said it had stayed the

same.

Companies which covered „public space surveillance‟ (80%), „Door supervision‟

(72%) and „Close protection‟ (70%) were the most likely to see an increase in

turnover in the past year, while those who covered „Key holding‟ (18%) and

„Other‟ (26%) were most likely to see a decrease. Companies covering „Vehicle

immobilisation‟ (40%) and „Security guarding‟ (27%) were most likely to see no

change in their turnover over the past year.

Small (67%) and medium (77%) companies were more likely to have seen an

increase in turnover over the past year than micro companies (34%), while micro

companies were more likely to have seen their turnover decrease or stay the

same (24% and 42% respectively).

4.3.4 Percentage change in turnover

When asked by what percentage their company‟s turnover had changed over the

past year, the most commonly selected answer was „No change‟ (27%). 23% of

non-ACS companies said that their turnover had increased by 11-25%, and 10%

said it had done so by 26-50%. Companies that experienced a decrease in

turnover were most likely to have done so by –50 to –26% (7%).

Change in company turnover


Increased

Decreased

Stayed the same

58%

14%

28%

% change in turnover over the past year


More than -50%

-50 to -26%

-25 to -11%

-10 to -6%

-5 to -1%

No change

1 to 5%

6 to 10%

11 to 25%

26 to 50%

More than 50%

1%

2%

7%

3%

4%

27%

8%

9%

23%

10%

9%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 43

Companies which covered „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (20%) and „Door supervision‟

(14%) were the most likely to see an increase of more than 50%, whereas only

companies covering „Key holding‟ (3%), „Security guarding‟ (2%) and „Door

supervision‟ (2%) saw a decrease in turnover of more than 50%.

4.3.5 Work gained from SIA approved contractor

When asked how many times non-ACS companies had gained work from an SIA

approved contractor, the majority (59%) said never. 11% said they had seldom

gained work from an approved contractor, 22% said occasionally, 8% said

frequently, while no non-ACS respondents claimed to have done so consistently.

Companies which cover „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (80%) and „Public space

surveillance‟ (70%) were the most likely to have never gained work from an SIA

approved contractor. Micro sized businesses (18%) were less likely to have

occasionally or frequently gained work from an SIA approved contractor than

small (22%) or medium sized businesses (46%).

4.3.6 Work lost to SIA approved contractor

The majority (62%) of non-ACS respondents said that they had never lost work to

an SIA approved contractor, while 14% said they had seldom lost work, 16% said

occasionally and 8% said frequently. No non-ACS respondent claimed to have

consistently lost work to an SIA approved contractor.

How often gain work from an SIA approved contractor


Never

Seldom

Occasionally

Frequently

Consistently

8%

22%

11%

59%

0%

How often lost work to an SIA approved contractor


Never

Seldom

Occasionally

Frequently

Consistently

8%

16%

14%

62%

0%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 44

Companies covering the „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (80%), „Key holding‟ (65%) and

„Door supervision‟ (65%) sectors were most likely to say that they had never lost

work to an SIA approved contractor. Conversely, companies covering „Close

protection‟ (30%), „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (20%) and „Public space surveillance‟

(20%) were most likely say that work had been frequently lost to competitors

that were SIA approved.

Micro sized companies (53%) were less likely to claim that they had never lost

work to SIA approved contractors than small or medium sized businesses (both

67%)

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 45

4.3.7 What does the ACS mean to you? (open ended)

A large proportion of respondents from non-approved companies said that the

ACS represents a high standard of quality and credibility to which they aspire.

However, respondents were equally likely to suggest that the ACS is an

expensive, unnecessary exercise, and a waste of their time.



"A costly way of already stating my company conforms to the law and

British standards which govern the quality standards that are already in

place. It is perceived by the industry as a duel standard to allow large

companies added benifit to work un licenced guards and that the benefits

seen by customers is limited. Most companies see the licencing on the

industry as just a glorified vetting resource."

"Another subscription

to pay - another

burden for small

companies"

"A quality stamp for

our staff and the

service we provide."

"ACS is confirmation that a

company does all that is

neccessary to protect the interests

of both its staff and clients."

"Far too expensive, I shall

consider this carefully in 2008

though, and I would like to see

the application procedures

simplified."

"An acreditation that will

eventually be recognised by

all industries."

"It is one way of trying to achieve a recognisable standard of operating and

administration procedures by security companies. Unfortunately, due to the

on going problems of trying to renew licences and the recent facts concerning

the incorrect issuing of licences to 11,000 people, the reputation of the SIA is

now such that no one has any confidence in their ability to carry out their

role, which includes the ACS scheme. Therefore at this moment in time the

ACS means very little to the operators or their clients."

"The idea is good, but it has

not changed anything in the

industry"

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 46

4.3.8 Are you considering applying for the ACS status? (open ended)

While a very large proportion of respondents said that they are considering, or

already in the process of applying for ACS status, a significant proportion also said

that they were not, and see it as a worthless exercise.



"It would appesar that an

increasing number of potential

clients want to use ACS

approved contractors so yes"

"No Up to £2400 for the

Application fee and £17/head

annual fee. Don't you make

enough from the licence fee?"

"We have been trying for 18

months with no success!!"

"Currently trying

to complete the

workbook"

"Not until the

cost is reduced

or part funded." "Yes we have been forced

to consider it due to the

impression given in the

market place."

"We are already doing so -

and frankly it hasn't been

easy!"

"Not yet. But I’m sure I’ll be

forced to do it at some point so

that the SIA can charge me for

the privilege."

"Yes I would like to but it's all down

to money"

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 47

4.3.9 Why have you not pursued gaining the ACS status? (open ended)

Respondents were likely to say that they had not persued the accreditation

because of financial reasons. Respondents suggested that the cost of becoming

accredited was too high, and offered minimal advantages in return. Respondents

also cited increased administration, and higher priorities as reasons for not

pursuing ACS status.



"As a small - medium company we have restricted resources and

time. Service to our customers and staff is our main concern. High

levels of supervision and service is our objective. We hope to allocate

time for this project in the new year."

"Because of difficulties

with paperwork and

payments."

"i have been waying up the pros and

cons in regards to ISO or ACS and

every time i have spoken to a person

from the SIA no one have been able to

convince me this would be of benefit or

the better option for me as a

company."

"Lack of information on

whats required and more

guidance needed from

SIA."

"cost paper work to many forms. everthing with

SIA moves so slowly."

"due to the high fees for

small businesses i.e

certification and

assesment fees"

"Small return on the investment and the target

customers do not require it as opposed to ISO9001

which has transferability across all business

sectors."

"We carry out

surveillance training

and surveillance work.

This is not yet a

licensable activity

under the SIA"

"time and money"

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 48

4.3.10 What do you consider to be the main benefits of the ACS? (open

ended)

A large proportion of respondents said that ACS accreditation would give them

recognition within the industry, and could allow them to be considered for more

jobs. A smaller proportion suggested that the ability to deploy 15% of staff on

LDNs was a considerable benefit. Others said that as yet, they saw no benefits to

their company of becoming an approved contractor.



"Asists in aquisition of new clients

and provide bench mark to wich

to work to"

"It will allow us to distinguish

ourselves from the

competition. We will be

members of an elite group of

companies governed by the

main body in the u.k, the

s.i.a."

"As of yet nothing as there are companies

listed that should not have the status

through their Directors past history and

company trading history. These are the

type of old school nobody wants. Cash jobs

below minimum wage etc."

"Clients confidence in our

business giving us a

degree of credibility."

"Industry recognition. Ability

to employ up to 15% of staff

without badge who have

already undertaken training."

"Being a recognised company, proving to

clients that we have quality mamagement

systems in place and that our staff are of a

high standard and that we deliver a first

class service."

"Recognised industry

accreditation"

"The cowboy companies being

removed from tradeing"

"We can more focus on quality Control and can more

organize our business as per the British satndards"

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 49


industry? (open ended)

A significant number of respondents suggested that the ACS has brought

credibility to the security industry, and provided a common standard for

companies to aspire to. Others stated that it has helped reduce the number of

illegal operators in the industry. However, a significant proportion of respondents

suggested that the ACS is yet to bring any benefits to the industry, and has

simply increased the cost of operating within it.



"A huge amount, but very difficult for

start up companies, cost not affective

if you have no contracts"

"Due the lack of

confidence in the SIA it

is hard to imagine any

benefits at this time."

"Created a higher level of

awareness in customers"

"It has given the larger players in he industry an even bigger slice

ofthe financial cake, but has done nothing for the smaller

independent companies other than reduce the availability of many

local authority and major commercial opertunities that where once

available."

"It has without question raised

standards."

"None as far as we can tell, other than

some fat fees for the accreditation

bodies. Our clients have virtually no

awareness of the SIA and certainly none

of the ACS. What awareness they do have

is entirely negative, given the recent

adverse publicity over illegal migrant

labour. We now play down our SIA

'credentials' for fear of being deemed a

bunch of incompetent halfwits, by

association."

"A transparent accreditation which allows

non industry experts (customers) to

determine which is a reputable supplier

and which is not necessarily"

"Proffesionalism and

getting rid of some of

the ill prepared

companies that give the

industry a bad

repretation"

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 50

4.3.12 Has the ACS helped to raise standards in the security industry overall?

(open ended)

Opinion of non-ACS companies seemed to be fairly evenly split between those

who thought the ACS has helped to raise industry standards, and those who feel

the scheme has had no effect. A small proportion of respondents suggested that

the public could now have more confidence in the security industry as a whole, as

they know that certain standards must be achieved. Others suggested that

standards were already high in their area, and as such, the ACS has had little

impact.



"It is nationally and

internationally recognised

and accepted."

"It has had no impact in raising

standards at all, infact standards

have probably dropped through

companies having to take short

cuts to try and address the

financial penalty."

"100% yes. Every legitimate firm

should work towards the ACS and this

will in turn clean up the industry. Each

firm will strive towards this goal and will

only better themselves and provide a

better service to their clients"

"Not really, every man and his

dog just wants to put the logo on

their letterhead with little to show

for it"

"No. Large companies with

ISO had the opportunity to

fast-track. Small companies

had to play 'catch-up'."

"Without doubt the standards

have raised. As a training

provider this is clear to see"

"At this moment in time there are

too many standards to achieve the

ACS is just another one to work to

and is difficult for small companies."

"Yes, by setting clear benchmarks which companies have to achieve to gain

ACS approval, the ACS has enabled companies to focus on delivering quality

of service to the customers and ensuring their own workforce are suitably

trained and clear about their own company standards."

"Yes it has shown that there is

an independent regulatory body

which should give confidence to

end users"

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 51

4.3.13 In your view what have the public gained from the ACS? (open ended)

Once again a significant proportion of respondents stated that the public have not

gained anything from the ACS, and that few are aware of its existence. However,

a number of respondents suggested that the public have gained a more

professional service, and now have more confidence in the industry as a whole.



"Better service, piece of mind, dealing

with companies who have the right

systems in place to help them and

consistancy."

"A false impression that companies

with ACS are better service

providers than those who do not

have ACS"

"Higher costs for security

cover from the major

companies, an even tighter

budjet for the smaller

companies"

"Initially it should have given

them some confidence in any

company that was ACS.

However, I believe that they

gain very little."

"Confidence in those who have

achieved the standard."

"A better understanding of what to expect from

a security officer and security company."

"It seems the public feel the

ACS is a form of qulity

assurance."

"NOTHING, They still view the

industry as ex - criminal elements

working in the industry, foreign

people gaining licenses without

proper checks being carried out."

"Most members of the public would not recognise

any change. It is more important within the

industry and for companies seeking security staff

that standards have been set and monitored."

"The confidence to be able

employ the services of a

company knowing they

have been vetted by a

governing body of repute."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 52


services? (open ended)

A very large proportion of respondents suggested that their buyers are either

unaware of the ACS, or often choose to ignore the accreditation in favour of lower

costs. Other respondents suggested that those buyers who are aware of the

scheme view the ACS favourably, and suggest that it represents a certain quality

benchmark.



"An organisation which is capable of

pointing to providers of high quality

service within the industry."

"Better standard of

personal and

management back up

as we wish to keep

contracts so try harder

to please the

customer."

"52% of the people we work with do not know

who the ACS are and when explained, they are

thankfully more interested in the merits of us as

an individual company, rather than what the

ACS stands for."

"As far as i am aware there are

very few people with any

knowledge of what it is about

and it has made people who are

buyers of security services very

weary of the SIA"

"It is a quality

approved stamp."

"Higher standard of delivery, however it is

the belief that in the begining anyone could

get it and so it has been devalued"

"As mentioned, our clients don't know and

really don't care. As always they want the

service at the lowest possible price."

"Just becoming an issue

now! Until now, buyers

were just not informed!"

"They will go for price rather than

any qualifications or degree of

professionalism"

"The majority of prospective buyers

of security are mainly unaware of

ACS, however, most realise that

secuirty officers require a license."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 53



The responses of non-ACS companies varied greatly in this instance, as a wide

variety of potential changes were cited. The most common answers included

making the ACS compulsory for all contractors, improving communication,

reducing the costs associated with the scheme, and simplifying and speeding up

the application process.



"A vast reduction in

the cost"

"I think that the requirtements for very

small companies should be eased and

the burden of paperwork reduced."

"Easier, faster and more responsive application procedure from

begining to end. The cost of application is far too high for the

percieved rewards of being in the ACS programme."

"Compulsory for all"

"Accessable to all companies, instead

of being based on the number of

employees. By this I mean, take

casual staff into consideration."

"Cheaper for smaller

companies - more expensive

for larger companies"

"More awareness and

enforcement"

"Lets have it more in the public

domain, lets see the companies who

have the NSI awards automaticaly

enterd onto the ACS as they have been

playing by the rules for years."

"The benefits should be free of charge.

The ACS should have an enforceable

code of conduct."

"More user-friendly, more

cost effective. Possible

pass-porting scheme for

NSI Gold inspected

companies."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 54

4.3.16 Are there any other observations or feedback you would like to submit?

(open ended)

While a large proportion of respondents had nothing more to add, there was a

great deal of variation among the responses that were given to this question.

Common answers included complaints about companies employing illegal

immigrants, as well as the notion that it should be easier and quicker for

companies to become accredited and that the SIA‟s communication needs to be

vastly improved.



"To smaller companies the initial

finincial is outlay is prohibitive and

there should be some sort of

incentive to become approved."

"More efficient working of

online self-assessment."

"An SIA mentor would be useful to companies

applying. Trying to get through to the SIA to

discuss anything takes far too long"

"We will join at some stage in

2008, and realise that the

sooner we do the better, it

will help our growth in 2008,

but it is just getting the

money towards the costs."

"Please do not bother me

with any further surveys as

they are a waste of time you

people do not listen or care"

"The scheme is to dispose of the cowboy eliment of this industry, but my

company has been providing services for over 20 years to a large number of

well known companies in our area, yet the scheme is out of our reach

financially. Companies have offered us work over national companies who

are ACS approved because they mention that we provide a more personal

service and sometimes better service than the ACS companies."

"As usual poor comunication to and from the SIA

phones not answered emails not replied to with

queries. This adds aditional cost to companies

trying to gain Approval. As usual the biggest

barrier is the SIA its self."

"Yes on paper this is a fantastic idea in reality we will

have to see"

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 55

5 BUYERS OF SECURITY

5.1 Introduction

This section of the report looks at the questionnaire sent to buyers of security,

and the responses of those companies that took part. It looks at the profiles of

buyers, and their responses to various questions about the scheme.

5.2 Company profile

This section of the report profiles buyers of security by sectors covered, company

size, and how many security providers they use.


71% of buyers said that their business covered the private sector, while 48% said

they covered the public sector. There appeared to be no relationship between the

size of business and the sectors covered.


Buyers of security were most likely to be medium sized businesses (37%),

followed by micro (29%), large (19%) and finally small (15%).

Company size





Large (over 250 employees)

29%

15%

37%

19%

Sectors covered


Private

Public 48%

71%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 56

5.2.3 Number of security providers

The majority of buyers (53%) said that they only used one security provider,

while 16% said they used two, 7% said they used three, 4% said they used four,

and 20% used five or more.

Micro sized businesses were more likely to use just one security provider (68%),

compared to small (45%), medium (46%), and large sized businesses (50%). No

Micro sized businesses used three security providers, while no small or medium

sized companies used four providers.


Buyers of security were asked what proportion of their providers are ACS

approved, how frequently security provider contacts are reviewed, and if their

policies allow the use of non-approved contractors. These questions were followed

by a series of open-ended questions, which examine in more detail buyers‟ views

on the scheme. This section of the report looks at their responses.

5.3.1 Proportion of ACS approved security providers

When asked what proportion of their security providers are ACS approved, one

third of buyers (33%) said they used no approved providers. At the other end of

the scale, a quarter (25%) of buyers said that 100% of their security providers

were ACS approved.

How many security providers do you use?


1

2

3

4

5+

53%

16%

7%

4%

20%

Proportion of ACS approved security providers


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

12%

16%

13%

33%

25%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 57

Large businesses (50%) were more likely to use no ACS approved security

providers, compared to micro (32%), medium (29%), and small sized businesses

(27%). Micro sized businesses (27%) were more likely than others to have 25%

of their security providers ACS approved, while small (27%) and medium sized

businesses (25%) were the most likely to have 50% of suppliers approved. Small

businesses (27%) were more likely than the other sized businesses to use 75% of

approved suppliers, while medium (29%) and large (29%) businesses were most

likely to have 100% of their security suppliers approved by the ACS.

5.3.2 Frequency of security providers contract review

When asked how frequently buyers of security review contracts with security

providers, 36% said they did so every 0-6 months. Almost one third of buyers

(32%) said they reviewed security provider contracts every 7-12 months, while

15% did so every 2 years, 12% every 3 years, and 5% every 4 years.

When looking at results across subgroups, there appeared to be no difference

between how often public and private sector respondents review contracts with

their security providers. However, micro sized businesses (59%) were much more

likely to review contracts every 0-6 months than small (36%), medium (29%),

and large buyers (14%).

Frequency of security providers contract review


0-6 months

7-12 months

Every 2 years

Every 3 years

Every 4 years

12%

15%

32%

36%

5%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 58

5.3.3 Use of non-approved contractors

49% of buyers said they had policies allowing the use on non-approved

contractors, while 51% did not.

When looking at sub groups, small businesses (73%) were more likely not to

allow the use of non-approved contractors when compared to micro (50%),

medium (43%) and large sized businesses (50%). Once again, there appeared to

be no significant differences between the policies of private and public sector

businesses.

Does your policy allow the use of non-approved contractors?


No

Yes 49%

51%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 59

5.3.4 Why does your policy allow the use of non-approved contractors?

(open ended)

Respondents who said that their policy allows the use of non-approved

contractors were asked why this was the case. The majority of respondents

suggested that approved contractors were often no better than unapproved, yet

they were more expensive. Some buyers suggested that they value relationships

built up over time with non-ACS companies, higher than the accreditation itself,

suggesting that the ACS scheme may not be as highly regarded by buyers as the

SIA would like.



"Reputation, Skill, Honesty, Price and track record mean more to us than

the ability to complete reams of government paperwork. We would rather

prefer that our suppliers concentrated on servicing our needs rather than

chasing yet another dubious form of accreditation"

"Not aware of benefits of

using an ACS"

"Because the ACS does not

guarantee quality of staff,

just quality of paperwork."

"Because of a lack of

confidence in the

approval scheme."

"We allow this for the simple reason that so long as the security operative carries

an SIA License then it simply does not matter weather the Security Company is

approved by the SIA. The fact is the SIA have already approved the operative as

he/she already carries a license."

"There are firms that comply with SIA but are

not Approved contractors. We have used

them for years and have no complaints or

problems with them."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 60

5.3.5 What does the ACS mean to you? (open ended)

A significant proportion of buyers said that the ACS represents certain

professional standards within the industry, has given buyers more confidence and

is good for the industry as a whole. However, other respondents suggested that

the ACS means little to them and regard the accreditation as an expensive waste

of time and money.



"Approved Contractor Scheme, Becoming an approved contractor

makes you eligble or target bigger companies as well as

""highlighting"" how good you really are. Even though people within

the industry are aware no-one outside the industry has a clue what

SIA/ACS Means?"

"Nothing apart from

Security companies

have to charge more"

"Introduction of basic minimum

standards across the industry.

The licenses appear to be a

money generating initiative and

have suffered from a lack of

consistency of approach by

companies in their approach to

funding the licenses."

"A company that is commited to its

service delivery that is recognised and

approved to a protective minimum

standard for purchases of manned

guarding services."

"Red tape, extra cost & no

guarantees, another government

quango with no real purpose"

"It simplifies the recruitment

process and ensures compliance."

"Extra expense for ACS accredited

companies, which does not

necessarily mean better staff, just

a bigger paper trail."

"We feel that it is proberly a

good way forward, but a lot

of small company's, 'which

we use' cannot afford to be

assesed every twelve

months."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 61

5.3.6 What are the advantages and disadvantages of using ACS companies

compared to non-ACS? (open ended)

A large proportion of buyers suggested advantages including the idea that ACS

companies were better managed, meet professional standards, and are more

reliable. However, disadvantages were also highlighted, including the opinion that

ACS companies are more expensive, require more paperwork, and don't

necessarily provide a better service.



"ACS companies are more

accredited and better managed

and than non ACS companies"

"Non ACS Companies are cheaper the ACS

Companies. The bottom line is COST and

we feel that if the guard is already licensed

then the SIA have already approved

him/her"

"All staff are legal to be on the

premesis and are 'officialy'

licensed"

"Disadvantage more expensive"

"Expect a high standard of compliance and

continual improvement with ACS"

"There is difference of organized, systematic,

and shows financial position of companies"

"The advantages are that as an

ACS company it will allow a

small portion of staff to work

while still waiting on SIA Licence

Dispensation Notice. The

disadvantages are if you are not

ACS registered you have to wait

until you recieve your licence

before you can work."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 62

5.3.7 Standards in the private security industry

Opinion of buyers was fairly equally split when asked if the ACS has helped to

raise standards in the private security industry, with 52% agreeing, and 48%

disagreeing.

Large businesses were most likely to agree that the ACS has helped to raise

standards (64%), followed by micro (59%) and small sized businesses (55%),

while only 39% of medium sized businesses agreed.

Buyers that operate mainly in the private sector (57%) were more likely than

those in the public sector (47%) to agree that the ACS has helped to raise

security industry standards.

Has ACS helped to raise the standards in the private security industry?


Yes

No 48%

52%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 63

5.3.8 In what areas are the higher standards? (open ended)

Respondents who said that they „believe the ACS has helped to raise standards in

the private security industry‟ were then asked in what areas they thought

standards were raised. Some respondents suggested that standards had

increased across all areas of the industry, while others pinpointed more specific

areas including customer care and more professional staff.



"Basic entry standard of personnel.

Greater confidence in the

suitability of personnel"

"The illegal practitioners and

cowboy operators seem to be

closing down"

"Only those who are committed to

doing a good security job will

actually carry out training. Dress

standard, knowledge etc"

"Taking out the criminal

aspects."

"Training, quality of staff"

"Competence, awareness,

improvement and probity"

"Terms and conditions for officers,

quality of output from the teams, a

more proffessional approach with the

exception of support management level,

and this still remains an area of

weakness."

"Personnel quality"

"Calibre of security guards

provided."

"All security providers want to

get ACS approval as it is used

for marketing to gain

contracts."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 64

5.3.9 In what additional areas would you like to see higher standards? (open

ended)

Buyers gave a wide variety of answers to this question, with little evidence of

common responses. Suggestions included tightening vetting requirements,

increasing enforcement, and giving security officers more powers.



"All security companys must have ACS

within 6 months of company opening or

they cannot trade, with tougher checks on

the management team behind the scene."

"It should a mandatory requirement for all security guarding

companies to be members of the scheme and should be

designed in such a way that it is not prohibitive for very small

companies to become members. This in turn would force

improved standards throughout the sector."

"Efficient training of staff with

multiple licences. Reduced licence

processing time."

"Industry wide enforcement to

reduce undercutting by rogue

operators"

"I would like to see higher standards in

dealing with general public enquiries

and the general awareness of the

specific area where these officers are

working"

"Communication and

conflict management"

"SIAs own standards, after

watching the TV

programme"

"Time taken by the SIA to handle

licence applications. Our clients who

have in house security staff

complain frequently of incompetance

and inefficiency at your offices"

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 65

5.3.10 What benefits do you think the ACS has brought to the security industry

overall? (open ended)

While some respondents suggested that the ACS has made the industry more

professional and raised minimum standards, a significant proportion claimed that

the ACS has brought no benefits to the industry as a whole.



"Greater awareness of regulation"

"Maybe created a few jobs

behind the scenes so that the

audit trail can be followed."

"Mainly it has to do with

not letting known

criminals work in the

industry that is meant to

be your security."

"A reassurance to anyone

requiring a professional security

service"

"I don't know about benefits

but it has certainly weeded out

the cowboy"

"Nothing but a hinderence"

"The ability to address issues, the

expectaion of a minimum level of service

across the board, to recognise the

companies that can give a minimum

standard of service delivery."

"Raised the perception

of security companies"

"NONE! As i said earlier the big companies that can afford the

money are able to buy the ACS by throwing money at any

issues raised in order to comply with the ACS. The smaller

firms are struggling to pay and are therefor not applying. The

smaller firms are often better quality of service. I personally

would not employ just on the basis of ACS."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 66

5.3.11 In your view what have service users gained from the ACS? (open

ended)

A very large proportion of respondents said that in their opinion, service users

have gained nothing from the ACS, while fewer respondents suggested that users

have gained from increased professionalism and well trained staff.



"Reassurance that

security guards have

been vetted."

"Yet another icon on the

letterhead, and from an end

users point of view - Nothing"

"Simplified recruitment

from a customer

perspective of suitable

security staff"

"Additional costs and an officer

with one extra days training"

"Nothing”

"Nothing apart from

higher prices"

"What they have gained is a

higher standard of security

officer with proper training"

"ACS companies have agained a great deal of respect in general from

industry, there are still comapnies out there operationg that continue to

keep the name of security down and customers who will support that part

of the industry. To further move the industry forward and gain respect as

a clean industry we must enforce companies to report security officers

who have been dismissed for an offence within their respective

companies. I have experienced gross missconduct from an officer, he has

been removed from our facilities but we discover he has just been

relocated to another customer leaving him open to commit further

offences."

"All staff are well trained in their

duties as security personal. All

people have been screened for

criminal history so everyone is

legitimate law abiding citizens."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 67

5.3.12 If you do not use ACS companies what would make you change your

mind? (open ended)

Some buyers suggested that they would use ACS companies if they could see that

they there was a benefit in doing so. Other common responses included the idea

that buyers may start using ACS companies if they lowered their costs and if

enforcement was increased. A significant proportion of respondents said that

nothing would make them change their mind about using ACS companies.



"Fairer pricing structure"

"If I could see the benfit to my

company which at the moment I can’t"

"More help for smaller

firms and a more

transparent criteria

allowing all firms to apply

and comply with checks

carried out on all owners

consultants ect."

"A more credible

approval scheme."

"More information from sia"

"Not applicable, I would not use a

non ACS company, ACS should be

mandatory for a company to trade

in my view."

"That all company's are

treated equally, wether

large or small."

"Having an effective system where

by the quality of the service

provided actually does improve to

me at the purchaser and my clients

as the service reciever."

"Nothing, as long as we get a high standard of service

from the company we can see no benefit of paying the

higher cost of employing an ACS company"

"If they give me a

professional response"

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 68



Common themes among responses to this question include the idea that the

scheme should be mandatory, that enforcement and regulation should be stricter,

and that communication needs to be improved.



"Avoid duplication of

training syllabus for

multiple license holders."

"Make the scheme mandatory for

all security operators if it is

deemed important to raising

standards within the industry."

"Less ambiguity and more continuity in the rules applied. I

would also like more authority given to inspectors when it

comes to giving the thumbs up on enquiries i.e. Qs. Can you

confirm that I am operating properly? And, No I cannot, I can

only react to any complaint that comes in and then tell you

whether it is right or wrong??"

"Faster response"

"1. The commitment from suppliers to report dismissed officers to the SIA. 2. Bring

in a minimum standard for terms and conditions for officers that gives an individual

a workable standard of living. 3. Bring the working week down to 48hrs, draconian

suppliers who thing offiers want 56hrs are misguided. Until it becomes compulsary

industry will use companies that do not comply with the WTD."

"I thing there needs to be better

comunication with the long standing

smaller firms and SIA help for them to

comply with the ACS. All the people

from Supervisory and up to be checked

the same as the men."

"Not to be a 'club' for

the companies that can

afford to join"

"That small company's are given

an equal chance to survive, and

are assesed every three years

instead of every year."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 69


(open ended)

As with the other general feedback questions, responses in this instance were

varied. While a large proportion of respondents said that they had nothing to add,

other responses included complaints about illegal immigrant workers and the

SIA‟s slow administration, as well as concerns that the LDN system is being

abused.



"The administration has in the past been very slow in processing individual

and company applications whilst the adoption of license requirements has

been swift. This was particularly the case for CCTV licensing. This made it

very difficult for organisations to continue operating within the law as

there was an initial shortage of qualified staff."

"When companys get reported

for illegal activity, for the sia to

take action immediatly. It

seems the sia was set up to

make money out of the legal

security companys, yet fail to

deal with the illegal ones???"

"The process of contractors

becoming ACS approved is

expensive and the cost is passed on

to us as clients and it actually offers

us no increased level in service for

that increase in cost. It would

appear to be an ineffective system"

"Concentrate on what you do well - ie vetting - that is

what people are worried about, not whether an

employer runs appraisals every six month. I need to

be able to reassure clients that the staff security firms

put in their buildings are A. Licensed B. Vetted and

skilled appropriately for the job C. Not here illegally"

"Yes not enough

customer focus"

"I just want to know why the new

company cannot apply or qualify

for ACS before 6 months"

"How have illegal

immigrants been issued

with SIA licences? I

thought that was the whole

point of the SIA checks and

verification before issuing a

licence?"

"The SIA helpline 0844 892 1025 needs more staff. 3 doormen at

my establishment came in on Monday to use the phone and were on

hold for 1 hr 45 mins before they gave up. None have worked since

November due to the Licence even though applications were

submitted in Sept Oct 2007. I have guys on at the moment who

where unfamilier with the locals and those who cause trouble."

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 70

6 COMPARATIVE QUESTIONS

A number of questions appear in all three surveys, and as such their responses

are comparative. This section looks at the comparative questions and analyses

the responses of the different respondents groups. The majority of this section

focuses on the responses of ACS and non-ACS companies, as only one coded

question from the buyers‟ survey is comparable across the three surveys.

6.1 Company profile

This section compares the profiles of ACS and non-ACS companies by sectors

covered, number of clients and number of client sites covered. It also looks at the

responses of all three respondent groups in terms of company size.


When looking at the sectors covered by both ACS and no ACS companies, it is

clear that in both cases, the sector covered most commonly is „Security guarding‟

(92% and 77% respectively). Respondents from non-ACS companies were more

likely to cover „Door supervision‟ (41% vs 26%), while those from ACS companies

were more likely to cover the „Key holding‟ sector (47% vs 32%).

Sectors least likely to be covered by both ACS and non-ACS companies were

„Close protection‟ (7% vs 10%), „Vehicle immobilisation‟ (6% vs 5%) and „Cash

and valuables in transit‟ (2% vs 0%). A larger proportion of respondents from

non-ACS companies (18%) than ACS (6%) said that they covered sectors

catagorised under „Other‟. So, the majority of both ACS and non-ACS companies

appear to be focussed on the „Security guarding‟, „Key holding‟ and „Door

supervision‟ sectors.

Sector(s) covered

Base: ACS and Non-ACS respondents (226)

Total

ACS

Non-ACS

85 40 33 17 8 51 12

92 47 26 23 7 6 2 6

77 32 41 10 10 5 18

Security Guarding

Key holding

Door Supervision


Close Protection



Other

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 71

6.1.2 Company size

This question was common to all three surveys, so results can be analysed across

all three respondent subgroups. It is clear that all companies, regardless of

respondent group were most likely to classify themselves as medium sized. Non-

ACS companies were more likely to be either micro sized or small (62%) than

Buyers (44%) or ACS companies (17%). The fact that small or micro sized firms

were the least likely to be approved contractors appears to back up the concerns

of some respondents that it is harder for small companies to become accredited,

and that the cost and additional work required in doing so is too high. This is

echoed by the fact that only 1% of non-approved contractors classified

themselves as large, suggesting that it is easier for large companies to become

SIA approved. ACS respondents were the most likely to classify their company as

either medium or large (83%), compared to 56% of buyers and 38% of

respondents from non-ACS companies.

Total

ACS

Non-ACS

Buyers

22 18 46 15

4 12 60 24

36 26 37 1

29 15 37 19




Large (over 250 employees)

Company size

Base: ACS, Non-ACS and Buyer respondents (301)

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 72


There were clear differences in the number of clients served by ACS and non-ACS

companies. Respondents from non-ACS companies were significantly more likely

to serve between 1 and 10 clients (53%) than those from ACS companies (21%).

Conversely, approved contractors (26%) were more likely than non-approved

(9%) to provide security for over 100 clients. This is to be expected because as

stated above, approved contractors were more likely to be classified as medium

or large businesses (83%) than non-approved firms (38%).

6.1.4 Number of client sites

As expected, the chart produced when looking at the number of client sites

covered by ACS and non-ACS companies mirrors that of the number of clients

firms provide security for. For example, while non-ACS companies were

significantly more likely to cover between 1 and 10 client sites (57% vs 14%),

ACS companies were more likely to cover over 100 client sites (38% vs 7%). As

above, this was to be expected as ACS firms were more likely to be classified as

medium or large (83%) than non-ACS companies (38%).

Number of clients firms provide security for

Base: ACS Non-ACS respondents (226)

Total

ACS

Non-ACS

3 5 13 21 12 19 12 15

16 16 21 23 10 6 8 1

9 10 17 22 11 13 10 8

1-2 3-5 6-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 101-300 Over 300



Total

ACS

Non-ACS

3 3 7 15 18 16 20 18

15 16 27 24 7 5 5 2

9 9 16 19 13 11 13 11

1-2 3-5 6-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 101-300 Over 300

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 73


This section looks at the responses of ACS and non-ACS companies when asked

about changes in company turnover, what proportion of their clients require the

ACS, and how regularly work is gained or lost. These questions were followed by a

series of open-ended questions, which compare and contrast the views of

respondents from all subgroups on various elements of the scheme.


Respondents from both ACS and non-ACS companies were asked what proportion

of their clients required the approved contractor status. Although it could be

expected that the majority of non-ACS companies would say that 0-20% of their

clients (71%) do not require the approved status, more surprisingly 47% of

approved contractors also said that this was the case. This seems to suggest that

the industry does not value the ACS as highly as the SIA would like, and that

buyers may value lower prices above accreditation.

Predictably, respondents from ACS companies (32%) were more likely than those

from non-approved companies (12%) to say that over 60% of their clients require

the ACS. However, it is possible that this question may have caused some

confusion among respondents because if clients of non-ACS companies required

the accreditation, then by default they would not become clients of non-ACS

companies. In order for this to make sense, it is possible that respondents may

have included potential clients who eventually decide not to use their services, in

their definition of „clients‟ for this question. It is also possible that although some

clients may say they only use approved contractors, in reality they use non-

approved too.



Total

ACS

Non-ACS

58 8 10 8 15

47 9 12 12 20

71 8 9 4 9

0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 74


Looking at the results of ACS and non-ACS companies combined, it appears that

around half (49%) of all businesses said that 81-100% of their clients are from

the private sector. However, respondents from ACS companies (56%) were more

likely than Non-ACS companies (41%) to say this was the case. In fact, ACS

companies were significantly more likely to say that over 60% of their clients

were from the private sector (78%) than non-ACS companies (54%).

Non-ACS companies (19%) were more likely than ACS (7%) to say that 0-20% of

their clients are from the private sector, suggesting that the ACS may be more

highly valued in the private sector than the public. It is possible that this is

because public sector organisations are working to tighter budgets than private

sector firms, or because they are not accountable to private shareholders and

other stakeholders in the same way as private businesses. However, further

research involving larger samples of both ACS and non-ACS companies would be

needed in order to back up these assumptions.

Proportion of private sector clients


Total

ACS

Non-ACS

12 8 12 18 49

7 5 11 21 56

19 12 14 13 41

0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 75

6.2.3 Change in company turnover

Although the questions asked of ACS and non-ACS companies in this case differ

slightly, the responses are still comparative to a degree. Respondents from ACS

companies were asked „Has your company turnover increased, decreased or

stayed the same since you became an approved contractor?‟ while non-ACS

companies were asked „Has your company turnover increased, decreased or

stayed the same over the past year?‟. Clearly these questions are not directly

comparable as ACS companies are equally likely to have achieved approved

status in the past 6 months, as they are to have done so 2 years ago. This should

be considered when interpreting these results.

Responses from ACS and non-ACS companies were similar in this case, although

non-ACS companies (58%) were slightly more likely than ACS (51%) to say they

saw an increase in turnover. ACS companies (36%) were more likely than non-

ACS (28%) to say that their turnover had stayed the same, while similar numbers

of respondents from both subgroups said that they had seen an increase in

turnover (13% vs 14%). The fact that more non-ACS companies said they saw an

increased turnover than ACS firms suggests that the approved status doesn't

necessarily allow firms to compete for and win more jobs than those who are

unapproved.

Change in company turnover


Total

ACS

Non-ACS

54 14 32

51 13 36

58 14 28

Increased Decreased Stayed the same

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 76

6.2.4 Proportion of turnover change

As above, ACS and non-ACS respondents were asked slightly different questions,

so the results were not directly comparable, meaning caution should be taken

when interpreting the results. As before, ACS respondents were asked by what

proportion their turnover had changed since becoming an approved contractor,

while non-ACS companies were asked about turnover change over the past year.

The responses of ACS and non-ACS companies appeared quite similar in reply to

this question, with „no change‟ (31% vs 27%) and an increase of 11 to 25% (15%

vs 23%) being the most commonly selected options by both subgroups. Non-ACS

companies were slightly more likely to report a decrease of over 25% (10%

compared to 4%), or an increase of over 25% (18% compared to 12%) than ACS

companies. It is possible that non-ACS companies were more likely to see activity

at the extremes of the scale because they were also more likely to be small or

micro sized businesses (62%) than ACS companies (17%), and as such, they

could be more prone to periods of unstable business, or rapid growth.

Other notable differences included the fact that more ACS companies (17%)

reported an increase in turnover of 6 to 10% than non-ACS firms (9%), while

non-ACS respondents were more likely to see an increase of 11 to 25% (23% vs

15%).

Proportion of turnover change


Total

ACS

Non-ACS

2 5 3 3 3 29 10 13 19 9 6

1 3 4 4 2 31 12 17 15 8 3

3 7 21 4 27 8 9 23 10 9

More than -50%

-50 to -26%

-25 to -11%

-10 to -6%

-5 to -1%

No change

1 to 5%

6 to 10%

11 to 25%

26 to 50%

More than 50%

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 77

6.2.5 Work gained

ACS companies were asked „How many times has you company gained work from

a contractor that is not SIA approved?‟ while non-ACS respondents were asked

the same question with regards to approved contractors. Once again, although

slightly different questions were asked in this instance we are still able to

compare the responses of ACS and non-ACS companies to a certain degree.

While 59% of non-approved respondents said that they had never gained work

from approved firms, only 31% of approved firms said the same about their

counterparts. ACS companies were more likely to say that they had occasionally

gained work (36%) than non-ACS companies (22%), while no respondents from

non-approved companies said they had consistently gained work from approved

firms (compared to 5% of ACS companies). This suggests that ACS companies are

more likely to have gained work from non-approved firms than the other way

around, implying that a number of buyers value the accredited status of ACS

companies.

It should be noted that question assumes that companies are aware of instances

when they have gained work from approved or non-approved contractors, as

opposed to circumstances when they would have won the work regardless of their

SIA status.

How often gain work from approved /non-SIA approved contractors


Total

ACS

Non-ACS

44 19 30 5 3

31 25 36 3 5

59 11 22 8

Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Consistently

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 78

6.2.6 Work lost

As in the previous question, respondents from non-ACS companies were asked

how often they had lost work to approved contractors, while ACS companies were

asked the same about non-approved contractors.

Responses for this question appeared to mirror those of the question above. For

example, while 62% of non-ACS companies said that they had never lost work to

approved firms, only 41% of ACS companies said the same thing about their

unapproved counterparts. ACS firms were more likely to say that they

occasionally lost work (31%), compared to only 16% of non-ACS companies.

While no non-ACS companies said that they consistently lost work, 2% of ACS

firms said that they did so.

While 44% of ACS companies said that they occasionally, frequently or

consistently lost work to non-approved contractors, only 24% of non-ACS

companies said the same about approved firms. This suggests that ACS firms are

more likely to lose work to non-approved companies than the other way round. It

is possible that this is because buyers are put off by the higher prices of approved

contractors, and opt instead for lower cost non-approved businesses. However,

these results appear to slightly contradict the responses of the previous question.

For example, while the majority of respondents from non-ACS companies

suggested they never lose work to approved contractors (62%), they also said

that they never gain work from them either (59%). It is possible that non-ACS

companies may assume that they only gain and lose work to other non-approved

contractors, suggesting that they are not even considered for work by some

buyers (who may require ACS status of all their contractors).

How often lose work to approved /non-SIA approved contractors


Total

ACS

Non-ACS

51 15 24 9 1

41 15 31 11 2

62 14 16 8

Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Consistently

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 79

6.2.7 Main benefits of the ACS? (open ended)

ACS companies were asked „What are the main benefits of the ACS for your

company?‟ while non-ACS firms were asked „What do you consider to be the main

benefits of the ACS?‟.

Answers from both groups of respondents were very similar, with the idea that

the ACS gives a firm recognition within the industry and shows that they meet

certain quality standards appearing in both surveys. Both groups also mentioned

the ability to deploy 15% of staff on LDN‟s as a benefit. However, a significant

proportion of respondents from both approved and non-approved companies said

that they saw no benefits of the ACS, and suggested it was an expensive waste of

time. This suggests that some firms who joined the ACS expecting to see certain

benefits were left disappointed with the results, which in turn may have put off

other (non-ACS) firms from joining the scheme.

6.2.8 Has the ACS helped to raise standards in the private security industry?

(open ended)

Both ACS and non-ACS companies were asked this in the form of an open

question, while buyers were asked it in a coded format. Interestingly, opinion

appeared to be fairly even split on the subject across all three respondent

subgroups. While 52% of buyers suggested that the ACS has helped to raise

industry standards, 48% disagreed.

Respondents from both ACS and non-ACS companies said that standards had

been raised as the ACS encourages companies to meet certain quality standards.

However, respondents from both subgroups were just as likely to say that the

ACS has had very little or no impact on industry standards. Some respondents

from non-ACS companies suggested that this was the case because standards

were already high in their area.

6.2.9 What benefits has the ACS brought to the private security industry?

(open ended)

Respondents from ACS, non-ACS and buyers of security all suggested that the

ACS has brought a universal quality standard to the industry. Respondents from

ACS companies suggested that there was now increased awareness of the

security industry, while some buyers suggested that it made the industry more

professional as a whole. Again, a large proportion of respondents from all

subgroups said that the ACS has brought no benefits to the industry as a whole,

while some non-approved firms suggested it has simply increased industry-wide

operating costs.

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 80

6.2.10 What have the public gained from the ACS? (open ended)

This question was asked of both ACS and non-ACS companies. A large proportion

of respondents from both subgroups suggested that the public is generally

unaware of the ACS, and as such has gained nothing from it. This suggests that

the SIA need to do more to promote themselves, their image and their aims to

the public, in order to increase awareness and gain support. However, a number

of respondents from both groups also said that the public has gained confidence

in the industry, and now have a more professional service. There are some

positive messages here, although it is clear that the SIA has a lot of work to do in

terms of public image.


services? (open ended)

Both ACS and non-ACS companies were asked the question as worded above,

while buyers were asked „What does the ACS mean to you?‟.

Respondents from both approved and non-approved companies responded to this

question in the same way. While some respondents suggested that buyers viewed

the ACS as a quality benchmark, the majority suggested that most buyers were

not aware the accreditation, and that those who were choose to ignore it in favour

of lower costs. Looking at the responses of buyers, it is clear that ACS and non-

ACS companies are right to some degree, as some buyers did suggest that the

ACS represents professional certain standards within the industry, which they

would like their contractors to achieve. However, far more buyers appeared to be

aware of the ACS than approved and non-approved companies thought, although

many of them did admit to ignoring the accreditation in favour of lower costs.

Some buyers also suggested that they valued the trust based relationships they

have built up with non-approved companies over time, more than they valued the

SIA accreditation. This provides a huge challenge to the SIA and ACS.



This question was asked in all three surveys, and while there was a wide variety

of suggested changes, common themes across the three subgroups were

apparent. For example, a number of respondents from all surveys suggested that

the ACS should be made mandatory for all security contractors, in order to ensure

a minimum quality standard across the industry. Respondents from all subgroups

also suggested that the ACS needs to be more widely communicated and

promoted, in order to increase public awareness and interest in the scheme.

A number of respondents from both ACS and non-ACS companies said that the

financial cost, and amount of administration associated with the scheme should be

reduced, while other non-ACS respondents suggested that the application process

SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 81

should be simplified. Respondents to the buyers‟ survey were the only subgroup

to suggest that the enforcement and regulation of the ACS should be improved.


(open ended)

This was the final question asked in each of the three questionnaires, and while a

significant proportion of respondents from all subgroups said that they had

nothing more to add, some common themes were apparent.

Respondents from all three surveys agreed that the SIA‟s communication needs to

be vastly improved, as do their slow administrative processes. Respondents

suggested that it should be easier to contact the SIA than it is at present, and

that the application process should be simplified and made more efficient.

Respondents from the non-ACS and buyers‟ surveys both complained about illegal

immigrant workers in the industry, while ACS respondents suggested that the

costs of becoming accredited should be reduced, and that the SIA should promote

the ACS further in order to increase public awareness.

While respondents have identified a number of issues, it appears that the majority

of these could be fairly easy for the SIA to address. For example, it is clear that at

the moment a significant proportion of respondents from all subgroups are

unaware of the potential benefits of the ACS, and as such view the scheme as a

waste of time and money. If the SIA focuses on communicating the benefits of

the ACS to all respondents (i.e. ACS, non-ACS and buyers), then this could help

to justify the cost and administration involved in becoming accredited, and

increase public awareness at the same time.

Documents

Approved Contractor Scheme Benefits Survey … 2008 SIA (01957R-AG / V1) 2 CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS ..... 5 2 INTRODUCTION..... 11