Security Personnel Permit Guidelines Comparison
Two minimum qualifications and selection criteria for private security are analyzed and compared in this report; one being more of a suggested generalized standard, while the other is patterned for a specific state. The first set of criteria is from the International Association of Chiefs of Police – Private Security and Liaison Committee (IACPPSL). And the second set is provided by the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing (SWDRL). The published qualifications and selection criteria for acquiring a private security permit provided by the IACPPSL have numerous similarities to the criteria provided for the same purpose by the SWDRL.
To start, both require applicants to be at least eighteen years old to be considered for processing. Another similar point is that a clean record in terms of felony charges is required; this means that an applicant must have never been convicted in any state. Current drug use or a history of drug use will also disqualify an applicant for both selection criteria. Also, having no physical and mental conditions that might impair proper performance is required and noted in both criteria. As a final addition, an FBI criminal history check is also required and conducted for both.
Although it appears that there is quite a list of similarities, this is mainly due to the fact that those are the general points. When it comes to the specifics, the number of differences becomes evident. A point of difference is in terms of carrying firearms. In the IACPPSL criteria, only those at the age of twenty-one or above may carry a firearm. In contrast, the selection criteria by the SWDRL criteria state that private security personnel may carry a firearm as long as a permit to carry firearms is granted. Thus, it appears that the SWDRL criteria do not take age into account for this matter.
Another difference can be noted for the rule regarding drug use, the IACPPSL criteria state that an applicant must not be connected in any way with the use of a controlled substance. On the other hand, the SWDRL criteria just set a limit to the extent of drug or alcohol usage, pointing out that it should not be at a level that affects working performance and abilities. The two criteria also differ in terms of the collection of fingerprints. The IACPPSL criteria just require two sets of classifiable fingerprints to be submitted, while the SWDRL criteria require fingerprints to be gathered electronically using a specialized device.
Also, the IACPPSL criteria do not make mention of a means for checking and gathering signature samples, unlike the SWDRL criteria which require several valid identification cards to be presented for such purpose. The IACPPSL criteria pay special attention towards the past employment history of an applicant; this point however, is not shared with the SWDRL criteria. Lastly, educational attainment or status is mentioned in the IACPPSL criteria as non-regulated, while there is no mention of such in the SWDRL criteria.
The similarities and differences of the two criteria, as noted before, may be attributed to the fact that one is more of a generalized list that can be utilized or edited by any state while the other is a list tailored for the interest and laws particular to the state of Wisconsin. This point however should not be confused in relation to the specificity or sensitivity of either criterion towards various aspects. It does not mean that a more generalized criterion is also less specific or less sensitive, and a tailored criterion for a specific state also does not automatically mean that it is more specific and sensitive in all aspects.
This point can easily be understood from the differences pointed out between the two. A few good examples of this are in terms of educational attainment or status and finger print data collection. Even with all these points of comparison, it can be observed that both criteria reflect the true purpose of creating such a list of requirements for private security applicants. These criteria, when followed completely, hope to ensure that individuals who pass and become a part of the private security sector are not only competent, but are also of good moral value and quite worthy of the trust of their clients.
References State of Wisconsin. (2008, March 7). Private Security Person Permit – Credentialing. Department of Regulation & Licensing. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from http://drl. wi. gov/prof/pris/cred. htm. State of Wisconsin. (2004, January 12). Firearms Permit. Department of Regulation & Licensing. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from http://drl. wi. gov/prof/fire/def. htm Van Meter, C. W. (2000). Principles of Security and Crime Prevention. 4th Edition. Ohio: Anderson Publishing Company.Sample Essay of Paperial.com