Bill #250646: The Right Conversation, Wrong Approach

Many people in the private-security world in Pennsylvania have likely already heard of Bill #250646 and the strong push behind it from both elected officials and the Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ.  While I fully agree that training is crucial in our industry, I believe more needs to be done not just to ensure that officers are trained but also to enforce compliance by companies that are not abiding by the law.

When I left law enforcement to start my security firm, the first license I secured in Pennsylvania was the corporate security-agency license issued under the Private Detective Act of 1953. My nine years of experience as an FBI Task Force Officer gave me the background needed for that license. The corporate-agency security license is issued by the district attorney’s office in the county where you apply; meanwhile, the armed-security license (commonly known as Act 235) is issued by the Pennsylvania State Police. At the same time, unarmed security officers in PA currently do not need any license or required training at all they simply work under a licensed security agency.

As many of you know, especially in Philadelphia, there are numerous unlicensed and uninsured security agencies operating year after year without any meaningful punishment for failing to get properly licensed. These firms undercut legal agencies because their rates are significantly lower since they avoid insurance costs and payroll taxes by classifying their security officers as 1099 contractors rather than W-2 employees, even though the employer controls their work (which falls under the guidelines of a W-2 classification). These operations are exposing their employees (who often lack workers’-compensation coverage) and the visitors and citizens of Philadelphia to unnecessary risk. Even The Philadelphia Inquirer has published articles outlining the state of unlicensed security agencies in the city.  Enforcement of the Private Detective Act of 1953 is long overdue. If that Act isn’t properly enforced, how will this new bill be enforced? Failure to enforce existing laws only empowers illegal companies. It’s similar to gun laws, law-abiding parties comply, while non-law-abiding parties do not.

I have always found it odd that the private-security sector in Pennsylvania is divided between two law-enforcement agencies for compliance oversight, one agency (the district attorney’s office) oversees the agency license, and another (the Pennsylvania State Police) oversees the Act 235 armed-guard license. Also, many of these unlicensed companies are not paying their workers because they lack the financial means or credit to do so. This further weakens legal operators who are doing things by the book.

Given the lack of enforcement of the Private Detective Act of 1953, I have no confidence that this bill will be enforced either. It is important to note that under this bill which will pass the cost of training onto the security agency, legal firms that are fully bonded, licensed, and insured will fall even further behind. Our cost to service clients will go up, while illegal companies—who have never followed the law—will remain unaffected. That scenario puts Philadelphia deeper into a state of unlicensed, uninsured guards operating with little public accountability. For example, licensed armed security guards in Pennsylvania who hold Act 235 cards paid for their licensing out of their own pockets. In many professions, EMTs, CDL drivers, real-estate agents, barbers, and hair stylists, the individuals pay for their own training in order to get hired. Why should security be treated differently?

So, what this bill would do is divide the security industry in Philadelphia under three different government entities:

1.     The district attorney’s office, for the Private Detective Act of 1953 (agency licenses)

2.     The Pennsylvania State Police, for the Armed Guard License under Act 235

3.     Board of Labor Standards: although at this time it is unclear who would oversee this bill since it is a new city ordinance rather than state-law oversight. It would likely be a city department or board, not the State Police or the DAs.

Now earlier this year I expanded my operations to my home state of New Jersey. The process there for a security-agency license is through the New Jersey State Police’s Private Detective Unit. One meaningful difference I believe Pennsylvania should adopt is a credit check on applicants for the agency license. This would help ensure the business owner is financially responsible and can meet operating expenses and pay their employees. Also, in New Jersey both armed and unarmed security officers apply for a Security Officer Registration Act (SORA) certification through the same state agency. Under this structure all licensing from unarmed guards to armed guards to agency licenses is managed by one law-enforcement agency with unified standards and enforcement.

In my professional opinion, reform in Pennsylvania’s security industry is absolutely necessary, but it should be structured differently than what is currently proposed. The Private Detective Act of 1953 has not been updated in 72 years. Pennsylvania should follow its neighbor to the east and consolidate all regulatory oversight including unarmed and armed guard licensing as well as agency licensing under the Pennsylvania State Police.

This model would create a single, standardized framework that applies equally across all 67 counties. It would elevate entry standards for agency owners, increase professionalism among officers, and finally give enforcement agencies the authority and clarity they need to hold noncompliant operators accountable.

The benefits of centralizing oversight under one agency include:

· Clear accountability and enforcement authority: A unified oversight body would have direct jurisdiction to investigate, suspend, or revoke licenses when laws are violated, eliminating the confusion caused by multiple agencies sharing responsibility.

· Uniform training and qualification standards: Statewide regulation would ensure that every security officer, whether armed or unarmed, meets consistent training requirements and professional criteria. This would enhance the overall quality and reliability of security personnel in the field.

· Stronger compliance and industry credibility: A single enforcement authority would make it easier to identify and penalize unlicensed or uninsured operators, improving public safety and restoring confidence in legitimate security firms that operate by the book.

· Streamlined administration and reduced bureaucracy: Consolidation would eliminate overlapping paperwork and inconsistent processes between counties, making licensing and renewal more efficient for both applicants and regulators.

· Transparency and public trust: A centralized, searchable database of all licensed agencies and officers would allow businesses, event organizers, and the public to easily verify credentials, promoting greater confidence in the private-security industry as a whole.

While I believe that Bill #250646 was a great way to start a conversation and bring political attention to the much-needed reform in Pennsylvania’s security industry, we must take a broader view that looks at the industry from a 30,000-foot perspective across the entire Commonwealth, not just the city and county of Philadelphia.

As someone who has worked on both sides of law enforcement and private security, I believe Pennsylvania has an opportunity to become a national model for responsible regulation and professional standards. With the right structure that prioritizes enforcement, consistency, and integrity, we can ensure that every licensed agency and officer represents the highest level of accountability and service to the public.