The State of Arizona is paying for the security service at DES, and most would agree the employees and clients at those offices deserve a high quality of service. Yet, in the past year, that same program has been the focus of some varied controversies, including the presence of armed security guards to keep the peace and protect the employees. As well, there have been a few changes, For instance; all state-trained and selected armed security officers have been replaced by contract security guards, with no small amount of objection by office employees. Training hours were allegedly increased and required contract companies to comply in an effort to improve the security services. Among the mandated training was procedures for engaging an “active shooter” to save lives.
There are distinct differences in AZDES operations related to contract security guards versus the security guards hired and trained by AZDES. First, the AZDES security guards were trained and equipped at a cost to the State and that immediate outlay was a definite financial hit. But the cost for an entire contract guard service, armed and trained to the standard required in the new contract, is also costly with this caveat. Wages for those contract officers will continue to rise, beginning in 2021 annually per Prop 206, if it is still in effect. If State employees were still employed, that would not be a factor because state employees’ wages are exempt from Prop. 206. Both efforts were an investment for the State; one it controlled the other it will pay accordingly. For instance, when the State trained and deployed its own security officers, the hourly rate was about $17.00+/hr, with benefits it was about $19.00/hr. That resulted in an annual wage of approximately $36,000/yr, and with benefits cost about $41,000.00+/yr. And that was for an hourly work rate of 2080 hrs/yr. Using a base pay for a contracted guard of $17.00/hr, calculates the guard will make $34,000.00/yr. But the security company does not charge the State $17.00/ hr, as they have to also figure in their costs and profit margin. In the industry that can range from 20% to 50% or higher, over guard cost. That means a contracted guard can cost from $20.40/hr to $25.50/hr, but for an annual hourly work rate of 2000 hrs/yr, instead of 2080 hrs/yr. And that roughly calculates to a cost range of $40,800.00/yr to $51,000.00/yr. And finally if correct, the effects of Prop 206 will raise those costs even higher as the affected contract companies will be able to defer the rise in wages to the contractor, in this case, the State. Seems the math doesn’t add up if this was a cost savings to the AZDES budget. Another element not taken into consideration is the difference between contract employees and state employees. Contract employees are often transient in nature and have little to no investment with DES. The state employees are often retired police officers or military who have ownership in the DES community and are willing to work for a lower salary.
But cost in wages is not the only long-term effect. The training hours were increased to improve the service levels of the contract guards when they took over from the State officers. But again, what was sold as a defining improvement by increasing hours and adding more training topics, did not insure there would be a quality standard for those hours. Indeed, the selected contract companies were allowed to conduct the training to comply with the State contract, but while the State listed the topics in which the new guards were to be trained, it provided no oversight that the quality of the training provided met the desired levels to insure the guards were properly trained. With each company training to its own standards and levels, keeping costs manageable, the new guards received increased quantity of instruction. And the employee of DES who relied on that instruction got no guarantee of increased quality over prior contract guard services. Two simple examples can illustrate this. First, all armed security guards are required to receive only 16 hrs of firearms training to be licensed by AZ Department of Public Safety. And this license only requires that the applicant guard qualify with a firearm. It does not require the guard to be proficient in the use and handling of that firearm while on duty, nor does it require the guard to carry the firearm with which they qualified for licensing, nor does it even require the guard to carry the firearm type with which they qualified for licensing. That last part means a guard can qualify with a semi-auto pistol and carry a revolver on duty and vice versa.
Second, the contract for the State called for increased firearms instruction but did not provide oversight to insure that training was conducted to meet desired levels. And if a company trained its personnel to carry their duty weapon unloaded while at a DES office, how was the quality of the intended training affected? Does that level of security service compare with another State office where the security company requires and trains their personnel to be fully loaded to meet a potentially violent threat? Only another tragedy may answer that. Or maybe another accidental misfire in another office by another contract guard?
The one priority area DES mandated training for in the contract security contract was to address the phenomenon of the “Active Shooter.” It was this same type of incident that spurred the creation of a State selected, vetted, trained and equipped security force for its offices. And as we all remember, sparked a firestorm when it was attempted to be implemented and resulted in the Governor’s Office forcing then Director Timothy Jeffries and his team to the curb by way of the Department of Public Safety SWAT Team.
Once DES purged its internal security staff, the new State contract permitted active shooter training to the purview of the selected security companies. Once again, there was no guaranteed quality of training or selection of staff to improve level of service. Even though mandated to include training that provided for the armed security guard to engage an active and violent shooter, one company refused to do so, citing they did not train their personnel to engage, but instead had their armed security officers retreat to a safe distance and observe and report. Coincidentally, this is the same company whose guard misfired his sidearm in the DES office in December. ADI contacted Allied Universal Security Services by phone for comment; however, the information they provided ADI for media relations was erroneous. Notably, all the information in the AZ DPS Security guard company listings were incorrect. ADI researchers had to look for other sources to contact the corporate headquarters. ADI re-attempted to confirm the information provided by former employees by both phone and email, but Allied Universal Security Services has not returned any calls or email requests.
So, all things considered, was the misfire an unintentional accidental discharge or a preventable negligent one? This is the second contract security incident involving firearms. Earlier this year, ADI reported the first contract guard shooting when a contract guard fired his weapon at a vehicle leaving a DES office parking lot in Tucson earlier this year. [Related article: DES Security Guard Arrested For Shooting At Tucson DES Building] This security guard was arrested by Tucson PD for aggravated assault.
DES implemented the contact security guards after the Governor ousted then Director Timothy Jeffries and his leadership team claiming costs savings and better-quality services. Over the past year it appears DES has transitioned from well-trained security officers who were state employees to protect their staff to contract security at a much higher cost to the state at a lower level of service and apparent policies to run away when danger presents itself.