SECURITY AGENCIES 24 January 2017 Scope of Presentation Grading - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

OUTREACH SESSION FOR SECURITY AGENCIES 24 January 2017

Scope of Presentation • Grading Exercise 2016 o Performance o Common Misperception o Clarification of Assessment Criteria o Scoring • Grading Exercise 2017 o Changes to grading exercise o Reminders • Breach of Licensing Condition

Grading Exercise 2016 - Performance

Participation for Grading Exercise 270 260 11 250 6 2 240 6 251 5 230 242 239 228 220 210 2013 2014 2015 2016 Participated Exempted Ungraded

Grading Results - 2015 vs 2016 96 100 84 81 80 64 60 60 43 31 40 8 20 0 A B C D 2015 2016

Change in Grade - 2016 GRADE GRADE UNCHANGED DROPPED 47% 16.7% NOT GRADED IN 2015 2.2% GRADE IMPROVED 34.1%

Performance for Individual Pillars 2016 200 150 A B C 100 D 50 0 PILLAR 1 PILLAR 2 PILLAR 3

Analysis of Results • SAs with poorer grade this year were due mainly to: o Pillar 1 (Operations) o Pillar 3 (HR and Employment) • Pillar 1 – main issue was that submission of documents was not in accordance with PLRD’s requirements • Pillar 3 - primarily due to infringement(s) of the Employment Act or the CPF Act

Grading Exercise 2016 - Clarification on Assessment Criteria

Clarification of Requirements Criteria Common Error Requirement 1.1.1 - SOP on SOP did not include checklist SOP must include a Bomb Threat checklist for SO to refer to. 1.1.2 - SOP on SOPs did not cover : SOP must cover these Fire items. Evacuation - Emergency contacts - Evacuation procedures 1.1.3 - SOP on - Cordon procedures Suspicious - Measures to prevent Person re-entry

Clarification of Requirements Criteria Common Error Requirement 1.1.4 - Mere submission of user There must be a clear Implementation manual of hardware/ elaboration on how the of Technology software and/or photos of agency has leveraged on the the equipment without technology to become more any elaboration on how efficient and/or effective. the technology has helped the agency. An example would be how the deployment of Unmanned Aerial Surveillance Vehicles (i.e. Drones) has decreased the number of SO required.

Clarification of Requirements Criteria Common Error Requirement 2.1.1 - Training certificate of SOs Only course certificates of Continuous were not submitted. SOs will be accepted. training for SO Instead, only attendance lists with the course name were submitted. 2.1.2 - Non- Training certificate of non- Certificate from non-SO staff security related SOs were submitted. will not be accepted. training

Clarification of Requirements Criteria Common Error Requirement 2.1.3 - Photos of the purported Training details are required. Refresher training were submitted training with no information on the following : - Type of training - Date and time - Name of SO who attended

Clarification of Requirements Criteria Common Error Requirement 2.1.4 - Photos of the purported Exercise details are required. Contingency exercise were submitted exercises with no information on the following : - Date, time and place - Type of exercise - Exercise scenario - Name of SOs who attended Checklist was submitted on Actual exercise must be steps to be taken in an carried out. A checklist exercise, but there was no alone will not be accepted. indication that an exercise was actually carried out.

Clarification of Requirements Criteria Common Error Requirement 2.1.5 - No AAR submitted because AAR may also be used to Conduct of nothing “wrong” happened document something which After Action at any of the deployment an SO did correctly. The idea Review (AAR) site. is to use AAR to share any lesson learnt or exemplary performance. The number of AARs Each site should generate submitted did not tally with one AAR. the total number of deployment sites declared. Some AARs were submitted Additional submissions only when the agency made during representation will representations. not be accepted.

Clarification of Requirements Criteria Common Error Requirement 1.2.10 - Minutes of meeting did not Risk surveys must involve Conduct of indicate threat(s) identified identification of threats and risk survey and/or mitigation the proposed mitigation measures. measures. If the service buyer chose not to participate, agency must show proof of its effort/attempt to involve the buyer.

Clarification of Requirements Criteria Common Error Requirement 1.2.11 - No submission as agency If the service buyer chose Regular claimed that the service not to meet, agency must meeting with buyer has no time to meet. show proof of its client effort/attempt to arrange for meeting.

Grading Exercise 2016 - Common Misperception

Common Misperception Bonus points if more documents were submitted Related criteria: • Security Risk Survey (1.2.10) • Minutes of Meeting (1.2.11) • Security related training (2.1.1) • Non-security related training (2.1.2) • Exercise conducted (2.1.1) • AAR (2.1.5) Clarifications: Points are awarded based on the following considerations: • Meeting criteria • Relevance of submitted documents • Completeness of information • SAs will be awarded full points if all the requirements are met. NO bonus points will be awarded for additional submission.

Common Misperception Exercise of Contingency Plans must involve premises owner Related criteria: Exercise conducted to validate SOP Clarifications: Points are awarded based on the following consideration: • Table top exercise is acceptable (e.g. interview, questionnaire, and role play) • Exercise can be done without the participation of premises owner

Grading Exercise 2016 - Scoring

Summary on Scoring • Grading exercise is conducted based on 3 pillars (P1 – Ops , P2 – Training, P3 – HR & Employment) • Each pillar is given a pillar grade which carries different weightage • Overall grade is determined based on the 3 pillar grades • Overall grade will be affected if there is any infringement(s) of the Private Security Industry Act (PSIA), Employment Act or CPF Act

Pillar Weightage Pillar Weightage 1 50% 2 20% 3 30%

Pillar Grades Overall Pillar Grades Requirement Example Grade A All Pillars graded A AAA BBB AAB B All Pillars graded B or better ABA BAB At most one Pillar graded D ADB – C BDD – D Pillar 1 must be C or better C MOM may downgrade the overall grade to DAA – D “D” if the SA has infringed any relevant employment laws (e.g. Employment Act, AAD – C/D CPF Act, Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, Workplace Safety and Health Act)

Penalty for Infringements Infringements of PSIA will be taken into consideration : • during grading period; and • after grading period, up till release of final result Category Pts Examples of some common infringements (non-exhaustive) - Deploying unlicensed SO (including revoked licence) Major 20 - Deploying SO untrained in 2 basic modules - Deploying unlicensed SO (licence expired) - Deploying SO to perform function not in accordance Medium 10 with PWM requirement - Deploying untrained SO to perform screening - Failure to notify employment of SO - Failure to inform change of address / directorship Minor 3 - Failure to maintain up-to-date deployment site - Failure to display grading decal - Failure to maintain occurrence or attendance book

Grading Exercise in 2017

Grading Exercise 2017 • Non-Security Related Training (2.1.2) o PLRD will only accept certificates issued by ATO or ATO-PEI (pls refer to Skills Future SG website) o Each SO must have attended at least 8 hours of training between 1 Jun 2016 and 31 May 2017

Grading Exercise 2017 • Gentle reminders o Read the notification letter carefully – all requirements are clearly stated o Submit all required documents on time o All SOPs must be documented and not through verbal instructions o SO on relief duty will be assessed as if he/she were a permanent SO o PLRD will inform SAs of the submission venue by Jun 2017

Grading Exercise 2017 • Making Representation on Preliminary Grading Results o Upon receiving preliminary grading results, SA has 14 days to submit representation o Outcome of representation will be made known in mid Dec 2017 o Final results will be mailed to the SAs and also published on PLRD’s website o No further representation will be entertained once the final result has been confirmed

Breach of Licensing Condition

Breach of Licensing Condition Sep - Dec 2016 PWM Training Breaches 2 PWM Wage Breaches 1 Attendance Book related 28 Occurrence Book related 2 Non-Display of Grading Decal 3 36 Total No. of Breaches • Between 1 Sep and 31 Dec 2016, PLRD has detected 36 breaches of licensing conditions • Investigations are on going • All SAs are reminded to take licensing conditions seriously

Thank you