What kind of background checks do officers undergo?

Unlike companies that rely on the minimum state requirements, Civil Security Service goes further.

NVCSS prioritizes thorough, manual background verification wherever possible. We also maintain our own public safety curriculum and qualification criteria for all officers, with recurring training requirements at higher ranks.

The background investigation process for a law enforcement role typically takes 3 to 6 months to complete. The reason for this is simple — proper investigations take time.

The value of a background investigation isn't the information it reveals about a candidate, but rather the confirmation of it. Law enforcement agencies know that even the best record searches can miss red flags, and that's why they spend the time conducting interviews, making phone calls, and verifying claims.

When it comes to vetting new hires, security companies fall into one of three categories:

No Screening

The most common approach. Companies go this route because it offers the greatest cost savings, but be aware — many will still tell you their officers have passed a background check.

While it's not the truth, it's technically not a lie either. When personnel first apply for their security permits, a background check is conducted — by the state. That's the "background check" these companies are referring to, hoping that the vague wording will make clients think it was the company that conducted the check.

There are several problems with this approach:

• The state's background check is limited in scope and doesn't cover many areas, such as driving history, character references, and so on.
• The state's standards for obtaining a security permit are extremely lax — applicants with convictions for assault, battery, theft, and other crimes are regularly approved. The state's regulatory body even explicitly states that a "criminal history will not automatically disqualify" an applicant.
• The state's standards for appeal are extremely lenient. Even after an applicant is denied a work card, they can appeal the decision and appear before the board. Each year, dozens of denials are overturned for individuals with convictions for violent crimes, narcotics and weapons violations, and other serious offenses.

Cursory Screening

The second most common approach. Companies that go this route often do so to "check a box," that is, the background check is more of a selling point for clients than an actual screening process that weeds out problematic candidates.

Since there's no universal standard for what constitutes a "proper" background check, companies that perform cursory screenings usually have the following issues:

• The background check is usually nothing more than an automated search of public records with no follow-up, so serious issues might be missed.
• Even if a background check finds items of concern, it doesn't preclude the company from overlooking it and hiring the candidate anyway, especially if they're hurting for bodies.
• For most companies, especially the "warm body" types, hiring standards are already lax due to high turnover, which makes the background check a pointless exercise.

Thorough Screening

The least common approach, and the one used by Civil Security Service to vet potential hires.

Companies that go this route are typically have contractual obligations and/or high-end clientele they cannot take chances with. NVCSS is a rarity because neither of these fully applies; rather, we thoroughly screen candidates as part of our commitment to service quality.

Of course, like the other two entries, our approach does have drawbacks:

• It's resource-intensive. This is partly why NVCSS does not participate in pricing wars or undercut other companies — our services are designed for clients who want a higher standard of care and understand that additional investment is required to maintain it.
• It's time-intensive and not conducive to companies that constantly need new hires. This is why mobile patrols are our flagship service; it's less dependent on sheer numbers, allows us to focus on developing high quality officers, and gives us the freedom to turn away bad candidates.
• It makes recruitment difficult. Candidates might find our process daunting and seek employment with less stringent companies. While we understand their position, we also go to great lengths to maintain a high officer retention rate. The security industry has notoriously high turnover; candidates that want long-term stability and better work conditions understand the necessity of our process.