Security Isn’t Social Work

The confusion began the moment security was asked to be sensitive before being effective. It was the moment the uniformed guard became a surrogate therapist, a crisis mediator, and a glorified social worker, while still being expected to stop theft, violence, and chaos. The results have been as predictable as they are tragic, more victims, more repeat offenders, and more environments where law-abiding people feel less safe than the criminals targeting them.

Let’s be clear, security and social work are not the same thing, not in purpose, not in skillset, and certainly not in consequence.

Security is about boundaries. Social work is about healing. The guard’s job is to stop the threat. The social worker’s job is to understand it. One deals in prevention through resistance, the other in recovery through empathy. Both are valuable. But when one is substituted for the other, especially in high-risk environments, vulnerability becomes institutionalised.

Somewhere along the bureaucratic path, it became fashionable to blur the lines. Security officers were told to “de-escalate without force,” to “engage with compassion,” and to consider the backgrounds of offenders before removing them. I’ve trained over 1,000 security personnel and members of the public and whilst I design products to meet compliance requirements, I am painfully aware and have taken great interest in recording the results of such wanton stupidity. Instead of training guards in defensive tactics and behavioural profiling, which is what I have maintained with over 870 of those personnel, many RTO’s and departments train them in cultural awareness and mental health first aid.  These are skills for the mature and experienced, for senior public order response units and specialised personal protection officers, not for a brand-new front-line guards, it sets them up to fail.

The problem? The offender doesn’t care about your training. He cares about whether you’ll act.

Criminals, addicts, and repeat offenders don’t pause mid-assault to assess your trauma-informed posture. They respond to certainty of consequence, not empathy. They back down when they see resistance, not understanding. And they escalate when they sense hesitation, especially hesitation wrapped in bureaucratic self-doubt.

Security officers are not equipped to be therapists, nor should they be. They are trained to identify risk, deny access, deter threats, recognise behavioural threats and protect people. Every second spent in social mediation is a second not spent on perimeter checks, surveillance review, or tactical response. Every policy that redirects them toward counselling instead of controlling disorder puts lives at risk.

Now, I’m not saying I refused to train it. I developed a course that taught in two hours with effective scenarios for conscientious training, behavioural trait profiling, linguistic value recognition and Neuro-linguistic programming.  However, these tools remain effective for about 20% of security personnel. The direction of the tools in my programme to effectively provide skills for personal trauma relief, to protect the guard from PTSD, however, it takes a huge amount of empathy in very dangerous situations and often close distance and risk, I do not recommend, to engage in many mental health first aid techniques. Did I mention, I’ve been stabbed before? Well, as you can imagine why I recommend keeping a safe distance.

In shopping centres, hospitals, and public transport networks, we’ve seen the result of this doctrinal confusion. Known offenders are treated as misunderstood clients instead of persistent threats. Repeat shoplifters are offered support programs instead of arrest records. Aggressive trespassers are reasoned with until they lash out, often when armed, and then everyone acts shocked that the outcome was violent and sometimes deadly.

Meanwhile, victims get no support group. The elderly woman assaulted in a car park. The cashier threatened at knifepoint. The mother harassed by loiterers. They’re told that things are complicated, that we mustn’t overreact, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that everyone deserves a second chance. But in practice, what they’re really being told is, “We prioritised social theory over your safety.”

Security that doesn’t act becomes performance. And performance doesn’t stop crime, it invites it.

Real safety requires a hierarchy of response. It means recognising that some individuals are not just troubled but dangerous. It means understanding that social conditions may explain behaviour, but they do not excuse it. And most importantly, it means arming those on the front lines with the authority, tools, and mandate to act, not just empathise.

Yes, society needs social workers. But they don’t belong at the access gates. They don’t belong on mobile patrol. They don’t belong in most confrontation zones.

Because when you mix enforcement with emotional therapy, you produce neither, and the only consistent outcome is more victims.

A philosopher once said that mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent. We see that played out daily in spaces where intervention is delayed, denied, or redirected into abstract conversation. And every day it continues, offenders become more emboldened while frontline staff become more exposed.

The solution is simple but uncomfortable for those drunk-on virtue signalling, and moral exhibitionism, to restore clarity of role. Let social workers do the saving. Let security do the stopping. And never confuse the two again.

Note –

I am a trainer and assessor, I am qualified to train mental health First Aid, I have psychology qualification, and I am a qualified and experienced Behaviour trait profiler. I have over three decades experience in front line services, and I have diaries and notebooks everywhere with reports, observations, techniques, methods and tools.  Where I have decades of success in many social services interventions, I have also witnessed and reported on incidents and trauma that I have seen good security personnel quite reasonably resign over or suffer prolonged PTSD.

This academic experimentation and social theory have failed, worse the successes are short lived because the social services NGO’s and associated support structures are built on victimhood and long term dependency, not rehabilitation or social mobility. Even when I find housing, support etc for individuals, they are incentivised to fail or remain stagnant so as not to lose their social housing or medical care. 

The most effective form of trauma rehabilitation is through economic mobility, yet the current services industry actively works to dissuade people from personal growth.  It is traumatic to witness the brutality of these social services industries and their role in imposing dependency, whether it is through medical addiction to cope with behaviour trait issues, or a failure to provide consistent care, and the added trauma of incompetence, or apathy to their needs.  From the author.

The opinions and statements are those of Sam Wilks and do not necessarily represent whom Sam Consults or contracts to. Sam Wilks is a skilled and experienced Security and Risk Consultant with 3 decades of expertise in the fields of Real estate, Security, and the hospitality/gaming industry. Sam has trained over 1,000 entry level security personnel, taught defensive tactics, weapons training and handcuffs to policing personnel and the public. His knowledge and practical experience have made him a valuable asset to many organisations looking to enhance their security measures and provide a safe and secure environment for their clients and staff.