MSc SRM Dissertation

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation “What are the perceptions and attitudes of customers in Finland to security stewards locally known as ‘järjestyksenvalvoja’ and the job they do? What implications if any, do these have for the profession?“ by Chris Spencer Student Registration Number: 049017745 Intake year: March 2005 A dissertation paper submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MSc Security and Risk Management Leicester University Submission date: Day, 30, March 2007 Approved by ___________________________________________________ Chairperson of Supervisory Committee __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Program Authorized to Offer Degree _________________________________________________ Date __________________________________________________________

Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@2/25/2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS During the process of producing this dissertation, much help and support was gratefully received from a number of people and organizations for which, the researcher would like to acknowledge all their contributions. In particular the researcher would very much like to thank the following: The personal friends who helped with the initial studies by reviewing material and giving much valuable feedback and suggestions; PrimeSec Oy (Finland) and the panel of experts who kindly gave their time and support in informal discussions, the group interview Group Interview and access to their customer contacts in order to expedite the survey; Johann Dowe (PrimeSec Oy) and his wife, who personally did the main questionnaire translations and proof reading; The local bars and taverns that gave permission to distribute and collect the questionnaires, in particular special thanks to Toppari (Myyrmäki) and Public Corner (Keskuskatu, Helsinki), for their help in actually distributing and collection questionnaire on the researchers behalf; All the Leicester University staff and in particular my tutor Tracey Dodman, that have been so consistently supportive throughout the course of this master’s degree; Last but not least, my wife Mari Sorvali for helping out with lots of proof reading, general support and sustenance throughout the whole two year process of studying for a Master of Science Degree in Security and Risk Management.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation ABSTRACT ‘What are the perceptions and attitudes of customers in Finland to security stewards locally known as ‘järjestyksenvalvoja’ and the job they do? What implications if any, do these have for the profession?’ by Christopher John Spencer This dissertation studied the profession of security stewards in Finland known as ‘järjestyksenvalvoja’, and specifically those trained, registered and working as door supervisors in pubs and taverns locally, known as ‘portsari’. The study was undertaken from the point of view of the customers’ attitudes and perceptions in order to establish which roles, methods and resources are most commonly acceptable to customers in order to facilitate voluntary compliance with järjestyksenvalvoja as much as possible. These were studied in relation to Place Theory in particular and other criminology theories such as Rational Choice, Routine Activity, Life Style, and Risk theories. The study involved a group interview with a panel of professional experts and a questionnaire survey distributed to actual customers at venues selected by convenience. To monitor and benchmark the attribution (work experience) nature of the responses, responses from bar staff and qualified security stewards were also recorded. The survey questionnaire was broadly divided into three main themes, namely: Attitudes; Preferences and Relations; and Actual Behaviours. The responses in each section were broadly consistent in their agreement that the presence of ‘Private Security Professionals’, whether uniformed or not, was desirable for promoting and maintaining public order. Commensurate with their responsibilities for keeping order, customers largely acknowledged their rightful need for basic resources such as wrestling methods, hand-cuffs and pepper spray, however the use of sticks was most unpopular and venues with openly armed security stewards were likely to be avoided. Voluntary customer compliance facilitation was considered the key to the job, for which a high level of skill in respect to social skills and customer relations management is required. To this end, current training programmes are considered inadequate and needs further research along with the attitudes of police officers towards security stewards.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... 3 TABLES AND FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 7 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................................... 8 MAIN RESEARCH ISSUES ......................................................................................................... 12 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ....................................................................................... 18 RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY ................................................................................................... 19 ROUTINE ACTIVITY AND CRIME PATTERN THEORY ............................................................... 19 LIFE STYLE THEORY ............................................................................................................... 21 PLACE THEORY ....................................................................................................................... 24 RISK THEORY .......................................................................................................................... 29 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 32 GROUP INTERVIEW.................................................................................................................. 33 PILOT SURVEY ........................................................................................................................ 35 QUESTIONNAIRE AND SURVEY ............................................................................................... 37 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................... 40 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 40 GROUP INTERVIEW AND THE ‘PANEL OF EXPERTS’................................................................ 42 VENUE CHARACTERISTICS AND SURVEY SAMPLE POPULATIONS .......................................... 44 MAIN SURVEY RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 45 Attitude ............................................................................................................................... 46 Status & Expectations .................................................................................................................. 47 Main Results ........................................................................................................................... 47 Professional Status ............................................................................................................ 47 Presence Desirability......................................................................................................... 48 Professional Roles ............................................................................................................. 49 Professional Resources ..................................................................................................... 51 Respect and Obedience ..................................................................................................... 53 General Discussion ................................................................................................................. 54 Skills & Training .......................................................................................................................... 56 Main Results ........................................................................................................................... 56 Skill Requirement ............................................................................................................. 56 Training Adequacy............................................................................................................ 57 Compliance Facilitators .................................................................................................... 58 General Discussion ................................................................................................................. 60

Perceptions & Relations.................................................................................................... 61 Preferences and Inclinations ........................................................................................................ 62 Main Results ........................................................................................................................... 62 Professional Uniforms ...................................................................................................... 62 Venue (Visiting) Preferences ............................................................................................ 63 Chit Chat ........................................................................................................................... 66 Service Tips ....................................................................................................................... 67 General Discussion ................................................................................................................. 68 Relations ....................................................................................................................................... 70

Page 3 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Main Results ........................................................................................................................... 70 Abuse Attitudes ................................................................................................................. 70 Help At Hand .................................................................................................................... 72 Zero Tolerance Policies .................................................................................................... 73 Cloakroom Preferences ..................................................................................................... 74 Compulsory Cloakroom Purposes .................................................................................... 76 Companion Recruitment ................................................................................................... 77 General Discussion ................................................................................................................. 79

Actual Behaviours ............................................................................................................. 80 Main Results ........................................................................................................................... 81 Consequences in Mind ...................................................................................................... 81 Compliance Facilitations .................................................................................................. 83 Resistance Facilitations ..................................................................................................... 87 General Discussion ................................................................................................................. 91

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................... 94 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 99 APPENDIX A: QUESTIONS AND RESULTS TABLES .................................................................. 99 APPENDIX B: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE IN FINNISH LANGUAGE .......................................... 125 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 133



Tables and Figures FIGURE 1: SURVEY SAMPLE POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC BREAK-DOWN ............................ 45 FIGURE 2: ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE PROFESSIONAL STATUS OF JÄRJESTYKSENVALVOJA, BY ATTRIBUTION...................................................................................................................... 47 FIGURE 3: ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE PRESENCE OF JÄRJESTYKSENVALVOJA, BY ATTRIBUTION 48 FIGURE 4: ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE PROFESSIONAL ROLES OF JÄRJESTYKSENVALVOJA BY ATTRIBUTION...................................................................................................................... 50 FIGURE 5: ATTITUDES REGARDING PROFESSIONAL ‘USE OF FORCE’ RESOURCES FOR JÄRJESTYKSENVALVOJA, BY ATTRIBUTION........................................................................ 52 FIGURE 6: ATTITUDES TOWARDS OBEYING JÄRJESTYKSENVALVOJA, BY ATTRIBUTION ............. 53 FIGURE 7: ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE PROFESSIONAL SKILL REQUIREMENTS OF JÄRJESTYKSENVALVOJA, BY ATTRIBUTION........................................................................ 56 FIGURE 8: ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE ADEQUACY OF TRAINING FOR JÄRJESTYKSENVALVOJA, BY ATTRIBUTION...................................................................................................................... 58 FIGURE 9: FACILITATORS OF VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE, BY TOTALS IN RANK ORDER. .............. 59 FIGURE 10: ATTITUDES TOWARD UNIFORMS FOR JÄRJESTYKSENVALVOJA, BY ATTRIBUTION ... 63 FIGURE 11: PREFERENCES FOR VENUE ACCORDING SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS STEWARDS, BY ATTRIBUTION...................................................................................................................... 64 FIGURE 12: ‘NET VALUE’ PREFERENCES FOR VENUE ACCORDING SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS STEWARDS, BY ATTRIBUTION ............................................................................................. 65 FIGURE 13: ‘NET VALUE’ PREFERENCES FOR VENUE ACCORDING SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS STEWARDS, BY GENDER ..................................................................................................... 66 FIGURE 14: CUSTOMERS THAT HAVE CHATTED WITH JÄRJESTYKSENVALVOJA, BY ATTRIBUTION ............................................................................................................................................ 67 FIGURE 15: CUSTOMERS THAT HAVE GIVEN TIPS TO JÄRJESTYKSENVALVOJA, BY ATTRIBUTION68 FIGURE 16: REACTIONS TOWARDS ABUSE OF JÄRJESTYKSENVALVOJA, BY ATTRIBUTION ......... 71 FIGURE 17: CUSTOMERS THAT HAVE GONE TO THE AID OF A JÄRJESTYKSENVALVOJA, BY ATTRIBUTION...................................................................................................................... 72 FIGURE 18: COMPREHENSION AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS ‘ZERO TOLERANCE’ POLICIES, BY ATTRIBUTION...................................................................................................................... 73 FIGURE 19: CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS AND PREFERENCES IN RESPECT TO THE USE OF CLOAKROOMS, BY ATTRIBUTION........................................................................................ 75 FIGURE 20: CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS AND PREFERENCES IN RESPECT TO THE USE OF CLOAKROOMS, BY GENDER ................................................................................................ 76 FIGURE 21: COMPREHENSION AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS COMPULSORY CLOAKROOM POLICIES, BY ATTRIBUTION ................................................................................................................ 77 FIGURE 22: CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS OF SECURITY STEWARD MOTIVATIONS FOR ASKING COMPANIONS TO TAKE DRUNKEN FRIENDS HOME, BY ATTRIBUTION................................. 78 FIGURE 23: PERCEIVED CONSEQUENCES OF RESISTANCE TO JÄRJESTYKSENVALVOJA, LISTED IN RANK ORDER BY ATTRIBUTION .......................................................................................... 82 FIGURE 24: ACTUAL (REPORTED) TEMPTATION AND VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE FACILITATIONS, BY ATTRIBUTION ................................................................................................................ 84 FIGURE 25: ACTUAL TEMPTATION AND COMPLIANCE FACILITATIONS, BY POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE INFLUENCERS PLUS TOTALS IN RANK ORDER .................................................... 86 FIGURE 26: ACTUAL INCIDENTS OF RESISTANCE, BY ATTRIBUTION ............................................ 87 FIGURE 27: ACTUAL RESISTANCE FACILITATORS, BY TOTALS IN RANK ORDER .......................... 88 FIGURE 28: ACTUAL ‘RESISTANCE TEMPTATION’ FACILITATORS COMPARED TO RESISTANCE FACILITATORS, BY TOTALS IN RANK ORDER ...................................................................... 89 Page 5 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation FIGURE 29: ACTUAL COMPLIANCE (POSITIVE) FACILITATORS COMPARED TO ACTUAL RESISTANCE FACILITATORS, BY TOTALS IN RANK ORDER .................................................. 90



Introduction This dissertation studies the new and budding ‘profession’ of security stewards in Finland, and specifically those legally qualified and working as door supervisors in pubs and taverns locally known as ‘järjestyksenvalvoja’, or ‘portsari’. However, based on the presumption that the most effective security is only achieved by obtaining the voluntary compliance of customers, the customers’ attitudes, perceptions, understanding and acceptance of the role and its operational requirements are paramount. To understand these core issues, a questionnaire based survey was used. The study involved a group interview with a panel of professional experts and a questionnaire survey distributed to actual customers at venues selected by convenience. To monitor and benchmark the attribution (work experience) effect on expressed attitudes, responses from bar staff and qualified järjestyksenvalvoja were recorded. The survey questionnaire itself is broadly divided into three main (macro) themes, namely: Attitudes; Preferences and Relations; and Actual Behaviours. The macrothemes also included some sub- or micro-themes that contain the relevant questions and results. The Attitudes section was broken down into two microthemes, Status and Skills & Training. Preferences and Inclinations is broken down into Preferences and Inclinations, followed by general and operational ‘Relations’ between customers and järjestyksenvalvoja. The third and final macro/theme of ‘Actual Behaviour’ deals with three questions: Firstly, customer perceptions of the likely consequences of resistance and confrontation with security stewards; Secondly, factors that facilitated voluntary compliance in incidents where the customer felt tempted to resist; Thirdly factors that actually facilitated or triggered actual resistance of the Page 7 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation järjestyksenvalvoja. These theme sections are accompanied at each stage with a general discussion of the results and major findings before presenting the final summary and conclusions. By way of introduction and laying the foundations for the study, the first three chapters consist of: First, an introduction of the background and issues to be studied; Second, an overview of the main relevant criminological theories, foundations and existing studies; Third, details of the methodology used to conduct the study of the ‘profession’ of järjestyksenvalvoja in Finland. Background Information Järjestyksenvalvoja are the Finnish licensed security stewards that work as ‘inhouse’ security staff on private premises, such as public houses and hotels, where they are also known as ‘portsari’. Järjestyksenvalvoja are also commonly employed at sporting venues, entertainment festivals, offices and even as school caretakers known as ‘Vahtimesteri’. They are distinct from private security guards, known as ‘Vartija’ which are usually, but not necessarily qualified as järjestyksenvalvoja as well in order to obtain the legal ‘use of force’ rights. The Vartija’s duties and responsibilities are much broader in that they include public areas, such as the shopping centres, trains and train stations. As at the 1st of July 2005, there were 49,790 ‘järjestyksenvalvoja’ registered card holders and only about 3 to 4000 police officers out of a total of 11,000 actually assigned to patrol / street duties in Finland (Ylitarkastaja, 2005: pers. comm.). According to the Finnsecurity ry organisation (2005) the security market in Finland is growing by about 7% a year. Some of the possible reasons for these trends are indicated in general opinion polls regarding public safety and security, which indicate that:


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation … almost 90% of people in Finland take the view that with respect to security in our society, the volume of both crime and violence have developed in a negative direction’ (CHSS: 70)… Young people, for their part, are blamed, by reference to both statistical data and the theory of routine activity, for the growth of vandalism, drunken disorderliness, disruptions to peace on the streets and drug-related crime. (Törrönen and Korander, 2005: 113) Door supervisors, such as the Finnish ‘järjestyksenvalvoja’, are by many considered to have become the primary policing force, which seems unsurprising given the findings of. Button to the effect that (in the UK): Many of the confrontations that take place are resolved without recourse to the police. In some venues there may be several thousand clients, and so door supervisors have major crowd safety responsibilities. (Button, 2002: 104-105) This situation appears to be common to Finland also, where exposure to violence appears to be prominently an age- and gender-specific phenomenon. In a review of the results of a recent 2003 telephone interview survey by the Finnish National Research Institute of Legal Policy and Statistics (Oikeuspoliittisen Tutkimuslaitos), Sirén and Honkatukia (2005) found that:


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation In 2003, every fourth 15 to 24 year old male had been a victim of violence (24 %), and among females every sixth (16 %) … Male victimisations are typically leisure-time related street and pub fights, the prevalence of which is strongly age-related… Due to the increase in workplace violence, the number of male perpetrators has doubled since 1980, whereas the number of female perpetrators was six times higher in 2003, compared to the number in 1980... The perpetrator was intoxicated in 60 % of men’s and in 30 % of women’s victimisations… (Sirén and Honkatukia 2005: 164-168) Despite the quite small local population of 5,255,580 in 2005, as reported by the Finnish state statistics centre (2006), recent estimates by the ‘Control Arms’ Campaign (CAC) in Finland (2001: accessed 6.11.2006), indicate about 1.8 million guns are privately owned with another 100 to 200,000 illegally. In relation to the population size, this is the largest ownership of guns in Europe and only the third largest in the world after the United States and Jemen. The CFAC also report that personal crimes are around three times the level of other European countries and firearms are involved in about a fifth of all personal crimes, although the more commonly used weapon is a knife. Given these statistics and concerns, and that järjestyksenvalvoja are also held responsible by the local licensing authorities for the area immediately outside their private establishment including the safe and orderly dispersal of customers leaving the premises, the Helsinki Police Commander, Jukka Riikonen (2005, as cited by Laine, 2004) stated that patrolling of the streets and private residential


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation areas in particular, is job for the police only. However, the article’s author states clearly, that in his view: Järjestyksenvalvoja on poliisi. (Laine, H. 2005) Simply translated this means that ’Security Stewards are Police’ and highlights the conflict of perceptions and attitudes between segments of society and the professions towards the role and status of järjestyksenvalvoja. Järjestyksenvalvoja have responsibilities to up hold the law and support the police, to their employers (agency), the client in whose establishment they work and the customers of the client, whom they are required to supervise. However, as Button has also pointed out: Functional boundaries in policing vary quite a lot between the various types of policing agencies. … Private police operate to uphold the law often, but not one of the main functions (Button, 2002: 100/2). A classic example of this kind of conflict is where järjestyksenvalvoja are legally obliged to uphold laws about minority discrimination when permitting or refusing access to certain patrons. A recent study by the Finnish League for Human Rights (2002, as reported in ‘6 degrees’ newspaper, 2005), revealed that many restaurant owners forbid certain minorities or too many of them from entering for fear of it harming their business directly, or the difficulties of preventing pickpocketing and racism based altercations with the majority white Finnish


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation customers. The restaurant may be subject to a fine of up to 15,000 euros under the Finnish Equality Act (L21/2004), however: The doormen face legal consequences, even though they often follow the orders of restaurant owner. (Six degrees: 2005) These legal consequences for the doorman and their company include criminal prosecution and a criminal record. Not surprisingly these differing responsibilities cause frequent conflicts of interest. Whilst the clients’ (Venue owners) requirements are important and the authorities’ (e.g. Police), a legal necessity, it is the customer with whom the ‘järjestyksenvalvoja’ must deal during the immediate situation, and hence it is their attitudes and perceptions that are the primary area of focus for this dissertation. Main Research Issues ‘Portsari’ in particular have had a bad reputation as bullies and thugs. According to one newspaper report of a study into ethnic discrimination by portsari in Finland, most such workers are perceived to be drop-outs from the police academy, or ex-police officers and ex-soldiers returning to civilian life and therefore somewhat over-aggressive, (Laine, H. 2005). Traditionally, in Helsinki at least, the majority of portsari are very big men indeed, often body builders in a subculture that frequently involves the use of drugs such as steroids. Indeed, ‘...for most bouncers, the presentation of self (Goffman 1959), in particular the cultivation of an authoritative intimidating appearance and demeanour is of crucial importance’, (Hobbs, Hadfield, Lister and Winlow, 2002).


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Whilst some can rely on their physical size, power and reputation to perform their duties, many must still rely on diplomatic skills. However, should these fail, they too may have to resort to physical force and violence, sometimes as a means of punishment as much as for protection (Button 2002: 105). Indeed, in the UK research at least, there appears to be a ‘clear feeling amongst door staff that problems should be dealt with informally via private systems of justice’, (Shearing et al., 1983 and Reichman, 1987, as cited by Hobbs et al. 2002: 359). In the UK at least, ‘assaults are not only hugely under reported, but also difficult to prove in court’ (Clarkson et al., 1994 as cited by Lister, Hadfield, Hobbs and Winlow, 2001: 376). Clarkson et al, found that because of ‘the legal tight-rope that bouncers walk, when exercising their duties, gives rise to the adoption of strategies and devices… designed to frustrate police assault investigations’, (Lister et al. 2000, as cited by Lister et al. 2001: 376). Consequently, ‘portsari’ might be thought responsible for much of the harm they both encounter and inflict. In their defense though, there is also good reason to believe that the motive for such allegations is often ‘revenge with a view to hurting or humiliating them.’ (Jarnefjord, U. 2000-2001: 54). It is also true that: ‘bouncers’—stereotypically construed as dangerous, licensed thugs—may themselves be in danger or physically vulnerable. (Lister et al. 2001: p. 381 as quoted in Monaghan, 2003: 11, 12). In 1980, 1988, 1993 and 1997, the Finnish National Research Institute of Legal Policy and Statistics Finland, conducted a series of surveys. In a review of the results, Isotalus and Saarela, (1999) noted that work-related violence is on the increase, and that:


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation In 1993, the highest rates of violence and threat of violence were found for transport and restaurant workers. In both groups, over 150 violent incidents had occurred per 1,000 workers [Haapaniemi and Kinnunen, 1997: Heiskanen and Aromaa, 1998]…. (Isotalus and Saarela, 1999: 80, 81) Researchers have also pointed out that ‘much bodily risk in the sphere of nightclub security is related to larger social, cultural and economic factors’ (cf. Lister et al. 2001 and situational, sensual dynamics, Katz, 1988, as cited in Monaghan, 2003: 12). For example, a working paper on ‘Violence at work in hotels, catering and tourism’ for the ‘Sectoral Activities Programme’, when considering the potential threats and risks faced by catering staff, states that: In hotels especially, the prevailing environment is intended to make customers feel in a private mood in spite of the commercial and public character of the place. The ambiguity between private and public norms and behaviours may also contribute to a higher risk of unacceptable behaviour not only in hotels, but also in bars and certain restaurants. More research on the phenomenon is needed before drawing firm conclusions in this relationship. (Hoel and Einarsen, 2003) Other ‘attitudinal’ ambiguities are firmly embedded in the Finnish culture, in which it is common practise to ignore and leave drunks where they have fallen, despite the winter snow and freezing temperatures as cold as minus 30 degrees. However, it is not acceptable or even legal for a järjestyksenvalvoja to throw a Page 14 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation disorderly drunk out into the snow or even let them ‘stagger’ out unaided, for which reason a restaurant was recently sued and fined 13500 euros after one such drunk customer fell down some stairs on his way out, (Talaskivi, K. 2005: n.d.). However, no mention was made of how drunk is too drunk, how this might be measured at the time or that taxi drivers are also unwilling to take such customers, which leaves the police as the only remaining option. These ambiguities are also confirmed by UK studies of public disorder incidents in pubs and clubs, for example: When licensees or members of the bar staff need to intervene in a conflict situation, the appropriateness of any particular mode of intervention is not clear. (Lawrence and Leather, 2003: 1799) In Finland, Isotalus and Saarela, (1999) also concluded that: … many deficiencies were found in the application of preventive measures… In the Finnish occupational safety research, violence is a relatively new topic and more information is needed on this complex problem. (Isotalus and Saarela, 1999: 80, 81) These days many of the järjestyksenvalvoja in Finland are quite well trained martial artists and not all of them are quite so physically big. Employers at many types of event and venue do often prefer larger numbers of more specialist staff of a more ordinary physical stature, not least because of ‘the negative connotations big and burly men at the door might convey.’ (Hobbs et al. 2002). Page 15 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Indeed, it is possible that the very presence of door supervisors may serve to frame the perception of violent incidents, making violent events more expected, (Lawrence and Leather (2003: 1800), undermines consumer confidence and, in turn, profit margins’ (Lister et. al. 2001: 366). The requirements of many venues regarding their methods and approach to customers therefore might be presumed to be somewhat different to the traditional body builder, ‘hard man’ types. All these studies seem to indicate that, although there may be differing perceptions of cause and effect between the pub customers and the pub managers, ‘…it is commonly accepted that violence is the main threat to a quiet night for door staff and customers alike, and bouncers are there, so most believe, to deal with violence’, (Lister et al. 2000a, as cited by Hobbs et al. 2002: 359). In practice however, järjestyksenvalvoja must frequently deal with a variety of other situations, from enforcing the law, house rules and preserving the quality of the ambient atmosphere to general safety of customers and customer relationship management. In the mean time järjestyksenvalvoja are still expected predict, prevent and resolve conflict and potentially violent disorder problems to which they are more extensively and intensively exposed than in most other professions. Dealing with violent conflicts is a relatively minor (infrequent) part of the job when viewed within this larger context. In customer service roles the point of intervention of any type, such as the refusal of service because of disorderliness or over intoxication, may trigger a violent attack. In an Australian study on the ‘Prediction and Prevention of Violence in Pubs and Clubs’, it was found that:


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation It seems that intervention with drunken patrons is associated with arguments and verbal abuse, and that refusal of service may directly or indirectly lead to physical assaults… It is also likely, of course, that the association also works in reverse; patrons who become violent are refused service. (Homel and Clark, 1994: 27) It therefore seems reasonable to question if current training adequately prepares järjestyksenvalvoja for what they will probably have to face, sooner or later in establishments of the night-time economy. Clarification of these issues of attitude and perception to form one consistent framework of understanding would seem imperative for facilitating customer compliance through professional status, operating procedures and the training requirements for järjestyksenvalvoja. Unlike the current situation in the UK at the time of writing, all järjestyksenvalvoja in Finland must be legally registered, trained and licensed. The duties and powers of järjestyksenvalvoja are defined in the Security Stewards Act, 1999. Training courses last a week, however three days are spent on the study of law and only two days on practical skills for the ‘use of force’. This situation seems remarkably similar to that reported in the UK, about which, Lister, et. al. (2001: 373) suggest: ‘there is insufficient focus upon risk-management tuition; coping with abusive, drunken or threatening personalities; and upon the adoption of discreet (physical or otherwise) interventions and diplomatic ejections.’ In view of all this, an ‘expert panel’ at the FinSec Trade Fair (2005, pers. comm..), recognised that unsociable working hours, high personal risk and regular abuse, security work in general is still very low paid and appears to be poorly valued in general by both clients and customers alike. Consequently there is an on-going


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation debate in Finland as to how to recruit more people into the industry in general, let alone with the required talent, skills and commitment. Most of the academic studies and work done to date in this research area such as, the Hobbs et al. (2002) study entitled ‘Door Lore: The Art and Economics of Intimidation’, appear to be UK, USA and Australian ethnographic studies primarily focused on the ‘phenomena’ of violence and the culture and conduct of door supervisor. To date, little research appears to have been done on järjestyksenvalvoja in Finland, or anywhere in terms of the customers’ (general public) own perspectives, attitudes and expectations. Without the customers understanding and consent, no techniques or procedures can possibly obtain their voluntary compliance. Such a study might give further insight into the best and ‘most acceptable’ practices for intervention methods and ‘facilitating customer compliance’. This dissertation has sought to identify: Firstly, the attitudes and perceptions of ‘customers’ towards järjestyksenvalvoja, their ‘profession’ and operating procedures; Secondly, the implications for training requirements, professional / legal status and compliance facilitation. Theoretical Perspectives The theoretical foundations for this research are derived from a wide range of criminology theories that include: Rational Choice Theory; Routine Activity and Crime Pattern Theory; Place Theory; Lifestyle Theory and Perceptions of Risk. There are also several relevant theories from the world of psychology relating to aggression, coercion and persuasion that are mostly outside the scope of this dissertation description.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Rational Choice Theory In attempting to ascertain the customers’ attitudes and perspectives towards järjestyksenvalvoja and their job requirements, this dissertation touches directly on the issue of rational choices of customers and the choices which customers are afforded in order to facilitate compliance. The theory espoused by classical ‘Free Will’ theorists, such as Cesare Beccaria (1738-84, as quoted in Department of Criminology, 2005: 1-6), regards criminals as rational and social or personal differences irrelevant and predicts that whenever the benefits of offending outweigh the costs, crime is inevitable. The theory gives us a way to understand the offender’s decision making process and thus, by the study of the opportunities and risks involved in any individual crime, it should be possible to predict crime patterns. However, the theory does not deal with the individual’s specific motivations or background circumstances that facilitated the crime, so any predictions based on it will be quite generic in nature. Understanding customer attitudes and perceptions should give an indication of the extent to which the theory is true and where the balance lays. The issue of customer alcohol intoxication however, calls into question the ‘perceptual’ nature of rational choice for customers and heightens the potential importance of opportunity as predicted by Routine Activity theory. Routine Activity and Crime Pattern Theory Two key components of any ‘rational choice’ are opportunity and risk. In respect to these, Routine Activity Theory talks specifically about the convergence in space of offenders and targets in the absence of capable guardians (Cohen & Felson 1979, as quoted in Department of Criminology 2005: 1-26). ‘Capable Guardians’ such as parents, bar staff or järjestyksenvalvoja, the absence of which Page 19 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation may by default ‘facilitate’ if not actually encourage crime or disorder. For example, the results of a study of drinking patterns, social interaction, and barroom behaviour, using a routine activities approach, by Fox and Sobol, (2000) illustrated that: Generally, the bar that provided the greatest level of guardianship by the use of effective bouncers had a lower amount of predatory sexual offending and disorder within the bar. (Fox and Sobol, 2000: 429) Routine activity at its simplest implies that the crime is perpetrated or conceived during the course of the offenders normal daily home and work routines. If generic or victim / offender specific routines can be identified, then crime patterns might be predicted. Cohen & Felson’s theory was based on so-called ‘direct-contact violations’’ where transgressions are of a direct and physical manner against the will of the victim. It does not include the consensual perpetration of a crime such as buying and selling of drugs. This approach assumes that the individual’s motivations are irrelevant and is by definition therefore, limited to a very generic level of spatial and temporal pattern identification and prediction. Crime Pattern theory, as espoused by Brantingham et al. (1993, as cited by Department of Criminology, 2005: 3-16), builds on both Rational Choice and Routine Activity theories and further helps to explain crime patterns by the distribution of crimes across places. It is hence concerned with the interactions of offenders with their physical and social environments and how opportunities are discovered by potential offenders.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation In the Brantingham’s view, offenders act according to ‘individual templates of crime opportunity, wherein the offender feels comfortable about committing crime’. Offenders rely first and foremost on their local knowledge derived from their everyday legitimate activities, but this will be tempered by the offender’s personal perceptions of risk and capability. Consequently, beyond generalised trend predictions, solutions to specific problems require case studies on the specific offenders. Further more, we are still left wondering what other ‘potential’ or unidentified offenders might be thinking or planning. This information will only be accessible through gaining insight into the perceptions, feelings and opinions of the silent majority who have either not yet committed any crimes, but may be or have been tempted to. They hold the key to a much greater reservoir of information regarding the procedures and measures needed for encouraging voluntary compliance amongst the vast majority of customers as opposed to those needed for the forced compliance of the few offenders that are the exception to the rule. Fox and Sobol, (2000: 430), also raised further questions of how the activities at the bar scene and level of guardianship actually affect behaviour within the bar, and also how customer lifestyle such as excessive drinking and demographics such as age and gender may affect these routine activities. Life Style Theory Routine activities are unlikely however, to be the product of random chance. It is more probable that they are based not only on imperatives such as economic means, but also on social and demographic influences and the choices made by customers of their own free will, such as described by rational choice theory. In relation to ‘Victimization Theory’, Schreck, Wright and Miller, (2002) make the point thus: Page 21 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation A risky lifestyle and contact with delinquent peers, for instance, are probably not a consequence of chance. Hindelang et al. (1978) argued that demographic characteristics determine risky lifestyles, a point that some routine-activity research has taken as given (e.g., Cohen, Kluegel, & Land, 1981). (Schreck. et al. 2002: 164) Both the routine activities theory and the lifestyles approach ‘stress how the context or situation influences vulnerability to crime’, (Meier & Miethe, 1993, as quoted by Schreck et al. (March 2002: 159-160). The results of a study of ‘Drinking patterns, social interaction, and barroom behaviour, using a routine activities approach’, by Fox and Sobol, (2000) seem to confirm the suppositions of Routine Activity Theory. For example, the observed use of recreational drugs ‘out of sight of the bouncers, bartenders and most patrons’, Fox and Sobol, (2000: 445) and ‘Patrons who arrived as a couple or group typically provided guardianship to each other, while unaccompanied patrons appeared to rely on the routine activities of the bar as a form of informal guardianship’, (Fox and Sobol, 2000: 441). Routine ‘Lifestyle’ activities might also include going out with a gang of lads, heavy or binge drinking until intoxicated and out of control. Clothing, loud and boisterous language and anything else that makes a patron stand-out from the crowd may also predispose those so inclined to a greater risk of conflict and victimization, (Fox and Sobol, (2000: 444). However, a study of ‘Victimization to Violence’ in Finland that revealed recent steady increases in violence and alcohol consumption, noted that ‘drinking is normal in this environmental context, so that from this one cannot infer what Page 22 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation role the intoxication of the victim has had in the incident’, (Sirén and Honkatukia 2005: 173). In their Australian study, Homel and Tomsen, (1993) further found that: … much of the violence observed was not due to anything inherent in public drinking or in the typical patrons of these venues… The key variables suggested were aspects of the patron type, the social atmosphere, drinking patterns, and the behaviour of doormen. (Homel and Tomsen, 1993: 58; 59) According to Homel and Tomsen, (1993: 54), the question therefore is ‘whether alcohol consumption itself contributes in some way to the likelihood of violence, or whether aspects of the drinkers or of the drinking settings are the critical factors’, in which the presence and conduct of ‘portsari’ are central pillars, with a critical role in setting the expectations in these respects. The customer’s prior perceptions of järjestyksenvalvoja and the way they perceive the conduct of their duties as part of the general environment and rules of behaviour in these places might therefore be expected to predispose and hence influence how compliant they are by virtue of their own ‘rational choice’. Whilst it is true that research implicates routine activities and hence life styles as a likely explanation of crime and deviant behaviour around bars and taverns, ‘there are numerous physical and social features that could deter or attract potential offenders and offending activities… As a result, certain areas may be considered hot spots,’ (Fox and Sobol, 2000: 435). These hot spots also affect the local neighbourhood outside the bar, so a further question arises as to the responsibility of the venues and their door-staff for the Page 23 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation behaviour of their customers in the immediately surrounding area. In Finland this is often a slightly grey legal area, particularly if the conflicts do not involve their customers.

Under

Finnish

law

(Laki

järjestyksenvalvojista

533/1999),

järjestyksenvalvoja have a certain amount of responsibility for the area up to a few meters outside their bar, but have no legal powers to act in a public place, except as an ordinary citizen. However their legal work responsibilities may prevent even this, as might the limitations of their professional network and cooperation agreements to prevent offenders simply moving on to the next place, next door. The issue of jurisdiction and responsibility in respect to the local neighbourhood has therefore knock-on effects in respect to the wider ‘Displacement’ issue, in which offenders are simply given a door ban and moved on to the next place. According to the Department of Criminology, (2005: 2-34), there are five principle ways in which displacement might occur. Firstly is the time of the act, secondly the method used, thirdly the type of target, forth is the location and fifth the type of offence. However, the displacement argument rests on the assumption that the potential offenders have both the will and capability to adapt their patterns of offending. I.e. they have a free and rational choice in the matter. Place Theory It seems clear from research that ‘not everyone who attends bars experiences violence, and not all bars are places in which violence frequently occurs’, (Graham and Homel, 1997, as cited by Quigley, Leonard, and Collins, 2003: 765). In their own study on the ‘Characteristics of violent bars and bar patrons’, Quigley et al. (2003: 765) came to the conclusion that:


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation The results indicate that individuals having certain personality characteristics are attracted to bar environments that promote anti-normative behaviors such as violence. However, it seems to be the characteristics of the bars that are the strongest predictors of violence. (Quigley et al. 2003: 765). These suppositions are the basis of ‘Place Theory’, which emphasises the role of the järjestyksenvalvoja and any others who interact with the offender as part of the environmental characteristics of the place, as playing the greatest part in crime prevention and hence compliance facilitation, (Fox and Sobol, (2000: 433). This supposition seems to be supported by a series of studies on bars and high schools by Roncek et al. (1981/9), who found that despite higher levels of crime around these facilities, ‘the facility effects were due to the place itself and not necessarily to the social demographics of the surrounding neighbourhood,’ (as cited by Fox and Sobol, 2000: 435). Physical bar characteristics associated with violent behaviours include ‘high temperature, poor ventilation, smoke-filled air, noise and dirtiness, crowd density and the presence of competitive games’ (Graham et al., 1980 & 1997, Felson 1986 and 1997, Graham and Wells, 2001, as cited by Quigley et al, 2003: 765). Macintyre and Homel, (1997) also found that over crowding, and the resulting pedestrian cross-flows lead to difficulties in moving around (jostling and drink spilling) and getting to the bar, and without adequate seating the level and speed of alcohol consumption also increased significantly to compensate for the frustration and discomfort. According to this study, ‘There do appear to be features of the physical designs of the more violent venues that exacerbate the Page 25 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation problems caused by lax regulation, poor management and inappropriate serving practices,’ (Macintyre and Homel, 1997: 110). Järjestyksenvalvoja would have a clear role in preventing these kind of problems by simply not letting in more customers than is suitable for the venue and perhaps by a more ‘problem focused approach that directed staff resources to possible points of friction, such as aisles and bars’. (Homel, Carvolth, Hauritz, Mcilwain, and Teague, 2004;23: 22). However, this role may be significantly hampered by the business aspirations of the owners and even of the järjestyksenvalvoja themselves if their income depends on the cloakroom charges and entry fees from customers. The social characteristics of place that may encourage certain expectancies for anti-normative if not violent behaviour generally relate to the level or atmosphere of permissiveness in a bar. For example, behavior such as ‘non-physical rowdiness, sexual activity, sexual competition, heavy drinking, under-age drinking and other illegal activities’ (Critchlow, 1983, as cited by Quigley et al, 2003: 765). Interviews with bartenders indicated that, ‘one of the best predictors of bar violence is youthful age of the clientele’ (Felson et al., 1986). However, in their Australian study of ‘Hot spots for violence: The environment of pubs and clubs’ however, Homel and Tomsen, (1993: 58; 59) could find no evidence that social class or age of the customers could account for the differences between violent and peaceful venues, nor could physical characteristics of a place account for why the violent venues were at other times peaceful. This evidence does not support a direct link between physical attractiveness of a place, but may mean that such a venue also ‘has a responsible management and positive staff who relate well to patrons,’ (Homel and Tomsen, 1993: 59). Conversely, not all neglected venues are violent, even those with rowdy behavior, aggressive and abrasive staff. Page 26 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Responsible management and positive (bar) staff would seem reasonably to extend to the level and manner of cooperation between them and järjestyksenvalvoja in order to optimize security effectiveness. In the observations of Fox and Sobol, (2000: 441) however this did not appear to happen, with each group minding their own narrow area of responsibility only, such that: Bouncers at both bars served primarily as gatekeepers, merely checking Ids, scrutinizing patrons entering or leaving the bars, and observing the sidewalk and patio areas immediately in front of their respective bars. Similarly bartenders paid little if any attention to the behaviour of patrons inside the bar as they were constantly drawing beer from the taps or preparing drinks. (Fox and Sobol, 2000: 441) This means little formal guardianship was provided by the bouncers or bartenders within the bar itself. Based on these studies, deviant and disorderly behaviour appears to be dependent on the combination and interaction of three factors: Firstly, opportunity as in the convergence of deviants and victims in the absence of capable guardians; Secondly, risk in terms of the presence of capable guardians and the likelihood of being caught and contingent consequences, legal or otherwise; Thirdly, incentive whether by life style and design, or by reaction to a trigger event such as a gesture, when already suffering reduced tolerance and inhibitions due to stressors such as noise, smoke, lack of space and alcohol. What ever the case, the most common trigger associated with violence against staff is ‘the point at which a member of the staff intervened in an argument


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation between customers or attempted to prevent a customer from misbehaving,’ Beale et al., (1998, as cited by Lawrence and Leather, 2003: 1799). For these reasons they recognized the importance of understanding the perceptions of customers in respect to different modes of intervention. The management is involved indirectly in each aspects of security through their attitudes and policies. Directly they may be involved within the bar itself, dealing with customer complaints, and reinforcing the järjestyksenvalvoja in their role, directly or indirectly by ensuring legal action and consequences where needed. The bar staff are directly involved within the bar itself directly or indirectly. However, it is only the järjestyksenvalvoja that are directly involved in all three aspects. The ability to perform these duties effectively and efficiently with the minimum of fuss, is directly connected with the professional status and authority of järjestyksenvalvoja as perceived by the customer even more so than by the bar staff or management. Likewise with their specific actions and conduct in any particular incident, or other perceived threats and risks posed by their absence or presence. Professional status and authority of the police is reinforced with uniforms, so it would seem logical that uniforms for järjestyksenvalvoja might also be a good idea. The study by Homel et al. (2004) seems to suggest that whilst uniforms helped in the majority of more minor behavioural issues, violence and aggression was not dissuaded per say, by such measures, (Homel et al. 2004;23: 22; 25). Despite this, the Skinner, Moss and Parfitt, (2005), in their study of what customers want from night clubs and pubs, notes that the level of security inside a venue tends to be inferred by customers from the level of security outside of a venue, in which respect they found that: ‘Over 64 per cent of survey respondents believed that Page 28 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation more formal attire offered the greatest image of security’, (Skinner et al. 2005: 114 - 124). The ability to facilitate and obtain voluntary customer compliance however, will also depend on customer attitudes in relation to personal lifestyles, such as career criminals or other habitual disorderly behaviour patterns, may also pre-determine whether järjestyksenvalvoja are perceived as a source of authority, reassurance, irritation, obstacle or potential threat. However, given the choices bar owners make about location, condition of the venue, the staff recruited, dress codes including staff uniforms, management and working policies instituted, it would seem then that much of the risks depend on the clientele the proprietors choose to admit or otherwise inadvertently attract. Risk Theory Risk is in no way a singular or objective matter, and very much a creature of perception. In a telephone survey of perceptions of the general risk of crime in the Haifa metropolitan area, Mesch, (2000) confirmed ‘the importance of differentiating perceived risk from fear of crime’ as laid out by Warr et al. (1983) and Rountree et al. (1996). They also found that ‘predictors of perceived risk and fear of crime are different,’ Mesch, (2000). For example, they found that: Individuals who had been victims of crime or knew significant others who had been criminally victimized were more likely to perceive the environment as a dangerous place to live. (Mesch, 2000: 60) This indicates that a few bad experiences can severely colour or bias a person’s perception and heighten their sensitivity towards risk, be it in relation to crime in Page 29 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation general or the presence or absence of järjestyksenvalvoja. These findings also support the concept that the perceptions of risk of crime is based on likelihood of occurrence, whereas the fear of crime is based on the potential consequences, no matter how small the probability of its occurrence. Risk assessments however, be they those of the customer or of a järjestyksenvalvoja, are not a fixed constant, but ‘characterised by factorial complexity and situational precariousness,’ (Monaghan, 2003: 14). In other words, risks are context dependent and open to continual revision. The ability to distinguish between these perceptions may help further refine the implications for the profession of järjestyksenvalvoja. For example, where threats may pose serious risk of harm to people, public concerns about the potential consequences to people tend to override any considerations for property or objective business decisions about the risk of occurrence (Department of Criminology (2005: 1-13). The järjestyksenvalvoja’s priorities are hence: First, individual safety from harm; Second, risk to business results and property; Third, threats to the environment. In short, people, property and environment, in that order. Järjestyksenvalvoja must also consider risk acceptance and avoidance as an appropriate response to a specific incidence, as well as risk sharing or reduction. This is a complex judgment about their own capability, the jeopardy or risk involved to themselves and others and the consequences, both cost and benefits of a course of action that must often be made in an instant, in which, ‘different conditions for bodily harm and near harm often inter-relate in complex and subtle ways’, (Homel, Tomsen and Thommeny, 1992, as quoted by Monaghan, 2003: 14).


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation For example, violence can be classified into two types, ‘Reactive’ and ‘Instrumental’, Bakker, F. et. al. (1994: 87). In the case of groups of youths intimidating staff to facilitate a theft, it is clearly instrumental. Reactive violence, when triggered, is impulsive by nature, which implies that even CCTV systems and the increased risk of capture they pose will have a very limited effectiveness for deterring attacks. Furthermore in respect to reactive violence, according to psychology ‘Frustration Theory’, ‘the closer you get to a goal, the greater the excitement and expectation of the pleasure… and hence the more frustrated you get by being held back. Unexpected occurrence of the frustration also increases the likelihood of aggression, (Barker, Dembo and Lewin, 1941). This means that the earlier the intervention the lesser the risk for the staff concerned. Isotalus and Saarela, (1999), recognised that security guards, along with other workers in the catering and retail industries suffer the highest rates of injury. Interestingly, in one analysis of verbal and physical violence events among men, it was found that ‘alcohol consumption at the bar was not related to the occurrence of violence but did predict the severity of aggression and the amount of harm done,’ (Leonard et al., 2003, as cited by Quigley et al., 2003: 765). Commensurately, it seems common sense to send home drunk customers before they fall over and hurt themselves or cause some other trouble. This works best if the customer complies voluntarily or their friends agree to take them home, but unfortunately many do not. Consequently, it is ‘not an uncommon practice’ for järjestyksenvalvoja to wait until the customer has collapsed, simply because they are then much easier to deal with. Along with attribution theory and the effects of alcohol, the determination of bodily risk may be further accentuated by the business and working relationship, Page 31 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation or lack of it that exists between the door-staff and the owners or managers of the venue. In the light of all these perception influencers, to obtain a balanced view any research of attitudes and perceptions customers, some of whom may also have experience as järjestyksenvalvoja or bar staff, must also include separate analysis and benchmarking of the perceptions of all three attribution groups as part of its methodology. Methodology A multi-tiered and triangulation approach to the survey was undertaken in order to compensate for the many possible types of distortion that may occur such as attribution (work) relationships. As a general framework, the planned research methodology included the following: A Literary review; A group interview of key company staff with significant working experience as a järjestyksenvalvoja in Finland; A qualitative survey using the järjestyksenvalvoja themselves first, followed by a pilot survey based on bar staff and finally the main survey of bar customers. The survey undertaken was a convenience based sample of venues designed to meet the time and resource limitations of the researcher. Whilst the researcher recognises that interviews, whether by telephone or in person would have provided an interactive element that encourages a better response rate to surveys, this was not possible with the available resources. Any response incentive plans were also rejected for the same reasons. Email, though cheaper was also ruled out because of its impersonal nature and relative unreliability, given the sensitive personal nature of some of the questions. The most practical option was considered to be distribution via the PrimeSec sponsoring company’s contacts, the contingency plan B was the local bars by the researcher’s own efforts. In the event, plan C was also activated, involving friends Page 32 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation and family contact chains. An electronic copy downloadable from an internet site was also provided in case paper copies ran out. The first step in this process triangle was to enlist a security company and conduct a group interview with a ‘panel of experts’ that are local professional järjestyksenvaloja, in order to gain an insight into the local working conditions and establish a comparative baseline from which other groups could be studied. Group Interview A group interview of three of the key and most experienced järjestyksenvalvoja in PrimeSec Oy was conducted, and one other separate interview with a personal contact from outside the company, also a qualified järjestyksenvalvoja. The approach used was an informal interview process and discussion guided by a bank of 34 questions distilled from the original 40 to 50 generated by previous brain storming efforts. Note taking was done during the interview when needed, and then written up more fully afterwards from memory. Two of the three interviewees from PrimeSec Oy are also company directors and founders and are also some of the most experienced järjestyksenvalvoja in the company. They were certainly in a position to clarify at the very least, ‘the phraseology and concepts used by the population’ or ‘relevant dimensions of attitudes’, (Department of Criminology, 2005: 6-14). Whilst the expert panel is all male, they did represent every age range to be used in the survey. All interviewees are fluent in the English language, so the language of the trial questionnaire did not present any significant barriers for the purpose of this exercise. Perhaps more importantly from a practical survey organization perspective, they are key people for gaining access to and approaching the company’s clients and getting their cooperation as well. The group interview was hence an important process as it allowed the company’s staff to review and contribute to the design Page 33 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation of the questionnaire survey, by so doing building their confidence in the project and what their clients and customers would be approached with. The interview was conducted at the company premises with the following objectives: A questionnaire time trial; Insights via the interviewees’ experience and perspectives on customer attitudes and behaviour; Further question development and questionnaire refinement; to provide a benchmark for the very same questions that were later put forward to the pilot study and to the bar customers in the final survey; and obtaining a group focus and commitment towards the research project and agreement on the next steps for approaching which customers. The interviewees completed the questionnaire under the supervision of the researcher for a period of ten minutes before reporting their progress. The remaining questions were then completed in their own time. The researcher monitored progress and timings including the total time taken and any pages skipped or questions returned to and asked questions regarding those. In respect to completion times, two interviewees completed 21 questions in ten minutes, and two did 17 questions. Total completion time for 34 questions was 20 minutes with 3 minutes extra to read the intro and instructions, though 2 did not read them at all other than quick scan, which is indicative of the level of detail, layout and font size considerations that would be needed for customers in a pub or restaurant setting on their night out, possibly after a couple of beers already. In general the feedback to the questions was very favourable and raised much interest. The main feedback received related to: the desire to add new questions about the attitudes towards psychological testing of industry recruits in relation to the informal and voluntary (course instructor recommendations to the police and Page 34 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation company recruitment probation periods) screening processes that already take place; Examples given to help respondents may be criticised as leading the response; Free text questions were too numerous and quite heavy, disproportionately requiring several minutes to answer by themselves. After feedback on the questionnaire and a general discussion, the next steps for advancing the research project were agreed, which included translation of the final question list into Finnish, suitable clients top be approached, printing of the questionnaires, distribution and collection of questionnaires, for which järjestyksenvalvoja were not to be involved to avoid conflicts of interest with customers. To arrange a group interview with these busy company directors and managers during the two months leading up to the Christmas period proved a major challenge, finally coming together in mid-December of 2006, over a month later than had been hoped. To supplement the numbers, one extra private interview was also conducted with a freelance security steward. Further set-backs were encountered in gaining access to client bars and taverns served by PrimeSec Oy because of business risk concerns, and other ‘local’ bars were unwilling to participate before January due to the busy seasonal work load. Pilot Survey In addition to the group interview, it had been intended to conduct a separate pilot survey to test out not only the questionnaire, its questions and structure in the Finnish language. This was to have been performed with selected clients that supported the research project, in large part to give them a better insight into the project and gaining their support for helping to promote it on the researcher’s behalf.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Whilst the clients and their staff are also legitimate customers in their own right, their responses, like those of any other potential customer respondent may be affected by their own relationship to this particular job, especially if negative consequences have been experienced. For example, they may have done the jobs themselves in the past, and Lawrence and Leather, (2003) in their own ethnographic studies of the night-time economy pointed out that: Research has shown that motivational biases are particularly relevant in situations where individuals attempt to explain events or behaviors that have negative consequences. (Lawrence and Leather, 2003: 1797) This ‘phenomena’ of motivational biases is known as ‘Attribution Theory’. Attribution might be described as a kind of ‘blame game’ that involves a defensive attribution of blame on the victim, so that the blamer, who would of course acted differently, does not feel vulnerable to a similar outcome themselves in the same situation. Shaver (1970a, as cited by Lawrence and Leather, (2003: 1798), also stressed that ‘the same is true if observing individuals are similar to the victim’. The pilot study was therefore important for benchmarking these potential attribution response biases, for which demographic data in the main survey was also required. Clients (Bars and Taverns) were requested for around 4 to 5 responses from bar staff per bar in order to obtain a sufficient attribution baseline for each place with its particular circumstances. Due to the delays incurred during the Christmas and New Year holiday season, this part of the research could not b conducted as a separate exercise. Instead it Page 36 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation was conducted in the week 8-12th January 2007, concurrently with and as part of the main survey questionnaire. Questionnaire and Survey In respect to the main exercise, paper copies of questionnaires given out at the place of entertainment might have been lost, destroyed or forgotten about, especially once customer is a little intoxicated after a ‘good night out’ on the town, in which case memory distortions may also occur. To prevent this, questionnaires were distributed in the early part of a weekday evening when the bar was not too busy, or as part of a Quiz and Bingo night when most people already had pens handy. The questionnaire itself was designed as a hybrid survey, using a mixture of different types of questions, including: open questions with free text descriptions; Discrete ‘Likert Scale’ questions; Multiple Choice questions; Closed Questions (Yes / No) to facilitate simplicity, speed of completion and measurability. It was designed to be completed within a stated time limit of five to ten minutes to avoid deterring respondents from completing the survey and because quick, instinctive and emotional responses are likely to better reflective actual behaviour when under stress or after consuming alcohol. The questionnaire contained three main sections or categories of questions focused on attitudes and perceptions: towards järjestyksenvalvoja; towards the job operating requirements; and some validation questions. Firstly, Likert Scales were used with direct questions about their thoughts and opinions to ‘place people on an attitude continuum in which statements are devised to measure the aspects of interest’ (Department of Criminology, 2005: 632). The wording was deliberately constructed to access respondents considered thoughts, opinions and attitudes. Page 37 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation The second class of questions involved indirect multi-choice questions, supported by a few open free text questions to gain further insights customers’ perceptions and inclinations about compliance facilitation and other operating procedures. All these questions used wording aimed at activating and eliciting the respondents’ feelings about the subject and hence their likely reactions and behaviour in an actual situation with all its inherent stressors. In this, as in all ‘Social Psychological’ surveys, it is reasonable to expect that there will be ‘no simple and direct relationship between attitudes and behavior’ (Smith, 1991:12, as cited by Department of Criminology, 2005: 6-32). This issue is likely to be exacerbated by the ‘behavioural influence’ of alcohol in addition to any other stressors, emotionally charged or distressed states of mind. Third, a ‘validation’ section using direct closed and ‘yes or no’ style questions was used in order to check the relationship between attitudes and beliefs vs. actual behaviour. Some of these were complimented with a free text box option for respondents to describe in their own words what happened and why. These questions were likely to have been the most threatening to customers for which reason the questions were designed to normalised the issues and neutralized the wording. For example, by wording the questions in terms of what had been done or said that had upset them enough to react in a resistant or disorderly way. A generic work flow plan was also applied to help the customers feel that they were progressing through the questionnaire as quickly and easily as indicated in the instructions. The shorter, quicker and easier attitude questions were located towards the beginning of the questionnaire so that customers could easily get through the first third or more (8 of 22) of the questions on the first page. This it was hoped would give them the necessary momentum to carry them through the next and heavy section. Page 38 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation The more difficult and ponderous questions about perceptions and feelings were in the middle section. This also contained the main free text questions for which keywords were required in a limited space provision with negative options frontloaded to try and capture impulse reactions. The questions were designed to facilitate perspective and comparatives between possibilities by including extreme options in an ordered fashion and matching similar types within rows. For example, question number 9 was designed with extreme options to create perspective whilst providing some humour to lighten the load in a question that pre-reviews indicated had elicited strong emotional responses. Likewise question 5 contained pairs of similar options deliberately coupled to provide a slightly different perspective on what is otherwise a similar role, for example, the option regarding the security warden’s role as a ‘Violence Trouble Shooter’ or a ‘Conflict Manager’. This question has an element of calling a ‘Bookie’ a ‘Turf Accountant’, but encourages the respondent to compare these two concepts and reconcile them. These were broken up with other short and quick questions to lighten and ease the response flow and the more threatening questions were left till the end to minimize response avoidance. To this end, assurances were also given in the covering letter to all respondents concerning confidentiality and their right to anonynimity as part of the survey’s code of ethics.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Results Statistical Analysis Ideally the research survey would have used a probability sampling procedure so that the results could later be generalized. However, this proved too difficult, time consuming and expensive to achieve for the purposes of this research project. Instead convenience sampling was used based on the opportunities available to the researcher (Department of Criminology 2005: 5-42), which gave the best fit with the proposed data gathering method of distributing questionnaires via similar types of (pub / tavern) outlets, rather than a broader survey that would have included for example, hotels and sports venues. The method of analysis is based on Grounded Theory, (Department of Criminology, 2005: 7-8), such that the results and conclusions are derived from the data obtained. In order to most broadly facilitate voluntary compliance with järjestyksenvalvoja, it is the consensus of opinion that is the most useful. The level of consensus in terms of the most common responses is best assessed by measuring central tendencies based on the mode response. This focus combined with the format of some of the questions and the low level of data obtained meant that more descriptive statistics of the major patterns only were preferred using visual charts, the mode value, range of values, median (plus upper and lower quartiles) and variation ratios as the most appropriate measures of central tendency under the circumstances. The mode, which describes the most frequently occurring value in a data set is used for describing ratio, interval, ordinal and nominal data, and hence comparing across the different question formats used in this survey, (Department of Criminology, 2005: 8-9). However, unlike the mean and standard deviation, it does not lend itself to parametric testing and inferential statistical such as normal distributions and t-tests for testing attitude relationships and correlations between Page 40 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation sample populations such as for gender, or between different but related issues and questions. Whilst the range of values provides a sense of perspective on the values themselves, the median, being the middle value of a rank ordered data set, provides a good measure of central tendency when there are exceptionally high and low values in a data set because it reduces the influence of these more extreme values and is hence often used to describe skewed data sets. However, it is not so good when there are only a small number of values due to the high potential for results distortion, (Department of Criminology, 2005: 8-8). The variation ratio in particular, calculated as the total of non-modal values, divided by the total number of all values, (Department of Criminology, 2005: 811), gives a clear indication whether the mode is a majority representation with a value of 0.5 to 0, or simply the largest minority with a value between 0.5 and 1. In the latter case, a very simple matter of factoring for different degrees of positive and negative responses often established the general trend of opinion much more clearly. Non-parametric tests such as the Spearman Rank Correlation coefficient were used for questions involving keyword and content analysis. Chi Squared tests, based on the expected values from an equal distribution of responses between options, were also calculated, but presented mainly in respect to special results (less than 99% significance), which may have a bearing on their interpretations. However, these are reported with the statistical validity provision in mind, that there should always be a minimum of five values in each category, (Department of Criminology, 2005: 8-20). This means that despite 100% Chi-squared statistics, most of the results still cannot be inferred to the Finnish population at large.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Other practical issues may lay within the personal background of the researcher, who is a certified protection officer, a long-time ‘self-defense’ instructor and currently works professionally as a ‘järjestyksenvalvoja’. This background provides many advantages in the study of this area of research, but preconceptions based on past personal experience may also lead to some bias in interpretation of the results and indeed in the design of the questionnaire itself. For example, all those questions involving the coding, factoring and categorization of keyword and free text questions are highly dependent on the associations and professional mind-map of the researcher. Consequently, results for these questions were analysed using only descriptive statistics and ‘Rank Order’ correlation tests for comparative purposes. Whilst this aspect of bias is unavoidable, every effort was made to at least ensure consistency within and between related questions. Group Interview and the ‘Panel of Experts’ The results of the questionnaire from the ‘panel of experts’ in the group interview, included a few but notable results. All members of the expert panel regarded themselves as highly skilled private security professionals, not police or law enforcers as such. None of them listed Door Attendant, Cloakroom or extra bar staff duties as part of the legitimate role of a Security Steward. They were almost unanimous in their assertion that their primary roles and responsibilities are for Health, Fire and Safety, Premises Physical Security, Conflict and Customer Relations Management. The ‘Use of Force’ resources listed unanimously in favour of wrestling techniques and three out of the four also listed hand-cuffs, sticks and pepper spray as required and legitimate resources. However, two out of the four would in each case prefer to avoid venues with Big and rough or openly armed security staff.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Two members of the panel had been tempted to resist, but none have actually ever done so, having resolved the situation through talk. The main and most commonly compliance facilitation factors they listed were: politeness, courtesy, respectful, reasonable, helpful and social skills’. Two experts listed arrest and criminal charges as a result of customer resistance and one simply listed violence as the most likely consequence. For question 17, the Reasons behind a zero tolerance policy and only one selected the more practical option listed in option 5, and two out of four chose option four that offers a more positive outlook on the motivations in respect to fairness and equal treatment of customers. Question 19 drew further unexpected first answer results with three experts select option 1, customer comfort as the main reason for a compulsory cloakroom policy, and only one selecting option 3 for security and disorder prevention. Question 21 dealt with the main reason for asking customers’ companions to take them home. Two first selected answers were for option 2, the legal limitations about simply throwing drunks out onto the streets. The other two first answers and one extra second choice were for option 5, being ‘the best, safest and most practical way’ to get a drunken customer home. By way of general discussion, the opinion of this expert professional panel was that Uniforms were needed, but unique to each establishment rather than Police Force in style. For example, all black shirts with the bar name, logo and staff identifier printed on it as is the case at the Luna bar. Another comment concerned why customers react so badly to security staff. The consensus of opinion was that they are simply seen as the last straw at the end of a bad day or week, as amply demonstrated by the recent experiences of one member who was badly mauled by a woman after asking them to leave at closing time.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Comments were also made about frustration concerning legal jurisdiction issues in the areas immediately outside the employing venue even if a customer or noncustomer was being assaulted in the near vicinity. One company professional particularly complained about police attitudes, having recently experienced an unpleasant situation in which a customer had been arrested by the Security Steward, but the police on arrival ignored all the complaints and set the man free without further consequences. The Security Steward concerned felt that his authority and professional credibility had been severely undermined. Venue Characteristics and Survey Sample Populations Most of the bars to which accessed was gained were located in the suburban (commuter) districts of Vantaa. These included the Sali bar, Luna and Toppari. Bars in central Helsinki included Public Corner bar in ‘Keskuskatu’ (Center Street) and the Dubliners. A more distant outlying venue was the Pihvinmylläri bar is located in Klaukkala in the Nurmijärvi district a short drive north of Vantaa. All the bars except Sali use järjestyksenvalvoja, however Luna is the only one that insists that all its bar-staff are qualified järjestyksenvalvoja and wear a black bar uniform/shirt. Pihvinmylläri and Luna are relatively isolated by comparison to the others, which are located in centres with several others nearby bars or nightclubs. The chart in Figure 1, below gives a clear picture of the demographic spread of questionnaire returns.



Survey Sample Population Size and Demographic Breakdown

Age Group Attributions Gender

Population Sub-groups

Total

118

Unstated Over 40 Over 30 Over 18

12

Unstated Female Male

12

27 26 53

56 50

Customers Bar Staff & Owners Security Stewards

60 34 24 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Number of Respondents NUmber of Questionnaire Returns

Figure 1: Survey sample population and demographic break-down

The customer figure is however based on the assumption that all those who did not declare their current or past work experience as bar or security staff, were indeed ordinary customers. Unfortunately, the possibility of related professions such as Vartia (guards) and even regular police officers was overlooked. Main Survey Results The different types of survey questions, whilst distributed throughout the questionnaire, were planned around certain macro and micro –themes or issues. The macro-themes include attitudes towards Security Stewards and hence professional status of the latter. Next was customer ‘Perceptions and Relations’ and finally Actual Behaviours.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Sub- or Micro-themes for Attitudes included professional status and skills and training. Preferences and Relations macro-theme includes general relations, presence desirability, uniforms and some related behavioural acid tests that are based more on customer feelings rather than considered opinions. The behavioural macro-theme contains micro-themes relating to security work comprehension, compliance and compliance facilitation issues. Each of the following sections or themes contains a number of questions that relate more directly to that particular theme than others. However, each section or theme may be considered a precursor to and influencer of the next. Each area in turn reflects the melt-down of attitudes into actual behaviour and therefore in practice, many questions overlap between the different themes. The results of each question are presented as a chart, complete with the question, question number and values wherever clarity allows. The original questionnaire in Finnish, questions in English language and source result tables can be found in the appendices. Following each section of questions and their main results presentation, there is an integral general discussion of the results and how the various question issues relate to each other. Attitude The first of the macro-themes is ‘Attitude’. Considered opinions and attitudes about the professional status of järjestyksenvalvoja are divided into two microtheme sections, ‘Status and Expectations’, and ‘Skills and Training’. The first section, ‘Status and Expectations’ includes five questions relating to: Professional Status; Presence Desirability; Professional Roles; Professional Resources; Respect and Obedience.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Status & Expectations Main Results PROFESSIONAL STATUS Respondents were asked to select one option only from a set of standard options regarding professional status that were arranged in order of professional status.

Question 3: Professional Status

Number of Responses

90

83

80 70 60 50 40

39

30

23 17

20 10 0

2

4

4

PA

2 0

3 0 1 PS

21 4 PP

Police By Supplementary Private Another Name Police Professionals

12 1

PK Part-Time Peace Keepers

2 2 0 0 HH

4 3 0 1 TB

Hired Henchmen

Thugs & Bullies

Professional Status Security Stewards

Bar Staff & Owners

Customers

Total

Figure 2: Attitudes towards the professional status of järjestyksenvalvoja, by attribution

Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 114 answered this question. The mode answer was ‘Private Security Professional’ with 83 votes. A full range of options was selected with values ranging from 2 to 83 and a variation ration of 0.27, which indicates the mode to be a very strong majority opinion of 73 percent. Although the distribution is slightly skewed towards the right by the responses in favour of a Part-Time Peace Keeper, this graph bears a remarkable resemblance to a normal distribution curve. The attribution groups also seem to be in broad Page 47 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation agreement with each other, their respective means and standard deviations being: Järjestyksenvalvoja 3.83 / 8.42; Bar Staff 5.5 / 8.69; Customers 9.67 / 14.98. A Chi-squared value calculated on the actual vs. expected values (114/6 = 19), gives a 100% significance result, indicating that the results are significantly different from what might have been expected, based on equal casting of responses amongst the six options. However, four of the option values were below 5, so it is not possible to statistically validate the significance of this data. P R E S E N C E D E S I RA B I L I T Y The second question concerns the desirability of the presence of järjestyksenvalvoja. Respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they agreed with the statement that the presence of järjestyksenvalvoja made going into town or visiting any such venue a safer and more relaxed experience.

Question 6: Presence Desirability 60

Number of Responses

51 50 40

34 30

27 30 15

20 6

10 0

8

0 0 0 Stongly Disagree 0

1 2

3

Disagree

11

13 10

8

13

4 No Difference

Agree

Strongly Agree

Degree of Agreement Security Stewards

Bar Staff & Owners

Customers

Figure 3: Attitudes towards the presence of järjestyksenvalvoja, by attribution


Total

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 118 responses were recorded. The mode answer was ‘Agree’ with 51 votes. Nobody strongly disagreed with the statement, with a response range of 6 to 51 for the remaining options and a variation ration of 0.57, indicating that the mode is the largest minority. Factoring of all positive responses together however presents a variation ratio of 0.28, indicating a strong majority of 72 percent generally in favour of the presence of järjestyksenvalvoja. P R O F E S S I O N A L R O LE S The third question concerns the Professional Roles customers thought requisite to järjestyksenvalvoja. Respondents were asked to select from a range of options arranged in comparative pairs and listed in a general order of increasing professionalism. When interpreting the results, it is important to bear in mind, that the questionnaire did not distinguish between the roles of security / access screening, door security work in general and bell boy work, though all are usually practiced together.



Question 5: Professional Roles

Number of Respondents

120 101 100

89

82 80 60 40 20

71 55

51 31 19

38 26 18

50

48

28 14 13

23 18 4 23

9 00

34 21 16

55

17 10 34

0

8 26

18 17 15 20

46

1 20 3

Door Services

Premises Security Conflict & Disorder

Enforcement

Waitering

Customer Relationship Manager

Info & Entertainments Officer

Extra Bar Staff

Glass Collector

Law Enforcer

House Rules Enforcer

Conflict Manager

Disorder Trouble Shooter

Premises Security

Health, Fire & Safety

Cloakroom Attendant

Door Attendant

0

Management Services

Standard Roles Security Stewards

Bar Staff & Owners

Customers

Total

Figure 4: Attitudes towards the professional roles of järjestyksenvalvoja by attribution

Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 496 option selections were made. The mode answer was ‘Door Attendant’ with 101 votes and a Chi-squared value calculated on the total actual vs. expected values (118/2 = 59), indicated a 100% significance result. A full range of options was selected with values ranging from 3 to 101 and a variation ration of 0.80, which indicates a very high spread of responses and indicating that the mode was the largest single minority group. The attribution groups again seem to be in broad agreement with each other. The chart above suggests six roles in particular: Door Attendant; Cloakroom Attendant; Health, Fire & Safety; Conflict Manager; House Rules Enforcer and Customer Relations Manager. Door Attendant was the mode for all three attribution groups, witch somewhat skewed the results towards the laborer (Door services and Premises Security) end of the spectrum rather than business operational and management end of the spectrum.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation However, in the middle (Order & Enforcement) and upper (Business and Management) segments, the paired comparisons show some favouring of the more positive perceptions of the järjestyksenvalvoja work role, for example: a conflict manager rather than just a Disorder Trouble Shooter, a Customer Relations Officer rather than just an information and entertainments officer. Another sharp comparison is the favouring of House Rules Enforcer over Law Enforcement. One possible exception was the role of Customer Relations Manager. Bar Staff and järjestyksenvalvoja seem to be close in their views on this role, but proportionately it drew substantially less response from customers. The response levels were almost identical, even though the total number of customers in the sample is roughly double both of the other two attribution groups. Where as the other attribution group responses were close to the Chi-squared expected values, the customer response was close to one half (18) only of their expected value (30) with an overall significance test statistic of 100%. P R O F E S S I O N A L R E S O U R CE S In question 9, customers were asked to select from a standard list, all those resources that they thought järjestyksenvalvoja should be legally allowed and if necessary use in the performance of their job. The resources were grouped into comparative groups of three for similar kinds of resources and each group listed in a roughly ascending order of force and resource escalation, ranging from nothing at all to firearms. When interpreting the results presented below, it is important to bear in mind that this question did not distinguish between use of force to deal with noncompliant customers and resources for self-defense purposes.



Question 9: Professional Resources

Number of Respondents (Votes)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

None

Body Force

Restraints

Sticks

Sprays

Shock Tools

Tank

Machine Gun

Hand Gun

Water Canon

Stun Gun

Taser Prod

Tear Gas

Pepper Spray

Colour Spray

Long Stick

Night Stick

Telescopic Baton

Straight Jacket

Ankle Cuffs

Hand Cuffs

Punch & Kick

Palm Slaps

Wrestling

No

0

Firearms

Standard Resource for Use of Force Security Stewards

Bar Staff & Owners

Customers

Total

Figure 5: Attitudes regarding professional ‘use of force’ resources for järjestyksenvalvoja, by attribution

Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 325 responses were made. The mode answer was Wrestling Techniques with 73 votes. The range of votes cast was from 0 to 73 with a variation ratio of 0.78, which indicates a high spread of responses. However, from the graph it can be seen that this is still relatively concentrated within the three most popular options of Wrestling, Hand Cuffs and Pepper Spray. Secondary resources included, colour spray and tear gas, the basic night stick or truncheon, a telescopic baton (for which special police training and licensing is required in Finland) and a Taser (electric ‘cattle prod’). Sticks and telescopic batons are of particular note because the customer response dropped down to the same level or even lower than the other attribution groups, which appears significant given the relative sample sizes of the attribution groups. Page 52 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation R E S P E CT A N D O B E D I E N C E The final question in this micro-theme is about attitudes towards the need to obey järjestyksenvalvoja just as they might do a police officer. Respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they agreed with the statement that järjestyksenvalvoja should indeed be obeyed equally as much as a police officer.

Question 8: Respect and Obedience


70

60

60 50 40

17

17

20

15

5 0

3 2

1

0

SD

D

Stongly Disagree

Disagree

16

10

7

10 0

27

22

30

7

7 2

4

6

ND

A

SA

No Difference

Agree

Strongly Agree


Bar Staff & Owners

Figure 6: Attitudes towards järjestyksenvalvoja, by attribution

Customers

Total

obeying

Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 114 responses were recorded. The mode answer was ‘Agree’ with 60 votes. A full range of options was selected with values ranging from 5 to 60 and a variation ration of 0.47, which indicates that the mode only just accounts for the majority with 53 percent of the vote. A Chi-squared value calculated on the total actual vs. expected values (118/5 = 23.6), indicates a 100% significance result. This chart suggests that although respondents do broadly agree that that järjestyksenvalvoja should be obeyed, most still seem to have some reservations in that respect. Both Bar Staff and Customers display a full option selection range and variation ratios of 0.52 and 0.54 respectively. In particular it is notable that Page 53 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation after factoring for positive and negative responses, whilst Bar Staff and Customers have a significant segment of opinion that disagrees, there is almost unanimous agreement amongst järjestyksenvalvoja with a variation ratio of only 0.23. General Discussion The major results of this first section are consistent across the questions. Järjestyksenvaloja status is not equivalent to police, but still mostly regarded as a (private) professional whose presence is desirable, primarily for the purposes of security supervision in the guises of a Door Attendant (screening), Cloakroom Attendant (property protection) and Conflict Management. Secondary roles advocated were Fire and Safety, House Rules Enforcement and Customer Relations Management. The Resources advocated are broadly consistent with this outlook with a focus on three key tools for use of force: wrestling, cuffs and pepper (security) sprays. A notable aversion, particularly for customers, is to the currently available use of sticks. This may be due to the perceived risk of serious physical injury and hence more closely related to the fear of consequences rather than any actual risk as noted in the Haifa study by Mesch (2000). These results are comparable to the expert panel in the group interview with the exception of the emphasis on two core roles listed by customers, namely Door and Cloakroom Attendants. The Expert Panel focused on higher level roles with a wider outlook, in particular: Premises Security, Health & Safety, Conflict Management and Customer Relationship Managers. Whilst they acknowledge Door and Cloakroom services are a common add-value service, their general feeling was that these do not belong to the security steward, and are a distraction from their core functions. As professionals in a growing security company this Page 54 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation may well reflect their self-image and professional ambitions in comparison to the viewpoints of respondents in the main survey. In the more extreme views, a small number of customers agree that doormen make town a safer place but strongly disagree that they should be obeyed, and one such customer also believes that security staff should have no right to use force. Another condoned the use of hand-cuffs, but not the physical skills and use of force resources for applying them in the first place. These apparent contradictions suggest that the impression of a well cared for place not only bolsters feelings of security, but perhaps outweighs the actual security itself. However, the responses may simply reflect the differences between a considered opinion and feelings in respect to perceived personal threats and consequences. On the other side of the fence, there are security staff that did not advocate empty hand techniques, but did select the use of hand cuffs, sticks and pepper sprays. These responses represent only an extreme minority and may reflect an attitude based on, for example, intolerance. Another plausible explanation is an inclination to compensate for comparative disadvantages in terms of size, power and skills, for example, one of the respondents well known to the researcher who advocated use of a long stick, is a short woman of large size and poor physical fitness. Such compensations are made in order to minimize personal risks. Perceptions of risk however are not always so obvious and depend on different conditions for bodily harm and near harm that ‘often inter-relate in complex and subtle ways’, (Homel, et al. 1992, as quoted by Monaghan, 2003: 14).


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Skills & Training Having established the broad expectations of järjestyksenvalvoja, the next section is about their skills and training requirements, which includes questions on attitudes to: Skill Requirements, Training Adequacy; and expected ‘Voluntary Compliance Influencers’ that determine a large part of the type of training that is needed. Main Results S K I L L R E Q U I RE M E N T The first question relating to this micro-theme was to what extent respondents consider a high level of skill is needed to perform their job satisfactorily.

Question 2: Skill Level Requirement 70 62


60

50 38

40 33 30 17

20 12 9

10

10

6 7

6 3 0 0 0 0

16 12

0 1

0

0 Stongly Disagree

Disagree

No Difference

Agree

Strongly Agree

Degree of Agreem ent Security Stew ards

Bar Staff & Ow ners

Customers

Total

Figure 7: Attitudes towards the professional skill requirements of järjestyksenvalvoja, by attribution


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 116 answered this question. The mode answer was Agree with 62 votes. No one ‘Strongly Disagreed’ with the statement giving a range 0 to 62 and a variation ratio of 0.47 that indicates the mode was also the majority opinion with 53 percent. When the mode is combined with the second largest response category, ‘Strongly Agree’ then the vote for agreement in general increase to 100 and the variance ratio drops down to 0.14, indicating a very strong consensus in broad terms. T RA I N I N G A D E Q U A CY The second question asked respondents to indicate their extent of their agreement / disagreement that current training arrangements are adequate. The question design includes some basic information on the contents of training courses, including lack of First Aid training, because it was thought many people maybe unaware them. When interpreting these results, it is essential to bear in mind the potential influence of this one aspect alone, regardless of the other training contents.



Question 7: Training Adequacy

NUmber of Respondents

80

71

70 60 50 35

40 30 18

20 10

11 2

22

21

14

5

3 5 0 2

6 5

10 2 0 1 3

0 Stongly Disagree

Disagree

No Difference

Agree

Strongly Agree


Bar Staff & Owners

Customers

Total

Figure 8: Attitudes towards the adequacy of training for järjestyksenvalvoja, by attribution

Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 118 answered this question. The mode answer was ‘Disagree’ with 71 votes. A full range of response was recorded with votes ranging from 3 to 71 and a variation ratio of 0.40, which indicates that the mode was also the majority (60%) opinion. The graph indicates that despite the potential bias effects of information about the lack of First Aid training, there was a sizable minority of respondents who still are of the opinion that the training was adequate. C O M P LI A N C E F A CI LI T A T O RS The third question in this section concerns the type of skills and training that might be required in order to facilitate voluntary customer compliance. Respondents were asked to make a list of keywords representing anything that they thought might encourage such compliance. Page 58 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation The question design included a list of examples to ensure there was no confusion that would deter respondents from attempting this comparatively more demanding question compared. However, this may have had a leading influence on the responses. The keywords were counted up and grouped into broadly representative categories in rank order. For example, ‘Persuasive’, ‘Polite’ and ‘Respectful’ were all classified under the heading of ‘Social Skills’. ‘Fair’ and ‘Helpful’ were attributed to Customer Relations Management. Professional Attributes was a sundry account for items not easily allocated to just one of the other categories, such as, ‘Maturity’ and ‘Professionalism’.

161

74

69

59 20

Professional Attributes

Coercive Conduct

Social Facilitation

Coercive Resources

2

Compulsion (Force) Resources

6

Presentation

1

22

Personal Disposition

32

Customer Relations Mgt.

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Social Skills

Content Count

Question 13: Expected Voluntary Compliance Facilitaors

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Compliance Facilitators in Rank Order Expected / Anticipated Voluntary Compliance Facilitators

Figure 9: Facilitators of voluntary compliance, by totals in rank order.

Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 445 keyword responses were received. The range is from 2 to 161 with the mode being ‘Social Skills’ (161) and a variation Page 59 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation ratio of 0.64, which indicates that the mode is the largest minority value with more than double the score of its nearest rival. The median is 32 with a lower quartile of 13 and an upper quartile of 71.5. These figures indicate a relatively extreme degree of variation between the results of the top and bottom ranks facilitators. The graph is suggestive of four relatively discrete steps up the ladder of ranks: 8 and 9; 7, 6 and 5; 4, 3 and 2, and then finally the top ranked facilitator of Social Skills. Social Skills, is clearly the most dominant single facilitator, closely followed by the pack of Customer Relations Management, Personal Disposition and Presentation. All the other facilitators more traditionally and popularly associated with the profession, come a long way behind in the ratings. General Discussion Overall, the results indicate that customers place a very high value on Social Skills in particular, and also Customer Relations Management with Personal disposition and presentation close behind as important secondary considerations. This is consistent with the findings of Lister et al. (2001: 373) that insufficient attention is paid to discrete and diplomatic interventions methods, especially when the majority of customers do not perceive that the more crude coercion and compulsion methods would have the desired effect on them anyway. This seems clearly reflected in their opinions that skill requirements are quite high, whilst current training provisions are inadequate, the issue of First Aid notwithstanding. Whilst training does need to deal with the more extreme aspects of the job, it is important to distinguish between the fear of a ‘worst case’ scenario / consequences and the risk of it actually happening. One of the difficulties with the viewpoints expressed by respondents however, is the definition of for example, ‘Reasonableness’ or ‘Fairness’. This combined with Page 60 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation acceptance of who in each case has the right to decide what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances, such as ‘how drunk is too drunk?’ This can be particularly problematic when the customer is under the influence of alcohol, for as one customer acknowledged, ‘The steward said I was too drunk, but I was of a different opinion’. Even assuming the järjestyksenvaloja is sufficiently aware of everything that has transpired, acting as a referee and getting involved in the issue risks losing their professional impartiality and in doing so become a target themselves. In most situations, the most a security steward might reasonably expect is to manage the means and manner by which the conflict is resolved in order to restore peace and calm as quickly as possible and prevent it spilling over to other customers. Despite these difficulties, the ability to give customers a feeling of fair and reasonable treatment is at the very heart of Customer Relations Management. This clearly requires considerable ‘Social Skills’ in order to achieve it, particularly when under situational or chemical (Alcohol) stressors. The other facilitators such as Presentation and Personal Disposition, including maturity, which may provide some margin for error, are basically a case of personal sales so that the customer likes and respects the järjestyksenvalvoja enough, to want to comply with them if they can. With these considerations in mind the second macro-theme of this study is focused primarily on the personal preferences, inclinations and habits of customers in the context of their general relations to the järjestyksenvalvoja and the job they perform. Perceptions & Relations Perceptions and Relations is the second of the three macro-themes and focuses on customer ‘Preferences and Inclinations’ in the first section and ‘Customer Page 61 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Relations’ in the second. The first section is primarily concerned with questions about venue frequenting habits and preferences, whilst the second section looks more at customer relations with security stewards, particularly in respect to impressions about operational requirements and motivations. The first section contains four questions dealing with Uniforms, Visiting Preferences, the level of Chit Chat with, and giving of Tips to järjestyksenvalvoja, before concluding with a general discussion. Preferences and Inclinations There are three questions in the questionnaire that touch directly upon the issues of preferences and inclinations, in particular a question about customer preferences for visiting or avoiding venues with certain types of security arrangements, such as those employing uniformed Security Stewards. This is complimented with questions about the desirability of uniforms, ‘Chit Chat’ and Tips that touch on respondents’ comfort levels with järjestyksenvalvoja. Uniforms however, are possibly a facilitator of professional status. This is closely associated with question 11 about visiting tendencies, and so provides a useful starting point for this next phase of the analysis. Main Results P R O F E S S I O N A L U N I F O RM S The first of these questions asked respondents whether they thought uniforms would make any difference to the professional image and respect for järjestyksenvalvoja.



Question 4: Professional Uniforms 60

Number of Responses

50

48

40 30

30 24

20 14 10

6

9 3

2 0

20

18

1

12

12

8 5

4

4

8

7

1 Strongly Disagree

Disagree

No Difference

Agree

Strongly Agree


Bar Staff & Owners

Figure 10: Attitudes toward järjestyksenvalvoja, by attribution

uniforms

Customers

Total

for

Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 118 responses were received. The response total’s had a Chi Squared result significance statistic of 100 percent, indicating that the results are significantly different from what might have been expected, based on equal casting of responses amongst the five options. The response ranged from 6 to 48 across all the options, the mode being ‘Agree’ with a variation ratio of 0.59, indicating a strong but largest (41%) minority. Factoring for positive and negative results provides a variation ration of 0.42 for the positive results with three times the response number of those that disagree about the positive influence of uniforms. V E N U E (V I S I T I N G ) P R E FE R E N CE S The second question required respondents to indicate their venue preferences in respect to the preparedness, appearance and presence of järjestyksenvalvoja.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Respondents were asked to indicate whether they are ‘Indifferent’, or inclined to ‘Visit’ or ‘Avoid’ a particular venue based on the given security arrangements.

Question 11: Venue Preferences 80 73 68

64

60

Rough Looking

Professional & Smart Looking

Uniformed

8 7

7

20

16 6

9

Visit

9 5 10 2 4 3

35

31

Indifferent

9

16 12

Avoid

1 1

1

5

18 14

Visit

Avoid

Openly Armed

3

16

Indifferent

4 3

0

11 10 10 8 3 3 3

32

31

22 15

Visit

7

18

Indifferent

65

10

16 19

Avoid

13

Visit

12

16

Indifferent

20

15

35

31

24

24

Avoid

30

43 32

Visit

40

45 37

Avoid

50

Indifferent

Number of Responses

70

None Present

Venue Security Arrangements Security Stewards

Bar Staff & Owners

Customers

Total

Figure 11: Preferences for venue according security arrangements stewards, by attribution

Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 412 responses were received. The response ranged from 3 to 73 across all the options, the mode being ‘Avoidance of Openly Armed’ järjestyksenvalvoja. The variation ratio was 0.82, indicating a broad spread of responses across all the options. Within each individual venue category the mode and variation ratios were: Openly Armed (Avoid 0.28); Rough (Indifferent 0.57); Smart Professional (Visit 0.34); Uniformed (Visit 0.38); None Present (Visit / Avoid 0.65). These ratios suggest particularly strong preferences in relation to Openly Armed, Smart Professional and Uniformed venue security, but much more division in respect to Rough Looking and None Present. For ‘Rough Looking’ the Page 64 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation ‘Indifferent’ vote approximately matches the ‘Visit’ preference, and in the case of ‘None Present’ this seems to be about equally balanced with the ‘Avoid’ vote as well. Only in the Rough Looking Category did the ‘Indifferent’ vote achieve mode position. Based on chart observation only, there appears to be a strong and relatively consistent correspondence between the different attribution groups. An alternative view of these results is the net value of the responses for ‘visit’ and ‘avoid’, whilst ignoring the indifferent responses.

Question 11: Net Value of Visitation Preferences by Venue Security Arrangements 80

65 55

NUmber of Responses

60 40

30

27 16

20

5

6

14

21

29 8

12 14 -1

0

0 -20 -40

Armed -9

Rough

Professional

Uniformed

None -7

-21 -30

-60 -60 -80 Venue Security Arrangements Security Stewards

Bar Staff & Owners

Customers

Total

Figure 12: ‘Net Value’ preferences for venue according security arrangements stewards, by attribution

These strong and clear preferences are consistent with the previous chart however, some potential attribution differences become discernable, for example, Customers and Bar Staff in respect to ‘Un-secured’ venues.



Question 11: Net Value of Visitation Preferences by Venue Security Arrangements 80

65 55

NUmber of Responses

60 40

27

27

19

20

35

33 16

8

7

0

0 -20

Armed

Rough

Professional

Uniformed

None -5

-23 -40

-32

-60 -60 -80 Venue Security Arrangements Male

Female

Total

Figure 13: ‘Net Value’ preferences for venue according security arrangements stewards, by gender

A similar divide is suggested between the genders, with females possibly being slightly more adverse to unsecured venues. C HI T C HA T The third question concerned customer relations in respect to respondents’ comfort levels with the presence of järjestyksenvalvoja, as reflected in their willingness to chat with them. Respondents were also asked what they chatted about. The question design however, instead of specifying for example, what they talked about the last time they had chatted with a Security Steward, left this part of the question a little too open, resulting in a mass of very similar, bland, and safe answers. For this reason no analysis of the subject results is presented. Page 66 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014


Yes or No by Attribution

Question 12: Chit Chat

14

Total

96 7

Customers

49

Bar Staff & Ow ners

5 28 2

Security Stew ards

19 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Num ber of Respondents Yes

No

Figure 14: Customers that have chatted with järjestyksenvalvoja, by attribution

Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 110 responses were received. The mode was ‘Yes’ with 96 responses and a variation ratio of 0.13, indicating an exceptionally high concentration of Yes (87%) responses, and consistent with the results from other related questions. S E RV I C E T I PS The fourth and final question in this section concerned with whether customer had ever given a (monetary) tip to a järjestyksenvalvoja. The amount, frequency and reasons for giving those tips were not investigated.



Question 14: Monetary Tips

15

Attributions

Total

94

8

Customers

50 No 6

Bar Staff & Owners

Yes 25

1

Security Stewards

19 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Number of Yes or No Responses

Figure 15: Customers that have given tips to järjestyksenvalvoja, by attribution

Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 109 responses were received. The mode was ‘Yes’ with 94 responses and a variation ratio of 0.14, indicating an exceptionally high concentration of responses, and consistent with other related question results. General Discussion Customer responses appear to be consistent with the opinions of the expert panel in the group interview who felt that uniforms were a generally good idea, but with some reservations perhaps as to the degree of benefit. The expert panel however, was quite specific that uniforms should only apply to the extent of the local venue and a unique dress code in each place. In this respect, uniforms accounted for about one third (20) of the total (59) count for Presentation and beaten to the mode position by ‘Smart’ with a total of 22. Although uniforms encompass the concept of ‘Smart and Professional looking’, the reverse cannot be said, so it Page 68 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation appears that just looking smart and good is the main underlying criteria, consistent with the views of the expert panel. The results for ‘Visiting Preferences’ are consistent with the response on uniforms and also the consensus on desirability of the presence of järjestyksenvalvoja expressed in question 6, but with strong exception taken to ‘Openly Armed’ järjestyksenvalvoja. On the surface it seems strange that respondents should be less keen on un-secured bars which, we might presume do not need järjestyksenvalvoja because, they generally attract less disorder to begin with. However, both these results may again be a reflection of the Haifa study findings by Mesch, (2000) in respect to fear of crime and consequence rather than any calculated risk. Within the limits of these venue security preferences responses to chatting with järjestyksenvalvoja and the giving of tips indicated a general feeling of ease in respect to the presence of järjestyksenvalvoja and contact with them. The nature of ‘Customer Relations’ with järjestyksenvalvoja therefore is likely to be strongly determined by this venue pre-selection process. It consistent with the findings of Skinner et al. (2005) in respect to ‘Place Theory’, that: ‘the level of security inside a venue tends to be inferred by customers from the level of security outside of a venue’. Once inside the venue, given the compliance facilitators reported and the studies by Homel et al. (2004) in which uniforms were of influence only in the more minor situations, one might expect the focus to shift to more subtle influencers, such as the operating policies, methods and manner that directly affect the customers feelings of comfort, sense of fair and respectful treatment, and hence their enjoyment of the venue.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Relations Relations is the subject of the second micro-theme which, looks at customer reactions to abuse of security stewards by other customers, their preferences in respect of the use of cloakrooms and perceptions of compulsory cloakroom policies, and the motivation of doormen for adopting certain methods when performing their duties. Relations in these respects depend on not only how the policies and procedures are implemented, but on the customers’ perception and understanding of their purpose (motivations) and practical necessity. The section includes six questions, first of which, was about ‘Abuse’ of security stewards by customers. The remaining questions are: ‘Help at Hand’ concerning respondents actual behaviour in respect to active support of järjestyksenvalvoja; the application of ‘Zero Tolerance’ policies, ‘Cloakroom Preferences’; the purpose of ‘Compulsory Cloakrooms’; the ‘Recruitment of Companions’ to get drunken customers home. Finally there is a general discussion of the results from this section. Main Results ABUSE ATTITUDES The first question asked respondents what their feeling would be in respect to violent abuse directed at järjestyksenvalvoja and no one went to their aid.



Question 10: Abuse Attitudes

Number of Respondents (Votes)

70 59

60 50

45

40 29

30 20

15

12 7

10

3 3

1 0 1 2

Amused

Indifferent

1

0 0 0 0

26 18

4

0 Delighted

Disturbed

Disgusted

Attitude Security Stewards

Bar Staff & Owners

Figure 16: Reactions towards järjestyksenvalvoja, by attribution

Customers

abuse

Total

of

Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 113 responded. The mode was ‘Disgusted’ with 62 votes. No one admitted to being delighted at such occurrences, giving a range 0 to 59 and a variation ratio of 0.48, which indicates that the mode was also the majority (52%) opinion. Not surprisingly perhaps järjestyksenvalvoja appear to have stronger sentiments in this respect, with a mode of 15 out of 21 responses selecting ‘disgusted’ and a variation ratio of 0.29. Other demographic groups were more evenly divided between these two degrees of sentiment.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation HELP AT HAND The second question was an ‘acid test’ concerned with whether customers had in any way, ever given help and assistance to a järjestyksenvalvoja who was suffering violent abuse from a disorderly customer.

Question 18: Help At Hand

66

Attributional Groups

Total

46

44

Customers

12 No

Bar Staff & Owners

Yes

15 19

7

Security Stewards

15 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Number of Yes or No Responses

Figure 17: Customers that have gone to the aid of a järjestyksenvalvoja, by attribution

Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 112 responses were received. The mode was ‘No’ with 66 responses and a variation ratio of 0.41. The largest part of this response appears to lay with customers, with a variation ratio of 0.22 and a Chi Squared result significance statistic of 100%. Bar staff and järjestyksenvalvoja however, both show a mode of ‘Yes’ with variance ratios of 0.44 and 0.32 respectively. Their Chi-squared statistics were only 51 and 91 percent respectively. Page 72 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation These results seem to strongly reflect work attribution relationships and sentiments for co-workers and fellow professionals. However, the question design did not specify under what capacity the assistance inquired about was given. It is therefore possible these results may be exaggerated / skewed by the reporting of work related actions. Z E RO T O LE RA N CE P O LI CI E S The third question concerned respondents’ perceptions of the motivations of doormen in respect to the application of a ‘Zero Tolerance’ policy. The options range from just being ‘Control Freaks’ to the practicalities of ‘Operational Efficacy’ in which, consistency rather than making exceptions makes the job more feasible. In between were options for being equally mean to customers, protecting their own jobs and being equally good to customers.

Question 17: Zero Tolerance Policy 70

Number of Responses

60 60 50 40

31 25

30 19

17

20 10 0

5

19

18 12

7

7

1 3 2 0 Control Freaks

0 Equally Bad

Job Security

Equally Good

Operational Efficacy

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option4

Option 5

0

2

2

0

Reasons for a Zero Tolerance Policy Security Stewards

Bar Staff & Owners

Customers

Total

Figure 18: Comprehension and attitudes towards ‘Zero Tolerance’ policies, by attribution


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 115 responses were received. The mode was ‘Equally Good’ (60) with a variation ratio of 0.48, indicating a majority (52%) response. Whilst some respondents made more than one option selection despite the question instructions, only the first answer was accepted, which may have accentuated the responses slightly for the more negative options one to three. It is interesting to see from this chart that only the järjestyksenvalvoja did not seem to have considered Option 5, concerning simple operational practicality as a primary reason. However, even the other groups seem to favour the more positive outlook of being equally good and fair to customers. C LO A KR O O M P RE FE R E N C E S The fourth question concerns customer preferences in respect to leaving their jackets in cloakrooms. It involved a free selection of options from a list arranged in pairs of Yes and No preference answers for each standard reason / category. ‘Yes’ answers referring to a preference not to leave their jackets in the cloakroom, and a ‘No’ answer meaning that they preferred to do so for the selected reasons.



Question 15: Cloakroom Preferences, by Attribution 57


60 50 40

37

33 26

30 18

20 10

37 24

17 14

19

15 16

8 7

6

1 20 3

15 17

13

11 35

5 6

5

24

6

8 10

0 Yes

No

Convenience

Yes

No

Trust & Safety

Yes

No

Cloakroom Fee

Yes

No

Security

Cloakroom Preferences Security Stewards

Bar Staff & Owners

Customers

Total

Figure 19: Customer perceptions and preferences in respect to the use of cloakrooms, by attribution

Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 234 selections were made. The totals’ variation ratio was 0.76, indicating a high dispersion of selections. The mode answer in each category except the last one of ‘Security’ was ‘No’, with values of 57 (Convenience purposes), 37 (Trust and Safety concerns) and 37 (Cloakroom Fee issues). Security was more of a split issue, with customers just recording a mode answer of ‘Yes’ with 13 selections. On the issue of cloakroom fees, it seems whilst most people are happy to pay them based on the understanding that this is how most järjestyksenvalvoja derive their wages, there is still a substantial group of people who would still prefer not to pay cloakroom fees at all. The total vote (34 percent of selections) for not paying cloakroom fees is broadly in line with the ‘Yes’ votes cast in respect to Convenience (37%) and Security (50%), which appear to be of concern to a substantial minority.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation The one contradiction seems to be the ‘Yes’ vote for Trust & Safety’, which seems to be almost unanimously a vote in favour of guarded Cloakrooms.

Question 15: Cloakroom Preferences, by Gender 57


60 50 40

30 30 20

27 19

16 9

6

3

0 Yes

No

Convenience

1

7

3

2 0 Yes

1 No

Trust & Safety

24

24

24 11

10

37

37

33

17 19 13

9 3

Yes

1 No

Cloakroom Fee

15 9

8

2 Yes

1 No

Security

Cloakroom Preferences Male

Female

Unstated

Total

Figure 20: Customer perceptions and preferences in respect to the use of cloakrooms, by gender

The female contingent in particular, seemed to be more concerned than men about ‘Trust & Safety’ if not ‘Security’ also, and appear more trusting of järjestyksenvalvoja in these respects. C O M P U L S O RY C LO A K RO O M P U R P O S E S The fifth question concerned respondents’ perceptions of the motivations of järjestyksenvalvoja in respect to the application of ‘Compulsory Cloakroom’ policies. The options range from just being ‘Customer Comfort’, to ‘Stealing’. In between were more practicality oriented options for premises and disorder security, business and monetary motivations.



Question 19: Compulsory Cloakrooms Purposes 70

63

Number of Responses

60 50 40

32

33

30 21

20 11 10

13 9

10

5 1

2

8 7

2

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

0 0 Option 5

Customer Comfort

Fire & Safety

Security

More Money

To Steal

0

0

0

1

Perceptions of Compulsory Cloakroom Purposess Security Stewards

Bar Staff & Owners

Customers

Total

Figure 21: Comprehension and attitudes towards compulsory cloakroom policies, by attribution

Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 109 responses were received. The mode was ‘Security’ (63) with a variation ratio of 0.42, indicating a majority response. Multiple-selections were again a minor hazard to the results for which, only the first answer was accepted. In comparison to the previous ‘Zero Tolerance’ policy results, the majority response this time seems to be in favour of more practical considerations rather than any particularly positive motives towards customers. On this issue there appears to be a greater understanding all round of the central issue behind the policy in support of its acceptance. C O M PA N I O N R E C R U I T M E N T The sixth and final question in this section concerned respondents’ perceptions of the motivations of doormen in respect to methods employed for dealing with customers, such as asking a drunken customer’s companions to take them home. Page 77 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation The options range from just being nasty, legal necessity or an excuse to eject the whole group, to being the best and safest way to get the customer home when taxis won’t take them and the only remaining option is to call the police. Whilst a handful of respondents made more than one option selection despite the question instructions, only the first answer was accepted.

Question 21: Companion Recruitment

Number of Responses

60

55

52

50 40 28

26

30 19

20

14 10

10

10 0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

2

1

0

3

0 Mean & Nasty

Legal Necessity

Group Ejection

Taxi or Police

Practical & Safest

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Option 5

Perceived Motivations Security Stewards

Bar Staff & Owners

Customers

Total

Figure 22: Customer perceptions of security steward motivations for asking companions to take drunken friends home, by attribution

Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 111 responses were received. The mode was ‘Legal Necessity’ (55) with a variation ratio of 0.50, indicating a high dispersion of selections, in this case almost equal with the selection of option 5, ‘Practical & Safest’. This graphic result seems to indicate the presence of a substantial negative perception of security steward motivations that may make it harder to obtain customers’ voluntary compliance even when it is in their own or their companion’s best interests. Page 78 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation General Discussion Actual behaviour patterns in respect to lending a helping hand appear to stand in contradiction of stated sentiments about abuse of järjestyksenvalvoja. However, it is not possible to determine from this data whether was due to lack of willingness, or simply because of lack of occasion or ability. Whilst the results do seem to bear out attribution theory in respect to the greater response rates of järjestyksenvalvoja and bar staff, this may be due to the question design and hence on-duty incidents, instead of the intended off-duty ones. The remaining question in respect to comprehension levels and perceptions of security steward motivations obtained more mixed results with weaker understandings or negative perceptions of the main motivations for ‘Zero Tolerance’ polices and ‘Companion Recruitment’ but a good understanding in respect to the security purpose of ‘Compulsory Cloakrooms’. For example, in respect to ‘Zero Tolerance’ policies, a more positive outlook on the purpose and motivations held sway over the more practical operational reasons for all the attribution groups. Whilst motives may possibly differ in terms of self-interest in respect to self-image (järjestyksenvalvoja) and fair treatment (customers), it does seem consistent with the results for ‘Compliance Facilitators’ in which, Customer Relations Management featured strongly, if someway behind the social skills that might be more closely associated with ‘Operational Efficacy’. Whilst there seems to be a generally positive outlook, these results do indicate some reservations, mixed feelings and areas of distrust. For example: Cloakroom Preferences there does appear to be a substantial minority who object to paying cloakroom fees; Convenience often conflicts with security and safety, which in turn conflicts with trust in järjestyksenvalvoja in respect to compulsory cloakrooms, even though there was a zero response for the ‘stealing’ motivation. Page 79 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Conflicting feelings such as these may at times be a source of irritation and friction. This highlights the need for flexibility and the ability to provide a limited set of ‘understandable’ and acceptable options from which, customers can make their own ‘rational’ choice. However, ‘rational choice’ depends on the underlying personal feelings, inclinations and preferences that constitute the personal templates as described by Brantingham et al. (1993) in Crime Pattern Theory. Compliance facilitators must also be tempered by the potentially more limited information processing capacity of customers under the influence of alcohol or other stressors. One of the most powerful indicators of these customer reaction and choice templates, rational or otherwise, is previous experience with specific venues, situations and individuals. To gain an insight into these, the third and final macrotheme deals with actual incidents and behaviours that have occurred. Actual Behaviours The issue of actual behaviour was divided into two critical questions relating to what facilitated compliance when they felt tempted to resist (Question 20), and what facilitated or triggered their resistance (Question 22) when all else failed. However, any study of actual behaviors must be made in the light of what is uppermost in the minds of the customers at the time of the incident. To this end, in addition to the forgoing questions about perceptions, preferences and inclinations (feelings), it is important to understand what respondents thought would be the likely consequences of disorderly and resistant behaviour. The first of the3 three questions in this third macro-theme therefore, is question 16, which investigates what consequences if any, are likely to be ‘first and foremost’ in customers’ minds when such conflicts do occur.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Main Results C O N S E Q U E N CE S I N M I N D A key determinant of compliance facilitation, particularly when under stress or the influence of alcohol or other intoxicating substances is the clear and immediate threat or risk of undesirable consequences. To get an insight into this, respondents were asked to very briefly describe (Free Text) anything that they thought might be the consequence of ‘resisting’ a järjestyksenvalvoja trying to expel or arrest them. The vast majority of responses received were brief one option replies. The number of times keywords occurred was counted up, factored for synonyms and then the keywords grouped into broadly representative categories. For example, ‘Authority Contact’ included all those answers that acknowledged possible police or other authority involvement, the kind of thing that might lead to a police record, but did not specifically legal prosecution that would lead to an actual criminal record and consequences. Generic Hassle was a sundry category for all non-specific responses, such as ‘Devilish Problems’.



Question 16: Consequences in Mind 35 29 30 23

Content Count

25 20

17

16

14

15

13

12 11

11 10 6

5

4

5

10

7 5

5 2

3

3

2

2 0

1

0

11 0 0

1

Bar Sanctions

Legal Prosecution

Generic Hassle

Violence

Authority Contact

Verbal Dispute

Nothing

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Possible Consequences Security Stewards

Bar Staff

Customers

Total Responses

Figure 23: Perceived consequences of resistance to järjestyksenvalvoja, listed in rank order by attribution

Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 102 keyword responses were received. The range is from 1 to 29 with the mode being ‘Bar Sanctions’ (29) and a variation ratio of 0.72, which indicates that the mode is the largest minority value. The median is 16 with a lower quartile of 3 and an upper quartile of 23, which indicates a relatively high concentration of responses in the first two ranked categories of: Bar Sanctions (1), Legal Prosecution (2). The Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient was also calculated on the Rank orders to test for the consistency of relation between the attribution sub-groups with

the

following

results:

Järjestyksenvalvoja

vs.

Bar

Staff

(0.83);

Järjestyksenvalvoja vs. Customers (0.66); and Bar Staff vs. Customers (0.79). These results are large positive results, nearer to the 1.0 value for a perfect Page 82 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation correlation than a 0 for no correlation at all. The järjestyksenvalvoja vs. customers correlation is however the weakest, indicating a possible but slight difference of opinion or focus. Some possible differences can be traced to Violence and Authority Contact for which, Customers seem to have a higher expectation. Järjestyksenvalvoja appear to have greater expectations for Legal Prosecution and generic hassle, where as Bar Staff seem to have a stronger focus on Bar Sanctions. Legal Prosecution, whilst second in the total Content Count only to Bar Sanctions, has a variation ratio of 0.77, which means that it is not the foremost consequence on the minds of the vast majority of respondents. C O M P LI A N C E F A CI LI T A T I O N S Question 20 was concerned about actual situations in which respondents have felt tempted to resist a security steward, but have subsequently relented or thought better of it in favour of voluntary compliance. The first part of the question asked respondents to confirm if they have had this experience, and the second part was a free text box to briefly describe what it was that influenced them to comply voluntarily.



Question 20: Actual Temptation & Compliance Facilitations 83

Attributions

Total

28 44

Customers

No

11

Yes 24

Bar Staff & Ow ners

9 15

Security Stew ards

8 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Num ber of Responses

Figure 24: Actual (reported) Temptation and Voluntary Compliance Facilitations, by attribution

Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 111 responses were received. The mode was ‘No’ with 83 responses with a variation ratio of 0.25, indicating that the vast majority (75 percent) of respondents, have never been in a situation where they felt tempted to resist. The largest part of this response appears to lay with customers, with a slightly more concentrated variation ratio of 0.20. The higher variation ratios of Bar Staff (0.27) and järjestyksenvalvoja (0.35) respectively imply that järjestyksenvalvoja in particular are more likely to react and feel tempted than other attribution groups. This result runs contrary to their often strongly expressed opinions and attitudes that Järjestyksenvalvoja should be obeyed just as per the police.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Possible explanations for this may lay in their work experience and personal confidence leading to reduced tolerance for the adverse professional judgments of other fellow professionals. However, these inferences must be tempered by the Chi-squared result significance statistic of only 85 percent. The free text part of the question again involved some coding, counting and factoring of keywords and themes. For example, Social Facilitation included: ‘Frustration’, which was a factor based on interpretation of the answers rather than any specific keywords. Other categories, such as ‘Social Skill’, included Persuasiveness and Manner, whilst Customer Relations Management included ‘Reasonableness’, ‘Fairness’ and ‘Flexibility’. Many of the respondents however did not answer the actual question, but instead gave the reasons why they were tempted in the first place, such as the lack of reasonableness. To cater for this extra information, a further coding for positive and negative influences was done.



Question 20: Actual Compliance Facilitation Influencers 20

18

NUmber of Responses

18

17

16 14 12

10

9

10

9

9

8

9 8

8

9 6

6

5

4 2

0

2

1

0

2

0

0 Social Skills


Social Facilitation

Coercion


Compulsion

1

2

3

3

5

6

Compliance Faciltation Factors Positives

Negatives

Totals

Figure 25: Actual temptation and compliance facilitations, by positive and negative influencers plus totals in rank order

Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 61 keyword responses were counted. The range is from 2 to 18, the mode ‘Social Skills’ (18) and a variation ratio of 0.70, which indicates that the mode is the largest minority value. The median is 9 with a lower quartile of 6 and an upper quartile of 17. These figures indicate a relative high concentration of responses in the first two ranked categories of: Social Skills (1) and Customer Relations Management (2). The Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient for the positive and negative factors was -0.18, indicating a very low correlation, but in the inverse order. As might have been expected, this seems to reflect that the Social Skills and Customer Relations Management factors appear to swing both ways, whereas Social Facilitation and Coercion were purely negative influencers leading to temptation. Page 86 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation The one potential anomaly is that of ‘Personal Disposition’, which featured quite highly in the results of question 13, for expected voluntary compliance facilitators. This data suggests that although the personal disposition of the security steward might save the day, it played little part in the causation of temptation for most respondents. R E S I S T A N CE F A CI LI T A T I O N S Question 22, the final question in the questionnaire, concerned actual situations in which respondents have resisted a järjestyksenvalvoja. The first part of the question asked respondents to confirm if they have had this experience, and the second part was a free text box to briefly describe what it was that influenced them to resist.

Question 22: Actual Resistance Facilitations

93

Attributions

Total

16

49

Customers

5 No

27

Bar Staff & Owners

Yes

6

17

Security Stewards

5 0

20

40

60

80

Number of Responses

Figure 26: Actual incidents of resistance, by attribution


100

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 109 responses were received. The mode was ‘No’ with 93 responses and a variation ratio of 0.15, indicating that the vast majority (85%) of respondents have never resisted a security steward. The largest part of this response again appears to lay with customers, with a more concentrated variation ratio of 0.09 compared to 0.18 and 0.23 for Bar Staff and järjestyksenvalvoja respectively. This result is consistent with the results for question 20 concerning temptations and subsequent voluntary compliance. The results for the second free text part of the question were coded and grouped into categories as before. The data obtained was as might be expected, of a purely negative nature.

Question 22: Resistance Facilitations' Inluencers

10 10 8 8

7

Totals

6 6 4 2 2

1

Coercion

Social Facilitation

Social Skills

Compulsion


0


Number of Responses

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

Resistance Facilitation Influencers

Figure 27: Actual resistance facilitators, by totals in rank order


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Out of 118 questionnaire returns, 34 keyword responses were counted. The range is from 1 to 10, the mode ‘Customer Relationship Management’ (10) and a variation ratio of 0.71, which indicates that the mode is the largest minority value. The median is 6.5 with a lower quartile of 2 and an upper quartile of 8. These figures indicate a relative high spread of responses in the first four ranked categories and then a sudden drop off as is evident from the chart. In comparison to the results from question 20, the rank orders appear to vary slightly. Personal Disposition is again notable for the lack of role it appears to play as a negative facilitator in comparison to its more positive influences.

Compliance Comparisons: Negative Compliance Facilitations (Temptations) vs. Resistance Facilitations

Number of Responses

12 10

10 9

9 8

8

8

8 6

7 6

4 2 2

2 1

0 Social Skills

Coercion

1

2


Social Facilitation

Compulsion


3

4

5

6

Compliance & Resistance Factors Temptations

Resistance

Figure 28: Actual ‘resistance temptation’ facilitators compared to resistance facilitators, by totals in rank order


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation The Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient for Temptation and Resistance Facilitators was 0.65, though not perfect indicates a strong ‘positive’ correlation and hence consistency between the two sets of results.

Compliance Comparisons: Positive Compliance Facilitations vs. Resistance Facilitators

Number of Responses

12 10

10 9 10

7

8

8 6

5

6

4 2

2

0

0

0

1

Social Skills


Social Facilitation

Coercion


1

2

3

4

5

0 Compulsion 6

Compliance & Resistance Factors Compliance Facilitators

Resistance

Figure 29: Actual compliance (positive) facilitators compared to actual resistance facilitators, by totals in rank order

The Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient for the positive compliance facilitators compared to resistance facilitators was 0.08, indicating almost no correlation at all. However, this would be the expected result for these two sets of data in which some factors are common but have opposite effects and others are unique to one or the other, such as for Resistance (Social Facilitation, Coercion & Compulsion) and Compliance (Personal Disposition).


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation General Discussion In general, it seems most customers have never even considered or been tempted to resist the requests of a security steward. The stated reasons for eventual voluntary compliance by those that have felt tempted were in-line with the expected compliance facilitators and other stated attitudes and inclinations. The facilitators that led to temptation in the first place were also largely in line with those in which, actual resistance did take place. The general pattern is that the higher level skills could swing the outcome both ways, whilst coercive and compulsion skills were more associated with negative outcomes. Personal disposition provides a buffer before relations enter into crisis of potentially violent proportions and presentation seems to be even further left behind at the door, again consistent with the findings of Homel et al. (2004), in respect to Place Theory. Although resistance, particularly violence may be the reason for employing coercive and compulsion methods, these results are also consistent with the notion that most violence is an impulse based reaction to the use of coercion and compulsion which may often be counter-productive. Whilst more extreme tactics are no doubt necessary on occasion, this does reinforce the need for a very discriminating and judicious use of suitable coercion and compulsion methods in a small minority of cases only, when there is clearly no alternative. In such situations, it is unlikely that possible consequences will be upper most in the minds of most customers, legal or otherwise. This lack of concern was amply demonstrated by the experience of one of the expert panel members who in the group interview reported being recently attacked and badly mauled (blood drawn) by a much smaller middle-aged female customer who did not want to leave when the bar was closing. Clearly size, power, fighting skills and consequences were not an obstacle in this case, and Page 91 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation neither does the evidence in this study lend much support for CCTV and other social facilitators as deterrents of violent disorder. Legal consequences came second only in the rankings, after Bar Sanctions, and were still a minority consideration (Variation Ratio 0.77), even for järjestyksenvalvoja who were the greatest proponents of it. Bar Sanctions only apply to the specific venue, so given the high concentration of available alternative venues such as those in this study, transgressors may simply move onto the next bar with minimal effect on their freedom of movement, social life and routine activities. After a short while they may even be able to return to the venue, particularly if the järjestyksenvalvoja have changed venue or shift. In the ‘worst case scenario’ the järjestyksenvalvoja themselves may be targeted at random, ‘shot by association’ for the sake of revenge. Apart from general hassles, this brings into question the effectiveness of the more common ‘In-house’ administered consequences, which may simply ‘Displace’ the problem to other venues. However, it is also likely that the police and legal system would be overwhelmed if every little transgression was prosecuted, so ‘social justice and deterrent’ systems will probably always play a major role. The issue is how to deal with the less desirable varieties, such as quiet beatings outside the back kitchen door. One possible solution is for the authorities or Industry Associations to provide legal rules or clear guidelines for what kind and level of incident ‘must’ be referred to the authorities for prosecution. This should help ease the pressure on the judgment of järjestyksenvalvoja and Bar Staff, hence reducing any internal political and business conflicts. This may also have some effect in depersonalizing conflicts and consequences so that venue staff cannot be so easily blamed and targeted afterwards by customers for their professional decisions. Page 92 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation The alternative is to leave the decision with each local venue, as prosecution is normally not possible anyway unless someone is willing to press charges. The difficulty with this last alternative is that it requires a good understanding, working relationships and willingness of the bar staff and owners to legally prosecute offenders in support of their järjestyksenvalvoja. The support might also entail cooperation with other venues to prevent the displacement effect. However, it will still all be to no avail if the customers themselves are not sufficiently mindful of these consequences and their certainty. To this end bar staff and owners would need to advertise strict prosecution policies and be willing to carry them out consistently so that a reputation is established. The police must also be willing to support their local private professionals to avoid undermining what authority they do appear to have with customers. Without the private security professionals, it is unlikely the Finnish police could cope with the ensuing work load. Given the comments / complaints of arising in the group interview about police undermining their position after arresting a disorderly customer, the attitudes and conduct of the police force may warrant further study in this respect.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Summary and Conclusions In conclusion, this dissertation studied the profession of security stewards in Finland known as ‘järjestyksenvalvoja’, and specifically those trained, registered and working as security (door) supervisors in pubs and taverns locally, known as ‘portsari’. The study was undertaken from the point of view of the customers’ attitudes and perceptions in order to establish which roles, methods and resources are most commonly acceptable to customers in order to facilitate voluntary compliance with security stewards as much as possible. These were studied in relation to Place Theory in particular and other criminology theories such as Rational Choice, Routine Activity, Life Style, and Risk theories. The research methodology involved a group interview with a panel of professional experts and a questionnaire survey distributed to actual customers at venues selected by convenience. To monitor and benchmark the attribution (work experience) nature of the responses, responses from bar staff and qualified security stewards were also recorded. The survey questionnaire was broadly divided into three main themes, namely: Attitudes; Preferences and Relations; and Actual Behaviours, including the ‘Expected Consequences’ of disorder as indicated by customers. Whilst the response level from security stewards and bar staff was more than adequate to provide the benchmarking samples, it meant that despite some of the quite pronounced results, the overall level of customer data was too low to analyse more minor potential patterns or make any statistically valid inferences to the wider population. Instead, the analysis of the results concentrated on the use of descriptive statistics for the more major and clearly significant results based on chart observations. Page 94 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation The responses in each section were broadly consistent in their agreement that the presence of ‘Private Security Professionals’, whether uniformed or not, was desirable for promoting and maintaining public order, in which respect the results support the capable guardians aspect of ‘Routine Activity’ theory. However, the sample showed clear signs of dissent, in that järjestyksenvalvoja do not necessarily have to be obeyed, though qualified järjestyksenvalvoja themselves, had a much higher level of expectation of obedience requirements. The generally expected professional roles included the basic roles of acting as a door and cloakroom attendants, but also favoured the more positive and professional outlooks in respect to Conflict and Customer Relations Management rather than merely violent disorder ‘trouble shooters’ or extra bar staff. Commensurate with their responsibilities for keeping order, customers largely acknowledged their rightful need for basic resources such as wrestling methods, hand-cuffs and pepper sprays, however the use of sticks was most unpopular, except with security stewards themselves. The level of support for sticks was almost matched by that for Tasers (electric cattle prods), perhaps reflecting personal interests and personal risk perceptions of respondents according to experience and threat exposure levels as predicted by Risk and Crime Pattern ‘personal template’ theories. However, whilst venues with smart professional looking or uniformed staff received a high vote of confidence consistent with ‘Place Theory’ expectations and previous studies, venues with openly armed security stewards were likely to be avoided by almost everyone. Venues with rough looking security staff or none at all also polled a much lower visit vote, but along with the highest rates of claimed indifference, leaving reservations about the extent of the validity of Place theory. Within the limits of those venues that customers chose to visit, they do Page 95 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation seem to be relatively comfortable with the presence of security stewards, as evidenced by the high rates of tips given and chit-chatting with security stewards reported. In order to facilitate voluntary customer compliance, a high level of skill in respect to social skills (e.g. persuasiveness and manner) and customer relations management (e.g. fairness, reasonability and flexibility) is expected. In accordance with these views, most agreed that the current training programme of a week long is inadequate. The terms ‘reasonable’ and ‘fair’ are inherent to the concept of ‘Customer Relations Management’, however, what respondents meant in each case, or who customers thought had the authority and right to determine these in each case remains to be clarified before any relevant training can be developed. These issues seem to be a matter of debate, hence the prevailing importance of Social Skills such as ‘persuasiveness’ and option ‘flexibility’ in order to facilitate a ‘Rational Choice’ by the ‘free will’ of customers that is also acceptable to the järjestyksenvalvoja and their employer. These difficulties are exacerbated when dealing with intoxicated customers who are reacting more from immediate feelings, be it threat stress or frustration, than any ‘sober’ rational choice, as generally presumed by early Rational Choice and Free Will Theories. The emphasis on social skills to facilitate ‘rational choices’ also reflects the notion that järjestyksenvalvoja do not necessarily have to be obeyed and relates directly back to their professional status and level of authority. In this respect, some järjestyksenvalvoja have also complained about the nature of police intervention on occasion when called to an incident, which in their perception resulted in the undermining of their professional authority and credibility. This suggests further research is required into the attitudes of police officers towards security stewards


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation and any support they can give them to help increase their professional status and authority, for what is already a difficult and high risk job. By contrast, very few respondents indeed acknowledge the potential influence of more coercive (e.g. tactical positioning, witnesses and CCTV) and compulsion (Size, Strength and Intimidation) methods or even social facilitation on their voluntary compliance. Despite this, important secondary compliance facilitators were personal disposition (cheerful, sociable and a ‘nice’ person) and physical (appearance) presentation, perhaps reflecting interpretive distinctions voluntary and coerced voluntary compliance. Whilst uniforms were mostly considered to aid the professional image and status, they are secondary to simply looking smart and professional and were in large measure limited in influence to the point of entry at the door. Once inside more operational issues, methods and tactics, including social skills and customer relations management, become more important. In regards to the operational relations with customers, the results were also generally quite positive, though with some mixed responses in respect to lack of comprehension or negative (i.e. motivation) perceptions. In particular the payment of cloakroom fees and the recruitment of companions to take home ‘drunken’ customers in their group were potential sources of irritation and friction. Operating methods and tactics are another area requiring further research to determine not only what might work, but what is also acceptable to customers given their prevailing attitudes, perceptions and levels of comprehension. The reports of actual behaviours and incidents seemed to be largely consistent with the results from respondents stated opinions and perceptions. Those who had felt tempted to resist indicated that social skills and customer relations Page 97 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation management were instrumental in their eventual voluntary compliance. However, as evidenced by the reports about incidents of resistance, these facilitators ‘swing both ways’. In contrast, the supportive facilitator of personal disposition played little or no role at all in provoking any of the incidents of resistance as they were reported. The more coercive and compulsion based methods were however almost entirely associated with incidents of resistance, though in this respect they may also have been as much a consequence of that resistance. The question of potential consequences revealed that most customers do not think in terms of legal consequences, but rather in terms of informal punishments (social justices systems) if any, such as bar bans and general hassle if not actual violence. Given the reactive and impulsive nature of most of the violence and disorder reported, displacement to other venues seems likely unless more formal proceedings are taken, such as legal prosecution. Alternatively, to limit the effect of disorderly customers’ ‘routine activities’ or ‘life styles’, organized cooperation between venues to prevent the displacement effect. Whether this is all a matter for independent action or more formal policies and guidelines from the police and other authorities is a matter for further study. The counter consideration to these findings is the extra burden in time and expense this imposes on businesses and recruits in what is an already low paid job with high personal risk, unsociable hours, poor career development prospects and hence often staffed by part-time workers for extra pocket money. This is clearly a challenge to the recruitment of suitably skilled, experienced and committed professionals that ought to be a major concern for the police authorities, whom otherwise would likely be inundated with work if it were not for the supporting role

of

security


stewards.

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Appendices Appendix A: Questions and Results Tables 1. Have you ever worked as a security steward (bouncer), a hiring manager or member of staff of an establishment that employs a security steward (bouncer)? (You may mark more than one box) Security steward

Bar Staff / Waiter

Restaurant Manager or Owner

Results: Attributions Security Stewards Bar Staff & Owners Customers (Remainder of responses assumed to be non-attributed customers) Total


Total Returns 34 24 60 118

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation 2. In your view, to what extent do you agree that Security Stewards need considerable professional skill in order to perform their job satisfactorily? Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Not sure

Agree

Strongly Agree

Results: Attributions Security Stewards Bar Staff & Owners Customers Total Gender Male Female Unstated Total Age Group 18 - 29 30 - 39 Over 40 Unstated Total

Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0

Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0 Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0 0

Disagree 0 6 3 9

Disagree 3 5 1 9 Disagree 6 2 0 1 9

No Difference 0 1 6 7

No Difference 4 2 1 7 No Difference 3 3 1 0 7

Agree 12 17 33 62

Agree 26 32 4 62 Agree 33 11 12 6 62

Strongly Agree 12 10 16 38

Total Responses 24 34 58 116



Strongly Agree 11 10 13 4 38

Total Responses 53 26 26 11 116


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation 3. How do you see security steward (bouncer) in comparison to police officers in respect to the duties they are required to perform? (Please select only one option that best represents your view) Police by another name (PA)

Subsidiary & supplementary police (PS) Part-Time Peace Keepers (PK) Thugs & Bullies (TB)

Private Security Professionals (PP) Hired Henchmen / Private Army (HH) Other, please state: Results: Attributions

PA

PS

PP

PK

HH

TB

0 2 2 4

1 3 0 4

21 23 39 83

1 4 12 17

0 0 2 2

0 1 3 4

Security Stewards Bar Staff & Owners Customers Total Gender

PA

PS

PP

PK

HH

TB

Male Female Unstated Total

1 2 1 4

2 2 0 4

36 42 5 83

6 8 3 17

1 0 1 2

2 2 0 4

Age Group 18 - 29 30 - 39 Over 40 Unstated Total

PA

PS

PP

PK

HH

TB

1 2 1 0 4

2 2 0 0 4

40 18 18 7 83

7 1 7 2 17

1 0 0 1 2

1 3 0 0 4

Total Responses 23 33 58 114 Total Responses 48 56 10 114 Total Responses 52 26 26 10 114


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation 4. To what extent do you agree that a common and officially recognised uniform would improve the professional image and respect for security steward (bouncer)? Strongly Disagree

Disagree

No difference

Agree

Strongly Agree




Disagree 1 4 9 14




Agree

Agree 23 20 5 48 Agree 22 8 13 5 48

12 12 24 48


Strongly Agree 7 12 1 20 Strongly Agree 9 7 3 1 20



MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation 5. Which of the following do you consider to be the requisite roles of a security steward (bouncer)? (You may select one or more options) Cloakroom Attendant (CA)

Door Attendant (DA) Health, Fire & Safety Supervision (FS) Violent Disorder Trouble Shooter (TS) House Rules Enforcer (e.g. smoking rules) (HR) Bar Staff Helper / Glass Collector (GC) Information & Entertainments Officer (IEO) Other, please state:

Property Security / Caretaker (PS) Conflict Management (CM) Law Enforcement (LE) Extra Bar Staff (BS) Customer Relations Management (CRM)

Results: Attribution s

DA

C A

F S

P S

T S

C M

H R

L E

G C

B S

IE O

CR M

Security Stewards Bar Staff & Owners Customers Total

19

18

13

4

0

18

16

3

0

2

1

17

Total Response s 111

31

26

14

2

0

23

21

4

2

0

2

15

140

51 10 1

38 82

28 55

3 9

5 5

48 89

34 71

10 17

6 8

4 6

0 3

18 50

245 496

Gender

DA

CA

FS

PS

TS

CM

HR

LE

GC

BS

IEO

CRM


43 49 9 101

35 40 7 82

22 27 6 55

5 3 1 9

3 1 1 5

42 37 10 89

29 37 5 71

4 10 3 17

5 2 1 8

2 3 1 6

2 1 0 3

24 22 4 50

Age Group

DA

C A

F S

P S

T S

C M

H R

L E

G C

B S

IE O

CR M

18 - 29 30 - 39 Over 40 Unstated Total

49 25 16 11 10 1

40 17 16 9 82

17 14 18 6 55

5 1 2 1 9

2 1 1 1 5

45 14 19 11 89

36 14 15 6 71

8 6 0 3 17

5 0 2 1 8

3 0 1 2 6

0 1 2 0 3

20 11 13 6 50


Total Responses 216 232 48 496 Total Response s 230 104 105 57 496

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation 6. To what extent do you agree that the presence of security steward (bouncer) in public bars and restaurants makes going into town a safer and more relaxed experience? Strongly Disagree

Disagree

No difference

Agree

Strongly Agree




Disagree 1 3 2 6




Agree

Agree 25 21 5 51 Agree 24 9 12 6 51

11 10 30 51


Strongly Agree 13 18 3 34 Strongly Agree 15 7 9 3 34



MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation 7. A security steward (bouncer) usually receives 3 days classroom training on the legal aspects of the job, and a further 2 days practical training in the use of force if necessary. Currently this does not include or depend on 1st aid training. Do you agree that security stewards receive adequate training for the performance of their job? Strongly Disagree

Disagree

No difference

Agree

Strongly Agree



Disagree 14 22 35 71


Disagree

Strongly Disagree 7 7 4 0 18

Disagree

28 37 6 71

35 14 17 5 71


Agree 6 5 10 21


Agree

No Difference 2 1 1 1 5

Agree

11 7 3 21

9 3 4 5 21








MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation 8. In your opinion, should requests and instructions from a security steward (bouncer) be respected and obeyed equally as much as those from a police officer? Strongly Disagree

Disagree

No difference

Agree

Strongly Agree



Disagree 0 7 15 22


Disagree

Strongly Disagree 1 3 1 0 5

Disagree

9 9 4 22

10 4 4 4 22


Agree 17 16 27 60


Agree

No Difference 4 1 4 1 10

Agree

28 28 4 60

30 11 14 5 60








MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation 9. Which of the following resources do you think should be legally available to Security steward (bouncer) if necessary for the performance of their duties? (You may select more than one option) None. They should have no rights or resources to use force (No) Wrestling techniques Open Hand (Palm) Slaps (OH) Punches & Kicks (PK) (WT) Hand Cuffs (HC) Ankle Cuffs (AC) Straight Jackets (SJ) Telescopic Baton Baton (NS) Long Stick (1-2m long) (TB) (LS) Colour Die Spray Pepper Spray (PS) Tear Gas (Spray) (TG) (CS) Taser (electric stick) Stun Gun (Fires wired electrodes) Water Cannon (WC) (TP) (SG) Hand Gun - Pistol Machine Gun / Sniper Rifle (MG) Tank (Tk) (HG) Other, Please specify:

Results: Resources Group Code None Body Force

Restraints

Sticks

Sprays Shock Tools Firearms Totals

No WT OH PK HC AC SJ TB NS LS CS PS TG TP SG WC HG MG TK

Attributions Security Bar Customers Stewards Staff 2 2 7 13 21 39 3 1 3 1 0 2 18 20 26 2 2 2 1 0 2 6 5 3 5 6 6 2 0 0 6 5 6 14 17 24 8 9 13 5 4 9 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 88 94 143

Male 4 30 6 1 32 2 1 7 9 1 8 27 13 5 2 0 0 0 0 148

Gender Female Unstated 5 37 0 1 29 3 1 5 7 1 7 24 15 11 0 1 0 0 1 148


2 6 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 0 2 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 29

Totals

11 73 7 3 64 6 3 14 17 2 17 55 30 18 3 1 0 0 1 325

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation 10. If a security steward (bouncer) was suffering violent abuse from a disorderly customer, and nobody went to help them, how would you feel about that? Would you be… Delighted

Amused

Indifferent

Disturbed

Disgusted

Results: Attributions

Delighte d

Amuse d

Indifferen t

Disturbe d

Disguste d

0 0

1 3

1 0

4 12

15 18

Total Response s 21 33

0 0

3 7

1 2

29 45

26 59

59 113 Total Responses 46 56 11 113

Security Stewards Bar Staff & Owners Customers Total Gender

Delighted

Amused

Indifferent

Disturbed

Disgusted


0 0 0 0

4 2 1 7

0 1 1 2

19 21 5 45

23 32 4 59

Delighted

Amused

Indifferent

Disturbed

Disgusted

0 0 0 0 0

1 5 0 1 7

1 0 0 1 2

25 8 9 3 45

25 12 15 7 59




MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation 11. If given a choice of similar places, but with different security steward (bouncer), which of the following places would you prefer to visit or avoid? The places where security steward (bouncer) are: Big & rough looking Openly armed (E.g. sticks & sprays) Small but professional looking Uniformed security steward (bouncer) No security steward present at all

Avoid Avoid Avoid Avoid Avoid

Visit Visit Visit Visit Visit

Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent

Results: Attribution s Security Stewards Bar Staff & Owners Customers

A

I

V

A

I

V

A

I

V

A

I

V

A

I

V

Totals

1 2 2 4 3 7 7 3

6

3

3

10

8

1

5

15

2

5

14

7

8

6

84

5

3

3

11

19

1

9

22

4

10

18

16

7

9

129

4

7

10

24

16

1

18

31

3

16

32

12

16

20

199

1 5

1 3

16

45

43

3

32

68

9

31

64

35

31

35

412

Gender

A

I

V

A

I

V

A

I

V

A

I

V

A

I

V

Male

2 8 3 8 7 7 3

9

5

6

25

14

1

15

28

7

14

23

12

12

19

Total s 176

6

6

7

18

26

2

14

35

2

12

37

21

13

16

203

0 1 5

2 1 3

3 16

2 45

3 43

0 3

3 32

5 68

0 9

5 31

4 64

2 35

6 31

0 35

33 412

Age Group

A

I

V

A

I

V

A

I

V

A

I

V

A

I

V

18 - 29

3 4 1 4 1 8 7 7 3

7

8

5

21

25

1

15

35

4

15

32

19

13

17

Total s 202

6

2

3

12

8

1

7

15

4

6

13

6

6

10

91

1

0

5

9

6

1

6

12

1

4

15

7

6

7

79

1 1 5

3 1 3

3 16

3 45

4 43

0 3

4 32

6 68

0 9

6 31

4 64

3 35

6 31

1 35

40 412

Total

Female Unstated Total

30 - 39 Over 40 Unstated Total




MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation 12. Have you ever stayed to chat with a security steward (bouncer)? If you have done, what was the main subject you talked about? No

Yes - Subject Heading / Title


Yes

No

19 28 49 96

2 5 7 14

Gender

Yes

No


39 48 9 96

7 5 2 14

Yes

No

46 20 19 11 96

7 3 3 1 14


Age Group 18 - 29 30 - 39 Over 40 Unstated Total Categorised Subject Headings / Titles Rank Category 1 Small Talk 2 Mood & Activity 3 Security & Professional 4 Special Interest Subjects 5 Custom Concerns 6 Arguing & Fighting 6 Outsiders (Immigrants & Gypsies) Total 7


Content Count 55 22 9 6 5 3 3 103

13. What factors (i.e. attributes, characteristics, conduct or actions) would make you feel more inclined to voluntarily comply with requests by a security steward (bouncer)? Page 111 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation For example: big, strong, rough looking, armed, threatening, intimidating, aggressive, more than one of them, mature (e.g. over 18, 21 or 30?), smart uniform, polite, amiable, cheerful, persuasive, respectful, fair & reasonable, good looking, deep voice, helpful, tactical positioning, psychological pressure by security camera, witness exposure or peer pressure, etc. Please list key words only in this space provided.

Results: Compliance Facilitation Influencers / Factors Rank Category 1 Social Skills 2 Customer Relations Mgt 3 Personal Disposition 4 Presentation 5 Compulsion Resources 6 Professional Attributes 7 Coercive Conduct 8 Social Facilitation 9 Coercive Resources 9 Total

Content Count 161 74 69 59 32 22 20 6 2 445

Social Skills (161): Polite (63); Persuasive (57); Respectful (34); Request (3); Talk (2); Sundries (2). Customer Relations Mgt. (74): Fair (42); Helpful (27); Reasonable (2); Sundries (3). Personal Disposition (69): Friendly (49); Cheerful (14); Nice Guy (2); Sundries (4). Presentation (59): Smart (22); Uniform (20); Good Looking (9); Tough Looking (6); Sundries (2). Compulsion Resources (32): Big (19); Muscular (9); Armed (4). Professional Attributes (22): Maturity 15 (>30 yrs = 7 and >21 yrs = 4); Professionalism (5); Experienced (2). Coercive Conduct (20): Tactical Positioning (4); Voice (3); Intimidating (3); Assertive (3); Authoritative (2); Aggressive (2)’; Sundries (3). Social Facilitation (6): Witnesses (3); Peer Pressure (2); Own Reasoning (1). Coercive Resources (2): Security Cameras (2).



14. Have you ever given a service tip to a security steward (bouncer)? No

Yes


Yes

No

19 25 50 94

1 6 8 15

Gender

Yes

No


42 45 7 94

2 9 4 15

Yes

No

44 21 21 8 94

8 3 1 3 15





MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation 15. When visiting a bar or restaurant, do you prefer not to hand in your jacket to the security steward (bouncer)? (You may select more than one option) Yes, for convenience purposes Yes, I because Do not trust the JVs Yes, to avoid the cloakroom fee Yes, incase I need to leave in a hurry Other, please state briefly:

No, it is convenient to leave my jacket there No, because it is safer to leave my jacket there No, because that is their job & work pay No, because I might need their help one day

Results: Attributions Security Stewards Bar Staff & Owners Customers Total

Convenience Yes No 8 14 7 17 18 26 33 57

Trust & Safety Yes No 1 6 2 15 0 16 3 37

Cloakroom Fee Yes No 3 5 5 15 11 17 19 37

Security Yes No 5 6 6 8 13 10 24 24

Totals 48 75 111 234

Gender Male Female Unstated Total

Yes 16 11 6 33

No 24 30 3 57

Yes 1 2 0 3

No 9 27 1 37

Yes 7 9 3 19

No 17 19 1 37

Yes 13 9 2 24

No 8 15 1 24

Totals 95 122 17 234


Yes 11 7 11 4 33

No 28 14 12 3 57

Yes 2 1 0 0 3

No 19 7 8 3 37

Yes 9 4 3 3 19

No 15 10 11 1 37

Yes 13 3 4 4 24

No 7 7 9 1 24

Totals 104 53 58 19 234


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation 16. What do you believe would be the consequences of resisting expulsion or arrest by a security steward (bouncer)? In this space please describe briefly in your own words:

Results: Total Sample Population Rank Factor 1 Bar Sanctions 2 Legal Prosecution 3 Generic Hassle 4 Violence 5 Authority Contact 6 Verbal Dispute 7 Nothing 7 Total Security Stewards Rank Factor 1 Legal Prosecution 2 Generic Hassle 3 Bar Sanctions 4 Violence 4 Authority Contact 6 Verbal Dispute 6 Nothing 7 Total

Count 29 23 17 16 13 3 1 102 Count 6 5 4 2 2 0 0 19

Customers Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 Bar Staff Rank 1 2 2 4 5 5 7 7

Factor Bar Sanctions Legal Prosecution Violence Authority Contact Generic Hassle Verbal Dispute Nothing Total

Count 14 12 11 10 7 2 1 57

Factor Bar Sanctions Legal Prosecution Generic Hassle Violence Authority Contact Verbal Dispute Nothing Total

Count 11 5 5 3 1 1 0 26

Bar Sanctions (29): Bar Ban (21); Booted Out (8). Legal Prosecution (23): Fine (9); Prosecution (6); Arrest (3); Prison (3); Sundries (2). Generic Hassle (17): Depends (3); Hassle (3); Devilish Problems (2); Sundries (9). Violence (16): Sundries (16). Authority Contact (13): Police (9); Sundries (4). Verbal Dispute (3): Sundries (3). Nothing (1): No Consequences (1).


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation 17. A ‘Zero Tolerance’ policy means no exceptions to the rules. In your understanding, what is the main reason a security steward (bouncer) would adopt such a policy? (Please select only one option) Because they are intolerant control freaks To make sure every customer has an equally boring and dull evening Because they might lose their job if they do not enforce the law and house rules To make sure that everyone is treated fairly and can enjoy their evening equally Because exceptions to the rules cause confusion, bad feelings and make it harder to enforce those rules with other customers. Other, please state briefly:


Control Freaks 1 0 2 3

Equally Bad 0 2 0 2

Job Security 5 7 19 31

Equally Good 17 18 25 60

Operational Efficacy 0 7 12 19


Control Freaks 1 1 1 3

Equally Bad 1 1 0 2

Job Security 13 16 2 31

Equally Good 29 26 5 60

Operational Efficacy 4 12 3 19


Control Freaks 1 1 0 1 3

Equally Bad 0 2 0 0 2

Job Security 17 5 7 2 31

Equally Good 24 14 18 4 60

Operational Efficacy 10 3 2 4 19



MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation 18. Have you ever done anything at all or intervened in anyway at all to help a security steward (bouncer) cope with an abusive or violent customer? For example, stayed to act as a witness, called for help or physically intervened to help them. No

Yes


Yes

No

15 19 12 46

7 15 44 66

Gender

Yes

No


26 19 1 46

20 35 11 66

Yes

No

17 13 13 3 46

35 11 11 9 66





MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation 19. For what main reason do you believe many public places, such as bars and restaurants, require jackets to be left in a cloakroom? (Please select one option only). To Save Space & Clutter for customers’ comfort To prevent fire & safety hazards As a security measure against disorderly or other criminal behaviour To get more money To steal from customers Other, please state briefly:

Results: More Money Option 4

1

Securit y Option 3 10

9

2

13 33


Attribution s Security Stewards Bar Staff & Owners Customers Total


Customer Comfort Option 1

Fire & Safety Option 2

Total s

0

To Steal Option 5 0

11

21

1

0

33

2 5

32 63

7 8

0 0

54 109

Option 1

Option 2

Option 4

16 13 4 33

2 3 0 5

Option 3 26 34 3 63

Option 5 0 0 0 0

Total s 45 53 11 109

Option 1

Option 2

Option 4

15 5 9 4 33

4 1 0 0 5

Option 3 28 17 14 4 63

Option 5 0 0 0 0 0

Total s 50 24 23 12 109

1 3 4 8

3 1 0 4 8


22

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation 20. Have you ever been in a situation where you felt tempted in any way, other than by civil negotiation, to resist the requests of a security steward (bouncer), expulsion or arrest by them, but did not actually do so? E.g. verbally aggressive & threatening or otherwise passively or violently physically resisted the requests and efforts of a security steward (bouncer) to remove you from the premises, etc. If yes, what was your main reason for feeling that way and what persuaded you to comply voluntarily, despite your objections? E.g. he grabbed my shoulder, but was polite and gave me time to drink up, etc. Yes

If yes, please describe briefly in this space:

No


Yes

No

8 9 11 28

15 24 44 83

Gender

Yes

No


16 10 2 28

32 42 9 83

Yes

No

9 11 4 4 28

41 14 20 8 83





MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Total Influencers Rank 1 2 3.5 3.5 5 6 6

Category Social Skills Customer Relations Mgt. Social Facilitation Coercion Personal Disposition Compulsion Total

Content Count 18 17 9 9 6 2 61

Positive Influencers Rank 1 2 3 5 5 5 6

Category Social Skills Customer Relations Mgt. Personal Disposition Social Facilitation Coercion Compulsion Total


Negative Influencers Rank 1 1 3 3 5 6 6

Category Social Facilitation Coercion Social Skills Customer Relations Mgt. Compulsion Personal Disposition Total



MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation 21. When a customer looks too drunk or tired to stand up unaided they are often removed from the premises before they actually fall down. For what main reason might a security steward (bouncer) ask you to escort your companion home? (Please select one option only). Because security steward (bouncer) are mean and lazy Because the security steward cannot legally just leave them outside on the pavement Because the security steward (bouncer) wants to get rid of your whole group Because the taxi won’t take them and the only other option is to call the police It is the best and most practical way to get them home safely Other, please state briefly:

Results: Legal Necessity Option 2 10 19 26 55

Group Ejection Option 3 0 0 1 1

Taxi or Police Option 4 2 1 0 3

Practical & Safest Option 5 10 14 28 52

Totals

Attributions Security Stewards Bar Staff & Owners Customers Total

Mean & Nasty Option 1 0 0 0 0


Option 1 0 0 0 0

Option 2 24 27 4 55

Option 3 0 1 0 1

Option 4 2 1 0 3

Option 5 22 23 7 52

Totals 48 52 11 111


Option 1 0 0 0 0 0

Option 2 27 12 11 5 55

Option 3 0 1 0 0 1

Option 4 2 1 0 0 3

Option 5 23 10 12 7 52

Totals 52 24 23 12 111


22 34 55 111

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation 22. Have you ever resisted requests, expulsion or arrest by a security steward (bouncer) or otherwise attempted to in any way, other than civil negotiation. E.g. verbally aggressive & threatening or otherwise passively or violently physically resisted the requests and efforts of a security steward (bouncer) to remove you from the premises. If yes, what were your reasons for reacting this way? I.e. what specifically did they do or say that made you react this way? E.g. He was rude, aggressive and stood too close whilst leaning over me, so I …. Yes

If Yes, please describe briefly in this space:

No

Results: Attributions Security Stewards Bar Staff & Owners Customers Total

Yes 5 6 5 16

No 17 27 49 93

Totals 22 33 54 109


Yes 8 7 1 16

No 38 46 9 93

Totals 46 53 10 109


Yes 5 6 3 2 16

No 46 18 20 9 93

Totals 51 24 23 11 109


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 6

Category CRM Coercion Social Facilitation Social Skills Compulsion Personal Disposition Total


Totals 10 8 7 6 2 1 34

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION It would be most helpful, but not absolutely essential if you would please provide the following personal information: Venue (Bar or Restaurant where survey completed)

Date and time of completion:

Signature or initials (a unique identifier)

Printed name or Initials (optional)

What is your approximate age group: 18 – 29

What is your gender:

30 – 39

40 +

Female Male At the time of answering the questionnaire how much alcohol do you estimated you have already consumed? For example, equivalent number of units (pints) of medium III beer? 0 - 1 pint

2 – 3 pints

4 pints or more

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer this questionnaire. You may return the completed form to the same bar whilst you are there or you can also download the internet version from http://www.cjp.fi/liikan/tutkimus.htm for completion at a later date and return it to the same venue the next time you visit.



Results: Gender Male Female Unstated Total

Total Returns 56 50 12 118

Age Group Over 18 Over 30 Over 40 Unstated Total

Total Returns 53 26 27 12 118

Confidence Indicators Unstated Venue (1) Initials / Mark (2) Signature (3) Name Printed (4)

Total

Total 27 23 1 17 50

118

Bars / Venues Dubliners Luna Sali Pihvinmylläri Toppari Public Corner Unstated Total

Total 4 24 16 6 42 12 14 118

Alcohol Zero to One Two to Three Four or more Unstated

Total 65 29 9 15

Total

118


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire in Finnish language Chris Spencer Opiskelija / tutkija, MSc Turvallisuus ja Riskin Hallinta, Leicesterin Yliopisto, Englanti C/o PrimeSec Oy,

Hyvä ravintola-asiakas, Tämä kysely on osa tutkimusta aiheesta “asiakkaiden näkemys järjestyksenvalvojista ja heidän työstään”. Tutkimuskohteena on erityisesti ravintoloissa ja baareissa työskentelevät järjestyksenvalvojat (portsarit). Tämä tutkimus toteutetaan PrimeSec Oy:n tukemana ja sen tarkoituksena on kehittää järjestyksenvalvojien työtapoja ja parantaa työn laatua. Vastaukset käsitellään luottamuksellisesti eikä tietoja luovuteta sivulliselle. Kyselyyn voi vastata anonyymisti. Jos mieluummin haluat vastata kyselyyn myöhemmin, voit tulosta sen osoitteesta www.primesec.fi/tutkimus.htm tai www.cjp.fi/liikan/tutkimus.htm ja palauttaa johonkin internet-sivuilla mainituista ravintoloista. Seuraavalla sivulla on ohjeet kyselyyn vastaamiseen. Ole hyvä ja lue ne läpi ennen kyselyyn vastaamista.



KYSELYN OHJEET: 1. Kysely vie aikaasi 5-10 min. 2. Tämä kysely koostuu 22 kysymyksestä. Suurin osa kysymyksistä on monivalintakysymyksiä. Avoimia kysymyksiä on muutama. Avoimiin kysymyksiin vastataan lyhyesti, muutamalla avainsanalla. 3. Kysymyksiä ei tarvitse pohtia pitkään. Vastaa ensimmäisenä mieleen tulevan ajatuksen tai tuntemuksen mukaisesti. 4. Lue kysymykset tarkkaasti. Älä muuta vastauksiasi jälkikäteen. 5. Kyselyn lopussa on muutama vapaaehtoinen kysymys, jotka liittyvät kyselyn hallinnoitiin.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation TUTKIMUSKYSYMYKSET: 23. Oletko joskus toiminut järjestyksenvalvojan tehtävissä (portsarina), henkilöstöstä vastaavana johtajana tai muuna henkilökunnan jäsenenä? (voit vastata useaan kohtaan) Järjestyksenvalvoja

Baarihenkilökunta /tarjoilia

Ravintolan johtaja tai omistaja

24. Tarvitsevatko järjestyksenvalvojat mielestäsi huomattavaa ammattimaista taitoa tehdäkseen työnsä tyydyttävästi? Vahvasti eri mieltä

Eri mieltä

En osaa sanoa

Samaa mieltä

Vahvasti samaa mieltä

25. Millaisena näet järjestyksenvalvojan vastuun ja velvollisuudet verrattuna poliisiin? (valitse vaihtoehto, joka on lähinnä omaa näkemystäsi) Sama asia kuin poliisi Yksityinen turvallisuusammattilainen Palkattu kätyri/ yksitysarmeija muu, mikä:

Väliaikainen poliisi Osa-aikainen rauhanturvaaja Kovis & kiusaaja

26. Oletko samaa mieltä että yhtenäinen ja virallisesti tunnustettu univormu parantaisi järjestyksenvalvojan ammatillista imagoa ja arvostusta? Vahvasti eri mieltä

Eri mieltä

Ei merkitystä

Samaa mieltä


27. Mitkä seuraavista kuuluvat järjestyksenvalvojan rooleihin? (Voit valita useamman vastauksen) Ovimies Terveys-, palo- ja turvallisuusvalvoja Väkivaltainen ongelmanetsijä Ravintolasääntöjen valvoja (esim. tupakointisäännöt) Baariapulainen/ lasienkerääjä Info- & viihdetoimihenkilö muu, mikä:

Narikkatyöntekijä Kiinteistövahtimestari Konfliktien hoitaja Lainvartija Extra-baarihenkilökuntaa Asiakassuhteiden hoitaja

28. Edistääkö järjestyksenvalvojien läsnäolo ravintoloissa/baareissa mielestäsi turvallisuudentunnetta kaupungilla liikuttaessa? Vahvasti eri mieltä

eri mieltä

Ei merkitystä

Samaa mieltä



MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation 29. Järjestyksenvalvojan koulutus sisältää 3 päivää teoriakoulutusta sekä 2 päivää käytännön koulutusta voimankäytöstä. Tällä hetkellä koulutus ei sisältä ensiapukoulutusta. Oletko sitä mieltä että tämän hetkinen koulutus on kuitenkin riittävä? Vahvasti eri mieltä

Eri mieltä

Ei merkitystä

Samaa mieltä


30. Pitäisikö mielestäsi järjestyksenvalvojan ohjeita ja käskyjä noudattaa samalla tavoin kuin poliisin ohjeita ja käskyjä? Vahvasti eri mieltä

Eri mieltä

Ei merkitystä

Samaa mieltä


31. Mitkä seuraavista apukeinoista tai välineistä pitäisi mielestäsi olla laillisesti käytettävissä järjestyksenvalvojan työssä? (Voit valita useamman vastauksen) Ei mitään. Heillä ei pitäisi olla oikeutta voimankäyttöön. Painiotteet Avokämmenlyönti Käsiraudat Jälkaraudat Pamppu Teleskooppipamppu Värisuihke Pippurisuihke Sähkötainnutin Stun Gun (ampuu sähköelektrodeja) Käsiase / pistooli Konekivääri Muu, mikä:

Lyönnit & potkut Pakkopaita Pitkä keppi (1-2m pitkä) Kyynelkaasu Vesitykki Tankki

32. Mikäli asiakas olisi väkivaltainen järjestyksenvalvojaa kohtaan eikä kukaan menisi auttamaan, mitä ajattelisit? Olisin… Ilahtunut

Huvittunut

En välittäisi

Harmistunut

Vihainen

33. Jos voit valita useasta samantyyppisestä ravintolasta/baarista, joissa on erilaiset järjestyksenvalvojat, missä kävisit ja mitä välttäisit? Paikka jossa järjestyksenvalvojat ovat: Suuria & kovan näköisiä Avoimesti aseistautuneita Pieniä mutta ammattimaisen näköisiä Univormuasuisia järjestyksenvalvojia Ei järjestyksenvalvojia ollenkaan

Välttäisin Välttäisin Välttäisin Välttäisin Välttäisin

Kävisin Kävisin Kävisin Kävisin Kävisin

ei merkitystä ei merkitystä ei merkitystä ei merkitystä ei merkitystä

34. Oletko koskaan pysähtynyt juttelemaan järjestyksenvalvojan kanssa? Jos olet, mistä keskustelitte? Ei

Kyllä - Keskustelunaihe: Page 129 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014


35. Mitkä tekijät (ulkonäkö, tavat, esiintyminen) saisivat sinut vapaaehtoisesti noudattamaan järjestyksenvalvojan ohjeita? Esim. Isokokoinen, lihaksikas, kovannäköinen, aseistettu, pelotteleva, aggressiivinen, ikä (yli 18, 21, 30v?), siisti univormu, kohtelias, ystävällinen, iloinen, vakuuttava, kunnioittava, reilu, hyvännäköinen, matalaääninen, avulias, taktisesti sijoittunut, turvakameroiden luoma psykologinen paine, todistajan läsnäolo, ystävien painostus. listaa avainsanat tähän laatikkoon

36. Oletko ikinä jätänyt tippiä järjestyksenvalvojalle? Ei

Kyllä

37. Kun vierailet ravintolassa/baarissa, haluaisitko pitää takkisi itselläsi? Eli olla jättämättä takkiasi järjestyksenvalvojalle säilytettäväksi? (Voit valita useamman vastauksen) Kyllä, mukavuuden vuoksi Kyllä, koska en luota järjestyksenvalvojiin Kyllä, välttääkseni narikkamaksun Kyllä, siltä varalta että haluan lähteä nopeasti pois. Muu, mikä:

Ei, on mukavampi jättää takki narikkaan. Ei, koska on turvallisempi jättää takki narikkaan. Ei, koska se on järjestyksenvalvojan työtä ja muodostaa heidän palkkansa. Ei, koska saatan tarvita järjestyksenvalvojan apua joskus.

38. Mitä seuraamuksia uskot olevan järjestyksenvalvojan vastustamisesta pidätystilanteessa? kuvaile lyhyesti tähän laatikkoon:

39. “Nollatoleranssi” tarkoittaa, että säännöistä ei tehdä poikkeuksia. Miksi uskot, että järjestyksenvalvojat noudattavat nollatoleranssia? (valitse yksi vaihtoehto). Koska he ovat joustamattomia kontrollihulluja Page 130 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Varmistaakseen, että kaikilla asiakkailla olisi yhtä tylsä ilta. Koska he saattavat menettää työpaikkansa mikäli he eivät noudata lakia ja talon sääntöjä. Varmistaakseen, että kaikkia kohdellaan tasapuolisesti ja kaikki voivat nauttia illasta. Koska säänöistä poikkeamiset aiheuttavat sekaannusta, mielipahaa ja tekevät vaikeaksi sääntöjen noudattamisen toisten asiakkaiden kohdalla. Muu, mikä: 40. Oletko koskaan mennyt apuun tai puuttunut millään tavalla tilanteeseen, jossa järjestyksenvalvojaan kohdistuu väkivaltaa? (Esim. jäänyt todistajaksi, kutsunut apua tai fyysisesti mennyt väliin). Ei

Kyllä

41. Mitä pidät pääsyynä siihen, että takit pitää ravintoloissa/baareissa jättää narikkaan? (valitse yksi vaihtoehto). Tilan säästö asiakkaiden viihtyisyyden lisäämiseksi Paloturvallisuuden vuoksi Turvallisuuden vuoksi, epäjärjestystä tai muuta rikollista käytöstä vastaan Jotta ravintola/baari saisi lisää rahaa Jotta asiakkailta voidaan varastaa tavaraa Muu, mikä:

42. Oletko ollut tilanteessa, jossa olet halunnut vastustaa järjestyksenvalvojan käskyjä, ravintolasta/baarista poistamista tai pidätystä, mutta et kuitenkaan vastustanut? (esim. suullisesti hyökkäävä ja uhkaileva käytös tai muutoin passiivisesti tai väkivaltaisesti järjestyksenvalvojan vastustaminen) Jos olet, mikä oli pääsyy siihen että ajattelit niin ja miksi kuitenkin noudatit käskyjä? (esim. Hän otti olkapäästä kiinni, mutta oli kohtelias ja antoi juoda drinkin loppuun). Kyllä kuvaile tilanne lyhyesti:

Ei

43. Kun asiakas näyttää liian humalaiselta tai väsyneeltä pysyäkseen pystyssä, hänet poistetaan ravintolasta/baarista ennen kuin hän kaatuu. Miksi järjestyksenvalvoja saattaa pyytää sinua saattamaan huonokuntoisen ystäväsi kotiin? (valitse vain yksi vaihtoehto) Page 131 Author: Chris Spencer (190862-223w), copyright@ 25 February 2014

MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Koska järjestyksenvalvojat ovat ilkeitä ja laiskoja Koska järjestyksenvalvojat eivät voi lain mukaan jättää ketään heitteille kadulle Koska järjestyksenvalvojat haluavat eroon koko seurueestanne Koska taksit eivät ota niin humalaisia kyytiin ja ainoa vaihtoehto olisi soittaa poliisille Se on paras ja käytännöllisin tapa saada humalainen kotiin turvallisesti Muu, mikä: 44. Oletko ikinä vastustanut järjestyksenvalvojan käskyjä, ravintolasta/baarista poistamista tai pidätystä? (esim. suullisesti hyökkäävä ja uhkaileva käytös tai muutoin passiivisesti tai väkivaltaisesti järjestyksenvalvojan vastustaminen). Jos olet, mikä oli syy käytökseesi? Mikä heidän käytöksessään sai sinut reagoimaan niin? (esim. hän oli töykeä, aggressiivinen, hän seisoi liian lähellä, joten minä…) Kyllä Kuvaile tilanne lyhyesti:

Ei


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation HALLINNOLLISET TIEDOT: Tähän osioon vastaaminen on vapaaehtoista. paikka (baari/ravintola)

päivämäärä ja kellonaika:

allekirjoitus:

nimen tarkennus

Ikäryhmäsi:

18 – 29

30 – 39

40 +

Nainen Kuinka monta annosta alkoholia arvioit juoneesi ennen kyselyyn vastamista?

Mies

Sukupuolesi:

0 - 1 annosta

2 – 3 annosta

4 annosta tai enemän

kiitos vastauksestasi! Voit palauttaa täytetyn kyselyn baari- / ravintolahenkilökunnalle.



References Bakker, F.C., Whiting, H.T.A., van der Brug, H. (1994), Sport Psychology: Concepts and Applications, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Barker, Dembo and Lewin (1941), http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/frustration_aggression.htm, WEBsite (accessed: 23.12.2005). Button, M. (2002) Private Policing, Cullompton, Devon, Willan Publishing. Control Arms Campaign, Aseet suomalaisissa kodeissa, http://www.controlarms.fi/aseetkodeissa.htm , (accessed 6.11.2006). Department of Criminology (2005), MSc Security and Risk Management, Module 1. Department of Criminology (2005), MSc Security and Risk Management, Module 2. Department of Criminology (2005), MSc Security and Risk Management, Module 3. Fox, J. G. and Sobol, J. J. (2000), Drinking patterns, social interaction, and barroom behavior: a routine activities approach, Deviant Behavior (Volume 21, Number 5/September 1, 2000). Finnsecurity ry, vuosikirja: http://www.finnsecurity.fi/uutiset2005.shtml#vuosikirja20062007, (accessed: 28.12.2005). Heiskanen, M. & Sirén, R. & Aromaa, K. (2003), Suomalaisten Turvallisuus 2003: Vuoden 2003 Haastattelututkimuksen Ennakkotietoja Suomalaisten Tapaturmien Ja Rikosten Kohteeksi Joutumisesta Ja Pelosta, Oikeuspoliittisen Tutkimuslaitoksen Tutkimustiedonantoja 58, Poliisiammattikorkeakoulun Tiedotteita 29. Helsinki 2004. Hobbs, D. Hadfield, P. Lister, S. and Winlow, S. (2002), Door Lore: The Art and Economics of Intimidation, British Journal of Criminology (2002) 42, 352-370.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Hoel, H. and Einarsen, S. (October 2003), Violence at work in hotels, catering and tourism, Geneva, International Labour Office. Homel, R. Carvolth, R. Hauritz, M. Mcilwain, G. and Teague, R., (2004), Making licensed venues safer for patrons: what environmental factors should be the focus of interventions? Drug and Alcohol Review (March 2004), 23, 19 – 29, Taylor & Francis. Homel, R. Clark, J. (1994) The Prediction and Prevention of Violence in Pubs and Clubs, in R.V. Clarke, ed., Crime Prevention Studies, New York, http://www.popcenter.org/Library/CrimePrevention/Volume%25200 3/01%2520homel.pdf, (accessed 30.10.2006). Homel R. Tomsen S. (1993), Hot spots for violence: The environment of pubs and clubs, Australian Institute of Criminology, http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/17/homeltomsen.pdf, (accessed 1.12.2006). Isotalus, N. and Saarela, K. L. (1999): Violence-related Occupational Accidents in Finland. Työ Ja Ihminen, 2: 137-149. Isotalus, N. and Saarela, K. L. (1999): Workplace Violence in Finland: HighRisk Groups and Preventive Strategies, American Journal Of Industrial Medicine Supplement 1:80±81 (1999). Jarnefjord, Ulf. (May 2001), Changes in attitudes and behaviour among wardens/security guards in public environments, Lerum, Sweden, National Swedish Institute for Working Life. Laine, H. (2005) ‘Kotini on linnoitukseni: Kodinturvabisnes paisuu’, City Lehti, http://www.city.fi/lehti/ , (accessed: 9.12.2005). Laki järjestyksenvalvojista (533/1999), http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/1999/19990533, (accessed 20.3.2007) Lawrence, C. and Leather, P. (2003), Perceiving Violence: The Influence of Motivational Status and Environmental Setting, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2003, 33, 9, pp. 1796-1817.


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation Lister, S. Hadfield, P. Hobbs, D. Winlow, S. (2001), Accounting for bouncers: Occupational licensing as a mechanism for regulation, Criminology and Criminal Justice, - crj.sagepub.com Macintyre, S. Homel, R. (1997), Danger on the dance floor: A study of interior design, crowding and aggression in nightclubs, School of Justice Administration, Griffith University, Queensland, 4111 AUS. pp. 92-113. Mesch, G. S. (2000), Perceptions of risk, lifestyle activities, and fear of crime, Deviant Behavior: 21: 47–62, 2000, Mount Carmel 31905, Israel. Monaghan, L. F. (Mar2003), Danger on the doors: bodily risk in a demonised occupation, Health, Risk & Society, Mar2003, Vol. 5 Issue 1, p11, 21p; (AN 9567003). Monaghan, L. F. (2002), Hardmen, shopboys and others: embodying competence in a masculinist oocupation, UK, Blackwell Publishing. Quigley, B, Leonard, K. Collins, L. (Nov 2003), Characteristics of violent bars and bar patrons, Journal of Studies on Alcohol 64.6: p765/8). Ramsay, M. (1989), Downtown Drinkers: the perceptions and fears of the public in a city centre, Crime Prevention Unit: Paper 19: Home Office. Schreck, C. Wright, R. A. J. Miller, M. J. A Study Of Individual, And Situational Antecedents Of Violent Victimization, Justice Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 1, (March 2002: 159-160). Skinner, H. Moss, G. Parfitt, S. (2005), Nightclubs and bars: what do customers really want? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Volume 17 Number 2 2005 pp. 114-124 Sirén, R. and Honkatukia, P. (Eds), (2005) Victimisation To Violence In Finland: Results from 1980 - 2003 National Surveys, National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Publication no. 216, Helsinki 2005. Sisaasiainministerio, Arpajais- ja asehallintoyksikkö, Järjestyslaki (27.6.2003/612), http://www.intermin.fi/intermin/hankkeet/jarjestyslaki/home.nsf/Pag es/808501D0F222DD75C2256D9B00252536, (accessed 6.11.2006).


MSc Security and Risk Management, Dissertation ‘Six degrees’ newspaper: Saturday night fever only if you’re WHITE: http://www.6d.fi/society/only_if/view?searchterm=Saturday%20night %20fever%20only%20if%20you’re%20WHITE, (accessed 23.12.2005). Talaskivi, K., (2005: n.d.), ’Ravintola Korvauksiin Asiakkaan Aivovammasta’, Metro, 7 vuosikerta No.245, 13.12.2005. Tilastokeskus (2006), (Finnish State Statistics Centre), http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_vaesto_en.html, (accessed 11.12.2006). Törrönen, J. and Korander, T. (2005), Preventive Policing and Security Plans: The Reception of New Crime Prevention Strategies in Three Finnish Cities, Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, Volume 6, Number 2 / December 2005: 106 – 127, Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group. Ylitarkastaja, ohjaus ja valvonta, (2005: pers. comm.), Turvallisuusalan valvontayksikkö, Sisäasiainministeriö, Finland.


MSc SRM Dissertation

MSc SRM Dissertation

Suggest Documents

MSc Dissertation

MSc Dissertation - turtleCode

MSc Dissertation - turtleCode

MSc Dissertation

MSC Dissertation Naveed Kapadia

Craig Hatcher MSc Dissertation

The MSc Finance Dissertation: - Carecon.org.uk

MSc Project & Dissertation Guidelines

Dissertation MSc Logistics and Supply Chain Management

MSc Computer Science Dissertation Analysing Document Similarity ...

MSc Dissertation: Environmental Change and Management ...

MSc Human Resource Management (Full-time) Dissertation

69EG4218 DISSERTATION FOR MSc - University of Salford ...

SRM

BRIDGES TO OUR HERITAGE A Dissertation submitted for MSc in ...

A Data Resource for Cloud Cover Simulations -MSc Dissertation ...

MEDIA@LSE Electronic MSc Dissertation Series The Influence of ...

MEDIA@LSE Electronic MSc Dissertation Series The Influence of ...

The MSc Banking and Risk Dissertation - University of Edinburgh ...

Department of Economics EC 7080: Dissertation MSc Finance and ...

BRIDGES TO OUR HERITAGE A Dissertation submitted for MSc in ...

SRM UNIVERSITY

SRM UNIVERSITY

SRM University