A Standard for Rating Security Officers
A rating is a professional record, not an opinion. When you rate an officer, you add to a history that other agencies draw on when they decide whether to hire, a history that bears on the officer’s livelihood and reputation. A rating set too high misleads the next agency and weakens trust in every rating; one set too low can cost an officer work they have earned. Treat each entry as something that may be read long after
the moment that prompted it, and by people who were not there. The discipline below is what keeps a rating given by one agency meaningful, and fair, to the next.
Every officer is rated across the same six categories, and each stands on its own. An officer may be strong in one and still developing in another, so judge each category on its own terms rather than letting a single impression carry the whole.
| CATEGORY | WHAT IT MEASURES |
| Appearance | Uniform, grooming, and professional bearing, suited to the post and to the clients it represents. |
| Reliability | Attendance, punctuality, and honoring the schedule. Does the officer arrive on time, stay for the full assignment, and turn up when posted? |
| Trustworthiness | Integrity and sound conduct without supervision. Does the officer follow post orders, respect property and access, and act honestly when no one is watching? |
| Customer Service | Composure and courtesy with clients, tenants, and the public, including the ability to de-escalate and to represent the client well. |
| Report Writing | Clear, accurate, and timely documentation. Are observations and incidents recorded completely, and in plain, usable language? |
| Situational Awareness | Alertness and judgment. Does the officer observe the post, recognize problems early, and respond to them sensibly? |
Several of these categories track the BSIS training officers complete, communication, observation and documentation, legal aspects, and public relations, and tend to strengthen as that training is carried onto the post.
Rate each category on a five-point scale. The midpoint is the standard, not the floor: an officer who does the job well and dependably earns a three. Reserve the top of the scale for performance genuinely above what the post requires, and the bottom for performance that falls short of it. Rating every officer at the extremes, all fives, or all ones, tells the next agency very little, and is the surest way for a rating to lose its meaning.
| RATING | LEVEL | WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE |
| 5 | Exemplary | A model for others. Performance consistently exceeds what the post requires. Examples, Client has sent documented positive feedback on the security officer. Officer has received an employee of the month award during the rating period. Officer has covered shifts for multiple officers during the rating period. Officer handled a medical emergency with professionalism and valor. |
| 4 | Strong | Above the standard. Reliable, and noticeably better than expected in this area. Examples, Officer has been consistent in the performance of their work over the last 4 rating periods. Officer has had no call offs over the last 3 ratings periods. |
| 3 | Meets the standard | Fully does the job. A dependable officer performing the category well. |
| 2 | Developing | Falls short in ways that need attention. Capable, but not yet at the standard. Examples, Officer has failed to meet the company’s standards on DARs. Officer has been late to his post four times during the rating period. |
| 1 | Below standard | Does not meet the requirement. Corrective action is warranted. Examples, Officer has failed to properly conduct patrols per the company’s written policies and procedures. Officer has had two no call/no shows to work. Officer has called off to his post five times with one hour notice to his post during the rating period. |
A rating is only as sound as the judgment behind it. We ask every reviewer to hold to the following.
Rate what you observed. Base each rating on the officer’s performance over the period, not on reputation, secondhand accounts, or a single good or bad moment. Where a rating turns on a specific event, keep the documentation that supports it.
Measure against the standard, not other officers. The question is whether the officer met the standard for the category, not how they compare with a colleague.
Rate in good faith. A rating reflects performance and nothing else. It is never a means of retaliation or favoritism, and it never turns on an officer’s background, identity, or anything unrelated to the job.
Hold the standard steady. Apply the same expectations to every officer, in keeping with your agency’s own operating procedures. The bar does not move with how you feel about a person.
Be candid. A rating softened past the point of meaning helps no one. Record what happened: generously where it is earned, and honestly where it is not.
Write it to be read by others. Comments are professional records, not remarks. Write each one as though it will be read outside this platform, by the officer, by the next agency, or by a reviewer with no knowledge of the situation. If a rating could not stand up to that, it does not belong in the system.
Stand behind it. Every rating is attributable to the reviewer who made it. A fair rating is one you could explain to the officer and to the next agency alike.
Build an SOP. Standard Operating Procedures create consistency and a professional standard for you and your rating team. It also builds trust in the security staff and helps them understand why they received the rating they did.
Ratings are made once each quarter, for the officers your agency employed during that quarter, and entered within that quarter while the work is still fresh. Rate the period you actually observed: if an officer joined or left partway through, rate what you saw rather than the gaps you did not. A quarter that has closed stays closed, the record reflects what was entered at the time, which is part of what keeps it fair.
An officer who believes a rating is inaccurate may dispute it through the platform. A rating made the right way, observed, documented, and even-handed, is one that holds up when it is questioned. This is the practical case for the standard: the same care that makes a rating fair to the officer is what makes it defensible for your agency.
A standard only works if it is shared. When every agency rates using the same measure, a CPSO rating becomes something the whole industry can trust, and the officers who earn strong ratings carry them wherever they go. The ability to rate is a responsibility rather than a convenience; agencies that treat it that way raise the standard of the profession across the state. Thank you for giving each rating the care it deserves.
Summary
The rating your agency gives an officer does not stay with your agency. Through the Verisect platform it becomes part of the officer’s record, visible to other agencies weighing whether to hire them. A rating is therefore more than a note on how an officer performed for you, it is part of their standing across the industry, and something the next agency will rely on. This document sets out how we ask you to give those ratings, so that they are fair to the officer who earns them, useful to the agency that reads them, and consistent from one reviewer to the next.
RESOURCES FOR SECURITY OFFICERS
RESOURCES FOR SECURITY AGENCIES
CPSO is here to help you succeed!
Reach out to us and learn more about what we can do for you
The security services industry is continually evolving, driven by advancements in technology and changing regulatory requirements. Our team is committed to supporting you through every stage of this transition, ensuring you remain equipped and prepared to meet the demands of a modern security environment.