For many security officers, working alone is simply part of the job.
An officer may be stationed at a gatehouse overnight, patrolling a large industrial site, monitoring a building after hours or responding to an incident without another security officer immediately nearby.
Being physically alone does not necessarily mean an officer is unsupported. But it does mean the systems surrounding that officer become particularly important.
Working alone changes the operational environment
Safe Work Australia describes remote or isolated work as work where a person may be isolated from the assistance of others because of the location, time or nature of the work. Importantly, isolation does not necessarily mean working somewhere geographically remote.
That distinction is particularly relevant to security.
An officer working alone at a metropolitan site at 2am may be surrounded by buildings and roads but still have limited immediate assistance if an incident occurs.
The question therefore isn’t simply:
“Is someone working alone?”
A more useful operational question is:
“If something happens, what support can they get — and how quickly?”
Communication is part of the control system
Reliable communication is one of the fundamentals of lone-worker arrangements.
Safe Work Australia identifies effective communication with remote or isolated workers as an important element of managing the associated risks. Depending on the circumstances, controls may also include duress alarms or alert systems, emergency plans and regular communication with workers.
For security providers, that can translate into practical questions such as:
- How does the officer request assistance?
- Who receives that request?
- What happens if the officer fails to check in?
- Are escalation arrangements understood by everyone involved?
- Does the communication system work throughout the site?
- What happens if the primary system fails?
The answers will vary considerably between sites. What matters is that the arrangements reflect the actual working environment.
Procedures have to work at 2am
A documented procedure is valuable, but its real test comes when an officer needs to use it.
Security providers should consider whether procedures remain realistic during periods of minimum staffing, after-hours operations or circumstances where supervisors and client representatives may not be immediately available.
An escalation list that works during business hours, for example, may be considerably less useful overnight if the people listed cannot be reached.
Similarly, an officer needs to know more than simply who to telephone. They need sufficient clarity about when an incident should be escalated and what actions they are authorised and expected to take.
Site knowledge matters
Working-alone arrangements should also reflect the characteristics of the particular site.
Among the factors Safe Work Australia recommends considering are the duration of lone work, time of day, available communication tools, location and access to emergency services, nature of the work, worker capabilities and the support the worker may require.
In a security environment, additional considerations may include access and egress points, lighting, areas with poor communications coverage, previous incidents, interaction with members of the public and how quickly assistance could realistically arrive.
A generic procedure cannot always account for those differences.
Support before something goes wrong
There is also an important connection with supervision.
Good supervision should not begin when an officer telephones to report a problem. Appropriate contact, clear expectations and accessible support can help identify issues before they become incidents.
For officers working alone, knowing that support is genuinely available can also make it easier to raise concerns early rather than waiting until circumstances have deteriorated.
The practical test
Lone work is an unavoidable feature of many security operations. The objective is not necessarily to eliminate it, but to ensure that the arrangements surrounding it are appropriate to the risks involved.
For providers, a useful practical test is straightforward:
If an officer working alone needed help tonight, would the systems intended to support them work as expected?
Communication systems, escalation arrangements, training, supervision and emergency procedures are most valuable when they have been considered from the perspective of the officer who may actually need to rely upon them.
For security providers, that is part of turning procedures on paper into effective operational support.