Evaluating security guards: fair, evidence-based criteria

• Patrol completion: how many of the planned patrols were done, with every checkpoint, within the window set in the post orders.
• Report quality: whether shift reports are complete, specific and written as things happened.
• Punctuality: starting and ending shifts on time, a clean handover, no uncovered post.
• Incident handling: whether the procedure was followed, who was told and when, and whether the incident report holds up.
• Client feedback: written, dated and tied to a specific event — not a general impression.

Don’t evaluate anything you haven’t defined first. If the post orders don’t say how many patrols are expected, “patrol completion” can’t be measured.

A supervisor doesn’t need a new monitoring system to evaluate anyone. They need the records that already exist, gathered for the same period. Checkpoint patrols give time and place; the shift report gives what the guard saw; the supervisor’s visits give an independent view.

• The same period for everyone, for example the last quarter.
• Numbers with their context: a patrol missed because of an incident is not negligence.
• Every negative finding comes with a date and the record that shows it.
• Positives are recorded too: an incident handled well is evidence.

At OVIT, patrols, incidents and reports come together in the Guardly platform, so an evaluation rests on the same picture the operations team sees.

• Written criteria: one form, shared by everyone on the same kind of post, which the guard has seen from day one.
• Comparable posts: a night post with many patrols isn’t comparable to a daytime reception desk; compare like with like.
• Documentation: every score or comment points to a record, not to memory or hearsay.
• Right of reply: the guard can comment on the evaluation in writing, and the comment stays on file.
• A second pair of eyes: a negative evaluation is reviewed by a second manager.

A client complaint is something to investigate, not a verdict. Check it against the shift records before it goes into an evaluation.

1. Preparation: the supervisor brings the period’s records and the criteria form.
2. What went well: specifically, with an example and a date.
3. What needs work: one finding at a time, with the record that shows it, and the question “what happened?” before any conclusion.
4. What the guard needs: training, clearer post orders, equipment, a different shift.
5. Goals: two or three, measurable, with a date to check back.
6. Written summary: signed or commented on by the guard and kept on file.

An evaluation used only to reprimand teaches guards to hide problems. A guard who knows a missed patrol will be discussed fairly will put it in the report instead of covering it up — and that’s what the client wants.

The Hellenic Data Protection Authority says so explicitly. A site’s cameras are there to protect people and property; they aren’t a tool for measuring how much a guard moved or when they sat down. For the general rules, see the guide to CCTV and GDPR.

An evaluation doesn’t need them. Checkpoints, timestamped reports and logged supervisor visits give you all the evidence you need, in a way the guard knows about in advance.