Accessibility, professional adoption and the future of executive protection

By Matthew C. Parker
Independent Security Advisors | EPTraining.us

If executive protection standards are supposed to improve the profession, practitioners must be able to access and use them. We examine the price gap between current standards, the risk of building a commercial ecosystem around standards and certification, and why adoption matters more than publication.

A professional standard cannot improve a profession if the people who need it cannot reasonably access it.

Picture the new executive protection professional standing outside the room. He has already paid for training. He may be paying state licensing or registration fees. He needs medical training, equipment, travel, continuing education and time away from work. He is trying to learn the profession correctly, and we tell him that standards matter.

Then we put a $595 price on the book and tell him the professional knowledge is on the other side of the wall.

That is where the standards discussion becomes more than an argument about documents. It becomes a question about access, adoption and what we actually expect a professional standard to accomplish.

I have no objection to paying for something that provides professional value. Training costs money. Testing costs money. Qualified instructors cost money. Accreditation, administration, publishing and maintaining a serious professional program cost money. But price should have some relationship to what the professional receives in exchange.

If someone is asked to spend several hundred dollars for a voluntary standards document, the fair question is not whether the publisher is entitled to charge for it. The fair question is what professional capability, recognition or opportunity that expenditure actually produces.

How Much Do Executive Protection Standards Cost?

As of September 2026, ASIS International lists its Executive Protection Standard at $90 for a nonmember and $45 for a member in softcover. Its electronic edition is listed at $90 for a nonmember and at no additional charge to an ASIS member.

BEPP lists the printed ANSI/BEPP EPS-2026 Standard for Providing Executive Protection at $595, with an additional $25 for shipping within the continental United States. That is not a small difference.

The ASIS standard is 52 pages. BEPP describes its standard as more than 550 pages, developed over nearly four years with participation from more than 280 contributors. A larger document created through a long consensus process will obviously involve greater development and publication costs.

But cost is still part of the professional question. A $595 standards book may be a routine organizational purchase for a major corporation, an established security company or a large training provider. It is a different decision for a new practitioner paying out of pocket. And the practitioner is entitled to ask what the purchase does.

Does it satisfy a state licensing requirement? Does it authorize the individual to provide executive protection services? Does ownership of the book demonstrate competence? Does an employer require it? Does a regulator recognize it? Does the purchase include training, testing or certification? If not, then the professional is purchasing access to the document itself.

That document may be useful. It may contain hundreds of pages of valuable information. But access to information and proof of competence are different things.

Why Is the BEPP Standard Expensive?

I cannot tell you what BEPP’s internal development or publication costs are, and I am not going to pretend that I can. BEPP describes a substantial project: more than 550 pages, more than 280 contributors and nearly four years of work. Those facts explain why the project required considerable effort. They do not answer the professional-access question.

If BEPP believes its standard is intended to help establish consistency across the executive protection industry, then accessibility is not separate from implementation. The people expected to use a standard must be able to read it, evaluate it and understand what it requires.

The question is therefore not simply, “Why does the book cost $595?” 

The better question is, “How does a $595 access model help produce broad professional adoption?”

If there is a good answer, the profession should hear it. If there are plans for lower-cost electronic access, student access, public-sector access, educational editions, implementation summaries or other ways to broaden use, those would be worth discussing.

Standards cannot influence the entire profession if practical access is concentrated among the people and organizations most able to absorb the price.

Are Executive Protection Standards Required?

Not simply because a private organization publishes one.

A voluntary professional standard is different from a state licensing or regulatory requirement. If Virginia establishes requirements for a Personal Protection Specialist, those requirements have legal significance in Virginia. If North Carolina establishes requirements for Close Personal Protection licensing, those requirements have legal significance in North Carolina.

A private standard may supplement those requirements. An employer may adopt it. A training provider may use it. A regulator may decide that parts of it are useful. A client may place it into a contract. But purchasing a voluntary standards document does not create legal authority to work.

This matters when we discuss cost because professionals already have expenses that are not optional. State licensing, required training and mandatory credentials may be legal conditions of employment. A voluntary standards publication has to justify its value differently.

It has to persuade the profession that using it makes the work better.

Should Professional Standards Be Affordable?

I believe foundational professional standards should be as accessible as reasonably possible.

That does not mean every document has to be free. It does not mean standards organizations should operate without revenue. It does not mean editors, administrators, technical experts, testing organizations or qualified assessors should work for nothing. It means access should be treated as part of the standards strategy.

If a standard is supposed to influence employers, practitioners, training providers, regulators and clients, then those groups need a realistic way to understand it. A profession cannot meaningfully debate a standard that many of its members cannot afford to read. There are many possible access models: lower-cost electronic editions, student pricing, regulator access, educational-use licenses, detailed public competency maps, implementation guides, revision summaries and public explanations of major requirements.

The goal should be to make the core professional expectations understandable while allowing organizations to charge separately for services that genuinely add value.

There is an important difference between selling a publication and creating a paywall around the profession’s expected knowledge.

Standards Access for New Executive Protection Professionals

The youngest professionals will feel these costs first.

Someone trying to enter executive protection may already be paying for a serious training program, travel and lodging, state credentials, firearms qualification where applicable, CPR or more advanced medical education, appropriate equipment, professional memberships and continuing education.

We routinely tell that person to invest in himself or herself. I agree with that advice. Executive protection is a profession where poor preparation can have consequences for another person’s safety. But investment should improve capability and a new professional should not have to choose between purchasing an expensive standards document and paying for practical training that directly improves the ability to perform the job.

If we tell younger practitioners that professional standards are essential, and then make access to those standards one of the most expensive items on their reading list, we should not be surprised when adoption is limited.

I would much rather see a young professional spend money demonstrating competence than spend the same money merely proving that a book was purchased.

Can Standards Become a Money-Making Enterprise?

Yes. A standards system can develop into a significant revenue ecosystem. Saying that does not accuse anyone of wrongdoing.

BEPP is a nonprofit organization. ASIS is a professional association. Nonprofit status does not mean that publications, conferences, testing, certification or other services have no costs or generate no revenue. The proper question is whether the financial architecture remains subordinate to the professional purpose.

There is nothing inherently improper about recovering the legitimate cost of developing, publishing and maintaining a professional standard. My concern begins when the standard itself becomes the entry point into an expanding chain of products and services that the profession is expected to purchase. The pattern is easy to imagine. 

Buy the standard. Take training aligned with the standard. Pay for an examination. Pay for certification. Pay for renewal. Pay for an organizational assessment. Pay for an audit or inspection if the system eventually requires one. Purchase the next edition. Repeat part of the process again.

Some of those steps may be perfectly legitimate in a mature professional system. Testing requires administration. Certification requires maintenance. Independent assessments require qualified people. Recertification can be valuable. A training-provider standard may help expose weak programs.

So, the issue is whether each step exists because it produces a measurable professional benefit or because the existence of the standard makes another charge possible.

That distinction matters.

BEPP’s Expanding Standards and Certification Architecture

BEPP’s own public project information makes this a timely question.

BEPP now publishes ANSI/BEPP EPS-2026. It also reports that it is developing a Board Certification examination for executive protection, in partnership with Prometric. In addition, BEPP is developing a separate Protective Intelligence Systems standard and a standard containing requirements and guidance for executive protection training providers. Those are separate projects, and they should be evaluated separately.

I have not identified a published BEPP fee for training-provider approval, inspections or an organizational conformity program, and we should not claim that such a fee currently exists unless BEPP publishes one. But the direction of development raises legitimate questions before those systems are fully built.

If the same professional ecosystem develops the operating standard, develops the training-provider standard, sponsors a professional certification system and later creates paid mechanisms connected to conformance, the profession should know how conflicts of function will be controlled.

Who establishes the requirement? Who interprets it? Who tests against it? Who can provide the training? Who decides whether a provider conforms? Who hears an appeal? Who reviews the organization that controls the process? Can another qualified organization perform the same assessment? Those are not anti-business questions. They are professional-governance questions.

If we are serious about standards, the organizations creating the systems should be willing to answer them.

Standards Should Not Become a Toll Road Into the Profession

This is where I draw the line.

Standards should establish expectations. They should improve consistency. They should help employers evaluate programs. They should help instructors develop curriculum. They should help practitioners understand what competent professional work requires.

They should not become a toll road into the profession. A person should not have to purchase a sequence of privately controlled products merely to be regarded as a legitimate executive protection professional, particularly when state law already establishes the legal requirements to perform regulated work.

There may be excellent reasons to obtain additional professional certification. There may be good reasons for an employer to require education above the state minimum. There may be legitimate reasons for a company to undergo an independent assessment. But every additional requirement should answer four questions:

• What professional problem does this requirement solve?
• What measurable capability or assurance does the professional receive?
• Who independently verifies that the requirement is accomplishing its purpose?
• Is the requirement recognized by employers, clients or regulators outside the organization selling it?

If those answers are weak, the profession should be cautious about confusing a commercial ecosystem with professional adoption.

We should not confuse the creation of a market around standards with the adoption of standards. They are not the same thing.

Access Is More Than Price

Price is the easiest part of accessibility to measure, but it is not the only part.

A standard has to be visible enough for professionals to understand what it covers. Employers need to know whether it applies to their operations. Training providers need to know whether requirements can be translated into instruction and evaluation. Regulators need to know whether a voluntary framework complements or conflicts with existing law.

The profession also needs enough transparency to compare competing standards.

Article 3 in this series examined the ASIS and BEPP standards and argued that the profession should compare substance rather than logos. That comparison becomes difficult when one document is relatively easy to access and another requires a substantial purchase before many practitioners can examine the details for themselves.

Transparency does not require giving away every product or service. It does require making enough of the architecture visible for the profession to make an informed decision.

A Better Access Model Is Possible

A professional standards system can recover legitimate costs without placing the foundational knowledge behind an unnecessary barrier.

The organization could publish the standard’s scope and competency structure in detail. It could provide lower-cost digital access. It could make regulator and educational access available. It could publish implementation guidance and revision histories. It could make clear which portions are foundational expectations and which products or services are optional. Higher-cost services can still exist where they add identifiable value.

A corporation that wants an extensive independent assessment may reasonably pay for it. A professional seeking a serious independent certification may reasonably pay for testing. A training organization seeking external review may reasonably pay qualified evaluators. Those are services.

Reading the basic professional expectations should not become the financial gate that determines who gets to participate in the standards discussion.

Executive Protection Standards and Certification Fees Are Not the Same Thing

This distinction will become increasingly important as certification initiatives develop.

A standard establishes expectations. Training prepares the professional. Certification should verify that a person has satisfied defined competency requirements. Experience develops judgment and practical capability. State licensing establishes legal authority where the law requires it.

Those functions support one another, but they are not interchangeable.

Buying a standards book does not demonstrate competence. Paying a certification fee should not automatically produce a credential. Finishing a training course is not the same thing as passing an independent competency assessment. None of those activities replaces state licensing when state law requires it.

If executive protection standards and certification fees continue to expand, professionals should know exactly what each payment buys, what the resulting credential means, who recognizes it and what the person had to demonstrate to earn it.

ISA’s Preferred Model: Put Standards Into the Training

ISA has generally approached standards from the opposite direction.

We start with the job. What does the protection professional need to know? What does the person need to do? What do applicable state regulations require? What do credible external standards and mature protective systems tell us? How will the student demonstrate the required knowledge or skill?

Then we write the requirement into the curriculum and evaluation.

A standard becomes useful when it changes what happens in the classroom, during the advance, in the planning process, during movement, in the threat assessment, in communications and during practical evaluation.

The professional should learn the requirement while learning the job. The student should train against measurable objectives. The instructor should be able to evaluate performance. The employer should understand what the certificate represents. The regulator should retain authority over legal licensing requirements.

That is how standards become part of professional culture instead of becoming something people purchase and place on a shelf.

The Standard Has to Produce Something

This is the test I keep coming back to.

If a standard improves training, clarifies expectations, helps employers build stronger programs, gives regulators useful reference material, supports meaningful competency assessment and improves protective operations, then the standard is serving the profession.

If it becomes an expensive publication surrounded by additional paid requirements without clear evidence of improved competence or stronger operations, then the architecture needs work.

Professionalization should not be measured by how many products the profession can be persuaded to buy. It should be measured by whether the people doing the work are better prepared to protect another human being.

A standard should raise the profession, not create a gate around it.

Standards should serve the profession—not become the profession.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much do executive protection standards cost?

As of September 2026, ASIS lists its Executive Protection Standard at $90 for nonmembers and $45 for members in softcover. Its electronic edition is $90 for nonmembers and at no additional charge to members. BEPP lists the printed ANSI/BEPP EPS-2026 standard at $595 plus $25 shipping within the continental United States.

Why is the BEPP standard expensive?

BEPP describes ANSI/BEPP EPS-2026 as a document of more than 550 pages developed over nearly four years with participation from more than 280 contributors. Those facts show the scale of the project, but they do not by themselves answer whether the access model encourages broad professional adoption.

Are executive protection standards required?

Not automatically. A voluntary professional standard is different from a state licensing or regulatory requirement. A standard may be adopted by an employer, client or regulator, but publication by a private organization does not itself create legal authority to work.

Should professional standards be affordable?

ISA believes foundational professional standards should be as accessible as reasonably possible. Organizations can recover legitimate development and publication costs while still offering access models that encourage broad professional use.

Can standards become a money-making enterprise?

Yes. A standards system can develop into a larger revenue ecosystem involving publications, training, examinations, certification, renewals, provider requirements and assessments. Those services can be legitimate, but each should provide identifiable professional value and operate with transparency and appropriate independence.

Does buying a standards document prove professional competence?

No. Purchasing or possessing a standards document does not demonstrate that a practitioner can perform executive protection tasks. Competence should be established through meaningful education, testing, practical performance and relevant experience.

Are executive protection standards and certification fees the same thing?

No. A standards document defines expectations. Certification should verify that a person has met defined competency requirements. The two functions should remain distinct.

What should standards access for new executive protection professionals look like?

New professionals should be able to understand the scope, competencies and practical expectations of a standard without an excessive financial barrier. Lower-cost digital access, educational editions, public competency maps and meaningful implementation guidance can support wider adoption.

Related ISA Resources

• Two Executive Protection Standards: The Question Joe LaSorsa Asked
• Executive Protection Training Standards: A National Priority?
• ISA Executive Protection Training Standards
• Executive Protection Training Programs: Curriculum and Standards of Training
• Executive Protection Training Standards & Program Evaluation

External Reference Links

• BEPP — ANSI/BEPP EPS-2026 Print Standard
• BEPP — Projects and Initiative Updates
• BEPP — Executive Protection Training Provider Standard Development
• ASIS — Executive Protection Standard Softcover
• ASIS — Executive Protection Standard eBook

About the Author

Matthew C. Parker is CEO of Independent Security Advisors LLC and Director of Training Operations for EPTraining.us. U.S. Army retired, a combat veteran, Master Instructor, and protective-services practitioner, his assignments included training-department management at the U.S. Army Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear School, recognition as Instructor of the Cycle and Instructor of the Year, and instructor service with Army ROTC at Virginia Tech. He has more than three decades of military, government, executive-protection, training, and advisory experience, including international security and training work in Iraq and Ukraine.

For more than a decade, Parker has focused on a question central to the professionalization of executive protection: How do we turn standards into measurable performance? Through ISA and EPTraining.us, he has developed and evaluated protective-services training against regulatory requirements, external standards, operational practice, and demonstrated competency. His position is simple: training prepares the professional; standards define expectations; performance demonstrates competence.

Series ISA Executive Protection Standards Series — Article 4

Publisher Independent Security Advisors LLC / EPTraining.us

#ExecutiveProtection #ExecutiveProtectionStandards #ExecutiveProtectionTraining #ProfessionalStandards #StandardsAccessibility #StandardsPricing #ProfessionalCompetency #ExecutiveProtectionCertification #TrainingStandards #StateRegulation #ProtectiveServices #ProtectiveOperations #SecurityTraining #ProfessionalDevelopment #ASIS #BEPP #ANSI #StandardsAdoption #Professionalization #IndependentCertification #IndependentSecurityAdvisors #EPTrainingUS #MatthewParker #StandardsShouldServeTheProfession