E-mail us
Executive Protection Competency Survey: The Odd Man Out
Executive Protection Competency: From Paper to Proof — Part 3 of 6
The 2020 survey identified what executive protection agents should know. But how do we determine whether they can actually do the job?
By Matthew C. Parker
Independent Security Advisors (ISA) | EPTraining.us
Abstract
In 2020, executive protection professionals participated in a University of Nebraska survey examining the knowledge and skills expected of new protective agents. The project involved ASIS, the University of Nebraska Public Policy Center, and members of the International Protective Security Board (IPSB). Its 278 valid responses helped identify important skills, but the survey did not determine whether anyone could actually perform them.
This article examines what the survey accomplished, what remains unfinished, and how the U.S. Army’s practical testing methods and federal law-enforcement in-service training could help the executive protection profession move toward independent certification.
Bottom Line Up Front
Identifying the skills an executive protection agent needs is not the same as proving the agent can perform them. We have schools teaching executive protection, professional organizations publishing standards and employers trying to decide whether applicants are qualified. What we still need is a widely recognized, independent way to determine whether an individual can actually do the work.
I believe the answer is a voluntary certification program built around common training objectives, written examinations, practical field tests, appropriate experience requirements and continuing education. Schools should remain free to teach using their own curricula and methods. The certification process should determine whether their graduates meet the same professional requirements.
Before the Standards Debate, We Had Another Question
In Part 2 of this series, I examined the ASIS and BEPP executive protection standards and what employers should consider before adopting either one.
But before those standards became the focus of the current debate, executive protection professionals were already asking another important question: What should a new executive protection agent know, and what should that agent be able to do?
In 2020, that question became the subject of the Executive Protection Professionals Core Competencies Survey, prepared by the University of Nebraska Public Policy Center. The survey examined protective advances, threat assessment, communications, medical response, legal responsibilities, protective movements and other skills important to the profession.
I believe this was work worth doing. We can write excellent policies, develop protective plans and establish professional standards, but none of those documents can physically protect a client. Somebody has to conduct the advance, identify the danger, move the client or respond to an emergency.
That somebody is the executive protection agent, and we need a reliable way to determine whether that person can actually perform the job.
What the 2020 Survey Actually Did
The project began with an ASIS Executive Protection Council working group that participated in a two-day workshop in January 2020. The University of Nebraska Public Policy Center helped organize the work, and participants developed a proposed list of knowledge and skills for new executive protection professionals. Additional workgroups reviewed the material before the University conducted an online survey.
The International Protective Security Board also participated in the broader effort. Chuck Tobin, who held leadership positions associated with both IPSB and the ASIS Executive Protection Council, later recognized the involvement of IPSB members in the competency project and related work. The survey was a cooperative effort, and the organizations and individuals who contributed deserve credit.
The online survey ran from September 15 through October 12, 2020. It was accessed 393 times and produced 278 valid responses. Participants were reached through professional organizations, personal contacts and referrals, rather than a random selection of the entire executive protection industry.
The people responding were also not representative of every part of the profession. Approximately 92 percent were men, 71 percent were based in North America, 64 percent worked full-time in executive protection and more than 41 percent reported over fifteen years of experience.
Those details are worth understanding. The survey gave us useful information about what participating professionals believed was important, but it was not a vote by every executive protection agent in the world. More importantly, the survey asked people to identify necessary skills. It did not test their ability to perform those skills.
What the Survey Found
The responses showed considerable agreement about the knowledge and skills expected of new executive protection professionals.
Among those who answered the relevant questions, 94.7 percent supported proper protective advance work as a core competency. Threat, risk and vulnerability assessment received 89.8 percent support, while maintaining information security received 95.8 percent. Medical first response received 97.5 percent support, appropriate protective movement received approximately 96 percent and transportation practices received 94.6 percent. Understanding laws and regulations within the appropriate jurisdiction received 98.5 percent support.
Those are substantial numbers, and I believe they show that experienced practitioners recognize many of the same basic responsibilities. The exact percentage for each subject is less important than the general agreement that these are skills a new protective agent should possess.
But there is something we must not confuse.
The fact that 94.7 percent of respondents believed advance work was important does not mean that 94.7 percent of executive protection agents know how to conduct an advance. Likewise, 97.5 percent support for medical first response does not tell us how many agents can properly treat a seriously injured client.
The survey told us what practitioners thought agents should know. It did not tell us whether those agents could actually do it.
That is not a criticism of the University of Nebraska or the people who developed the survey. They were asking the profession to identify important skills, and the research accomplished that purpose. The problem comes when we confuse identifying a skill with proving an individual has mastered it.
A New Agent Is Not a Detail Leader
One word in the survey deserves particular attention: new.
The research examined the skills expected of a new executive protection professional. That is not necessarily the same level of knowledge and experience we should expect from an advance specialist, protective driver, experienced agent or detail leader.
A new agent should understand basic protective procedures, recognize possible threats, communicate effectively, assist with an advance and perform assigned emergency duties. As that agent gains training and experience, the responsibilities become more demanding.
A detail leader, for example, must do more than understand how to conduct an advance. The detail leader may have to decide what advances are necessary, assign personnel, evaluate the findings, coordinate resources and approve the protective plan. That requires additional knowledge, judgment and experience.
I believe executive protection certification should recognize these differences. We should have foundational requirements for new agents and higher requirements for experienced personnel, specialists and leaders. Completing an entry-level course should not suggest that someone is qualified to lead a complex protective operation.
The Army has used this type of progressive training and evaluation system for decades, and my experience with it is one reason I believe executive protection could do something similar.
The Army Has Been Teaching and Testing This Way for Decades
During my military career, I spent years teaching soldiers, developing lesson plans, managing military courses and supervising other instructors. I was responsible for more than standing in front of a classroom. I had to make sure the material was taught correctly, that instructors met their responsibilities and that students could perform the tasks they were being taught.
One of the most important principles of Army instruction is simple: every task has an action, conditions and standards.
The action tells the soldier what to do. The conditions explain the situation, equipment and environment in which the task must be performed. The standards tell the soldier and the evaluator what constitutes satisfactory performance.
Consider something as basic as applying a tourniquet to a wounded soldier. The action is to control serious bleeding using a tourniquet. The conditions might require the soldier to perform the task in a field environment, wearing combat equipment and using an issued medical kit. The standards establish the correct use of the equipment, the required medical procedures and the mistakes that would constitute failure.
The instructor explains the task, demonstrates it and gives the soldier an opportunity to practice. Mistakes are corrected during training. But eventually the soldier must perform the task without being coached through every step.
The Army historically used Common Task Testing, or CTT, to determine whether soldiers could perform their required common tasks. The current Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills system continues the practice of teaching and evaluating defined military skills.
The task evaluation sheets identify what the soldier must accomplish, the conditions under which the task will be performed and the performance measures the evaluator must check. The Army uses GO and NO-GO results to record whether the soldier met the required standard.
The Army also increases the level of responsibility as soldiers advance. A junior enlisted soldier must master basic individual tasks. A noncommissioned officer must retain those skills while also learning to train, supervise and lead other soldiers. Higher responsibilities require additional training and demonstrated ability.
This is not simply how the Army operated when I was serving. In February 2026, the Army reported that soldiers of the 11th Cyber Battalion completed practical evaluations involving Level 10 Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills. Those included land navigation, weapons maintenance, communications and casualty-evacuation reporting.
What makes this system useful is not that the Army has discovered some secret method of instruction. It is that the Army establishes what a soldier must do, teaches the task and then requires the soldier to demonstrate it.
I believe the executive protection profession should be doing exactly that.
Sources: U.S. Army — Soldier’s Manual and Trainer’s Guide | U.S. Army — Warrior Skills Testing, February 2026
What an Executive Protection Gate Test Would Look Like
In the Army, we commonly referred to practical performance evaluations as gate tests. The soldier had to pass the required task before receiving credit for successfully completing that evaluation.
I believe practical gate tests should be part of any serious executive protection certification program. A person should not receive a professional certification simply because a school issued a graduation certificate, the person passed a written examination or a résumé claims years of security experience. The candidate should have to demonstrate the required skills.
Consider an executive protection agent accompanying a client to an event. The client suffers a serious arm injury and begins bleeding heavily. The agent must recognize what has happened, assess the immediate surroundings, call for medical assistance, obtain the proper equipment and provide appropriate emergency care while communicating with and reassuring the client.
We can teach those skills in a classroom, medical-training area or practical field exercise. The instructor explains the procedures, demonstrates them and gives the student time to practice. The instructor can correct mistakes and repeat the exercise until the student understands what is required.
Now consider the same agent taking an independent certification examination several months later.
The candidate enters a controlled exercise without being told in advance exactly what will happen. The simulated injury might occur while escorting a client through a public gathering, during a visit to a gym or while preparing to enter a vehicle. The candidate must recognize the problem and respond using the knowledge and skills previously learned.
A qualified evaluator watches the agent’s actions and records the results on a standard evaluation sheet. Did the agent recognize the emergency? Was medical assistance requested? Was the proper equipment selected and used? Did the agent follow the appropriate medical procedures and communicate effectively? Did the candidate make a critical mistake that would constitute failure?
The evaluator is not there to teach the candidate. The evaluator is there to determine whether the candidate can perform the required task.
The same method could be used to test protective advances. Give the candidate a location, event schedule, client information and an assignment to conduct an advance. The agent must examine the location, identify security concerns, evaluate movement and access requirements, consider emergency arrangements and prepare a useful report or briefing.
The evaluator then determines whether the required work was completed to the established standard. If the candidate overlooks a critical security concern or fails to complete an essential part of the assignment, that failure must be reflected in the result.
I would not expect every certification test to use an identical location or scenario. Different testing sites may use different facilities and equipment. What matters is that candidates seeking the same certification are evaluated against the same required skills and acceptable performance standards.
That is how we determine whether an agent understands the job rather than simply remembering the answers to questions on an examination.
Schools Should Be Free to Teach. Certification Should Test.
I do not believe every executive protection school should be required to teach the same syllabus or use the same curriculum.
Schools have different instructors, facilities, experience and instructional methods. Some programs concentrate on corporate protection. Others place greater emphasis on protective operations, transportation, law-enforcement assignments or specific security responsibilities.
There is nothing inherently wrong with those differences. Instructors bring their own knowledge and experience into the classroom, and there may be several effective ways to teach the same task. What should remain consistent is the level of knowledge and performance required to earn a recognized professional certification.
ISA could train a student using our curriculum. Another executive protection school could teach a student using a different curriculum and different practical exercises. Both students would graduate after meeting their respective school’s requirements. Professional certification should be separate from that graduation.
Candidates seeking the same certification would be required to pass the same type of independent knowledge examination, demonstrate the required practical skills and meet any experience requirements for that certification level.
I have previously proposed using the National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence, or ASE, as a model for this type of program. Automotive technicians attend different schools and learn through different employers, but ASE provides a separate certification process based on common professional requirements. Executive protection could follow a similar approach while adding mandatory practical gate tests appropriate to protective work.
The point is not to make every school teach the same way. It is to make sure that professionals holding the same certification have demonstrated the required level of competence, regardless of where they were trained.
The Importance of In-Service Training
There is another part of military and federal law-enforcement training that I believe executive protection should adopt: regular in-service training.
During my career, I attended in-service training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, or FLETC. Students attending the program were expected to arrive already familiar with the material. The instructors reviewed the required skills, provided opportunities to practice and then evaluated our performance. We were not there to learn protective operations for the first time. We were there to maintain and improve skills associated with work we had already been trained to perform.
FLETC has offered a Protective Detail Refresher course for officers and agents with previous protective-service training and experience. The U.S. Secret Service also maintains continuing and advanced in-service training for personnel throughout their careers. The principle is sound. Protective personnel should not assume that completing a training course several years ago means their skills are still current.
Threats change, technology changes, laws change and procedures improve. Some important emergency skills may seldom be used during an actual assignment, which makes continued practice especially important.
I believe a voluntary national executive protection certification program should require annual in-service training for those who choose to maintain their certification. That training could review fundamental skills, introduce new information, address lessons learned from incidents and provide practical exercises that help agents maintain their abilities.
The annual training would also prepare agents for periodic independent recertification. At the appropriate time, they would return for written examinations and practical gate tests to demonstrate that they still meet the required standards.
Simply attending an annual class should not be enough. The purpose is to maintain competence, and the recertification process should determine whether the individual remains capable of performing the job.
Source: Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers — Protective Detail Refresher
What Happened After the 2020 Survey?
The University of Nebraska competency work did not disappear after the report was made available. The research helped support continued discussions about professional knowledge, recommended practices and executive protection standards. IPSB also contributed to professional literature, including the Close Protection and Security Journal, which began publication in 2023.
ASIS subsequently published its Executive Protection Standard in September 2025, concentrating primarily on the development and management of executive protection programs. BEPP developed its standard for providing protective services and has pursued work on professional certification.
These efforts contribute to the development of the profession, and the people involved deserve recognition for their work.
But the original 2020 survey was asking about the person who performs protective duties. That question has not been fully answered by publishing organizational standards or identifying the procedures that a protective-services company should follow.
This does not mean that executive protection schools, law-enforcement agencies or government training programs do not already evaluate their personnel. Many do, and some have extensive practical testing requirements.
What I believe remains missing is a broadly recognized, independent certification system that allows an employer to determine whether a particular executive protection professional has demonstrated the required knowledge, skills and experience. We have made progress defining what should be done. We need to make comparable progress determining who can actually do it.
Where Do We Go From Here?
I would not recommend throwing away the 2020 research and starting another survey simply because the profession now has additional standards.
The University of Nebraska project gave us a useful starting point. We should review those competencies alongside the ASIS and BEPP publications, established state training requirements, military and federal protective-service practices, and the responsibilities employers actually assign to their agents.
That comparison should help determine what a new agent must know, what belongs in advanced training and which duties require specialized qualifications. It should also identify changes that have occurred since 2020, including new technology, emerging threats and changes in protective operations. Once those competencies have been identified, the next step is to turn them into clear training and testing objectives.
Some knowledge can be evaluated through written examinations. Other skills, including protective advances, emergency response, communications and protective movements, must be demonstrated through practical exercises.
We also need to recognize that experience matters. A newly trained agent should not receive the same professional recognition as an experienced detail leader merely because both passed a written examination. Higher certification levels should require the knowledge, practical performance and relevant experience appropriate to those responsibilities.
I believe the best solution is a voluntary national certification system that remains independent of the schools providing training. Candidates would be evaluated against common professional requirements, with practical gate testing and appropriate experience verification. Once certified, agents would complete annual in-service training and return for periodic recertification.
This would not replace state licensing or interfere with the authority of government agencies. It would give employers, clients and the profession an additional way to evaluate the qualifications of people seeking protective assignments.
I examine that proposal in greater detail in Executive Protection Needs an ASE Model, including the role of an independent certifying organization and how professional certification could gain recognition among employers and clients.
The Army offers a useful model for teaching and evaluating individual tasks. FLETC provides an example of maintaining skills through in-service training, while ASE shows how professional certification can remain separate from the schools that prepare candidates. We do not need to copy those programs exactly. We should examine what works and apply those lessons to executive protection.
The Odd Man Out Is Still the Individual
The 2020 Executive Protection Professionals Core Competencies Survey was an important contribution to the industry. It identified skills experienced practitioners considered necessary, recorded substantial agreement about many responsibilities and helped advance discussions about professional standards.
But the survey also leaves us with an important question.
We can agree that protective agents should know how to conduct advances, evaluate threats, communicate properly and respond to emergencies. We can publish standards explaining what those tasks involve. We can develop training programs intended to teach them.
But how do we know the individual assigned to protect a client can actually perform those tasks?
My position is that we should take the next step. Use the 2020 research as a starting point, establish common training and evaluation objectives, and require candidates seeking professional certification to demonstrate their abilities through independent written examinations and practical field tests.
Schools should remain responsible for training their students. The certification organization should be responsible for determining whether those individuals meet the required professional standards. I believe this is a more useful direction for executive protection than continuing to debate which organization should control professional standards. What matters to the client, the employer and the protective team is whether the agent can do the job.
The next question is how qualified instructors and evaluators can teach, observe and test those skills consistently while allowing schools to use different teaching methods. That is the subject of Part 4 of this series, Can We Teach It, Test It and Trust the Result?
Standards should serve the profession—not become the profession.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the 2020 Executive Protection Professionals Core Competencies Survey?
The University of Nebraska Public Policy Center conducted the survey to identify knowledge and skills expected of new executive protection professionals. The project involved an ASIS Executive Protection Council working group and participation by IPSB members in the broader effort.
How many people participated in the survey?
The survey was accessed 393 times and produced 278 valid responses. Because participants were recruited through professional networks and referrals, the results should not be treated as representative of every executive protection professional.
Did the survey determine whether agents were competent?
No. It asked practitioners which skills they believed were important. It did not test the respondents or establish whether individual agents could actually perform those tasks.
What is an executive protection gate test?
A gate test is a practical examination requiring a candidate to perform an assigned task under established conditions. A qualified evaluator observes the candidate and determines whether the required performance standards were met.
Would every executive protection school have to teach the same curriculum?
No. Under ISA’s proposed model, schools would remain free to develop their own curricula and teaching methods while meeting applicable legal requirements. Candidates seeking the same independent professional certification would be evaluated against common competency standards.
Would national executive protection certification be mandatory?
No. ISA is proposing a voluntary professional certification for the civilian executive protection industry. State licensing and government training requirements would continue to apply where required, and employers could decide whether to require certification for particular assignments.
Why should certification include annual in-service training?
Annual in-service training would help agents maintain existing skills, learn new procedures and practice important tasks. It would also prepare them for periodic independent recertification examinations and practical evaluations.
Should new agents and experienced detail leaders have the same certification?
Not necessarily. Foundational certification could establish the knowledge and skills expected of new agents. Advanced and leadership certifications should require additional competence, relevant experience and demonstrated responsibility appropriate to the assignment.
About the Author
Matthew C. Parker is Chief Executive Officer of Independent Security Advisors LLC (ISA) and Director of Training for EPTraining.us. His professional experience spans more than three decades of military service, executive and dignitary protection operations and training, international security advising, and protective program development.
Before retiring from the U.S. Army in 2011, Parker conducted protective operations involving senior U.S. military leaders, trained U.S. and Iraqi protective-security personnel, managed military instructional programs and taught military science at Virginia Tech.
Since establishing ISA in 2011, he has directed executive protection operations in the United States for international government officials and trade delegations, provided protective services for corporate and private clients, and developed protective programs for financial institutions, insurance companies and private families.
His international experience includes security-advisory and protective assignments in Ukraine, training for Ukrainian police and Judicial Protection Service personnel, and advisory work concerning international commerce, diplomatic protection and democracy-support initiatives.
Sources and Related Reading
ASIS International — Executive Protection Standard
U.S. Army — Soldier’s Manual and Trainer’s Guide
U.S. Army — Warrior Skills Testing, February 2026
Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers — Protective Detail Refresher
ISA — Executive Protection Needs an ASE Model
Previous: Part 2 — Two Executive Protection Standards: The Question Joe LaSorsa Asked
Next: Part 4 — Can We Teach It, Test It and Trust the Result?
Related: Executive Protection Needs an ASE Model — Part 6
#ExecutiveProtection #ExecutiveProtectionTraining #ExecutiveProtectionStandards #ProfessionalCertification #IndependentSecurityAdvisors #BodyguardTraining #ProtectiveServices #SecurityTraining #EPTraining