Understanding Co-Employment Risk in Security Programs

Security programs are often judged by what’s visible—how many officers are on site, how coverage is structured, and where those officers are positioned.

But one of the most important factors in a security program is usually less obvious: Who is actually managing the officers on site?

In many environments, especially across commercial properties and industrial facilities, that responsibility can shift over time. Not in a formal way, and usually not intentionally. It happens in small moments. A property manager needs something handled quickly. An operations leader steps in to correct an issue. A tenant raises a concern that requires immediate direction.

Each of these decisions makes sense in the moment. They keep things moving. They solve problems.

But over time, they can begin to change how a security program operates.

When Responsibility Starts to Shift

Officers may start receiving direction from multiple people. Expectations can vary depending on who is on site. One shift may operate differently than the next. What began as a coordinated program starts to feel more fragmented.

At that point, the structure behind the program begins to erode.

A recent federal case involving a security provider and a property management firm brings this dynamic into focus. The court allowed claims to move forward against both parties, based in part on the level of control exercised over the contracted security officers.

The specifics of the case are unique, but the underlying issue is not.

When control over contract personnel becomes shared, so does the risk.

Why Structure Matters

This is often described as co-employment risk, but in practice it’s less about terminology and more about how a program functions day to day.

When roles are not clearly defined, accountability becomes harder to maintain. When accountability becomes unclear, both performance and protection can suffer.

Even well-resourced security programs can struggle in this environment. You can have strong officers, reliable coverage, and the right tools in place. But if those elements are not managed within a clear structure, they tend to operate independently rather than as a system.

And security works best as a system.

What Strong Programs Get Right

The most effective programs maintain a simple, but important distinction.

The client defines expectations—what needs to be protected, what outcomes matter, how the site operates.

The security provider is responsible for managing execution—how officers are deployed, how incidents are handled, and how procedures are followed.

When that line is clear, the program runs with consistency. Communication improves. Response becomes more predictable. Documentation holds up when it needs to.

When that line starts to blur, the opposite tends to happen.

Co-employment risk rarely appears all at once. It develops gradually, as small decisions shift how a program is managed.

The strongest security programs recognize that early and stay grounded in a clear operating principle:

Clients define expectations.
Security providers manage execution.

When that structure holds, performance becomes more consistent, accountability is clear, and risk is easier to manage.

At Citadel Security, we’ve built our approach around maintaining that structure. Security is treated as an operational function, not just a staffing model. Officers are supported by active supervision and clear protocols. Communication flows through defined channels.

Clients maintain visibility into the program, but don’t need to step in to manage it directly.

That distinction is what allows the program to stay consistent, even across multiple sites, shifts, and environments.

If you’re evaluating your current security program—or questioning how it’s being managed—we’re happy to take a look and share perspective. Reach out to us toady to learn more.