The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search
Published by Bok Asis, 2019-12-03 09:20:40

psoma

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.1 Introduction

Over time, a more defined crime control system was established. This system, known as
“watch and ward,” was administered by “shire reeves,” who were appointed by the king
(Pastor, 2003; Nemeth, 1989). The shire reeves appointed constables to deal with various
legal matters. Both the shire reeve (later shortened to sheriff) and the constable became the
forerunners of modern sworn law enforcement officers (Pastor, 2003; Nemeth, 1989). This
system furthered the legitimacy of public officers in crime prevention and control with the
appointment of individuals directly accountable to the king (Pastor, 2006).

The emergence of public police was not without problems and detractors. Some argued that
a full-time police force was too expensive. Obviously, the traditional sheriff-watch method
was much cheaper since much of this protection involved unpaid private citizens (Warner,
1968; Pastor, 2006). Other concerns came from a deeper level, relating to philosophical or
political arguments against government having a monopoly on policing (Pastor, 2003; John-
ston, 1992; Miller, 1977). The typical criticism centered on fears of excessive police power
(Miller, 1977). To those with this mindset, the cop on the beat represented an “ominous
intrusion upon civil liberty” (Miller, 1977). To others, the desire for security overrode esoteric
constitutional provisions. The tension was between the need for security and the desire to
maintain constitutional protections. This same concern is often echoed today relative to
public policing and by some who oppose private policing (Pastor, 2003).

Finally, the notion of sovereignty was a powerful argument in favor of municipal policing
agencies. Since the medieval period, there has been a gradual tendency to limit the use of
power or coercion. It was widely believed that the “eye for an eye” retribution standards
caused much violence, if only in response to the initial violent act. Notwithstanding the
potential for deterrence, or even the justification of retribution, the notion that government
should be the exclusive arbitrator of violence had compelling logic. With this viewpoint,
government was in charge of retribution and attempted to limit the use of violence by private
individuals. In turn, government was increasingly saddled with the burden of controlling
crime and capturing and punishing criminals (Pastor, 2006).

As is illustrated by this brief historical perspective, private policing in public environments
is not new. It is a variation of an age-old principle: security is the province of the people. In
contemporary times, “the people” typically pay others for protection. Citizens pay taxes for
municipal policing, and clients pay contracted fees for security services from firms (Pastor,
2006). Both of these methods are contemporary norms. However, a new dynamic is
developing. When citizens hire security firms for protection within the public realm, the
approach reflects the “watch and ward” system common in historical times. A key question
follows from that approach: Is it appropriate for clients, who are citizens of a governmental
entity, to pay a private firm for public safety services? Stated another way, if public police
cannot or will not provide for one’s personal protection, is it wrong to pay a security firm to
do so? No reasonable person should deny this right of self-defense.

180 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.1 Introduction

Consequently, private policing is justified on historical and philosophical precepts. It is an
appropriate response to current socioeconomic, political, and policing operational factors
facing most countries, especially Western societies.

7.1.2 CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVES

When one considers the provision of public safety and security services, it is useful to think
in terms of location and provision. As Figure 7-1 shows, location may be private or public,
and provision is either a substitute or a supplement.

PROVISION

LOCATION Substitute Supplement
x Corporate security
x Corporate campuses
Private x College campuses
x Gated communities
Public x Reminderville, Ohio
x Sussex, New Jersey x Marquette Park
x Starrett City
x Grand Central
x Center City District

Copyrighted by James F. Pastor, 2005. Used with permission.

Figure 7-1
Provision

In the Private/Substitute cell, the typical provision is that security personnel, either contract
or proprietary, provide the majority (if not all) of the security services. This does not mean
that public police officers do not or cannot enter into these private facilities and properties. It
simply means that public police do not routinely enter or patrol there. For example, public
police typically do not stand guard at the entrance to a manufacturing plant. Of course, if a
crime occurs, law enforcement personnel are often called to the private property. The cell is
not a complete substitute; however, it is largely a substitute, and for some firms it may be an
almost exclusive substitute. Consequently, this cell represents the norm in the security
industry.

In the Public/Substitute cell, the examples are the towns of Reminderville, Ohio, and Sussex,
New Jersey, which fired their police officers and hired security personnel in their place. The

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 181

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.1 Introduction

security officers patrolled the town, answered calls for service, took reports, and made
arrests. The private security personnel acted as a substitute for the public police. These
services were provided within the public domain as if the security officers were the police.
These highly unusual and controversial substitute arraignments were terminated after a
short period. Too many problematic issues are tied to such arrangements.

The last two cells, Private/Supplement and Public/Supplement, are the growth environments
for the security industry. In these cells, the focus is on supplementing or enhancing the public
safety already provided by policing agencies. For example, college campuses often feature
undefined or loosely defined boundaries between themselves and the larger community.
Since university or campus police are often vested with police powers, they can conduct
themselves and make arrests as do municipal police officers. Although the police powers
may be derived from government, if these university or campus police officers are employed
by a security firm, then this is an illustration of private policing. An even more common and
clear example occurs within gated residential communities and on corporate campuses. In
these environments, the typical provision of security services is from private firms.

As in the Private/Substitute cell, there is overlap between the service provision of public and
private entities. The overlap is much more pronounced in the Private/Supplement cell.
There the public police may regularly or semi-regularly patrol the gated community or a
college or corporate campus. The involvement of public police in these areas is usually more
than in the Private/Substitute areas but substantially less than in public streets, parks, and
the like (i.e., in the public realm). The provision of security services by private firms in this
cell (Private/Supplement) is already extensive.

The Public/Supplement cell, then, is the focus of this chapter. It is there that the greatest
opportunities for the security industry exist. This is also where most of the problems and
pitfalls reside.

The prospect for private policing is likely to grow substantially. Factors driving this growth
include the following:

x economic and operational issues
x crime (fear of crime) and terrorism
x order maintenance

Each factor increases the need for private policing in public environments. Many countries
in Europe, such as England and Sweden, are well into this transformation. For example,
Project Griffin, a program of London’s Metropolitan Police Service and the City of London
Police, has three components: training, communications, and the deployment of security
officers in the event of a major incident. The training is provided to security officers by the

182 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.1 Introduction

police. The communication methods include a “bridge call” every week, where the police
intelligence bureau updates security managers on current threats, recent crime trends, and
upcoming events. Deployment of security officers alongside police will occur in the event of
a major incident. To date, about 500 security officers have been trained for this deployment.
(More information is available at http://www.met.police.uk/projectgriffin and http://www.
cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/Departments/CT/ProjectGriffin.)

Another European example was pioneered by the Sweden-based security firm Securitas,
which has provided a “time share” service to residential and commercial clients. This
concept provides patrol and other security services to numerous clients, who each pay a
proportionate share of the costs. In essence, the time share concept is similar to buying a
fractional share of a condo unit and gaining the right to use the unit for a proportionate
period per calendar year. This service is provided in public places in various European
locations, including Trondheim, Norway, where Securitas security officers patrol a business
district.

The use of private security personnel to provide services within public areas is illustrative of a
new policing model, which may be called public safety policing. This model is a blend of
public and private entities with a defined delegation of duties or functions. These duties or
functions can be considered a division of labor (Bayley & Shearing, 2001). This division of
labor should include a structural component that enables the entities to blend the delivery of
public safety services through operational and administrative processes.

7.1.3 PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND STATISTICS

For several decades, there has been a growing movement to foster better relations between
law enforcement and the security industry. Many of these relationships have been built on
individuals moving from one profession (usually law enforcement) to the other profession
(usually the security industry). Over time, many meaningful professional relationships devel-
oped as individuals interacted with their counterparts in the other industry.

Still, many people from both entities sensed that more formalized relations were necessary
to cope with growing crime and public safety concerns. The Law Enforcement Liaison
Council (LELC) and Private Security Services Council of ASIS International, along with the
Private Sector Liaison Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
and other significant associations, have set the stage for this transformation.

Innovations like Operation Cooperation have been instrumental in this development. Opera-
tion Cooperation is, in essence, a goal and a program. Its goal is to communicate certain
partnership models, where security and police work together to combat crime and deliver
public safety services. From a programmatic perspective, a group of law enforcement and

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 183

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.1 Introduction

security organizations together published a document, titled Operation Cooperation, that
outlines the history of public/private partnerships and advocates future cooperative work.
This professionally developed document describes some of the most effective public-private
policing partnerships. These include the Business/Law Enforcement Alliance (BLEA) in
California, the Area Police-Private Security Liaison Program (APPL) in New York City (now
NYPD Shield), and the Downtown Detroit Security Executive Council (DDSEC) in Michigan
(Operation Cooperation, 2000). These models act as a template from which additional partner-
ships can be developed.

The cause of law enforcement–private security partnerships gained additional support more
recently when the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of
Justice, funded production of three valuable resources: a video detailing successful
partnerships, Law Enforcement & Private Security: On the Job Together (2008); a major guide
called Operation Partnership: Trends and Practices in Law Enforcement and Private Security
Collaborations (2009); and a free, one-hour e-learning course on forming such partnerships,
Team Up: Action Planner for Police-Security Partnerships (2010). All three resources are
available online.

The time has come to institutionalize coordination and cooperation between security and
police personnel through structural and contractual relationships. The value of partnerships
is limited unless more concrete ties are developed between private security and public
police. Personal relationships can be fickle, and existing partnerships have not completely
broken down the barriers between the two groups of professionals. Attitudes and histories
often die hard, but the insidious motivations of terrorists necessitate the acceleration of
structural cooperation between security and policing (Simeone, 2006). The details of future
relationships have yet to be articulated, but enhanced structural coordination would not be
possible without the tireless efforts of the professionals who developed and built
foundational partnerships.

The transition from a partnership model to a structural model can be illustrated by various
statistical trends. For example, as a consequence of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks,
certain security firms predicted revenue growth in the range of 10 to 12 percent per year
(Perez, 2002). In September 2001, there were 104,000 security officers in New York City. By
October 2003, the number of security officers had risen to 127,006 (National Policy Summit,
2004). This level of growth is not atypical in the security industry. For example, in England
there are now about 333,600 security personnel, compared to only 150,000 in 1996 (Sarre,
2005). In South Africa, private security personnel outnumber public police by a ratio of 5 to 1
(Sarre, 2005). In addition, statistics in continental Europe reveal a substantial presence of
security personnel. Recent estimates reveal that there are approximately 530,000 security
personnel, Germany having the most (Prenzler, 2005). Similarly, Australia witnessed an

184 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.1 Introduction

increase in security personnel from 22,975 in 1986 to 34,854 in 2001, a 52 percent increase,
while police experienced only a 19 percent increase during the same period (Prenzler, 2005).

The growth of private security can be illustrated by two huge international firms that
dominate the security industry. Securitas had revenues of $5.8 billion with a net income of
$115.2 million in 2001 (Perez, 2002). Its revenues increased to $6.6 billion in 2005. The firm
employs 220,000 people worldwide, with 124,000 in the United States. Since 9/11, it has hired
about 10,000 more guards to serve U.S. accounts (Perez, 2002). Similarly, Group 4 Securicor,
a Danish firm, had 2001 revenues of $2.81 billion, with a net income of $3.7 million (Perez,
2002). This firm employs 58,000 guards worldwide, with 38,000 in the United States, of which
about 3-5 percent are directly attributable to 9/11 (Perez, 2002). In 2005, Securicor had
revenues of $4.13 billion dollars, employed 50,500 employees in the United States, and had
about 400,000 full- and part-time employees worldwide.

Those in the security industry are well acquainted with the Hallcrest reports (see
Cunningham et al., 1991). These reports sought to compare the U.S. security industry to
public law enforcement quantitatively. The data revealed that security personnel greatly
outnumber police officers (Pastor, 2003). More recent census data show that the number of
full-time sworn police personnel is estimated at 796,518. In comparison, security industry
estimates suggest that more than 2 million people were employed by security firms in 2000
(Zielinski, 1999). Whatever the exact numbers, the difference between the fields is so great
that some argue private security is now the primary protective resource in the United States
(Bailin, 2000; Cunningham et al., 1991).

The ratio of public police officers to reported crimes has seen an even greater change. In the
1960s, there were about 3.3 public police officers for every violent crime reported. By 1993,
the numbers had reversed, and there were 3.47 violent crimes reported for every public
police officer (Walinsky, 1993). Thus, each public police officer in the 1990s had to deal with
more than 10 times as many violent crimes as a police officer in the 1960s (Walinsky, 1993;
Pastor, 2003). Walinsky notes that to return to the 1960s ratio of police to violent crimes,
about 5 million new public police officers would have to be hired by local governments
(1993). That will not occur. Indeed, what did occur during this time frame was an explosive
growth of the security industry (Cunningham et al., 1991).

Data from the U.S. Department of Justice suggest that the cost of public policing increased
from $441 million in 1968 to about $10 billion in 1994. This represents a 2,100 percent
increase in the cost of public policing, while the number of violent crimes rose 560 percent
from 1960 to 1992 (Walinsky, 1993). As crime rates increased, the monies used to combat
crime also dramatically increased. The Justice Department reported approximately 1,383,000
violent crimes in 2003 (475.8 per 100,000 population) and 1,367,000 in 2004 (465.5 per

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 185

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.1 Introduction

100,000 residents). These data reflect a generalized decrease in crime rates within the U.S. in
the past decade.

Some authors attribute this reduction of crime rates, at least in part, to the growth of private
security (Davis & Dadush, 2000), though the proposition is debatable. A related question is
whether any additional spending on public policing would result in a further reduction.
Based on this short historical and statistical overview, the answer appears to be negative.

The impact of security may even be more substantial than the data suggest. Indeed, the
growth of the security industry can be viewed by its involvement in businesses, homes, and
communities throughout the country (Pastor, 2003; Zielinski, 1999; Carlson, 1995; Goldberg,
1994). This involvement includes such diverse services as alarm systems, security guard
services, and investigative and consulting services. The growth of such services caused one
observer to note, “We are witnessing a fundamental shift in the area of public safety. It’s not
a loss of confidence in the police, but a desire to have more police” (Tolchin, 1985). Indeed,
today’s security industry is being compared to public policing in the mid-19th century. One
security firm owner stated, “This is a significant time for the private security industry. People
are just beginning to realize its potential. I see private security much like what public law
enforcement was in the 1850s” (Spencer, 1997). This assertion seems even more relevant in
the face of terrorism. Consequently, some see private policing as the “wave of the future”
(Goldberg, 1994; Benson, 1990). Numerous authors argue that there is a need for more
police, or at least more protective services (Dilulio, 1995; Walinsky, 1993; Cunningham et al.,
1990; Spitzer & Scull, 1977; Benson, 1990; Clotfelter, 1977; West, 1993; Seamon, 1995). Other
authors are more critical of the ability of the public police to provide an appropriate level of
protection (Benson, 1990; McLeod, 2002). Either way, another author observed, “People want
protection, and what they cannot get from the police, they will get from private security
companies” (Kolpacki, 1994). Consider the implications of these statements in the light of
terrorism. Police are finding that, in addition to their crime-fighting duties, they now have
significant homeland security responsibilities (National Policy Summit, 2004). This assertion
was echoed by Judith Lewis, former captain with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
Department, who observed (Stephens, 2005):

The expectations of law enforcement as first responders for homeland security have put an
almost unachievable burden on local law enforcement. Local law enforcement is not
designed organizationally to support the cooperation needed, and its officers don’t have the
training and technology to do the job. … Currently, traditional law enforcement is being left
behind.

186 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.2 Contemporary Circumstances

7.2 CONTEMPORARY CIRCUMSTANCES

As these statements and data reveal, the rise of private policing seems inevitable. But why
now? Certainly the terrorist acts of 9/11 changed many things. With the creation of the
Department of Homeland Security in the United States, the Afghan and Iraqi wars, and
terrorist acts after 9/11 (including bombings in Bali, Spain, and London), the desire for
increased security is obvious. However, the security industry was playing a growing role in
crime control long before 9/11. Terrorism is not the only trigger for private policing. The
following additional factors have all contributed to the growth of private security.

7.2.1 ECONOMIC AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES

Cost is a significant distinction between public and private policing. Alternative service provid-
ers, such as private security firms, provide labor cost savings. For example, a compensation
survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found the hourly pay for security personnel
ranged from an average of $6.82 in the Tampa/St. Petersburg metro area to $12.82 per hour in
Denver (Institute of Management & Administration, 2000). Public police were said to cost 2.79
times as much as private police in 1979 (Benson, 1990). Other data suggest that a police officer
costs at least $100,000 per year, counting salary, benefits, and overhead (Reynolds, 1994;
Pastor, 2003).

The cost of public policing seems to increase steadily. For example, during the period 1967-
1973, the average salary for state and local police increased 56 percent, while the average
salary for employees of private security firms increased only 34 percent (Clotfelter, 1977).
Further, personnel expenditures are often the largest municipal budgetary line item. Just two
groups—police and fire—represent about 55 percent of the total expenditures for the City of
Chicago (Miranda, 1993). A study of New York City revealed that over a 25-year period, the
number of public police officers rose from 16,000 to 24,000. However, the total annual hours
worked by the entire force declined (Savas, 2000; Pastor, 2003).

Municipalities spend a large proportion of their budgets on the salaries and benefits of
public police officers. It is doubtful whether that pay structure can be sustained.

Several authors have argued that certain operational functions drive up the costs of public
safety services. For example, in the United States, citizens have been urged to call 911 for
decades. This computerized call-taking system has resulted in huge increases in workloads in
police departments. Calls for such conditions as barking dogs, street light repairs, noisy
neighbors, unruly children, alarm response, and the like have created a difficult unintended
consequence for police agencies (Pastor, 2005). The problem has been lessened with the use of
311 (nonemergency police response) and call stacking (prioritizing calls for dispatch based on
the level of seriousness). However, these approaches have not resolved the basic dilemma—
serving the community with the resources allocated to the department (Pastor, 2005).

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 187

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.2 Contemporary Circumstances

The budgetary and operational dilemma for law enforcement officials may be best illustrated
by alarm response. Alarm response refers to police being dispatched to burglar, fire, or panic
alarms from commercial, industrial, and residential facilities. Often the problem with alarm
response is attributed to the high rate of false alarms, which is as high as 95 percent or more
(Benson, 1990; Olick, 1994; Cunningham et al., 1990). That is only part of the problem. In the
1980s, only 2 percent to 5 percent of residences had alarm systems. This figure was estimated
at 10 percent in the 1990s and about 20 percent from the year 2000 (Litsikas, 1994;
Cunningham et al., 1991). As the market for security alarms increased, the burden of alarm
response for police agencies also increased.

The impact of this one service hinders the ability of the police to perform their overall mission:
to serve and protect society. For example, according to the Seattle Police Department, alarm
response accounts for its second largest resource allocation. In just one year (2003), Seattle
police officers responded to over 22,000 alarm calls, averaging about 62 alarms a day at a total
estimated cost of $1.3 million.

Many police agencies are looking for ways to deal with this problem. Private policing may
provide the best way to resolve this financial and operational dilemma. For example, in
Johannesburg, South Africa, there is a growing market for alarm response conducted by
private firms. More than 450 registered companies provide alarm response services, serving
about 500,000 clients and employing about 30,000 private officers (Davis & Dadush, 2000).
These officers are equipped with 9mm weapons and bulletproof vests but have only normal
citizens’ arrest powers. The average response time to the protected facility is five minutes. At
least in part, this service provision evolved from the public’s lack of confidence in the
responsiveness of the police. Administration of these services seems professional when mea-
sured in terms of citizen complaints, use-of-force incidents, and the average response time
for alarm calls (Davis & Dadush, 2000).

Approximately 80 percent of police resources are used in “social worker, caretaker, baby-
sitter, and errand boy” activities (Benson, 1990; Pastor, 2003; Reynolds, 1994). Stated another
way, only 20 percent of police officer work is devoted to crime-related matters (Youngs,
2004). A Police Foundation study also found that instead of watching to prevent crime,
motorized police patrols are often merely waiting to respond to calls for assistance (Benson,
1990). The study asserted that about 50 percent of police duty time is spent simply waiting
for something to happen (Benson, 1990). While police officials claim this time is devoted to
preventive patrols, Benson argues that systematic observations suggest otherwise. Such
observations reveal that much of the time is occupied with conversations with other officers,
personal errands, and sitting in parked cars on side streets. While some of these activities
may be necessary, the compelling conclusion of these studies is that municipalities will not
be able to afford the status quo (Pastor, 2003). Partly as a result of this situation, the Toronto
Police Department reported that more than 60 percent of all calls to the police are handled

188 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.2 Contemporary Circumstances

by alternative response units, which include private police acting as a supplement to public
police departments (Palango, 1998; Pastor, 2003).

Partly because of the widespread use of community policing, municipal police agencies have
reoriented their approach to crime control. This policing model has attempted to change
public policing away from its traditionally reactive approach toward proactive crime fighting.
That approach, however, presents its own operational difficulties and incentives. Typically,
security firms are more oriented toward pleasing their clients—typically by preventing prob-
lems, including crime. In contrast, public police have less incentive to prevent crime since
they are expected to produce arrest statistics and other quantifiable measures (Benson,
1990). The result is an operational incentive geared toward waiting for crimes to be
committed in order to make the arrest.

In recent years, the focus on crime prevention and community policing has changed this
incentive. However, a proactive crime control strategy is costly to administer and is very
labor-intensive (Pastor, 2003). Community policing has created additional tasks that were
largely ignored by traditional enforcement-oriented police departments (Moore & Trojanow-
icz, 1988; Trojanowicz & Carter, 1990). These tasks include beat meetings, crime prevention
missions, accountability sessions, and other service and communication tasks. While
community policing appears to have had some success in reorienting the police to a more
proactive, client-friendly approach, the monies used to support this strategy are now largely
exhausted (Pastor, 2006).

Notwithstanding the exhaustion of federal community policing monies, a basic problem with
fully implementing community policing involves the resources and personnel levels
associated with these tasks (Oliver, 2004). That challenge may lead public police to transfer
tasks to or supplement their strength with private security personnel. Crime prevention and
order maintenance have long been the forte of private security. With these functions in
mind, private policing is predicted to play an increasing role in public safety (Pastor, 2006).
The form of this new policing model may mirror the community policing approach, which is
premised on client service designed to prevent and control crime. In this sense, private
police will be used to supplement public police in service and order maintenance functions.
This allows public police officers more time for addressing serious crimes, including terrorist
violence. Carlson asserts that communities are certain to follow this approach because “they
may have to” (1995). For comparison, he observes that hospitals were forced to give more
responsibility to nurses due to rising medical costs. He adds:

Cities may find that sworn police officers—whom they must train, pay relatively well and
sustain pensions—are too expensive for fighting and deterring certain types of low-level
crimes. To maintain basic civic order, rent-a-cops may be a better deal.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 189

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.2 Contemporary Circumstances

Private police officers are not “rent-a-cops” but alternative service providers. Many needed
and valuable services can be performed at a lower cost compared to public police officers.
Contracting certain service tasks can be equated to the common business practice of
outsourcing (Youngs, 2004). These tasks include the following:

x traffic accidents/traffic control
x parking tickets/abandoned vehicles
x vehicle lock-outs
x building checks
x alarm response
x animal complaints
x funeral escorts
x paperwork/subpoena services
x “cold call” follow-ups
x vandalism complaints/reporting
x theft/burglary/lost-and-found reporting
x crime scene security
x prisoner transport/security

In sum, public police are overburdened with many service-oriented functions (Pastor, 2003).
Private police can help resolve both functional and economic constraints. Indeed, the threat
of terrorism will only exacerbate these constraints—thereby accelerating the need for
alternative service providers. For example, about 85 percent of all critical infrastructures in
the United States are already protected by private security personnel (Simeone, 2006).

Private police services are financed by business or property owners, either through special
taxing initiatives or more directly through contracts with property or community associations.
With these funding sources, private policing services could be sustained with little or no
municipal expenditure. Consequently, the economic benefits derived from privatized service
providers can help relieve already strained municipal budgets (Pastor, 2003).

Obtaining private security services through a taxing initiative usually involves the creation of
a special taxing district. The district may be given broad powers to promote economic
development or stability through health, safety, and environmental improvements. The spe-
cific source of the monies can be a tax on real property or a sales tax levy. Since the tax is
confined to a certain geographic area, the local property or business owners usually maintain
control over the authority vested in the district. Participation in this authority usually
requires a certain connection to the geographic area, such as being a property owner,
working in or owning a business within the district, or owning stock in a corporation within
the district (Pastor, 2003).

190 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.2 Contemporary Circumstances

7.2.2 ORDER MAINTENANCE

Order maintenance techniques, and their relationship to the physical environment, are rele-
vant for several reasons. Widely used in community policing, order maintenance may prove
beneficial in reducing crime and incivility or disorder (Pastor, 2003). Many researchers
believe that a lack of order can lead to high crime or fear of crime in a given area (Covington
& Taylor, 1991; Lewis & Maxfield, 1980; Kelling, 1995).

The theory underlying order maintenance contends that crime problems originate in
relatively harmless activities. Public drinking, graffiti on buildings, and youths loitering on
street corners are common activities in certain areas. If these activities go unchecked, the
level of fear and incivility begins to rise. Over time, more serious crimes, such as gang fights
or even drive-by shootings, may take place. Disorder tends to reduce the social controls
previously present in the area. This results, at least in theory, in increased crime, which
contributes to the further deterioration of the physical environment and the economic well-
being of the community (Pastor, 2003).

The development of order maintenance theories can be traced to a line of thinking that
initially focused on conditions in cities, particularly in slums. In these areas, conditions such as
“physical deterioration, high density, economic insecurity, poor housing, family disintegration,
transience, conflicting social norms, and an absence of constructive positive agencies” were
deemed contributors to criminal behavior (McLennan, 1970). Over time, researchers started to
shift their focus from socioeconomic factors toward the physical characteristics of the
community. For example, Cohen and Felson (1979) argued that the completion of a crime
requires the convergence in time and space of an offender, a suitable target, and the “absence
of guardians capable of preventing the violation.”

This focus on environmental factors was found in a number of other studies. Gibbs and
Erickson (1976) argued that the daily population flow in large cities “reduces the effectiveness
of surveillance activities by increasing the number of strangers that are routinely present in the
city, thereby decreasing the extent to which their activities would be regarded with suspicion.”
Similarly, Reppetto (1974) concluded that social cohesion and informal surveillance decline
when a large number of people live in a given area (Jackson, 1984). Lewis and Maxfield (1980)
took this logic to the next level. They focused on specific physical conditions within the
environment, seeking to assess the impact on those conditions on crime and the fear of crime.
Their research assessed such factors as abandoned buildings, teen loitering, vandalism, and
drug use. They believed those factors draw little attention from police partially because
police have limited resources to deal with them. The researchers noted that such problems,
nonetheless, are important indicators of criminality within any community.

The implications of these studies are clear. When faced with disorderly conditions, individuals
tend to feel a greater exposure to risk and a loss of control over their environment, and they are

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 191

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.2 Contemporary Circumstances

more aware of the consequences of a criminal attack (Fisher & Nasar, 1995). This thinking
further advances the concept of situational crime prevention by assessing the circumstances
surrounding the crime. This assessment takes into account the intersection of potential
offenders with the opportunity to commit crime. Researchers argue that a particular crime
could be prevented through measures designed to reduce the offender’s ability (or even
propensity) to commit crimes at specific locations (Pastor, 2003).

These conclusions have been echoed by a number of other authors, including Kelling (1995).
He asserts that citizens regularly report their biggest safety concerns to be things like
“panhandling, obstreperous youths taking over parks and street corners, public drinking,
prostitution, and other disorderly behavior.” Each of these factors was identified as a
precursor to more serious crime. Moreover, the failure to correct disorderly behavior may be
perceived as a sign of indifference. This indifference communicates the message that no one
cares—which may, in turn, lead to more serious crime and urban decay (Kelling, 1995).
Consequently, the key to crime control is to address both the physical and social conditions
that foster crime.

Implicit in these findings is the desire to prevent crime or reduce the conditions or factors
that foster crime. These conclusions have been embraced by both public police and private
security. A key component of these preventive methods is order maintenance, which can be
accomplished in a number of ways, including the rehabilitation of physical structures, the
removal or demolition of seriously decayed buildings, and the improvement of land or
existing buildings by cleaning and painting. Other relatively simple environmental
improvements are recommended, such as planting flowers, trees, or shrubs to enhance the
“look and feel” of an area (Pastor, 2003). These physical improvements, coupled with efforts
to reduce or eliminate certain antisocial behaviors, such as loitering, drinking and drug use,
fighting, and other disorderly behaviors, are at the core of an order maintenance approach to
crime prevention. The goal is to correct these conditions and behaviors before more serious
crimes occur.

Viewed in this broad manner, security can encompass such diverse factors as trash collection,
planting flowers, and private police patrols. Each service is designed to improve conditions
within an area. The advent of terrorism will only magnify this environmental focus. For
example, an unattended package or an unidentified vehicle may actually contain a bomb.
While these threats are difficult to remedy, this focus on the environment has been echoed by
Kaplan, who views the environment as the security issue of the early 21st century (1994).

In public policing, these order maintenance techniques are encompassed in the concept of
community policing (Moore & Trojanowicz, 1988; Kelling, 1995; Palango, 1998; M. Robinson,
1997; Seamon, 1995; Kolpacki, 1994; Spencer, 1997; Cox, 1990; Johnston, 1992). In essence, a
core goal of community policing is to focus on fear reduction through order maintenance

192 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.2 Contemporary Circumstances

techniques (Moore & Trojanowicz, 1988). In this sense, crime and fear reduction through
order maintenance are in accordance with the environmental theories articulated above.
Community policing also strives to reduce calls for service by addressing the underlying
reasons for the calls.

In the private sector, the focus has long been on prevention (Chaiken & Chaiken, 1987;
Shearing & Stenning, 1983; Cunningham et al., 1990). The similarity of private security and
community policing techniques can be narrowed to one core goal: both are intended to use
proactive crime prevention that is accountable to the client or the citizen, respectively
(Kolpacki, 1994; Pastor, 2003). Private security is particularly well suited to perform order
maintenance. At least partly because of that sector’s crime prevention focus, private security
personnel have replaced public police in the protection of business facilities, assets,
employees, and customers (Pastor, 2003). Private security personnel provided what the
public police could not. Specifically, security firms provided services for specific clients,
focusing on the protection of certain assets, both physical and human, as their primary or
even exclusive purpose.

Security personnel attempt to predict reasonably foreseeable crime and develop precautions
against it (Gordon & Brill, 1996). A substantial body of law has grown around the
environmental aspects of crime. Tort claims on grounds of premises liability or negligent
security have provided explosive business for personal injury attorneys (Pastor, 2003). These
lawsuits stem from a negligence-based legal theory that questions whether the business or
property owner knew or should have known that a criminal would commit a crime within the
property (Pastor, 2006).

This legal exposure helped create a significant consequence. Property and business owners
were motivated to institute security measures within and around their property or business
location. The exposure serves as both carrot and stick. The carrot is a safe and secure place to
do business and to live or work in. Of course, a safe and secure environment will not hurt the
reputation of the business or the viability of the property. The stick is potential liability with
substantial jury awards. In addition, media exposure stemming from crime, coupled with the
reputational and public relations damage associated with an incident, provides substantial
motivation to secure the premises from criminals. Consequently, security began to be seen
as an asset and crime control as a duty.

The result was a growing use of security personnel and methodologies. Business and
property owners started to think and worry about security, becoming more proactive in their
approach to a safe and secure environment. For security firms, the legal exposure created
opportunities. It brought security closer and closer into the realm of the average citizen.
Security personnel began to be used routinely at businesses and large corporations, which
began to focus on the protection of employees and clients instead of simply focusing on asset

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 193

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.2 Contemporary Circumstances

protection. In this sense, security became more mainstream. It became part of people’s
workplaces, apartment buildings, and hospitals. Private security became “the people.” This
relationship of the security industry to mainstream society also increased the scope of
services provided by private police (Pastor, 2006).

As premises liability and negligent security lawsuits developed, the liability of business and
property owners expanded farther and farther from the protected facility. Indeed, it is now
common for security patrols for properties and businesses to extend into the streets and
other public areas to prevent crime and provide a safe and secure environment. Private
police have become another security layer in the public domain.

Public police had and still have a much more difficult task incorporating crime prevention
into their organizational structure. The challenge arises from their mission to enforce laws
uniformly throughout society, as well as the need to preserve democratic and constitutional
ideals. Considering the many burdens of public police, it is reasonable to conclude that the
role of private security will continue to increase. Many have advocated that private police
play a larger role in the prevention of crime in areas traditionally and exclusively patrolled by
public police (Chaiken & Chaiken, 1987; Palango, 1998; McLeod, 2002; Benson, 1990). The
use of order maintenance techniques will prove to be an important function used by private
policing (Pastor, 2003).

7.2.3 CRIME (FEAR OF CRIME) AND TERRORISM

The relationship between crime and fear has been systematically studied in numerous
studies (Smith & Hill, 1991; Lewis & Maxfield, 1980; Liska et al., 1982; Benson, 1990; Moore &
Trojanowicz, 1988; Pastor, 2003). Similarly, other authors assert that crime has led to a
generalized increase in fear levels in certain demographic subsections, as well as in the larger
society (Farnham, 1992; Litsikas, 1994; Walinsky, 1993; West, 1993). The consistent conclusion
was that crime has created concern, often rising to what could be construed as fear, and that
fear of crime is exacerbated by signs of criminal activity. Indeed, signs of criminal activity, such
as disorder or incivility, have an impact on people’s perceptions of crime (Lewis & Maxfield,
1980; Kelling, 1995). Incivility is equated with disorder; both represent chaotic conditions that
result in more serious criminal activity.

The levels of fear are greatest where there is a concern about both crime and incivility. If
incivility (or disorder) is not perceived to be a problem, then residents may be able to cope
with higher rates of crime (Lewis & Maxfield, 1980). This conclusion has important implica-
tions. Communities must deal with both the crime rate and the physical and social indicators
that lead to the perception of incivility and disorder (Lewis & Maxfield, 1980).

194 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.2 Contemporary Circumstances

Another implication of these theories is that private police will increasingly be used to
combat or respond to crime (Benson, 1997; Tolchin, 1985; Cunningham et al., 1990; Spencer,
1997; Meadows, 1991; Walinsky, 1993; McLeod, 2002; Bailin, 2000). These authors and many
others have predicted or shown that private security personnel are being hired in response to
the incidence of crime. This assertion is echoed by Stephanie Mann, author of Safe Homes,
Safe Neighborhoods, who asserted that “people need to take responsibility for their safety. …
Citizens are the law and order in a community, not the police” (Litsikas, 1994). This view is
based on the impact of normal crime. With the threat of terrorism, it seems particularly
appropriate to assert that government cannot implement the necessary remedies to deal
with crime and terrorism (including the attendant fears) without the contribution of the
private sector (Pastor, 2003).

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 195

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.3 Principles of Private Policing

7.3 PRINCIPLES OF PRIVATE POLICING

Private policing is related to the larger notion of privatization. Advocates of privatization
argue that the use of private firms results in lower costs for the same—or better—service than
when services are provided by government (Wessel, 1995; Donahue, 1989; Tolchin, 1985;
Clotfelter, 1977; Miranda, 1993; Carlson, 1995; Benson, 1990; Morgan, 1992; Clemow, 1992).
These authors maintain that private firms are able to pay lower wages and terminate
inefficient workers. However, there is substantial evidence that labor costs (including
benefits, training, etc.) have a direct relationship to service quality (Benson, 1990; Donahue,
1989; Linowes, 1988; Wessel, 1995).

Still, there is ample evidence that private firms can deliver more efficient services at a lower
cost. Savings are typically based on the following (Donahue, 1989):

x more flexible use of labor
x richer array of incentives and penalties
x more precise allocation of accountability
x less constraint on process and more focus on results

Proponents of privatization argue that market competition results in more efficient service
delivery, especially when many similarly situated firms are ready, willing, and able to provide
such services (Morgan, 1992; Donahue, 1989; Benson, 1990). The absence of competition in
the public sector allows for complacency, with little incentive to provide better service at the
lowest cost possible.

Opponents of privatization argue that reduced labor costs are illusory because they are
achieved through hiring less qualified and less trained personnel, providing inadequate
benefits to employees, using hiring practices that focus on part-time employees, and even
using creative accounting methods (Bilik, 1992). The cost of contract bidding and
administration must be assessed, as it adds to the bottom line and may even invite
corruption (Hebdon, 1995; Donahue, 1989; Chaiken and Chaiken, 1987). Other authors
contend that without adequate competition, the ill effects of monopolies will result (Shenk,
1995; Clemow, 1992; Schine et al., 1994; Bilik, 1992; Donahue, 1989; Hebdon, 1995).

The use of private service providers does not necessarily result in lower costs or better service
quality. However, the benefits of limited privatization far outweigh the negatives. This is
especially true in the case of public safety services, where the failure of law enforcement to
protect society is potentially measured in thousands or even hundreds of thousands of lives.
Given the threat posed by terrorists with weapons of mass destruction, the concerns voiced
by privatization opponents seem pale. Still, it is critical to maintain competition among

196 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.3 Principles of Private Policing

private sector vendors; enforce accountability; and develop and maintain standards for the
selection, training, and hiring practices of private security firms. As Donahue states, the
“evidence is overwhelming that where…negligence or the nature of the service itself
undercuts competition, the benefits of privatization shrink or vanish” (1989).

7.3.1 POLICING ROLE AND FUNCTIONAL DISTINCTIONS

The clearest distinction between public and private policing is that public police officers are
duly sworn by government officials. In contrast, private police are individuals who are
employed by private firms or other organizations without governmental affiliation. However,
this distinction is not always clear. Some jurisdictions license and regulate private security
personnel. Some governmental units even grant special police status to private security
personnel, giving them broad arrest powers.

Carlson identifies five specific categories of distinction between public and private policing
(1995):

x Philosophical. Private police may lack the moral authority that government can give to
law enforcement.

x Legal. Private police are hobbled by the law, with only limited powers of arrest, usually
restricted to the commission of crimes within their presence. However, those with special
police status have nearly all powers of public police, including authority to make
arrests and carry guns.

x Financial. Private police can perform certain tasks more cheaply.

x Operational. Private police are more flexible, can be assigned to specific locations, and
spend nearly all their tour on the beat. They make fewer arrests, are burdened with little
paperwork, and rarely make court appearances.

x Security/Political. Private police give citizens more control over their own safety by
augmenting police efforts, helping to maintain order when police are spread thin. Also,
private policing encourages citizens to follow community standards in a way that police
officers cannot or do not.

These categories raise many questions. For example, the perception that security personnel
do not possess the same legal and moral authority as public police officers may affect how
private officers perform their jobs. When a private police officer directs someone to refrain
from loitering, the person’s willingness to comply may depend on whether the officer has the
authority, either legal or moral, to force compliance (Pastor, 2006).

Another issue involves the level of control over the functions of the private police and how
responsive the private police are to the needs of the client. It may not even be clear who the

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 197

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.3 Principles of Private Policing

client is. Is it the property owners who contribute their monies through real estate taxes? Is it
the larger community, or even anyone who happens to drive through the neighborhood? In a
community policing model, the public police are urged to be more accountable to the
citizens they serve. In this sense, the citizens are the clients.

Another way to distinguish public and private police is by the roles they take or functions
they perform. The distinctive aspects of these policing functions are outlined by Chaiken and
Chaiken (1987), as shown in Figure 7-2.

Figure 7-2 distinguishes the functions of private and public police dramatically. One of the
most profound distinctions regards the input—that is, the person for whom the service is
designed or intended. In private policing, the bill payer is usually deemed the client. In
public policing, the citizen or society is the client (Shearing & Stenning, 1983).

Private Police? mPolicing Function? o Public Police
Client Input Citizen
Role
Crime prevention Targets Crime response
Specific General
Delivery system
Profit-oriented enterprise Output Government
Loss reduction/asset protection Enforcement/arrest

Figure 7-2
Functions of Private and Public Police

A corporation performs both a private and public function by hiring security personnel and
equipping them with uniforms, badges, and weapons. The generally accepted responsibility
or function of security in this context is to enforce certain rules or laws on the company’s
property (McKenzie, 1994). Consequently, this seemingly private function provides an
external benefit to the larger society, or at least to the citizens who happen to be within the
protected facility or area (Pastor, 2003).

This input distinction explains much about the service orientation of the two entities.
Particularly in the private sector, the need to please the client cannot be underestimated.
Private security personnel tend to view behavior in terms of whether it threatens the interests
of the client (Shearing & Stenning, 1983). However, what constitutes the interests of the
client is not always clear or consistent (Dalton, 1993). That presents a challenge because
knowledge of a client’s interests may affect how a security firm performs its duties.

198 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.4 Private Policing Environments

Another important distinction regards the output of the service. Private security today tends to
focus on loss reduction or asset protection. However, the role of private security may be
shifting back to its historical roots. If so, private policing could renew some of its enforcement
orientation, which has become the almost exclusive realm of public policing agencies (Benson,
1997; Tolchin, 1985; Cunningham et al., 1990; Spencer, 1997; Meadows, 1991; Walinsky, 1993;
Bailin, 2000).

Perhaps the most important distinction involves the delivery system. For private police, the
delivery system is profit-oriented firms or corporations. With public police, it is government.
The competition in which companies engage drives better service and value. Conversely,
monopolies, such as police departments, tend to be less efficient, even complacent. If a
security firm is not performing well or is not providing good value, it can be fired. In public
policing, however, citizens cannot directly fire their police department. While they may
petition political leaders for redress, doing so is not nearly as effective as exercising a 30-day
termination clause, as is common in the security industry.

Another issue involves the applicability of constitutional protections, such as prohibitions on
unreasonable searches and seizures. Historically, such protections did not apply to private
police (Nemeth, 1989; Chaiken & Chaiken, 1987). However, courts are now inclined to extend
constitutional protections to cover actions by private security personnel. Typically, their
actions must have a connection to government or sworn police officers (Pastor, 2003).

7.4 PRIVATE POLICING ENVIRONMENTS

Though unusual, private police patrols on public streets are not unprecedented. This section
presents various models of privatization, wherein private police play a role in providing public
safety services.

As Moore and Trojanowicz assert, police are responsible for managing crime and its effects.
No other government agency regards itself as specifically responsible for crime (1988).
However, if the police cannot prevent crime, one logical response is to hire private security
firms to do so. In this way, private police can be viewed as an additional layer of security for
the community. As Carlson explains, private security firms can help restore community life,
allowing people to worry less about crime and spend more time building families and
neighborhoods (1995). Few people would argue against targeting crime and reducing its
impact on society.

The scope and details of these arrangements vary widely. In rare cases, private security has
replaced public police in a jurisdiction. In most private policing initiatives, some level of

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 199

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.4 Private Policing Environments

partnership forms the basis for the arrangement. Such partnerships make sense. The two
entities have many similar goals, such as reducing crime and fear through an environmental
or order maintenance approach. The commonality of goals may foster cooperation in the
spirit of public safety. For example, public police may rely on private police to carry out tasks
they prefer not to undertake. In return, public police provide some needed services, such as
expeditious response to calls for assistance (Chaiken & Chaiken, 1987). Most public police
officials welcome fuller partnership with private security if it frees up their officers for crime
fighting (Pastor, 2003).

The models presented below describe past or present privatized policing arrangements. Two
key factors in these models are the location of services and the provision of services. Locations
may be public or private, but sometimes the distinction is unclear. For example, a gated
neighborhood with a fenced perimeter has characteristics of both public and private locations.
(However, for present purposes such a space is deemed private because of its physical
separation from the larger community.)

As for provision of services, security personnel may be used to supplement public police,
replace public police, or provide a service that lies between those extremes. For example, in
some cases a private firm has only ancillary involvement in community safety. In other cases,
private security personnel may engage in proactive and tactical enforcement techniques,
designed to search out and arrest criminals. However, in most cases, the security firm acts
as a supplement to public police.

Accurate statistics on the scope of private policing are difficult to obtain. Thus, it is unknown
how common the following arrangements are.

7.4.1 PRIVATE ENVIRONMENT: SUPPLEMENT

There are many examples of private security acting as a supplement to the public police in
private, gated communities. For example, in Los Angeles 35 neighborhoods have asked local
governmental permission to separate from the surrounding communities by installing gates
and hiring security firms (Farnham, 1992). In suburban Detroit, the 2,300-home East English
Village Association hired a private security force to supplement patrols by local police (Farn-
ham, 1992). The reasoning behind this decision is illustrated by a statement from the
president of the property association: “We figured if we wanted to keep this neighborhood
stable, we couldn’t stick our heads in the sand and say the police should take care of it. We
realized there’s only so much they can do” (Farnham, 1992).

The Frenchman’s Creek development in Florida hired a miniature tactical team called STOP
(Special Tactical and Operations Personnel). The team “roams the grounds every night
dressed in camouflage face paint to stay as unobtrusive as possible and give them the edge

200 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.4 Private Policing Environments

on any intruder” (Cruickshank, 1994). This tactical team stays sharp by conducting exercises
with sophisticated equipment, including night vision gear and infrared detectors that
distinguish a human body from the surrounding vegetation. It also includes a marine patrol
and tickets speeders (Cruickshank, 1994).

7.4.2 PUBLIC ENVIRONMENT: REPLACEMENT

In rare (and problematic) instances, public police have been replaced by private security
firms. For example, in 1992 Sussex, New Jersey, fired its police officers after a drug scandal
(Reynolds, 1994). The town of Reminderville, Ohio, did the same. Police officers in both
towns were replaced by private security guards who patrolled the town in blue, police-like
uniforms. They were armed with 9mm semiautomatic weapons, radios, batons, and
handcuffs. In essence, the security personnel maintained the appearance of public police
but provided their services at a lower cost (Geyelin, 1993; Reynolds, 1994). The towns saved
money, but the experiments were terminated after pressure from public police organi-
zations and complaints by residents that the security personnel were not adequately
enforcing laws (Pastor, 2003; Reynolds, 1994; Geyelin, 1993; Tolchin, 1985). Although the
security personnel looked like police officers, they had “no more than citizen’s power of
arrest, and … no authority whatsoever to question, detain or search a suspect without
risking a lawsuit” (Geyelin, 1993).

7.4.3 PUBLIC ENVIRONMENT: SUPPLEMENT

It is more common for private police to supplement, not replace, public police. Many such
arrangements exist in business improvement districts (BIDs). Indeed, New York City
contains more than 40 BIDs, and more than a thousand BIDs exist across the United States
(Davis & Dadush, 2000). An overview of some supplemental arrangements follows.

Grand Central Partnership

The Grand Central area in New York City consists of more than 6,000 businesses, comprising
more than 51 million square feet (Carlson, 1995). Each property owner is taxed an additional
12.5 cents per square foot. In 1994, this tax raised $6.3 million for the Grand Central
Partnership (GCP). The tax revenue is returned to the district management association,
which administers the program and employs a security force (Goldberg, 1994). A spokes-
person for the association emphasized that the program requires “layers of cooperation”
with various city planning commissioners, assessment and tax officers, and the city council
(Carlson, 1995; Goldberg, 1994). The revenues and cooperative efforts with city officials
provide diverse services, including private street sweepers and trash collectors; garbage cans,
street lighting, and flower boxes; multilingual tour guides; homeless shelters; and uniformed
security guards.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 201

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.4 Private Policing Environments

Obviously, the scope of the project goes beyond what is traditionally viewed as security and
works to change both people’s perceptions and the physical environment. The New York Times
had described the area as “chaotic and forbidding, often filthy and sometimes dangerous”
(Carlson, 1995), but after two years of operation, the Grand Central Partnership saw crime drop
20 percent. After the fifth year, reported crime was down 53 percent (Carlson, 1995).

Explanations for the crime drop are varied. Some maintain that the private police perform
tasks in a cost-effective manner and are more flexible than public police (Carlson, 1995;
Patterson, 1995). GCP staffers offer other reasons. A retired New York City detective in charge
of GCP operations asserted, “Police are involved with other matters[;] they cannot concentrate
on the quality of life crime when they have major crimes. We are the eyes and ears of the police
department. …[T]hey appreciate our work because we try to solve some problems ourselves,
without police intervention” (Carlson, 1995). Another GCP staffer stated, “We don’t do
homicides, we don’t do rapes, but we do other quality of life things. … We do the work the
police have trouble getting [to] because they are so busy” (Carlson, 1995; Pastor, 2003).

These statements reflect an order maintenance approach, which is also demonstrated by the
workload handled by the security personnel. In 1994, the security personnel responded to
6,916 incidents. Only 624 of them required police assistance, and only 122 resulted in arrest
(Carlson, 1995). The result of this cooperative effort is that police are able to focus on more
serious crimes, and security personnel address the bulk of the service and order
maintenance duties (Pastor, 2003).

Selection criteria for these guards are similar to those for public police (Carlson, 1995). A
guard in the GCP must:

x be at least 18 years of age
x have no recent felony convictions
x be a reasonably upstanding and sober citizen
x be a high school graduate
x pass psychological examination
x pass a drug screening test

In addition, there is a hiring preference for military service.

By contrast, their seven-day training is substantially less rigorous than training for public
police. Weekly follow-up training addresses use-of-force issues and security procedures.
Discipline within the ranks is strictly enforced. According to Carlson, absenteeism or
lateness, sloppy dress, smoking in public, and even minor rule violations are not tolerated
(1995). This level of discipline is particularly important because the security personnel wear

202 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.4 Private Policing Environments

uniforms that resemble New York City police uniforms. They—like the police—also wear
radios and bulletproof vests.

Despite the favorable statistics, some people—including police officers—are not convinced
of the merits of this arrangement. The following statement sums up their reservations: “In
the eyes of the police, guards seem to occupy a confusing gray area between public official
and private citizen that many cops find disconcerting” (Carlson, 1995). However, other
private citizens and property owners care less about such legal niceties and more about their
own security. Some even claim that regardless of the cost paid for these services, the
protection received is well worth it (Carlson, 1995). One property owner stated, “Before the
security guards, there were no cops. Muggers would snatch a purse right in front of the store,
and they would be laughing, not even running away. … They can’t do that now. Without
guards, it’s like a jungle out there” (Carlson, 1995).

The GCP arrangement is built on the logic of order maintenance. The president of the GCP
stated, “When a citizen sees prostitutes, graffiti, rough talking panhandlers, and poorly
maintained buildings, he concludes that things are out of control and he forgoes use of that
street” (Blyskal, 1996).

Metro Tech Area

The Metro Tech Area is another New York City BID that provides supplemental private
security and sanitation services. This BID also focuses its efforts on an order maintenance
approach, seeking to reduce signs of physical and social disorder through street
maintenance and regulation of people’s behavior (Davis & Dadush, 2000). A CCTV system
with 26 cameras monitored by the New York City Police Department (NYPD) dispatchers
enhances the ability of private officers to control crime and disorder (Davis & Dadush, 2000).

The BID employs 28 private police officers. Candidate selection is highly competitive,
accepting only one of 25 applicants (Davis & Dadush, 2000). Each candidate must be 21 years
old, pass drug tests and psychological exams, submit to random drug tests, have a clean
felony record, and have no history of drug activity (Davis & Dadush, 2000). The starting salary
is $20,500, with an increase after one year, plus merit and promotional opportunities. Each
officer receives 96 hours of training at the NYPD academy on such topics as conflict
resolution, communication skills, legal topics, court procedures and testimony, investigative
techniques, and report writing (Davis & Dadush, 2000). These officers also receive in-service
training at roll calls and annual training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and baton
use. The officers do not carry firearms but do possess arrest powers. Approximately six
arrests are made per year, but only when the officers witness the crime. Incidents handled by
these officers usually relate to order maintenance and assistance to citizens (Davis &
Dadush, 2000).

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 203

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.4 Private Policing Environments

Internal accountability is structured into this arrangement. Every private officer must pass
written exams each year. These exams focus on the code of conduct, post orders, and rules.
Merit increases are based on professional performance. In addition, the officers are under
CCTV surveillance and are subject to internal investigation complaints. Only six abuse
allegations have been made in nine years. These complaints are overseen by the BID’s public
safety committee and board. Finally, external accountability is accomplished by the court
system, the Department of Business Services, the NYPD, and, of course, the BID’s clients
(Davis & Dadush, 2000).

Center City District

Another supplemental arrangement in a public environment is the Center City District
(CCD), a Philadelphia BID formed in 1991 (Seamon, 1995). Before the BID was formed, the
downtown business district was crime-ridden. The Central Police District, which serves the
downtown area, reported that 37 percent of its workload came from this area (Seamon,
1995). In addition, the area was plagued by a growing number of vacant commercial
properties, unregulated vendors, homeless citizens, and trash on the streets and sidewalks.

The district covers 80 square blocks, and 2,087 property owners pay a property tax surcharge
equal to 5 percent of the current city real estate levy (Seamon, 1995). In 1994, the budget was
$6.6 million. The budget is allocated to the following privately contracted services:

x 53 percent for street cleaning and trash pickup
x 33 percent for public safety
x 7 percent for administration
x 7 percent for marketing

These allocations reflect a broad conception of security and an order maintenance approach.
The partnership also reflects a diverse combination of people and disciplines. A successful
privatization program requires city officials, police authorities, and security managers to
work together in a way that promotes trust and creates bonds between the public and private
sectors. The parties must also clearly understand their respective roles (Seamon, 1995). To
reach its goals, the partnership set up its daily operations to foster collaboration. City police
officers and the BID’s security officers (called community service representatives) share
headquarters and locker facilities, conduct joint roll calls, and are regularly addressed by
police detectives on current crime conditions (Seamon, 1995).

Philadelphia Police Department statistics reveal that from 1993 to 1994, crime decreased by 6
percent in the CCD area. By way of comparison, during the same period crime rose 1 percent
in the Central Police Division.

204 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.4 Private Policing Environments

The security force consists of 45-50 officers. Their training curriculum ranges from problem-
solving techniques, customer service, and hospitality to police procedures, use of force, radio
communications, first aid, CPR, and victim assistance (Seamon, 1995). The minimum
standards include two years of college, an age of 21 years, and the completion of a background
investigation (Seamon, 1995). These are higher standards than those for typical security
guards (Pastor, 2003).

The security personnel perform unarmed, uniformed service, acting as a supplement to
police. They act as public concierges or neighborhood watchers. Their radios are inter-
connected with those of the police. The security personnel also use a computerized crime
mapping system designed to enhance crime prevention.

Downtown St. Louis

The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department and a private security company entered into a
supplemental, contracted relationship in which private uniformed security personnel patrol
the central city. This private security force is funded through a special tax district that
encompasses all of downtown St. Louis and is administered by Downtown St. Louis, Inc., a
private, not-for-profit chamber of commerce. Property owners in the district pay a tax
surcharge, which is collected by the city and state, then redistributed to the district (Mokwa
& Stoehner, 1995). The revenues pay for the following services:

x market attractions

x special events

x private security

The tax revenues guarantee business owners their own security protection (Mokwa &
Stoehner, 1995). The security force consists of 6-30 patrol officers, depending on the shift or
the particular event. The St. Louis Police Department allocates 10 patrol vehicles and 30 foot
patrol officers to the downtown area. In addition, some off-duty police officers serve on the
security force. Partly because of the interrelationship between the security force and the
police, the security personnel have the same powers of arrest as police. Just like the police,
security officers wear uniforms and walk their beats—using reasonable force when necessary
to stop a crime (Mokwa & Stoehner, 1995; Pastor, 2003).

The selection criteria are sophisticated. A security officer must have an outgoing personality,
knowledge of the St. Louis metro area, and two years of prior experience in the security
industry. In addition, an officer must pass a psychological test and several personal
interviews. The training consists of a 16-hour course designed and administered by the St.
Louis Police Department. The training stresses police policies and procedures. The security
firm also conducts a 16-hour public relations course. When the training is completed, the
security officers are licensed by the St. Louis Police Department and are given arrest

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 205

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.4 Private Policing Environments

authority by the city’s police board (Mokwa & Stoehner, 1995). With this regulation and
proclamation, the private police officers are vested with “special police” powers.

This supplemental private/public partnership has been credited with a reduction in crime.
The total number of crimes in downtown St. Louis declined almost 10 percent in one year
(from 306 in 1993 to 276 in 1994), and auto theft rates dropped 31 percent (Mokwa &
Stoehner, 1995).

Greater Green Point Management District

The Greater Green Point Management District (GGPMD) encompasses a 12-square-mile
section of Houston, Texas. The district has a mix of residential and commercial properties.
Between 1980 and 1990, its population grew substantially, as did the crime rate, and physical
conditions deteriorated (Robinson, 1996). From 1986 to 1991, crime increased 25 percent
and calls for service increased 46 percent. Over the same period, the number of public police
officers assigned to the area decreased 22 percent (Robinson, 1996).

Local property owners petitioned the state legislature to create the GGPMD. The legislature
approved the district in 1991, and a tax levy of 10 cents per $100 of assessed property value
was established (Robinson, 1996). The district is administered by a 22-member board of
directors appointed by the governor. The board is headed by an executive director, who is in
charge of operations. It also includes a security manager, who is in charge of security and
public safety.

The security manager implemented a comprehensive public safety program based on
surveys conducted by the district administrators. The surveys revealed that business owners
were in “absolute terror” due to the growing crime problem (Robinson, 1996). Police
response time ranged from 14 to 15 minutes for emergency calls and almost two hours for
nonemergency calls (Robinson, 1996). This situation called for more responsive services. For
approximately $400,000 per year, GGPMD funded the hiring of additional police officers and
supplemented them with private security personnel. Further, the district opened a new
police substation in space donated by a large shopping mall (Robinson, 1996). Both police
and security personnel were stationed there.

The crime rate dropped 25 percent in the year following the implementation of the
initiatives. In addition, the occupancy rate of business units in the district rose to become
one of the highest in Houston (Robinson, 1996). In short, the arrangement was deemed to
have contributed to the betterment of the city’s overall environment.

Durham, North Carolina

In Durham, following a series of shootings on public buses, the city contracted with
Wackenhut Security to provide private patrols of its buses. These private police officers were

206 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.4 Private Policing Environments

vested with the same arrest powers as public police officers. They are well-trained, armed,
and wear uniforms that are similar but not identical to those of the local public police. After
the introduction of private patrols, crime decreased, bus ridership increased, and people’s
satisfaction with the bus system improved (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2005).

Dallas Downtown Improvement District

In 2004, business owners in Dallas hired 31 private police officers to patrol the downtown
business district. These patrols cost about $1.5 million a year, with each officer earning
$12.50 per hour (Brown, 2004). These patrols take an order maintenance approach. Their
goal is to reduce crime and to increase the perception that the area is safe. Significantly,
these officers are considered “public safety officers,” a term that is consistent with the public
safety policing model.

The private police officers wear blue police-like uniforms, carry pepper spray, use radios, and
exhibit a friendly, courteous manner (Brown, 2004). The patrols take place on foot and on
bicycles. Training of these officers lasts three weeks or about 120 hours. A deputy chief of the
Dallas Police Department noted that this force will work as extra eyes and ears of the police
(Brown, 2004). It is interesting to note that Brown, writing in a police magazine, discussed
these private patrols in a negative manner. She stated that “inexplicably” the Dallas police
brass seem to be in favor of “losing department jobs to the private sector.” She characterized
this arrangement as “the front” in the “privatization war.” While it is unfortunate to describe
this public safety initiative with such critical language, the merits of these public/ private
arrangements are sure to survive the arrows of critics.

Starrett City

The Starrett City housing development in Brooklyn is a classic model of the benefits of
privatization. The development is located in the 75th police precinct, which consistently has
one of the highest murder rates in New York City (Carlson, 1995; Walsh et al., 1992). Some 90
percent of its residents receive government rent subsidies (Carlson, 1995).

The management company that administers the development hired private police officers.
By the late 1980s, 60 private police officers were employed, of whom approximately 40 were
armed. Each private police officer carries the “special police” designation and has full arrest
powers. These private police personnel handle about 10,000 service calls annually (Carlson,
1995). The average salary is $31,000, which represents about 70 percent of the average salary
of a police officer (Pastor, 2003).

Carlson observes that 20 years after hiring these security officers, Starrett City is as safe as
any affluent neighborhood. In 1994, this community of 20,000 people reported only 24 car
thefts, 12 burglaries, 6 aggravated assaults, and no rapes (Walsh, et al., 1992). In the same

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 207

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.4 Private Policing Environments

year, Carlson notes, the complex reported only 67 robberies. This compares favorably to the
2,548 robberies reported in the neighborhood just outside its boundaries in 1995. Further,
overall crime rates in New York City were substantially higher than those in Starrett City.
New York averaged 84 felonies reported per 1,000 residents, while Starrett City reported just
7 felonies per 1,000. Similarly, in the 75th precinct, a residence outside Starrett City was 38
times more likely to be burglarized than one within Starrett City (Walsh et al., 1992). Signifi-
cantly, no physical boundaries or barriers separate Starrett City from other residents in the
precinct. The only real physical distinction is the private security personnel. The difference
between the neighborhoods is so stark that a Starrett City security supervisor described the
complex as “an oasis in a vast wilderness” (Carlson, 1995; Pastor, 2003).

In a survey conducted by Pennsylvania State University, almost 90 percent of the residents
said they felt “somewhat or very safe” living in the complex. Only 40 percent felt similarly
secure outside its boundaries (Carlson, 1995). The survey also found that 90 percent of the
residents believed the complex would not be safe without its private security personnel.
Significantly, over 50 percent said they would leave the area if the private police were not
employed (Walsh et al., 1992). Another indication of the commitment to private security is
that 78 percent of residents said that, if assaulted, they would call security before calling the
police (Walsh et al., 1992). Indeed, the complex receives only part-time coverage from two
police officers even though the complex accounts for about 16 percent of the population in
the precinct (Walsh et al., 1992). Without private policing, Starrett City would not be a secure
residential environment (Pastor, 2003).

San Francisco Patrol Special Police

A unique private policing arrangement, the San Francisco Patrol Special Police dates back to
the Gold Rush days. It provides San Francisco neighborhoods with supplementary police
patrols. Formed in 1847 by merchants to combat crime, the Patrol Special Police was
incorporated into the city’s charter in 1935.

The Patrol Special Police is a separately chartered law enforcement group that works under
the supervision of the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD). Patrol Special Officers are
governed by rules and procedures set by the San Francisco Police Commission. The commis-
sion is empowered to appoint patrol special police officers and may suspend or dismiss them
after a fair and impartial hearing on charges duly filed with the commission.

Each patrol special police officer must be at least 21 years of age at the time of appointment,
pass an extensive police background investigation, complete training at the San Francisco
Police Academy, and meet physical qualifications. These requirements are consistent with
those of the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. In addition,
these officers receive annual training from the SFPD and qualify with firearms at the police

208 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.4 Private Policing Environments

department’s range. They wear uniforms approved by the police commission, carry firearms,
and use two-way SFPD radios. Each of these factors provides an excellent example of
structural interaction with the SFPD, including accountability measures designed to ensure
proper, consistent service.

Patrol special police officers are considered the owners of certain beats or territories that
may be established or rescinded by the commission. These beats are considered property
that may be bought, sold, leased, bequeathed by will, or otherwise conveyed to a person of
good moral character, approved by the police commission.

These private police officers are committed to community policing with an emphasis on
problem solving and community outreach. These goals are achieved through various tasks,
including walking the beat and getting to know people on an individual basis, attending
community meetings, and working closely with the police department and other city
agencies. This emphasis on community policing clearly reflects the need to serve clients and
perform an order maintenance function.

United Kingdom

Clapham, England, hired Guardforce Security Services to patrol the town with vehicles
equipped with video surveillance cameras (BBC News, 2004). In addition, the Kent County
Council allocated more than £1.4 million to the creation of its own private police force
(Short, 2001). The county will hire 12 neighborhood wardens, who will wear distinctive dark
red jackets with sheriff-style badges. The wardens are intended to be the eyes and ears of the
police. They will be trained by officers from the Kent Police Department (Short, 2001).

Toronto, Canada

The use of private police in the Toronto metropolitan area is best illustrated by the services
of Intelligarde. This security firm bills itself as “the law enforcement company.” According to
its Web site, the company is driven by the “belief that society and the individual have a
fundamental need for social order—a need unsatisfied by contemporary public policing.” In
response to this need, the firm’s personnel and programs are designed to “re-establish social
order where it is breaking down and then support social order on an ongoing basis”
(www.intelligarde.org). This assertion reflects an underlying order maintenance approach.

Intelligarde provides a wide variety of security services, including private police patrols in
numerous public environments. Its marketing materials boast “the largest mobile fleet of
marked and unmarked patrol vehicles in the Greater Toronto Area and also in Ottawa.”
Clients are provided verification of the time and location of patrols through the use of global
positioning system monitoring. Also provided are canine and mounted patrols, vehicle
patrols for alarm response, spot checks of specific locations, and sweeps of disorderly areas.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 209

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.4 Private Policing Environments

The officers also perform arrests to enforce various laws relating to incivility. This
enforcement orientation resulted in about 40,000 arrests over 25 years of work (Walmington,
2005). The willingness to make arrests is considered critical to the role of these private police
officers. The firm’s owner observes that enforcement and “social work” are both required. He
adds that the patrols must “be able to do the enforcement piece—but enforcement and
community development work together. One doesn’t work without the other.” The officers’
work requires “the denial of opportunity to the people who are intent on committing
criminal acts—the shooters, drug dealers and gang bangers. … In other words, you take away
the playing field.” This requires officers on-site who know the legitimate residents and check
out all the others coming onto the property. The firm’s owner uses the term “blended
policing” to describe “public safety officers” (that is, private police) working “hand in glove”
with the police (Walmington, 2005).

Marquette Park

In what may be the most comprehensive study of private policing to date, Pastor (2003)
conducted a multifaceted research study of the Marquette Park Special Service District on
the southwest side of Chicago. The boundaries of the special service area are from 67th Street
to 74th Street and Kedzie Avenue to Bell Street. Included within the area is approximately half
of Marquette Park, which is part of Chicago’s vast park district system. The name of the
special service district—and the neighborhood—reflects the name of the park.

The neighborhood consists of single-family residences, two- and three-story apartment build-
ings, and strips of businesses. The largest concentration of apartment buildings is on the east
side of the neighborhood. These apartment buildings are often poorly maintained or neglected.
Most of the single-family houses are better kept, yet some show signs of disrepair. The majority
of the deteriorated homes are found on the east side of the community (Pastor, 2003).

The streets are similar to those of a typical Chicago neighborhood, with trees on the
parkways between the street and the sidewalk. Businesses are located on the main arteries
that intersect the community. Many serve as hangouts for young people in the area. Citizens
expressed concerned that some youths appeared to be gang members, and many business
owners were fearful of their presence. Others seemed to cater to them, either for business or
possibly for protection. Indeed, the presence of loiterers, particularly gang members, was a
key concern of the community—and of the private patrol program (Pastor, 2003).

The special service district is part of the 8th Police District, which is segmented into 16 beats
and is one of the largest districts—in area and population—in Chicago. The special service
district is a separate taxing entity established in 1995. The decision to hire private security
patrols was done, at least partly, to stabilize the community. Long-term residents were moving
from the area. This flight from a community with generational ties dating back to the early

210 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.4 Private Policing Environments

1900s created the desire to stop, or at least slow, the demographic changes. Before the
formation of the special service area, community groups petitioned for a ballot referendum. At
issue was whether property owners would vote to increase their real estate taxes for the
purpose of hiring private security patrols. These private patrols would supplement the police
department, seeking to reduce crime and minimize conditions that foster crime (Pastor, 2003).

There are certain requirements for the creation of special services districts. First, voters
within the area must pass a referendum to create the district as a legal entity. After the
referendum passes, it is referred to the city council. The formal establishment of the district
must be enacted pursuant to a resolution. This council resolution provides the legal
authority for the Cook County Collector to levy and collect real estate taxes from property
owners within the district. In this district, the service tax may not exceed .41 percent of the
assessed value of taxable property (Pastor, 2003).

Once a special service district is established, the alderman in the affected ward selects
individuals for the governing commission. They must be residents or business owners in the
community. Once appointed, each commission member serves a two-year term. There are
seven voting members within the governing commission. Each politically appointed
commission member is deemed a voting member. The commission also contains three non-
voting members, including the commander of the police district and two officials who
represent the Chicago Department of Planning and Development. These nonvoting
members are supposed to provide guidance to the voting members of the commission. The
commission is charged with overseeing the special service district, including preparing a
budget, conducting periodic community meetings, and arranging administrative matters to
operate the private police patrols.

The day-to-day affairs of the district are handled by the “sole service provider.” This commu-
nity-based organization acts as the intermediary between the community and the governing
commission and deals directly with the security firm. It addresses crime patterns and
incidents and performs other operational and administrative tasks, such as obtaining legal
counsel and insurance carriers. The sole service provider is also charged with hiring and
contracting with the security firm. This occurs after the governing commission makes the
selection based on a vote of board members. The hiring of a particular security firm is
accomplished through two separate contracts. One contract is between the City of Chicago
and the sole service provider, and the second contract is between the sole service provider
and the security firm.

Contract documents are drafted by the Chicago Department of Law. Oversight of the entire
process is accomplished by the city’s Department of Planning and Development (Pastor, 2003).

The budget to operate and administer the security patrols is approximately $200,000. These
monies come from the tax levy on real property within the special services district. The cost

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 211

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.4 Private Policing Environments

for the average property owner is about $50 to $60 per year. Approximately $140,000 to
$150,000 goes to the security provider, another $5,000 is spent on insurance, and about $20,000
is used to pay for legal and other professional services. The remainder goes to office expenses
and administrative costs (Pastor, 2003).

The private police officers carry handguns and other police equipment. They use handcuffs,
flashlights, radios, and bulletproof vests. Each officer wears “civilian dress” clothing, which
looks almost identical to the attire worn by Chicago Police Department tactical officers. The
vehicles are also similar to those of the public police (Pastor, 2003). However, the officers are
not granted the “special police” designation. A couple of the officers are off-duty police, but
most have only private citizen arrest powers.

The study assessed three questions related to the privatized police services. The first
question was, “How do the private police officers perform their job?” Through ride-alongs,
interviews, and document analysis, the study found that the majority of their functional work
product was order maintenance (51.5 percent). Thirty-two percent of their work involved
observation and reporting, and 16.5 percent involved law enforcement (Pastor, 2003).

The second research question was, “Are these private police public actors?” The answer
affects whether constitutional provisions would apply to the actions of private police. The
study concluded that the private police were indeed public actors, so constitutional
provisions were applicable to their actions.

The third research question was related to whether the private police officers violated the
constitution in the performance of their duties. The study concluded that some private
police officers indeed violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures. However, with inadequate training, a lack of policy guidelines, and
little accountability, the officers were doing the best job they could under demanding and
dangerous circumstances.

The examples in this section illustrate the effectiveness of privatization and the need for
cooperative efforts between private and public police. They demonstrate that such cooperative
efforts have been successful in combating crime and enhancing the environment within the
patrol arrangement. The mission of crime prevention within the security industry, coupled
with the ability of the police to arrest offenders, provides a dynamic combination of skills and
resources. The present focus on community policing may prefigure a widespread establish-
ment of privatized public safety services. Nonetheless, a difficult and uncertain transition lies
ahead. Functional, constitutional, and public policy considerations remain problematic
(Pastor, 2003).

212 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.5 The Future of Private Policing

7.5 THE FUTURE OF PRIVATE POLICING

7.5.1 NEW POLICING MODEL

A new model of policing is emerging, but before it can be described, two core questions must
be answered:

x Can municipal police departments perform as first responders for homeland security
and at the same time operate with a community service orientation?

x What future role will alternative service providers have in the delivery of public safety
services?

The answer to the first question would appear to be no. First, it seems that terrorism will be a
fact of life for years to come. If so, police agencies will not only have to deal with the carnage
associated with terroristic violence but may also be targets of the violence. Indeed,
contemporary times reveal horrendous violence against Iraqi police and civil defense forces.
Being both a first responder and a target will create an environment that is extraordinarily
complex, in both operational and human terms.

The second part of this question is that community policing, which has been the widely
accepted policing model, is about to end. While this statement may be subject to criticism
from police, academics, and politicians, federal funding of community policing programs is
largely exhausted. Without additional monies, this policing model will slowly be
deemphasized into extinction. If the money for community policing is now directed to
homeland security, then police agencies will redirect their missions accordingly. However,
private police may prove to be excellent providers of community policing services because of
their responsiveness to their clients.

The answer to the second question is that, with the future police focus on terrorism and
violent crime (including street gangs, which are likely to graduate to terrorism), the need for
alternative service providers becomes paramount. Alternative service providers will be the
paraprofessionals of police departments. These alternative service providers include private
police, civilian employees of police agencies, and auxiliary (volunteer) officers. While it is
likely that all three types of alternative service providers will coexist, the most likely and
beneficial option is private police officers.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 213

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.5 The Future of Private Policing

7.5.2 STRUCTURAL/OPERATIONAL COMPONENTS

Figure 7-3 illustrates this public safety policing model:

Copyright by James F. Pastor, 2005. Used with permission.

Figure 7-3
Public Safety Policing Model

While this figure excludes certain police functions (such as investigative and administrative
units), it captures the essence of the three key aspects of street policing. Tactical operations
would include heavy weapons/SWAT teams, gang and drug tactical teams, and saturation
units. This aspect of policing is likely to be much more militarized than at present. It will
focus on tactical techniques accomplished by highly trained public police officers.
The technological functions will also be greatly expanded. Many technologies commonly
used in security will be emphasized in police agencies, including networked cameras and
access control systems, predictive crime mapping software, and integrated identification
systems. These technologies will improve the “eyes and the ears” of policing agencies to
better respond to and even predict criminal or terrorist behavior. The key to this approach is
surveillance for crime prevention, apprehension, and enforcement.
Order maintenance operations will be the key component for alternative service providers.
The key will be to control the environment, focusing on both physical aspects and social
incivilities. The primary tasks of these service providers will be to provide routine service
functions, such as report writing, alarm response, traffic control, and “street corner security.”
Each of these tasks relates to either order maintenance or “observe and report” functions.
In these ways, alternative service providers will also enhance the “eyes and ears” of policing
agencies. The majority, if not the vast majority, of order maintenance functions will be
conducted by private police employed by security firms. This work product, however, must
be based on contractual provisions or be directly tied to the structure of the policing agency
within the jurisdiction. An excellent example of contracted arrangements is Wackenhut’s

214 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.5 The Future of Private Policing

agreement with the Durham Transit Authority to provide security on transit buses. A more
comprehensive structural arrangement is illustrated by the San Francisco Patrol Special
Police. This arrangement provides excellent accountability methods and is directly
connected through various structural components to the San Francisco Police Department.
These examples provide useful models for consideration by those who seek to implement
public safety services within public environments.

7.5.3 LEGAL/LICENSING STANDARDS

The legal limitations on private police regarding arrest powers and the use of force have been
demonstrated. It is recommended that private police officers be vested with some govern-
mental authority. Currently, there are three basic alternatives, as Figure 7-4 shows:

X X X
Private Citizen Special Police Peace Officer

Figure 7-4
Continuum of Governmental Authority

The figure depicts a continuum. On one extreme are private citizen arrest powers. On the
other extreme are peace (police) officer arrest powers. In the middle are special police
powers, which combine the private citizen role with the arrest powers of a peace officer
(public police officer). Peace officer arrest powers are only available to the special police
officer when he or she is on duty. This limitation should not be considered problematic as it
does not affect the work such officers are paid to perform (Pastor, 2006).

Certain benefits follow from being “blessed” by government, such as a moral and legal
authority that most citizens respect. The pronouncements and actions of an officer with
governmental authority are much more likely to be complied with. The common response
that “I don’t have to listen to you; you are not the police” would be largely negated with this
connection to governmental authority. Without this designation, a private police officer is
simply one private citizen telling another private citizen what to do.

This approach would give municipal police departments a larger force without the financial
and operational challenges of employing more police officers. In addition, this special police
designation may carry with it the protection of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity acts
as a liability shield to protect the officer (and his or her employer) from civil lawsuits.
Although this shield is not available for reckless or malicious conduct, it protects the
reasonable and prudent officer who makes a mistake in judgment or behavior. Further, it

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 215

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.5 The Future of Private Policing

reduces the legal exposure of the security firm and the insurance costs associated with the
service provision (Pastor, 2006).

Licensing standards directly relate to the issue of legal authority. To perform the work of the
public police, private police officers should be trained and selected in a manner
commensurate with their functional work product. In furtherance of this goal, ASIS
International has promulgated the Private Security Officer Selection and Training Guideline,
which states that “security officers … must also be able to work closely and effectively with
public safety personnel” (ASIS International, 2004). The guideline is by far the most
comprehensive approach to addressing the training and selection of security officers. It
recommends state regulation regarding background investigations, training, continuing
education, insurance, licensing, and oversight bodies. In addition, it suggests selection criteria
for new hires, including criminal history, education, citizenship, fingerprinting, photographs,
drug screening, and other personal information related to the applicant. Each of these factors
will go a long way toward establishing more professionalism in the security industry generally
and in those private police officers who operate within the public realm. Since the actions of
private police officers are likely to be much more visible in the public realm, the need to meet
or exceed these criteria is of critical importance (Pastor, 2006).

Still, the training and selection standards need not be equivalent to those for public police
officers, who typically receive 600 to 800 hours of training. Instead, the best practice would
be to develop a training curriculum that focuses on the particular role or function to be
performed. The different levels and types of training would then be regulated through
governmental licensure.

The proposed training and licensing continuum could be illustrated as follows:

PUBLIC Traffic Control Patrol Officer Tactical Detective SWAT
Officer HBT

PRIVATE Desk/Greeter Building Street Patrols Investigator Nuclear Utility
Patrols Infra-Strt.

License: A B C D E

Copyright by James F. Pastor, 2005.

Figure 7-5
Functionality/Criticality Continuum

216 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.5 The Future of Private Policing

In this model, the key is to assess both the function and criticality of the job. As the
complexity of the work increases, or as the critical nature of the task increases, the level of
training and licensing should also increase. A comparison can be found in vehicle licensing
standards. For passenger vehicles, the typical training and licensing requirements are basic.
As the type of vehicle becomes more difficult to operate (e.g., a tractor-trailer), or as the nature
of the cargo becomes more important to protect (e.g., passengers in a bus or dangerous
chemicals in a tank car), the need for better trained and more highly skilled drivers also
increases (Pastor, 2006). The key is to train and license security officers in a manner that
adequately prepares them for the expected work product. For example, the tasks of a desk
greeter differ substantially from the tasks of a security officer at a nuclear power plant. Each
should be trained and licensed at a different level. The licensing should range from class A to
D or E, depending on the particular legislative approach. Similarly, training hours should
range from 20 or 40 at minimum to 200 to 600 for street patrols and critical infrastructure
security (Pastor, 2006).

Finally, the issue of accountability of private police should be addressed. Private police must
be—and must be perceived as—accountable to the community, the law, and the larger
society. Real and specific mechanisms must be in place. One of the most telling conclusions
from Pastor’s research is that privatized policing arrangements must develop formal
accountability standards and methods (Pastor, 2003).

There are several avenues for enhancing accountability. First, specific operating procedures
must be developed to address the realities of the job. Without such guidance, there is simply
too much discretionary decision making in the fluid environment of the street. Indeed,
discretion without judgment formed through proper guidance and experience is a recipe for
disaster.

Second, a community-based board should be established to oversee the operations of private
policing firms. Just as community policing is designed to get the community involved in the
day-to-day operations of the police, this oversight board can work with administrators of the
security firm to direct and guide approaches to community problems. Unlike community
policing, however, a contracted relationship provides for a more authentic client-based
service because the security firm can be fired. A police agency does not face this ultimate
sanction. Too much of the current community policing model is based on the rhetoric of
community decision making, without much actual decision-making authority. Local police
administrators should also work with this oversight board, helping to coordinate the
activities of both the public and private police officers.

The last critical element of accountability is to have some well-defined process for addressing
citizen complaints. This should be done by a separate board vested with subpoena powers, the
ability to conduct hearings, and the legal authority to levy warnings, fines, and other employ-

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 217

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
7.5 The Future of Private Policing

ment and contractual remedies (Pastor, 2006). Such authority could be granted to various
existing government agencies, such as a department of professional regulation or a civilian
oversight board that monitors police misconduct. However the board is constituted, it must be
able to deal with the types of complaints common to police departments (Pastor, 2006).
In conclusion, the coming years are likely to bring many challenges. All nations will be faced
with varying levels of political unrest, financial constraints, and the threat of violence and
terrorism. These factors cannot be completely avoided.
The challenges ahead present a massive potential market for security firms. Just as the new
asymmetric form of warfare is changing the way the military confronts and combats
terrorism, so too police agencies must reinvent their way of policing. This transformation will
leave a gap in how public safety services are delivered. Security firms are uniquely prepared
to bridge this gap and deliver order maintenance and related services. The former president
of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police notes that in the current climate what was once
considered a professional relationship between the public and private sectors has now
become a professional necessity (Braglia, 2004). This professional necessity presents the
largest increase in business opportunities for security firms since the 1850s, when security
personnel policed the American Wild West. This opportunity, however, is a double-edged
sword, replete with pitfalls for the unwary (Pastor, 2006).
The desire for professionalism in private policing must center on an even more basic
purpose: the safety of individuals and communities and the stability of their way of life. The
threat of terrorism is designed not only to kill people and damage property, but also to
destroy the social fabric. Those in the security industry, especially those protecting public
environments, trophy or symbolic buildings, and critical infrastructure, will be in the front
lines of this asymmetric conflict. Advancing standards and principles of professionalism is
the best defense (Pastor, 2006).

218 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
References/Additional Reading

REFERENCES

ASIS International. (2010). Private security officer selection and training guideline. Available: http://
www.asisonline.org [2011, December 8].

Bailin, P. (2000, November). Gazing into security’s future. Security Management.

Bayley, D. H., & Shearing, C. D. (2001). The new structure of policing. Washington, DC: National
Institute of Justice.

BBC News. (2004). Private ‘police’ confuse public. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3664365.
stm [2006, May 23].

Benson, B. L. (1990). The enterprise of law: Justice without state. San Francisco, CA: Pacific
Research Institute for Public Policy.

Benson, B. L. (1997). Privatization in criminal justice. Washington: National Institute of Justice.

Bilik, A. (1992). Privatization: Defacing the community. Labor Law Journal, pp. 338-343.

Blyskal, J. (1996, March 16). Thugbusters. New York.

Braglia, F. T. (2004, Winter). Public-private law enforcement: A win-win partnership, Command.

Brown, C. (2004, December). Outsourcing police jobs: Cops replaced by civilians to cut costs.
American Police Beat.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. (2005). Engaging the private sector to promote homeland security:
Law enforcement–private security partnerships.

Carlson, T. (1995). Safety Inc.: Private cops are there when you need them. Policy Review, 73, Summer.

Chaiken, M., & Chaiken, J. (1987, June). Public policing—privately provided. Washington: National
Institute of Justice.

Clemow, B. (1992). Privatization and the public good. Labor Law Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 344–349.

Clotfelter, C. T. (1977). Public services, private substitutes and the demand for protection against
crime. The American Economic Review, 67(5).

Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends. American Sociological
Review, 44, 588–607.

Covington, J., & Taylor, R. B. (1991). Fear of crime in urban residential neighborhoods. The Socio-
logical Quarterly, 32(2), 231–249.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 219

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
References/Additional Reading

Cox, S. M. (1990). Policing into the 21st century. Police Studies, 13(4), 168-177.

Cruickshank, K. (1994, November). Frenchman’s Creek provides the ultimate in security.
Manager’s Report, No. 8.

Cunningham, W. C., Strauchs, J. J., & Van Meter, C. W. (1990). Private Security Trends 1970- 2000:
The Hallcrest Report II. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Dalton, D. R. (1993, January). Contract labor: The true story. Security Management.

Davis, R. C., & Dadush, S. (2000). The public accountability of private police: Lessons from New
York, Johannesburg, and Mexico City. Vera Institute of Justice. Available: http://www.vera.
org/download?file=225/privatepolice.pdf [2006, December 8].

DiIulio, J. J. (1995). Ten facts about crime. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Donahue, J. D. (1989). The privatization decision. New York: Basic Books.

Farnham, A. (1992, December 28). U.S. suburbs are under siege. Fortune.

Fisher, B., & Nasar, J. L. (1995). Fear spots in relation to microlevel physical cues: Exploring the
overlooked. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 32(2), 214–239.

Geyelin, M. (1993, June 1). Hired guards assume more police duties as privatization of public safety
spreads. The Wall Street Journal.

Gibbs, J. P., & Erickson, M. L. (1976). Crime rates of American cities in an ecological context.
American Journal of Sociology, 82, 605–620.

Goldberg, C. (1994, December). New roles for private patrols. Security Management.

Gordon, C., & Brill, W. (1996, April). The expanding role of crime prevention through environ-
mental design in premises liability. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Hebdon, R. (1995). Contracting out in New York State: The story the Lauder Report chose not to
tell. Labor Studies Journal, 20(1), 3–24.

Institute of Management & Administration. (2001, May). Security Director’s Report.

Jackson, P. I. (1984). Opportunity and crime: A function of city size. Sociology & Social Research,
68(2), 173–193.

Johnston, L. (1992). The rebirth of private policing. London: Routledge.

Kaplan, Robert (1994, February). The coming anarchy. The Atlantic Monthly.

220 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
References/Additional Reading

Kelling, G. (1995, May/June). Reduce serious crime by restoring order. The American Enterprise.

Kolpacki, T. A. (1994, November). Neighborhood watch: Public/private liaison. Security Manage-
ment.

Lewis, D. A., & Maxfield, M. G. (1980, July). Fear in the neighborhoods: An investigation of the
impact of crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, pp. 160–189.

Linowes, D. F. (1988). Report of the President’s Commission on Privatization—Privatization: Toward
More Effective Government. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Liska, A. E., Lawrence, J. J., & Sanchirico, A. (1982). Fear of crime as a social fact. Social Forces,
60(3), 760–770.

Litsikas, M. (1994, September). Security system installations up in 1994. Security Distributing &
Marketing.

Meadows, R. J. (1991). Premises liability and negligent security: Issues and implications. Journal of
Contemporary Criminal Justice, 7(3), 112–125.

McKenzie, E. (1994). Privatopia: Homeowner associations and the rise of residential private
government. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

McLennan, B. N., ed. (1970). Crime in urban society. London: Cambridge University Press.
McLeod, R. (2002). Para-police. Toronto: Boheme Press.

Miller, W. R. (1977). Cops and bobbies: Police authority in New York and London, 1830–1870.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Miranda, R. A. (1993). Better city government at half the price. In Chicago’s Future in a Time of
Change, Richard Simpson, ed. Champaign, IL: Stipes.

Mokwa, J., & Stoehner T. W. (1995, September). Private security arches over St. Louis. Security
Management.

Moore, M. H., & Trojanowicz, R. C. (1988, November). Corporate strategies for policing. National
Institute of Justice Perspectives on Policing, No. 6.

Morgan, D. R. (1992). The pitfalls of privatization: Contracting without competition. American
Review of Public Administration, 22(4), 251-268.

National policy summit: Building private security/public policing partnerships to prevent and
respond to terrorism and public disorder. (2004). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Nemeth, C. P. (1989) Private security and the law. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 221

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
References/Additional Reading

Olick, M. (1994, December). Private response: The no response solution. Security News.
Oliver, W. M. (2004). Community-oriented policing: A systematic approach to policing. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Operation Cooperation: Guidelines for partnerships between law enforcement and private security

organizations. (2000). Washington: Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Palango, P. (1998, January 12). On the mean streets: As the police cut back, private cops are moving

in. MacLeans.
Pastor, J. F. (2003). The privatization of police in America: An analysis & case study. Jefferson, NC:

McFarland.
Pastor, J. F. (2005, November). Public safety policing. Law Enforcement Executive Forum, Vol. 5,

No. 6, pp. 13–27.
Pastor, J. F. (2006). Security law & methods. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Patterson, J. (1995, January). Forging creative alliances. Security Management.
Perez, E. (2002, April 9). Demand for security still promises profit. The Wall Street Journal.
Prenzler, T. (2005). Mapping the Australian security industry. Security Journal, 18(4), 51–64.
Reppetto, T. (1974). Residential crime. Cambridge: Ballinger.
Reynolds, M. O. (1994). Using the private sector to deter crime. National Center for Policy Analysis

Policy Report No. 181. Available: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st181 [2006, December 8].
Robbins, S. P. (2003). Organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Robinson, F. W. (1996, February). From blight to bliss. Security Management.
Robinson, M. (1997, April 30). Why the good news on crime. Investor’s Business Daily.
Sarre, R. (2005). Researching private policing: Challenges and agendas for researchers. Security

Journal, 18(3), 57–70.
Savas, E. S. (2000). Privatization and public-private partnerships. London: Chatham House.
Schine, E., Dunham, R. S., & Farrell, C. (1994, December 12). America’s new watchword: If it

moves, privatize it. Business Week.
Seamon, T. M. (1995, September). Private forces for public good. Security Management.

222 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
References/Additional Reading

Shearing, C. D., & Stenning, P. C. (1983). Private security: Implications for control. Social Problems,
30(5), 493–506.

Shenk, J. W. (1995, May). The perils of privatization. The Washington Monthly.

Short, V. (2001). Kent County Council creates its own private police force. Available: http://
www.wsws.org [2006, May 23].

Simeone, M. J. (2006, May). The power of public-private partnerships: P3 networks in policing. The
Police Chief.

Smith, L., & Hill, G. D. (1991). Victimization and fear of crime. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18(2),
217–240.

Spencer, S. (1997). Private security. Phoenix Mosaic Group. Available: http://web.archive.org/
web/20010303062708/http://www.onpatrol.com/cs.privsec.html [2006, December 8].

Spitzer, S., & Scull, A. T. (1977). Privatization and capitalist development: The case of the private
police. Social Problems, 25(1): 18–28.

Stephens, G. (2005, March/April). Policing the future: Law enforcement’s new challenges. The
Futurist, Vol. 39.

Tolchin, M. (1985, November 29). Private guards get new role in public law enforcement. The New
York Times.

Walinsky, A. (1993, July). The crisis of public order. The Atlantic Monthly.

Walmington, J. (2005). Good guys must seize and control turf. The Toronto Sun, December 31,
2005. Available: http://www.torontosun.com [2006, June 25].

Walsh, W. F., Donovan, E. J., & McNicholas, J. F. (1992). The Starrett Protective Service: Private
policing in an urban community. In Gary W. Bowman et al. (eds.), Privatizing the United States
Justice System. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Warner, S. B., Jr. (1968). The private city. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Wessel, R. H. (1995, October). Privatization in the United States. Business Economics.

West, M. L. (1993, March). Get a piece of the privatization pie. Security Management.

Youngs, A. (2004, January). The future of public/private partnerships. FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin.

Zielinski, M. (1999). Armed and dangerous: Private police on the march. CovertAction Quarterly.
Available http://mediafilter.org/caq/caq54p.police.html [2006, December 8].

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 223

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
References/Additional Reading

ADDITIONAL READING

Benson, B. L. (1996). Are there tradeoffs between costs and quality in the privatization of criminal
justice? Journal of Security Administration, 19(2), 19–50.

Blakely, E. J., & Snyder, M. G. (1997). Gating America. Available: http://www.asu.edu/caed/
proceedings97/Blakely [2004, October 28].

Clutterbuck, R. (1975). The police and urban terrorism. The Police Journal.

Crenshaw, M., ed. (1983). Terrorism, legitimacy and power: The consequence of political violence.
Middleton, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

Cunningham, W. C., & Taylor, T. H. (1994). The growing role of private security. National Institute
of Justice.

Davis, J. R. (1982). Street gangs: Youth, biker and prison groups. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

DuCanto, J. N. (1999). Establishment of police and private security liaison. Manuscript presented
at 45th Annual Seminar of the American Society for Industrial Security International, Las Vegas,
Nevada.

Ezeldin, A. G. (1987). Terrorism and political violence. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago
Press.

Feliton, J. R., & Owen, D. B. (1994, September). Guarding against liability. Security Management.

Graham, T., & Gurr, T., eds. (1971). History of violence in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-
sity Press.

Greisman, H .C. (1979). Terrorism and the closure of society: A social impact projection.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 14.

Law Enforcement and Industrial Security Cooperation Act of 1996. (1996). H.R. 2996, 104th
Congress.

Kolderie, T. (1986). The two different concepts of privatization. Public Administrative Review,
10(2), 285–290.

Landman, K. (2003). National survey of gated communities in South Africa. Available: http://
www.gatedcomsa.com [2006, June 20].

McGoey, C. E. (1999). Gated communities: Access control issues. Available: http://www.crime
doctor.com/gated.htm [2006, June 20].

224 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

PRIVATE POLICING IN PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTS
References/Additional Reading

Nalla, M. & Newman, G. R. (1991). Public versus private control: A reassessment. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 19, 414–436.

Pastor, J. F. (2005). Terrorism & public safety policing. Crime &Justice International, 21(85), 4–8.
Robbins, S. P. (2003). Organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Trojanowicz, R. C., & Carter, D. L. (1990, January). The changing face of America. FBI Law

Enforcement Bulletin.
U.S. Department of Justice (2004). Crime in the United States. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/

about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s./2004 [2006, June 23].
Wardlaw, G. (1982). Political terrorism: Theory, tactics and counter-measures. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
Waugh, W. L. (1982). International terrorism. Salisbury, NC: Documentary Publications.
Wolf, J. B. (1981). Fear of fear: Survey of terrorist operations and controls in open societies. New

York, NY: Plenum.
WSOC-TV. (2006). Private police patrols begin in Charlotte. Available: http://www.wsoctv.com/

news/7561311/detail.html [2006, May 23].
Young, R. (1977). Revolutionary terrorism, crime and morality. Social Theory and Practice, Vol. 4.

WEB SITES

http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/Departments/CT/ProjectGriffin/
http://www.met.police.uk/projectgriffin/
http://www.intelligarde.org
http://www.sfpatrolspecpolice.com

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 225



CHAPTER 8

CONSULTANTS AS A PROTECTION
RESOURCE

8.1 THE VALUE OF CONSULTANTS

Security executives, just like other corporate executives, encounter times when they need
professional expert advice or guidance. At the same time, companies without a formal
security function may need to call on outside help to aid in a specific security-related task. In
either scenario, executives seek out external expertise for many reasons, such as the lack of
time or in-house specialized knowledge. They also may desire an independent, objective
assessment, fresh ideas, or the flexibility to hire personnel as needed.

Security consultants, niche professionals within the greater security industry, are the
principal resource for such assistance. On occasion, knowledgeable individuals within a
company may be called in to help, but typically, professional security consultants are the
resource security or corporate executives turn to for guidance. Independent security
consultants are often viewed as an invaluable resource since they do not promote or sell a
product but rather assess actual needs and recommend a mix of security solutions to reduce
threats.

For companies faced with liability concerns, an objective, third-party study of critical issues
is often preferred over an in-house analysis. Security consultants provide the company with
that objectivity, which is a distinct advantage when dealing with common security issues
such as liability and due diligence. Some companies also stagnate from a lack of ideas and
turn to consultants who can provide much-needed out-of-the-box thinking. Others look to

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 227

CONSULTANTS AS A PROTECTION RESOURCE
8.1 The Value of Consultants

outside resources because they are not as susceptible to corporate politics or bureaucratic
red tape. Finally, contracting with outside resources is often less expensive than hiring addi-
tional staff as no capital outlay or payroll overhead is necessary, especially if the work is
periodic and therefore does not warrant the creation of a full-time position.
Though consultants are commonly accepted within today’s organizations, executives may
encounter some resistance from middle management and line employees, who may perceive
that their jobs are in jeopardy. Though this perception is mostly unfounded, it is an issue that
the consultant and management must address. Resistance to the use of a security consultant
usually reflects one or more of the following concerns:

x Asking for outside help suggests that the security staff is incompetent.
x A negative report from an outsider reflects unfavorably on the security program and

the organization.
x The organization and its policies and procedures could be compromised by an outsider

who would become intimately familiar with the enterprise.
Despite these objections, modern management practices used by executives in every
organizational function show that many benefits are derived by maximizing the use of
outside consultants. Similarly, security executives can augment their resources by bringing
in temporary talent to solve a host of problems and challenges while reducing costs and
enhancing the status of the security department and its employees.

228 Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International

CONSULTANTS AS A PROTECTION RESOURCE
8.2 Types of Security Consultants

8.2 TYPES OF SECURITY CONSULTANTS

Security consultants can be classified into three major categories: security management
consultants, technical security consultants, and security forensic consultants. Additionally, a
security consultant or security advisory committee may be an internal resource to assist
company or security executives in identifying and solving security problems before they
warrant outside involvement.

8.2.1 SECURITY MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS

This category of consultants represents the largest group within this niche profession. Invari-
ably, security management consultants specialize in a certain discipline, which comprises
the foundation of their expertise (and reputation). Management consultants assist the client
in managing the protection strategies for the business. The list of specialties is only limited
by those institutions and commercial endeavors in society today, such as healthcare,
manufacturing, transportation, banking and finance, and retail.

Understanding a consultant’s specialty is an important qualifier, however. For example,
suppose a retail firm opts to bring in a security consultant to assess its distribution system.
Based on this specific need, the retailer would want to search for security consultants with
expertise in retail security, loss prevention, or supply chain management. Similarly, a theme
park may seek the services of a security consultant to review and possibly rewrite the security
department’s policies and procedures manual. A consultant experienced in theme park
security and policy development would clearly be the logical expert to undertake this
assignment.

The targeted focus of these two examples underscores a very important aspect of security
consulting called the scope of work. That topic is addressed later in this chapter.

Security consultants with specialties other than retail or amusement parks might also be
effective in addressing the needs posed in the previous examples. Experts in warehouse
operations, over-the-road trucking operations, delivery services, or shipping and receiving all
might qualify for the retail assignment, and a retail security or loss prevention consultant
might be fully capable of dealing with the theme park’s needs.

In fact, many security management consultants are generalists within the security discipline.
For example, a consultant who has a strong background in banking and finance will almost
certainly have a general knowledge of related specialties such as investigations, physical and
electronic security, and preemployment screening. While some of these may appear to be
technical specialties, management consultants will not cross into technical specifics. They
may be able to provide the functional concepts of a security system, but they will not be
specialists in the detailed design of the system.

Protection of Assets Ɣ Copyright © 2012 by ASIS International 229


Click to View FlipBook Version