Relationship Between Public and Private Security Departments - Research Paper Example

The Relationship Between Public and Private Security Departments It is important to that there is certainly a distinction between public and private security agencies and firms, yet their core objective, at heart, is the same. Both are concerned with protecting and preserving society. At the end of the day, however, the police cannot cover every aspect of security that there is to cover. Private individuals and organizations, at the same time, are increasingly concern about crime prevention and they realize the public law enforcement officials often enter the scene too late to adequately protect them. Over time, the police themselves have become much more open to the assistance of private security firms, and have even begun to go so far as to provide valuable assistance and to open up line of communication to aid in the crime prevention process. While there most likely still exists an ‘us against them’ mentality, the reality is that both security sectors are beginning to realize that they have the same core objective and can both mutually benefit one another by forming partnerships rather than barriers. The Relationship Between Public and Private Security Departments Introduction As with any large and populated area, the United States is in need of security. Long ago it became obvious that government agencies, as skilled as they were, could not be in all places simultaneously, so without the assistance of private security firms many individuals and organizations simply would not feel adequately protected. For quite some time, there has been an effort on the part of government law enforcement agencies to liaison with such private companies to provide security functions to broader society, but some would question the sincerity of this movement. Most definitions of such liaison programs revolve the ability to effectively communicate amongst various parties. In the case of security interests, these parties would involve public law enforcement entities, private security firms, and various business organizations. To properly liaison, however, a mutual feeling of respect and trust must be established in order to facilitate the information sharing process, and such sharing should be consistent and cooperative in nature (Alimahomed, 2014). Unfortunately, this mutual spirit of cooperation is often lacking between public and private security agencies, causing a breakdown in communication that can serve to threaten the very safety of the individuals that the groups are designed to protect and defend. Historicity Throughout history, it seems that private security and respective public policing agencies has not always agreed to maintain a cordial and working relationship with one another. This finding dates back to a 1971 study that uncovered that the norm demographic for a private security guard was an agin white male with minimal education. Such individuals choosing the profession were not well qualified for the line of work that security detail entails, and they were poorly paid as a rule. By 1976, owing to the lack of professionalism and seriousness with which many in the private sector apparently saw themselves, the relationship between law enforcement agencies across the country was rapidly deteriorating to the point that many in the public sector actually despised the role that private security guards played within society (Trevaskes, 2007). Out of the aforementioned problems, the Private Security Advisory Council commission a report in 1976 that was conducted in conjunction with the United States Department of Justice. As a result of their observations, two primary factors were concluded to be contributing to the poor relationships and lines of communication amongst public law enforcement agencies and their private security counterparts. The first of these factors was the inability on the part of both parties to clarify and distinguish their respective roles and objectives, while the second was related to the practice of stereotyping (Travaskes, 2007). Another study, dubbed the Hallcrest Report, has been hailed as a groundbreaking study in terms of encouraging a deeper examination of the relationships existent between public law enforcement agencies and private security entities, and how to improve upon them. The Hallcrest Report was first published in 1985 after being sanctioned by the National Institute of Justice. This one report uncovered a reality that many law enforcement officials, in conjunction with proprietary and contracted professionals in the field of security, had begun to allow private security firms to conduct certain police related actions (Barnett, 1998). The second Hallcrest Report focused on trends in private security and arrived at the conclusion that private security firms should be viewed as a primary protective entity in America in terms of providing security services. In addition, the field of private security far outspends public law enforcement agencies and employs more people. One example from the Hallcrest Report to illustrate these findings is that private security employs nearly 2 million people and spends in excess of $60 billion on security related functions. This is compared to the roughly 700,000 individuals that are employed in one capacity or another with either a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency, resulting in an estimated expenditure in the range of $30 billion (Barnett, 1998). In fact, it is the exponential increase in the growth of the private security sector that is believed to have resulted in the limited growth of public law enforcement entities. According to the Hallcrest Report, there are four main factors leading to the increase in private security, while public law enforcement numbers have remained stagnant or in decline. To begin, it is notes that there has been an increase in workplace related crimes. This has resulted in organizations hiring their own internal security forces to protect company interests, as public law enforcement typically would only become involved after a crime has been committed. A second factor leading to this phenomenon is related to the increasing fear of crime throughout many sectors of society. Again, because of this, individuals are becoming more proactive in protecting their own interests before a crime is committed. Many are choosing to either hire a private security firm, or at minimum a consultant to help shore up their own personal interests. Third, there is the reality that economic times of the day have dictated that many public agencies lash their fundings, and this includes money available for public security and protection is on the decrease. At the same time, money spent on private security is increasing to make up for the difference, which is further hampering the relationship between private security firms and public law enforcement agencies. Finally, the Hallcrest Report found that there is an increasing awareness of and willingness to engage the services of private security firms. This is done in an effort to provide more effective protective measures than public law enforcement entities are able to provide the average citizen with (Rickas, 1994). Increasing Presence of Liaison Programs In the end, it is believed that many police officers and other law enforcement related agencies tend to hold private security officers to a lower standard because they have limited powers, and because there are less stringent standards related to their qualifications and training. In return, managers at private security firms often take a somewhat negative view of the police because they seem unwilling or simply not interested in handling crimes that private security firms are ready to tackle. These include cyber related crimes, white collar activities, and terrorism related offenses (Pinsker, 2012). Over the years, however, there has been an effort to overcome these feelings of negativity towards one another and move towards a spirit of partnership and liaison building activities. To support this finding, consider the reality that back in the 1980s, only a few programs aimed at building liaisons between private security firms and public law enforcement agencies were known to be in existence. Today, there are over 60 such programs in existence, with plans for more to be created (Pinsker, 2012). One example of this growing effort at building partnerships is Operation Cooperation, which has been attributed as a leading contributor to a growing sense of trust between the public and private security communities. This program is funded by the United States Department of Justice, and it is supported by the American Society for Industrial Security. Since its inception, Operation Cooperation has represented a major initiative on a nation scale that is designed to promote partnerships and opportunities to work together between public law enforcement agencies and private security entities. This has helped to lessen the stereotypes that exist between the two parties and has served to enhance overall public security. Some of the other major liaison programs around the country include Pooling Resources in Defense of our Environment in Michigan, the Virginia Police and Private Security Alliance, the North Test Regional Law Enforcement and Security Program, and the Area Police/Private Security Liaison in New York City. Each program aims to build rapport amongst security professions. The LEAPS program in the Dallas area, for example, aims to provide security officer training, special-interest relationship building, and a Vax Net 1 information that has as its core objective to be a sources of getting crime information from the police to interested private security firms in hopes of heading off criminal activity before it occurs (Mulone, 2013). Each of the liaison programs, and other attempts at formalizing partnerships between law enforcement and security professionals, have the same ultimate goal even if they go about in different ways. There are four major differences in the ways that such programs are directed (Bunger, 2012). The first is in regard to the degree of formality present in the liaison program itself. Such operations can be either formal, of a not for profit nature, or run as a club that has separate laws and representatives. The partnership formed can also be informal and without any formal direction or objective. Each program may also have a different type of mission statement that governs and directs the overall purpose of the organization. Some programs, for example, may seek to solve specific problems, such as neighborhood policing in an area that has seen a recent spike in crime. Other liaison programs might be created for the express purpose of sharing information between public law enforcement agencies and private security firms, or for networking purposes. The programs might also differ in terms of the leadership structure. There are many members of law enforcement that actually direct some of aforementioned public and private security liaisons and partnerships, and there are also many that are led by members of the private security field. Some partnerships are comprised of a joint leadership structure that encompasses leaders from both public law enforcement agencies and private security firms. One final way that such partnerships may vary is in terms of their funding structure. There are many different models by which liaisons may be funded. Some of the programs in existence today actually have no stated budged, while others are actually well funded and sponsored by both private and civic organizations. Some liaison programs may actually receive their funding via various programs that participate in the partnership itself. These include police agencies, private security companies, and various other business related activities. They may also receive funding via sponsors and insurance companies that have a vested interest in helping to foster a more cordial working relationship between public and private security firms. Finally, some partnerships may be fully funding via either the incorporation of police foundations, many of which are similar to the Fraternal Order of Police (Bunger, 2012). Current Relationship Between Public and Private Security Agencies In considering the growing relationship that currently exists between public law enforcement agencies and private security firms, research reveals that there are several common characteristics (Chekwa, 2013). The first noticeable distinguishing characteristic is the desire to network. It is commonplace today to see social gatherings between the respective parties. Such gatherings have the objective to discuss various problems that are endemic to both types of security personnel, and to assist each other in better understanding each individuals respective role in either the public or private security field. There are also numerous lectures given by security professionals that are designed to better equip both private and security professionals. An interesting aspect of this is that such lectures are given by both types of security personal, which illustrates an openness amongst the police to learn from seasoned veterans in the security business, regardless of who pays their salary. Within the networking component currently seen in this area today, directories listing both police and private security contacts are no common place (Dupont, 2014). It is also helpful to note that information sharing between public security agencies and private security firms is taking place today at levels never seen before. It is important that both types of security personnel exchange information related to crimes and criminal convictions between both laws enfacement agencies and the private security sector. Instead of working against each other, both parties are now realizing the positive impact that they can have on their communities if they will share information with one another. The goal is to help prevent crimes based on such information, in addition to solve crimes that have been plaguing police for quite some time (Kunreuther, 2013). In addition, there is a deeper interest today in the exchanging of business crime information in much the same way. While it should appear to be obvious that both the public and private security sectors have as their main objective the prevention of crime, this has not always been apparent through their respective dealings and levels of communication with one another. In more recent times, however, crime prevention has increasingly become a focus of both types of entities, and this is evident by a renewed partnership with each other. To illustrate this, it is noted that there is now more of an effort at joint participation in providing business safety and security programs. In addition, community policing efforts have been beefed up nationwide, as has the willingness to address issues of concern to local people as they related directly to areas of police, safety, and security. Through all of these efforts, there is currently more of a concerted effort taking place amongst both the public and private sector to support neighborhood watch programs. These programs are greatly assisting overtaxed police departments as private individuals are providing assistance in notifying the police when something appears to be wrong in their community, all in an effort aimed at crime prevention (Hall, 2006). Recent years have also seen an increase in training programs that are in place across both public and private security sectors. Such training sessions and workshops have been established, offering topic of interest to current security personnel, such as the growing problem of terrorism and current trends in criminal activity on both local and national level. Such training programs are no longer one sided side with only police offering their services. Increasingly, there is an exchange of training taking place with the most qualified and experienced on any given topic, bit they in the public or private sector, are invited to present. In many cases, the police will offer training session to private security firms, and private security entities in return will offer their services specific to a problem area that the police needs help with (DuPont, 2014). To help further facilitate this growing partnership between both the public and private security sector, legislation has been enacted that supports the process through the passing of laws and ordinances designed to standardize the industry. This has largely been accomplished through the implementation of security officer standards and licensing. This has served to help break down previously existing stereotypes amongst the police that private security officers were poorly trained and lacked the experience required to provide adequate security and protection to the individuals and organizations they were contracted to serve. This has led to the formation of incident planing and safety committees, in addition to joint sting operations between both public law enforcement agencies and private security firms. The police are also now much more open to open up investigations and share information with their private security counterparts if it will directly help better solve and prevent crimes. Finally, it is important to note the current and renewed emphasis on research (Chekwa, 2013). There is a movement underway to review and distribute recent security related publication that relate to current issues in the field, both within and throughout the public and private security sectors. Conclusion As with any large and populated area, the United States is in need of security. Long ago it became obvious that government agencies, as skilled as they were, could not be in all places simultaneously, so without the assistance of private security firms many individuals and organizations simply would not feel adequately protected. For quite some time, there has been an effort on the part of government law enforcement agencies to liaison with such private companies to provide security functions to broader society, but some would question the sincerity of this movement. Most definitions of such liaison programs revolve the ability to effectively communicate amongst various parties. In the case of security interests, these parties would involve public law enforcement entities, private security firms, and various business organizations. To properly liaison, however, a mutual feeling of respect and trust must be established in order to facilitate the information sharing process, and such sharing should be consistent and cooperative in nature. Unfortunately, this mutual spirit of cooperation is often lacking between public and private security agencies, causing a breakdown in communication that can serve to threaten the very safety of the individuals that the groups are designed to protect and defend. It is important to note that there is certainly a distinction between public and private security agencies and firms, yet their core objective, at heart, is the same. Both are concerned with protecting and preserving society. At the end of the day, however, the police cannot cover every aspect of security that there is to cover. Private individuals and organizations, at the same time, are increasingly concern about crime prevention and they realize the public law enforcement officials often enter the scene too late to adequately protect them. Over time, the police themselves have become much more open to the assistance of private security firms, and have even begun to go so far as to provide valuable assistance and to open up line of communication to aid in the crime prevention process. While there most likely still exists an ‘us against them’ mentality, the reality is that both security sectors are beginning to realize that they have the same core objective and can both mutually benefit one another by forming partnerships rather than barriers. References Alimahomed, S. (2014). Homeland security inc.: Public order, private profit. Race & Class, 55(4), 82-99. Barnett, G. (1998). Public relations. In IFPO, Protection officer training manual (6th ed.). Boston: Butterowth-Heinemann. Bunger, M. (2012). Private policing. Criminal Justice Matters, 89, 10. Chekwa, C. (2013). Information security threats: What is public versus private sector’s perception. International Journal of Business and Public Administration, 10(1), 87. Dupont, B. (2014). Private security regimes: Conceptualizing the forces that shape the private delivery of security. Theoretical Criminology, 18(3), 263-281. Hall, G. (2006). Outlaw private security firms: Criminal and terrorist agendas undermine private security alternatives. Global Crime, 7(3), 561-582. Kunreuther, H. (2013). Interdependent security. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(2/3), 231-249. Mulone, M (2013). Researching private security consumption. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 19(4), 401-417. Pinsker, R. (2012). Security intelligence networks and the transformation of contract private security. Policing and Society, 16(1), 50-66. Rickas, T. (1994). Principles of security (3rd ed.). Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co. Tartaglia, M. (2014). Private prisons, private records. Boston University Law Review, 94(5), 1689. Trevaskes, S. (2007). The private/security nexus in China. Social Justice, 34(3-4), 38. Read More