Private Policing Arrangements

By: James F. Pastor, PhD, JD
President of SecureLaw Ltd. and Associate Professor in Public Safety at Calumet College of St. Joseph

This paper is designed to address a complex yet often overlooked topic. I contend that private security will increasingly provide services in ways traditionally carried out by police. Although private police have been relatively unstudied within academic research, and largely overlooked by policy makers, this paper seeks to take a step to remedy this deficiency by serving as both a primer and a resource to those professionals in the law enforcement and security fields interested in this emergent and important topic.

The larger purpose of paper is to explain how public-private policing arrangements operate. The scope and details of these arrangements vary widely. In rare cases, private security has replaced public police within a given area. In most private policing initiatives, some level of “partnership” or some supplement with local police agencies form the basis for the arrangement. Prior to delving into the substantive analysis of this subject, it is important to establish a few caveats.

1. This work in no way advocates the elimination, or even the diminishment, of public policing agencies. Indeed, this chapter will illustrate that the expansion of security personnel into the public realm is due to forces outside the control of policing agencies. As such, the growth of private police is not a reflection of poor public policing.

2. The use of private police is designed to supplement already overworked, and often understaffed, law enforcement officers. In this way, the work product of public and private police should be viewed in a “division of labor” perspective.

3. As will be more fully articulated later, the provision of private policing has certain market based benefits when compared to government based service providers. I believe the widespread introduction of private police serve the interests of more highly trained, law enforcement officers, as well as the community—or the client—served by these public safety service providers.

A useful way to conceptualize this arrangement is to view it in light of other professions. Three or so decades ago, the introduction of “para-legals” and “para-medics” created a great deal of controversy in their respective professions. The legal bar worried about lowering the “value” of the licensed attorney. Similarly, doctors worried about the quality of medical services that their clients would receive from medical para-professionals. In contemporary times, it is not necessary to engage an attorney or enter a hospital to get a sense of how important a role para-professionals play in these professions. In this sense, private police can be analogized as “para-police.”

As security professionals appreciate and understand, the provision of security and public safety services is not the exclusive domain of government. Indeed, as the below statistics will illustrate, the majority of those individuals charged with security and public safety services are employed by private firms. Of course, this does not minimize the substantial role that public police officers contribute to public safety. The key point is that security and public safety are not exclusive to government, as security professionals throughout the world can attest to.

While this fact is commonly accepted within the security profession, the introduction of private police into the public domain may cause concern, or even alarm, to some people. This is understandable, particularly in western countries. Most contemporary observers view police agencies as “normal,” as if this was the natural state of law enforcement. It is not. Many do not realize that public policing is a rather new phenomenon. When the first police department was organized by Sir Robert Peel in London in 1829, many people viewed this with concern, or even alarm. This was due to a dramatic change in “policing.” In this way, the introduction of private policing can be viewed as back to the future, whereby private citizens will contribute more time and effort to the safety and security of their communities.

When one considers the provision of public safety and security services, it is useful to think in terms of location and provision (see figure 1). In this cell, the location is broken down as either private or public, and the provision is divided as either a substitute or a supplement. These deserve further explanation.

In the PRIVATE/SUBSTITUTE cell, the typical provision is where the security personnel, either contract or proprietary, provide the majority (if not all) of security services. Security firms have traditionally operated almost exclusively within private environments. In this sense, security personnel act as the “sheriff” within their environment. They typically do so with little or no support from the public police. The practice in this environment is that security personnel act as a “substitute” for police agencies, providing most, if not all, of the security services at the particular location. This does not mean that public police officers do not nor cannot enter into these facilities. It simply means that public police do not routinely enter or patrol private facilities and properties. For example, public police typically do not stand guard at the entrance of a manufacturing plant. Instead, private facilities typically perform their own dedicated patrols or other crime prevention services. Of course, if a crime occurs, police are often called to the private property. In this way, the cell is not a complete substitute. It is largely a substitute, and for some firms an almost exclusive substitute. Consequently, this cell represents the norm in the security industry.

In the PUBLIC/SUBSTITUTE cell, the towns of Remainderville, Ohio, and Sussex, New Jersey, fired their police officers and hired security personnel as substitutes. When this occurred, the security officers patrolled the town, answered calls for service, took reports, and made arrests. In this sense, the private security personnel acted as a substitute for the public police. These services were provided within the public domain, as if they were “the police.” This highly unusual and controversial substitute arrangement was terminated after a short period of time. Simply stated, there are too many problematic issues tied to this type of an arrangement. Although this arrangement proved unsustainable, it represents the extreme of privatization—being the actual “sheriff” within the town. To be clear, this author does not advocate such an extreme approach. I do, however, advocate the use of privatized patrols as supplements in both private and public environments. This is where the focus will be as we go forward.

The last two cells, PRIVATE/SUPPLEMENT and PUBLIC/SUPPLEMENT are the growth environments for the security industry. This is particularly true in the PUBLIC/SUPPLEMENT realm, since there has been little penetration into this public market. In these cells, the focus is on supplementing or enhancing the security and public safety provision already provided by policing agencies. For example, in college campuses there are often undefined or loosely defined boundaries between the “campus” and the larger community. Often the campus police or public safety officers are vested with “police powers.” Sometimes they are not. When they are employed by a security firm, then this is an illustration of private policing. An even more common and clear example is within gated residential communities and in corporate campuses. In these environments, the typical provision of security services is from private firms.

In the PRIVATE/SUPPLEMENT cell, there are many examples of security firms acting as a supplement to the public police. These often occur in private, gated communities. In these instances, the “protected communities” are separated by perimeter fencing coupled with private security patrols within the area. There are countless examples of contracted security services within gated communities. One author estimated that by the mid 1990s between three and four million people in the United States lived in gated communities. Later data reveals that this number has increased to seven million, with over 50,000 gated communities. A survey of gated communities in South Africa revealed some extraordinary data. Of the 117 municipalities that responded to the survey, fully 20 percent had enclosed neighborhoods and 23 percent had large security estates. Some authors who study gated communities, such as Blakely and Synder, contend that security is the driving force for all gated communities. In this sense, gated communities may represent a fortress mentality growing in America and in some Westernized countries. Much of this occurred prior to 9/11.

In this PRIVATE/SUPPLEMENT cell, there is overlap between the service provision of public and private entities. In this cell, the focus is on supplementing or enhancing the public safety provision already provided by policing agencies. For example, on college campuses there are often undefined or loosely defined boundaries between the “campus” and the larger community. In these areas, the public police may regularly, or at least semi-regularly, patrol the gated community and the college or corporate campus. The involvement of public police in these areas is usually more than in the private/substitute areas, and substantially less than public streets, parks, and the like (i.e., in the public realm). An example relates to the potential for terroristic attacks in shopping malls. This makes the notion of securing shopping malls critical. Indeed, attacks and planned attacks of shopping malls may become “common.” Consequently, the provision of security services by private firms in this cell (private/supplement) is already quite extensive.

The focus of this paper, however, is in the PUBLIC/SUPPLEMENT cell. This is likely where the greatest market opportunities for the security industry exist. Ironically, this is where the most problems and pitfalls reside. As will be analyzed in detail, the market for private policing will grow substantially. There are a number of factors driving this growth. They include the following:

Each of these factors will independently contribute to the needs within the market.
Each of these factors in combination will boost the need for private policing in public environments. It is my assertion that western democracies are at an early stage in the transformation of policing. Indeed, many countries in Europe, such as England, Sweden, and others are well into this transformation. It is my opinion that America is still in its infancy in terms of this policing transformation.

This new policing style, which I call “public safety policing,” is a blend of public and private entities, with a rather defined delegation of duties or functions. These duties or functions can be considered as a division of labor. This division of labor should include a structural component which would enable the entities to blend the delivery of public safety services through operational and administrative processes. Admittedly, this may be a tall task, with many road blocks and obstacles in the way. Thankfully, the good work and relations previously done by professionals in security and policing will go a long way in facilitating this new model of policing.

In the PUBLIC/SUPPLEMENT cell, private security firms provide patrol and other “quality of-life” services that the police are unable or unwilling to perform. Most of the functional service provision is manifested in “observe and report” and order maintenance tasks. In this sense, these arrangements combine the traditional “observe and report” function of private security with the order maintenance role traditionally reserved for public police. This same desire for security is also driving private policing in purely public environments. Some examples of what these services provisions will entail are illustrations below.

The Hollywood and Sunset business improvement districts (BIDs) are excellent models of public-private policing. Both of these arrangements are operated by Andrews International, Inc. Each BID is about 3.5 square miles. They contain some of the most famous Hollywood landmarks, such as the “Walk of the Stars.” The private police patrols are comprised of 20 officers, each of whom are retired, former, or off-duty police officers. The officers are uniformed in navy blue pants and polo shirts. The shirts contain security patches, the company logo, and the words “BID PATROL” on the back. Each officer is armed, either with 9-mm or .45-caliber handguns, along with typical police equipment such as handcuffs, ammunition, pepper spray, and the like. They drive white SUVs marked with the company logo. The officers also walk foot patrols. These patrols are designed for direct community contact, observable patrol presence, and the enforcement of “quality of life” infractions.

The firm maintains a robust training curriculum for the patrol arrangement. The officers receive firearms training at least every other month. They are trained in the proper use of pepper spray and receive ongoing legal update training including L.A. city attorney briefings. In addition, numerous members of the homeless outreach community brief the officers. Training subjects also include search and seizure, trespass, workplace violence, public relations, company policies, terrorism, cultural diversity, being a good witness, telephonic bomb threats, ethics and code of conduct, bomb threat protocol, handcuffing, making a good impression, drug-free workplace, and powers of arrest.57 Based in part on this training, coupled with the police backgrounds of the private police officers, LAPD Captain Beatrice Girmala stated that “these officers are different. They are not trying to be the police. Instead, they are acting in a support role. The level of professionalism and training earn them respect from both LAPD and the citizens.”

This training is supplemented with various systematic communication methods with the LAPD. The BID patrol supervisors attend LAPD crime control meetings every week. In these meetings, current crime trends are analyzed and strategies to combat them are planned. The BID arrangement also strives for total transparency and accountability. This includes a computer tracking system that maps each arrest. This enables tracking times, dates, locations, and types of arrests that occur throughout the BID areas. It also facilitates identification of crime trends, with corresponding timely adjustments of personnel staffing. This database also contains the arrest report, a photograph, and other detailed information about the suspect. This system is also used to track graffiti. The arrangement also maintains 24/7 video coverage of the “arrest bench” in their security office in order to ensure that all suspects are treated properly while in custody.

Data from these bids are instructive. In the Hollywood BID, the work product of the private police officers was substantial. In 2007, the private police officers made a total of 2,349 arrests. In 2008, they made a total of 1,707 arrests. Of the 1,017 total arrests, 593 were for drinking in public, 99 were for urinating in public, 114 were for narcotics violations, 38 for trespass, 21 for illegal vending, 19 for battery, 16 for blocking the sidewalk, 11 for theft, 11 for vandalism, and 44 for various misdemeanors. Of course, each of these reflects order maintenance functions. In addition, they made 51 arrests for various felonies. Further, the patrol teams also made 2,615 outreach referrals, made contact with 3,919 citizens, handled 1,412 radio calls for service, and conducted 2,382 business checks.

In the Sunset BID, a total of 690 arrests were made. These break down as follows: 327 for drinking in public, 84 for urinating in public, 27 for narcotics, 17 for trespass, 9 for illegal vending, 5 for battery, 17 for blocking the sidewalk, 10 for theft, 3 for vandalism, and 161 for various misdemeanors. Again, these are critical order maintenance functions. In addition, they made 30 arrests for various felonies. The patrol officers also made 1,318 outreach referrals, made contact with 2,127 citizens, handled 709 radio calls for service, and conducted 1,255 business checks.

In a two-year period, the private patrol officers conducted substantial work. They made a combined total of 3,933 homeless referrals and 6,046 citizen contacts, handled 2,121 radio calls for service, and visited 3,637 businesses. In addition, the breakdown of their arrests clearly illustrates an order maintenance approach. The approximate percentages of arrests break down as follows:

53 percent—alcohol related
12 percent—miscellaneous misdemeanors
11 percent—urinating in public
8 percent—narcotics
5 percent—felonies
3 percent—trespass
2 percent—blocking sidewalk
2 percent—battery
2 percent—illegal vending
1 percent—theft
1 percent—vandalism

A mixture of order maintenance and technology implemented in a new development in Brentwood, California, is illustrative. In this arrangement, developers, local officials, and law enforcement developed a security plan for a retail development. This plan is to incorporate lighting, video surveillance, and various vehicle, foot, and bicycle patrols throughout the shopping center. The development will also employ patrol cars with noise meters that detect loud music. It will also employ a curfew to enforce safety, if necessary, and the Brentwood Police Department plans to staff a substation nearby.

Similarly, in Oakland the city council approved the hiring of armed security officers to monitor commercial districts in the eastern part of the city. As in other cities, Oakland set up special tax zones called business improvement districts, where the affected property owners agree to pay a special assessment tax to fund private security and other initiatives designed to make the area safer and to spur economic development. The security officers will supplement Oakland police officers, as the department is experiencing staff shortages. As a consequence of these shortages, storeowners have complained that police are unable to respond to reports of drug dealing or loitering. Some residents believe that it has been difficult for police officers to develop an understanding of the community’s problems because of staff shortages resulting in police constantly being shifted around. “We hope by spending this money that these security guards will at least be on the job long enough so there will be a positive impact,” said Art Clark, a member of a the citizen advisory board. The city will also spend money on a campaign to teach business owners safety techniques, and on installing security cameras and better lighting.

According to a reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle, the new security personnel are being hired to do “what public police used to do, public order policing…” This function took on additional significance due to rioting following a police shooting. In an attempt to secure the downtown area, Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums announced that the city will hire unarmed private security guards to patrol the area and supplement the police department.

In San Francisco, in what may be the most unique private policing arrangement in America, the San Francisco Patrol Special Police patrol the city as a supplemental public safety force. This arrangement dates back to the gold rush days. It was initially formed in 1847 by business owners to combat the insurgence of criminals, such as the infamous Barbary Coast pirates. 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 Commission is empowered with the authority 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. The Police Commission also may establish requirements and procedures to govern the position, including the power of the chief of police to supervise these special police officers.

Each Patrol Special Police officer shall be at least 21 years of age at the time of appointment. They must pass an extensive police background investigation, complete training at the San Francisco Police Academy, and possess such physical qualifications as required by the commission. These requirements are consistent with those from the California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training, and include medical standards reflective of the San Francisco Police Department. In addition, these officers receive training on an annual basis from the San Francisco Police Department. They must also qualify with firearms at the police department’s range. They wear uniforms approved by the Police Commission, carry a firearm, and use two-way SFPD radios. Each of these factors illustrates an excellent example of structural interaction with the San Francisco Police Department, including specific accountability measures designed to ensure proper and consistent service.

The unique aspect of the Patrol Special Police officers is that they are considered the owner of their certain beat or territory. As the owner of a beat or territory, it is considered “property” that may be bought, sold, leased, bequeathed by will, or otherwise conveyed. This makes the ownership of the beat very unique and potentially very valuable. The “beat” property may be conveyed to a person of good moral character, who is approved by the Police Commission and eligible for appointment as a Patrol Special Police officer. The beat ownership, however, may be rescinded by the commission.

According to its Web site, the San Francisco Patrol Special Police officers strive to make the communities they serve better places in which to live and work. 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. They also attend community meetings and work closely with the police department and other city agencies to find resolutions to everyday neighborhood concerns. This emphasis on Community Policing clearly reflects the need to service clients and to perform order maintenance functions.

In yet another example, in Renton, Washington, Visitor Information and Downtown Assistance (VIDA) hired private security as part of a broader city public-safety initiative to reduce crime and promote a sense of safety. The program hosts the unarmed guards, who walk or ride bikes through the downtown area during afternoon and evening hours wearing easily identifiable yellow and black uniforms with a VIDA logo. “Public safety is the cornerstone of a civil society and it is our responsibility to ensure that we do everything possible to make our neighborhoods and community feel safe,” said Mayor Denis Law. “We are the eyes and the ears for the police here,” said one of the security officers while riding a bike through downtown Renton. The purpose of these patrols is for the officers to provide information, report vandalism and graffiti, deter criminal activity, and extend a helping hand when needed. These services are part of a comprehensive plan to reduce criminal activity and enhance overall safety. The plan includes additional security, increased patrols, security cameras, enhanced code-enforcement efforts, and a significant emphasis on traffic safety.

Another example of a supplemental public safety arrangement is within the city of Philadelphia. In 1991, the city council approved the Center City District (CCD), a private not-for-profit group responsible for administering the business improvement district. For years prior to this arrangement, the downtown Philadelphia site exhibited significant criminal activity. The police district, which serves the downtown area, reported 37 percent of its workload coming from this area. In addition—or possibly as a consequence of the crime rate—the area experienced increases in vacant commercial properties, unregulated vendors, homeless citizens, and trash accumulating on the streets and sidewalks. This supplemental arrangement was designed to address these incivilities through enhanced order maintenance techniques.

The district covers 80 square blocks, with 2,087 property owners each paying a property tax surcharge from the real estate levy. The budget is allocated to the following privately contracted services:

These budgetary allocations illustrate that to impact crime the concept of security must be broadly defined. Again, these services reflect the order maintenance approach. In accordance with these functions, the CCD set up its daily operations to foster collaboration with the police department. This entailed assigning police officers to the CCD. It also entailed security officers, called community service representatives (or CSR) sharing headquarters with police officers. This included joint locker facilities, conducting joint roll calls, and facilitating ongoing communication relating to crime trends. The security personnel are unarmed and uniformed. They act as public “concierges” and as neighborhood “watchers.” They are equipped with radios that are interconnected with the police. The security personnel also use a computerized crime mapping system designed to enhance crime prevention methodologies.

The CCD security force consists of 45 to 50 officers. The training curriculum is wide ranging, including such subjects as problem solving and customer service techniques, hospitality methods, use of force, radio communications, first aid, CPR, and victim assistance. The minimum standards are significant. Recruits must possess two years of college, be at least 21 years old, and pass a background investigation. These standards make the security personnel meet higher standards than typical guards within the security industry.

In a similar supplemental arrangement, the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department contracts with uniformed security personnel to patrol the central city. The private security force is operated through a special tax district that was initially created in the late 1950s. The tax district encompasses all of downtown St. Louis. It is administered by Downtown St. Louis, Inc., a private not-for-profit chamber of commerce. Property owners within the district pay a tax surcharge, which is collected by the city and state, then redistributed to the district. The focal point of the tax revenues is to provide security protection to businesses. The revenues are also used to pay for the following services:

The business district is divided into 12 different beats, with a particular allotment from both security and the police. The security personnel consist of a patrol force of 6 to 30 officers, depending on the time or the particular event. 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 arrest powers as police. Just like the police, security officers wear uniforms and walk their beats—using reasonable force when necessary to stop a crime.

The selection criteria are more varied and sophisticated than in previous examples. For example, the selection criteria includes factors such as an outgoing personality, knowledge of the St. Louis metro area, two years prior experience in the security industry, 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 course focusing on public relations. When the training is completed, the security officers are licensed by the St. Louis Police Department, and are given arrest authority by the city’s police board. In this sense, the private police officers are vested with “special police” powers.

Downtown business leaders have joined with police and city officials to create the Downtown Security Collaborative. This arrangement commenced following a dramatic 21% increase in serious crime. In conjunction with other improvements, a “safety ambassador” program was initiated where unarmed security provide a “security presence” in addition to helping people with information and other services. The plan provides eleven unarmed security guards, two supervisors, and five “ambassadors.” This arrangement, as most others, is ultimately designed to enhance public safety. Indeed, in the words of the director of economic development for Minneapolis, this program “arises from the business community’s call to action.”

The city implemented a security arrangement as part of the Metropolitan Improvement District (MID). As with many of the other programs, this district is funded by self-imposed property taxes on downtown real estate. It hired 35 uniformed security officers to patrol the streets. These security officers, also called “safety ambassadors,” work with and are largely trained by the Seattle Police Department. The training consists of 90 hours, with its curriculum focusing on such subjects as report writing, radio codes, ordinances, and customer service instruction. This safety ambassador program was created because there “weren’t enough beat cops to walk the streets in the intensity we wanted,” said MID Director Bill Dietrich.

The Greater Green Point Management District (GGPMD) encompasses a 12-square-mile section within Houston, Texas. This district has a mix of residential and commercial properties. Prior to this initiative, increases in crime and the general deterioration in the conditions within the district were manifest. At least partially due to these factors, local property owners within the district petitioned the state legislature to create the district. The state legislature approved the district and levied a tax on the assessed property value for each parcel of real property. The district is administered by a 22-member board of directors appointed by the governor. Included in the board is an executive director who is in charge of operations, and a security manager who is in charge of security and public safety.

Surveys conducted within the district revealed that business owners were in “absolute terror” due to the growing crime problem. Among other results was the realization that police response times ranged from 14 to 15 minutes for emergency calls, and almost two hours for non-emergency calls. This created a substantial and compelling need for more responsive services. The solution was to enact a series of initiatives aimed at reducing crime and improving the conditions in the district. The initiative included hiring additional police officers and supplementing these officers with private security personnel. The district was to pay all costs and salaries associated with the increases in public safety personnel. Further, the district opened a new police substation, which was donated by a large shopping mall. The police and security personnel were stationed at this facility. These initiatives—and others—were said to have contributed to a significant reduction in crime. The crime rate in the district dropped 25% in the year following the implementation of the initiatives. Further, the occupancy rate of business units within the district rose to one of the highest in the city of Houston. In short, the arrangement was deemed to have contributed to the betterment of the overall environment in the city.

In another Texas-based arrangement, business owners hired 31 private police officers to patrol the downtown business district. The patrols cost about $1.5 million a year, with each officer earning $12.50 per hour. These private police officers wear blue police-like uniforms, carry pepper spray, and use radios. They also exhibit a friendly, courteous approach while patrolling. The patrols are both on foot and on bicycles. Training of these officers lasts three weeks or about 120 hours. One deputy chief of the Dallas Police Department noted that this new force will work as extra “eyes and ears” of the police. The stated goals of this patrol force are to reduce crime and to increase the perception that the area is safe. As such, the patrols illustrate the order maintenance approach. Significantly, these officers are considered “public safety officers,” which is consistent with my assertion of a Public Safety Policing model.

It is interesting to note that the author of one police magazine article discussed these private patrols in a somewhat 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 view this public safety initiative with such harsh language, the merits of these supplemental arrangements are sure to survive the arrows of some critics.

A rather robust private policing approach can be traced back to the 1996 Summer Olympics. In anticipation for the huge number of visitors, Atlanta’s Downtown Improvement District (ADID) put together its 65-person “private police” force called the “Ambassadors.” Central Atlanta Progress President A. J. Robinson credits the Ambassador Force with providing a formidable law-enforcement presence in Atlanta. Partly based on this success, another BID, the Midtown Alliance, added its “Midtown Blue” security patrol teams in 2000.

The Atlanta Downtown Improvement District has a nine-member board of directors, representing law enforcement and private businesses. This board oversees the work of the Ambassadors, who are to serve both public safety and public relations functions. They patrol approximately 120 square blocks. Ambassadors patrol the sidewalks looking for people who need assistance—giving directions and medical assistance, assisting with emergency response for building evacuations and fire drills, and assisting with crowd control. Beyond these functions, they are to provide a public safety presence. In essence, they are to be seen, and they are to help when they can. They serve as the eyes and the ears of Atlanta. They escort downtown employees to and from cars. They report broken streetlights. They try to deter aggressive panhandling, but not by force. Instead they steer people who are down on their luck to agencies that can help.

Each Ambassador carries a two-way radio, providing access to the Atlanta Police Department radio frequency, called COMNET. This gives them simultaneous emergency communication between the ADID, businesses, and public safety personnel. This communication network is fostered by monthly meetings, where law enforcement and the private industry discuss crime, homeland security, security technologies, and relevant events. In addition to their patrol duties, they also maintain and monitor 13 surveillance cameras that record images from public areas. Another 18 employees, called the Clean Sweep Team, pick up trash and keep the area clean. Of course, these surveillance and order maintenance functions are critical aspects of Public Safety Policing. As such, these Ambassadors are a great example of Community Policing by the private sector—and dramatically illustrate the new policing model.

The interrelationship of these elements—and the relevant parties—was pointedly illustrated by a mock terrorist exercise on MARTA (local transportation system). These exercises involved ADID, law enforcement, fire officials, business leaders, and private security personnel. These exercises were related to a larger program known as Operation Shield. This program is designed to create “force multipliers” where private security serves to enhance the public safety presence in the community. This program has three parts:

1. CityWorkSite—A Web-based information-sharing network that allows the police department to send information about crimes and/or other critical events directly to private security personnel. This information is sent via text messages, e-mail, pager, and fax.

2. COMNET radio system—As explained earlier, the private security personnel are connected to the Atlanta police through this radio system. This enables them to communicate directly.

3. Surveillance—The camera system is monitored by both private security and Atlanta police, thereby providing a network of surveillance within a technological framework. In this way, being the eyes and ears involves more than human senses. In addition, the surveillance system intends to expand to “smart” video analytics, such as automatic object detection, gunshot detection, and facial recognition components.

In summary, these examples demonstrate that such cooperative efforts have been successful in combating crime, and enhancing the environment within the patrol arrangement. They further illustrate the continued and growing need for cooperative efforts between private and public police. In this sense, these examples show that security and police create a natural combination of talent and resources. The mission of crime prevention within the security industry, coupled with the ability of the police to arrest and prosecute offenders, provides a dynamic combination of skills and resources. Consequently, the principles and logic of community policing may act as a precursor toward the widespread establishment of privatized public safety services. Nonetheless, a difficult and uncertain transition lies ahead.

I close this paper with the acknowledgment that “combining” police and security into a larger “public safety” policing model will not be easy. There are numerous pitfalls and complications to this transition. Admittedly, it may be a tall task, with many roadblocks and obstacles in the way. Many have already worked long and hard to develop “partnerships” and other relationships between professionals in security and policing. These will go a long way in facilitating this new model of policing.

See Farnham, Alan (1992). “U.S. Suburbs Are Under Siege,” Fortune, December 28. He reported that in Los Angeles, 35 neighborhoods have asked local governmental permission to separate from the surrounding communities by installing gates and hiring security firms. In suburban Detroit, the 2,300-home East English Village Association hired a private security force to supplement patrols of local police. The reasoning behind this decision is illustrated by a statement from the president of this 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.” Also see Cruickshank, Ken (1994). “Frenchman’s Creek Provides the Ultimate in Security,” Manager’s Report 8 (November), who described a property association in the Frenchman’s Creek development in Florida that hired a “mini-swat team” (called S.T.O.P.—Special Tactical and Operations Personnel). This specially trained tactical team “roams the grounds every night dressed in camouflage face paint to stay as unobtrusive as possible and give them the edge on any intruder.” The author asserts that this “tactical team” stays sharp by conducting exercises with sophisticated equipment, including high-tech night vision gear and infrared body heat detectors that distinguish a human body from the surrounding vegetation. The security force also includes a marine patrol and enforces speed limits by ticketing violators.

Blakely, Edward J. and Mary Gail Snyder (1997). “Gating America.” www.asu.edu/
caed/proceedings97/Blakely (retrieved on October 28, 2004).

McGoey, Chris E. (1999). “Gated Communities: Access Control Issues.” www.crimedoctor.
com/gated.htm (retrieved on June 20, 2006).

Landman, Karina (2003). “National Survey of Gated Communities in South Africa.” www.gatedcomsa.com (retrieved on June 20, 2006).

See, for example, Meserve, Jeanne, Eliott McLaughlin, and Kelli Arena (2007), “Malls Debate How to Protect Shoppers From Violence,” CNN, December 6, who note that the killing of eight people at an Omaha, Nebraska, mall has raised security questions at malls across the country. Security officials at the 1,200 malls and 50,000 shopping centers in the United States are expected to consider adding more security measures and updating their emergency plans. Security should watch people as they enter the mall, looking for suspicious behavior that could signal a violent act is about to take place. Focus groups conducted by the International Council of Shopping Centers showed that shoppers would accept additional security measures, such as bag checks and magnetometers, only if the national threat advisory system was raised to level red. Malls are doing more to train their guards after a 2006 study revealed that only a few states require training or minimum hiring standards. The council worked with George Washington University to create a training video that has been seen by an estimated 6,000 security guards over the past year.

Seyler, Stephen (2008). “2008 Final Report for Hollywood and Sunset Business Improvement Districts,” Andrews International, BID Security Director, 1-1-08 through 12-28-08.

Personal interview with LAPD Captain Girmala, January 27, 2009.

Seyler, Stephen (2008), op. cit., 2.

Seyler, Stephen (2008), op. cit., 6-7.

King, Paula (2008). “Tight Security Promised for Streets of Brentwood,” Mercury News, November 4.

Spadanuta, Laura (2008). “Patrols Gone Private,” Security Management August: 20–22.

Heredia, Christopher (2008). “Oakland May Hire Armed Security Guards,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 16, B2.

Hazelkorn, Bud (2003). “Privatization of Police: Making Crime Pay,” San Francisco Chronicle, August 17.

Jones, Carolyn (2009). “Expecting More Protests, City to Hire Guards,” San Francisco Chronicle, January 16, B5.

www.sfpatrolspecpolice.com (retrieved on December 10, 2008).

“Renton, Wash., Beefing Up Downtown Security” (2007). Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle), November 25.

Radford, Dean (2008). “Renton Transit Center beefs up security with guards on bikes,” Renton Reporter, July 16. http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/news/25411819.html, July 16.

Seamon, Thomas M. (1995). “Private Forces for Public Good,” Security Management, September.

Seamon, Thomas M. (1995), op. cit.

Mokwa, Joseph and Terrence W. Stoehner (1995). “Private Security Arches Over St. Louis,” Security Management, September.

Mokwa, Joseph and Terrence W. Stoehner (1995), op. cit.

McKenzie, Sarah (2005). “Business, City Join to Fight Crime Downtown,” Minneapolis/St.Paul Business Journal. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7541911/ (retrieved on April 17, 2005).

McKenzie, Sarah (2005), op. cit., 1.

Kearney, Pat (2000). “Going Private Downtown: Businesses Hire Their Own Police,” The Stranger 9, no. 49. www.thestranger.com (retrieved on May 1, 2004).

Robinson, Frank W. (1996). “From Blight to Bliss,” Security Management February.

Robinson, Frank W. (1996), op. cit.

Brown, Cynthia (2004). “Outsourcing Police Jobs: Cops Replaced by Civilians to Cut Costs,” American Police Beat 11, no. 12 (December).

Brown, Cynthia (2004), op. cit., 16.

Williams, Dave (2008). “Businesses Face Crime Wave,” Atlanta Business Chronicle, July 28.

Williams, Dave (2008), op. cit.; and Anderson, Teresa (2008). “Cooperation Rules,” Security Management September: 95–106.

http://www.atlantadowntown.com/ambassador.asp (retrieved on November 12, 2008).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3676/is_/ai_n8805715 (retrieved on November 12, 2008).

Anderson, Teresa (2008), op. cit.

SecureLaw, Ltd. 65 West Jackson Blvd., #112, Chicago, IL 60604-3598 Phone: 312-423-6700 Fax: 312-692-2322 © James F. Pastor 2010