Terrorism and Public Safety Policing

Terrorism & Public Safety Policing
There has long been an adage in policing where the optimal level of security is to
have a “police officer on every block.” This “goal” is considered both desirable, and yet
unattainable. Indeed, people typically do not register the presence of police in their mind.
During heightened threats, however, we tend to look for police officers and other
authority figures to qualm our fears, and to provide a sense of security. This article
explains how the threat of terrorism will change the nature of policing.
We are at the cusp of a silent, yet fundamental shift that will change the notion of
public safety. This new policing model will emphasize tactical methods, technology, and
alternative service providers, such as security personnel. It will replace the “community
policing” model, which is the dominant policing strategy. Community policing
emphasized a “client centered” focus, and helped to introduce the concept of order
maintenance. One critical affect of this model was to re-orient the police to a more
proactive and preventive approach to crime fighting. In doing so, however, it has
expanded the scope of the police mission by fostering the delivery of more and more
services. With the threat of terrorism, this model will become unsustainable.
With more than two million security personnel, the private security industry is
well positioned to help deliver security services to municipal government and
communities. 1 In many places, private security personnel outnumber public police by a
ratio of four to one. Going beyond these raw statistics, there is a growing trend to employ
private police officers in public areas, including within business districts, on public
streets within residential communities, and in large municipal facilities such as shopping
malls, concert and sports stadiums (also termed “mass private property”).
The “trigger” for this policing transition can be explained with two basic
foundations: fear and money. Both of these factors are complicated by or relate to
1
See for example, National Policy Summit: Building Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships to
Prevent and Respond to Terrorism and Public Disorder, U.S. Department of Justice, 2004.
SecureLaw Ltd. Phone: 312-423-6700

65 West Jackson Blvd., #112 Fax: 312-692-2322
Chicago, IL. 60604-3598 www.securelaw.info Email: info@securelaw.info
“9-11” and “911.” Ironically, these factors, referring to the terrorist incidents and the
communication system, have served to stretch police budgets and served to increase
police work load.
Since the terrorist acts of 9-11, this country has been on an emotional roller
coaster, dealing with various public pronouncements and increased threat levels.
Understood in the grave reality of 9-11, these on-going threats cannot be discounted or
ignored. Indeed, threats create fear which demand action. This cycle of threats and fear
result in government spending billions of dollars on security related expenditures.
Added to this dynamic is the fact that Community Policing monies previously
provided by the federal government have dried up. Most of the federal funding is now
centered by “homeland security.” Most of this funding, however, is earmarked for
technologies and training, designed to improve the performance of the “first
responders”—the police, fire, and medical personnel who encounter a terrorist act.
Conversely, the computerized call taking system of “911” has resulted in huge
increases in work loads in police departments throughout the country. Years of urging
citizens to call “911” has created a culture whereby people tend to call the police for
more and more service orientated requests. Calls for such things as barking dogs, street
light repairs, noisy neighbors, unruly children, alarm response, and the like have created a
difficult “unintended consequence” for police agencies already strapped with resource
constraints. These service and order maintenance tasks are unsustainable in an era of
terrorism.
Attempts have been instituted to resolve the increasing level of service calls.
Implementing “311” (non-emergency police response), and call stacking (prioritizing
calls for dispatch based on level of seriousness) have had some success. However, these
have not resolved the basic dilemma—servicing the community through the resources
allocated to the department.
Faced with these twin constraints of fear and financial burdens, thoughtful police
executives are responding with creative and innovative methods. To illustrate this
SecureLaw Ltd. 2 Phone: 312-423-6700

dilemma, I often ask two basic, yet telling, questions to police administrators related to
the relationship between resources and functions:
 Do you have the resources for all the functions you are asked to perform?
 Are you asked to perform functions that you prefer not to perform?
Predictably the answers are “no” and “yes”, respectively. A paradigm shift in
policing is the better answer. Simply stated, we cannot afford to maintain the status quo.
In my opinion, policing agencies must provide more cost effective policing methods.
Considering the growth of security firms, coupled with the current budgetary constraints
facing municipal government, the development of a “public safety” entity seems
inevitable. This public safety entity will witness closer working relationships between
public police and private security.
When considering the delivery of police services to a given community or within
a given environment, the provision of supplemental service initiatives will be an
increasingly viable alternative. While still relatively unusual, I believe that these
arrangements will have widespread appeal. The desire for these arrangements will be
attractive for many reasons.
Almost all police executives believe that budgetary constraints diminish their
ability to deliver police services in an optimal manner. If the proactive executive cannot
resolve this limitation through management and organizational initiatives, then the next
logical approach is to assess the types and levels of services provided to the community.
Can some services be contracted out, or performed by civilians, that are currently
performed by sworn police personnel? Alternatively, can a given police department
decide not to perform certain services?
These questions go to many considerations and interests. Indeed, police budgets
related to service provisions have political, social, financial, and organizational
implications. It is too simplistic to say “give me more money” or “we have decided to
stop providing certain services.” The community or governmental officials may not agree
with these “solutions.” Instead, the typical answer is to continue to deliver the same types
and levels of services, within the current budgetary appropriation. This reality leaves the
police executive, or even the municipal official, with the unenviable task of constantly
balancing budget with the demand for service functions and levels.
Even a cursory view of media reports and economic conditions will lead to the
conclusion that both the public and the private sectors are facing difficult financial
circumstances. One result has been “belt tightening” within police budgets. Indeed, some
police departments are laying off sworn officers for the first time in a generation. Other
police departments are reducing their personnel levels by attrition and slowing the rate of
new hires. The chart below illustrates the reduction levels of some large police
departments, ranging from a 4.4% reduction of force in Los Angeles, 5.5% in New
Orleans, 8.7% in New York City, and 14.9% in Minneapolis:
City Department Peak # Sworn Year at Peak Current # Sworn

Police Officers Police Officers
New York City 39,778 2000 36,321
Los Angeles 9,705 1997 9,270
New Orleans 1,704 2000 1,610
Minneapolis 938 1997 798
Source: Kevin Johnson, USA Today, December 2, 2003
While public police departments experience budget constraints, private security

firms have dramatically expanded its relative size and scope. Studies of the “public
safety” industry reveal that in 1981, the security industry spent approximately $21.7
billion dollars, compared to the $13.8 billion spent on public policing. In 1991, these
expenditures rose to $52 billion for private security, compared to $30 billion for public
policing. 2 In the year 2000, private security was predicted to spend approximately $104
billion, while public policing would spend only $44 billion. 3 This ratio of dollars invested
2
See Cunningham, William C., John J. Strauchs and Clifford W. Van Meter, Private Security: Patterns &
Trends, National Institute of Justice, August, 1991.
3
Ibid
in private compared to public policing reveals that about 70% of all money invested in
crime prevention and law enforcement is spent on private security. 4
Other statistics reveal an annual growth rate for private security to be about
double the growth rate of public policing. Through the year 2004, private security is
expected to grow at a rate of 8% per annum. 5 As a consequence of the September 11th
terrorist attacks, certain security firms predict revenue growth to be in the range of ten to
twelve percent per year. 6 Indeed, these figures illustrate that private security is one of the
fastest growing industries in the country. 7 Most of this growth was prior to September 11,
2001. By any account, these data reveal a substantial variance between the two entities.
The movement toward more cost effective policing strategies can be illustrated by
the growing use of technologies, such as cameras, crime mapping, and interactive
software, designed to detect occurrences within the protected environment. For example,
the Chicago Police Department is developing a networked system of cameras that will
enable an officer in the squad car or in the dispatch center to monitor such diverse
conditions as gunshots on street corners to unattended briefcases within a protected
facility. Other cities around the country are using cameras for both crime deterrence and
traffic enforcement. Further, crime mapping techniques are becoming more predictive.
Police administrators are directing tactical or “saturation teams” to certain locations to
prevent the occurrence of likely crimes—such as robbery patterns or gang shootings.
While these technologies and techniques are not perfect, they represent a quantum leap in
the crime fighting methods of policing agencies.
Another innovation is to use “alternative service providers” designed to
supplement the service provision of policing agencies. Alternative service providers are,
in essence, civilians who perform certain service functions; from parking enforcement to
4
See Cunningham, William C., John J. Strauchs and Clifford W. Van Meter, Private Security: Patterns &
Trends, National Institute of Justice, August, 1991; Carlson, Tucker, Safety Inc: Private Cops are There
When You Need Them, Policy Review, 73, Summer, 1995; and H.B. 2996: Law Enforcement & Industry
Security Cooperation Act of 1996 (104th Congress), February 29, 1996.
5
See Bailin, Paul, Gazing into Security’s Future, Security Management, November, 2000.
6
See Perez, Evan, Demand for Security Still Promises Profit, The Wall Street Journal, April 9, 2002.
7
See Zielinski, Mike, Armed & Dangerous: Private Security on the March, Covert Action Quarterly,
caq.com/caq/caq54p.police.html, 1999.
crime scene security. These services are both cost effective, and they reduce the service
provisions required of sworn officers. While some of these tasks have long ago shifted
away from sworn officers, there are growing indications that alternative service providers
will substantially increase. I predict that innovative initiatives utilizing private police
patrols to perform basic police services, including order maintenance functions, will be
widespread. Of course, order maintenance is a key component of the Community
Policing model. 8
As the threat—or the reality—of terrorism grows, so will the need for security.
Using the past three years as an indicator, it is reasonable to presume that the impact of
terrorism will continue to strain governmental budgets. This will result in continued
innovation. Technology and tactical techniques will only go so far. Cameras on street
corners may help deter criminals, but will they deter the committed terrorist? Tactical
police officers may help prevent the terrorist attack, but they cannot be everywhere.
Consequently, what is needed are more “eyes and ears” on the public way.
This could be accomplished by focusing sworn officers on tactical and law
enforcement functions, and shifting service and order maintenance functions to
alternative service providers. Two options for alternative service providers exist: either
they are employed by government or by private firms. Each type of supplemental service
has its own strengths and weaknesses. The use of private police, however, has particular
appeal because property or business owners can directly contract for public safety service
provisions, without adversely affecting municipal budgets.
While space does not allow for a full treatment of these options, it is suffice to say
that both will co-exist, but private firms will be the preference. In essence, private firms
provide cost savings to municipal budgets through lower salaries, little or no pension and
medical costs, overhead savings, more discretion for job actions (due to lack of unions or
due to contract provisions), and other similar factors. Indeed, some privatized
8
See Oliver, Willard M., Community Orientated Policing: A Systemic Approach to Policing,
Prentice Hall, 2001.

arrangements are exclusively funded by voluntary real estate tax increases by business
and property owners, thereby costing little or nothing from the municipal budget.
These “para-police” officers will perform many order maintenance functions—on
the public way—that public police officers are unable or unwilling to perform. These
functions include controlling loitering, public drinking and rowdy behavior; providing
“street corner security” in business or mixed commercial/ residential districts; and
responding to burglar alarm calls. These, and other such tasks, are critical for a secure,
orderly environment.
Looking at such tasks from a conceptual manner, it is useful to think of the
location of the services in relation to the service provision. This location to provision
analysis is illustrated by the below diagram:
PROVISION
Substitute Supplement
Corporate Campuses
L Corporate Security College Campuses

Shopping Malls
O
Sporting Facilities
C Private
A Gated Communities
T Reminderville, Ohio Communities
I Sussex, New Jersey Business Districts
O Public
Bus/Train & Stations
Critical Infrastructure
N
Copyright, James F. Pastor, 2010
Traditionally, security firms have operated almost exclusively within private

environments. This is illustrated by the Corporate Security box. In this sense, security
personnel are the “sheriffs” within their environment, acting with little or no support from
the public police. The practice in this environment is that security act as a “substitute” for
police agencies, providing most, if not all, of the security services at the particular
location. Conversely, the towns of Reminderville, Ohio and Sussex, New Jersey fired

their police departments and hired security firms to replace them. While these
arrangements proved unsustainable, it represents the extreme of privatization—being the
actual “sheriff” within the town. To be clear, I do not advocate such an extreme approach.
I do, however, advocate the use of privatized patrols as supplements in both private and
public environments. Indeed, this is where the focus will be as we go forward.
As illustrated by the diagram, security firms are operating in private
environments; such as gated communities, corporate and college campuses, and large
shopping malls, sports and concert facilities (“mass private property”). These
supplemental services within a private location provide an additional level of security,
typically through patrols, access controls, and other security related methodologies.
Similarly, in public locations, such as Business Improvement Districts or Special Service
Districts, 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. Performing such
functions in the public domain, however, raises important public safety and public policy
questions. Notwithstanding the potential for both benefit and abuse, these private patrols
have been relatively unstudied within academic research and largely overlooked by
policy makers.
Considering the relative lack of research in this niche area, I conducted extensive
research on privatized patrol arrangements. The research included riding in the patrol car,
as the private police officers performed their duties. As one of the few—if not the first—
to perform such ride-along research, I had a “birds’ eye view” of this new policing
model. This research demonstrated that private police officers will perform many service
and order maintenance functions. The research also revealed that even law enforcement
functions, such as arrests for gun possession and serious crimes, were performed by
private security personnel—as they patrol public streets. It also demonstrated that
constitutionally violative searches and seizures would occur, and that questionable legal
authority will complicate their patrol functions. Consequently, because of the extended
scope of private police within public and semi-public property, the need for
professionalism within the industry has dramatically increased. 9
One compelling conclusion of my book is that law enforcement and private
security will become increasingly interrelated into a “public safety” industry. In order for
this to occur, however, private police must exhibit increased professionalism at the patrol
level, which can only be accomplished by a requisite increase in training, wages and
accountability. Consequently, if “parapolice” are to function within the public realm, they
must be prepared to appropriately contribute to the order maintenance and service needs
of the community—thereby being the supportive “paraprofessionals” of municipal police
departments.
The use of private security patrols has its corollary in both the legal and medical
professions. About three decades ago, there was much controversy in both the legal and
medical professions related to the growing use of “para-professionals.” Many in these
professions viewed the introduction of “paramedics” and “paralegals” as an offensive and
even dangerous intrusion into the standards maintained within the industry. In these
professions, market and fiscal constraints necessitated the development of supplemental
service providers who act as “para-professionals” for the higher skilled, licensed
professionals. In this way, “paramedics” and “paralegals” contribute to client service
delivery, while simultaneously supporting the professionals in a structured “work
sharing” or division of labor relationship. This working relationship is manifested in
different functional and cognitive roles.
Looking at this concern from 21st century norms, any “controversy” seems pale.
Indeed, not only have these respective professions been able to sustain high standards,
but the work product of these para-professionals is critical to the service provision
afforded to their clientele.
9
For a fuller discussion on this matter, see my book entitled The Privatization of Police in America: An
Analysis & Case Study, McFarland & Company, 2003.
This new policing model utilizing para-police, however, may result in certain
unintended consequences. It may create a tension between two critical principles: security
and freedom. Just as fear is driving the need for security, it may also trump the quest for
individual rights. In this sense, the desire for security will motivate people to hire private
police officers. If these officers are not adequately trained and skilled, they are likely to
violate our rights in the quest to keep us safe. In order to achieve the balance between
security and rights, we must require higher levels of training, licensing standards,
legitimatized legal authority, and more accountability. To do this will require regulations,
and increased expenditures for these services. Consequently, the relationship between the
money expended and the services rendered creates a delicate balancing act. The optimal
balance can only be achieved in relative calm, as opposed to the face of fear.
The use of private security within public environments is likely to be increased in
direct relation to the level of terroristic threat. This will foster competing desires of
security and liberty. Those who are fearful of crime and terrorism naturally desire more
security. Those who worry about liberty and constitutional rights will demand
accountability and professionalism from public safety service providers. These goals,
however, are often competing.
These competing goals are facilitated by security methodologies designed to
control human behavior and the environment surrounding the potential target. In security
parlance, this is known as “target hardening.” Target hardening is designed to protect the
facility or person from physical attack. Protecting the target, however, usually requires
control and surveillance, both of which are likely to affect the liberty and constitutional
rights of the “controlled” or the “surveilled.”
Conversely, the more liberty afforded within society, the less secure its citizens
are likely to be. Liberty—by its very nature—allows for the free flow of people within
society. In this sense, liberty—through the application of constitutional protections,
allows citizens to interact, reside, conduct business, and move to and fro in a relatively
unencumbered manner. The ability to do so, however, may provide opportunities or
vulnerabilities to physical attack. Consequently, the conveniences and rights afforded to
citizens of this country facilitates a perverse counter objective—the destruction of people
and property by those who are inclined to do so.
In summary, I believe that the use of private policing within a public environment
is required by the economic and operational realities of policing. However, private
policing raises important legal, constitutional, and public policy questions. Indeed, like
any major public policy initiative, the potential for unintended consequences exist. While
the focus of private police will be on certain “lower” level police functions, such as order
maintenance, and as the “eyes and ears” of the police (the “observe and report” function),
certain basic questions as to the nature of private policing need to be addressed.
My research addressed these issues in a comprehensive manner. The findings and
conclusions are illustrative of the concern for unintended consequences. In assessing the
functions performed by private police, I found that order maintenance was the dominant
task (51.5%). This is consistent with the “client service” focus of private security, and is
consistent with a key premise of community policing—reducing disorderly conditions
results in less crime. The remaining functions by the private police officers were law
enforcement (16.6%) and traditional/observe & report (31.8%). Considering the relatively
large percentage of law enforcement, it is fair to say that the personnel from one security
firm acted more like a tactical police officer than a traditional security officer.
Based partly on these functional findings, plus such factors as licensing, uniforms
and weaponry, and the coordination and cooperation with the City of Chicago and the
Chicago Police Department, I concluded that these security officers were “public actors,”
thereby making constitutional protections applicable. Since constitutional protections
were applicable, I concluded that the security officers violated the 4th Amendment in their
quest to provide patrol services to the community. Finally, there was little, if any, formal
accountability within the privatized patrol arrangement, and little formal training, other
than the very basic forty hour standard required by the state. These deficiencies coupled
with the public policy questions raised by these privatized arrangements, such as the
potential for a dual system of policing—one for the rich and one for the poor, constitutes
a critical, yet basic, subject which needs to be further addressed and explored.
What seems certain is that the societal conditions influencing this new policing
model are prevalent. It’s the “perfect storm” that cannot be stopped. We can only prepare
for its arrival. Indeed, it is already here. Most people simply have not detected it.
Consequently, we may be drawing near to the goal of a “police officer on every block”.
The definition of the ‘police officer’, however, may be expanded to include such diverse
things like cameras and private security personnel. In this sense, the time has come to
redefine the nature of policing. In doing so, we must consider the delicate balance
between security and liberty.
© James F. Pastor, 2005
Author Note: This article was originally written in 2004 and published in Law Enforcement Executive
Forum. This article was subsequently posted on SecureLaw Ltd.’s website in February 2010. For those
readers who review this article, please think about the circumstances in 2004. Back then, would you have
agreed with the premises in this article? Do these premises seem more relevant today?


Terrorism and Public Safety Policing

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Terrorism and Public Safety Policing

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Terrorism & Public Safety Policing

SecureLaw Ltd. Phone: 312-423-6700

SecureLaw Ltd. 2 Phone: 312-423-6700

City Department Peak # Sworn Year at Peak Current # Sworn

While public police departments experience budget constraints, private security

SecureLaw Ltd. 6 Phone: 312-423-6700

L Corporate Security College Campuses

Copyright, James F. Pastor, 2010

Traditionally, security firms have operated almost exclusively within private

SecureLaw Ltd. 7 Phone: 312-423-6700

© James F. Pastor, 2005

SecureLaw Ltd. 12 Phone: 312-423-6700

Вам также может понравиться