


          PUBLIC LAW ENFORCEMENT/PRIVATE SECURITY: 
                    A NEW PARTNERSHIP?        

                           By

                   Terrence J. Mangan 
                          and 
                   Michael G. Shanahan

                      
     As the industrialized nations of the modern world move 
deeper into a cultural/technological metamorphosis that has come 
to be known as ``the information society,'' institutions are 
being inevitably and significantly affected by the 
transformation.  Nowhere is this more evident than in the field 
of law enforcement.                                               

     Since the late 1960s, American law enforcement has passed 
through major changes that are not only healthy but also 
irreversible.  Changes over the past two decades, besides leading 
to dramatically higher salaries and benefits for law enforcement 
personnel, have produced law enforcement agency accreditation 
standards, the use of highly sophisticated technology, and 
probably most important of all, an air of professionalism. This 
professionalism is especially visible in the area of policy 
setting.                                                          

     Gone is the stereotype that police are the guarantors of the 
socioeconomic status quo.  Today, the police are recognized as 
being artful practitioners on the leading edge of major social 
issues.  As such, police are in the front-line delivery of public 
services associated with the mentally ill, the homeless, abused 
children, battered spouses, and victims of racial and religious 
intolerance.                                                      

EVOLVING ISSUES
                                                   
     Through this law enforcement metamorphosis, it is important 
to remember a basic premise of organizational ecology:  
Organizations are dependent upon and affected by changes and 
evolutions in other organizations in their immediate environment 
or sphere of influence.  This is the case with law enforcement 
where private security has emerged as a major player in the 
safeguarding of Americans and their property.                     

     In the area of resources alone, the growth of private 
security has expanded from what was estimated in 1969 as less 
than 300,000 employees in an industry whose national product in 
the United States was calculated at $2.5 million (1) to an industry 
which has grown to an estimated $18 billion employing close to 2 
million people.  This is twice the size of public law 
enforcement.  Moreover, according to a 1984 survey of the 
National Institute of Justice, public law enforcement resources 
have remained relatively flat, with a significant percentage of 
law enforcement agencies showing an effective decline in 
personnel, despite growth rates in population and crime. (2)      

     A number of complex and evolving related trends may be 
contributing factors in the explanation for the phenomenal growth 
of private security at a time when public law enforcement growth 
has stagnated.  Such trends as taxpayer revolts, automation, 
transferral of functions, stagnant economic growth, terrorism, 
inner-city problems, financing of local services, and 
immigration/emigration readily come to mind. Regardless of the 
possible reasons, the fact remains that private security will 
continue to have an impact upon and implications for society, in 
general, and public law enforcement, in particular.  
             
     Ironically, the emergence of the private security industry 
that now numerically and financially far exceeds its public 
counterpart occurred without much influence from or interaction 
with public police.  In fact, until recently, there was a mixture 
of disdain and concern that the emergence of private security was 
threatening the professionalism of policing.  Many officials 
complained that the absence of adequate private security 
standards was allowing the proponents of private security to 
confuse the citizenry that ``rent-a-cops'' were a better bargain 
than protective services provided through public law enforcement.  

     Police have traditionally viewed private security employees 
as inadequately trained and ill-paid individuals who could not 
find other work but were nevertheless allowed to carry a gun. 
Furthermore, because these individuals looked and acted like 
police, there was alarm that the private security industry might 
even usurp important aspects of public law enforcement and erode 
key citizen contacts that bond police officer and citizen in a 
common alliance.  Those fears have not been realized; however, 
this unfortunately widespread view, early on, did much to stifle 
potentially mutual and beneficial relationships between law 
enforcement and private security.                                 

     While the 1960s were characterized as a period of 
indifference toward private security, and the 1970s as one of 
changing perceptions and some mistrust of the industry, the 1980s 
and 1990s will most likely be regarded as the era of 
collaboration and joint ventures between public law enforcement 
and private security.  This is necessitated by the fact that 
individual and corporate citizens who are policed by public law 
enforcement are also increasingly becoming the clients of private 
security.                                                         

SCOPE OF PRIVATE SECURITY DUTIES
                                  
     As pointed out in the 1984 results of a 30-month
descriptive and exploratory research project of the private
security industry, the scope of private security is constantly
changing and goes far beyond the more traditional areas of
``turf'' of local law enforcement agencies. (3)  Proprietary or
corporate security encompasses such sophisticated and diverse
concerns as assets protection, loss prevention, countermeasures
for industrial espionage, drug testing in the work environment,
extortion, product tampering, dignitary and facility protection,
and communications security, to name a few examples.

     Contract or private security companies also provide guard 
and patrol services to business, industry and residential areas; 
develop, sell, lease, and monitor simple to sophisticated 
communications and alarms systems; provide investigative, 
intelligence, and bodyguard equipment and services among other 
services.  Additionally, a significant amount of the 
investigations involving credit card theft and fraud, check 
cases, shoplifting, embezzlement, employee theft, computer 
hacking, and other criminal enterprises are carried out by 
private security.  This ``de-policing'' trend has necessitated 
new efforts in cooperation between public and private entities, 
as well as the growth of new respect and understanding on the 
part of both.                                                     

COOPERATIVE EFFORTS
                                               
     Evidence of this collaboration and cooperation between 
public law enforcement and private security is increasingly 
evident.  On two occasions, public law enforcement/private 
security ``summits'' have been held in the northwestern United 
States, where the Boards of the American Society for Industrial 
Security (ASIS), the State Associations of Chiefs of Police 
(SACOP), the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and heads of 
Federal, State, and local agencies met on a common agenda with 
legislators, academics, and other key players.  Moreover, joint 
committees have been formed by IACP and ASIS to address common 
law enforcement protocols and guidelines.  In many of these 
endeavors, leadership and coordination have been offered through 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation because these law enforcement 
and corporate concerns are both national and international in 
scope.                                                            

     Another cooperative effort is occurring in Washington State 
where an organization constituted of law enforcement and 
corporate executives, including key executives from both 
proprietary and contract security organizations, has been 
successful in a number of joint endeavors.  The organization 
known as the Washington Law Enforcement Executive Forum is 
alternately chaired by executives from public law enforcement and 
private security.  It has successfully introduced and fostered 
enactment of key legislation; established its own strategic 
planning annex, ethical protocols, and executive strategies 
projects; and has been generally a model for successful 
public-private sector efforts.  Similar organizations modeled 
after this organization have been started in other States.        

     Through efforts such as these, the stereotype of private 
security guards as underpaid, poorly educated, and untrained is 
joining that same, but outmoded, stereotype of police in the dust 
bin of history.  Hopefully, both will be replaced by the vision 
of a growing partnership between police professionals and private 
security specialists in a highly technical and changing 
environment where the collaborative effort of both benefit the 
common good.                                                      

A CHANGING OUTLOOK
                                                
     The progression toward a rapprochement between public law 
enforcement and private security will require work, trust, 
compromise, and resource investment of both parties before true 
partnerships materialize.  Several areas involving thorny and 
fundamental value issues remain to be discussed and, hopefully, 
resolved.  Paramount among these is whether the growth and 
expanding influence of private security constitute the emergence 
of a ``shadow'' criminal justice system.  In other words, will 
the profit motive and loyalty to a company replace public service 
and accountability to a system of basic principles of law and 
fairness?                                                         

     Several studies have reported that the dynamics of the 
burgeoning private security system and how it interacts with and 
disposes of criminal activity have never been systematically 
explored or documented. (4)   In fact, as Albert J. Reiss, Jr., of 
Yale University pointed out:                                      

     ``The large majority of private security agencies do not 
     have full legal power of arrest, yet they exercise enormous 
     discretion over criminal matters that occur on private property. 
     Despite this, almost nothing is known from systematic inquiry 
     about how these private police exercise discretion over criminal 
     matters.'' (5)
                                                       
     As an illustration, employee theft prosecuted in public 
court might result in a conviction and concomitant sanctions. But 
handled in a corporate venue, the theft might warrant dismissal 
and debarment from future employment within that industry, all 
without benefit of the extensive due process safeguards of the 
criminal justice system.  In other instances, it might serve the 
corporate image of the ``damaged'' institution to allow quiet 
resignation and nonreporting of a crime, or conversely, criminal 
prosecution if this option is believed to be in the best business 
interests of the company.                                         

     It remains to be seen how arbitrary decisions such as these 
will impact long-term concepts and values of the traditional 
criminal justice system.  As more areas of responsibilities are 
assumed by or transferred over to the area of private security 
through a combination of realpolitik, limited public resources, 
impatience with traditional systems, and growing corporate 
influence, the demand for more examination and discussion of 
these matters will grow.                                          

INFORMATION EXCHANGE
                                              
     Nonetheless, cooperation between public law enforcement and 
private security must continue and, if there is one area where 
public law enforcement and private security have worked 
cooperatively for joint advantage, it has been in the area of 
collection and dissemination of records.  The ability of both 
public law enforcement and private security to amass large 
amounts of personal data about people's personal histories, 
employment records, etc., poses serious liability problems during 
an era that has seen severe restrictions placed on the use and 
release of such data.                                             

     Recently, Illinois joined a number of States that now have 
statutes authorizing the release of criminal conviction data on a 
job-related basis to corporations.  Although much more work needs 
to be done in this area, having defensible model legislation 
gives impetus to other States to aggressively pursue this course 
of action.  Alternatively, in many States, thanks to cooperative 
law enforcement/private security initiatives, corporations are 
simply obtaining a release from applicants, submitting a 
fingerprint card, paying an established fee, and subsequently 
receiving a criminal history from the desired police agency.  
There has been no evidence of problems with these arrangements, 
and corporations that operate in multiple States have been 
willing to adjust their procedures to conform to applicable State 
laws.                                                             

TARGETED AREAS FOR COOPERATION
                                    
     Reassuring signs that joint efforts are possible are 
appearing with broader scope and greater frequency.  As an 
example, one of the more significant protocols that has been 
developed in recent years has been joint management of 
product-tampering threat cases.  The public is not well served 
when valuable time and evidence are lost because jurisdictions 
and corporations do not know their specific roles relative to 
these violations.  To address this, an initiative was launched by 
the Southland Corporation, in conjunction with the IACP Private 
Sector Liaison Committee, to draft a model protocol that could be 
distributed to every State, county, and local law enforcement 
agency in America.                                                

     For the first time, private corporations, Federal agencies 
such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, and the FBI, and State and local 
agencies cooperated not only in the review of the draft protocols 
but also cooperated in adopting written directives relative to 
this issue.  Since 1986, over 100,000 copies of this protocol 
have been circulated throughout the United States.  They are in 
place in State police agencies, sheriffs' offices, police 
departments, as well as Federal and State law enforcement groups. 
Affected corporations are aware of the protocols, and a number of 
corporate security directors have carefully built appropriate 
procedures into their own internal operating procedures.          

     Another example of emerging cooperation is in the area of 
drugs.  Through the efforts of the State of Maryland and the 
chief of police for Baltimore County, a model protocol addressing 
the issue of drugs in the workplace has been circulated to law 
enforcement agencies and State chiefs associations.  The purpose 
of the document is to make available to corporations, and 
especially the small business community, a straightforward 
pamphlet that has been reviewed by the Justice Department, the 
FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration.  This initiative, 
which began in the fall of 1989, promises to be similar to the 
effort which produced the product-tampering threat protocol and 
is an instrument through which companies and units of government 
can devise a ``Drugs in the Workplace'' procedure.                

     Furthermore, there are hundreds of community-based programs 
that are directly benefiting community law enforcement efforts.  
Namely, Pizza Hut spends as much as $136 million a year 
encouraging young people to improve their reading skills through 
its ``Book It Program'' organized to reduce illiteracy.  
``Operation Home Free,'' started by Trailways Bus Lines and 
continued by the Greyhound Corporation, allows juvenile runaways 
to return home at no cost.  While efforts such as these are only 
tangentially associated with the public law enforcement and 
private security rapprochement, they are a harbinger of the 
commitment corporations are increasingly willing to make to help 
law enforcement and they will serve to strengthen developing 
public law enforcement and private security relationships.        

     The commitment has even led to ``role reversals'' where 
public law enforcement is now learning from its private security 
counterparts.  Effective business trends such as customer 
satisfaction, service orientation, subcontracting for services, 
specialization, joint ventures, and even advertising and public 
relations are being embraced by and changing the shape of public 
law enforcement in the United States.  As an example of these 
role reversals, over 60 Fortune 500 companies make available 
their training programs to supervisors at the rank of sergeant 
through sheriff, chief, or superintendent.  The program began 
modestly with such corporations as Unisys, General Telephone of 
California, and AT&T.  Today, in 45 States, over 1,200 police 
managers annually receive tuition-free corporate training that 
would not otherwise be available through police academy budgets. 

CONCLUSION
                                                       
      It is mutually incumbent upon both public law enforcement 
and private security to continue to establish and improve 
mechanisms at every level which will not only allow but 
encourage dialogue on common law enforcement concerns and 
challenges.  As so aptly stated a few years ago:                  

     ``The exchanges between the policing institution and its 
       societal surroundings help assure both its change and its 
       stability for the functioning of the police organizations 
       must be kept somewhat in tune with the environment in 
       which it operates.'' (6)
                                                   
     It is hoped that the growing mutual respect and cooperation, 
as evidenced by the initiatives outlined, are laying the 
groundwork for a future of effective law enforcement in a world 
that is growing increasingly complex and more demanding.  Through 
these efforts the continuing public law enforcement/private 
security rapprochement will undoubtedly succeed.                  

FOOTNOTES
                                                         
(1) Rand Report, 1972.                                          

(2)  William C. Cunningham and Todd Taylor, ``A Preview of the 
Hallcrest Report: Security-Police Relationships,'' Security 
Management, June 1983.                                            

(3)  William C. Cunningham and Todd Taylor, The Hallcrest 
Report:  Private Security and Police in America (Portland: 
Chancellor Press, 1984).                                          

(4)  Supra note 2.                                               

(5)  Albert J. Reiss, Jr., ``Discretionary Justice,'' Handbook 
of Criminology, 1984, p. 681.                                     

(6)  John P. Clarke and Richard Sykes, ``Determinants of Police 
Organization and Practice in a Modern Industrial Society,'' 
Handbook of Criminology, 1984, p.  456.                           



About the authors:

     Terrence J. Mangan is Chief of Police of the Spokane, WA 
     Police Department.  Co-author, Michael G. Shanahan, is
     Chief of Police, University of Washington Police Depart-
     ment, Seattle, WA.
