Terrorism and Public Safety Policing

8/14/2019 Terrorism and Public Safety Policing

1/12

SecureLaw Ltd. Phone: 312-423-6700

65 West Jackson Blvd., #112 Fax: 312-692-2322

Chicago, IL. 60604-3598 www.securelaw.info Email: [email protected]

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 moreservices. 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: fearandmoney. Both of these factors are complicated by or relate to

1 See for example,National Policy Summit: Building Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships toPrevent and Respond to Terrorism and Public Disorder, U.S. Department of Justice, 2004.


2/12




2

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

respondersthe 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, streetlight 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 dilemmaservicing 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


3/12




3

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


4/12




4

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 # SwornPolice Officers

Year at Peak Current # SwornPolice 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 798Source: 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


5/12




5

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 crimessuch 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 ThereWhen You Need Them, Policy Review, 73, Summer, 1995; and H.B. 2996:Law Enforcement & IndustrySecurity Cooperation Act of 1996(104th Congress), February 29, 1996.5 See Bailin, Paul, Gazing into Securitys 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.


6/12




6

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 threator the realityof 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: eitherthey 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.


7/12

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 functionson

the public waythat 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 serviceprovision. This location to provision

analysis is illustrated by the below diagram:

PROVISIONSubstitute Supplement

Communities

Business Districts

Bus/Train & Stations

Critical Infrastructure

Reminderville, Ohio

Sussex, New J ersey

Corporate Campuses

College Campuses

Shopping Malls

Sporting Facilities

Gated Communities

Corporate Security

Private

Public

L

O

C

A

T

I

O

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




7


8/12




8

their police departments and hired security firms to replace them. While these

arrangements proved unsustainable, it represents the extreme of privatizationbeing 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 policyquestions. 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 fewif 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 personnelas they patrol public streets. It also demonstrated that

constitutionally violative searches and seizures would occur, and that questionable legal


9/12




9

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 communitythereby 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 supplementalservice 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 entitledThe Privatization of Police in America: AnAnalysis & Case Study, McFarland & Company, 2003.


10/12




10

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. Libertyby its very natureallows for the free flow of people within

society. In this sense, libertythrough 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


11/12




11

citizens of this country facilitates a perverse counter objectivethe 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 policingreducing 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 securityfirm 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 4 th 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 policingone for the rich and one for the poor, constitutes

a critical, yet basic, subject which needs to be further addressed and explored.


12/12




12

What seems certain is that the societal conditions influencing this new policing

model are prevalent. Its 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 inLaw Enforcement ExecutiveForum. This article was subsequently posted on SecureLaw Ltd.s website in February 2010. For thosereaders who review this article, please think about the circumstances in 2004. Back then, would you haveagreed with the premises in this article? Do these premises seem more relevant today?

Terrorism and Public Safety Policing

Documents

Transcript of Terrorism and Public Safety Policing