POLICE AND PRIVATE SECURITY WORKING
TOGETHER IN A CO-OPERATIVE APPROACH TO
CRIME PREVENTION AND PUBLIC SAFETY
Mark Golsby MSc CPP
SRM Australia Pty Ltd
Paper presented at the conference Partnerships in Crime Prevention, convened
jointly by the Australian Institute of Criminology and the National Campaign Against
Violence and Crime and held in Hobart, 25-27 February 1998
1
This morning I am going to brief you on a research project which was undertaken by
myself and Chief Inspector Bob O’Brien of the South Australia Police Department.
The project was a co-operative examination of the police and security sector
relationship in South Australia, which was inspired by both the mobilisation of
community-based crime prevention resources by the South Australian Crime
Prevention Unit and the concerns of police about the growth of private security and
the implications that that may bring for police and the wider community.
The project was originally proposed in 1992 by a then member of the Executive
Committee of the Security Institute of South Australia - Mr Keith Hancock - and
funding was sought from the Criminology Research Council (CRC). The purpose of
the project was to review the police and security sector attitudes towards co-operation
and how to improve this in order to further enhance community crime prevention
initiatives.
A similar study, although less ambitious and then ‘before its time’, was commissioned
by the Australian Institute of Criminology in 1982, but unfortunately because of a lack
of support from the private security sector, it produced inconclusive results. In any
case, the submission for funding to the CRC for the new project was not successful,
even though it was supported by the South Australian Police Commissioner.
However, at about the same time, the Police Commissioner’s Conference for
Australasia and South West Pacific Region made ‘Privatising of Policing’ a permanent
agenda item and as a result, the South Australian Police Commissioner and the
Security Institute of South Australia considered the project of sufficient importance to
jointly fund the proposed project and it was subsequently monitored by the Police
Commissioner’s Conference and conducted under the auspices of Edith Cowan
University.
Entitled, ‘A Co-Operative Approach to Crime Prevention: Police and the Security
Sectors Working Together’, the project had three objectives:
(1)
to identify opportunities for the sectors to work together in order to enhance
community crime prevention initiatives
(2)
to encourage the establishment of communication and co-operation between the
sectors and
(3)
to gather a range of data concerning the police and security sector relationship.
Following substantial research and lobbying, the project was conducted using a
carefully developed questionnaire distributed to:
(a)
private security personnel in both the security industry and corporate security
sectors
(b)
state police personnel and
(c)
non-police government agencies (NGPAs).
2
Questionnaires distributed totalled 240, achieving a 67% return.
Considerable statistical information was gathered during the project, which was
compiled and analysed by the Strategic Development Branch of the South Australia
Police. The more salient and relevant results included:
• What advantages did police have over private security?
All groups identified legal powers as the main significant advantage.
• What disadvantages did police have in relation to private security?
Responding police felt they had too many demands placed upon them and the
security sector identified insufficient personnel numbers.
• How did they see the level of co-operation between police and private security?
52% of responding police thought it was very good or good and
82% of responding members of NPGAs felt it was good or very good.
• Asked what would be the areas where co-operation could be improved:
The three principal areas indicated by police (in descending order) were:
- responsibility for some functions, such as static guarding
- responsibility for some paperwork, such as taking statements from alleged shop
stealers and
- the sharing of ‘crime prevention resources’.
The three principal areas indicated by private security, again in descending order,
were:
- training and facilities
- ‘expertise’and
- ‘crime prevention resources’.
• Asked specifically how co-operation can be improved:
Responding police indicated:
- increased liaison
- to define functions (of private private security) and
- to improve training of private security personnel.
Responding private security personnel indicated:
- increased liaison
- improving the understanding of private security (by police) and
- in the sharing of training.
From the surveys results, the following recommendations were made:
(a)
liaison should be established between the sectors at a senior level
(b)
co-operation protocols between the sectors should be established
3
(c)
Ministerial responsibility for police and private security should be aligned to
assist in the achievement of other recommendations and to improve regulation
matters
(d)
opportunities for reciprocal training should be investigated
(e)
selection and training standards for private security should be developed
(f)
an independent complaints mechanism should be established for the security
sector and
(g)
uniform nationwide legislation for the regulation of the private security sector
should be developed and adopted.
At the 1997 (Police) Commissioner’s Conference, the survey report was presented and
accepted and the following resolutions adopted:
(1)
Partnerships between police and private security agencies will focus on crime
prevention and public safety
(2)
Police will only form partnerships with private security providers who comply
with appropriate:
• licencing standards
• training standards
• Codes of Practice and Ethics and
• service delivery standards
(3)
Partnerships will be clearly defined and
(4)
Police will support:
- formation of a ‘peak’ body representing all sectors of the private security
industry
- investigation and development of training standards
- jurisdictional adoption of training standards
- development of national Codes of Practice and Ethics and
- reciprocity of licencing, training and service delivery standards between
states.
Attached as an annexure to this paper is the complete text of the final project report.
SRM Australia Pty Ltd
PO Box 227
MELROSE PARK SA 5039
Tel. (08) 8387 0706
Fax
(08) 8322 8011
e-mail [email protected]
4
5
Annexure
Edith Cowan University
Australian Institute of Security and Applied Technology
Research Report 1/96
A Co-operative Approach to
Crime Prevention:
Police and Security Sectors
Working Together
6
Table of Contents
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7
RECOMMENDATIONS
9
1.
INTRODUCTION
12
1.1
The Proposed Research Project
1.2
Objectives of the Research Project
1.3
Potential Outcomes
13
13
14
2.
15
BACKGROUND
2.1
The Initial Research Proposal
2.2
The 1994 Commissioners' Conference
15
15
3.
17
LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1
3.2
19
3.3
3.4
22
3.5
24
3.6
25
3.7
3.8
4.
Defining of Private Security
The Functions of Private Security
17
The Private Security Sector Overseas
The Private Security Sector in Australia
20
The Private Security Sector in South Australia
The Non-Police Government Agency Sector
Licensing the Private Security Sector in Australia
Licensing the Private Security Sector in South Australia
25
26
METHODOLOGY
4.1
4.2
Target Groups
The Questionnaire
28
29
7
5.
RESULTS
5.1
5.2
5.3
32
5.4
5.5
6.
30
Response Rate
Validity of Results
Contact with Different Sectors
31
31
Demographics
Reliability of Results
35
36
DISCUSSION
36
6.1
36
6.2
6.2.1
40
6.3
41
6.4
43
Personal Attitudes/Experiences
Co-operation
Common Trade Unions
37
Future Liaison with the Private Security Sector
Responsibilities for Duties
6.4.1
Speed Cameras
6.5
45
6.6
6.7
Training
45
7.
Equipment/Resources
Ministerial Control
47
47
CONCLUSIONS
48
GLOSSARY
50
REFERENCES
51
BIBLIOGRAPHY
53
8
TABLES
Table No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Page
Composition of the British Private Security Sector
Number of Victorian Security Licence Holders:
1980 and 1990
Age of South Australian Security Licence Holders
Known Ratio of Males to Females in security in S.A.
Questionnaire Response Rate
Private Security Contact with Police
Police Contact with Private Security
NPGA Contact with Police and Private Security
Demographic Profile of Respondents:
Sex, Age, Service and Salary
Demographic Profile of Respondents: Position
Advantages of Police over Private Security
Disadvantages of Police over Private Security
Co-operation between Police and Private Security
Areas where to improve Co-operation
How to improve Co-operation between Police
and Private Security
Sharing of Resources between Police and Private Security
Responsibility for duties - Police Response
Responsibility for duties - Private Security Response
Staffing Speed Cameras
Training of Private Security
Training of NPGA
Training of Police
Access to Common Equipment and Resources
9
20
23
24
24
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
38
39
40
43
44
45
46
46
46
47
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is based on the fundamental premise that the police and both sectors of the
security industry, namely private security and non-police government agencies (NPGA),
involved in security, are all in the business of crime prevention. If this tenet is correct,
then there have to be enormous opportunities for the groups to work together more
closely to prevent crime in Australia.
The possibility of working together, or even forming partnerships in the future,
represents a fundamental shift in attitude of some police managers. The noticeable
growth of private security in recent years has threatened police and raised fears that their
traditional roles may be eroded. In 1992, the Commissioners' Conference of Australasia
and South West Pacific Nations (the Commissioners' Conference) discussed the growth
of private security with concern. This view has now matured to reflect the changing
needs of policing. Police leaders have recognised for a long time that they need the
support of the community to prevent and detect crime. They have promoted the concept
of community policing to achieve their aims and this has involved members of the
community working more closely with the police. Community Policing has evolved
further and now police work with business, as well as community groups. Also, business
is sponsoring crime prevention activities.
The Australasian Police Ministers' Council refers to partnerships with key members of
the community in their Directions in Australian Policing document and this has been
promoted at the 1994 Commissioners' Conference. It referred to strategic partnerships
with the community, government and non-government bodies. This was mentioned in
Goal 1: Leadership, Partnerships and Stakeholders. Key Directions are to:
(1)
Develop a common police position on policy and principles so as to foster
strategic partnerships with relevant groups.
(2)
Develop action plans on key areas in partnership with community and other
partners.
(Directions in Australasian Policing, 1993,6)
Former Commissioner McAulay of the Australia Federal Police submitted a paper to the
Conference entitled, 'Privatising of Police - Police and the Security Industry: A
Strategic Partnership'. In his paper, he argued that the police and private security have
been functioning in a mutually exclusive manner with respect to the provision of
protection for the people of Australia He stated that there was a need to establish a
formal relationship between the police and security industry, as both have many common
goals, and the security industry provides a major protective role in Australian society.
Commissioner Hunt of South Australia discussed a joint research proposal that was
occurring in that State between the police and the private security sector. Members
from the South Australia Police and the Security Institute of South Australia (SISA)
were conducting research entitled a Co-operative Approach to Crime Prevention, the
Police and Security Sectors Working Together. The Conference resolved to monitor the
research that was occurring in South Australia and for Commissioner Hunt to report
back to the Conference in 1995.
10
The mere acceptance by senior police that a study of this type should occur represents
an evolution in the thinking of police managers. Commissioner David Hunt of the South
Australia Police has met with leaders in the private security industry and expressed a
determined willingness to listen to and participate with that sector if common ground
can be found.
Background
Co-operation has occurred over many years between the police, NPGA and private
security, although generally, it has been at an informal level and at lower echelons of
police organisations.
In January 1992, it was proposed by SISA that a research project be conducted
throughout the private security sector in South Australia. It was to be entitled,
Identifying Opportunities and Initiatives for the Security Industry to Contribute to the
State Crime Prevention Strategies, and the purpose of the project was to identify the
ways that the security industry could positively contribute to the State crime prevention
program (Hancock, 1992).
In March 1993, the Office of the Executive Services Branch of the South Australia
Police Department was contacted and invited to provide critical comment on how best
the proposed project could proceed. As a result of subsequent discussions, Chief
Inspector R.J. O'BRIEN, then Staff Officer to the Police Commissioner, teamed with Mr
M.J. GOLSBY, representing the Security Institute of South Australia Inc., and formed a
project team to develop and conduct the study as a joint research project supervised by
the Australian Institute of Security and Applied Technology (AISAT) at Edith Cowan
University. SISA contributed $2000 so that the project could proceed and the research
became a formal project of the South Australia Police Department.
The objectives of the study were:
(a)
to identify opportunities for the private security sector in South Australia to
work better and closer with the South Australia Police Department, including the
identification of areas of antagonism due to poor communication, attitudes,
perceptions or procedures.
(b)
as a means of communication and co-operation, facilitate the establishment of
liaison and co-operation between the South Australia Police Department, the
Attorney-General's Department and the private security sector in order to
maximise support for community based crime prevention strategies.
(c)
to gather a variety of data concerning the private security sector in South
Australia, which is not currently available to researchers, the security sector and
government agencies. Such data would include, for example, to what extent the
police and those employed in the private security sector believe that the latter
could be involved in performing 'traditional' police tasks; to ascertain the extent
of the need for training; and the necessity to carry weapons such as batons and
sidearms.
11
These objectives were not changed after the 1994 Commissioners' Conference but, as
the South Australian study was to be used as a model for other States and Territories of
Australia, the discussion and recommendations were given a national perspective.
Discussion
The objectives were fulfilled in that recommendations are attached which, if
implemented, will move a long way towards new and improved co-operation between
police and the security industry.
The study produced an additional finding. It was quickly realised during the initial
research for this project that there exists a large body of personnel involved in crime
prevention that are neither police nor private security but groups employed by different
government agencies. They have been termed Non-Police Government Agencies
(NPGA) involved in security. They have come into existence due to bureaucratic
reasons, because there was a need for security personnel in government who were
independent from the police, or for historical reasons. For what ever reason, they do
exist and have a significant input into crime prevention in Australia. Therefore, they
were included in the study and the recommendations.
There is no doubt in the authors' minds that this is an important piece of research. It is
based on interviews with key members of each sector, a literature review and the results
of a questionnaire which was distributed to members of the police, NPGAs and private
security in South Australia. Although the questionnaire was not distributed nationally, it
is felt that the results would be replicated across the nation, but it would be worthwhile
to duplicate the study in other States.
Results
Of the one hundred questionnaires sent to police, 83% were returned. One hundred
were sent to private security and 55% were returned, whilst 40 were sent to NPGA and
57% were returned. The overall response rate was 67%. This was very good, and due
to the size of the sample the police result would be a representative sample, whilst the
results from private security and NPGA would be indicative only.
The questionnaire covered the following areas:
(I)
Personal Experience
(II)
Co-operation
(III)
Responsibilities
(IV)
Personal Attitudes
(V)
Resourcing
(VI)
Demographic questions
12
From the research, it was found that liaison occurs between the security industry and the
police, but by far the majority of the contact is at 'street' level where patrol officers, store
detectives and crowd controllers have regular contact. There was little evidence of
contact between executives from the police and security industry.
It was a relationship where the private security industry is considered subordinate to the
police. This may be due to lower training standards being accepted by private security.
However, it needs to be stressed that in areas where there is less contact, e.g. alarm
monitoring and building security, a sophisticated and complex area of security exists
where the industry should not be considered subordinate to police.
The police are seen to be superior in the areas of legal powers and training. Legal power
is a major area which really separates the police from private security and this is an
important issue if the different sectors move together. Already, private security dress to
look like police and drive vehicles similar to police. Partnership arrangements with the
police will give private security a higher profile and informal authority. Therefore, there
is the need for greater accountability if partnership arrangements occur. This could
occur through the existence of a body similar to the Police Complaints Authority in
South Australia which would receive complaints about the security industry.
The answers obtained from the questionnaire also indicated that both sectors of the
security industry felt that police were disadvantaged by a lack of numbers and too many
demands being placed upon them. This emphasises the need for the police to find
additional assistance from the community, including the security sectors.
Police indicated in the survey that co-operation could occur in the areas of crime
prevention resources, specialised security equipment, and the private security sector
having responsibility for some paperwork (e.g. interviewing shop stealers) and for some
functions (e.g. alarm attendance).
The security industry wanted access to expertise, and areas of training and facilities.
Their needs are different from police but these may lead to areas of compromise, as there
was a significant interest in increasing the liaison and sharing of information between
police and private security. Obviously, information sharing has to be in accordance with
the law and established guidelines and not on an 'old boy' basis.
Conclusions
As previously stated, this report is based on the fundamental premiss that police, private
security and non-police government agencies involved in security are all ultimately trying
to prevent crime. The different sectors, namely the public and private arenas have
different motivations for their activities. The police and non-police government agencies
exist to serve the public good whereas private security exists for the profit motive, but
private security regularly can be seen in shopping centres mingling with the crowds, and
used regularly at sporting events alongside the police. Regardless of the motivations for
being, if it is accepted that the different sectors are in the business of crime prevention,
then there are opportunities for a coming together, for the formation of partnership
arrangements to provide a more concerted, efficient attack on crime and consequently to
make people feel more safe.
13
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICE
a.
b.
Liaison
1.
If there are to be successful partnerships between police, private security and
non-police government agencies involved in security, there needs to be higher
levels of liaison between the different sectors.
2.
Police should be represented at Assistant Commissioner level, or its equivalent,
to provide the necessary status and authority for successful liaison to occur.
3.
The aim of liaison meetings at Assistant Commissioner level, or its equivalent,
would be to consider strategic partnerships that have the potential to reduce
crime.
4.
There needs to be enhanced working relationships between police and private
security with respect to crime prevention. This should occur at lower
management areas that are primarily concerned with the direction of crime
prevention activities.
5.
Police Commanders, who have intensive activity in their districts, ie.
entertainment areas such as Kings Cross, Hindley Street, and St Kilda, should
conduct regular formal meetings with private security who work in their areas.
6.
Protocols or guidelines for co-operation between the police and private security
need to be developed to ensure that ethical behaviour occurs.
7.
Increased liaison should occur between police and non-police government
agencies, which provide services for government, and which are the public sector
equivalent to private security.
8.
As police, government security and private security enter into and increase the
number of successful partnership arrangements, the working relationships
between the relevant unions/associations should be addressed.
9.
The concept that the Minister for Police should also be the Minister responsible
for the regulation of the private security industry should be promoted by police.
This will assist with the process of improving partnership arrangements with
private security across Australia.
Training
10. Reciprocal training should occur between police and private security to improve
co-operation and understanding between sectors.
c.
Miscellaneous
14
11. Consideration should be given to staffing speed cameras (but not the processing
of infringement notices) with members from private security or the non police
government sector in order to free police from tasks that do not require trained
police officers.
12. A senior police officer who has the rank of Assistant Commissioner or equivalent
should be a member of the Security Industry Board (See recommendations for
private security).
15
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRIVATE SECURITY
a.
One representative body
1.
b.
There needs to be a co-ordinating body which represents private security in order
to reduce the fragmentation that exists within the industry. This could be in the
form of a Security Industry Board that is a federation of current security
associations.
Liaison
2.
There should be higher level liaison between police, the non police government
sector involved in security activities, and the private security industry. Police
should be represented by Assistant Commissioner level, or its equivalent, whilst
private security should be represented by spokespersons from its co-ordinating
body.
3.
The aim of liaison meetings would be to consider strategic partnerships that have
the potential to reduce crime.
4.
There needs to be enhanced working relationships between police and private
security with respect to crime prevention. This should occur at lower
management areas that are primarily concerned with the direction of crime
prevention activities.
5.
Representatives from the private security industry should have greater liaison
with Police Commanders, who have intensive activity in their districts, ie.
entertainment areas such as Kings Cross, Hindley Street, and St Kilda.
6.
Protocols or guidelines for co-operation between the police and private security
need to be developed to ensure that ethical behaviour occurs.
7.
As police, government security and private security enter into and increase the
number of successful partnership arrangements, the working relationships
between the relevant unions/associations should be addressed.
8.
The concept that the Minister for Police should be the Minister responsible for
the regulation of the private security industry should be promoted by private
security. This will assist with the process of improving partnership arrangements
with police across Australia.
c.
Training
9.
The controlling governmental body for private security, in conjunction with
representatives from the private security sector, and DETAFE should set
selection and training standards for private security.
16
10. Reciprocal training should occur between police, NPGA and private security to
improve co-operation and understanding between sectors.
d.
Miscellaneous
11. The Police Complaints Authority, or its equivalent, should monitor complaints
against members of the security industry.
12. Consideration should be given to staffing speed cameras (but not the processing
of infringement notices) with members from private security or the non police
government sector in order to free police from tasks that do not require trained
police officers.
13. A senior police officer who has the rank of Assistant Commissioner or equivalent
should be a member of the Security Industry Board.
17
1. INTRODUCTION
'A police force that operates as an isolated unit in a community cannot
expect to achieve its objective of preventing and detecting crime
effectively. To develop a completely successful police force it is essential
to have public involvement, public confidence and public co-operation. It
is important for the South Australia Police Department to maintain and
further develop the concept of community policing.'
These are the words of the South Australian Commissioner of Police, Mr David Hunt,
which were published in his 1982-83 Annual Report, after he visited overseas countries
to gain a better understanding of the new crime prevention programs that were being
formulated under the banner of Community Policing.
It is now recognised that crime prevention is fundamentally a community-wide
responsibility and the long-held view that the police must solely shoulder responsibility in
this area is now being re-examined in Australia.
In its Issues Paper, Creating a Safer Community; Crime Prevention and Community
Safety into the 21st Century, 1992, the Federal Justice Office identified 'strategic actors'
- agents whose active participation in the plan would be necessary for the successful
development and implementation of a national crime prevention policy . Whilst
'Government', 'Public Administration', 'Policing' and 'The Corporate Sector' are listed as
some strategic actors, the private security sector was only alluded to by reference to
'This includes protecting their products, services and premises against vulnerability to
criminal disruption' in regard to the corporate sector (ibid., 1992, 51).
Professional security management practitioners and innovative law enforcement
personnel have recognised for some time the enormous potential from an enhanced
relationship between the police and the private security sector. This has been explored in
great detail in the United States (Cunningham, et al., 1990) and is now being actively
canvassed by many in this country (Golsby, 1993 and Swanton, 1993).
There is no doubt that in order to retard the growth of crime in Australia, that a national,
co-ordinated community based approach is needed. No longer can the police be
expected to control and prevent crime without the active support of the wider
community. Many ex-police and others with an interest in crime prevention and public
safety are engaged in the private security sector and many of these people have expertise
that could enhance the success of a national crime prevention and public safety program.
To omit such a large body of personnel that could contribute so much to the program, a
body that has the same aims as the public police, ie. crime prevention and safety, would
be a waste of community resources.
1.1
The Research Project
With the momentum that is now beginning: the push for a national community
crime prevention strategy; the acceptance by some senior police that the private
security sector could perform some tasks currently undertaken by police; and the
development of a body of professional, qualified security management specialists
in Australia, and the formulation and conduct of a comprehensive study of the
private security sector would be a logical step in the progression towards the
development of a co-ordinated, cost-efficient and holistic community crime
prevention and safety program.
18
This is an original piece of research and continues the national precedent that the
South Australian Attorney-General's Department has begun with its Together
Against Crime initiative, and complements the national move by the Ministerial
Council on the Administration of Justice with its release of National Crime
Prevention and Community Safety Principles.
As new research, it is hoped that this project will encourage further detailed
security management and policing studies in Australia, either being duplicated in
other states and territories, or in stimulating other related original research.
1.2
Objectives of the Research Project
The objectives of the proposed study were:
1.3
(a)
to identify opportunities for the private security sector in South Australia
to work better and closer with the South Australia Police Department,
including the identification of areas of antagonism due to poor
communication, attitudes, perceptions or procedures.
(b)
as a means of communication and co-operation, facilitate the
establishment of liaison and co-operation between the South Australia
Police Department, the Attorney-General's Department and the private
security sector in order to maximise support for community based crime
prevention strategies.
(c)
to gather a variety of data concerning the private security sector in South
Australia, which is not currently available to researchers, the security
sector and government agencies. Such data would include, for example,
to what extent the police and those employed in the private security
sector believe that the latter could be involved in performing 'traditional'
police tasks; to ascertain the extent of the need for training; and the
necessity to carry weapons such as batons and sidearms.
Potential Outcomes
The conduct of a successful project would have the following potential
outcomes:
(a)
improved liaison between the private security sector, the government
security sector and the South Australia Police Department
(b)
identification of areas for attention to improve co-operation between the
private security sector and the South Australia Police Department
(c)
identification of how the private security sector in each jurisdiction could
best contribute to the objectives of a national crime prevention and
community safety strategy
(d)
profile the composition of the private security sector in this state
(e)
identification of training needs for the private security sector in South
Australia
(f)
improve the knowledge of the police and those engaged in the private
security sector of the role and function of each other.
19
(g)
provide a model of co-operation between police and private security for
other States and Territories of Australia.
20
2. BACKGROUND
In 1989, South Australia initiated a state-wide community based crime prevention
program (Confronting Crime - The South Australian Crime Prevention Strategy, 1989) to
identify and implement methods aimed at encouraging broad community involvement in
the prevention of crime as a strategy to decrease the largely sole reliance on the criminal
justice system. Other states have examined similar programs (e.g. Good Neighbourhoods
initiative in Victoria) and the Federal Justice Office, a division of the Commonwealth
Attorney-General's Department, proposed a national crime prevention policy to further
build upon developing state crime prevention strategies as a mean of ensuring an
integrated and effective national approach to crime prevention.
2.1
The Initial Research Proposal
In January 1992, it was proposed that a research project be conducted
throughout the private security sector in South Australia. To be entitled,
Identifying Opportunities and Initiatives for the Security Industry to Contribute
to the State Crime Prevention Strategies, the purpose of the project was to
identify the ways that the security industry could positively contribute to the state
crime prevention program (Hancock, 1992).
In March 1993, the Office of the Executive Services Branch of the South
Australia Police Department was contacted and invited to provide critical
comment on how best the proposed project could proceed. As a result of
subsequent discussions, Chief Inspector R.J. O'BRIEN, then Staff Officer to the
Police Commissioner, teamed with Mr M.J. GOLSBY, representing the Security
Institute of South Australia Inc., and formed a project team to develop and
conduct the study as a joint research project supervised by the Australian
Institute of Security and Applied Technology (AISAT) at Edith Cowan
University.
After substantial background research and consultation, the project commenced
in February 1994, as a joint study between the South Australia Police
Department and the Security Institute of South Australia Inc. (SISA), using the
voluntary resources of Mr GOLSBY and Chief Inspector O'BRIEN, with
significant support from both Mr D.A. HUNT, Commissioner of Police, and the
Executive Committee of SISA. SISA contributed $2000 so that the project
could proceed and the research became a formal project of the South Australia
Police Department.
2.2
The Commissioners' Conference
Because of the growing awareness, at a strategic level, of the growth of private
security, it was resolved at the 1992 Commissioners' Conference for Australasia
and South West Pacific Region (the Commissioners' Conference) that 'the subject
of 'Privatising of Policing' remain as a permanent agenda item for further
discussion' (Commissioners' Conference, 1992). This resolution reflected a
concern by some police that their role and functions were being eroded by the
growth of private security. However, this view has matured over a period of
21
time and police are now recognising that there are opportunities for the police
and private security industry to work co-operatively. By 1994, this view had
developed to such an extent that former Commissioner McAulay of the Australia
Federal Police submitted a paper to the 1994 Commissioners' Conference
entitled, 'Privatising of Police - Police and the Security Industry: A Strategic
Partnership'.
In his paper, Commissioner McAulay argued that the police and private security
have been functioning in a mutually exclusive manner with respect to the
provision of protection for the people of Australia He stated that there was a
need to establish a formal relationship between the police and security industry,
and as both have many common goals, the security industry provides a major
protective role in Australian society. Furthermore, he reported an existing model
for co-operation already exists in the United States of America between the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the American Society of
Industrial Security (ASIS) (McAulay, 1994, 2).
As a result of the changes in attitudes of police to the private security sector, the
submission from Commissioner McAulay, and the work being undertaken by
O'Brien and Golsby, the following resolution was passed during the 1994
Commissioners' Conference.
The Conference resolved to:
(1)
note and support the need for developing partnership arrangements
(authors' emphasis) with the private security industry.
(2)
note the study currently being undertaken in South Australia pursuant to
a grant from the Edith Cowan University, to agree that the issues
discussed in relation to this item be further developed within the context
of that research, and request that South Australia provide a report to the
1995 Conference.
22
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1
Defining Private Security
Security can be defined as the state of being in which individuals or groups may
pursue their ends without disruption or harm and without fear of loss or injury.
Further, to the organisation it implies being able to continue in business activities
without disruption from either criminal threats or natural catastrophe. From this,
it should be recognised that security has two bases: that of the individual or
group, and as it applies to or concerns an organisation.
Maintenance of security and good order in the community is now being
undertaken by organisations traditionally known as 'police', although we are
witnessing an increasing trend towards the use of privately funded bodies,
commonly referred to as 'private security'. Whilst this development is concerning
for some, the commission of privately resourced organisations to provide
protection is nothing new - in fact this method predates the establishment of
community-funded, government administered police services (Nalla and
Newman, 1990, 16).
Prior to the 18th century, the maintenance of law and order in England had
developed from post-Norman reforms beginning with King John, which saw a
formal declaration of the individual's rights and responsibilities between the state
and its subjects and among the subjects themselves. Judicial reforms included the
emergence of local justices of the peace, juries and circuit judges and with the
Statute of Winchester declared in 1285, every man was ordered to pursue and
bring to justice felons whenever 'hue and cry' was raised (Fischer and Green,
1992, 4). Every district was made responsible for any crimes that were
perpetrated within its bounds, but privately established night watches and patrols
were often the only protection against direct assault from offenders.
By the close of the 17th century, the social patterns developed throughout the
Middle Ages were disintegrating through civil war, which took England into a
period of immense turbulence and lawlessness. Hobbes, a great philosopher of
the time, was convinced that English society was on the brink of destruction.
'Hobbes saw that a 'war of all against all' was swirling around
him. His thesis was that in order to prevent this dog-eat-dog
society, it would be necessary to establish an entity that existed
over and above individuals. It would impose its superior will
upon others in order to maintain order, to prevent individuals
from perpetual violence against each other. This was his idea of
the Leviathan, the State, as we think of it today. The State must
be a political entity, all powerful. This power must be given to it
by the individuals in society and in return the State must
guarantee to establish and maintain order. Thus, 'private'
people created a 'public' state.'
23
(Nalla and Newman,1990,16)
This formula for order is known as 'the social contract', but the idea of a formal
body known as 'police' to enforce it did not come into existence for another
century. Until then the military performed the functions of disciplining the
community, which largely took the form of tax collection (ibid, 16).
It is widely accepted that the forerunners of today's public police were the 'Bow
Street Runners'. However, whilst they were formed and operated by a
magistrate, Henry Fielding, they were funded by the wealthy and businesses. In
that sense they were also 'private security' conducting residential patrols (Nalla
and Newman, 1990,18). Following Fielding's initiative, many competing
organisations were created, with wealthy merchants hiring armed men to use on
patrols. As South observed (cited in Nalla and Newman, 1990,18) property was
seen as being 'private' and not requiring the state to protect it, and naturally, the
obligation and responsibility of the owner to provide appropriate protection.
Across the Atlantic Ocean in the United States, 'private policing' agencies
resulted from the perception that the public law enforcement bodies were
politically compromised, corrupt or inadequate to protect the interests of the
powerful industrialists. In 1855, Allan Pinkerton, a former Secret Service Agent,
who claimed to have established the United States Secret Service, began the
North West Police Agency in Chicago, which was enlisted by President Lincoln
to conduct intelligence activities during the Civil War. By 1892 the number of
private policing agencies had increased to 15 in Chicago and 20 in New York.
This was happening at the time public agencies were also being established and
they developed in parallel (Nalla and Newman, 1990, 19).
In 1909, another former Secret Service Agent, William J. Burns established the
William J. Burns Detective Agency that became the sole investigating agency for
the American Bankers' Association and it has grown to employ more than 30,000
personnel today.
South (1988) discussed the definition of private security and he prefers not to
use the words 'private police' to describe people who work in that industry. He
acknowledges that 'private security is a very broad enterprise' (South, 1983, 2),
and the concept of 'security' is complex. (Spitzer, 1987). Whilst, Shearing et al.
(1980, 16) work towards a definition of security that revolves around the
protection of information, persons and property, and emphasises that there is a
difference between police and private security with respect to legal status,
control and accountability (authors' emphasis).
Generally, it is accepted that the word 'police' relates to the constabulary of
government and 'private security is a broader enterprise than public policing, with
a wider range of functions' (South, 1983, 4). Policing carries 'connotations of
government control and governmental authority' (Shearing et al, 1980, 17),
although it is used by government agencies other than those who provide a
'community policing' service. Examples include the United Kingdom Atomic
24
Energy Authority Constabulary (UKAEAC) and the British Ministry of Defence
(MOD) Police, both of which are principally security services and very similar to
the Australian Protective Services in that respect, but who differ in that they have
full investigatory and police powers. The only Australian examples are the
Military, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and Naval Police, who also have
investigatory powers and functions. However, some government agencies do
not use the term 'police' in their name, but do use it in other ways. This is the
case in the United States. The uniform branch of the US Secret Service
emblazon 'POLICE' on their marked vehicles assigned to Presidential protection,
and the physical internal security division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), are called 'FBI Police'. To further confuse the issue, some private
agencies in the United States of America are inclined to use the word 'police' in
their description, e.g. Security Police and Special Police.
Today, one of the difficulties with private security is defining where it begins and
where it ends (South, 1988, 27). The occupations involving security guards and
investigators would be generally accepted as belonging to the industry but what
of locksmiths, or a person who manufactures screen doors? And what of the
emerging profession of security risk management, which deals with the
assessment of security threats and risks, and the development of appropriate
strategies to counter those risks in a cost effective and efficient manner. These
are some of the difficulties, when trying to define it. However, the following
adequately describes the basic differences between private security and police.
'...the corporate view of security in the private sector which
emerges from interviews and discussions across a range of
private organisations is one of a highly sophisticated and largely
decentralised system of social control, which draws its authority
for action from historically based and legitimated notions of
property. This is quite unlike police authority that derives from
state conveyed powers arising out of criminal statutes.....The
conception of private security is characterised by the use of
internal justice systems for processing disputes, systems that
parallel the public criminal system, and in many instances
displace it, but which also differ from it in important features.'
(Shearing et al, 1985, 369)
The discipline of security appears to be evolving into two streams. Firstly, those
which can be identified as 'trades', such as locksmiths, security screen door and
intruder detector manufacturers and installers, patrolling security officers and
alarm monitoring functions which comprise the bulk of the security sector. The
second stream being the development of a 'profession' of security management
that is now moving towards academic qualifications and includes security
analysts, security managers and specialist enquiry agents such as fraud
investigators.
25
3.2
The Functions of Private Security
A private security practitioner has defined his industry in terms of its operations
and tasks as follows:
'...almost always in private industrial and commercial premises
behind the traditional legal boundary of the factory fence, which
the police cannot lawfully cross unless by invitation or in other
special circumstances. Our principal task is to prevent loss and to
minimise risk to people and property in private places and we have
no functions in the preservation of law and order in the public
sector.'
(Philip-Sorenson, 1972, 44-45)
This view was advanced 22 years ago and since then developments have taken
place that detract from this definition. As a part of the Australian Grand Prix held
in Adelaide, street parties occur on the Saturday night prior to the race. Streets
are closed to vehicular traffic and alcohol is not allowed to be brought into the
enclosed area. Alcohol is supplied only by licensed premises within the
boundaries. The public is checked by private security officers at the numerous
barricades that close the area to vehicles. Certainly, this is an extension to the
perceptions of Philip-Sorenson in 1972. It could be argued that the closure of
the street restricts public access and therefore it tends towards a private place but
there is no doubt that the street is open to all members of the public as long as
they comply with relatively minor conditions. The control or supervision of the
access of the public to private companies as envisaged by Philip-Sorenson has
been greatly expanded through the use of private security at public barricades.
This represents a further blurring of roles and functions of the police and private
security sector.
'...one of the most important features of the modern development
of private security, namely, that the maintenance of order in
public places is becoming increasingly part of their routine dayto-day activity. ...Under these circumstances, the traditional
view that the maintenance of public order is, either in practice or
in theory, the sole responsibility of the police is clearly no longer
tenable.'
(Shearing et al , 1985a, 134)
Today, the private security sector consists of two distinct sections: services that
are funded, arranged and operated by a private sector entity for its own use ('inhouse' or 'proprietary' security) and services offered and provided by a privately
owned commercial enterprise for the utilisation of a fee paying user ('commercial'
or 'contract' security).
The public security sector too has several streams, including the police, 'in-house'
security such as Telecom Protective Services, the Australia Post Security and
26
Investigation Service (APSIS) and the Defence Security Branch (DSB). As well
as these, the public sector has government owned commercial security services,
such as the Australia Protective Service (APS), which is a federal body, and the
Queensland State Government Protective Security Service (QSGPSS). This
does not include the Victoria Protective Service, the Police Security Services
Division (South Australia), or the Police Security Division (NSW), which are
security groups operated by state police and which generally exist to protect
government property, although more and more they are tendering for private
contracts on the open market.
'Private security is not in business to serve the general public
good; it is in business to serve the needs of its paying clients. It
clearly does make a contribution to, for example, crime
prevention in some respects, although how much of this is offset
by a displacement effect, which means those less able to pay for
additional security become more heavily victimised, is unknown
but probably significant.'
(South, 1988, 152)
The argument about the displacement effect may be true but this can be argued
with any crime prevention initiative and agencies must be aware of it. The point
is that private security makes an important contribution to crime prevention by
undertaking roles not undertaken by governments. In fact, governments 'often
produce private goods, either "purely private" or "quasi-private" and then
distribute them "for free" in the sense that there is not direct price used to assist
in the allocation of resources' (Edmonds and McCready, 1994, 5). However, this
is changing with governments wishing to privatise many activities which are not
seen as core to the business of government.
3.3
The Private Security Sector Overseas
In Britain, there has been an investigation into the size of the private security
sector by considering the number of unionists in the industry. Their figures
indicate that about 32,500 people were registered as private security employees
in 1983.
Table 1
Composition of the British Private Security Sector
Source: The Security Industry, 1983, 3
Contract Security Guards
26500
Ancillary employment
2000
27
Alarm Installation and Maintenance
TOTAL
4000
32500
Academics in the United States of America have estimated that in that country,
there are twice as many people employed in private security as there are public
police (Trojanowicz & Bucquerou, 1990).
In 1980, the United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice
(NIJ) commissioned a private research consultancy, Hallcrest Systems, Inc., to
conduct a comprehensive examination of the private security sector in the United
States. This study, published in 1985 as Private Security and Police in America
was updated in 1990 when the NIJ again appointed Hallcrest Systems Inc. to
further review the sector, its present state and future growth in the United States
up until the year 2000 (Cunningham & Taylor, 1985).
The 1990 study has become a landmark in research for the private security sector
in North America and has become known as the Hallcrest Report II
(Cunningham, Strauchs & Van Meter, 1990).
As stated in its Preface, the purposes of the second study were to:
'profile the growth and changes in the private security industry
over the past two decades, identify emerging and continuing
issues and trends in private security and its relationships with
public law enforcement and present recommendations and future
research goals in the interests of greater co-operation between
private security and law enforcement.'
The study found that the private security sector is the United States' primary
protective resource in terms of both expenditure and employment. Private
security spent US$52 billion versus the public sector's US$30 billion in all tiers of
law enforcement and employment was 600,000 in the public sector, but almost
1.5 million in the private sector. The report suggested that whilst expenditure on
public sector services would increase to US$44 billion by the year 2000, it will
be dwarfed by that of the private sector, which is anticipated to reach US$104
billion.
Major issues of concern to both the public and private sectors identified during
the study were privatisation, 'false' (unwanted) alarms, police 'moonlighting' and
'private justice'.
State and local government spending on private security services were found to
have increased from US$27 billion in 1975 to an estimated US$100 billion in
1988 and federal government spending had reached US$197 billion by 1987,
indicating the growing interdependence of the public and private security sectors
in the United States.
28
Whilst 'crime-related' services provided by the public sector were found to be
based on constitutional responsibilities and perhaps should remain, it was
suggested by the researchers that public sector officials would probably welcome
an expanded relationship with the private sector that would release police for
basic crime fighting. Functions frequently identified as not necessarily requiring
police and which could be privatised included court security, prisoner transport,
parking enforcement, public building security, public parks patrols, special event
security and public housing patrols.
Unwanted or nuisance alarms reported by security systems were found to be a
common police complaint and research suggested that between 95% and 99% of
all alarms are not activated by intruders and that 10% to 30% of all calls for
police attendance were for response to alarm systems. This was seen as an
extremely important problem, since whilst in the early 1980s only between 2% to
5% of residences had intruder alarm systems, by the end of the 1980s it had
increased to almost 10% and given the decreasing cost of such systems, it is
anticipated that by the turn of the century almost 20% of private residences could
have them installed.
Interviews by the Hallcrest research team found that some public sector agencies
viewed police response to alarm systems as a 'special consideration' for those
who could afford them, whilst others felt that police alarm response was a free
service for private monitoring companies, seen to be profiting at police expense.
However, almost 80% of interviewed private patrol services stated that they
would be willing to take over the response function from the police on a contract
basis.
'Moonlighting' by police officers in jobs in the private security sector was found
to be widespread by the Hallcrest researchers. Private businesses were found to
be frequently hiring off-duty Police Officers for crowd control, guard and patrol
duties. This was noted as a long running source of complaint by private security
sector operators, who objected to the practice as unfair competition, which is not
specifically prohibited by up to 80% of all United States police departments.
This has led police administrators to estimate that approximately 20% of their
staff supplement their income with regular security employment outside the
department, supported by departmental permission to wear uniforms on such
outside employment and in many cases also have the use of departmental
equipment such as radios and even police patrol vehicles.
Both of the Hallcrest studies found that the majority of 'economic crime' is
treated privately within corporations or businesses rather than through the public
criminal justice system. They confirmed that the majority of criminal offences
detected by the private security system were processed by a 'private justice'
system which utilised employment termination, transfers, demotions, suspensions
and reprimands in place of prosecution within the public criminal justice system.
Interestingly, both the 1980 and 1990 studies showed that the workplace crimes
most likely to be reported and treated by the public criminal justice system were
29
those such as robbery, burglary and arson, whereas fraud, employee theft and
crimes associated with computers were usually resolved internally without
reporting to police. It was suggested that this course of action is most likely
preferred because it avoids the negative publicity that an organisation would
attract if it pursued prosecution through the criminal justice system.
The Hallcrest studies were substantial projects and have acquired the status of
definitive studies on the status of private security in the United States. Whilst
they examined a wide range of issues in great detail, the four primary areas
detailed above have been highlighted as the principal areas of concern and they
all have direct parallels in the Australian private security sector.
3.4
The Private Security Sector in Australia
The only previous study that had any similarity to this paper was that
commissioned by the Australian Institute of Criminology (Rees, 1984). This
study was very ambitious, but unfortunately was handicapped by a poor response
to the questionnaire. Ten years later, momentum for the private security sector
to become more professional is compelling the private security sector to take a
more committed interest in its future.
It is indeed difficult to quantify the numerical size of personnel engaged in the
private security sector in Australia. Not all states require licences and many who
seek employment in the area do so as a temporary measure or as a casual method
of supplementing other income. It is believed that many people who are
registered to perform work in the private security industry either actually don't
work in it or work on a casual basis.
Whatever the size of the private security sector, its importance to the Australian
business community, government and community in general is not disputed. Its
personnel are engaged on assignments where business (or a community) requires
protection above that capable of being provided by the public police (such as
residential patrols), where an enterprise is obliged to meet government
requirements (such as airport screening), and where the sheer volume of work
necessitates that the resources of the public police be supplemented. An example
of this occurs at the Australian Formula One Grand Prix and other large scale
public events, where the police and private security work co-operatively.
The size of the private security sector, and its responsibility for crime prevention
for clients, are good reasons to accept that the sector has a significant role to
play in the implementation and the formulation of a national crime prevention and
community safety strategy.
The growth of private security was reviewed in Victoria for the 1991 Police
Commissioners' Conference of Australasia and South West Pacific Region (the
Commissioners' Conference) and the following data were provided.
30
Table 2
Number of Victorian Security Licence Holders, 1980 and 1990
Source: McDonald, 1991, 1
1980
1990
Security Firms
575
1079
Security Guards
3095
5475
Inquiry Agents
462
1227
4132
7781
TOTALS
These figures show an 88.3% increase in known private security operatives over
a period of 10 years.
It has been reported that in New South Wales in 1994, there are 37,000
employed in the private security industry. This is up from 19,500 in 1985, an
increase of 89.7%. It is growing at almost 6% a year. This compares with
10,460 NSW police in 1985 compared with 12,676 in 1994 Sydney Morning
Herald, 10/11/94). Police numbers in New South Wales have increased by
21.1%.
Some academics in this country also believe that the size of the 'private police' to
be of a greater proportion to the 'public police', with an excess of 60,000
compared to approximately 34,000 public police (Wilson, 1989). Of course it is
important to note that this observation does not include the large number of nonpolice government agency (NPGA) personnel, who also provide a public service.
31
3.5
The Private Security Sector in South Australia
According to information supplied by the Commercial Tribunal, as at 15 July
1994, 5328 licences were on issue to individuals and companies. Of those
licences, 183 were held by companies. As well, a person can hold more than one
licence and a breakdown of licences by age and gender are provided in Tables 3
and 4.
Table 3
Age of South Australian Security Licence Holders
Source: South Australian Commercial Tribunal
Age (yrs)
Number
Under 19
14
19-29
1671
30-39
1725
40-49
1248
50-59
543
Over 60
127
TOTAL
5328
The known breakdown of males to females in private security is:
Table 4
Known ratio of male to females in South Australia
Age (yrs)
Female
Male
Under 19
1
10
19-29
80
728
30-39
90
664
40-49
52
498
50-59
26
225
32
Over 60
0
127
TOTAL
249*
2252
*A complete breakdown of the number of males to females licensed
is not accurately known.
3.6
Non Police Government Agencies
After this project commenced, it was quickly recognised that there were more
than just the police and the private security sectors. There exists a third area,
namely, the Non Police Government Agencies (NPGA) They are also
responsible for crime prevention and grew due to bureaucratic reasons, for
reasons of independence, or for political reasons. Examples in South Australia
are the former Sacon Security, which grew from a need for a government
security/alarm service, and which has now become the Police Security Services
Division (PSSD). Other groups exist, such as investigators within the AttorneyGeneral's Department and Security Officers who work for the Sheriff within the
Court's Department.
3.7 Licensing the Private Security Sector in Australia.
Government regulation of the private security sector is not consistent throughout
Australia. The degree and method of regulation vary considerably across the
Commonwealth and ranges from no regulation of security agents, to police,
court or consumer affairs licensing. It is of interest to note that regulation
differentiates between the two components of the private security sector: The
protection of assets (Security Agents) and the private investigation occupation
(Commercial and Inquiry Agents).
In 1992, the Law Reform Unit of the Australian Capital Territory's AttorneyGeneral's Department examined policy options concerning the regulation of that
territory's private security sector (Issues and Policy Options, 1992) . Swanton
(1993) also examined the regulation issue and their research found that
legislation exists which regulates private security agents to some extent in all
states, but not the two mainland territories.
3.7.1 Australian Capital Territory.
The ACT has no direct regulation of the private security sector, but this
is under review.
3.7.2 New South Wales.
33
In New South Wales the private security sector is regulated by the
Security (Industry) Protection Act, 1985 that is administered by the
Firearms Registry of the New South Wales Police Service.
This act regulates a range of occupations in the private security sector,
including security officers, the providers of security officers and
consultants. It is an offence to offer services if unlicensed.
3.7.3 Northern Territory
The Commercial and Private Agents Licensing Act, 1979 as administered
by the police regulates the Commercial Agent and Private Inquiry Agent
occupations in the Northern Territory, but there is no regulation of
Security Agents.
3.7.4
Queensland.
In Queensland, the Invasion of Privacy Act, 1971 covers Security Agents
and Private Inquiry Agents, but is currently subject to review and is
expected to be replaced by the Security Providers Act, 1994 that is yet to
be proclaimed.
Like its predecessor, it is anticipated that the new Act will be
administered by the Department of Consumer Affairs.
3.7.5 Tasmania.
Security Agents and their Security Officers are regulated in Tasmania by
the Commercial and Inquiry Agents Act, 1974.
Licence applications are received and processed by the Magistrate's
Court and it is an offence to hold oneself out as a Security Agent or
Guard without being licensed.
3.7.6 Victoria.
In Victoria the police and the Magistrate's Court are responsible for the
administration of the Private Agents Act, 1990 which regulates the
private security sector in that State.
Licensing is required and it is an offence to hold oneself out as a Security
Guard if not licensed.
3.7.7 Western Australia.
The Security Agents Act, 1976 regulates the private security sector in
Western Australia and is administrated by the police.
34
The act requires licensing in order to perform duties as a Security Guard
or to provide services as a Security Agent. It also prohibits a person
holding himself/herself out as a Security Guard or Agent if unlicensed.
3.8
Licensing the Private Security Sector in South Australia
Government regulations of the private security sector in South Australia operate
by virtue of the Commercial and Private Agents Act, 1986 and associated
regulations, which are applied by the Commercial Tribunal of the Office of Fair
Trading. Although, at the time of writing this report the Attorney General's
Department, who oversees the Commercial Tribunal, was recommending that the
South Australia Police undertake the supervision of a new Act that has been
drafted. If police involvement in the regulation of private security occurs it will
bring South Australia into line with New South Wales, Victoria, Western
Australia and the Northern Territory. This would provide greater consistency
across states and can only assist with greater liaison.
The current Act provides eight endorsements or categories, as follows:
1. Commercial Agent
*
ascertains whereabouts of, repossessing goods or chattels
*
collecting and requesting payment of debts
*
executing legal process of any judgement or order of a court
*
executing any distress for the recovery of rates, taxes or monies
2. Inquiry Agent
*
obtaining or providing information as to the personal character or actions
of the person or as to the business or occupation of the person
*
searching for missing persons
*
obtaining evidence for the purpose of legal proceedings
3. Security Agent
*
protecting or guarding a person or property or keeping a person or
property under surveillance
*
hiring out or otherwise supplying a dog or other animal for the purpose
of protecting or guarding a person or property
*
preventing, detecting or investigating the commission of any offence in
relation to a person or property
35
*
controlling crowds
4. Security Guard
*
protecting or guarding a person or property or keeping a person or
property under surveillance
*
preventing, detecting or investigating the commission of any offence in
relation to a person or property
*
controlling crowds
5. Security Alarm Agent
*
provides advice on, hiring out or otherwise supplying or installing or
maintaining a device of a prescribed kind for the purpose of protecting or
guarding a person or property under surveillance.
6. Security Officer
*
preventing, detecting or investigating the commission of any offence in
relation to a person or property
7. Crowd Controller
*
controlling crowds
8. Process Server
*
serving any writ, summons or other legal process
In addition, a licence issued with one or more of the above endorsements can be
issued:
(a)
unconditionally
or with one or two conditional endorsements:
(a)
the holder can only work as an employee and/or
(b)
the holder must work under supervision.
36
4. METHODOLOGY
The methodology of the study is passive statistical research.
quantitative research.
It is qualitative not
The objectives of the study were to identify opportunities for the private security sector
in South Australia to work better and closer with the South Australia Police. They were
to:
(1)
include the identification of areas of antagonism due to poor communications,
attitudes, perceptions or procedures.
(2)
facilitate the establishment of liaison and co-operation between the South
Australia Police Department, the Attorney-General's Department and the private
security sector in order to maximise support for community based crime
prevention strategies.
(3)
gather a variety of data concerning the private security sector in South Australia,
which is not currently available to researchers, the security sector and
government agencies. Such data would include, for example, to what extent the
police and those employed in the private security sector believe that the latter
could be involved in performing 'traditional' police tasks; to ascertain the extent
of the need for training; and the necessity to carry weapons such as batons and
firearms.
The first step was to consult with a broad cross-section of personnel from the private
security sector, the South Australia Police Department and non police government
agencies in order to gain the maximum possible information from which to develop the
questionnaire, which enabled the views of senior personnel from the three sectors to be
taken into account.
The second step was to develop a detailed questionnaire that solicited responses to
prompters designed to extract data consistent with the objectives listed above.
Finally, the questionnaire was trialled to eliminate ambiguities and to enable amendments
to be made to eliminate any biases.
4.1
Target Groups
The target groups for the questionnaire were:
(a)
Private Security Sector
Personnel identifying with the private security sector. It included those
employed in the industry, those licensed to perform duties in the industry,
such as managers, administrators, supervisors, educators, as well as
operational personnel such as security officers, guards, crowd controllers,
patrol officers and loss prevention officers. This category included both
37
personnel on hire to a client and those employed in a proprietary or 'in
house' situation.
(b)
South Australia Police Department
Sworn members of the South Australia Police Department with a
particular emphasis on members performing management or operational
tasks who were likely to have greater contact with the private security
sector.
(c)
Non Police Government Security Sector
Government operated or sponsored security personnel in South Australia
who are employed to provide security services.
4.2
The Questionnaire
It involved the construction of a questionnaire that required people, who have
knowledge of policing and security, to give their views about their knowledge.
The three objectives are attempted through the use of a literature review and
questionnaires (see APPENDIX 1.), which were distributed to 100 police
officers, 100 personnel involved in the private security industry and 40
distributed to personnel in non police government agencies who carry out similar
types of work. Questionnaires were distributed so as to ensure as wide a range
of input from all levels and areas of the private security sector, operational state
police and non-police government agencies as possible. There was personal
contact to ensure a high return rate.
The questionnaire allowed for responses that were forced multiple choice with an
option for an explanation where it was considered necessary. It was divided into
6 sections:
(I)
Personal Experience
(II)
Co-operation
(III)
Responsibilities
(IV)
Personal Attitudes
(V)
Resourcing
(VI)
Demographic questions
Answers allowed a comparison to be made between the different sectors, ie.
police, private security and non police government agencies.
38
5. RESULTS
5.1
Response Rate
There were 83 police questionnaires (83%), 55 private security questionnaires
(55%) and 23 (57.5%) from the non police government section returned. The
overall response rate from all areas was 67%.
Table 5
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE RATE
Questionnaire
Distribution
100
Questionnaires
Returned
83
Return Rate
100
55
55.0%
Non-Police
Government
Agency
40
23
57.5%
Totals
240
161
67.1%
State Police
Private
Security
5.2
83.0%
Validity of Results
At the time of the study, there were 5328 people licensed in South Australia
under the provisions of the Commercial and Private Agents Act, and the
response rate represents 1.03% of licensed private security operatives in South
Australia. This return rate would provide indicative results.
Also, at the time of the study, there were 3813 sworn members and 722 public
servants employed in the South Australia Police Department. Police officers
comprised of 131 Commissioned Officers, 1864 Non Commissioned Officers and
1818 Other Ranks (S.A. Police , Annual Report, 1994). The response rate for
the police questionnaire represents 2.2% of police officers and the answers
would be representative of all members.
The exact size of the Non-Police Government Sector is not known and therefore
the percentage response rate of the questionnaire is not known. The answers
would only be indicative.
39
The following tables provide an overview of respondents’contact with the different
sectors.
5.3
Contact with Different Sectors
PRIVATE SECURITY CONTACT WITH POLICE
(n=55)
Table 6
Q2. As a person identifying with the private security sector, what type of police
personnel would you have most contact with and how frequent is that contact?
Occupation
Responses
Car Patrol
33
Daily
%
18.2
Foot Patrol
25
20.0
48.0
12.0.
Criminal
Investigation
Traffic
12
Nil
25.0
33.3
5
Nil
40.0
20.0
Enquiries
8
Nil
50.0
25.0
Technical
Services
2
Nil
100.0
Nil
Prosecution
3
Nil
Nil.
33.3
General
Station
Enquiries
9
Nil
33.3
22.2
40
Weekly
%
39.4
Monthly
%
30.3
Other
6
16.7
50.0
16.7
NB. MORE THAN ONE RESPONSE CAN BE GIVEN.
POLICE CONTACT WITH PRIVATE SECURITY
(n=83)
Table 7
Q2. As a Police Officer, what type of private security personnel would you have most
contact with and how frequent is that contact?
Responses
Crowd
Controller
(bouncer)
45
Daily
%
13.3
Security
Officer
(Guard or
Agent)
52
15.4
63.5
17.3.
Loss
Prevention
Officer. (Store
Detective)
51
13.7
43.1
37.3
41
Weekly
%
53.3
Monthly
%
20.0
Commercial
Agent (Debt
Collector)
6
Nil.
16.7
66.7
Inquiry Agent
(Private
Investigator)
11
Nil.
36.4
45.5
Process Server
10
10.0
10.0
50.0
Security
Equipment
2
Nil
50.0
50.0.
Security
Trainer
1
Nil
100.0
Nil
Security
Management
Consultant
.
Locksmith
4
Nil
25.0
75.0
4
Nil.
25.0
25.0
Other
3
Nil
33.3
66.7
NON-POLICE GOVERNMENT AGENCY CONTACT WITH POLICE AND
PRIVATE SECURITY
Table 8
Q2. As a person employed by a non-police government agency, what police or
private security personnel would you have most contact with and how frequent is that
contact?
42
Occupation
Car Patrol
Foot Patrol
Criminal
Investigation
Traffic
Enquiries
Technical Services
Prosecution
General Station
Enquiries
Other Police
Crowd Controller
(Bouncer)
Security Officer
(Guard or Agent)
Loss Prevention
Officer (Store Det.)
Commercial Agent
(Debt Collector)
Inquiry Agent
(Priv. Invest.)
Process Server
Security Equipment
Installer
Security Trainer
Security
Management
Consultant
Locksmith
Other Private
Security
15
6
8
Daily
(n=83)
%
20.0
66.7
25.0
Weekly
(n=55)
%
20.0
Nil
12.5
Monthly
(n=23)
%
33.0
Nil
12.5
3
5
5
3
3
Nil
40.0
40.0
33.3
Nil
33.3
Nil
20.0
Nil
33.3
66.7
20.0
20.0
Nil.
Nil
13
Nil
7.7
Nil
15.4
Nil
7.7
Nil
14
35.7
21.4
14.3
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
1
Nil
100.0
Nil
2
Nil
Nil
50.0
1
Nil
100.0
Nil
10
3
20.0
33.3
50.0
Nil
10.0
Nil
5
4
20.0
Nil
20.0
Nil
20.0
Nil
3
66.7
Nil
33.3
Response
43
5.4
Demographics
Table 9
Demographic profile of respondents: sex, age, service, and salary
Police
(n=83)
%
84.1
15.9
Private Security
(n=55)
%
88.7
11.3
NPGA
(n=23)
%
95.7
4.3
Age (Years)
<20 years
20-29 years
30-39 years
40-49 years
50-59 years
>60 years
0.0
35.4
29.3
24.4
9.8
1.2
1.9
18.5
51.9
27.8
-
0.0
13.6
13.6
45.5
27.3
-
Service (Years)
0-4 years
5-9 years
10-14 years
15-19 years
20-29 years
30-39 years
>40 years
13.4
29.3
4.9
14.6
24.4
12.2
1.2
22.6
45.3
15.1
13.2
3.8
-
13.6
22.7
22.7
13.6
13.6
13.6
-
Current Salary
<$20,000
$20,001-$25,000
$25,001-$30,000
$30,001-$35,000
$35,001-$40,000
$40,001-$45,000
$45,001-$50,000
>$50,000
0.0
1.2
13.3
21.7
15.7
31.3
2.4
14.5
19.6
13.7
11.8
17.6
19.6
5.9
3.9
7.8
0.0
4.5
22.7
13.6
18.2
4.5
13.6
22.7
Sex
Male
Female
44
Table 10
Demographic profile of respondents: position
Police
(n=83)
%
Position
Police
Probationary
Const.
Constable
F.C.C.
Senior Const.
Sergeant
Sen. Sgt.
Inspector
Chief Inspector
Superintendent
Above
Superintendent
Private Security
(n=55)
%
NPGA
(n=23)
%
1.2
16.0
27.2
24.7
11.1
4.9
6.2
2.5
2.5
3.7
Private Security
Security Officer
Salesperson
Security Superv.
Security Manager
Director
Customer Rep
Crowd Controller
Surveillance Op
Instructor
Others
47.2
3.8
3.8
17.0
9.4
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
NPGA
Security Officer
Supervisor
Security Manager
Officer in Charge
Protective Services
Officer
Control Room Op
Govt Invest Offr
Other
17.1
13.0
13.0
4.3
8.7
8.7
8.7
30.1
5.5 Reliability of Results
45
The questionnaire was developed after interviewing 15 people within the
police, private security and non-police government agencies. These people
were patrol officers, guards, investigators and their supervisors. It was then
trialled by three members of the Strategic Development Branch of the South
Australia Police. Two of these people have had many years of experience with
private security and policing generally, and the third person was a senior
research officer within the Police Department. It was further trialled by two
senior managers in the private security sector and another senior manager
within the non-police government agency sector. This allowed appropriate
modifications to the questionnaire.
46
6. DISCUSSION
6.1
Personal Attitudes/Experiences
All sectors were questioned about the respective advantages and disadvantages
of police in comparison to private security. The following responses were
obtained:
ADVANTAGES OF POLICE OVER PRIVATE SECURITY - RESPONSES
Table 11
Q.11 What advantages do you personally consider police have, compared to
the private security sector, with regard to crime prevention?
Police
NPGA
(n=83)
%
Private
Security
(n=55)
%
Training
13.2
14.7
17.5
Community Respect
10.3
9.2
8.8
Credibility
2.0
10.8
5.3
Legal Powers
18.6
28.3
21.1
(n=23)
%
NB. There were other responses given however only categories which were
nominated by at least 10% of one group were included.
It can be seen from the above percentages that there was no outstanding
advantages nominated. The two with the highest response are that police have
advantages in the areas of legal powers and training. Police have numerous legal
powers compared with the normal citizen powers of arrest that can be used by
private security. Although, it can be argued that if private security wear
uniforms and drive marked cars similar to police, it may give them de facto
authority over people who do not know the differences between police and
private security. An anecdotal example occurred in South Australia where a
teacher contacted the Police Security Service Division (PSSD) in South Australia
to report a breaking at her school. This teacher was aware that PSSD was
responsible for security at the school and therefore she concluded that the
breaking should be reported to that body and not the police. This was wrong.
The breaking should have been reported to the police for recording and
47
investigation. It indicates an important issue if a teacher cannot distinguish the
difference between police and police security. It would also be an issue as police
and private security formed partnerships, the public may not be able to separate
the two bodies. As police are required to be accountable to the state, there
would be an increasing need for accountability from private security as
partnerships developed.
DISADVANTAGES OF POLICE OVER PRIVATE SECURITY RESPONSES
Table 12
Q12. What disadvantages do you personally consider police have, compared
to the private security sector, with regard to crime prevention?
Police
Private
NPGA
Security
(n=83)
%
(n=55)
%
(n=23)
%
Personnel Numbers
11.1
17.6
26.7
Resources
11.1
9.2
3.3
Too Many Demands
28.7
16.2
3.3
Community Alienation
2.8
14.7
0.0
None
7.4
14.7
10
NB. There were other responses given however only categories which
were nominated by at least 10% of one group were included.
In the above table 'personnel numbers' and 'too many demands' are the main issues for
police as nominated by private security. These thoughts indicate that there is a need to
consider ways to overcome these issues. Partnerships between police and private
security may assist in this regard.
48
6.2
Co-operation
There is a need for the community to reduce crime. Following from this there is
the motivation for police to become involved with the private security industry.
It would be similar to the police forming partnerships with Neighbourhood
Watch Groups. Partnership arrangements with the private security industry
would demonstrate a commonalty of purpose to reduce crime by organising
groups to liaise with one another and provide assistance to the community by
attempting to reduce crime.
Each sector that was surveyed, e.g. police, non police government sector and
private security were asked to rate the current level of co-operation between
police and private security. Respondents had the opportunity to respond with
either 'Very Poor, Poor, Good or Very Good'. The following results were
obtained.
49
Table 13
Q.6 How would you rate the current level of co-operation between police and
the private security industry?
Good/Very Good
%
Poor/Very Poor
%
(n = 83)
51.9
48.1
Private Security
(n = 55)
Non Police Govt
Agency
(n = 23)
68.6
31.4
81.8
18.2
Police
From the questionnaire the majority believe that co-operation is good or very
good, however, it is not an overwhelming majority. A lot more work can be
done to improve co-operation between two groups both of which are employed
to protect the community.
AREAS WHERE TO IMPROVE CO-OPERATION
Table 14
Q.5 Which areas would you personally prefer to see improved co-operation
between the police and the private security industry?
NPGA
(n=83)
%
Private
Security
(n=55)
%
Crime Prevention
Resources
Specialised Security
Equipment
Expertise
14.2
11.7
18.2
15.6
11.7
1.8
7.1
13.6
14.5
Sharing Personnel
0.9
9.9
1.8
Criminal
Intelligence
Training and
Facilities
Responsibility for
some paperwork
7.1
12.3
10.9
9.3
22.8
21.8
15.1
4.3
5.5
Area
Police
50
(n=23)
%
Responsibility for
some functions
Other
26.2
9.3
14.4
1.3
1.2
Nil
No increased cooperation
3.1
0.6
7.3
NB. There were other responses given however only categories which were
nominated by at least 10% of one group were included.
Certainly, co-operation with training and use of facilities rated highly with the
private and non police government sectors. This would increase the level of
understanding, improve liaison and cause ideas to be discussed that could
develop into partnership arrangements. Whereas the police (26.2%) saw that
there would be advantages if some functions were divested. One of these was
the staffing of speed cameras. Table 18 refers. This will be discussed later in
Section 6.4.1.
HOW TO IMPROVE CO-OPERATION BETWEEN POLICE AND
PRIVATE SECURITY
Table 15
Q7. How do you think the level of co-operation between police and private
security could be improved?
NPGA
(n=83)
%
Private
Security
(n=55)
%
Improve
Understanding of
each other
10.8
1.6
14.8
Increased Liaison
18.6
32.8
18.5
Define Functions
11.8
3.3
3.7
Increase
Professionalism of
Private Security
Nil
Nil
7.4
Improve Training of
Private Security
10.8
1.6
14.8
Area
Police
51
(n=23)
%
Improve
Understanding of
Private Security
2.0
13.1
7.4
Share Training
2.9
6.6
11.1
Increase
Accountability of
private security
5.9
Nil
Nil
Improve the
Selection Standard
of Private Security
Personnel
5.9
1.6
3.7
NB. There were other responses given however only categories which were
nominated by at least 10% of one group were included.
These were the major responses to the open ended question. The area that rated
the highest for improving co-operation was 'improving liaison'. This was the
comment across all sectors. If the liaison was given direction, ie. to reduce crime
in the state in which the sectors operate, the liaison will have greater focus.
SHARING OF RESOURCES BETWEEN POLICE AND PRIVATE
SECURITY
Table 16
Q.19 Do you think that police and the private security industry should share
the following resources?
Police
NPGA
(n=83)
%
Private
Security
(n=55)
%
(n=23)
%
Comms Network
Yes
No
9.9
90.1
24.1
75.9
13.6
76.5
Police Stolen
Vehicle Checks
Yes
No
58.0
42.0
88.7
11.3
72.7
27.3
Police Vehicle
Yes
3.7
39.6
27.3
52
Checks for
Personal Details
No
96.3
60.4
72.7
Police Warrant
Checks
Yes
No
20.7
79.3
60.4
39.6
40.9
59.1
Unions/Assoc
Yes
No
11.1
88.9
54.9
45.1
36.4
63.6
It was interesting to note that there was limited support from any sector for a
single communications network (item 1 from the above table), yet the next item
indicated that there was positive support from all sectors for access to police
stolen vehicle checks. Obviously, there is some support for access to information
but not through traditional police communications systems that are closed access
to others involved in the security industry. It is also interesting to note that in
South Australia, the Military Police and the Non Police Government Agency, the
Police Security Services Division, use the police communications network. The
Military Police have access because of historical ties between the military and
police in the South Australia. It came about when the former army officer,
Brigadier J.G. McKinna, was Commissioner of Police in South Australia. Also,
when the Police Security Services Division moved from the Government's
construction department (SACON) and was placed within the police
organisation, it gained access to traditional police communications.
6.2.1 Common Trade Unions
The authors spoke with the Police Association of South Australia about
this research and the organisation was supportive of it being undertaken.
However, the President and the Secretary of the Association declined to
complete the questionnaire. They were questioned about the possibility
of the Police Association taking members of the security industry into
their association to become an enterprise union of police and private
security. Currently, members of the security industry, who are in unions,
belong to the Miscellaneous Workers Union. One Police Association
official was interested in the concept whilst the other wished to pursue a
Police Federation at a national level. From the above table it can be seen
that the majority of members of the private security industry who were
surveyed are favourably disposed toward the concept.
The following question was posed, 'Do you think that the police and
private security industry should share the following resources? Unions/Associations'. Fifty five percent (54.9%) of private security who
were surveyed said 'yes', whilst only 36.4% of the NPGA and 11.1% of
police agreed with the proposition. Certainly, it would be a bold and
radical move as, currently, police are moving towards a national police
federation. However, as partnership arrangements take hold and
progress, there may be an increased possibility of one union or
association. The authors feel that, if this occurred, it would provide a
53
bonding that would assist to maximise the effectiveness of any
partnership.
6.3
Future Liaison with the Private Security Sector
In this country, an issue that impacts on any liaison between police and the
private security sector is that there are numerous bodies representing different
segments of the security sector. The different groups have disparate views and
communicating with so many of them will present challenges for the police.
Also, different bodies represent members of the private security industry and
members from Non-Police Government Agencies (NPGAs). Whilst most of the
members of the security organisations are in the 'private' category, some are
members of NPGA are also members of organisations representing private
security.
For example, in Australia, there are the following bodies representing the
security industry.
American Society for Industrial Security (Australian Chapter) (ASIS)
Australian Security Industry Association Limited (ASIAL)
Institute of Security Executives (ISE)
Institute of Security Management (ISM)
International Professional Security Association (IPSA)
Master Locksmiths Association of Australia (MLAA)
Professional Security Association (PSA)
Queensland Security Association (QSA)
Security Agents Institute of Western Australia (SAIWA)
Security Institute of South Australia Inc. (SISA)
Victoria Security Institute (VSI)
How is it possible for any government department or police to effectively deal
with them all? This is one of the issues facing police managers, and
representatives of private security. The private security industry needs to
rationalise its representative bodies or, more realistically, form a federation that
will allow one representative spokesperson. This representative body could be
known as the Security Industry Board (SIB).
In South Australia, five bodies represent private security.
American Society for Industrial Security (S.A. Council)
Australian Security Industry Association Ltd (SA Branch)
Master Locksmiths Association of Australia (SA Branch)
Professional Security Association
Security Institute of South Australia
54
Liaison occurs between the police and private security in South Australia. It
occurs daily at an informal level and several committees exist or have existed to
deal with specific issues. One such current committee is looking at the carriage
of batons by private security.
As well, formal liaison has been initiated at lower levels of police organisations.
In South Australia, Inspector Bill Prior, formerly of Hindley Street Police, has
formalised liaison in his command. Hindley Street (formerly Bank Street) Police
Services commenced in 1987 with one of the major aims being to develop close
links with the inner city business community. During a review of the station's
activities in 1991, it was realised that security personnel were not being
consulted to deal with issues involving them. There were specific concerns
regarding the area known as the ASER site that incorporated the Casino,
Convention Centre, Adelaide Railway Station and Festival Theatre. Since the
initial meetings, the liaison group has expanded to include representatives from
the above sites as well as Police Security Services, the Adelaide Library,
Museum, Adelaide University and Royal Adelaide Hospital. The numbers
involved reflect that there are needs that require police and private security to
discuss issues.
There are monthly meetings that discuss issues of immediate concern, but also,
two seminars have been conducted to address issues that mainly relate to legal
requirements and responsibilities. The training seminars were well attended and
again indicate a need for training within private security.
An anecdotal example of the success with crime prevention, through networking
or partnerships, occurred when a prisoner escaped from the Royal Adelaide
Hospital. The escapee's description was circulated through the network initiated
by the police and the offender was soon captured after being recognised by
security personnel in the grounds of the Adelaide University.
The links forged through the efforts of the police at Hindley Street have
reinforced the fact that private and government security are able to supply
excellent intelligence about activities in their area and have assisted in identifying
potential sources of trouble, providing information about fights between various
groups and assisting police with the arrest of offenders, although these links are
at a relatively junior level.
'The overall impression ... is that police/private security cooperation is rarely the subject of carefully thought out, force wide
policies but relies more on ad hoc arrangements which depend
significantly on the individual police officers and private security
personnel involved.'
(Shearing et al, 1985a, 145)
55
Therefore there is a need to formalise the liaison at an appropriate level to ensure
significant partnerships occur. The level amongst police should be Assistant
Commissioner or its equivalent, whilst the spokesperson from private security
should come from one representative body. At this time, it is unlikely that one
common body will come into existence that will represent the diverse group
called private security. Therefore, the formation of a federation by private
security where a federal body represents all private security organisations could
be an appropriate strategy if successful liaison is to occur.
Another major area of concern to police is the activities of crowd controllers
(bouncers). There is evidence that they are involved in many assaults, often as
the aggressive party. They do not receive any formal training and their image is
generally poor, yet they can be tremendously helpful to police. Hindley Street
Police have made a number of attempts to develop greater links with crowd
controllers but there has only been limited success. In Victoria legislation has
been in place for some time that provides far greater controls on crowd
controllers. Their model may be a suitable one for adoption across Australia.
6.4 Responsibility for Duties
RESPONSIBILITY FOR DUTIES - POLICE RESPONSE
Table 17
Q 8. Please circle one number for each function, or more than one if you
think the function could be handled co-operatively.
Legend
A = Police
E= Private Security & NPGA
B = Private Security Sector
F= Police & NPGA
C = NPGA
G= All three sectors.
D = Police & the Private Security Sector.
Task
Financial
Institution
Guards
24 Hour
Business
Surveillance
24 Hour
Community
Policing
Attending
Speed Cameras
Prisoner
Escorts
Appropriate Sector (%)
A
B
C
D
E
83.1
6.0
Nil
10.8
-
-
4.8
72.3
4.8
3.6
14.5
-
-
25.3
38.6
12.0
7.2
6.0
4.8
6.0
14.6
6.1
70.7
-
4.9
2.1
1.2
16.9
12.0
50.6
1.2
9.6
9.6
-
56
F
G
Reporting any
problems whilst
on patrol
Advice on
Store Layout re
shop stealing
Attending
Intruder Alarms
Gathering
Criminal
Intelligence
Advice on
Areas
Requiring
Special
Consideration
Crime Enquiries
and follow up
Pursuing
Warrants
Escort of
valuables
Close personal
protection
Teaching crime
prevention
Wide load
escorts
Traffic Control
at public events
Foot patrolsresidential
27.8
5.1
-
12.7
2.5
2.5
49.4
14.5
43.4
9.6
9.6
6.0
2.4
14.5
35.4
17.1
3.7
20.7
7.3
2.4
13.4
75.9
-
-
-
-
8.4
15.7
13.4
24.4
18.3
14.6
15.9
-
13.4
91.6
-
-
1.2
-
6.0
1.2
48.2
2.4
18.1
3.6
2.4
21.7
3.6
1.2
68.7
4.8
1.2
19.3
1.2
3.6
13.3
39.8
3.6
15.7
15.7
3.6
8.4
41.0
6.0
10.8
8.4
3.6
4.8
25.3
32.5
12.0
34.9
3.6
10.8
3.6
2.4
63.9
4.8
14.5
6.0
1.2
7.2
2.4
42.7
11.0
4.9
25.6
4.9
2.4
8.5
RESPONSIBILITY FOR DUTIES - PRIVATE SECURITY RESPONSE
Table 18
Q 8. Please circle one number for each function, or more than one if you
think the function could be handled co-operatively.
Legend
A = Police
E= Private Security & NPGA
B = Private Security Sector
F= Police & NPGA
C = NPGA
G= All three sectors.
D = Police & the Private Security Sector.
57
Task
Financial
Institution
Guards
24 hr business
surveillance
24 hr
community
policing
Attending
speed cameras
Prisoner escorts
Reporting any
problems whilst
on patrol
Advice on store
layout re shop
stealing
Attending
intruder alarms
Gathering
Criminal
intelligence
Advice on areas
requiring
special
consider.
Crime
Enquiries and
follow up
Pursuing
Warrants
Escort of
valuables
Close personal
Protection
Teaching Crime
Prevention
Wide Load
Escorts
Traffic Control
at public Events
Foot Patrols Residential
A
3.6
Appropriate Sector (%)
B
C
D
E
85.5. 3.6
7.3
F
-
G
-
1.8
83.6
3.6
3.6
7.3
-
-
2.8
29.1
3.6
27.3
7.3
5.5.
5.5
9.3
29.6
35.2
13.0
4.9
2.1
1.2
36.4
7.4
14.5
22.2
9.1
-
10.9
18.5
12.7
3.7
12.7
-
3.6
48.1
9.1
49.1
9.1
23.6
3.6
1.8
3.6
5.5
38.2
-
49.1
1.8
-
5.5
60.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
-
20
14.5
9.3
44.4
9.3
20.4
7.4
5.6
3.7
61.1
3.7
1.9
7.4
1.9
16.7
7.4
43.6
10.9
12.7
7.3
1.8
16.4
7.3
3.6
74.5
-
9.1
9.1
1.8
1.8
-
61.8
1.8
16.4
16.4
-
1.8
41.8
7.3
5.5
25.5
5.5.
1.8
12.7
34.5
30.9
10.9
9.1
7.3
7.3
-
36.4
21.8
1.8
21.8
9.1
7.3
1.8
25.9
25.9
1.9
35.2
-
1.9
9.3
6.4.1 Speed Cameras
58
Partnerships may also provide opportunities for private security to
become involved in areas currently undertaken by the police, e.g. the
operation of speed cameras. In South Australia, it is proposed that the
Non Police Government Agency, the Police Security Services Division,
staff speed cameras to enable more operational police to be available for
what is considered 'real' police work. Whether or not that is the case is
debatable, but certainly, trained and qualified police would be freed to
undertake more demanding tasks. The staffing of speed cameras by less
expensive personnel would be more cost effective.
Currently, South Australia Police has recommended to its Minister that
speed cameras should be operated by its Police Security Services Division
that consists of security officers employed within the police organisation.
There is the view that the staffing of speed cameras does not need to be
undertaken by trained police officers. The Minister for Emergency
Services stated that it was not appropriate for fully trained police officers
undertaking lesser duties than those for which they are fully trained and
that, if they were, their training was not being fully utilised. (Sunday
Mail newspaper, 29/11/94).
Table 19
Staffing of Speed Cameras
Police
Attending Speed Cameras
Police
Private Security
NPGA
Police and Priv Sec
Police and NPGA
Priv Sec and NPGA
All 3 services
(n=83)
%
Private NPGA
Security
(n=23)
(n=55)
%
%
14.6
6.1
70.7
2.4
2.4
4.9
1.2
9.3
29.6
35.2
13.0
5.6
7.4
NA
4.3
17.4
69.6
4.3
4.3
NA
NA
Earlier in this paper (Table 14 ) it was reported that 26% of police
thought that there could be improved co-operation through responsibility
for some functions being divested to private security. The example given
in the questionnaire indicated that private security could attend alarm
activations. This is already happening in some areas. Table 19 shows
that with respect to the staffing of speed cameras there is strong support
from all sectors for a NPGA to staff speed cameras.
6.5
Training
59
A comparison of perceptions on training of the police and private security shows
that there is a large gulf between the training of the two. It is perceived that the
training of police is generally good whilst the training of private security is
generally poor. This will present a problem for partnership arrangements if this
is true. Consideration should be given to reciprocal training to provide greater
compatibility and reduce the possibility of friction between the two areas.
Table 20
Q16(1) How would you rate the training given to private security personnel?
Rating
Very Poor
Poor
Good
Very Good
Police
(n=83)
%
31.4
60.8
7.8
-
Private Security
(n=55)
%
17.0
50.9
24.5
7.5
NPGA
(n=23)
%
26.3
73.7
0
0
Table 21
Q16(2)How would you rate the training given to non-police government
agency personnel?
Rating
Very Poor
Poor
Good
Very Good
Police
(n=83)
%
6.7
60.0
33.3
-
Private Security
(n=55)
%
41.7
54.2
4.2
NPGA
(n=23)
%
20.0
70.0
10.0
Table 22
Q16(3) How would you rate the training given to police?
Rating
Police
(n=83)
%
Private Security
(n=55)
%
60
NPGA
(n=23)
%
Very Poor
Poor
Good
Very Good
14.3%
59.7%
26.0%
4.3%
59.6%
36.2%
63.6%
36.4%
By far the majority of the respondents indicated that the police training was good
or very good, whilst the opposite was considered to be the case with respect to
the training of private security. There were mixed results for NPGA. This has
implications for any partnerships, as if there are unequal standards with respect
to training, then it would be difficult to have equality with any partnerships.
Currently, in South Australia, the Department for Employment, Training and
Further Education (DETAFE) are considering potential courses for private
security. The opportunity exists for private security to improve their training
through DETAFE courses.
61
6.6
Equipment/Resources
ACCESS TO COMMON EQUIPMENT AND RESOURCES
Table 23
With appropriate training, which of the following services should have access
to the following resources?
NPGA
Response
(n=83)
%
Private
Security
Response
(n=55)
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
88.0
98.1
98.1
98.1
98.1
77.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
82.6
86.4
84.9
91.3
62.7
56.6
56.6
86.7
30.1
86.8
84.9
79.2
83.0
41.5
60.9
65.2
65.2
82.6
21.7
23.5
45.3
21.7
49.4
27.7
48.2
63.9
28.9
56.6
56.6
52.8
52.8
22.6
87.0
69.6
87.0
82.6
34.8
24.7
28.3
47.8
Police
Response
Police to have
Access
Batons
Firearms
Handcuffs
Dogs
Chemical Sprays
(MACE)
Non-lethal
Weapons (e.g.
Stun Gun-Taser)
Private Security
Sector to have
Access
Batons
Firearms
Handcuffs
Dogs
Chemical Sprays
(MACE)
Non-lethal
Weapons (e.g.
Stun Gun-Taser)
NPGA to have
access
Batons
Firearms
Handcuffs
Dogs
Chemical Sprays
(MACE)
Non-lethal
Weapons (e.g.
Stun Gun - Taser)
62
(n=23)
%
There was common support for the police to have access to the weapons and
resources mentioned in Table 23. Each security sector, in general, believed that
it should have access to them but was more reserved about its counterpart.
Interestingly, the security sectors did not want access to chemical sprays. This
may indicate a general lack of understanding about them.
6.7 Ministerial Control
Currently, different Ministers from different States are responsible for the
regulation of the private security industry. It is understood that in New South
Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, the Minister who
is responsible for police is also responsible for regulating the private security
industry. At the time of writing this report, South Australia was looking at this
possibility as the Attorney General's Department was trying to divest itself of the
responsibility. Increased possibilities of closer liaison between police and the
security sectors may be achieved if all sectors were responsible to the same
Minister.
7. CONCLUSIONS
The question arises - 'Why should there be partnership arrangements between the police
and private security industry?' The authors believe that it can be successfully argued that
the police and private security are in the business of crime prevention and therefore there
is commonalty that encourages the formation of partnerships. Police have recognised
and stated in recent years that they cannot reduce crime without the assistance of the
community at large.
'The policing institutions declare their limitations (and their own
insecurities) and appeal to a shared civic responsibility for the
management of the contemporary social malaise'.
(South, 1988, 10)
However, the benefits for private security are more debatable. What would be the
motivation for private security to become involved with the police? Certainly, any
partnership with the police would give them more creditability. For them to have
accreditation that is recognised by the police would give them greater standing in the
community and hence more business. Also, more qualifying standards would enable
existing players to maintain or increase market share whilst at the same time making it
more difficult for new players to enter the industry. Because of a perceived lack of
formal qualifications and credibility amongst practitioners in the security industry, it
appears that some organisations (and individuals) do not believe that the private security
sector is capable of contributing to a professional community crime prevention program.
This is reflected, for example, in the views of some police, who seem to have a
perception that private security is a competitor, rather than an enhancement or assistant
63
to the police role. However, with the growth and sophistication of electronic monitoring
systems for building security and intruder detection, there has been the growth of
manufacturers, installers and people who monitor these systems. There have been
concerns with the lack of professionalism of installers but there can be no doubt that
these systems can be very sophisticated. This area of private security would not be
considered inferior to police systems. Police employ private security to install these
systems in police premises and therefore police are the junior partner in this aspect.
The former Commissioner of London Metropolitan Police, Sir Kenneth Newman,
promoted the idea of partnerships. In 1985, he spoke of police-public co-operation
which needed to be 'continuous, structured and effective' which also required a multiagency approach, and he considered that the private security industry was the most
important agency (Newman as quoted in South, 1988, 14). It is debatable whether or
not the private security industry could be considered as the 'most important agency'
because he is referring to a single agency which in practice does not exist, but he
recognised the potential importance of the industry to policing. The problem is that
private security consists of many components and cannot be considered a single agency
to which police could relate.
Certainly, when discussing this project with members of the private security industry, the
authors found that they considered the police the primary actor in the business of crime
prevention and these observations were also found by other researchers.
'The critical difference between the police and private security, in this
view, is the fact that they are supported and directed by different sectors
of the economy. Both police and security spokespersons who support this
view agree that the police occupy the senior and leadership role in this
partnership. Private security personnel are viewed as junior partners in
the business of maintaining order, assisting the police in their activities
and deferring to the police as they go about their duties.'
(Shearing et al, 1985a, 368)
Any future partnerships should be on equal terms - there will be no senior or junior
partners, if genuine working relationships are to occur. Also, there are issues that relate
to the profit motive versus the public good. It is recognised that there are different
'masters' in the different industries but the role is the same and the customers of both
industries overlap.
South (1983, 6) refers to what he sees as "problems" indicated in a report of the Outer
Circle Policy Group that refers to private security. He argues that private security dress
to look like police and he considers that this is a problem, and certainly, from discussion
with police they consider that this is an issue. However, a counter argument is that more
uniforms, whether they be dressed like police or not, increase the exposure of criminal or
potential criminals to agents of social control.
'...its size and pervasiveness, and the gradual assumption of quasi-public
duties and the claim to authority implicit in the wearing of uniforms. The
64
security industry has become in effect an auxiliary of the police in crime
prevention and an important exception to the general trend of regarding
police as exclusively responsible for the prevention of crime.''
(Outer Circle Policy Unit, 1978, 9)
This may have the advantage that society may benefit, although it is conceded that it may
cause individual members of the private security industry to feel that they have more
power than they actually have. Therefore there is a need for private security to be more
accountable. This could be done by increasing the role of the body in each state which
handles complaints against police. In Australia, any complaints against private security
could be investigated by the Police Complaints Authority (PCA), or its equivalent.
There are opportunities that occur from partnerships between police and private security
who are principally in the same business of reducing crime but are doing it for different
reasons. Police exist primarily for the public good whilst private security exist to make a
profit, but they are both reducing crime. Surely, this provides a sound argument to build
and strengthen the existing partnerships between police and private security. Difficulties
will occur when there is a conflict between the public good and the profit motive but the
potential benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
As previously mentioned, former Commissioner P. McAulay, of the Australian Federal
Police spoke of partnerships, and the Australasian Police Ministers' Council referred to
strategic partnerships in their document 'Directions in Australasian Policing'. It
referred to strategic partnerships with the community, government and non-government
bodies. This was mentioned in Goal 1: Leadership, Partnerships and Stakeholders. Key
Directions are to:
(1)
Develop a common police position on policy and principles so as to foster
strategic partnerships with relevant groups.
(2)
Develop action plans on key areas in partnership with community and other
partners.
(Directions in Australasian Policing, 1993,6)
Although it needs to be recognised that partnerships between police and business leave
open individuals to corruption or, at the very least, allegations of corruption, liaison
arrangements need to be set in place to ensure that there is the maximum potential to
reduce crime, but also to ensure that the exchange of information, and sharing, in
whatever form it takes, occurs with proper consideration to the law, and the ethics of all
organisations.
65
GLOSSARY
AISAT
APMC
APS
APSIS
ASIAL
ASIS
DETAFE
DSB
FBI
FJO
IACP
IPSA
ISE
ISM
MLAA
MOD
NIJ
NPGA
PCA
PSA
PSSD
QSA
QSGPSS
RAAF
SAIWA
SIB
SISA
UKAEAC
VSI
Australian Institute of Security and Applied Technology
Australasian Police Ministers' Council
Australian Protective Services
Australia Post Security and Investigation Services
Australian Security Industry Association
American Society for Industrial Security
Department for Employment, Training and Further Education
Defence Security Branch
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Justice Office
International Association of Chiefs of Police
International Professional Security Association
Institute of Security Executives
Institute of Security Management
Master Locksmiths Association of Australia
Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom)
National Institute of Justice
Non Police Government Agency
Police Complaints Authority
Professional Security Association
Police Security Services Division
Queensland Security Association
Queensland State Government Protective Security Service
Royal Australian Air Force
Security Agents Institute of Western Australia
Security Industry Board
Security Institute of South Australia
United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary
Victorian Security Institute
66
REFERENCES
The Advertiser Newspaper, Adelaide 28 August 1994.
Australasian Police Ministers' Council, (1993) Directions in Australian Policing,
Canberra.
Commissioners' Conference for Australasia and South West Pacific Nations,
Resolutions, 1992.
Confronting Crime - The South Australian Crime Prevention Strategy, (1989) Crime
Prevention Policy Unit, SA Attorney-General's Department, Adelaide
Cunningham, W.C., Strauchs, J.J. and Van Meter, C.W., (1990) Private Security Trends
1970 to 2000 The Hallcrest Report ll, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston USA.
Dance, O., (1991) 'To What Extent Could or Should Policing be Privatised?' Australian
Police Journal, Jan/Mar 1991.
Directions in Australasian Policing, July 1994 - June 1996, An Australasian Policing
Strategy issued by the Ministerial Council on the Administration of Justice,
November 1993.
Edmonds, D. and McCready, D. (1994) Costing and Pricing of Police Services,
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol 7, No. 5, MCB
University Press.
Etter, B., (1993) 'Future Direction of Policing in Australia', Australian Police Journal
March 1993, Vol. 47, No. 1.
Federal Justice Office, (1992) Creating a Safer Community - Crime Prevention and
Community Safety into the 2 1st Century, Published Issues Paper, Australian
Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Golsby, M.J., (1993) 'The Potential for the Private Security Sector to Contribute to an
Overall Community Crime Prevention Strategy', Crime Prevention Strategies for
the 90s, Griffith University, Brisbane July 12- 13.
The Hallcrest Report II, (1985) Private Security Trends, 1970 to 2000, ButterworthHeinemann, Sydney.
Hancock, K.A., (1992) Government Strategies on Crime Prevention and Their
Relationship to the Private Security Industry, Unpublished briefing paper to the
Executive Committee Security Institute of South Australia Inc., Adelaide
McAulay, P. (1994) Privatising of Police - Police and the Security Industry: A Strategic
Partnership, A Position Paper, 1994 Commissioners' Conference of Australasia
and South West Pacific Region.
Nalla, M. and Newman, G. (1990) A primer in private security, Harrow and Weston,
New York.
67
Outer Circle Policy Unit (1978), The Private Security Industry (unpublished report,
July). London: Outer Circle Policy Unit as quoted in South, N., (1988) Policing
for Profit: The Private Security Sector, Sage Publications, London, 1988.
O'Brien, R.J., (1992) 'Policing in the 21st Century', Australian Police Journal, Apr/Jun
1992 pp. 46 - 53.
Philip-Sorenson, J. (1972) 'Employment and training in manned security services', in P.
Wiles and F. McClintock (eds.), The Security Industry in the United Kingdom.
Cambridge: Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge.
Police, Volume XXV, London, February 1994.
Rees, A.S., (1984) Private Security in Australia, Australian Institute of Criminology,
Canberra.
Shearing, C.D., Stenning, P.C., and Addario, S.M., (1985a), Police Perceptions of
Private Security, Canadian Police College Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2.
Shearing, C.D., Stenning, P.C., and Addario, S.M., (1985b) Corporate Perceptions of
Private Security, Canadian Police College Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4.
Smith, R.H. (Ed), (1992), Private Sector and Community Involvement in the Criminal
Justice System, Australian Institute of Criminology Conference Papers,
Wellington, 1992.
South Australia Police Annual Report, 1993-94, (1994) Government Printer, Adelaide,
1994.
South, N., (1988) Policing for Profit: The Private Security Sector, Sage Publications,
London.
Spitzer, S. (1987), Security and control in capitalist societies: the fetishism of security
and the secret thereof, in J. Lowman, R. Menzies and T. Palys (ed.),
Transcarceration: Essays in the Sociology of Social Control. Aldershot: Gower.
Sunday Mail Newspaper, Adelaide, 29 November 1994.
Swanton, B., (1993) 'Police and Private Security: Possible Directions' Trends and Issues,
No. 42, February 1993 Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.
Sydney Morning Herald Newspaper, 10 November 1994.
Trojanowicz, R. & Bucquerou, B. (1990) 'Public Policy and Policing- Does Private
Enterprise Have a Role in Delivering the Output of Public Safety and Security?'
Private Sector and Community Involvement in the Criminal Justice System
Australian Institute of Criminology conference, Wellington, New Zealand
November 30 - December 2, 1992.
Wilson, P., (1989) 'A View of the 21 st Century' Security Australia, Sept. 1989 .
68
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ashby, J.F., (1983)'The Private Security Industry' Proceedings - Training Project No.
49/5 Policing and Private Security, Australian Institute of Criminology,
Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (1990) 1987-88 Security/Protection and Other Business
Services Industries ABS Catalogue No. 8673.0.
Barnett, K. and Schultz, R., (1992) Combating Crime and the Fear of Crime Among
Older People Crime Prevention Unit, SA Attorney-General's Department,
Adelaide.
Claydon, L.J., (1983) 'Policing and Private Security: A Federal Policeman's Perspective'
Proceedings - Training Project No. 49/5 Policing and Private Security,
Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.
Clifford, W., (1983) 'The Coming of Age of Private Security' Proceedings - Training
Project No. 49/5 Policing and Private Security, Australian Institute of
Criminology, Canberra.
DeWitt, C. B., (1991) ' Private Security: Patterns and Trends' National Institute of
Justice - Research in Brief, August 1991. Office of Justice Programs, US
Department of Justice.
Fisher, R.J. and Green, G. (1992) 'Security: Its Problems, Its Future' Introduction to
Security, Butterworth-Heinemann, Stoneham, MA, USA.
Ford, D. (Ed.), (1985) Crime and Protection in America: A Study of Private Security
and Law Enforcement Resources and Relationships - Executive Summary, May
1985, National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice.
Golsby, M.J., (1993) Identifying Opportunities and Initiatives for Police and the
Private Security Sector to Work Together to Contribute to Crime Prevention in
South Australia Unpublished briefing paper to the Executive Committee,
Security Institute of South Australia Inc., Adelaide.
Golsby, M.J. and O'Brien, R.J., (1994) 'Working Together - A Co-Operative Approach
to Crime Prevention in South Australia', First Security Research Symposium,
Griffith University, Brisbane, February 1 - 2.
Lathbury, C.J., (1993) 'Police and the Security Industry: A Strategic Partnership'
Unpublished paper presented to the 48th Police Management Development
Program, Australian Police Staff College October 18- December 10.
McDonald, Superintendent P. (1991) The Growth of Private Policing, Discussion Paper
presented to the 1991 Commissioners' Conference of Australasia and South West
Pacific Region.
Page, R.W., (1983) 'The Growth and Control of Private Security in Australia'
Proceedings - Training Project No. 49/5 Policing and Private Security,
Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.
Rees, A.S. ( 1983) 'The Problems of Research into Private Security in Australia'
Proceedings - Training Project No. 49/5 Policing and Private Security,
69
November 30 - December 2, 1982. Australian Institute of Criminology,
Canberra.
Shearing, C.D. & Stenning, P.C. (1983) 'Private Security and its Implications: A North
American Perspective' Proceedings - Training Project No. 49/5 Policing and
Private Security Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.
Smith, R.H., (1992) 'Private Police - No Way' Private Sector and Community
Involvement in the Criminal Justice System' Australian Institute of Criminology
conference, Wellington, New Zealand
South, N., (1988) Policing for Profit: The Private Security Sector, Sage Publications,
London, 1988.
Stenning, P.C., (1992) 'Private Policing - Some Recent Myths, Developments and
Trends' Private Sector and Community Involvement in the Criminal Justice
System, Australian Institute of Criminology conference, Wellington, New
Zealand November 30 - December 2, 1992.
Tickell, A., (1983) 'Private Police - The Views of a State Police Officer Proceedings Training Project No. 49/5 Policing and Private Security Australian Institute of
Criminology, Canberra.
Wilson, P., (1992) 'The Australian Private Security Industry: The Need for
Accountability, Regulation and Professionalisation'. Private Sector and
Community Involvement in the Criminal Justice System, Australian Institute of
Criminology conference, Wellington, New Zealand.
Zalud, B. (Ed.), (1990) 'What's Happening to Security?', Security Sept. 1990
70