Senior police officers' perspectives on private security: sceptics, pragmatists and embracers

Abstract

The police have traditionally been sceptical about working with some groups, and the private security sector is foremost amongst them. Arguments that there are too many negatives associated with a service that is accountable to only those who can pay can be balanced by its potential to offer more cost-effective ways of policing, not least in an austere economic climate. This article reports on interviews with police leaders about attitudes towards working with, and outsourcing functions to the private security sector. Amongst police leaders, both supportive and cautious attitudes were identified and three ‘ideal types’ of views emerged: sceptics, pragmatists and embracers.

Keywords:

• policing for profit
• commodification of policing
• policing and private security

Notes

1. The CSAS was introduced by the Police Reform Act 2002. Employees of organisations who contribute to community safety may be designated certain powers by chief officers. They are known as ‘accredited persons’. See http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/community-policing/citizen-focused-policing/community-safety-accredit-scheme/.

2. In addition to these 29 ACPO members, four forces asked non-ACPO members to speak on their behalf as they felt that this individual was better placed to speak on behalf of the force about work with the commercial sector, this included two superintendents, one Chief Inspector of Community Safety and co-ordinator of a CSAS. To further support the research, another 17 interviews were conducted with other police personnel who had a specialism or a role in some aspect of private security/business development/community safety that helped inform the study. Another 25 interviews were conducted with representatives from the corporate and private security industry. As noted, the main focus here is on the feedback provided by the ACPO representatives and the police officers in particular.

3. The private security companies were Advance, CASE, Carlisle Security, Corps Security, Gratte Brothers, MITIE, OCS, Perfectus (now Emprise), Reliance (now Securitas), VSG, Wilson James and the National Security Inspectorate, the corporate funders were Barclays, Caterpillar, KPMG, Nexen and Royal Mail.

4. The author would like to thank Charlotte Howell and Katy Owen for help in conducting the research, and Julie Ayling, Matt Hopkins, Rob Mawby, Adam White and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

5. See BBC News (29 July 2009) Security firm ‘playing on fear’ – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/8174496.stm. Accessed 5 June 2012.

6. See The Guardian, (28 August 2012). G4S confirms £50m hit on Olympics security contract. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/aug/28/g4s-50m-hit-olympics-contract?INTCMP=SRCH. Accessed 30 August 2012. This occurred after the interviews had been completed but reflected precisely some officers' concerns.

7. See, www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/20/g4s-securing-your-world-policing?INTCMP=SRCH. Accessed 10 July 2012.

8. Abstraction refers to police officers or PCSOs being taken away from their task due to other requirements.

9. Staffordshire Police – outsourcing custody to the private sector – http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/human-resources/efficiency-and-productivity/workforce-modernisation-programm/WFM-pilots/index.html.

10. Select Committee on Home Affairs (Session 2007–08) Written Evidence, Appendix 31 Memorandum submitted by Group 4 Securicor, House of Commons. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmhaff/364/364we39.htm.

11. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. TUPE protects employee's terms and conditions of employment when a business is transferred from one owner to another.

12. Which is a potential disadvantage to those who offer a national service but not those who operate in only some locales and typically smaller companies.