The fields of law enforcement and private security have similar goals, but the two differ in their approaches and spheres of influence. Government security includes police departments on a state and local level. Additionally, departments such as the tribal police units, the sheriff’s department, as well as federal agencies, including the Marshalls Service, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection provide security features for the public. Statistics from the DOJ Bureau of Justice states that in 2000, the United States had about 797,000 public law enforcement officers, including 708,000 full-time sworn officers employed in the 17,784 law enforcement units, and a further 88,500 federal law enforcement officers (Abrahamsen& Williams, 2009). The private security, on the other hand, is comprised of corporate security departments, investigative firms, alarm companies, guard companies, armored car businesses, and security equipment manufacturers. The United States has an extensive private security industry, which consists of approximately 1.7 million professionals (Abrahamsen& Williams, 2009).
Security officers from the private security firms and public policing perform specific responsibilities. For instance, public policing officers enforce laws and maintain order in the general population, while private security officers work on private property where they also protect and deter crimes. However, there are outstanding differences between the roles performed in public policing with those done in the private policing. While government security employees perform duties such as preventing crimes, maintain order and protect the community and arrest offenders, private security employees are mostly tasked with serving as escorts, transport valuables; act as security guards, and patrol areas such as private business and surrounding areas to ensure crime is not committed on the private property. Therefore, the main concern of a private security employee is the protection of corporate and personnel, while a government security employee or officer is more concerned about enforcing the criminal justice system and public safety (Sparrow, 2014).
Another major difference between the roles of public policing and private policing employees is that a private security employee has a choice to get involved when he or she witnesses a crime being committed outside of their area of protection, this being not the case for a government security officer. In this way, it is true to indicate that while the private security personnel is tasked with protection services, public security employees are charged with enforcing policies. Nevertheless, the duties performed by the public and private security employees overlap in that they uphold the law and ensure that order is upheld and rights protected. Moreover, both wear uniforms and use these to earn respect and show their authority in the community, and consequently enable them to perform their duties with little hindrance from the public.
Leadership between private security firms and the public policing are similar in that both employ a paramilitary ranking system whereby ranking begins with officers, detectives, and sergeants. In this system, each rank security employee reports to the highest position within his or her rank, whereby the public security officers report to the senior officer appointed in their government agency. A similar system is present in the private policing with positions such as sergeant, corporal, and senior patrol officer being used (Sparrow, 2014). The traditional, one-dimensional top-down leadership style has been effective in the policing departments and sets the stage for mutual respect between the employer and the employee.
Public and private policing employees follow different legal and ethical guidelines. Public security officers have a general orders manual, the Professional Standards and Ethics, which guide acceptable behavior. They are expected to be people of integrity whereby one lead a personal life unsullied by poor moral standards or corruption, these essential in assisting them to determine what is reasonable in a situation not outlined in the professional standards (Wells & Falcone, 2008).On the other hand, the profession of private security individuals is not guided by the needs and desires of the public or the society at large, but by the discretion of their employer, and therefore do not necessarily uphold the civil rights of people. They also employ an ethical standard that is favorable to their private employers while disregarding the public. Here, the legal and political parameters that govern operations of public security employees do not apply to private security employees, and ethical issues treated as peripheral concerns.
The economic issues faced by private policing employees are significantly different from that experienced in public policing. Public police arguably have little negotiation powers in terms of their remuneration. They also are not awarded extra compensation for exceptional performance in their line of duty. This is in contrast to private security employees who are contracted on a performance basis and often compensated for exceptional performance by the employer. Public security employees are also hampered by budget restrictions by the government and state, thus making them be understaffed and have minimal or no access to newer technology (Sparrow, 2014). However, private security firms are adequately funded and have access to emerging technologies, this aimed to improve the performance of the employees.
Since the inception of the two, private policing and public policing have had little cooperation. It is evident that private police personnel coordinate with the public police only when it serves their interests, or so those of their clients. This has created a case where the public police have a different relationship with various private policing organizations and on different issues. However, the cases of rising terrorism and attacks as seen the relationship between private security agencies and the government agencies improve as each seek to protect the interest of their clients, and consequently that of the country. If this cooperation were to continue and a possible merging of government and private security agencies materialize, there would be a drastic improvement in the state of security in the country.
