Public and private officers fulfill a wide range of services and duties that are critical to the success and livelihood of each. Public police officers must usually undergo stringent training. Public officers more often work for public or government agencies that are not-for-profit. Private security officers, however, may undergo as rigorous training, but may have more liberty with respect to contracts that they sign, and the clients they work with. While most public police officers work using a public scale for pay and benefits, a private security officer may negotiate each of these depending on the client they work with, and the nature of duties that are defined within their contract. Both positions require a great degree of confidentiality and ongoing training to ensure that officers are well-trained and continue to succeed in carrying out their duties to the best extent of their ability. Private security agents may have access to more up-to-date technology as a way of providing service to the people they work with.
Crime is increasingly a threat to the livelihood of citizens everywhere. Among the more common crimes witnessed by people include terrorism, gun violence, and cybercrime, which continue to gain popularity and catch highlights among people and communities. For this reason and others, it is critical that citizens recognize the differences between public policing and private security.
Public police are trained officers that one might typically see working for public departments, including local, county, state, or federal government entities. Public police may be rigid with regard to their training, and may have additional certification needed to work with the public and with government agencies. Often government entities, including the legal system, use public police or law enforcement officials whose primary job includes protecting the rights of and public safety of citizens in their area. Private security agents are typically trained by private rather than by public law enforcement agencies. Private security companies may offer a wide range of services that public police might not, including offering unarmed security for venues with minimal security threats. Private security companies may also work to protect individual citizens that may include public figures, although the private security agents focus may be much more defined than a public security agent.
Many pros exist in both positions. For example, public police departments and officers working for the public in this capacity often enjoy public health benefits as a perk to their position. Public police departments typically have stringent hiring requirements that include training and certification that all officers working for public policing agencies must follow. For large venues or events, public police officers may be better equipped to handle crowds, or to control rioting should an event take place. There are some disadvantages, however, to working for the public in this capacity. Police departments often have to address more red tape or steps in a process to conduct their daily duties. Police officers working with a public agency also must work for a certain or defined salary, which does not allow much in the way of negotiation for these officers, even if the police officer performs well within the organization. Most public positions are established on a grading system, so it isn’t uncommon for police officers to work for many years without a significant pay bump. Further, politics and legal restrictions may exist that may prohibit a public police officer from acting in the most efficient way possible.
Private security officers, like public police officers, must undergo strenuous training. It is common for service contracts to be negotiable in private security (Harr & Hess, 2009). This means that an individual can be paid a significantly higher wage depending on the individual or group they are providing services for. Further, since private security officials do not have to worry about red tape or bureaucratic processes as much as public police officers do, many can engage in their primary job function with the least amount of hassle. Private security operations are often for-profit, compared with many public agencies that may be not-for-profit (Harr & Hess, 2009). It is clear, given this, that private security agents may have access to the newest and latest technology to provide security for their clients.
This technology may include closed circuit cameras, and access to controls to monitor the goings in and comings out of clients (Harr & Hess, 2009). There are disadvantages too, of private security. If a private security officer engages in a performance-based system or for a performance-based agent, there is a risk that a police officer may lose their job at the whim of the person they work with. There would be no contract in this case, backed by the public, to guarantee a police officer’s safety and wellness. Private security agencies may also not provide as much continuous education as government agencies, or private officers may have to pay for training out-of-pocket to ensure their skills remain up-to-date at any given time. Regardless of these differences (Harr & Hess, 2009), both public and private agency security officials are usually well-trained for the job they have.
Perhaps the most essential policy that both public and private security officers and police maintain is that of confidentiality for the citizens and individuals they protect. Law enforcement officials and private security agents often have access to information that is highly confidential in nature. If a public police officer responds to a domestic call, the information including the occupants at the location or setting, and the people involved, must be kept confidential (Harr & Hess, 2009). Similarly, private security officials also have a duty to protect the well-being and the privacy of the clients they work with (Harr & Hess, 2009). A large majority of the time, security agents and public officials gain exposure to sensitive information that can prove harmful to the individuals impacted in the event this information is leaked or otherwise shared with others. Training includes learning not only how to protect the physical person, but also teaches security agents and officers how to protect confidential facts and other data including the daily goings on of the people or locations an individual is charged with securing (Brislin, 2014).
A comprehensive security plan ensures the integrity of data, including technological data, while also provides for the physical security of individuals, and business security in cases where disaster recovery alone may not be enough to protect a building or its occupants from a threat in the event of an emergency (Lisenbach, 2009). Having a security plan in place can help prepare an agency for any type of threat or disaster, which poses a threat to the loss of the company’s reputation, to customers, and to assets and investments (Linsenbach, 2009).
