(Mt) – UMGC Risk Assessment IT Training Organizations Building Question

SOLUTION AT Academic Writers Bay

Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement number 2003-CKWX-0242, awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Points of view or opinions contained in this document are those of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. For more information about the summit or the action agenda contained in this report, please contact the co-chairs of the IACP’s Private Sector Liaison Committee, Chief Randall H. Carroll and Thomas M. Seamon. They can be reached through Michael Martin, IACP, 800-THE-IACP, extension 335. This report is also available on a compact disc, which contains numerous additional resource materials. In addition, the report is available on-line at www.theiacp.org. For hard copies and compact discs, please contact Netha Diamond, IACP, 800-THE-IACP, extension 392. The report was produced by Ohlhausen Research, Inc. Peter Ohlhausen, president. (703) 978-7549. [email protected] www.ohlhausen.com. Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships Acknowledgments The IACP is grateful to a number of individuals who lent their time and talent to summit planning and execution. Their efforts were instrumental in creating a successful summit and this resultant report, containing the results and recommendations of that summit. We thank: • The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) for its vision in understanding the importance of private security/public law enforcement partnerships and its generous financial support of the summit. We are particularly thankful to Director Carl Peed and the COPS summit liaison to the IACP, Rob Chapman, for their leadership. • The co-chairs (Tom Seamon and Randy Carroll) and all members of the IACP’s Private Sector Liaison Committee. We especially thank Tom Seamon, who served as the chair of the planning committee for the summit and was the driving force that made the summit a reality. • The many private sector associations that provided expert advice and financial support to the summit, including the Security Industry Association, ASIS International, the National Association of Security Companies, and the International Security Management Association. • The many private sector companies that lent their financial support to various summit events (listed in Appendix C). • The Institute for Law and Justice (ILJ) for its expert logistical support of the summit, in particular Ed Connors, President, and Jocelyn Williams, Deputy Director of Meetings and Conferences. Additionally, we thank ILJ’s contractor, Peter Ohlhausen (of Ohlhausen Research, Inc.) for his role as primary editor and writer of the final report. • All the members of the Summit Advisory Committee who worked tirelessly to help us design and accomplish a powerful policy summit. Their names are listed in Appendix E. Lastly, and most importantly, we thank each of the more than 140 summit participants for coming to the summit ready to serve, and for bringing with them the many excellent ideas that are now reflected in the recommendations in this report. Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………….. 1 SECTION ONE: SUMMIT AND KEY ISSUES …………………………….. 5 I. Summit Background and Purpose ……………………………………………………5 A. Descriptions and Relations of Law Enforcement and Private Security …… 6 B. History and Current Status of Cooperation …………………………………………… 7 II. Summit Structure and Proceedings ………………………………………………….9 A. Working Groups and Their Specific Mandates………………………………………. 9 B. Highlights of Key Speeches ……………………………………………………………….. 11 1. Welcoming Remarks …………………………………………………………………………………. 11 2. Issues Panel……………………………………………………………………………………………… 11 III. Key Issues in Public–Private Cooperation ………………………………………14 A. B. C. D. E. Benefits …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14 Information-Sharing Difficulties………………………………………………………….. 16 Future Challenges Demanding Cooperation ……………………………………….. 16 Elements of Successful Partnerships …………………………………………………. 17 Causes of Partnership Failure ……………………………………………………………. 17 SECTION TWO: SUMMIT RECOMMENDATIONS— AN ACTION AGENDA ……………………………………………………………………………… 19 I. Leaders of the major law enforcement and private security organizations should make a formal commitment to cooperation. ……19 II. The Department of Homeland Security and/or Department of Justice should fund research and training on relevant legislation, private security, and law enforcement–private security cooperation……………20 A. Conduct baseline and ongoing research …………………………………………….. 20 B. Conduct and encourage training ………………………………………………………… 21 III. The Department of Homeland Security and/or Department of Justice should create an advisory council to oversee the day-to-day implementation issues of law enforcement–private security partnerships. …………………………………………………………………………………22 A. Institutionalize partnerships ………………………………………………………………. 23 B. Address tactical issues and intelligence sharing ………………………………… 23 C. Work to improve selection and training guidelines and standards for private security personnel………………………………………………………………….. 24 D. Market the concept of law enforcement–private security partnership…… 25 E. Create a national partnership information center ………………………………… 25 IV.The Department of Homeland Security and/or Department of Justice, along with relevant membership organizations, should convene key practitioners to move this agenda forward in the future. ………………….25 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships V. Local partnerships should set priorities and address key problems as identified by the summit…………………………………………………………………26 SECTION THREE: APPENDICES…………………………………………… 29 Appendix A: Summit Participants, by Organization……………………………..31 Appendix B: Pre-Summit Reading List………………………………………………..33 Appendix C: Sponsors……………………………………………………………………….35 Appendix D: Selected Contact Information …………………………………………36 Appendix E: Summit Advisory Committee ………………………………………….37 Appendix F: IACP Staff ………………………………………………………………………39 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since September 11, 2001, law enforcement agencies have been under tremendous pressure to conduct their traditional crime prevention and response activities, plus a large quantum of homeland security work, in a time of tight city, county, and state budgets. Private security organizations have been under similar pressure to perform their traditional activities to protect people, property, and information, plus contribute to the nationwide effort to protect the homeland from external and internal threats, all while minding the profitability of the businesses they serve. Despite their similar interests in protecting the people of the United States, the two fields have rarely collaborated. In fact, through the practice of community policing, law enforcement agencies have collaborated extensively with practically every group but private security. By some estimates, 85 percent of the country’s critical infrastructure is protected by private security. The need for complex coordination, extra staffing, and special resources after a terror attack, coupled with the significant demands of crime prevention and response, absolutely requires boosting the level of partnership between public policing and private security. Toward that end, President Joe Samuels (2003-2004) and the Private Sector Liaison Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) proposed a meeting of leaders in law enforcement and private security. With funding and guidance from one of the nation’s major proponents of public–private cooperation—the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)—the IACP/COPS National Policy Summit: Building Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships to Prevent and Respond to Terrorism and Public Disorder became a reality. The summit’s cooperative spirit was bolstered by co-sponsorship from ASIS International, the International Security Management Association, the National Association of Security Companies, and the Security Industry Association. The full summit report provides detailed commentary on the summit’s background and purpose, along with descriptions of law enforcement and private security and the history and current status of cooperation between those fields. Also covered are key summit speeches and major issues in public–private cooperation. Most importantly, the report features the specific recommendations—the action agenda—that resulted from the concentrated work of summit participants. This paper is also available on a compact disc that includes additional resource materials. I. Summit Participants and Activities Law enforcement and private security are two fields with similar goals but different approaches and spheres of influence. “Public law enforcement” includes local, state, and tribal police departments; sheriffs’ departments; and federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Marshals Service, and many others. According to the DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2000 there were 17,784 state and local law enforcement agencies in the United 1 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships States, employing 708,000 full-time sworn officers. In addition, there were 88,500 federal law enforcement officers, bringing the public total to about 797,000 public law enforcement officers. “Private security” consists of corporate security departments, guard companies, alarm companies, armored car businesses, investigative firms, security equipment manufacturers, and others. A security practitioner could be an experienced director of security at a major multinational corporation, a manager of contract security officers at a client site, a skilled computer crime investigator, an armed protector at a nuclear power plant, or an entry-level guard at a retail store. Some practitioners hold professional, exam-based certifications, possess advanced degrees, and are required to meet state or local standards. Studies on private security suggest there may be as many as 90,000 private security organizations employing roughly 2 million security officers and other practitioners in the United States. More than 140 executive-level participants attended the summit, which was held January 26-27, 2004, in Arlington, Virginia. They represented local, state, federal, and other law enforcement agencies; security departments of major corporations; security product and service providers; professional organizations in the law enforcement and private security fields; universities; and federal agencies. Participants were assigned to working groups, which met for over six hours during the summit. Each group worked on one of the following topics: building partnerships; model partnerships; operational partnerships; research and evaluation; perceptions, standards, certification, and regulation; and future trends. II. Importance of Public–Private Cooperation It is in the interest of both parties to work together. For example, law enforcement agencies can prepare private security to assist in emergencies (in many cases, security officers are the first responders); coordinate efforts to safeguard the nation’s critical infrastructure, the vast majority of which is owned by the private sector or protected by private security; obtain free training and services; gain additional personnel resources and expertise; benefit from private sector knowledge specialization (in cyber crime, for example) and advanced technology; gather better knowledge of incidents (through reporting by security staff); obtain intelligence; and reduce the number of calls for service. Private security also has much to gain from this cooperation. This segment can coordinate its plans with the public sector, in advance, regarding evacuation, transportation, food, and other emergency issues; gain information from law enforcement regarding threats and crime trends; develop relationships so that practitioners know whom to contact when they need help or want to report information; build law enforcement’s understanding of corporate needs (such as confidentiality); and boost law enforcement’s respect for the security field. Currently, public–private cooperation takes many forms, ranging from national-level, mainly information-sharing programs (such as the federal Information Sharing and Analysis Centers, or ISACs) to local-level, operational partnerships (such as the nation’s approximately 1,200 business improvement districts). However, summit participants suggested that only 5-10 percent of law enforcement chief executives participate in partnerships with private security. Similarly, emergency response exercises tend to include police, fire, public health, and other governmental authorities but leave out private security. 2 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships Law enforcement’s capacity to provide homeland security may be more limited than is generally acknowledged. For the most part, the public sector tends to have the threat information, while the private sector tends to have control over the vulnerable sites. Therefore, homeland security, including protection of the nation’s critical infrastructure, depends partly on the competence of private security practitioners. Thus, building partnerships is essential for effective homeland security. Other factors increase the importance of public–private cooperation. Examples include information age crime (computer and high technology crime), private security in traditional law enforcement roles, the globalization of business, increased international operation by law enforcement, and the interdependence of critical infrastructures. III. Policy Recommendations This section presents the action agenda that resulted from the summit. Through their efforts in the six working groups, summit participants made five recommendations. The first four are national-level, long-term efforts. The fifth recommendation relates to local and regional efforts that can begin immediately. Existing cooperative efforts have been limited by the lack of a coordinating entity. Over time, the first four recommendations (regarding national coordination) will support the fifth recommendation (local and regional efforts). 1. Leaders of the major law enforcement and private security organizations should make a formal commitment to cooperation. 2. The Department of Homeland Security and/or Department of Justice should fund research and training on relevant legislation, private security, and law enforcement–private security cooperation. The appropriate body should conduct both baseline and ongoing research and should encourage training. 3. The Department of Homeland Security and/or Department of Justice should create an advisory council composed of nationally prominent law enforcement and private security professionals to oversee the day-to-day implementation issues of law enforcement–private security partnerships. The advisory council would work to institutionalize partnerships, address tactical issues and intelligence sharing, improve selection and training guidelines and standards of private security personnel, market the concept of law enforcement– private security partnership, and create a national partnership information center. 4. The Department of Homeland Security and/or Department of Justice, along with relevant membership organizations, should convene key practitioners to move this agenda forward in the future. It should do so by organizing future summits on issues in law enforcement–private security cooperation. 5. Local partnerships should set priorities and address key problems as identified by the summit. Examples of local and regional activities that can and should be undertaken immediately include the following: • Improve joint response to critical incidents. • Coordinate infrastructure protection. 3 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships • Improve communications and data interoperability. • Bolster information and intelligence sharing. • Prevent and investigate high-tech crime. • Devise responses to workplace violence. Execution of these recommendations should benefit all concerned: 4 • Law enforcement agencies will be better able to carry out their traditional crimefighting duties and their additional homeland security duties by using the many private security resources in the community. Public–private cooperation is an important aspect—indeed, a potent technique—of community policing. • Private security organizations will be better able to carry out their mission of protecting their companies’ or clients’ people, property, and information, while at the same time serving the homeland security objectives of their communities. • The nation as a whole will benefit from the heightened effectiveness of law enforcement agencies and private security organizations. Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships SECTION ONE: SUMMIT AND KEY ISSUES I. Summit Background and Purpose Preparing for terrorism and public disorder has taxed the nation’s law enforcement agencies. They have held tabletop emergency response exercises, coordinated emergency radio communication with fire and emergency medical services, developed multijurisdictional incident command centers, and increased staffing and overtime in response to elevated terror alerts. Responding to actual terror events would tax law enforcement agencies even further. This workload sits atop law enforcement’s already enormous task of crime prevention and response. Private security operations have also been busy planning their responses to such events. These private sector organizations have staged evacuation drills, secured their computer networks, and increased protection around critical infrastructure assets. Private security practitioners are adding their anti-terror efforts on top of the already demanding requirement to protect the interests and assets of their organizations and clients. For the most part, the public sector tends to have the threat information, and the private sector tends to have control over the vulnerable sites. Law enforcement’s capacity to provide homeland security may be more limited than is generally acknowledged. Clearly, the need for public sector law enforcement agencies and private sector security organizations to work together is great. Each side can and will benefit from the capabilities of the other. In the past there have been other meetings on cooperation between public sector law enforcement and private sector security. Some of those meetings led to substantive changes; others did not. The IACP/COPS National Policy Summit set its sights directly on producing specific policy recommendations and assigning responsibility for their execution. The clear mood of the more than 140 participants was to take intelligent, concrete steps, based on existing knowledge and on sound research yet to be performed, to enable law enforcement and private security to aid each other in preventing and responding to terrorism and public disorder. The summit has already led to some positive outcomes: • The Philadelphia Police Foundation has decided to adopt public–private cooperation—an aspect of this report’s Recommendation V—as its central project. • The Regional Community Policing Institutes (RCPIs), funded by the COPS Office, are expanding their training outreach to private security practitioners. Participating in co-located courses will teach both private security and law enforcement a little more about each other’s needs, concerns, and capabilities and will also provide opportunities for relationship building. Additionally, there is talk of developing new courses in the RCPIs regarding public–private cooperation. 5 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships A. Descriptions and Relations of Law Enforcement and Private Security Although they possess certain similarities and are in many ways complementary, law enforcement and private security differ in some key respects. Training of law enforcement officers is substantially more rigorous than that of security officers. Standards and certification are also more demanding in law enforcement than in security. Of course, law enforcement has legal powers far exceeding those of private security. On the other hand, private security has the resources to develop specializations beyond the capacity of most law enforcement agencies, such as the protection of computer networks, chemical plants, financial institutions, healthcare institutions, and retail establishments. In several respects, the line between public law enforcement and private security is blurred. Many retired law enforcement officials at the federal, state, and local levels migrate to positions in private security. Some agencies themselves straddle the line. For example, the Amtrak Police Department is a private sector police force with over 300 sworn officers. Many college campuses, too, have private sector, sworn police agencies. In addition, many law enforcement officers work as private security officers in their off-hours. Relations between law enforcement and private security vary considerably. Although the groups have much to offer each other, they are not always confident in each other. For example: • 6 Letter from the COPS Office On behalf of the Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) I want to thank you for your contribution to what I believe was an important step in improving the working relationship between local law enforcement and private security. The success of this important step will depend on the actions taken on the recommendations that came from this group. One recommendation put forth is to enable law enforcement and private security personnel to train together, thus allowing them the opportunity for specific training and to enhance the knowledge each has to offer. To this end, COPS will invite private security personnel to begin training with local law enforcement personnel through the COPS funded national network of 31 Regional Community Policing Institutes (RCPIs) located across the country. The RCPIs offer a variety of training on topics like basic community policing, conversational Spanish for law enforcement officers, crime prevention, building and sustaining collaborative partnerships, problem solving, ethics and integrity, homeland security-related topics, and much more. They are also capable of tailoring training to meet the specific needs of the customers in their service area. For more information on the COPS RCPIs, please access the COPS website at www.cops.usdoj.gov. To find the RCPI nearest you, click on the Training tab, then on RCPI, and then on “US Map of the RCPIs” in the left-hand banner. I encourage you to explore the inventory of publications that COPS has to offer. Click the Resource Room tab, then Publications. Some police lament the paucity of preemployment screening, training, standards, certification, and regulation of security officers. • Some police feel security officers receive insufficient training (particularly those who carry weapons). • Some police view security officers Carl Peed, Director, COPS, U.S. Department of Justice, 1100 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530. For more information, contact Karl Bickel, (202) 514-5914, [email protected] Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships as individuals who sought a career in law enforcement but were unable to obtain a position. • Some police see private security as a threat to their domain. • Police generally have little understanding of the broad range of private security functions, capabilities, expertise, and resources and therefore fail to appreciate the role of private security. • Some private security practitioners view police as elitists. • Some private security practitioners feel law enforcement professionals do not care about private security until they are considering a job in that field. B. History and Current Status of Cooperation Informal private security–law enforcement cooperation may have begun with the advent of modern policing, but there is little in the literature to document it. Certainly, formal cooperation has long taken place between the federal government and security practitioners in the defense industry. In fact, that interaction led to the creation of the American Society for Industrial Security (now called ASIS International) in 1955. Security Employment Rising From “Demand Surges for Security Guards,” Security Beat on-line newsletter (September 2, 2003): According to the New York Department of State, there were 104,000 licensed security guards in the state on Sept. 10, 2001. Today there are 127,006. Even before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the security business was thriving. But the 9/11 attacks produced a real surge in demand, David Zeldin, the owner of Long Island-based Investicorp Inc. and past president of the Associated Licensed Detectives of New York State (ALDONYS), the industry’s trade group, told The New York Business Review. “We’ve always gone up by 8, 9 or 10 percent a year, all through the years. Now in the last two years, we have seen our business go up 15 to 18 percent a year,” Zeldin said. Later, when aircraft hijacking became a threat, police began to staff airport security checkpoints. When the staffing burden became too great, they handed the responsibility over to private security. The two groups remained in contact so that law enforcement could respond quickly to threats identified by private security. From 1972 to 1977, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the U.S. Department of Justice chartered the Private Security Advisory Council “to improve the crime prevention capabilities of private security and reduce crime in public and private places by reviewing the relationship between private security systems and public law enforcement agencies, and by developing programs and policies regarding private protection services that are appropriate and consistent with the public interest.” In the early 1980s, the Washington Law Enforcement Executive Forum was formed to address problems facing both law enforcement and the business community in that state. In 1983, the Dallas Police/Private Security Joint Information Committee was formed. In 1986, the public sector–private sector liaison committees of the National Sheriffs’ Association, IACP, and ASIS International formed the Joint Council of Law Enforcement and Private Security Associations. By 1989, the Detroit area had at least four formal cooperative programs. 7 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships In the early 1990s, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center’s Operation Partnership brought together representatives of law enforcement and private security operations from given jurisdictions for three-day training courses. On returning home, they were asked to submit quarterly reports on the progress of their cooperative programs. In 1999, DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Assistance funded Operation Cooperation, which consisted of guidelines, a video, a literature review, and a set of partnership profiles, all designed to foster partnerships between private security and law enforcement. The project identified the benefits of collaboration and described key elements of successful partnerships. In that same year, DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs funded Michigan State University to study public–private partnerships for critical incident planning and response. That project produced a best practices guide, “Critical Incident Protocol: A Public and Private Partnership.” With funding from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the university conducts programs across the nation where representatives of public and private sector organizations meet to develop mutual emergency response plans suited to their local communities. During this Critical Incident Protocol/Community Facilitation Program (CIP/CFP), research is also being conducted on the elements of successful partnerships and associated partnership dynamics. Currently, public–private cooperation takes many forms and occurs at many levels, ranging from national-level, mainly information-sharing programs (such as the federal Information Sharing and Analysis Centers, or ISACs) to local-level, operational partnerships (such as the approximately 1,200 business improvement districts). Cooperation may consist of the following: • informal, ad hoc collaboration • formal partnerships to maintain good relations, share information, or solve specific problems • contractual arrangements in which government agencies contract with private security for services traditionally performed by law enforcement agencies • employment of off-duty law enforcement officers by private security agencies Law enforcement–private security partnerships may be: 8 • encouraged or mandated • led by private security, law enforcement, or both • strategic or tactical • nonprofit organizations • local, regional, statewide, or organized in some other geographic fashion • well or poorly supplied with resources Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships • supplied with their own paid staff, served by the staff of another organization, or operated entirely by volunteers II. Summit Structure and Proceedings The summit took place January 26-27, 2004, at the Crystal Gateway Marriott Hotel in Arlington, Virginia. A substantial pre-summit reading package was sent to all invitees. (The reading list is included in the appendix.) Participants included the following: • Law enforcement: municipal, county, and tribal police chiefs; sheriffs; state police executives; and representatives of federal and special law enforcement agencies (such as transit police) • Private security: CEOs of security firms, major corporate security directors and chief security officers, security consultants, and representatives of security service and technology companies • Professional organizations: representatives of ASIS International, IACP, International Security Management Association, Joint Council on Information Age Crime, Major Cities Chiefs Association, National Association of Security Companies, National Sheriffs’ Association, Police Executive Research Forum, and Security Industry Association • Academic institutions: representatives of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, Northeastern University, and University of Washington • Federal government: representatives of the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Secret Service, and Sandia National Laboratories A. Working Groups and Their Specific Mandates Each participant was assigned to a specific working group, and each group handled a different topic. The groups met for over six hours during the summit, guided by teams of trained facilitators. The working groups were also tasked with considering overarching issues as a prism through which to view their main topic. These were: • the challenge of homeland security • the impact of the group’s topic on community policing • crime control and prevention • resource requirements • ethical and legal considerations The working groups and their missions are as follows: 9 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships 10 • Building Partnerships. Defined the appropriate role and scope of private security–law enforcement partnerships; discussed relative benefits of informal versus formal relationships; identified the obstacles, barriers, and critical success factors for an effective partnership; and outlined a process for identifying (1) the need for partnerships and (2) the steps necessary to structure a successful partnership. • Model Partnerships. Identified the major categories of private security–law enforcement partnerships; reviewed examples of lessons learned from failed partnerships; identified best practices of existing or historical models; suggested methods for institutionalizing and sustaining best practices; examined the role of key stakeholders, including professional organizations and unions; and looked at the role of personalities and succession planning in the development of partnerships. • Operational Partnerships. Defined the benefits and challenges of private security–law enforcement partnerships in dealing with special events and critical incidents, including terrorist attacks, civil disorder, large-scale public events, and natural or manmade disasters; addressed tactical issues, such as critical incident planning, infrastructure protection, information and intelligence sharing, communications and data interoperability, liability, and public information coordination; and identified the driving principles and structural components of effective operational partnerships. • Research and Evaluation. Identified research gaps and appropriate research methods for evaluating partnerships, culminating in a national research agenda including the role of academia in assessing police–security partnerships and the need for demographic and other measures of the security industry. • Perceptions, Standards, Certification, and Regulation. Addressed perceptions of police and private security by the public and each other; examined the issues that create those perceptions; and made recommendations on standards (national versus state) for private security, certification for private security, joint training programs, government regulation of the security industry, licensing and portability of credentials, criminal history record information access for private security, privatization of police functions, and police secondary employment in the security industry. • Future Trends. Examined the evolving roles of public police and private security; discussed future challenges requiring police–private security cooperation, including information age crime (computer and high technology crime), new technologies for public safety, private security in traditional law enforcement roles, globalization of private security, and increased international cooperation by law enforcement; and identified strategies for dealing with emerging trends in crime and terrorism while protecting civil liberties. Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships B. Highlights of Key Speeches 1. Welcoming Remarks Joseph Estey, First Vice President, International Association of Chiefs of Police This summit is an invitation-only meeting of security and law enforcement experts. The goal is to develop policies that support the efforts of security and law enforcement to prevent and respond to crime and to contribute to the homeland security effort. Both private security and public law enforcement suffer from poor images at times. However, the occasionally negative perceptions held by each field toward the other, and by the public toward both, can be corrected. This summit must take on all issues if it is to benefit both professions and the public. The video Operation Cooperation clarifies the overlap of responsibilities carried by private security and public policing; the scale of security spending; ways in which law enforcement can take advantage of security’s capabilities; and ways in which security can develop relationships with law enforcement. In Israel, one sees a high level of cooperation between police and private security. In every successful café, a private security officer stands guard. Police and security officers are being killed, but fewer civilians are dying. This meeting’s policy recommendations will be carried to IACP members, private sector security organizations, and government policy makers. Carl Peed, Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice This summit supports the President’s strategic plan to mobilize America. The administration is happy to have this meeting’s private sector participants as partners in that effort. The recommendations from our intelligence-led policing summit have served as the basis for subsequent efforts by the FBI, CIA, and other agencies. That can happen here, too. Your recommendations will have an effect. We all agree there is considerable value in public–private partnerships. Police around the country are finding that, in addition to their crime fighting duties, they now have significant homeland security duties. They are also finding that their community policing efforts are helpful in homeland security intelligence gathering. Let us work to develop the many great opportunities for public–private partnership. 2. Issues Panel The issues panel was facilitated by Thomas Seamon, Co-Chair, Private Sector Liaison Committee, IACP, and included the following participants: • Don Walker, Chairman, Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. • Darrel Stephens, Chief, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department 11 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships • Joseph Samuels, Immediate Past President, IACP • Dick Mainey, Director, Global Security, Marsh and McLennan Companies, Inc. • Jack Greene, Dean and Professor, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University • Sam Gonzales, Intelligence Operations Specialist, Office of Law Enforcement Coordination, FBI • Melvin Carraway, Superintendent, Indiana State Police Department • Mike Farmer, Manager, Global Security Issues and Strategy, Global Security Department, Exxon Mobil The summary below, constructed around questions posed by the facilitator, combines observations made by both panel members and audience members. What is the current status of the relationship between public law enforcement and private security? It may be more negative than positive. There is much role confusion between the public and private sectors—for example, confusion about what will be done in an emergency. If a company’s plant suffers an explosion, it may immediately be declared a crime scene by police, and then the company’s security staff cannot respond as needed. Likewise, in -9/11 era, law enforcement officers show up to conduct risk assessments but often are not as knowledgeable about them as private security is. Relations are mixed. A city may simultaneously have some outstanding partnerships but also some counterproductive relationships. 9/11 helped in relationship building. The true measure of success, however, is whether a partnership accomplishes something and is lasting. Community policing calls on law enforcement to develop relationships with various sectors of the community. Police departments meet regularly with local clergy, business groups, neighborhood associations, and other groups. They do not seem to meet regularly with groups of corporate security directors and managers of security businesses. Given law enforcement’s stretched resources and additional burdens, there is no better time to develop new relationships with private security and find ways to work together. For the most part, the public sector tends to have the threat information, and the private sector tends to have control over the vulnerable sites. Law enforcement’s capacity to provide homeland security may be more limited than is generally acknowledged. What obstacles keep law enforcement from working with private security? Information sharing is difficult. Corporations do not feel they receive timely information from police, and they also fear that information they give to the police may end up in the newspaper. Police fear that the corporate sector may not treat law enforcement information discreetly. 12 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships Other issues include respect (that is, law enforcement’s lack of respect for security), trust, training differentials, and competition. A further obstacle is that the two sides may not realize the extent of their common goals. Law enforcement executives know too little about private security. For example, when they speak about first responders, they refer to themselves, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians. Why not mention private security? In many emergencies, security officers are in fact the first on the scene. In New York on 9/11, some 70 police officers died, yet so did some 35 private security staff. In many cases, security professionals are at the scene first and can show police and fire responders where to go. There is a lack of awareness of what private security is and what it does. Partly this is due to an absence of cohesion in security. For example, security is not always organized as a functional group within an organization, and security organizations tend not to train in mutual aid and usually lack communications interoperability. Sometimes conflicts between the law enforcement chief executives of neighboring jurisdictions prevent multijurisdictional public–private partnerships from forming. What would help eliminate the obstacles to cooperation? Both parties have a responsibility for improved partnership. Law enforcement conferences host sessions on many of the same topics covered at security conferences: investigation of cyber crime, privacy rights, civil liberties, etc. Presenters from law enforcement should speak at security conferences, and presenters from security should speak at law enforcement conferences. Aside from the cross-training benefits, the interaction itself would itself be another form of cooperation. Law enforcement executives should learn what the private sector has to offer. For example, one summit participant reported that Merrill Lynch lent numerous computer staffers to the New York City Police Department to help with COMPSTAT. Security professionals should take the initiative to set up face-to-face meetings with law enforcement executives before a crisis occurs. Such meetings can help build personal relationships and trust. Police sometimes look askance at private security, yet in their off-duty employment they may be part of that occupation. Each side should educate the other about its capabilities, before a crisis erupts, so each will know when to call on the other and what help to expect (and to offer). Integrated training may break down some barriers. The national professional associations may be able to present some models of cooperation. On the other hand, it may be best to let experiments be done throughout the country and see what works. In a hypothetical case, twice a week a huge tanker comes through the port of a major American city. As it stops to load up on liquid natural gas, the government provides armed police, frogmen, helicopters, and other high-end protection against terrorism. However, when the ship is not there, the plant itself is protected by unarmed guards because the company is afraid of liability from an accidental shooting. What is needed is a way to balance the competing interests—between the risk of one person being shot accidentally and the risk of a terrorist blowing up that plant and destroying several neighborhoods. 13 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships What is going well? There may be more cooperation than people realize. The United States is home to more than 1,200 business improvement districts (BIDs), which are a form of public–private cooperation. Law enforcement has shaped private security, in that many corporate security directors formerly worked in law enforcement. Some jurisdictions have public safety coordinating councils, in which businesses and law enforcement (state police, sheriff, local police, fire, EMS) discuss solutions to crime problems. It appears we do not know enough about the private security industry. What should be the research agenda going forward? We lack basic information on spending, employment, capabilities, and other aspects of private security. We should catalog successes—certainly in the United States, and possibly even in other countries. That process will lead to the discovery of best practices in public–private partnerships. III. Key Issues in Public–Private Cooperation Summit participants identified benefits of public–private cooperation, information-sharing challenges, trends demanding increased cooperation, elements of successful partnerships, and causes of partnership failure. More research is needed in each area. Highlights are presented below. A. Benefits Law enforcement agencies are under tremendous pressure today to conduct their traditional crime prevention and response activities, plus a large quantum of homeland security work, in a time of limited city, county, and state budgets. Private security organizations are under similar pressure, performing their traditional activities to protect people, property, and information, plus contributing to the nationwide effort to protect the homeland from external threats, all while minding the profitability of the businesses they serve. It is in the interest of both parties to work together. For example, law enforcement agencies can 14 • prepare private security to assist in emergencies (in many cases, security officers are the first responders), • coordinate efforts to safeguard the nation’s critical infrastructure, the vast majority of which is owned by the private sector or protected by private security, • obtain free training and services, • gain additional personnel resources and expertise, Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships • make use of private sector knowledge specialization (in cyber crime, for example) and advanced technology, • obtain evidence in criminal investigations (for example, through CCTV recordings of a crime scene), • gather better knowledge of incidents (through reporting by security staff), and • reduce the number of calls for service. Both large and small law enforcement agencies can benefit. In populous jurisdictions, the law enforcement workload is likely to be too great to be carried solely by the police department. In less populous jurisdictions, security personnel may greatly outnumber law enforcement personnel, who would benefit from tapping security as a resource. Private sector security also has much to gain from cooperation. This segment can • coordinate its plans with the public sector, in advance, regarding evacuation, transportation, food, and other emergency issues, • gain information from law enforcement regarding threats, crime trends, and other matters, • develop relationships so that practitioners know whom to contact when they need help or want to report information, • build law enforcement’s understanding of corporate needs (such as confidentiality), and • boost law enforcement’s respect for the security field. Joint benefits include: • creative problem solving • increased training opportunities • information, data, and intelligence sharing • “force multiplier” opportunities • access to the community through private sector communications technology • reduced recovery time following disasters The ability to protect the nation’s critical infrastructure and contribute to homeland security efforts depends partly on the competence of private security practitioners. Building partnerships is essential for effective homeland security. 15 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships B. Information-Sharing Difficulties One of the main reasons corporations hire former police, FBI, and CIA employees as security staff is that they believe such persons will be able to obtain special, useful information through back channels based on their prior work relationships. This is an inefficient and limited means of information sharing, raising legal and ethical concerns. A more efficient system of information sharing is needed. Some difficulties restricting the practice of information sharing between law enforcement and private security include the following: • Companies do not wish to let privileged business information enter the public record. • Companies that report cyber crime may find their corporate records and computers seized by police. • Companies may not want to speak candidly at law enforcement–private security partnership meetings. Competitors could find out their problems, and they may risk charges of antitrust violations if they discuss inappropriate topics. Information they give to law enforcement may become public through Freedom of Information Act requests. • Law enforcement may not be comfortable sharing homeland security-related information with companies that operate in the United States but are owned by foreign entities. • Law enforcement may not be legally permitted to share some information that private security desires, such as criminal histories. Department of Homeland Security Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Daily Open Source Infrastructure Report The DHS/IAIP Daily Open Source Infrastructure Report is a summary of open-source published information concerning significant critical infrastructure issues. It presents threat updates, organized by business sector. It also presents links to National Infrastructure Protection Center warnings and other publications and contact information. To subscribe, send request to [email protected] C. Future Challenges Demanding Cooperation Numerous trends increase the importance of cooperation between law enforcement and private security. Among them are the following: 16 • terrorism and homeland security • information age crime (computer and high technology crime) • new technologies for public safety • private security in traditional law enforcement roles • globalization of business, including private security Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships • increased international operation by law enforcement • potential conflicts between security and civil liberties • outsourcing functions beyond U.S. borders • threats and opportunities provided by technology • interdependence of critical infrastructure • information overload D. Elements of Successful Partnerships Research and experience have identified the following elements of successful partnerships: • knowledgeable, committed staff who can carry forth the partnership’s objectives • measurement and evaluation of the mission • inclusion of key stakeholders • mission statement • sufficient resources (funding, space, staff, etc.) • clear assignment of responsibilities • commitment from the executives of the participating organizations • strong leadership from both the public and private sectors • tangible products and visible outcomes • goodwill, trust, and respect • early successes • shared power • regularly scheduled businesslike meetings with agendas and sharing of useful information E. Causes of Partnership Failure Research and experience have identified the following factors as causes of partnership failure: • departure of leader, driver, or facilitator 17 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships 18 • egos and turf battles • lack of resources (funds, staff) • lack of a product • overemphasis on structure or resource needs • insufficient commitment and support from higher levels of participating organizations • overemphasis on the social aspect and underemphasis on business • unwillingness of partners to share information, especially information that would reflect poorly on the sharer • insufficient alignment of interests Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships SECTION TWO: SUMMIT RECOMMENDATIONS— AN ACTION AGENDA This section presents the action agenda that resulted from the summit. Through their efforts in the six working groups, summit participants made five recommendations. The first four are national-level, long-term efforts. The fifth recommendation relates to local and regional efforts that can be achieved immediately. Existing cooperative efforts have been limited by the lack of a coordinating entity. Over time, the first four recommendations (regarding national coordination) will support the fifth recommendation (local and regional efforts). Execution of these recommendations should benefit all concerned: • Law enforcement agencies will be better able to carry out their traditional crimefighting duties and their additional homeland security duties by using the many private security resources in the community. Public–private cooperation is an important aspect of community policing. The following recommendations in support of public–private cooperation therefore further the goal of community policing. • Private security organizations will be better able to carry out their mission of protecting their companies’ or clients’ people, property, and information, while at the same time serving the homeland security objectives of their communities. • The nation as a whole will benefit from the heightened effectiveness of law enforcement agencies and private security organizations. Much of the recommended work will require a concerted, positive effort, not just agreement, on the part of association leaders, law enforcement professionals, private security practitioners, and funding agencies. Only if all those parties embrace the effort and accept responsibility for seeing the effort through will the full benefits of partnership be attained. I. Leaders of the major law enforcement and private security organizations should make a formal commitment to cooperation. Summit participants called on the leaders of the major law enforcement and private security organizations to endorse the implementation of sustainable public–private partnerships as a preferred tool to address terrorism, public disorder, and crime. This endorsement should be made by the end of 2004. 19 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships Likely partners in this effort include ASIS International, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Security Management Association, the Major City Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association, the National Association of Security Companies, the National Sheriffs’ Association, and the Security Industry Association. Other law enforcement and security organizations may also be appropriate partners in this effort. Relevant federal agencies, such as DHS and the FBI, should also be involved. When making their commitment to cooperation, the organizations’ leaders should urge law enforcement agencies and private security organizations to • expect their personnel to develop partnerships and participate in them, • measure the level and efficacy of partnership activity, and • reward personnel for partnership work. Expecting, measuring, and rewarding are likely to increase the number and effectiveness of public–private partnerships. II. The Department of Homeland Security and/or Department of Justice should fund research and training on relevant legislation, private security, and law enforcement–private security cooperation. A. Conduct baseline and ongoing research A great deal of research is conducted about law enforcement; but little is conducted about private security. To help law enforcement and private security better understand why and how to collaborate, much research on private security and on law enforcement– private security partnerships is needed. In general, empirical and applied research is needed regarding public–private collaborative approaches to terrorism and crime, best practices in partnership formation and maintenance, and the various levels of partnership efforts (local, regional, and national). For the most part, as well as to ensure independent and unbiased study, the research will need to be funded by the federal government. Associations and businesses may also need to contribute in various ways. Summit participants urged that researchers do the following: 1. Conduct a major study of the breadth and depth of private security in the United States, including demographic, economic, and other measures of the private security field. 2. Produce a brief annual report on the state of private security: its size, major trends, and other characteristics. The report would be a counterpart to the annual Bureau of Justice Statistics report on police. 20 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships 3. Conduct a national, comprehensive, and multi-tiered survey of private security (covering, at least, private security directors, major private security vendors, law enforcement executives, and business leaders) to identify the extent to which private security is partnering with public law enforcement to prevent and respond to terrorism and public disorder. The purpose is to identify best practices, innovation, leadership, strategic planning, joint training, communication, information exchange, joint operations, obstacles, and critical infrastructure. This project would be an update and expansion of the Operation Cooperation project. 4. Study law enforcement–private security partnerships in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, Israel, and Sweden. 5. Expand on and test best practices and implement a model program initiative, including joint operations, a data-driven process, semiannual reviews to see if goals are being met, evaluation, enumeration of characteristics that lead to successful partnerships, discerning of obstacles that prevent partnerships, and leadership development. Different models may be needed for different industries. Develop protocols for communication and collaboration between law enforcement and private security. 6. Convene a group of relevant stakeholders and government representatives to develop a process for releasing timely information on the threats of terrorism and public disorder. Partners in the research should include the federal intelligence community, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, law enforcement agencies and associations, and private security organizations and associations. 7. Conduct research on the best ways for law enforcement and private security to work jointly in their response to terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction, cyber attacks, and attacks using new or military weapons. 8. Obtain access to current public sector vulnerability databases on critical infrastructures and businesses, and conduct appropriate research in conjunction with business to determine which business or infrastructure sectors are most vulnerable. 9. Conduct cost–benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses of particular security measures, such as alarm systems, access control systems, and surveillance systems. 10. Study the financial, quantitative benefits of law enforcement–private security cooperation. Examine the benefits that accrue to the partners (in terms of improving operational cost-effectiveness) and to society (in terms of the value of preventing attacks and disasters). B. Conduct and encourage training DHS or DOJ should carry out the following measures related to training: 1. Encourage the COPS Office to work with private security and law enforcement to develop new courses for the Regional Community Policing Institutes (RCPIs). One course should educate private security on the roles, responsibilities, capa- 21 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships bilities, and accountabilities of law enforcement; another should educate law enforcement on the roles, responsibilities, capabilities, and accountabilities of private security. Additional joint training at the RCPIs may also be desirable. 2. Create opportunities for executive-level training through the creation of a joint law enforcement–private security command college. 3. Conduct cross-training of law enforcement and private security practitioners at existing training programs (such as those of ASIS International, IACP, the FBI National Academy, or the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center). 4. Encourage police officer standards and training (POST) commissions to include the subject of partnerships in basic academy training. 5. Outside the RCPIs, teach law enforcement agency heads about the capabilities of private security. Many chiefs may be familiar with security officers but not with corporate security directors or with the private sector’s substantial expertise in computer security, physical security, investigations, risk assessment, and other specialties. Law enforcement chief executives may also be unaware of the range of risks that businesses face, such as violent protesters, theft by insiders or outsiders, constant attempts at computer intrusion, and workplace violence. 6. Share best practices as recommended in the research on law enforcement– private security partnerships, through a vigorous outreach to law enforcement and private security practitioners and associations and through development of systematic ties for ongoing collaboration and information sharing. 7. Urge practitioners and scholars to read and contribute to peer-reviewed journals in private security, such as Security Journal and the International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice. III. The Department of Homeland Security and/or Department of Justice should create an advisory council to oversee the day-to-day implementation issues of law enforcement–private security partnerships. After stating a commitment to cooperation, and urging it as a desirable practice among law enforcement and private security, DHS and/or DOJ should create and fund a separate, ongoing advisory council to oversee the work of promoting and supporting public– private partnerships. This “law enforcement–private security advisory council” (which may resemble the former DOJ Private Security Advisory Council1) should be created by June 2005. The organization’s name and structure will be decided by its founders. The council would be composed of nationally prominent law enforcement and private security professionals. 1 The Private Security Advisory Council was funded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA), U.S. Department of Justice, from 1972 to 1977. 22 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships In general, the advisory council will work to institutionalize partnerships to increase their life span; address tactical issues on which collaboration can help; work to improve selection, training standards, and guidelines for private security personnel; market the concept of law enforcement–private security partnership; and create or oversee a national information center on public–private partnerships. The advisory council will pay special attention to the protection of civil rights and will encourage cooperation at all levels: at the top, at the middle management level, and at the “street” or practitioner level. Summit participants were concerned about creating yet another bureaucracy and therefore recommended that the advisory council have a limited number of permanent staff. The executive director will execute the recommendations of the council’s volunteer members by contracting for expert assistance as needed. The advisory council will need to be organizationally separate from the professional associations that participate in it. The advisory council would directly and indirectly support the goals and missions of various federal agencies, including DHS, DOJ, DOD, and DOE, among others. Because they would share in the public safety benefits that the advisory council produces, those federal stakeholders should assist in meeting the needs required to establish, fund, and maintain the council. A. Institutionalize partnerships To multiply its own efforts and maintain the benefits of partnerships over time, the advisory council should work to institutionalize law enforcement–private security partnerships. The following are some suggested measures: 1. Urge DHS to encourage public–private cooperation whenever it disburses funds to law enforcement agencies. 2. Encourage the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) and state accreditation bodies to require public–private partnerships as an accreditation standard. 3. Encourage law enforcement agencies and private security organizations to institutionalize communication by the simple practice of sharing personnel directories with each other. 4. Encourage law enforcement agencies and private security organizations to make collaboration an objective in their strategic plans and to require monthly and annual reporting of progress. 5. Influence law enforcement and private security perceptions and cultures through national workshops. B. Address tactical issues and intelligence sharing The advisory council should help both parties resolve barriers to tactical collaboration. On the following issues, private sector security would welcome assistance from law enforcement: 1. Planning for critical incident response 23 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships 2. Protecting the nation’s infrastructure 3. Enhancing communications and data interoperability 4. Minimizing liability 5. Strategically deploying resources before a crisis 6. Sharing information Regarding information sharing, the council should do the following: 1. Examine aspects of information-sharing laws (including the Freedom of Information Act) that inhibit public–private partnership. 2. Establish liaison with Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs), and encourage ISACs to share information with both law enforcement and private security. 3. Include private industry in the National Incident Management System and the National Response Plan. C. Work to improve selection and training guidelines and standards for private security personnel Protection of the nation’s critical infrastructure depends substantially on the competence of private security officers. In fact, to some extent, so does the relationship between law enforcement and private security. Therefore, the advisory council should work to improve the selection and training of private security personnel through a combination of standards, certification, portability of credentials, and better information-sharing. The following are some suggested steps: 1. Work with ASIS International, with input from the IACP Private Sector Liaison Committee, on finalizing the Private Security Officer Selection and Training Guidelines, and encourage states to consider adopting them. Compare those standards with standards in other countries. 2. Review legislation (existing and proposed), as some of the obstacles to public– private partnerships are legislative in nature. Examine legislation that has created obstacles in the past, and educate stakeholders about that legislation. 3. Advocate the creation of a system that would enable private security to obtain national criminal histories for the purpose of hiring qualified people in a timely fashion. It is essential that the security field be able to obtain national background checks, not merely state checks, before hiring security officers. 4. Discuss the desirability of national standards or certification for security officers. Bear in mind that there are no national standards for law enforcement officers and that states may not wish to surrender their own ability to set standards and issue licenses. 24 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships 5. Ensure that any standards and certifications account for different business settings and for armed versus unarmed positions. Standards for downtown business district “clean and safe” security officers/public helpers may differ from standards for security officers who protect nuclear power plants. D. Market the concept of law enforcement–private security partnership The advisory council should develop an educational marketing campaign to explain the benefits and challenges of collaboration. These are a few possible steps: 1. Publish articles in professional publications extolling the success of various partnerships and explaining the benefits and methods of collaboration. 2. Teach law enforcement and private security how to deal with media questions about public–private partnerships. 3. Offer awards to the best public–private partnerships each year. 4. Encourage government-related organizations, such as the National Governors Association and U.S. Conference of Mayors, to promote partnerships between the law enforcement agencies their members oversee and private security organizations. 5. Encourage private-sector associations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, to promote partnerships between the private security organizations their members oversee and law enforcement agencies. E. Create a national partnership information center The advisory council should develop a means of distributing information on law enforcement-private security partnerships. Its constituency already suffers from information overload, so instead of creating a clearinghouse, the advisory council should serve as a center that can analyze information, filter it, condense it, and disseminate it to the recipients who need it. IV. The Department of Homeland Security and/or Department of Justice, along with relevant membership organizations, should convene key practitioners to move this agenda forward in the future. DHS or DOJ, in partnership with the IACP, should hold future follow-up summits to accomplish the following: 1. Identify and discuss the current status of law enforcement–private security partnerships and ongoing changes, trends, and progress. 25 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships 2. Discuss the implications of research findings. 3. Discuss certain issues that were not deeply treated at the January 2004 summit, such as privatization of public police functions and police secondary employment in the security industry. 4. Identify trends that will affect law enforcement, private security, and their joint operations in the future. V. Local partnerships should set priorities and address key problems as identified by the summit. Summit participants identified a number of problems and missions for partnerships to address, and more will likely be identified through research and future meetings. Some of the issues that the partnerships work on will be national, while others will be local. The following are just a few of the activities that law enforcement–private security partnerships can and should undertake immediately: 1. Improve joint response to critical incidents. In reality, in many crises, security officers—not police, fire, or EMS personnel—are the first responders. For example, security staff are likely to make building evacuation decisions, activate security systems or barriers, or shut down leaking chemicals after an attack. The public and private sectors should collaborate in training, recovery planning, and information sharing. Incident command centers that bring together various government responders should include the private sector. 2. Coordinate infrastructure protection. The private sector owns or protects the majority of the nation’s critical infrastructure. Protecting that infrastructure is a perfect task for public–private collaboration. Law enforcement can share threat intelligence, provide contact information, and suggest response procedures. Private security can perform vulnerability analyses and inform law enforcement about sites to which police may need to respond. Much work can be done in this area. 3. Improve communications and data interoperability. Each field possesses rich data and intelligence that can be of great value to the other. If law enforcement and private security cannot mesh their voice and data systems at all, or if they cannot do so while protecting their own information, communication and collaboration will be seriously hindered. 4. Bolster information and intelligence sharing. A great part of collaboration lies in sharing information. Sometimes the hurdle is technological (as in the preceding item), but often it is procedural, legal, or merely a matter of habit or preference. Law enforcement should make more information available to private security practitioners and answer their legitimate questions. Private security practitioners should provide law enforcement with information on threats and vulnerabilities they uncover. The sharing of such information will enhance the development of community disaster planning. 26 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships A national policy for information and intelligence sharing may be needed, as may new legislation. Department of Homeland Security terror threat alert levels should lead to specific threat alerts for private security. Local communities should be encouraged to develop public–private mutual understandings of the impact and expectations as threat levels change. A system should be devised whereby relevant intelligence information can be provided to selected private security personnel. 5. Prevent and investigate high-tech crime. This realm of crime has substantial foreign involvement, homeland security importance, and national economic significance. The bulk of expertise in addressing high-tech crime resides in the private sector. It is a field ripe for law enforcement–private security collaboration. 6. Devise responses to workplace violence. Workplace violence continues to be a topic amenable to public–private collaboration. In many instances, private security will take prevention and mitigation measures, and law enforcement will respond to live episodes. 27 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships 28 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships SECTION THREE: APPENDICES 29 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships 30 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships Appendix A: Summit Participants, by Organization Acoma Tribal Police Department: Chief Jeff Hepting Algonquin Police Department: Chief Russell Laine Allied Security: Bill Whitmore American Security Programs, Inc.: Lynn Oliver Amtrak: Ernest Frazier, Sr. Aramark Corporation: Wylie Cox ASIS International: Daniel Kropp, Shirley Pierini Austin Police Department: Robert Dahlstrom Bank of America: Neil Gallagher Barton Protective Services Inc.: Pat McNulty Belgian Embassy: Sharon Mae Wells Bristol-Myers Squibb: Art Gann Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department: Chief Darrel Stephens, Glen Mowrey Chemung County Sheriff’s Office: Sheriff Charles Houper Chevron Texaco: Steve Steinhauser Cloud, Feehery & Richter, Inc. Professional Investigations: John Whiteside Cognisa Security, Inc.: Keith Badham Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Edward Flynn Day and Zimmerman Security Services: Joe Mahaley Delaware State Police: Major Mark Seifert Dover Police Department: Chief William Fenniman Dunbar Armored, Inc.: Michael Gambrill DuPont Company: Raymond Mislock Exxon Mobil Corporation: Mike Farmer Federal Bureau of Investigation: Bob Coffee, Sam Gonzales, Louis Quijas, Dr. Ellen Scrivner, Gerald Wheeler First Citizens BancShares: Larry Brown Georgia Power Company: Margaret Levine GlaxoSmithKline: Wendell Rich Guardsmark LLC: Weldon Kennedy Hallcrest Systems, Inc.: William Cunningham Hartford Police Department: Chief Joseph Estey Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office: Lieutenant John Losinski Indiana State Police Department: Superintendent Melvin Carraway Institute for Law and Justice: Edward Connors International Association of Chiefs of Police: Chief Randall Carroll, Eugene Cromartie, Scott Finlayson, John Firman, Harlin McEwen, Daniel Rosenblatt, Chief Joseph Samuels, Thomas Seamon International Association of Security and Investigative Regulators: Steve Hess International Registration Plan: David Saddler International Security Management Association: Ray Humphrey Internet Crimes Group, Inc.: James Emerson John Jay College of Criminal Justice: Robert McCrie Johnson & Johnson: Steve Chupa Joint Council on Information Age Crime: Edward Appel, William Eyres Lakewood Police Department: Alan Youngs Los Angeles Police Department: Commander Mark Leap Major Cities Police Chiefs Association: Thomas Frazier Marsh and McLennan Companies, Inc.: Richard Mainey Medpointe Pharmaceuticals: Cliff Mauer Merrill Lynch: Charles Connolly Michigan State University: Rad Jones National Association of Police Organizations: William Johnson National Association of Security Companies: Gail Simonton National Sheriffs’ Association: John Thompson Northeastern University: Dr. Jack Greene Ohlhausen Research, Inc.: Peter Ohlhausen Oregon State Police: Major Gregory Willeford Overland Park Police Department: Chief John Douglas Phoenix Police Department: Timothy Martin Police Executive Research Forum: Jason Cheney Prudential Financial Inc.: Henry DeGeneste Redmond Police Department: Chief Steven Harris Reno Police Department: Chief Jerry Hoover Roche Diagnostics Corporation: J. Max Brenton Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office: Sheriff Aaron Kennard 31 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships Sandia National Laboratory: Gordon Smith Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.: Don Walker Security Industry Alarm Coalition, Inc.: Stan Martin Security Industry Association: Richard Chace Security Virtual Inc.: George Murphy Simon Property Group: Tom Cernock Southern Pines Police Department: Chief Gerald Galloway Special Response Corporation: Martin Herman State of Iowa: Kevin Techau Steven Wolfe Associates, LLC: Sean Kirkendall Target Corporation: Jim Bender, Nate Garvis U.S. Department of Defense: Dr. Kelly Buck, Morris Hymes 32 U.S. Department of Homeland Security: John Hoyt, Leslie-Anne Levy, Alfonso Martinez-Fonts, James Savage, Matthew Weese U.S. Department of Justice: Karl Bickel, Robert Chapman, Tamara Lucas, Frank Mathers, Lois Felson Mock, Carl Peed, Michael Seelman, Carly Smith, David Walchak U.S. Security Associates, Inc.: Charles Schneider University of Nevada (Reno) Police Department: Chief Adam Garcia University of Washington: Sandy Moy University of Wisconsin (Madison) Police Department: Chief Susan Riseling Wackenhut Corporation: Edward Lorch Wackenhut Services, Inc.: Ernest Blount Wilson County Sheriff’s Office: Sheriff Wayne Gay Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships Appendix B: Pre-Summit Reading List In anticipation of the summit, IACP staff and advisors collected selected writings on the issue of private security and public policing partnerships. Except for the documents produced by the IACP, all other materials were presented for review and information only and are not necessarily representative of the views of IACP, COPS, or other funding agencies. Summit staff and advisors believed that the innovative concepts and best practices strategies in these writings would aid participants as they worked to craft a national strategy to create dynamic partnerships among law enforcement and private security. The following documents were included in a binder sent to invitees before the summit: Appel, Edward J. “Terrorists, Computers and the Internet: Challenges and Solutions.” Joint Council on Information Age Crime, 2003. Assessment of Common Problems Between Private Security and Law Enforcement. Center for Security, Safety & Society (CS3), University of Massachusetts–Lowell. Bayley, David H., and Clifford D. Shearing. The New Structure of Policing: Description, Conceptualization, and Research Agenda. Washington: National Institute of Justice, 2001. Beyond the Beltway: Focusing on Hometown Security: Recommendations for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Planning a Year After 9/11. Report of the Executive Session on Domestic Preparedness, Harvard University, 2002. “Building Partnerships Between Private Sector Security and Public Sector Police,” The Police Chief, September 2003. Connolly, Charles P. “The Role of Private Security in Combating Terrorism,” Journal of Homeland Security, July 2003. Critical Incident Protocol: A Public and Private Partnership. Washington: Office for Domestic Preparedness, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Cunningham, William C. U.S. Private Security Trends. Amelia Island, Florida: Hallcrest Systems, Inc.: 2003. Dialogue on Public/Private Sector Critical Incident Issues. Paper by Michigan State University, IACP Private Sector Liaison Committee, and General Dynamics Land Systems, 2002. “First Responders: How States, Localities and the Federal Government Are Working Together to Make America Safer.” Testimony of Michael Grossman before U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Homeland Security, 2003. 33 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships Greene, Jack R., Thomas M. Seamon, and Paul R. Levy. “Merging Public and Private Security for Collective Benefit: Philadelphia’s Center City District.” 1993. In Search of Security: The Roles of Public Police and Private Agencies: Discussion Paper. Law Commission of Canada, 2002. Kayyem, Juliette, and Patricia Chang. “Beyond Business Continuity: The Role of the Private Sector in Preparedness Planning,” Perspectives on Preparedness, August 2002. “National Preparedness: Integration of Federal, State, Local, and Private Sector Efforts Is Critical to an Effective National Strategy for Homeland Security.” Statement of Randall Yim before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2002. Ohlhausen, Peter, Edward Connors, and William Cunningham. “The Changing Relationship Between Private Security and Law Enforcement.” Alexandria, Virginia: Institute for Law and Justice, 2002. O’Leary, Dennis. “Reflections on Police Privatization,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, September 1994. “Operation Cooperation: A Literature Review of Cooperation and Partnerships Between Law Enforcement and Private Security Organizations.” Institute for Law and Justice and Hallcrest Division of Science Applications International Corporation, 1999. Operation Cooperation: Guidelines for Partnerships Between Law Enforcement and Private Security Organizations. Washington: Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2000. The Public Accountability of Private Police. Vera Institute of Justice, 2000. Seamon, Thomas. “IACP’s Private Sector Liaison Committee: Partners in Public Safety,” The Police Chief, May 1999. The State of Homeland Security: Assessing Progress in Securing the United States Against the Threat of Terrorism. The Lexington Institute, 2003. Vatis, Michael. Cyber Attacks: Protecting America’s Security Against Digital Threats. Executive Session on Domestic Preparedness, Harvard University, 2002 Westrate, Dave. “Manpower for Hire,” Access Control and Security Systems, April 2003. 34 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships Appendix C: Sponsors Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The COPS Office was created as a result of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. A component of the Justice Department, the COPS Office advances community policing in jurisdictions of all sizes across the country. Among other measures, community policing urges law enforcement agencies to make community members stakeholders in their own safety. The COPS Office provides grants to tribal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to hire and train community policing professionals, acquire and deploy cutting-edge crime-fighting technologies, and develop and test innovative policing strategies. Because community policing is by definition inclusive, COPS training also reaches state and local government leaders and the citizens they serve. International Association of Chiefs of Police. IACP is the world’s oldest and largest nonprofit membership organization of police executives, with over 19,000 members in more than 89 countries. IACP’s leadership consists of the operating chief executives of international, federal, state, and local agencies of all sizes. The IACP Private Sector Liaison Committee was created in the mid-1980s in recognition of the value of private sector security. Chairpersons and members of the committee represent a broad array of private sector policing services, including campus police, defense industry security agencies, corporate security organizations, security technology and service firms, and federal, state, and local law enforcement officials. Summit Co-Sponsors ASIS International International Security Management Association National Association of Security Companies Security Industry Association Summit Event Sponsors Allied Security Bank of America Chevron Texaco First Citizens Bancshares Security Management Consulting Target 35 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships Appendix D: Selected Contact Information ASIS International 1625 Prince Street Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 519-6200 www.asisonline.org International Association of Chiefs of Police 515 North Washington Street Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 836-6767 www.theiacp.org International Security Management Association P.O. Box 623 Buffalo, IA 52728 (800) 368-1894 www.ismanet.com National Association of Security Companies 1625 Prince Street Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 518-1477 www.nasco.org Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice 1100 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 307-1480 www.cops.usdoj.gov Security Industry Association 635 Slaters Lane, Suite 110 Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 683-2075 www.siaonline.org 36 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships Appendix E: Summit Advisory Committee Edward Appell Vice President/COO Joint Council on Information Age Crime Randall H. Carroll Chief of Police Bellingham Police Department Richard Chace Executive Director Security Industry Association Robert Chapman Social Science Analyst COPS Office U.S. Department of Justice Edward F. Connors President Institute for Law and Justice William C. Cunningham President Hallcrest Systems, Inc. John M. Douglas Chief of Police Overland Park (Kansas) Police Department Stephen P. Doyle Executive Vice President Central Station Alarm Association William W. Fenniman Chief of Police Dover (New Hampshire) Police Department John Firman Director, Research IACP Gerald L. Galloway Chief of Police Southern Pines (North Carolina) Police Department Maggie Heisler Senior Social Science Analyst Crime Control and Prevention Research Division National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Jeffrey F. Hepting Acting Chief of Police Acoma Tribal Police Department Charles Houper Sheriff Chemung County (New York) Police Department Radford W. Jones Academic Specialist Michigan State University Daniel H. Kropp, CPP Former President ASIS International Stan Martin Executive Director SIAC Lois Felson Mock Senior Social Science Analyst Crime Control and Prevention Research Division National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Glen Mowrey Deputy Chief Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department Peter E. Ohlhausen President Ohlhausen Research, Inc. Carl Peed Director COPS Office U.S. Department of Justice Daniel N. Rosenblatt Executive Director IACP Thomas M. Seamon, CPP Co-chair Private Sector Liaison Committee IACP 37 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships Mark Seifert Major Delaware State Police Gail Simonton Executive Director National Association of Security Companies Thomas J. Sweeney Chief of Police Glastonbury (Connecticut) Police Department John Thompson Deputy Executive Director National Sheriffs’ Association 38 Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships Appendix F: IACP Staff William Albright Matthew Landsman Albert Arena Wes Mahr Kristen Beam Andrew Morabito Cassandra Cullen Laura Nichols Ed Dadisho Ryan Palmer Elaine Deck Kristine Saltarelli Netha Diamond Angelique Savvakis Chuck Everhart Carolyn Schleuter Kristy Fowler Haminy Silva Nicole Green Patrizia Strupp Jennifer Hicks Vincent Talucci Marjorie Hunt Walter Tangel Alissa Huntoon Nancy Turner Keegan Johnson Allison Vaughan Pamela Juhl Hector Velez Kim Kohlhepp Gregg Walker Aviva Kurash Helena Wang Valencia Kyburz Dan Welch 39

CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS

CLICK THE BUTTON TO MAKE YOUR ORDER

error: Content is protected !!