U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

Trends and Practices 

in Law Enforcement and 

Private Security Collaborations 

By The Law Enforcement-Private Security Consortium 

Operation Partnership 

Trends and Practices in Law Enforcement 

and Private Security Collaborations 

This project was supported by Grant Number 2005-CK-WX-0454 awarded by 

the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. 

The opinions contained herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily 

represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to 

specific agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered 

an endorsement by the authors or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the 

references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. 

The Law Enforcement-Private Security Consortium was formed in 2005 to provide 

research, training, and technical assistance services that support development 

of effective law enforcement-private security collaborations nationwide. 

Consortium members are the Institute for Law and Justice (ILJ), Hallcrest 

Systems, Inc., SECTA LLC, and Ohlhausen Research, Inc. ILJ administered the grant 

supporting the Consortium’s production of this report and also administers 

a separate grant from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services that 

supports the Consortium’s follow-up work to develop online training on law 

enforcement-private security partnerships. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-38-6 

August 2009 

1 

ConTEnTS
 

COntents 

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
 

Chapter One: Introduction and Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 

Purpose of the Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 

Background: Operation Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 

LE-PS Partnerships: Mandate, Benefits, and Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 

Chapter Two: Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

Purpose of the Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
 

Project Components and Tasks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
 

Chapter Three: Key Trends in Public-Private Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
 

General Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
 

Trends Specifically Related to Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
 

Chapter Four: Forms of Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
 

Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
 

Specificity of Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
 

Leadership Source. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
 

Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
 

Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
 

Chapter Five: Types of Partnership Activities and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
 

Information Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
 

Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
 

Crime Control and Loss Prevention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
 

Investigations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
 

Resource Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
 

All-Hazards Preparation and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
 

Research, Policy Development, and Legislation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
 

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
 
oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

2 

Chapter Six: Key Components of Law Enforcement-Private Security 


Partnerships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
 

Compelling Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
 

External Support or Models for Formation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
 

Founders, Leaders, and Facilitators as Active Enablers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
 

Means of Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
 

Sustaining Structure and Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
 

Summary of Factors Leading to Success and Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
 

Chapter Seven: Conclusions and Future Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
 

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
 

Future Steps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
 

Appendixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
 

Appendix A: Fifteen Key Steps for Getting Started 


and Five Tips for Enhancing an Ongoing 


Law Enforcement-Private Security Partnership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
 

Appendix B: Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
 

Appendix C: Selected Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
 

Appendix D: Additional Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
 

Appendix E: Executive Summary, COPS/IACP National Policy Summit: 


Building Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships 


to Prevent and Respond to Terrorism and Public Disorder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
 

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
 

COPS and Virginia Center for Policing Innovation video 

Law Enforcement and Private Security, On the Job Together 

companion CD located inside back cover. 

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of July 2009. 

Given that URLs and web sites are in constant flux, neither the authors nor 

the COPS Office guarantee their current validity. 
 

 

 

ACKnOwLEDgMEnTS 

aCknowLEdgmEnTS
 

This project received extensive support from Carl R. Peed, former Director of the Office 

of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office); and Robert Chapman, COPS 

Office Supervisory Social Science Analyst. 

We are also grateful for the assistance provided by ASIS International and its Law 

Enforcement Liaison Council (LELC), and by the International Association of Chiefs 

of Police Private Sector Liaison Committee (PSLC). Many LELC and PSLC members 

contributed information, suggestions, and encouragement. Among those who provided 

support throughout the project are Randall Carroll, Former Co-Chair of the PSLC and 

retired Chief of Police, Bellingham (Washington) Police Department; Richard E. Chase, 

Chair of the LELC and Assistant Director and Chief Security Officer, Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Oksana Farber, LELC Vice Chair and President, Trident 

Master Executive Development; Michael Gambrill, LELC Member and Former Chair, Senior 

Vice President, Dunbar Armored Security, and retired Chief of Police, Baltimore County 

(Maryland) Police Department; and Radford Jones of Michigan State University, who 

is Co-Chair of the PSLC. In addition, we appreciate the support provided during this 

project by Gail M. Simonton, former National Association of Security Companies (NASCO) 

Executive Director and General Counsel, LELC Member, and Associate Board Member of 

the International Association of Security and Investigative Regulators. 

We also extend particular thanks to the project advisory group. In addition to Mr. Carroll 

and Mr. Gambrill (above), the project advisors were: Robert Lee, Principal Consultant, 

Mason-Coburn Partners, LELC Member and Former Chair, former Director, Justice 

Programs, Nextel Corporation, and former Supervisory Special Agent, Federal Bureau 

of Investigation; Lynn Oliver, President/CEO, American Security Programs, Inc., and a 

founding member and Secretary, Virginia Police and Private Security Alliance, as well as a 

member of the Board of Directors, National Association of Security Companies (NASCO); 

and Thomas Sweeney, Chief of Police, Glastonbury (Connecticut) Police Department and 

former Chief of Police, Bridgeport, Connecticut. 

In addition, we sincerely appreciate ASIS International’s assistance in disseminating 

the project’s online survey to its membership. Special thanks go to ASIS International 

Executive Director Michael Stack, Director of Marketing Eileen Smith, and all ASIS 

members who responded to the survey. 

3 
oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

4 

 

Project team members included the following: Institute for Law and Justice (Edward 

Connors, President, and Barbara Webster, Senior Writer/Principal Research Associate); 

Ohlhausen Research, Inc. (Peter Ohlhausen, President); Hallcrest Systems, Inc. (Thomas 

Seamon, President, and William C. Cunningham, Founder) and SECTA LLC (Edward Appel, 

President). Staff were also privileged to work with four experienced consultants who 

conducted telephone interviews with LE-PS partnership leaders: Paul Casagrande, 

Dr. Roberta Griffith, Dr. Jeanie Thies, and Susan Weinstein. 

We are extremely grateful to the professionals who gave of their time and expertise in 

providing information for this report. Appendix D lists many of the persons interviewed, 

including those who went out of their way to accommodate us on site visits and others 

who participated in a focus group to discuss key issues for the final report. 

Finally, we thank two COPS Office contributors: Judith Beres, for editing the document; 

and Nancy Carslen for the publication design. 
inTroduCTion and BaCkground
 

 ChAPTEr OnE: Introduction and Background
 

Purpose of the Report 

This report was produced to help law enforcement and private security organizations 

develop and operate effective partnerships. It provides guidelines and analysis—supported 

by examples from partnerships throughout the nation—of trends, innovative practices, 

obstacles, lessons learned, and results. 

The law enforcement-private security (LE-PS) partnerships featured here were formed or 

expanded to address a range of critical needs: to avert or respond to a terrorist attack, 

support urban downtown revitalization, marshal resources to combat financial crimes, 

compensate for law enforcement budget cuts, improve safety at special events, improve 

security for the nation’s infrastructure, and bring community policing approaches 

and new resources to bear on crimes against residents and businesses. Many of the 

partnerships have been able to measure success not only by meetings and exchanges of 

information but also by crimes prevented and solved. 

Key Issues and Questions 

Many in law enforcement and private security are already convinced, at least in a general 

sense, that greater collaboration is needed. To initiate a partnership or take one to a 

higher level, though, they need more information about what is involved and what results 

they can expect from their investments of time and effort. For example: 

  How are effective LE-PS partnerships formed, organized, and sustained? 

  How can leadership and responsibilities best be shared in LE-PS partnerships? 

  How can partners and potential partners address the trust and legal issues that 

challenge the exchange of vital information? 

  What factors make the greatest contributions to partnership success? 

  What are the most important lessons to be taken from partnerships that are meeting 

and exceeding their goals and from those that are not? 

  What remains to be done to continually improve communication, professionalism, 

and results? 

5 
6 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uses and Audiences 

This report is geared toward law enforcement managers and security directors who 

want to develop new partnerships or enhance existing ones. It is organized to let readers 

quickly turn to the issues, examples, and resources most relevant to them. At the same 

time, it strives for a comprehensive treatment of the topic. It includes diverse partnership 

models, with enough detail to understand their objectives and operating environments, 

and often the challenges. The underlying message is that the challenges are worth 

tackling. Many LE-PS partnerships have achieved impressive results. 

The report is also intended for government and private-sector policymakers at the local, 

state, and national levels, and for leaders and members of associations that support law 

enforcement and security professionals. Their commitment to LE-PS collaboration has a 

direct bearing on what the partnerships can accomplish. 

Definitions 

The following clarifications are offered for key terms used in this report: 

Law enforcement: Public law enforcement agencies, including local, state, and tribal 

police departments; sheriffs’ departments; and federal agencies such as the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 

the U.S. Secret Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and many others. Also 

included are specialized policing agencies (transit police, university police forces, airport 

police) that have characteristics of both public law enforcement agencies and private 

security organizations. 

Private security: Both proprietary (corporate) security and contract security firms across 

the full spectrum of security services and technology. The study team recognizes that 

many individuals who are not security managers (e.g., facilities managers) also perform 

security functions for their organization, in addition to their primary duties. 

Partnership: Joint LE-PS efforts organized to improve public safety and security. 

The report emphasizes LE-PS organizations, programs, task forces, etc., that have 

institutional support and written agreements or guidelines, but also includes less formal 

collaborations. The study team did not include working relationships between individuals, 

although many organized partnerships evolve from those relationships. Finally, the 

report acknowledges but does not focus on outsourcing for security services. While law 

enforcement sometimes has contractual relationships with private security, these may 

not be cooperative partnerships. For example, if a city hires guards for a parking garage 

or retains a company to provide red-light enforcement services, these are contractual 

relationships, not an LE-PS partnership. 
7 

 

 

 

 

 

 

inTroduCTion and BaCkground
 

Background: Operation Partnership 

The foundation of this report is a project called Operation Partnership, whose purpose 

is to identify LE-PS partnerships, explore successful practices and lessons learned, and 

analyze trends and challenges. This effort was sponsored by the Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office) of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). 

The Operation Partnership staff team was composed of senior-level personnel from the 

Institute for Law and Justice (ILJ), which managed the project; Hallcrest Systems, Inc.; 

SECTA LLC; and Ohlhausen Research, Inc. The team worked closely with the COPS Office 

throughout the project. The methods used to produce this report included surveys, 

extensive telephone interviews, site visits, literature and document reviews, focus 

groups of partnership leaders, and consultations with an expert advisory panel (see 

Chapter 2. Methodology).1 Most Operation Partnership staff team members also worked 

on Operation Cooperation,2 a study of LE-PS partnerships completed in 2000. 

The best evidence from both of these projects suggests there were many more LE-PS 

partnerships in the United States in 2007 than there were 7 years earlier. Operation 

Partnership identified more than 450 LE-PS partnerships, compared to about 60 identified 

through Operation Cooperation. 

Operation Cooperation 

Operation Cooperation represented a significant milestone in examining LE-PS 

partnerships and developing practical guidelines for forming and sustaining them. The 

Operation Cooperation guidelines in 20003 were used by the International Association of 

Chiefs of Police (IACP), ASIS International (ASIS),4 and the National Sheriffs’ Association 

to increase awareness among police chiefs, sheriffs, and security directors of the benefits 

of working together, and to inform law enforcement of improvements in the security 

industry and of the extensive resources private security has to offer. Thanks to the efforts 

of these and other professional organizations, the Operation Cooperation guidelines and 

video were distributed widely and are still requested today. 

COPS/IACP Summit on Private Security-Law Enforcement 

Partnerships 

In January 2004, 4 years after Operation Cooperation, 140 invited experts and practitioners— 

including executives from law enforcement, government, private security, and academia— 

met in Arlington, Virginia, at a COPS Office/IACP national policy summit on building LE-PS 

partnerships. Summit work groups offered recommendations that were incorporated into 

a report, which was vetted and approved by the participants, IACP, and the COPS Office.5 
8 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

Influenced by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the national emphasis on 

homeland security that followed, summit participants found a great need for increased 

cooperation between law enforcement and private security. They developed an ambitious 

agenda—with federal financing recommended for several key initiatives—to encourage 

LE-PS partnerships.6 The COPS Office funded Operation Partnership to address a key 

summit recommendation for an “update and expansion of the Operation Cooperation 

project” to focus on “best practices, innovation, leadership, strategic planning, joint 

training, communication, information exchange, joint operations, obstacles, and critical 

infrastructure.” 

Le-Ps Partnerships: Mandate, Benefits, and Challenges 

Partnership Imperative 

The 2004 COPS/IACP summit consensus was that LE-PS cooperation is imperative to 

address crime, terrorism, and natural and manmade disasters. This sense of urgency was 

also expressed by many partnership leaders interviewed by the Operation Partnership 

team. For some, the events of September 11, 2001, as well as threats closer to home, 

provided the impetus to form partnerships or change direction. For example: 

  The Philadelphia Center City District partnership, a business improvement district, has a 

16-year history of innovative public-private initiatives, including the Philadelphia Crime 

Prevention Council. Before 9/11, the Council focused on crime and crime prevention 

but now devotes about half its efforts to homeland security and disaster preparedness. 

  In 2004, the Milwaukee Police Department and Northwestern Mutual Insurance 

Company security spearheaded formation of the Milwaukee Critical Incident Protocol 

(CIP) partnership. Although 9/11 had produced heightened concerns about the 

region’s ability to prevent and respond to terrorism, a more recent event—a 2003 

bomb threat against a Milwaukee federal building—prompted closer attention to how 

the public and private sectors could better collaborate. 

Many partnerships identified in this study had been in existence before 9/11 but took on 

new homeland security objectives afterward. Some partnerships began out of a general 

desire to encourage LE-PS communication. Others were created to improve safety and 

security at major special events. Most of the partnerships studied for this project were 

formed to combat a specific type of crime that had concerned both the police and a 

particular industry. Typically, these partnerships built a foundation by starting small, 

gaining credibility through results, and then expanding to tackle more complex crimes. 

This pattern can be seen across many industries and types of crimes. For example: 

  The Greater Chicago Hotel Loss Prevention Association (GCHLPA) started in the early 

1980s when a few security professionals joined together to address pick-pocketing 

in a tourist area. Today, GCHLPA is concerned with forgery, identity theft, terrorism, 
9 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

inTroduCTion and BaCkground
 

missing persons, and virtually any crime committed in or near hotels. Its members 

represent 46 hotels, three local police departments, the FBI, and the U.S. Secret Service, 

the DHS, and the Office of Emergency Management. 

  The Metropolitan Atlanta Technological Crimes Task Force (MetroTech Atlanta) began 

in 1996 primarily to stop thefts of laptops in office parks. Described as “having 

outgrown its roles three or four times,” the partnership now reports dealing with 

high-tech financial crimes, cargo theft, and mortgage fraud, among other crimes. 

Addressing crime, terrorism, and other disasters involves such enormous responsibilities 

and costs that LE-PS partnerships have become an unofficial mandate for law 

enforcement. In 2004, some experts suggested that “only 5 to 10 percent of law 

enforcement chief executives participate in partnerships with private security.”7 

Increasingly, though, both law enforcement and private security are gaining significant 

benefits from collaboration. 

Benefits of LE-PS Collaboration 

Collaboration by its definition extends the concept of cooperation to emphasize benefits 

for all parties and, in the case of LE-PS partnerships, the public as well. Partnership 

benefits begin when individuals in both private security and law enforcement find they 

can do their jobs more efficiently or effectively because of the professional contacts they 

have made. The advantages multiply when the partnership as a group builds trust, takes 

on specific objectives, and experiences success as a result of joint efforts. 

Contacts 

For both private security and law enforcement, new professional contacts are among 

the first partnership benefits experienced. The partners identify who can get what done 

in their respective areas of responsibility and may develop inventories of specialized 

skills—in languages, for example. Some security directors also report that at the field level, 

security officers’ increased contacts with law enforcement have a positive influence on 

their confidence. Law enforcement, in turn, may come to appreciate the “extra eyes and 

ears” they gain by working more closely with private security officers. Finally, individuals 

may gain career opportunities through LE-PS partnership contacts. 
10 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

— 

Force Multiplier 

The 9/11 Commission confirmed just how dependent the nation is on private security, 

noting that the private sector owns about 85 percent of the nation’s infrastructure— 

buildings, power plants, utilities, transportation systems, communications networks.8 At 

least 2 million persons are believed to be employed 

in private security in the United States.9 Overall, 

this is roughly three times the number of state and 

local law enforcement officers,10 but the private 

security-to-law enforcement ratio is much higher 

in certain areas, such as major cities’ business 

districts. Minneapolis SafeZone Collaborative– 

Downtown partners, for example, suggest the 

ratio may be as high as 13 to 1 in downtown 

Minneapolis. 

Viewing private security as a force multiplier 

does not mean ignoring the differences between 

police and private security in legal authority, 

training, or accountability.11 Rather, 

it acknowledges the following: 

  Private security works in certain critical areas that law enforcement simply cannot 

cover because it lacks the human resources, mandate, or technology. 

  Private security is a growth industry,12 whereas the number of sworn local and state 

law enforcement officers is not projected to grow significantly in the future. 

The most recent U.S. data on employment in local and state law enforcement show that 

2000 through 2004 was a period of slow growth overall.13 The number of sworn officers 

decreased in 20 of the nation’s 50 largest police departments, including six of the seven 

largest.14 The New York City Police Department saw a 10.7 percent decrease in sworn 

officers, with even greater declines in Newark, New Jersey (down 11.4 percent); Cleveland 

(down 14.4 percent); Nassau County, New York (down 15.3 percent); and Detroit (down 

15.5 percent).15 

The combination of increased demands and stagnant or declining local law enforcement 

resources makes it clear that, now more than ever, law enforcement agencies must pursue 

all reasonable avenues for collaboration with private security, as well as with each other. 

“A safe and secure community is 

important to our guests and our team 

members, so it’s important to us. We 

make a concerted effort, through 

Target & BLUE, to share our expertise 

and resources with law enforcement at 

every level across the country because 

we believe that when communities are 

safe, everybody wins.” 

Tim Baer 

Executive Vice President and 

General Counsel 

Target Corporation 
11 

 

 

 

inTroduCTion and BaCkground
 

Potential to Reduce Costs 

At the field level, private security has the potential to reduce the cost of public law 

enforcement, which is expensive for taxpayers. In Las Vegas, Wilmington (Delaware), 

Minneapolis, New York, and other cities, for example, law enforcement’s ability to view 

private security closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras has the potential to save taxpayer 

money that would otherwise have been spent to buy this equipment. Another example is 

the use of private transit security officers on public transit systems, as in Durham, North 

Carolina, and in several counties in south Florida. 

Addressing Computer and High-Tech Crimes 

Today, many types of crime are computer crimes16 because they can be, and often 

are, assisted by computer technology. Nearly every component of a law enforcement 

organization is affected, whether it deals with child exploitation, identity theft, street 

gangs, terrorist organizations, laptop theft, cyber attacks on corporate or government 

networks, or Internet safety presentations in middle schools. 

The interdependence of law enforcement and private security in this field is apparent at 

the local, national, and international levels.17 It is not simply a matter of law enforcement 

lacking enough personnel with the skills to address high-tech crimes. Even experts 

whose careers are dedicated to computer security are hard-pressed to keep up with 

cyber attackers, many of whose methods have become “similar to traditional software 

development and business practices.”18 Some of these criminals are not just staging 

computer attacks but selling do-it-yourself “attack kits” and “phishing kits” over the 

Internet.19 Law enforcement needs private security’s resources to combat high-tech 

crimes; and private security needs law enforcement’s legal authority and investigative 

skills to pursue criminals whose attacks threaten the security of their networks and, in 

turn, undermine public confidence in their companies. 

Addressing Financial and Intellectual Property Crimes 

Private security resolves unknown numbers of cases with no law enforcement 

involvement when financial losses are below a certain threshold and neither the business 

nor the public expects criminal justice system remedies. The petty thief or embezzler is 

fired, for example, or the victim of credit card theft is reimbursed and issued a new card. 

The criminals sometimes are not prosecuted, but victims are reasonably happy with the 

immediate solution and law enforcement does not have to spend resources. 
12 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Examples of Resources Provided by Private Security Partners 

Equipment and Investigative Resources 

  Through the Target & BLUE partnership, some law enforcement agencies have accessed Target’s forensic lab 

capabilities, and some have received loans of semitrailers equipped with surveillance and tracking capabilities 

for use in cargo theft investigations. 

  Private security members of the Southeast Wisconsin Homeland Security Partnership, Inc., facilitate access 

to equipment needed for disaster response (e.g., generators, earthmovers) and assist in monitoring financial 

transactions of suspected terrorist groups. 

Officer Training 

  Through the Energy Security Council, the petroleum industry offers training to law enforcement that helps 

them conduct safer and more effective investigations in the oil patch. 

  Local law enforcement partners with the Calvert Cliffs (Maryland) Nuclear Power Plant security department 

gain a working knowledge of the site and its security operations and personnel. 

Community Policing 

  The Minneapolis SafeZone partnership has expanded beyond its initial focus on downtown to address crime in 

residential neighborhoods. 

  Private security members of the Public Safety & Security Partnership in Hillsborough County (Florida) work 

with the sheriff’s department to address graffiti, gang activity, disturbances at nightclubs, auto thefts, and 

other crimes and problems. 

Examples of Resources Provided by Law Enforcement Partners 

Intelligence and Information Sharing 

  Crime information exchange and incident coordination is accomplished through partnerships’ secure radio 

systems, such as those in Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina), Hartford (Connecticut), and Minneapolis; 

and by e-mail and text messaging (e.g., through partnerships in Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, the New York 

City area, and other jurisdictions). 

  The FBI’s InfraGard organization provides a secure, members-only information-sharing web site, chapter 

meetings to exchange information face-to-face, and training on cyber and physical security topics. 

Training 

  Law enforcement has provided and facilitated homeland security-related training in many jurisdictions, 

including tabletop and full-scale exercises, as well as classroom training. 

  Various law enforcement partners also deliver training for private security on tourist safety, crime patterns 

(e.g., gang activity, thefts), crime scene protection, search and seizure, surveillance, and many other topics. 

The same is not true of complex financial crimes that have a more obvious impact on 

the public—swindlers who take elderly residents’ life savings, for example, or bankrupt 

a company, destroying its retirement system; or financial crimes that support criminal 

organizations and terrorist networks. Of particular concern today is identity theft, often 
13 

inTroduCTion and BaCkground
 

described as the nation’s fastest growing financial crime. Whether the thief is a methaddicted dumpster diver or a mastermind of cyber attacks, both individual and corporate 

victims of identity theft suffer losses and need law enforcement cooperation to address 

these crimes. Law enforcement collaboration with private security on financial crime 

investigations ranges from recovering stolen laptops to prosecuting egregious cases at 

the federal and international levels. In addition, law enforcement is now required by law 

to take identity theft reports. Without them, individual victims cannot access most of 

the financial remedies to which they are legally entitled.20 Some LE-PS partnerships link 

individual victims to appropriate sources of assistance,21 while others develop resources 

to inform the public about identity theft and other financial crimes. 

Intellectual property crime includes “the counterfeiting or pirating of goods for sale 

where the consent of the rights holder has not been obtained.”22 In the United States, 

these products of human creativity are protected by four distinct areas of federal law: 

copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and patents.23 Individuals and criminal groups 

violate these laws, inflicting harm on businesses, scientists, artists, and inventors. Other 

victims include people sickened or killed because they ingest products that look like their 

medicine but either contain no active ingredients or are toxic. And like other low-risk, 

high-profit crimes, intellectual property crimes are an attractive means of financing 

organized crime groups, including terrorist organizations.24 

Beyond seizing the illicit products, both law enforcement and private industry are often 

stymied by a lack of investigative resources and the complexity of tracing the money flow. 

More extensive LE-PS collaborations in the future will be important for prosecuting the 

most egregious offenders. 

Advanced Technologies 

Law enforcement is starting to make increased use of proven private security 

technologies. One example is the installation of new CCTV products and systems in 

downtown business improvement districts (BID), special-event venues, shopping malls, 

and other strategic sites. LE-PS partnerships in Wilmington, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and 

elsewhere have facilitated acquisition of CCTV systems for BIDs. Other partnerships have 

benefited when private security provided access to its digital forensics capabilities or lent 

equipment for use in partnership activities (see sidebar). 

Both private security and law enforcement must keep abreast of an array of technologies 

to prevent and solve crimes. LE-PS partnerships provide a means of sharing information 

about such technologies as object and behavior recognition software; interactive audio 

surveillance; integrated management of electronic access control, intrusion protection, 

and alarm systems; radio frequency identification tagging; gunshot recognition 

technology; and many others. 
14 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Private security also stands to benefit from law enforcement’s own use of 

technologies. Today’s crime analysis and mapping applications allow many law 

enforcement agencies to share more timely and specific information than in the 

past. Intelligence-led policing is also influencing how some law enforcement agencies 

obtain, analyze, and share information from multiple sources.25 

Critical Incident Planning and Response 

Like September 11, 2001, Hurricane Katrina in 2005 illustrated a tremendous national 

vulnerability in the face of disasters—not only future acts of terrorism but also tornadoes, 

floods, hurricanes, bridge collapses, and other events with multiple casualties. These are 

all-hands-on-deck situations in which surviving citizens and private security are likely 

to be the first responders, followed by police and fire/emergency medical services (EMS) 

personnel. The question is not so much who will respond as whether there will be a 

coordinated response. How will public- and private-sector responders communicate? 

Who will disseminate information from the scene? If armed security personnel may be 

needed to help restore order, will this possibility be addressed as part of the response plan 

or hastily arranged after the event?26 

One approach for all-hazards planning has been the development of critical incident 

protocol (CIP) initiatives, such as those receiving technical assistance from Michigan 

State University.27 Several CIP partnerships with strong private security components are 

included in this report. Law enforcement has been able to facilitate private security’s 

access to fire/EMS, public health, public works, and other government and nonprofit 

partners. LE-PS collaboration in developing both tabletop and full-scale exercises has 

greatly improved coordination. 

LE-PS partnerships are also essential for prevention and response in areas considered 

especially attractive as terrorism targets—malls, ports, transportation systems, 

utilities, major special events, and others. The collaborations in this report include law 

enforcement partnerships with utility, petroleum, nuclear power, retail, transportation, 

and other industries, and with special-event security experts and venue owners. 

Information and Intelligence 

With respect to homeland security, COPS/IACP Summit participants observed that “the 

public sector tends to have the threat information, while the private sector tends to have 

control over vulnerable sites.”28 Although this is generally true, private security also has 

useful threat information. Corporate security has access to intelligence from multiple field 

offices nationwide and worldwide, and many U.S.-based contract security companies also 

operate abroad. Given the international nature of terrorism, as well as money laundering, 

identity theft, and other crimes that may support it, intelligence from private security 

sources has become increasingly important for homeland security. Examples include the 
15 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

inTroduCTion and BaCkground
 

Information Sharing and Analysis Centers, which are led by the private sector, and the 

Overseas Security Advisory Council, a highly structured partnership involving the U. S. 

Department of State, federal law enforcement, numerous corporations doing business 

overseas, and academia. 

At the local level, many LE-PS partnerships have adopted new objectives related to 

terrorism while continuing to focus on other crimes affecting the safety of residents, 

businesses, employees, and visitors. Some of these partnerships are activating real-time 

alert systems and other means to share information about all hazards: crime, terrorism, 

and disasters. 

More Effective Community Policing 

Partnership has long been considered a core component of community policing.29 The 

community policing literature, however, seldom names private security specifically as 

a desirable partner for law enforcement, although it frequently mentions the private 

sector and includes problem-solving guides for addressing crimes that affect specific 

businesses.30 As COPS/IACP Summit participants observed, “through the practice 

of community policing, law enforcement agencies have collaborated extensively 

with practically every group but private security.” 31 This is beginning to change as 

policymakers examine more closely the links among community policing, homeland 

security, and critical incident planning and response.32 

In fact, some of the partnerships in this report have long made a direct link between community 

policing and LE-PS collaboration. Partnerships that focus on crime in BIDs and other urban areas 

are among those whose work most obviously reflects community policing approaches. 

  Minneapolis SafeZone received a prestigious IACP community policing award. 

  Philadelphia Center City District, the Philadelphia Police Department, and other city 


partners are working on homelessness, disorder, and other quality-of-life issues.
 

  In Anaheim (California), the police department’s Tourist Oriented Policing Team is a 


key collaborator with private security. 

  Sheriff’s community resource deputies are active participants in the Hillsborough County 

(Florida) Public Safety & Security Partnership. 

Not every LE-PS collaboration in this report associates its work with community policing, 

but all reflect the partnership principle of community policing, and some have gained 

recognition as exemplary community policing efforts. 
16 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

— 

Training Opportunities and Resources 

Many LE-PS partnerships offer training and have found that high-quality training is a 

major motivator for both law enforcement and private security to stay involved. Often, 

the training provided is not readily available through other sources.33 For example: 

  Law enforcement in some jurisdictions is being trained by ASIS International and its 

chapters to perform specialized risk, physical security, and other assessments. 

  Partnerships involving utilities (including nuclear) in the mid-Atlantic states and 

the petroleum industry in Texas are improving police officer safety, as well as the 

effectiveness of investigations, through specialized, industry-specific training. 

Career Transitions 

Law enforcement has been a very rewarding career for many people in terms of job benefits and career experiences. 

A career in law enforcement presents the individual with many opportunities and challenges. Officers can go from 

the patrol car or walking a beat to specialized activities including canine, marine, accident reconstruction, tactical 

operations, and a variety of administrative or investigative assignments. Officers can also move up through the 

organization to gain experience in many types of supervisory, managerial, and leadership positions. 

While the pay has improved, early retirement is also a key benefit. Often law enforcement personnel don’t plan 

or prepare for their next career, thinking that their current knowledge will allow them to step into their next job, 

possibly in the private sector. They fail to use the skills that made them a success in the past—preparation, and the 

continuous development of new skills. 

There are some key differences between public policing and private security that law enforcement personnel 

should realize. Law enforcement is geographically based with duties and responsibilities to a given population and 

area. The private sector is more product/service based with efforts covering a much larger area, often national or 

international. While careers in law enforcement are usually started at organizations’ entry level, the private sector 

hires based on needed skill levels wherever they are required in the organization. In the private sector, prevention 

has a much higher priority than investigation and arrest, which are actions taken when prevention fails. 

Resumes submitted by law enforcement for a position in the private sector sometimes do not reflect the skills that are 

valued in business. Degrees in criminal justice, in contrast to business degrees, may not demonstrate the knowledge 

that the private sector is seeking. Law enforcement-learned skills, such as leadership and problem solving, must be 

supported with other business skills like understanding profit and loss, risk mitigation, and return on investment. 

If a second career in private security appeals to you, the planning and preparation should begin at least 5 years 

before you retire. Obtain an understanding of how the private sector works and what is important to them. Begin 

engaging in public-private partnership projects to learn about how the private sector operates. This will expose 

you to the needs and practices of the business community. It will also allow you to develop contacts that could be 

very helpful in your future transition. 

Michael D. Gambrill, Senior Vice President of Industry and Government Affairs, Dunbar Armored, Inc., 

and retired Chief of Police, Baltimore County, Maryland 
17 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

inTroduCTion and BaCkground
 

  Critical incident response training for police and private security—including both tabletop and 

full-scale exercises—has been an important benefit of partnerships in Northern Virginia and 

Milwaukee. 

  Other collaborations between law enforcement, the private sector, and in some cases 

academia have trained mall security personnel, apartment doormen, service and delivery 

workers, and others in a position to recognize terrorist threats and other crimes. 

Career Opportunities and Recognition 

The private security and law enforcement fields recruit qualified employees from each 

other as people change careers. Law enforcement managers who gain experience and 

contacts through LE-PS partnerships are often at an advantage later if they want to 

make a career shift to private security. Entry-level security guards may aspire to become 

sworn police officers and get an introduction to the field by working to protect business 

establishments.34 

Security directors who were formerly in law enforcement were described as a “big plus” 

for many of the LE-PS partnerships the study team interviewed, including BOMA35 in 

Chicago, the Downtown Visions BID in Wilmington, the ILSSA36 Intelligence Network 

in Boston, the Mid-Atlantic Utilities Group partnership, and the Hillsborough County, 

Florida, LE-PS partnership. Trust was less of an issue because of these individuals’ direct 

knowledge of law enforcement organizations and cultures. 

LE-PS partnerships can also be a vehicle for acknowledging jobs well done by private 

security personnel. A recent BOMA Chicago award, for example, went to an unarmed 

private security officer who apprehended a fleeing bank robbery suspect. In Minneapolis, 

private security officers were also instrumental in capturing a bank robbery suspect 

because they were able to communicate the suspect’s location to police over a common 

radio channel made possible through the SafeZone partnership. Other partnerships have 

also been recognized by the media or city leaders, or have received awards from DOJ, ASIS 

International, or the IACP. 

The Michael Shanahan Award for Excellence in Public/Private Cooperation, sponsored by 

the IACP and the Security Industry Association (SIA), recognizes outstanding achievements 

in developing and implementing public/private cooperation for public safety. It is a 

joint award for a law enforcement agency and private security organization together. 

Winners are selected by the IACP Private Sector Liaison Committee with assistance from ASIS 

International’s Law Enforcement Liaison Council. The award covers travel expenses to 

attend the annual IACP meeting, where the winners are recognized. 
18 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

Barriers and Challenges 

Lack of Awareness and Knowledge 

One significant barrier to LE-PS collaboration is a lack of awareness in law enforcement 

of what private security has to offer.37 Similarly, some on the private security side—for 

example, personnel who do not have law enforcement experience—may not be fully 

aware of law enforcement’s capabilities and resources. Many of the partnerships, events, 

and materials referenced in this report were developed to increase awareness. These 

efforts have met with some success. A number of partnership leaders interviewed credited 

specific outreach efforts—for example, contacts made during an ASIS chapter meeting— 

as having sparked partnership formation.38 

Still, many in law enforcement have not given much consideration to the dozens of highly 

specialized functions that private security performs39 (see sidebar) and the potential 

benefits of collaboration. LE-PS partnership is not a topic that police training academies 

typically address,40 nor are police often rewarded on the job for thinking creatively about 

collaboration with private security. 

Private Security Specializations 

In its publication Career Opportunities in Security, ASIS International recognizes at least 34 specialty 

security career areas. 

Agricultural 

Banking/financial services 

Commercial real estate 

Cultural properties 

Educational institutions 

Gaming and wagering 

Government industrial 

Health care 

Information systems 

Investigations 

Lodging and hospitality 

Manufacturing 

Retail loss prevention 

Security engineering and design 

Security sales, equipment, and services 

Transportation 

Utilities and nuclear 

Construction 

Contingency planning 

Crisis management 

Executive protection 

Local, state, and federal government 

Food services 

Insurance 

Oil, gas, and chemical 

Pharmaceutical 

Proprietary/information 

Residential 

Security consulting 

Security education and training 

Special events 

Telecommunications 

Terrorism counteraction 

Wholesale and warehousing 
19 

 

 

 

 

 

 

inTroduCTion and BaCkground
 

In addition, law enforcement may be swayed by negative press about, or negative 

experiences with, one segment of the private security industry. This problem cuts both 

ways. A private security director may be reluctant to approach a law enforcement agency 

whose shortcomings have been widely publicized, or whose reputation has been that of 

a closed organization that does not welcome partnership opportunities. 

Lack of Trust 

Without trust, information-sharing—the key purpose of having a partnership in the first 

place—will not occur to any appreciable extent. For various partnerships, trust issues may 

include the following: 

  Lack of trust at the street level between law enforcement (e.g., perceived by private 

security as arrogant or a closed club) and private security (e.g., perceived by law 

enforcement as transient and poorly trained and paid). 

  Private security directors’ concerns about sharing information with one another (How 

much do I want competitors to know about my business?). 

  Private security’s distrust of law enforcement (How much do I want the authorities to 

know about my business? Will law enforcement truly share valuable information or 

hold it close to the vest? Will law enforcement run the show or share the partnership’s 

agenda setting and decision making?). 

  Law enforcement distrust of private security (What level of professionalism and 

training will private security bring to the table? How will they treat sensitive 

information? Will vendors try to use this group as a sales opportunity?). 

  Law enforcement agencies’ distrust of one another (What will our role be in a 

partnership led by another agency? What’s in it for us?). 

The importance of trust was mentioned repeatedly in the Operation Partnership study 

interviews. Usually, it was discussed in the context of having overcome initial distrust 

because of member screening processes, private security directors’ backgrounds in law 

enforcement, or successes over time on joint projects. 

But these partnership leaders also acknowledged that not all trust issues are resolved early 

on. As one commented with respect to information sharing among business competitors 

and law enforcement, “We continually seek ways to share information as openly as possible 

without stepping over company and agency boundaries and violating confidentiality.” 
20 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Information Sharing and Privacy Concerns 

Law enforcement, private security, and the public all have legitimate concerns about 

the sharing of personal, sensitive, and classified information: what information will be 

acquired, how it will be acquired, how it will be protected, how it will be shared, with 

whom it will be shared, and at what costs (time and money versus benefits). These issues 

are complex and often controversial—legally, ethically, technologically, and in relation to 

corporate and government policies. The partnership examples in this report show that 

information-sharing issues affect each LE-PS partnership in different ways, depending on 

the partnership’s purpose, membership, activities, and relevant laws. 

  In some partnerships, information is shared orally about individuals (e.g., fired hotel 

employees) but not in written form because of concerns about potential liability under 

state and federal employment laws. 

  Some partnerships provide the most sensitive information only to fully vetted 

members, although associate members may access other benefits (e.g., training). 

  Formal local government approval may be needed to share certain information. 

For example, before the HartSCAN (Security Communications Access Network) 

partnership could implement its crime alert systems, the Hartford (Connecticut) 

City Council had to pass a resolution enabling SCAN members to communicate 

sensitive information over a secure, tightly monitored and controlled city radio 

frequency. Each member with access had to sign a formal agreement before being 

allowed to participate. 

Although the local-level LE-PS collaborations reviewed for this study were not engaged in 

data mining41 as a partnership activity, lessons learned from federal data mining projects 

are applicable to other types of data analysis and information sharing. For example, some 

planned federal data mining systems were put on hold, and another began undergoing major 

revisions, for reasons including these: 

  High potential for information glut (too much irrelevant information) 

  Unresolved privacy issues 

  Existing computer systems that were not up to the task 

  Lack of buy-in by potential users who did not believe the benefits would justify the costs.42 

Some industries are prohibited by law from releasing certain information, such as utility 

companies’ site security plans. Another example of legal restrictions concerns the whole 

spectrum of security clearances.43 

In addition, businesses may resist working with other businesses that compete in the 

same field. One concern is that a corporate advantage will be diminished if proprietary 

information becomes public: the competition may learn too much about a company’s 

new software, for example, or an efficient business practice. Other concerns include 
21 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

inTroduCTion and BaCkground 

antitrust violations (price fixing). The antitrust laws generally prohibit agreements among 

competitors regarding matters such as price, credit terms, and market shares, which can 

weaken competition and raise barriers to entry or innovation. 

While still mindful of these concerns, business competitors do join partnerships with law 

enforcement to combat crimes of concern to their industries. Examples in this report 

include the following: 

  The Mobile Phone Interest Group, a partnership formed in October 2005 to stop 

organized theft of mobile phones. It involves multiple local, state, and federal law 

enforcement partners; corporate security representatives from Nokia, Motorola, and 

other companies; and shipping/cargo companies. 

  The Mid-Atlantic Utilities Group, which was formed in 1991 by security 

representatives of two utility companies to address thefts of copper from power 

stations and substations. The group now involves seven states and has expanded 

to include other utility companies (gas, electric, sewage); telecommunications 

companies; and local, state, and federal law enforcement. It takes on issues identified 

by the membership, for example, thefts of construction equipment, thefts of copper, 

workplace violence, fraud, and antiterrorism planning. 

Technology 

While advanced technology has been listed as a benefit, it also presents challenges. Some 

new technologies are controversial, and many are costly and involve time for acquisition, 

setup, training, and maintenance. 

CCTV systems44 and other technologies have proven value for investigating crimes and terrorist 

acts, but their acquisition requires LE-PS partnerships and local jurisdictions to consider many 

factors.45 New York City’s 2007 decision to install 3,000 public and private security cameras 

and other equipment46 illustrates many of these factors. For example: 

  Cost. The reported projected cost of the New York system was $90 million, with initial 

costs to be borne by the city ($15 million) and a DHS grant ($10 million). Cities desiring 

systems even 1/100 this size may be unable to afford them. 

  Decisions about system features. New technology is constantly evolving. Features 

applied today may be outmoded in a few years. How can anticipated changes in 

technology be taken into account in selecting and purchasing equipment? Will CCTV 

videos be accepted in court? 

  Management. Who manages the systems and data? Concerning CCTV, will law 

enforcement or private security monitor in real time? Who will provide the 

monitoring resources? 
22 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Oversight. Who maintains accountability for actions? Is there some level of 

oversight? Who has access to archived images, etc.? 

  Public acceptance and expectations. Does the public perceive that new technologies 

will reduce privacy? Does the public understand the difference between CCTV’s 

deterrent value versus its investigative value? 

Personnel Issues 

Various segments of the private security industry—especially guard services—are 

characterized by low pay, poor benefits, and as a result, high turnover. Because of 

these and other personnel issues, property and people may be guarded by individuals 

who have not yet become familiar with a site’s security plan, have not been subjected 

to a thorough background check, have little monetary incentive to take risks, or were 

not in place when terrorism or other specialized training was provided.47 State licensing 

and training standards vary greatly, and 10 states still do not regulate private security 

at all.48 

In the LE-PS collaborations interviewed for this study, the private security partners 

were managers, directors, and owners. They held various private security industry 

certifications and in some partnerships had been cleared through background 

investigations (e.g., the FBI’s InfraGard and Nassau County Security/Police Information 

Network partnerships). 

Many private security companies meet or exceed voluntary industry guidelines. Given the 

lack of uniform standards, however, some law enforcement agencies are understandably 

cautious about collaborating with private security and must satisfy themselves that the 

firms or security departments they work with adhere to high standards and that their 

representatives are trustworthy. As discussed in Chapter 3, regulatory changes have been 

slow in coming, but major private security associations like the National Association of 

Security Companies and ASIS International actively lobby to improve professionalism 

within the industry. 

In addition, some partnerships interviewed for this study discussed the benefits of 

having state private security regulators as partnership members. Examples include the 

involvement of state regulators in founding the Hillsborough County, Florida, partnership, 

and the active participation of the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services in the 

Virginia Police and Private Security Alliance. 

Law enforcement has recruitment and attrition challenges of its own that affect 

LE-PS partnerships. Many police departments are having difficulty attracting qualified 

candidates to fill authorized positions. 49 This can have a ripple effect on an agency’s 

ability to devote resources to partnership activities. 
23 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

inTroduCTion and BaCkground
 

Unlike private security guards, law enforcement officers tend to stay with the same 

department; however, LE-PS partnerships are affected by retirements and by the practice 

of rotating law enforcement managers through assignments. A police manager assigned 

to spearhead an LE-PS partnership, for example, may be transferred to a different 

position within a year or two. His or her successor may be less (or more) enthusiastic 

about collaborating with private security. Or the law enforcement agency may shift the 

partnership from one division to another. At least one partnership studied was affected 

by all these changes. 

Decision-Making 

Cumbersome decision-making processes and risk aversion in government, including law 

enforcement, can delay the positive changes that might come from LE-PS collaborations. 

One partnership, for example, noted that by the time a federal law enforcement 

representative was convinced to join the partnership and was approved to do so by his 

agency, he was transferred, and the process had to start over. 

In contrast, the private sector, including private security, is typically better positioned 

to seize opportunities; however, in addition to addressing concerns about information 

sharing, corporate security directors need to convince others in the company that time 

spent on partnership activities is worthwhile from a cost-benefit perspective. Hosting a 

luncheon each quarter is one thing. It is quite another to devote 150 hours during the 

course of 3 months to help plan a critical incident response exercise. This is time wellspent for many corporations but may not be possible for smaller businesses. 

Taxpayer Support for Police and Private Security Services 

Chapter 3 on trends in LE-PS collaboration discusses how private security is increasingly 

delivering services that traditionally were provided by law enforcement. For example, BIDs, 

which are supported by special tax assessments, may employ private security in those 

districts to increase patrol coverage. 

Although this is becoming a common practice, it is not universally embraced. Police may 

object to private security taking on functions they believe should be performed by law 

enforcement. Some businesses may be reluctant to be taxed twice for crime-prevention 

services that they believe a public (taxpayer-supported) law enforcement agency should be 

providing. Similar objections may be raised by residents whose neighborhood associations 

want to impose fees to pay for private security patrols. 
oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

24 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the public spotlight recently was the broader issue of government contracting for 

private security, particularly the Departments of State and Defense contracting to protect 

U.S. officials and property in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although that situation is different from the 

collaborations discussed in this report, it raises questions about accountability and wise use of 

tax dollars that pertain to all LE-PS partnerships. For example: 

  What is the appropriate mix of private security and law enforcement for the job 

at hand? 

  Are the private security officers well-qualified for their assignments? 

  Is law enforcement performing services that might be handled well, but less 

expensively, by private security? 

Summary 

LE-PS partnerships have been documented for at least 30 years, but their number has 

escalated within the past 8 or 10 years. The partnerships were formed after someone in 

law enforcement or private security took the first step toward building new professional 

relationships. They were willing to explore the possibilities, either because they were 

forward thinking or because a certain type of crime was not responding to traditional, 

separate approaches for dealing with it. 

Law enforcement, influenced by community policing, has become more open to citizen 

and business involvement in partnerships, crime-prevention, and problem-solving. 

Collaborations with private security are an extension of these core principles of policing 

today but present unique challenges, especially with regard to information sharing. The 

examples of LE-PS partnerships in this report involve a range of approaches that have 

been successful in overcoming those challenges. 
 

 

mEThodoLogy


 ChAPTEr TwO: Methodology
 

With assistance from many law enforcement and private security leaders, Operation 

Partnership project staff completed the following tasks to identify law enforcementprivate security (LE-PS) partnerships, explore successful practices and lessons learned, 

and analyze trends and challenges: 

  Consulted with an advisory group of law enforcement and private security leaders. 

  Issued a call to the field for information about LE-PS partnerships in cooperation 

with professional organizations. 

  Reviewed professional journal and news articles, research and policy reports, and 

other literature. 

  Conducted and analyzed national-level surveys of private security and law 

enforcement. 

  Developed a comprehensive list of partnerships and identified and selected 

partnerships for follow-up review. 

  Completed structured telephone interviews with more than 50 selected partnerships 

and produced summary reports. 

  Conducted site visits to explore several exemplary partnerships in greater detail. 

  Convened advisors to review interim products and explore issues that affect future 

partnership development. 

  Developed final products and explored next steps for product dissemination, training, 

and future research. 

The Operation Partnership surveys (explained below) were administered to help identify 

as many LE-PS collaborations as possible. They did not involve polling a representative 

sample of organizations to draw conclusions about the nationwide status of LE-PS 

collaborations, such as the percentage of law enforcement agencies engaged in 

partnerships and the reasons why or why not. 

25 
26 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

Purpose of the Project 

The following objectives guided the project activities: 

  Identify significant resources in private security that can assist local law enforcement 

in the national effort to prevent, detect, and respond to terrorism and other homeland 

security threats, as well as other crimes. 

  Discover and document models and techniques of effective working relationships 

including partnership formats and best practices in leadership, joint training, and 

information- and intelligence-sharing. 

  Determine the extent to which community policing is being used to develop 

partnerships between law enforcement and private security. 

The goals for the final report were to present useful LE-PS partnership approaches that 

others could adapt in their own jurisdictions; make informed observations about trends 

and challenges; and offer recommendations for promoting more, and more effective, 

LE-PS collaborations. 

Project Components and tasks 

Advisory group 

One of the first steps was to convene an advisory group of law enforcement and private 

security leaders who were themselves experienced in LE-PS collaborations. The advisory 

group members were the following: 

  Robert Lee: Principal Consultant, Mason-Coburn Partners; Member and Former 

Chair, Law Enforcement Liaison Council, ASIS International; former Director, Justice 

Programs, Nextel Corporation; former Supervisory Special Agent, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation. 

  Michael Gambrill: Member and Former Chair, Law Enforcement Liaison Council, ASIS 

International; Senior Vice President, Dunbar Armored Security; retired Chief of Police, 

Baltimore County (Maryland) Police Department. 

  Randall Carroll: Former Co-Chair, Private Sector Liaison Committee, International 

Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP); retired Chief of Police, Bellingham (Washington) 

Police Department. 

  Lynn Oliver: President/CEO, American Security Programs, Inc.; founding member and 

Secretary, Virginia Police and Private Security Alliance (VaPPSA); member of the Board 

of Directors, National Association of Security Companies. 

  Thomas Sweeney, Chief of Police, Glastonbury (Connecticut) Police Department; 

former Chief of Police, Bridgeport (Connecticut) former Co-Chair, Private Sector 

Liaison Committee, IACP. 
27 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mEThodoLogy
 

The following were the group’s main tasks: 

  Provide expert advice on current issues and challenges, which helped focus the 

research questions 

  Nominate partnerships that should be acknowledged or explored 

  Participate in a focus group that included representatives of exemplary partnerships 

  Review interim and final products. 

Call to the Field 

Staff also received invaluable support from ASIS International50 and its Law Enforcement 

Liaison Council (LELC), the Private Sector Liaison Committee (PSLC) of the IACP, and 

other organizations interested in LE-PS collaborations. These organizations were closely 

involved in the first phase of the project, which included the following: 

  Establishing a special e-mail address at the Institute for Law and Justice (ILJ) to which 

people could send information about partnerships 

  Broadly disseminating an announcement to explain the project and invite law 

enforcement and private security representatives to contact ILJ with partnership 

information 

  Posting the project announcement by ASIS International on its web site, again with an 

invitation to report partnerships to ILJ 

  E-mailing the announcement to the ASIS membership 

  Conducting outreach by in-person presentations at association and partnership 

meetings, telephone, and e-mail to a network of professional contacts. 

About 50 individuals contacted ILJ about their partnerships through the project e-mail 

account, and at least another 30 responded through other channels to the initial call 

for information. Some also volunteered materials, such as partnership newsletters, 

descriptions, PowerPoint presentations, news articles, and more. 

Literature review 

This task continued throughout the project. It included reviews of articles in academic 

and professional trade journals; reports and other materials produced by individual 

LE-PS partnerships; news articles; books and reports about the private security industry, 

policing, critical incident response, and other topics affecting LE-PS partnerships; 

reports by federal government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security, and the Government Accountability Office; state 

and federal statutes; and other sources. The authors have cited relevant literature 

throughout the report, rather than preparing a separate literature review section or 

report addendum. 
28 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surveys of Private Security and Law Enforcement 

The purpose of the Operation Partnership survey was to identify as many LE-PS 

partnerships as possible and obtain reliable contact information for follow-up. The 

questionnaire was brief. It asked respondents to do the following: 

  Name a partnership of which they were aware or in which they were involved 

  Check the primary activities in which the partnership was engaged (18 activities 

were listed) 

  State how long the partnership had been in operation 

  Indicate whether the partnership was formed as a result of the September 11, 2001 

terrorist attacks, or if the partnership began earlier, whether it had changed after 9/11 

  Indicate whether the partnership had materials or success stories it was willing 

to share. 

The project team created a web-based survey form, which ASIS International disseminated 

as an attachment to an e-mailed letter that asked for participation. It was sent in spring 

2006 to approximately 17,000 individuals, most of whom worked in contract or proprietary 

security, although some were law enforcement personnel. A total of 242 individuals 

responded indicating they were part of, or knew about, an LE-PS partnership. 

In addition, a version of the same questionnaire was mailed to 350 law enforcement 

agencies. The sample consisted of the largest law enforcement agencies serving the 

three largest counties within each state. The questionnaire was mailed in spring 2006. 

The project budget and work plan did not permit use of follow-up techniques to increase 

responses, such as calls to nonrespondents, postcard reminders, or remailing of the survey 

to nonrespondents. Fifty-three law enforcement agencies responded to the survey. 

Comprehensive List of Partnerships 

After all surveys were completed, the study team had received approximately 505 LE-PS 

project nominations provided by 242 ASIS survey respondents; 53 law enforcement survey 

respondents; and 210 call-ins from announcements, nominations from experts and 

advisors, staff research, literature research, and other sources. 

After further analysis, about 20 percent of the nominations were removed from the 

list for a variety of methodological reasons: nominations were duplicated, information 

provided was unclear, survey respondent omitted accurate contact information, or the 

description did not meet the LE-PS partnership definition. 

The study team continued to review the literature and consult with others throughout 

the project. By project end, the team was able to include additional partnerships not 

previously identified. The final list includes more than 450 identified partnerships. 
29 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mEThodoLogy
 

Telephone Interviews with Selected Partnerships 

The next major task was to review the partnership nominations from all sources 

and select a manageable number for structured, in-depth telephone interviews. The 

selection process was not scientific, but it was guided by specific criteria. In addition 

to good contact information for follow-up and representation from various regions 

of the country, staff looked for partnerships that seemed to have one or more of the 

following qualities: 

  Effective practices in LE-PS partnership operations (e.g., joint LE-PS leadership, 

successful techniques to increase and retain members, solutions to informationsharing challenges) 

  Multiple partners (e.g., local, state, and federal law enforcement, contract and 

proprietary security, other organizations and public agencies) 

  Strong ties to a jurisdiction’s community policing efforts 

  Availability of information on successes in preventing or solving crimes 

  Focus on issues of great public concern (e.g., homeland security). 

From the final list of 450 LE-PS partnerships, staff identified 85 partnerships of 

special interest based on these criteria. A final consideration was that the partnerships 

have a local, state, or regional focus (many such partnerships also include federal 

law enforcement). Of the 85, approximately 50 appeared to have such a focus and 

were selected for interviews. The other 35 were primarily national or federal level 

partnerships, and many of these are also included in the report; however, they were 

either interviewed using different sets of questions more relevant to their operations; 

were documented in current, reliable reports; or were organizations about which 

project staff or advisors had direct knowledge because they were members or had a 

working relationship with them. 

The telephone interviews covered the following topics: 

  Partnership formation: why and how the partnership got started 

  Membership: composition, member screening processes, factors affecting membership 

retention and growth 

  Leadership and division of responsibilities between law enforcement and private 

security 

  Details about partnership activities: scope of activities, programs that 

have worked well, roadblocks encountered, solutions 

  Results of partnership activities: accomplishments, success stories, 

lessons learned 

  Plans for sustaining or expanding the partnership. 
30 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

The interviews were conducted in fall 2006 by project staff and experienced consultants. 

The product of this task was a set of 45 case studies summarizing each partnership, along 

with documents that many partnership representatives provided. 

Focus group 

After the partnership field interviews were completed and key findings were drafted, the 

project team convened a focus group to assist in analyzing key issues and in providing 

further direction for the report guidelines. The focus group included representatives of 

eight selected partnerships and the project’s advisory group for a day-long meeting, 

which was held in Alexandria, Virginia, on March 26, 2007. The invited partnerships 

represented diverse missions, activities, regions of the country, and forms of organization: 

the Mid-Atlantic Utilities Group, Milwaukee Critical Incident Protocol partnership, 

Washington Law Enforcement Executive Forum, Minneapolis SafeZone Collaborative– 

Downtown, Anaheim Crime Alert Network, the FBI InfraGard national program, Nassau 

County Security/Police Information Network (SPIN), and the VaPPSA. The discussions 

focused on the following topics: 

  Trends in LE-PS partnerships 

  Trends and issues in LE-PS intelligence/information sharing 

  Key elements of success and failure: guidelines for the field 

  Future directions for LE-PS partnerships 

  Recommendations. 

The focus group provided excellent insights that greatly improved the 

final product. 

Site Visits 

Project staff conducted several site visits to explore exemplary partnerships in greater depth: 

  Philadelphia Center City District partnership, which involves multiple components 

and has a long history of success in addressing quality-of-life concerns, crime, and 

terrorism response planning. 

  Several partnerships in the New York City area: New York Police Department SHIELD, 

Nassau County SPIN, and the Suffolk County Alert Network (SCAN). The visit involved 

interviews with police and private security representatives with direct knowledge of 

how these partnerships evolved and interacted. 
31 

mEThodoLogy 

  Target Corporation’s Minneapolis headquarters and the Minneapolis Police 

Department, to consult with individuals involved in the Minneapolis SafeZone and 

Target & BLUE partnerships. 

  Westchase Management District in Houston, Texas, which blends private security with 

Houston Police Department officers working patrol in an off-duty capacity. 

Staff also attended a full-day, statewide meeting on LE-PS partnerships hosted by the 

Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services; participated in ASIS LELC and IACP PSLC 

meetings (in-person meetings and teleconferences) throughout the project; and delivered 

presentations on the project in September and October 2007 at the national ASIS and 

IACP annual conferences, respectively. 

Product Dissemination and Follow-up 

The Operation Partnership final report is intended for wide distribution by the COPS 

Office and through participating professional associations, in printed, CD, and web-based 

formats. The study team’s intent is to continue supporting several follow-up actions of 

great importance: the additional recommendations named at the COPS/IACP Summit. 

Recently, the COPS Office awarded a cooperative agreement to the Law EnforcementPrivate Security Consortium to develop online training modules on LE-PS partnerships. 

These modules, in electronic formats, will reach the widest possible audiences. 
oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 
kEy TrEndS in PuBLiC-PrivaTE ParTnErShiPS
 

ChAPTEr ThrEE: Key Trends in Public-Private Partnerships
 

Introduction 

This project’s research points to several trends in partnerships between law enforcement 

and private security (LE-PS) organizations. By far the most evident LE-PS partnership 

trend is a substantial rise in the number of partnerships. An earlier study of LE-PS 

partnership notes that “in the 1980s, only a few formal cooperative programs existed, 

while [in 2000] close to 60 have been documented.”51 By contrast, the present research, 

conducted in 2006, has uncovered more than 450 LE-PS partnerships. 

LE-PS partnerships are now so common that some practitioners have begun to call them 

by a new, shorthand term—“P3 network,” which refers to a public-private partnership 

network. One law enforcement practitioner describes those networks as follows: “On 

the public side of the network [are] law enforcement and ‘non-law enforcement’ 

governmental agencies, while on the private side there are security directors as well 

as local chambers of commerce, neighborhood watch groups, and civic associations.”52 

Research has also found that spending and employment are greater in the private 

security field than in the law enforcement field. To multiply their crime-prevention and 

related capabilities, law enforcement agencies are increasingly turning to partnerships 

with their more numerous counterparts in the private sector. 

This chapter provides the following information: 

  Comparison of the scope and size of the partnering fields 

  Description of several general trends in LE-PS partnerships 

  Description of partnership trends specifically related to homeland security. 

Based on the partnerships studied, the following are the main trends relating to LE-PS 

partnerships: 

general Trends 

  Increasing number of partnerships 

  High degree of satisfaction with partnerships 

  Changes in leadership of partnerships—more sharing of responsibilities 

  More energetic outreach for members 

  Greater range of partnership activities 

  Better information sharing between partnership members 

  More private provision of traditional law enforcement functions 

  Growth in leveraging of resources 

  Institutionalization of partnerships. 

33 
34 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

Trends Specifically related to homeland Security 

  Increased high-level attention to law enforcement-private security partnerships 

  Development of new partnerships with a clear focus on homeland security 

  Homeland security focus added to partnerships that existed before 9/11 

  Federally sponsored, privately led infrastructure partnerships 

  Homeland security training for private security partners. 

These trends in LE-PS partnerships appear to be driven by the following factors: 

  Economics. Since 2001, federal funding for traditional, nonhomeland security local 

policing has declined significantly. Police departments see partnership with private 

security as a way to control crime with fewer public resources. 

  homeland security. Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, law enforcement agencies have 

been tasked with many new homeland security responsibilities and have turned to 

private security for assistance. 

  Community policing. This method of policing calls on law enforcement agencies to 

collaborate with the community to prevent crime. The approach leads naturally to 

LE-PS partnerships. 

  Ease of electronic collaboration and information sharing. In some of the 

earliest LE-PS partnerships, police would send crime alerts to private security by 

fax. Partnerships today can use many other electronic methods (web pages, e-mail, 

text messaging, videoconferencing, automated mass telephone calls) to collect 

information from, and distribute it to, partners. 

  rise in mutual esteem. Over time, the private security field continues to gain in 

sophistication. Some security departments at major corporations maintain intelligence 

operations and forensic laboratories that surpass those of many law enforcement 

agencies. As an earlier study notes:53 

Historically, private security and law enforcement practitioners have not 

always had the best relationships. Sometimes, police may have held security 

officers in low regard or corporate security directors may have felt police were 

uninterested in or incapable of addressing certain of their concerns, such as 

high-tech crime, white-collar crime, or terrorism. 

  Increased credentialing and skills. In recent years, the security field has seen gains 

in certification (more certifications and more certified practitioners), standards (by 

associations and standards-setting bodies), academic programs (in colleges and 

universities), and other measures of a field’s professionalism. At the same time, 

law enforcement practitioners have shown an increasing willingness (often driven 

by necessity) to work with private security, and many law enforcement agencies 

have become more adept at solving crimes of particular concern to businesses 

(such as high-tech crimes), making partnership more attractive to private security 

practitioners. 
35 

 

 

 

 

 

kEy TrEndS in PuBLiC-PrivaTE ParTnErShiPS
 

  Encouragement from law enforcement and private security associations and 

government agencies. Through conferences, research, and publications, associations 

such as ASIS International, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), 

and the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA), as well as the Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office) and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, 

U.S. Department of Justice, have encouraged the development of LE-PS partnerships. 

Not all trends in LE-PS partnership are wholly positive. Observers have noted that such 

partnerships may raise concerns regarding privacy (as more citizens fall under video 

surveillance and into databases), accountability (as private security can search without 

a warrant and may not be under sufficient scrutiny regarding the use of force), and 

authority (as private security officers are given limited police powers and assignments 

when they take over some traditional law enforcement roles). 

Brief history of LE-PS Partnerships 

As early as 1964, interest in LE-PS partnerships was evidenced by two articles that 

appeared in the IACP’s The Police Chief magazine on the topic of police/security liaison 

needs and opportunities.54 In 1971, RAND Corporation researchers surveyed police and 

security worker interaction and reported that 27 percent of private security personnel 

never had police contact and another 30 percent of security personnel had law 

enforcement contact only once or twice a year.55 At that stage, the partnerships were 

informal; the partners’ emphasis was simply to converse about crime-related issues. 

In 1974, the Private Security Advisory Council of the Law Enforcement Assistance 

Administration, U.S. Department of Justice, formed a standing committee to study law 

enforcement and private security relationships. It recognized the need “to promote 

increased cooperation and the development of mechanisms to improve working 

relationships between public law enforcement agencies and the private security industry 

in their mutual objective of crime prevention.”56 Although LE-PS interaction was being 

studied and discussed in the 1970s, few cooperative programs had yet been formed. 

Beginning in the mid-1980s, cooperative programs between the private and public 

sectors slowly emerged. From the 1980s onward, both the IACP and the American Society 

for Industrial Security (now ASIS International) had standing committees on LE-PS 

liaison. Joint meetings and coordinated programming began between these national 

organizations, along with the Private Security Industry Committee of the NSA, in the 

late 1980s. 

In the early 1980s and again in the late 1980s, Hallcrest Systems, Inc., with funding from 

the National Institute of Justice, conducted national studies of law enforcement and 

private security. These published reports produced data on trends in private security and 

that field’s relationships with law enforcement.57 
 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP
 

In 2000, the Operation Cooperation project, funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, 

U.S. Department of Justice, produced guidelines to assist law enforcement and private 

security in creating cooperative partnerships and programs.58 These guidelines provided 

information on various types of LE-PS partnerships, tips on how to get started, typical 

activities of collaborative programs, elements of success, and dozens of examples of 

active partnerships (e.g., the Austin [Texas] Metro High Tech Foundation; North Texas 

Regional Law Enforcement and Private Security [LEAPS] program; Washington Law 

Enforcement Executive Forum; and Law Enforcement and Private Security Council 

of Northeast Florida). The guidelines and an accompanying video were distributed to 

thousands of law enforcement chief executives and senior private security officials 

throughout the nation to encourage partnership development. 

In 2004, with funding and guidance from the COPS Office, the IACP hosted the COPS/ 

IACP National Policy Summit: Building Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships 

to Prevent and Respond to Terrorism and Public Disorder. The resulting policy paper 

recommended, among other things, that the U.S. Department of Justice fund research on 

law enforcement-private security cooperation, leading directly to the present project.59 

Law Enforcement 

By definition, an LE-PS partnership must contain at least one law enforcement member 

and at least one private security member. This section examines the law enforcement side 

of the partnership. 

In 2004, there were more than 800,000 full-time sworn law enforcement officers in the 

United States,60 distributed as shown in Table 1. 

Table 1: Law Enforcement Officers in United States, 2004 

Type of Agency number of 

Agencies 

number of Full-Time 

Sworn Officers 

All state and local 17,876 731,903 

Local police 12,766 446,974 

Sheriff 3,067 175,018 

Primary state 49 58,190 

Special jurisdiction 1,481 49,398 

Constable/marshal 513 2,323 

Federal* 104,884 

Total 836,787 

Special jurisdiction category includes both state-level and local-level agencies. Consolidated policesheriffs are included under local police category. Agency counts exclude those operating on a parttime basis. 

*Nonmilitary federal officers authorized to carry firearms and make arrests. 

36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

kEy TrEndS in PuBLiC-PrivaTE ParTnErShiPS
 

Spending on federal, state, and local policing totaled approximately $83 billion in 2003,61 

the latest year for which figures are available. 

Private Security 

Both quantitatively and qualitatively, the private security field is less well-known than law 

enforcement. The last major study to estimate the size of the private security field was published 

in 198562 and updated in 1990.63 Table 2 shows the latter report’s estimates and projections: 

Table 2 suggests that as of 2000, private security employment may have exceeded law 

enforcement employment by nearly 3 to 1, and private security spending may have 

exceeded law enforcement spending by more than 2 to 1. 

Table 2: Employment and Expenditures in Private Security and Law Enforcement 

Estimates and Projections 

Employment (millions) Expenditures (billions) 

Year Private 

Security 

Law 

Enforcement 

Private 

Security 

Law 

Enforcement 

1980 1.0 0.6 $20 $14 

1990 1.5 0.6 $52 $30 

2000 1.9 0.7 $103 $44 

Source: Cunningham, William C., John J. Strauchs, and Clifford W. Van Meter, Private Security Trends 

1970–2000: The Hallcrest Report II, Stoneham, Massachusetts: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1990. 

It is difficult to estimate how many private security practitioners work in the field 

today. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that its occupational category known 

as “security guards and gaming surveillance officers” employed more than 1 million 

persons in 2004.64 That category likely includes no more than half of those employed 

in private security overall. Enhancing Private Security Officer Surety, a report for the 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security,65 found that in the five states it studied, guards 

constituted only one-half to one-third the total number of security employees. The rest 

are security workers in such fields as alarm installation and monitoring, access control, 

closed-circuit television (CCTV), locks, and safes, etc., as well as managers of security firms 

and security departments within larger organizations. Extrapolating from the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics estimate, the total number of U.S. security employees could certainly be 

2 million or more—that is, more than twice the number of law enforcement officers. 

37 
38 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In general, private security operations parallel and supplement public law enforcement 

activities, as noted by Ohlhausen et al.:66 

Security executives perceive their industry’s role as a supplementary one, 

protecting property and assets in ways that exceed the resources of law 

enforcement. Crimes against business that are commonly investigated by 

private security personnel, but seldom by law enforcement, include many 

high-tech and computer crimes, complex frauds, and industrial espionage. 

Although they have different emphases, law enforcement and private security 

ostensibly share the goals of crime prevention and control. 

In the past, law enforcement agencies may have hesitated to partner with private security 

organizations because of concerns over the professional quality of the potential partners, 

especially security officers. In particular, the quality of security officer compensation, 

background screening, and training was in question. As has been shown, security officers 

represent only one-third to one-half of security employees, at most, but they are the most 

visible employees in the field, so their quality may greatly affect the field’s reputation as 

a worthwhile partner for law enforcement. Recent improvements in the areas of concern, 

as described in the next three sections, may now be contributing to the increase in LE-PS 

partnerships. 

Compensation 

ASIS International conducts annual salary surveys of security managers. In 2006, the 

average annual compensation was $90,000, and the median was $79,000.67 The median 

wage of security managers has been rising for some time. The ASIS salary surveys have 

found 5 to 6 percent annual increases in the median salary during the last several years. 

Security officers, not managers, generally earn much more than the minimum wage that 

is sometimes considered to be their normal pay. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates 

the mean annual wages of security guards as $24,840. The top 25 percent of guards earn 

$28,900 or more, while the top 10 percent earn $37,850 or more.68 Similarly, Cunningham 

et al. found that annual pay for security officers—unarmed, armed, contract, and 

proprietary—ranges from about $17,000 to $40,000 or more depending on such factors 

as wage rates in the geographical area, armed versus unarmed assignments, proprietary 

versus contractual employer, and type of client and nature of the security task.69 Security 

guards in some industries earn much more than the average; for example, guards in the 

natural gas distribution industry have a mean annual wage of $61,180.70 
39 

 

 

 

 

 

kEy TrEndS in PuBLiC-PrivaTE ParTnErShiPS
 

Background Screening 

Improved capability for background screening of security practitioners is another factor 

that may be leading to increased LE-PS partnership. A new federal law offers the promise of 

access to the FBI national criminal history record database, while online database services 

make it easier for employers to screen security officers. 

The Private Security Officer Employment Authorization Act (PSOEAA), enacted in 

December 2004 (PL 108-45 8), is intended to allow security employers to do fingerprint 

checks of applicants through the states using the FBI’s national criminal history records. 

Implementation of the act has been slow. It took a year for the FBI’s Criminal Justice 

Information Service (CJIS) to specify the procedures that states and employers should 

follow to set up an FBI check system, and “since the regulations were issued, no state has 

set up a PSOEAA system.”71 

Moreover, the information available through both sources—CJIS and commercial 

databases—is somewhat lacking. As a report for the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security noted, “It is not only government databases that are deemed incomplete. 

Commercial databases are also considered by many to be full of gaps.”72 These two 

information sources are imperfect, but over time they at least potentially increase the 

likelihood that security employees will be suitable partners for law enforcement. 

Training and Education 

Improved training of security practitioners may be another factor leading to increased 

LE-PS partnership. Twenty-two states require basic training for licensed security guards.73 

Moreover, various security associations offer security certifications and extensive 

offerings of security education programs. In addition, more than 100 institutions of 

higher education in the United States offer security degree programs.74 Increased training 

and education would seem to make security practitioners more desirable partners for law 

enforcement agencies. 
40 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

General trends 

This section describes nine general trends in partnerships between law enforcement and private 

security. 

1. More Partnerships 

As was observed earlier, in the 1980s only a few formal cooperative programs existed;75 

in 2000, close to 60 were documented;76 and the present research (2006) has uncovered 

more than 450 LE-PS partnerships. 

Another measure of the growth of partnerships is the rise in business improvement districts 

(BID), many of which have a law enforcement/private security partnership component. In 

1965, the first BID was formed in the United States in New Orleans. Reliable counts are not 

available, but estimates now put the number of U.S. BIDs at about 1,200.77 There are 59 BIDs 

in New York City alone.78 

2. Satisfaction with Partners and Partnerships 

Law enforcement and security practitioners are becoming more satisfied with their 

partnerships and each other. In the early 1980s, law enforcement executives rated LE-PS 

relationships as “fair to good, at best.”79 By contrast, survey research performed for 

the ASIS Foundation by Eastern Kentucky University, with support from the National 

Institute of Justice, asked law enforcement practitioners how they would rate “the overall 

operating relationship between their agency and private security in their jurisdiction. 

Good or excellent relationships with private security were reported by 87.8 percent of the law 

enforcement respondents.”80 

Viewing satisfaction from the other direction, in the early 1980s just under half of 

security managers rated overall relations with law enforcement as excellent.81 In 

2004, more than 70 percent of security managers rated their relationships with law 

enforcement as satisfactory or very satisfactory. Among security manager respondents 

who were members of ASIS (and perhaps more involved in their field), nearly 90 percent 

rated their relationships with law enforcement as satisfactory or very satisfactory.82 
41 

 

 

 

 

 

kEy TrEndS in PuBLiC-PrivaTE ParTnErShiPS
 

3. Leadership Changes 

Most (though not all) early LE-PS partnerships were established by law enforcement—or 

by law enforcement and private security together—and then led by law enforcement, 

which would typically provide information targeted to the partnership’s members. Few 

partnerships were led by private security. A typical example of an early partnership is 

the Washington Law Enforcement Executive Forum (WLEEF), founded by the Washington 

Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC). Though WLEEF’s leadership is now a 

joint law enforcement–private security responsibility, the partnership is still housed and 

supported by WASPC. 

Now it has become possible to find many LE-PS partnerships that are led by private 

security, whose representatives formed the organizations and then asked law 

enforcement to join. These partnerships are funded and administered solely by private 

security, and law enforcement participates as one member among many. The Hazard 

Management Advisory Committee, for example, was founded in 1990 by Union Carbide 

and three other companies to coordinate responses to accidents and attacks involving 

hazardous materials in transit. Local police departments joined the partnership later. 

The group, now with 40 member companies, continues to be chaired by a Union Carbide 

representative. 

Likewise, the Mid-Atlantic Utilities Group was founded in 1991 by security practitioners 

from power companies to combat losses affecting them all. The group now contains 

members from all other kinds of utilities, as well. Federal, state, and local law enforcement 

agencies partner with the group to address various crimes against utilities. Leadership 

remains a private security function; member companies take turns planning and hosting 

meetings to exchange information and plan solutions. 

One leadership function in LE-PS partnerships takes the form of hosting meetings. Private 

security often has a budget that is used to provide space, food, and other resources 

for meetings between law enforcement and private security. While there are notable 

exceptions (like Northern Virginia’s Virginia Police and Private Security Alliance (VaPPSA), 

which was initially funded by ExxonMobil but has been hosted by police agencies at 

public venues for more than 15 years), large partnerships such as InfraGard (with 

thousands of members in about 70 chapters nationwide) often rely on corporate members 

to host meetings. 
42 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

4. greater Outreach for Members 

The study found more effort being expended to bring new members into public-private 

partnerships. The home page of the New York City Police Department, for example, has 

featured, in the most prominent position, the following text: “nYPD ShIELD seeks to 

partner with private sector security managers with the goal of protecting New York City 

from terrorist attacks. Click here for details!” 

Other examples include the following: 

  The Boston Financial District Information Network, a partnership between financial 

institution security directors and the police, asks members at each monthly meeting 

to nominate potential new members. The network has grown from 3 members to 30 

in its 14-year existence. 

  The Philadelphia Crime Prevention Council was started in 1997 with about two dozen 

representatives of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. During the last 

10 years, it has recruited security managers and other private-sector partners. It now 

has approximately 260 members. 

  InfraGard, an FBI-sponsored partnership with the private sector, focuses on the 

exchange of information concerning terrorism, intelligence, criminal, and security 

matters. Since its founding in 1996, it has expanded to include more than 70 local 

chapters throughout the country. 

  The Anaheim Crime Alert Network works with people who have security 

responsibilities in the hospitality industry. The partnership, which includes several 

law enforcement agencies and many private-sector partners, adds about three new 

members each month. 

  ASIS International regularly encourages its members to establish or join partnerships 

with law enforcement. The February 2007 newsletter of the ASIS Law Enforcement 

Liaison Council, for example, states, “The LELC invites you to step up and make a 

difference in 2007. Partnerships between Law Enforcement and the Private Security 

Sector serve America!” 

  The BOMA (Building Owners and Managers Association) Chicago Security Committee 

was formed about 20 years ago between the police and proprietary security directors of 

large Chicago buildings. Its purpose is to monitor and report criminal activity. After 9/11, 

the committee expanded its membership criteria to include all security directors, whether 

in-house or employees of a security firm contracted by a building to provide security. 

The partnership then grew from 30 members to 80, and it continues to grow today. 
43 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

kEy TrEndS in PuBLiC-PrivaTE ParTnErShiPS
 

5. greater range of Activities 

Over time, many partnerships established to address one issue have expanded their scope 

to address numerous others. For example, the Boston Financial District Information 

Network, founded to combat laptop theft and similar crimes in members’ office buildings, 

now addresses all public safety matters, including terrorism, evacuations, natural 

disasters, public demonstrations, domestic violence, and drugs in the workplace. 

Likewise, the Greater Chicago Hotel Loss Prevention Association (GCHLPA) was founded 

to address common crimes at Chicago hotels, particularly pickpocketing. The group has 

widened its view to encompass disorderly guests, crime rings, credit card fraud, forgery, 

identity theft, white-collar (internal) crimes, counterfeiting, terrorism, and missing 

persons/Amber alerts. 

In Dallas, Texas, the LEAPS partnership began as a means of improving relations 

between police and private security personnel throughout the city. It has grown beyond 

a relationship-building exercise to become involved in many activities, including 

dissemination of crime information, specialized training for security officers (on such 

topics as protecting crime scenes), and emergency response planning. 

6. Better Information Sharing 

Information sharing, traditionally one of the major activities of LE-PS partnerships, 

has improved because of changes in technology and closer LE-PS relations. Some older 

partnerships have evolved from telephone trees to faxes to e-mail and secure web sites 

to cell phone text messaging. 

The Minneapolis SafeZone Program has a web site that allows its 900 partnership 

members to share police incident reports, videos, photos, impact statements related to 

quality-of-life issues (e.g., locations of aggressive panhandlers), contact information, 

event calendars, and more.83 

The new Lower Manhattan Security Initiative Coordination Center, planned by the 

NYPD in cooperation with SHIELD, will include workstations for private-sector security 

representatives. 

The LEAPS program, mentioned above, is working on means of sharing online law 

enforcement intelligence on drug trafficking with private security. Around the country, 

fusion centers, which combine the efforts of numerous government agencies, continue to 

work out arrangements for sharing information among law enforcement agencies. After 

overcoming that challenge, those centers may begin to share information with private 

security representatives. 
44 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Private Provision of Law Enforcement Services 

Private security organizations (including security firms and the security departments 

of other corporations) are increasingly providing services traditionally provided by law 

enforcement agencies. In many cases, government bodies contract for those services to 

cut costs or boost coverage when local law enforcement agencies are overstretched. 

Security personnel employed by BIDs, which are tax-funded, perform police functions (such 

as patrols) that would otherwise go undone because police are occupied with other tasks. 

In Durham, North Carolina, crime throughout the public transportation system led to a 

need for more patrols. The task was beyond the resources of the local police department to 

handle, so a private security firm was hired to provide security officers who would work in 

close connection with the police. The security officers now ride public buses and patrol the 

downtown transit center to maintain order, suppress gang violence, and provide a visible 

enforcement presence. 

In Boston, Massachusetts, more than 100 housing projects and low-income 

apartment buildings are patrolled not by police but by private security. One firm, 

Naratoone Security Corporation, fields 122 traditional security officers in those locations, 

as well as 43 “special police officers,” who are armed and licensed by the Boston Police 

Department and have limited arrest powers. According to the head of licensing for the 

Boston Police Department, “We do the streets, they do private property.”84 

Major special events often call for private security assistance to law enforcement. In 

Dover, Delaware, when NASCAR races are held, the town’s population swells by a hundred 

thousand people. Crowd control then becomes a task too large for the local police 

department to handle on its own. NASCAR track owners pay private security personnel 

to work under the supervision of Dover police during the week-long event. 

Disasters also lead to the use of private security firms to provide services traditionally 

provided by law enforcement. When Hurricane Katrina struck in August 2005, for 

example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in New Orleans asked a small Dallas, Texas, 

security firm for 15 armed guards. The corps needed the security officers to secure its 

compound and protect the lockmasters who controlled the dams for barges on the 

Mississippi River. When President Bush visited New Orleans, the firm’s officers provided 

perimeter security. Two weeks after Hurricane Katrina came ashore, the Dallas firm had 

140 officers working in New Orleans.85 
45 

kEy TrEndS in PuBLiC-PrivaTE ParTnErShiPS
 

Sometimes, specialized law enforcement tasks are contracted out to private organizations 

with highly developed expertise. The National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C), funded 

by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, provides computer 

forensic training to state and local law enforcement. Working with the FBI, NW3C also 

provides the foundation for the Internet Crime Complaint Center, performing preliminary 

analysis of Internet-related crime reports and passing them along to thousands of police 

forces nationwide. 

8. Leveraging of resources 

LE-PS partnerships often provide a venue for resource sharing, especially the sharing 

of private security resources with law enforcement. Partnerships make it easier for 

the parties and resources to be matched, and partnerships also sometimes provide an 

efficient and legal means whereby private companies can give funds or other resources to 

law enforcement agencies. A survey by the ASIS Foundation86 found that security services 

companies provide a range of resources to law enforcement. Almost 40 percent of 

respondents said they occasionally or frequently provide security officers and intelligence 

to law enforcement, 33 percent provide equipment, and 25 percent provide investigators. 

This leveraging of resources takes many forms. Target Corporation has provided 

CCTV cameras to the Minneapolis Police Department for placement in public areas of 

Minneapolis. Private-sector members of the GCHLPA have provided hotel rooms for 

police to use in sting operations in Chicago. Through partnerships in Las Vegas and New 

York City, police in those locales can access images from private-sector CCTV systems for 

use in investigations. Emory University operates an e-mail service for the Metropolitan 

Atlanta Technological Crimes Task Force (MetroTech Atlanta). Law enforcement agencies 

share their training resources with private security (as in the Dallas Law Enforcement 

and Private Security program), and private security trains law enforcement in methods 

of responding safely to calls in unfamiliar settings (as in the Energy Security Council’s 

training of law enforcement on safe procedures for entering oil fields and handling the 

equipment found there). 

A growing form of resource leveraging is the sharing of specialized expertise by private 

security with law enforcement. Target Corporation, for example, maintains a forensic 

laboratory for its own security purposes but regularly offers the lab’s services to law 

enforcement agencies, especially those that lack advanced forensic labs of their own. The 

University of Tulsa, a private institution, has one of the nation’s foremost forensic digital 

evidence labs; it has served many state and local law enforcement agencies. 
46 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

9. Institutionalization of Partnerships 

The strength of an LE-PS partnership depends on leadership, funding, interest among 

partners, and other factors. Some partnerships of the past have been terminated, but the 

number of long-lived partnerships has grown during the past decade. Generally, surviving 

partnerships are those that have become institutionalized—in other words, those that 

have a structure, a funding source, a supportive berth in an agency or company, or some 

other feature that makes the partnership more than a good working relationship among 

a few people. This institutionalization creates an entity that outlasts and survives changes 

in leadership and membership. 

The Washington Law Enforcement Executive Forum, for example, which has both law 

enforcement and private security practitioners as members, was founded in 1980 and is 

still active. It is housed in, and logistically supported by, the Washington Association of 

Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. That arrangement provides a continuity that has served the 

partnership well for 27 years. 

Institutionalization can also take place on the private-sector side. The Energy Security 

Council, created in 1982, is a nonprofit corporation funded by private-sector members 

and managed by a paid executive director. Similarly, the Boston Consortium for Higher 

Education, founded in 1995 to address university security concerns, is incorporated and is 

supported through dues paid by its private-sector members. 

trends specifically Related to Homeland security 

Now, 7 years after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks against the United States, it is 

possible to discern some LE-PS partnership trends that grew out of those attacks. 

high-Level Attention to Partnership 

Before 9/11, LE-PS partnerships were often driven by mid-level personnel in law 

enforcement agencies, security operations, and associations. After 9/11, it was possible 

to see more high-level attention being paid to such partnerships. The 2004 COPS/IACP 

National Policy Summit: Building Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships to 

Prevent and Respond to Terrorism and Public Disorder, for example, called on leaders 

of the major law enforcement and private security organizations to make a formal 

commitment to cooperation. The leaders of IACP, ASIS International, International 

Security Management Association, National Association of Security Companies, and 

Security Industry Association subsequently endorsed the implementation of publicprivate partnerships as a preferred tool to address terrorism, public disorder, and crime. 
47 

 

 

 

 

kEy TrEndS in PuBLiC-PrivaTE ParTnErShiPS
 

Likewise, corporate executives have lately been urged to support partnerships with law 

enforcement. In 2005, the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers 

of leading U.S. companies, published Committed to Protecting America: CEO Guide to 

Security Challenges. The document states in part:87 

In this new risk environment, a CEO must be sure the corporation is closely 

connected to the public sector, particularly with DHS, state officials, the 

law enforcement community, and the military. CEOs also should support 

corporate executives in developing new connections with government 

officials to share risk information, coordinate crisis response and 

proliferate new security practices. 

new Partnerships on homeland Security 

Many new LE-PS partnerships were established in response to the 9/11 attacks and the 

concerns those attacks raised. In 2004, for example, a program called City Watch was 

established in Las Vegas to give police access to the security systems of major hotels to 

aid first responders after an emergency. The program has expanded its scope to become 

State Watch. The partnership relies on software that enables police to view privatesector security cameras, learn where security officers are posted, and obtain other 

information of use to emergency responders. 

Similarly, the Security Communications Network (Secomnet) was created in 2001 (post9/11) to improve communication between the Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) 

Police Department and the local business community. Using purchased radios, security 

directors formed a security communications network with each other and the police. The 

system has been used effectively during protest demonstrations. 

One of the more significant post-9/11 partnerships is the Critical Incident Protocol 

Community Facilitation Program, funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 

The Community Facilitation Program, an outgrowth of a pre-9/11 protocol on LE-PS 

emergency planning and response, was developed by the School of Criminal Justice, 

Michigan State University, to build public-private partnerships in cities, counties, and 

regions across the nation for joint critical incident management.88 The goal of the 

program is to promote security and safety by bringing together members of the private 

sector (businesses and nonprofit organizations) and the public sector (government 

and regulatory services). The sectors exchange information on risks, preparedness, and 

response to manmade or natural disasters. The program’s key objectives are to establish 

shared response protocols across partner agencies in the event of a terrorist incident or 

any major emergency; encourage public- and private-sector entities to form cooperative 

partnerships; and develop an understanding of the partners’ goals and learn how public 

and private resources can complement each other. The program is now active in 39 

communities in 23 states.89 Activities include joint planning, tabletop exercises, and 

corporate-funded, full-scale exercises. 
48 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As the ASIS Foundation survey shows,90 the 9/11 attacks have led to more LE-PS 

interaction overall. Nearly a quarter of law enforcement respondents said they had 

increased contacts with private security since 9/11. 

Added Focus in Pre-9/11 Partnerships 

Another LE-PS partnership trend related to 9/11 is the addition of homeland securityrelated activities to pre-9/11 partnerships. This trend suggests that one benefit of LE-PS 

partnerships is their ability to adapt to changing threats. 

Examples of such flexible partnerships are numerous: 

  Operation DelAWARE (formerly Operation Cooperation of Delaware) was founded in 

1998 to combat general increases in crime. It soon expanded to include emergency 

preparedness. After 9/11, it changed its main purpose to infrastructure protection and 

terrorism awareness. 

  The Philadelphia Crime Prevention Council was started in 1997 by the Philadelphia 

Center City District (a BID). Its members include federal, state, and local law 

enforcement professionals as well as private security representatives. Before 9/11, the 

council’s focus was crime prevention and control. After 9/11, the council began to 

devote about half its efforts to homeland security and disaster preparedness. Among 

other measures, it established a text messaging system (as opposed to e-mail) to send 

alerts that members could receive even if they were not at their desks. The system has 

grown to include some 1,200 members, including law enforcement and other first 

responders, businesses, major employers, commercial and industrial property owners, 

hospitals, residential groups and community leaders, and private security. 

  The Union Carbide/DOW Hazard Management Advisory Committee (HMAC) 

was formed in 1990 to coordinate responses to spills of hazardous materials in 

transit, as well as transit disruptions caused by protesters. After 9/11, it shifted 

its emphasis to planning for more sophisticated types of disruptions, such as 

terrorist acts on hazardous materials. It also expanded its membership beyond 

chemical companies to include businesses in the communication, pharmaceutical, 

petroleum, and utility industries. 
49 

kEy TrEndS in PuBLiC-PrivaTE ParTnErShiPS
 

Federally Sponsored, Privately Led Infrastructure Partnerships 

Another post-9/11 trend in LE-PS partnerships is the development of new partnerships 

that are sponsored by the federal government but led by the private sector. Private 

security professionals protect much of the nation’s critical infrastructure and because 

the private sector is responsible for defending resources that are of great importance to 

homeland security, the federal government has opted to support its efforts. 

Perhaps the most striking of such partnerships are the Information Sharing and Analysis 

Centers (ISAC) that were formed under the guidance of the President and the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security after 9/11 but are led by the private sector. Separate 

centers have been established to address the security of financial services, highways, 

public transit, surface transportation, information technology, communications, 

electricity, emergency management and response, supply chain, water, and other 

resources. The ISACs focus on sharing threat information and improving the responses 

provided by the private corporations that own and operate critical infrastructures. Law 

enforcement and government share information to the extent deemed appropriate under 

policies established by the private-sector coordinators of each ISAC. 

homeland Security Training for Private Security Partners 

A particular type of post-9/11 partnership, whether formal or not, is the partnering role 

that private security practitioners have taken in homeland security. Before 9/11, private 

security was generally deemed to be responsible for protecting people, property, and 

information. After 9/11, many security practitioners took on additional duties related to 

homeland security. 
oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

50 

To become prepared to partner with law enforcement in supporting homeland security, 

the private security field has sought training in homeland security issues. For example, a 

story from the Florida Times-Union newspaper tells the following:91 

In a shopping mall outside Hartford [Connecticut]... a conference room 

full of security guards is learning how to spot suicide bombers. They are 

being taught blast patterns and behavior profiles, how a bomb is packaged 

and how a bomber is recruited. Suburban shopping mall security guards— 

whose jobs usually consist of watching for shoplifters and shooing away 

teenagers—are receiving the type of training that just a few years ago 

was reserved for the Israeli police and the U.S. military.... “Everyone has 

an obligation to be a soldier in this war,” Connecticut Homeland Security 

Director John Buturla says.... Anti-terrorism instructors say a bombing is 

nearly twice as likely at a commercial establishment [as] at a government 

building or military installation. 

Such training is now required in some jurisdictions. The California Department of 

Consumer Affairs’ Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS) mandates that 

training for licensed security officers include a section on what to look for and whom to 

alert if they see a mysterious package, someone dressed inappropriately for the season, a 

person taking pictures of a facility, or any other suspicious activity. Since 2005, required 

training for newly licensed security officers in California has included BSIS’s “Weapons 

of Mass Destruction (WMD) & Terrorism Awareness” course, which addresses potential 

terrorist weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and how to respond to a terrorist attack. 

The course is also recommended as part of security officers’ annual continuing education 

requirements. 

Homeland security-related training is also provided to private security personnel by the 

Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police Public & Private Police Liaison Committee, Frontline 

Defense Initiative of the Institute for Public Safety Partnerships, Virginia Police and 

Private Security Alliance, Boston Financial District Information Network, and many other 

LE-PS partnerships. 
FormS oF ParTnErShiPS
 

ChAPTEr FOUr: Forms of Partnerships
 

Law enforcement-private security partnerships exist in many different forms. They 

may be formal or informal, open to all or limited to approved members, dues-charging, 

or free. No model form of organization works in all situations. This chapter describes 

several organizational or structural variables from which partnerships may choose. It also 

presents views on why actual partnerships may benefit from, or be challenged by, the 

forms of organization they have chosen. Specifically, this chapter examines the following 

variables in partnership organization: organizational structure, specificity of purpose, 

leadership source, funding, and membership. 

Organizational structure 

Successful partnerships display a wide variety of structures. Less-formal partnerships 

are easier to establish and require less ongoing administration, but they may experience 

difficulties in managing funds and continuing operations as membership turns over. 

By contrast, more formal partnerships may require substantial setup efforts (such as 

incorporation and the hiring of staff) but often experience greater longevity. Varieties of 

organizational structure include the following: 

  No formal structure 

  Written commitment 

  Reliance on structure of related organization 

  501(c)(3) nonprofit organization 

  Committee within larger organization 

  National nonprofit that includes smaller nonprofits 

  Quasi-governmental entity (e.g., business improvement district) 

  Federal advisory committee. 

51 
52 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no Formal Structure 

Among partnerships that have chosen to remain simple and unbureaucratic, one 

example is the Boston Financial District Information Network, founded in 1993. With 

no bylaws, budget, or other formal organizational trappings, this group of security 

directors and local law enforcement officers holds monthly meetings, shares crime 

information by e-mail, and conducts training on security topics. The partnership began 

as a result of laptop computer thefts in some financial institutions in the district. 

Security directors from those institutions developed a system (first using fax, now 

e-mail) whereby, as soon as a laptop theft was detected, the responding security 

officer would alert the local police department. The department would immediately 

write a report, review its records, and send a message to security officials throughout 

the district about the incident and possible suspects. Through that system—and also 

through education that led to stricter access control measures in the private sector 

members’ buildings—the group has drastically cut laptop theft and other crimes. 

Clearly, a formal structure is not always needed to get results, especially when the 

partnership objectives are narrowly focused. 

written Commitment 

Other partnerships, especially those led by law enforcement agencies, may organize 

themselves in a way that requires written commitments by private security members. 

For example, the Security Communications Network (Secomnet), led by the CharlotteMecklenburg Police Department, requires private security participants to sign a 

memorandum of understanding regarding the use of radios for communication with 

police as well as the use of shared information. In general, strict written commitments 

likely ensure that only the most reliable partners participate, and establish some 

parameters for control, which is important when governments spend tax dollars. 

reliance on Structure of related Organization 

Partnerships that lack an independent legal existence sometimes rely on the structure 

of related organizations. Operation DelAWARE (formerly Operation Cooperation of 

Delaware), a partnership between the Delaware State Police and the Delaware Chapter of 

ASIS International, is guided by the executive committee of the Delaware ASIS chapter 

and relies on that organization’s structures for operational support. That approach seems 

to provide partnerships with the benefits of structure without the burden of maintaining 

that structure. 
53 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FormS oF ParTnErShiPS
 

501(c)(3) nonprofit Organization 

Some partnerships have established themselves as 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, 

which are special corporate entities with strict legal requirements. Establishing a 501 (c) 

(3) incurs costs, and complying with the ongoing legal requirements is time-consuming. 

Nevertheless, some partnerships—especially those that intend to employ staff, solicit 

corporate contributions, and collect member dues—opt for corporate nonprofit status to 

gain legal protections and establish financial accountability. The Energy Security Council, 

created in 1982 and based in Houston, Texas, is a nonprofit, as are the Association for 

Security Administration Professionals in Miami, Florida, and the Southeast Wisconsin 

Homeland Security Partnership, Inc. 

Committee within Larger Organization 

Similarly, some long-lasting partnerships that focus on policy exist as committees 

within large, national nonprofits. The Law Enforcement Liaison Council (LELC) of ASIS 

International, for example, works on the “development, research, and implementation of 

programs and activities which foster cooperation and partnership between the public law 

enforcement and private security professions.”92 The LELC contains both private security 

and law enforcement members. As an entity within a larger nonprofit structure, the LELC 

receives the benefits of that structure without having to shoulder the logistical burdens 

of establishing and maintaining a 501 (c)(3) itself. The Private Sector Liaison Committee of 

the International Association of Chiefs of Police functions and is structured similarly. 

national nonprofit That Includes Smaller nonprofits 

The history of InfraGard shows how a partnership can evolve from a simple local 

program to a national nonprofit corporation that features regional chapters, some of 

which are themselves nonprofit corporations. InfraGard was formed as a concept in 

the FBI’s Cleveland Division in 1996 to gain the support of the information technology 

commerce industry and academia for the FBI’s cybercrime efforts. It has blossomed 

into a nationwide program focused on both physical and cyber security of critical 

infrastructures and is a partnership between the private sector (including academia) 

and the government (not just the FBI but also other federal, state, and local agencies). 

Interpersonal contacts take place in the context of quarterly meetings and other 

scheduled activities, such as executive committee and sector-specific work group 

meetings. A national board of directors coordinates the activities of about 72 chapters 

around the country. The FBI investigates applicants for membership and attends InfraGard 

meetings but provides no funding for the chapters, whose activities are largely funded 

by corporate donations. As chapters and the national organization have moved from 

informal gatherings to a more formal structure, incorporation as nonprofit entities has 

been the preference of many, including the national leadership.93 
54 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quasigovernmental Entity 

Another structure used by LE-PS partnerships is that of the business improvement district 

(BID). BIDs have a quasigovernmental status because they are authorized by state or 

local governments and supported by additional taxes collected from businesses in the 

designated districts they represent. Downtown Visions, a BID in Wilmington, Delaware, 

has a board of directors and its own facility where employees monitor video of downtown 

scenes for security and law enforcement purposes. An informal organization would be 

unlikely to be able to hire staff and maintain its own video monitoring center. 

Federal Advisory Committee 

An unusual but effective structure is that of the Overseas Security Advisory Council 

(OSAC), founded in 1985 and organized as a federal advisory committee with a U.S. 

Government charter.94 According to that charter, OSAC’s objectives are as follows: 

  Establish continuing liaison and provide for operational security cooperation between 

U.S. Department of State security functions and the private sector 

  Provide for regular and timely interchange of information between the private sector 

and the U.S. Department of State concerning developments in the overseas security 

environment 

  Recommend methods and provide material for coordinating security planning and 

implementation of security programs 

  Recommend methods to protect the competitiveness of American businesses 

operating worldwide. 

OSAC has a 34-member core council, an executive office, and more than 100 country 

councils. Members of the core council include a range of organizations not generally seen 

in other partnerships. Among the private-sector members are Boeing, The Church of Jesus 

Christ of Latter-day Saints, Levi Strauss & Co., National Football League, Ohio State University, 

Time Warner, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In addition to the State Department, 

federal sector members include the U.S. Departments of Commerce and Treasury. 

OSAC’s status as a federal advisory committee enables it to collect and share intelligence 

to a degree that most other partnerships cannot attain. 
55 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FormS oF ParTnErShiPS
 

specificity of Purpose 

In terms of their degree of focus in addressing crime and other problems, LE-PS partnerships tend 

to fall into three groups: 

1. Multipurpose 

2. Single purpose 

3. Evolving to multipurpose. 

Multipurpose 

Most LE-PS partnerships address several security and public safety issues. The Virginia Police 

and Private Security Alliance (VaPPSA), for example, uses bimonthly meetings, a newsletter, 

and an e-mail notification system to address a wide variety of topics, including crime 

trends, legislation, public safety, security methodology, security and alarm industry issues, 

and specific topical issues, such as site protection, crisis management, terrorism, natural 

disasters, workplace violence, and explosive devices. Its approximately 250 participants work 

in five core fields: law enforcement, security alarms, private investigations/contract security, 

retail/mall security, and corporate security. Each elected member of VaPPSA’s board of 

directors comes from one of the five core fields; thus, each field’s interests are represented. 

Moreover, the board votes on the chairman’s agenda of proposed activities. 

Single Purpose 

Some partnerships were formed to address a single issue and have continued to focus on 

that issue alone. Many such partnerships focus on false alarm reduction, for example. One 

of the best-known is the Model States False Dispatch Reduction Program, a cooperative 

effort by the IACP Private Sector Liaison Committee, the State Associations of Chiefs 

of Police, and the alarm industry in the United States. Similarly, the many partnerships 

that focus on emergency preparedness and response could be considered single-issue 

partnerships, even if that issue itself has many aspects. The Chesapeake Critical Incident 

Partnership, for example, founded in Annapolis, Maryland, in 2004, addresses emergency 

preparedness and response only. Like many other critical incident-focused partnerships, it 

has not diluted its focus to include all other security and crime concerns. 
56 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolving to Multipurpose 

A further variation on partnerships’ specificity of purpose can be seen in partnerships 

that originally addressed a particular concern but created relationships that proved 

useful in solving a range of problems. The Boston Financial District Information Network, 

for example, was formed in response to laptop thefts but quickly expanded its focus to 

address a wide variety of issues, such as domestic violence in the workplace, terrorism, 

drugs in the workplace, and disaster response. 

It is neither surprising nor unusual that relationships developed in a limited-focus 

partnership may lead to a widening of the partnership’s mission. As one scholar observes 

about relationships between police and private security in the Wall Street area of New 

York City, “Institutional relationships developed during periods of high crime, designed to 

combat street muggings...resulted in initiatives that have been built upon and solidified 

as the United States undertook its war on terrorism. Timely dissemination of information 

was cited as the prime benefit of these cooperative efforts.”95 

Leadership source 

Leadership is another characteristic that varies from one partnership to another. Options 

observed in this research include the following: 

  Law enforcement leadership 

  Joint leadership by law enforcement and private security 

  Private security leadership. 

In this context, leadership refers primarily to the task of setting the partnership’s agenda or 

representing the partnership before other groups. The present chapter focuses on the ways in 

which the leadership position is filled. Chapter 6, Key Components, addresses other roles of 

partnership leaders and discusses the related issues of management styles, logistical support, 

hosting, or funding, which may or may not flow from a partnership’s leader. 

Law Enforcement Leadership 

Law enforcement leadership is found in many LE-PS partnerships: VaPPSA is always led 

by a law enforcement representative; and in New York City and nearby counties, the 

SHIELD (New York City Police Department: counterterrorism), SPIN (Nassau County Police 

Department: Security/Police Information Network), and SCAN (Suffolk County Police 

Department: Suffolk County Alert Network) programs are all led by representatives of 

law enforcement agencies. In California, the Anaheim Crime Alert Network is led by the 

Anaheim Police Department, though the organization emphasizes that it is a genuine 

partnership with an LE-PS committee that sets the group’s direction. In some cases, it 
57 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FormS oF ParTnErShiPS
 

appears that law enforcement agencies lead the partnerships because the main activity is 

the sending of crime-related information from police to the private sector. In other cases, 

law enforcement’s leadership is a function of the department’s ability to provide funds, 

meeting space, staffing, and other resources. 

Joint Leadership by Law Enforcement and Private Security 

Joint LE-PS leadership is less common but sends members the clear message that the 

organization is indeed a partnership between the two sectors. In some cases, leaders are 

elected annually and could come from either law enforcement or private security; in 

other partnerships, representatives of law enforcement and private security may lead 

in tandem (e.g., as co-chairs). Examples of joint leadership uncovered in this research 

include the following: 

  In Minnesota, the Minneapolis SafeZone Collaborative–Downtown, a nonprofit 

organization, is guided by a board of directors and an advisory committee with 

members from both law enforcement and private security. 

  The Public/Private Liaison Committee of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, 

founded in 1975 with the goals of education, liaison, and legislation, is led by 

two chairpersons, who conduct meetings and oversee committee activities. One 

chairperson must be an active police chief, and the other is a private security 

representative selected by private-sector members of the committee. 

  Operation DelAWARE (formerly Operation Cooperation of Delaware), founded in 1998, 

focuses on the protection of critical infrastructure in the state. Its co-chairs come from 

the Delaware State Police and the Delaware chapter of ASIS. 

  Similarly, the Milwaukee Critical Incident Protocol partnership is led by co-chairs 

from the two sectors: a member of the Milwaukee Police Department and a private 

security manager. 

Private Security Leadership 

Private security leadership tends to be found more in industry-specific LE-PS partnerships. 

An example is the Energy Security Council, a nonprofit corporation that employs an 

executive director who reports to a board of directors consisting of 15 security directors 

from major energy companies around the United States and Canada. The board provides 

consultation and guidance on council activities. Law enforcement partners include 

the Oklahoma Bureau of Investigation, Texas Rangers, FBI, and local sheriff and police 

departments in regions with active oil and gas exploration efforts. However, those partners 

do not set the Energy Security Council’s agenda. Likewise, the Building Owners Management 

Association’s (BOMA) Chicago Security Committee collaborates daily with the First Police 

District of the Chicago Police Department and has members from the Illinois State Police 

and the FBI, yet the committee is led entirely by its private security board of directors. 
oPEraTion ParTnErShiiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corporate Security Leadership: Protecting All Aspects 

of a Business 

Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, there has been an increasing need for private businesses, 

in both urban and rural settings, to partner with their local law enforcement agencies. in doing so, the 

companies establish cohesive working relationships with the agencies, furthering the mutual interests of 

both the businesses and the intelligence information and resources of the public safety agencies. 

Intelligence Exchange 

whether it is local crime trends, traffic hazards that affect inbound merchandise shipments, or terrorism 

alerts, companies can and should be able to receive timely updates that could affect operations. a good 

partnership is key to maintaining these communications. with more and more professional security 

roles expanding beyond their traditional physical protection responsibilities, security executives are now 

integrating and aligning their services with all the services of the company. 

Taking a proactive role to cultivate relationships and leverage knowledge-sharing to minimize the company’s 

risk is critical to the long-term success of any organization. in turn, companies need to show leadership 

initiative to become actively involved by establishing partnerships with law enforcement for both obvious 

and unforeseen reasons. 

Crisis Response 

The height of a crisis event is not the best time to become acquainted with the local police chief. much work 

needs to be done ahead of an incident so that all the responsible individuals and critical procedures are known. 

Public-private security partnerships provide law enforcement a clear understanding of two important crisis 

response elements of a company: 1. the resources the company can bring to bear in a crisis, and 2. the critical 

business functions of the organization that need to resume as quickly as possible following an incident. 

Partnerships also allow an opportunity to identify and educate the public sector about company issues that 

are critical to success, such as confidentiality, brand or reputation, image, compliance, and regulatory issues 

that must be addressed in a crisis. Conversely, the private side can learn the public crisis protocols and match 

internal response procedures. ultimately, this exchange helps to minimize the chance of role confusion and 

illustrates the basic components of the incident command structure. 

Trust and Collaboration 

Corporations benefit from partnerships in which trust and collaboration are prevalent. when working with 

a new employee, businesses may not completely disclose their vulnerabilities until a level of trust has been 

established. The same issue is amplified when bridging the gap between the public and private sector. The 

need to develop trust before sharing sensitive information also presents companies with a leadership role. 

The earlier and more often corporations engage their public sector counterparts, the sooner a trusting 

relationship can be developed, enabling the processes of intelligence exchange and crisis response to be 

more easily addressed. 

Trust between entities builds collaboration on training, planning, and responding to a plethora of situations 

that could have an impact on business operations or public safety. There is truth in the statement that no one 

person, department, or organization can accomplish everything alone. Partnerships are essential to both the 

short-term and long-term viability of both businesses and communities. 

Bret E. DuChateau, Corporate Security/Life Safety Manager, Northwestern Mutual, 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 

58 
59 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FormS oF ParTnErShiPS
 

The sidebar, “Corporate Security Leadership: Protecting All Aspects of a Business” on 

presents a corporate security director’s view of the necessity and benefits of LE-PS 

partnership. 

Funding 

All partnerships need some level of resources. They may need staff, meeting space, radios 

for emergency communication, Internet web hosting for routine communication, hotel 

rooms for sting operations, or closed-circuit television cameras for shared surveillance. 

Those resources are not free; either partnerships must purchase them or members or 

outside benefactors must donate them. 

LE-PS partnership funding options range from no funding to member dues to compulsory 

payments, along with various options in between. 

no Funding or Dues 

Many partnerships find they can operate at no cost other than the time of their volunteers 

and the sharing of meeting space and refreshments for meetings. These partnerships, which 

operate without budgets and paid staff, are not subject to the licensing and filing burdens 

that accompany formal business structures. An example of this approach can be seen in the MidAtlantic Utilities Group, which has been effective for more than 15 years but has no funding 

source. The members are utility security directors on an ongoing basis and law enforcement 

representatives on an ad hoc basis. They meet quarterly, and the private security members 

take turns hosting the meetings. 

Similarly, many partnerships that are led by law enforcement do not charge dues. In those 

partnerships, law enforcement agencies typically absorb mailing and similar costs such as Internet 

access. Regardless of whether a partnership is led by law enforcement or private security, 

leadership activity is usually funded, in effect, by the organization that pays the leaders’ salaries. 

Dues 

Some partnerships charge dues for private security members but not for law enforcement 

members; however, several of those partnerships observed that charging dues can be a barrier to 

membership growth. Partnerships that are 501(c)(3) corporations typically are funded in part by 

member dues. 
60 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Training or Conference Fees 

An alternative way to cover the cost of partnership activities is by charging only for training 

or annual conference attendance; for example, the Anaheim Crime Alert Network, led by 

the Anaheim Police Department, does not charge membership dues and relies on members to 

take turns contributing meeting space and refreshments. However, the group charges $99 for 

attendance at its annual conference, which draws a much larger group than its membership 

alone. The International Association of Financial Crime Investigators uses similar methods, along 

with charging for advertising on its web site. 

grants 

Federal and state grants have been another source of funding, in the homeland security 

arena particularly, although only a few partnerships studied had federal grants. One was 

the Frontline Defense Initiative of the Institute for Public Safety Partnerships, which 

received U.S. Department of Justice funding to support a needs assessment and curriculum 

development and now funds itself in part through fees for consulting and training. 

Grants from the private sector also support some partnerships. Target Corporation, for example, 

made a grant that enabled the Minneapolis Police Department to purchase 30 surveillance 

cameras for the Minneapolis SafeZone Collaborative–Downtown partnership. The 

Milwaukee Critical Incident Protocol partnership has supplemented its federal grant with 

support from member corporation Northwestern Mutual, which contributed significant 

resources to support tabletop and full-scale exercises on emergency response. 

Compulsory Payments 

Finally, some partnerships—that is, BIDs—gain their funds through members’ compulsory 

payments in the form of assessments, which may be based on the square footage or assessed 

value of properties lying within the partnership’s geographical boundaries or a percentage 

of revenues or sales. 

Membership 

Partnerships vary according to several membership-related criteria, such as the types of 

organizations that form the partnership and the degree to which potential members are 

screened before being allowed to join. 
61 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FormS oF ParTnErShiPS
 

Member Organizations 

Most partnerships are multilateral, having a variety of private security members and 

many different law enforcement members. Some partnerships, however, are strictly bilateral, 

having exactly one member from each sector. In rare cases, partnerships consist of law 

enforcement and private security partners from the same entity. 

Multilateral 

Of the partnerships studied in this research, certainly most include various members from both 

the law enforcement and private security sectors. They may include one law enforcement 

agency and several private security organizations, one private security organization and 

several law enforcement agencies, or several organizations and members from both sectors. 

Bilateral 

An effective LE-PS partnership exists between Johns Hopkins University and the Baltimore 

Police Department. University security officers patrol city streets where students live, have 

been granted limited arrest powers, and have direct radio communications capability with 

the police. At the university’s security command center, staff monitor communications from 

the police dispatch center and can communicate with it easily and directly. Security and 

police officers interact on the streets, dealing with crime and security issues. 

Similarly, the security operation at Dayton Mall in Ohio has established a close partnership 

with the Miami Township Police Department. Mall security monitors the police dispatch 

center to anticipate incidents; police and private security officers conduct joint patrols 

inside the mall; and the two groups respond jointly to some incidents. In several cases, 

mall security officers have provided valuable information to the police by tracking crimes in 

progress with their exterior video cameras. 

These examples suggest that LE-PS partnerships need not be large, multimember organizations to 

be effective, ongoing collaborations. 

Unilateral 

In some cases, law enforcement and private security partners are actually employees 

of the same organization. The University of Wisconsin–Madison has both a police 

department and a security department. The chief of police describes the two groups 

as “seamlessly integrated.” Although they have different responsibilities and levels of 

authority, they work together on security and crime issues and emergency management. 

The University of Wisconsin–Madison, like other schools that perform research for the 

federal government, is the site of significant amounts of hazardous biological, chemical, 

and radiological materials, which require effective protection in an otherwise open 

campus environment. 
62 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiiP 

 

 

Federal Partners 

while discussion of law enforcement–private security partnerships tends to focus on the local 

level, security practitioners should not overlook the importance of the federal government as a 

partner. although the federal government may seem daunting due to its size and stringent security 

requirements, important mutual benefits can flow from the relationship. 

Federal agencies have a national and international reach, and they often possess deep expertise 

regarding specific violations within their missions. Consequently, they can bring a broader 

perspective to problems and provide resources that may not exist at the local level. The federal 

government views itself as a good partner and often advertises its collaborative activities on its 

web sites and in its literature. 

The federal government needs information from the private sector and local government to 

comprehend crime problems, identify threats, and evaluate information in light of current 

business processes and practices. outside of headquarters, federal agencies follow a regional or 

local management model. Through this model they attempt to perform work that is relevant to 

local crime issues within the mission set for them by Congress, their administrators, and federal 

prosecutors. 

Federal agencies participate in many joint task forces, which are designed for integrating resources, 

evaluating information, and sharing knowledge. Task forces help ensure a free flow of relevant 

information, in part because they are built on personal relationships officially supported by the 

participating agencies. intelligence and prosecutions both benefit from these personal relationships. 

Task forces allow relationships to develop over a broad range of interests and expertise. moreover, a 

task force channels information to a single entity for evaluation, thereby improving the likelihood 

of timely, effective action. Task forces can provide valuable information to law enforcement 

agencies, private security partners, and the public to prevent crimes, plan for a threat, or 

understand a pattern of activity. 

To increase and strengthen personal interactions in law enforcement–private security partnerships, 

executives should introduce members of their organizations to members of partner organizations 

for the continuing exchange of information. Executives in business and government know they 

cannot succeed without cooperative efforts. outreach may be the important first step. 

Robert Lee, Former Chair, Law Enforcement Liaison Council, ASIS International; Principal Consultant, 

Mason-Coburn Partners; former Supervisory Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation. 
63 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FormS oF ParTnErShiPS
 

Member Screening 

LE-PS partnerships vary significantly in how they screen and select members: 

  Some partnerships are open to all who wish to join and have a legitimate interest in the 

work of the partnership. 

  Others limit membership to persons holding certain types of positions or working in certain 

industries. 

  Partnerships may investigate potential members for suitability. 

  Partnerships may have different levels of membership. 

  Membership may be based on a contractual relationship or may even be mandatory. 

Open to All 

Operation DelAWARE is open to all interested parties; however, the group’s target audience 

consists of those involved in the protection of critical infrastructure. Similarly, partners 

in the Frontline Defense Initiative of the Institute for Public Safety Partnerships include 

representatives from a wide range of government and private entities: Chicago Police 

Department, several federal law enforcement agencies, Cook County Sheriff’s Office, other 

government agencies, Chicago City Council, local U.S. Attorney’s Office, public transportation 

authorities, and many types of businesses, institutions, and community groups. 

Many of the LE-PS partnerships led by police have few restrictions on membership, perhaps 

because government resources are being used or because of law enforcement’s preference 

for including as many potential allies as possible. The Irvine (California) Police/Private Security 

Partnership, for example, is open to any business that provides some type of security. 

Limited to Certain Positions or Industries 

By contrast, partnerships that focus on the security concerns of specific industries tend to 

limit membership to people who work in those industries. That approach is followed, for 

example, in the Energy Security Council, Mid-Atlantic Utilities Group, and Boston Financial District 

Information Network. 

Based on Investigation 

Some partnerships screen potential members to varying degrees before allowing them to attend 

meetings. The Metropolitan Atlanta Technological Crimes Task Force asks people to leave their 

meetings if no member knows them and can vouch for them. The group then makes inquiries 

to determine whether the persons would be suitable members. The partnership takes this 

measure to keep reporters and politicians out of its meetings to encourage a free exchange of 

ideas among members. 
64 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Likewise, the Security/Police Information Network (SPIN) in Nassau County, New York, with 

a membership of some 1,600 businesses, trade associations, civic associations, and 

government agencies, does not afford open membership to all. Rather, prospective members 

of this crime and threat information-sharing partnership are subject to criminal history 

background checks. Most of the network’s information sharing takes place by e-mail or text 

messaging. Those communications, too, are limited to screened members. 

Different Levels of Membership 

InfraGard, the aforementioned partnership program of the FBI with 72 chapters around the 

country, has particularly stringent membership criteria. Because the FBI provides members 

with “law enforcement-sensitive” information (though not classified information), applicants for 

membership are subject to a criminal history background check by the FBI. Those who are 

approved become registered members, who not only may attend regular InfraGard meetings 

but also may gain access to a secure web portal. The membership approval process clearly 

establishes a barrier that increases the difficulty of joining the partnership and may exclude some 

security practitioners. The screening process, however, gives the FBI the necessary confidence 

to share information that it would not release to the general public. In addition to closed 

meetings for registered members, InfraGard also holds some open meetings, which the 

public and members’ guests may attend. 

Even partnerships that do not conduct criminal records background checks of potential 

members may primarily hold closed, member-only meetings but sometimes conduct open 

meetings for a larger audience. For example, members of the BOMA Chicago Security 

Committee meet monthly and do not allow others to attend, but three or four times a 

year they hold open meetings that can be attended by any executive in a building that is 

served by a regular member or that lies within Chicago’s First Precinct. Other partnerships 

keep some parts of their web sites open and other parts accessible only by members. 

Some partnerships designate different levels of membership with different privileges. 

They may have a narrowly focused group of voting members who help set policy and a 

wider group of associate members with whom information is shared but who may not 

set policy. Members in the higher membership levels may have permission to broadcast 

information to the membership at large, while other members may only be able to receive 

such information. In the Hartford Security Communications Access Network, some 

members may monitor messages over the program’s two communication systems, while 

others may monitor and send messages. 
65 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FormS oF ParTnErShiPS
 

Contractual or Mandatory 

In some cases, private security practitioners and law enforcement officers may be paid 

specifically to partner with each other. In Durham, North Carolina, security officers 

employed by Wackenhut Security Services work side by side with police officers from the 

Durham Police Department, helping to secure local public buses and a transfer station. 

They engage in the partnership because they have been contracted to do so by the 

Durham Area Transit Authority. 

Similarly, in Pierce County, Washington (which contains the city of Tacoma), the local 

transit authority, Pierce Transit, contracts with 3 sheriff’s deputies, 13 private security 

officers, and 96 off-duty police officers to provide protection for transit passengers. Those 

protection professionals work together and see themselves as partners. “We’re always 

looking for help, whether it’s another law enforcement agency or other organization,” 

Tacoma Assistant Chief Bob Sheehan said.96 “It’s going to take a partnership to solve some 

of the problems that occur at transit centers and bus stops.” Nevertheless, it is a different 

type of partnership than those in which law enforcement and private security simply 

choose to come together to address problems of mutual interest. In this case, a third 

party—Pierce Transit—is actually paying law enforcement and private security to work 

together on its behalf. 

For LE-PS partnerships based in BIDs, where private security officers collaborate with law 

enforcement officers, membership in those partnerships has the same basis: the private 

security members are simply those who have been contracted to participate. A final 

membership category is compulsory membership. A private security organization (such 

as a corporate security department) located within the boundaries of a BID is obliged 

to be a member of the partnership, at least in the sense of supporting it through 

special tax assessments. 
oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TyPES oF ParTnErShiP aCTiviTiES and ProgramS
 

ChAPTEr FIVE: Types of Partnership Activities and Programs
 

This chapter reviews types of law enforcement-private security (LE-PS) partnership 

activities and programs identified through the Operation Partnership study, grouping 

them into the following categories: 

  Information sharing 

  Training 

  Resource sharing 

  Crime control and loss prevention 

  All hazards preparation and response 

  Research, policy development, and legislation. 

LE-PS partnership activities related to terrorism and homeland security are found within most 

of these categories. 

Information sharing 

Nearly 90 percent of respondents to the Operation Partnership survey reported that 

information sharing is a key partnership activity (the next most prevalent activity is training, 

reported by 62 percent). This was predictable because access to new information has always 

been a major reason for LE-PS collaboration. The most significant changes in information 

sharing are the following: 

  LE-PS partnerships’ use of technologies that permit immediate information exchange 

on crimes and other threats to public safety 

  Partnership changes or expansions, and formation of new information-sharing 

partnerships, to prevent and respond to terrorism. 

Although many partnerships use advanced communications technology to exchange 

information, they also place great value on in-person information sharing. For example, the 

Greater Chicago Hotel Loss Prevention Association attributes its high apprehension rate 

for thefts and other crimes in part to showing videos and photos at partnership meetings. 

Crime alert programs (see next section) are not strictly e-mail systems. To prepare for 

road closings and potential protests at the 2002 World Economic Forum, for example, the 

Midtown Area Police/Private Security Liaison (APPL) program in New York City held a forum 

that drew more than 400 corporate security directors and managers. Similarly, joint LE-PS 

planning meetings and operational briefings are integral to safety and security at major 

special events throughout the nation. Virtually every type of partnership studied discussed 

the benefits of face-to-face meetings to build relationships, fostering greater information 

sharing in the future. Examples range from high-ranking law enforcement tours of critical 

infrastructure facilities and security operations to luncheons honoring local patrol and 

private security officers. 

67 
68 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Local and regional Crime Alert Programs 

E-mail, text messaging, secure web sites, and secure radio networks are some of the tools various 

LE-PS partnerships use to convey information immediately about crimes and other threats to 

public safety. Examples identified in this study include these: 

  Philadelphia Center City District and Philadelphia Police Department: e-mail, text messaging 

  Secomnet, Charlotte-Mecklenburg County (North Carolina): secure radio network 

  Anaheim (California) Crime Alert Network: fax and e-mail alerts 

  SHIELD in New York City, SPIN in Nassau County (New York) and SCAN in Suffolk County (New 

York): see sidebar 

  SCAN (Security Communications Access Network) in Hartford (Connecticut): secure radio 

system, e-mail alert system 

  Minneapolis SafeZone partnership: common LE-PS radio channel 

  Grand Central Partnership: common LE-PS radio channel 

  International Lodging Safety and Security Association (ILSSA) Intelligence Network, Boston: 

e-mail alerts, listserv 

  Greater Chicago Hotel Loss Prevention Association: secure web site on which incident 

information is often posted immediately 

  Boston Financial District Information Network: e-mail, closed-circuit television (CCTV) 

  Chicago Building Owners Management Association (BOMA) Chicago Security 

Committee: daily faxes from the Chicago Police Department 1st District to committee 

members, Emergency Alert Radio Network System, CCTV 

  Association for Security Administration Professionals: radio network, fax alerts. 

Many partnership leaders credit their alert systems with crimes prevented and solved. 

Successes attributed to joint LE-PS radio systems include immediate communication about 

protests that appeared to be turning violent; quick captures of suspects (e.g., bank robbers, 

escaped prisoner, jewelry store thief); recovery of missing persons, including responses to 

Amber Alerts; and better on-site coordination of special events. Partnerships also report 

crimes prevented and arrests aided by e-mail alerts. Examples include situations when a 

rash of crimes is committed against similar businesses, such as fraud and laptop thefts 

at hotels, thefts from autos in downtown garages, and retail merchandise return scams. 

In addition, some alert systems are used to issue warnings of major traffic accidents, 

industrial accidents, natural disasters, and terrorist threats and incidents. 

Other Information and Intelligence-Sharing Models 

The following examples include state and regional fusion centers and several federally- supported, 

large information sharing systems that were launched in the mid-1990s but have expanded since 

that time. 
69 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TyPES oF ParTnErShiP aCTiviTiES and ProgramS
 

Information-Sharing Examples in the New York City Area: SHIELD, SPIN, 

and SCAN Programs 

The Area Police/Private Security Liaison Program (APPL) was founded in 1986 as a cooperative relationship between 

the New York Police Department (NYPD) and private security executives in New York City. In 2005, after a long, 

successful history of achievement under the direction of the NYPD Crime Prevention Division, APPL transitioned 

into NYPD SHIELD, which is coordinated by the NYPD Counterterrorism Bureau. SHIELD is an “umbrella program 

for a series of current and future Police Department initiatives that pertain to private sector security and counterterrorism” and a “public private partnership based on information sharing.” (www.nypdshield.org/public/about.aspx). 

Means for sharing information include in-person intelligence and threat briefings, NYPD web site postings, Shield 

Alert e-mail messages, and informal information exchanges with counterterrorism coordinators in the patrol 

boroughs. When the Operation Partnership study concluded its research phase in late 2007, the SHIELD program was 

still evolving. 

SPIN (Security/Police Information Network) was started by the Nassau County (New York), Police Department 

(NCPD) in 2004 when now retired Police Commissioner James Lawrence, a former NYPD executive, sought to adapt 

the APPL concept to Nassau County, with the goal of making it a highly interactive, all-hazards program. Twoway information sharing is accomplished primarily by e-mail, as well as through meetings. SPIN’s comprehensive, 

multitiered approach allows for distribution of alerts (and other messages, training materials, etc.) to the entire 

network or to selected segments (e.g., law enforcement, vetted security directors, hospitals, civic associations, 

utilities, and others). At first, SPIN was coordinated by the NCPD Community Affairs Unit. It is now administered by 

the Homeland Security Counter Terrorism Bureau. www.police.co.nassau.ny.us/SPIN/spininfo.htm 

Recognizing the success of SPIN, the Suffolk County (New York) Police Department (SCPD) began SCAN, the Suffolk 

County Alert Network. The SCAN program description is similar to that of SPIN (www.co.suffolk.ny.us/police/scan. 

htm); however, SCAN is part of the SCPD’s Intelligence Center. 

Part of the success of these New York City area programs seems to be attributable to the strong ASIS chapters in the 

region, which have been very supportive and continue to devote significant time and resources to the programs. 

Fusion Centers 

In the past few years, state and regional intelligence fusion centers have begun 

assembling resources, expertise, and information from multiple law enforcement and 

private-sector sources to prevent and address crime and terrorism.97 An example of 

private security involvement is CSX Transportation, Inc.’s data-sharing agreements with 

fusion centers in Kentucky, New York, and New Jersey.98 Although placement of private 

security personnel in fusion centers is still rare, an exception is the fusion center in 

Seattle, Washington. Boeing announced plans in summer 2007 to place a corporate 

security analyst there.99 A longstanding LE-PS partnership, the Washington Law 

Enforcement Executive Forum (WLEEF), encouraged private security participation in the 

Seattle center (see sidebar on WLEEF in this chapter). 
70 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secomnet: Police-Private Security Information Exchange in Real Time
 

In 2001, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department (CMPD) developed 

the Secure Communications Network (Secomnet), a radio communication system designed 

to enhance information exchange and incident coordination between the CMPD and private 

security and special police member organizations. 

The CMPD’s initial partners—Duke Energy, Bank of America, First Union, and Wachovia— 

were instrumental in the early success and growth of the partnership. More than 40 

members now use the 800 MHz Secomnet system (those with radios in the 400 MHz range 

can be patched in). Participants include security personnel at financial institutions, hotels, 

hospitals, parking garages, the Charlotte Convention Center, and other facilities. 

In this partnership, the CMPD set up the system, developed and continues to monitor use of 

standard operating procedures (SOP), and provides training on equipment and SOPs. Privatesector members pay for the equipment they need. Police and other members exchange 

information about crimes in progress, communicate “be on the lookout” information, and 

use the network for special-event coordination and critical incident response. 

As of November 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified 58 fusion 

centers, either operational (43 centers) or planned, with operational centers in various 

stages of development.100 At the Michigan Intelligence Operations Center (MIOC), which 

had been operational for only a few months when interviewed for this study, initial activities 

included developing a business plan for private-sector collaboration. The process included 

site visits by MIOC personnel (e.g., representatives of local and state law enforcement 

and the military) to security operations at organizations that are part of the critical 

infrastructure. The site visits produced early benefits for both law enforcement and 

private security. Many corporate security departments had never had a police chief or 

any law enforcement representative come on site to learn firsthand about security. All 

13 critical infrastructure sectors (utilities, medical, education, automotive industry, etc.) 

were represented on the MIOC advisory board. 

Fusion centers are expensive propositions, supported in part by more than $380 million 

in Department of Homeland Security funding as of 2006–2007. Although considered one 

element of larger, national homeland security strategies, most are all-crimes or all-crimes/ 

all-hazards centers; only a few are concerned solely with counterterrorism. Challenges 

include security clearances, sustainability of funding, and data glut (too much irrelevant 

information). 
71 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TyPES oF ParTnErShiP aCTiviTiES and ProgramS
 

InfraGard 

The FBI’s InfraGard organization, discussed earlier, originally focused on cyber crime, 

but today is concerned with a much broader array of criminal and security matters and 

is “dedicated to sharing information and intelligence to prevent hostile acts against 

the United States.” 101 Specific activities include maintaining a secure web mail and 

information-sharing web site for members only, holding chapter meetings to exchange 

information face-to-face, and offering education and training on cyber and physical 

security topics. 

United States Private and Public Partnership 

Within 60 days after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, the FBI’s 

Dallas Division started a project—FBI Emergency Response Network—that became a 

pilot program in Dallas, Seattle, Indianapolis, and Atlanta, known as the Homeland 

Security Information Network-Critical Infrastructure . The pilot evolved to become 

what is now the United States Private and Public Partnership (USP3). An unclassified 

network, USP3 provides “a common network and repository for its members for daily 

routine information sharing and 24/7 emergency notifications.”102 Partners include 

ASIS International; the FBI; the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; InfraGard; law 

enforcement at the local, state, and federal levels; and critical infrastructure owners 

and operators. Enrollment criteria are established by the individual programs that make 

up USP3 and the USP3 National Governance. 

Overseas Security Advisory Council 

The Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC), which has been previously discussed, 

was established to address corporate executives’ need for expanded access to worldwide 

threat and crime incident information available to the U.S. Department of State. 

Organized as a federal advisory committee, OSAC maintains a secure web site that offers 

its nearly 4,000 members current safety and security information, travel advisories, 

terrorist group profiles, country crime and safety reports, special topic reports, foreign 

press reports, and more. 

The major lesson from OSAC after more than 27 years of successful information sharing 

is that governments—local, state, and federal—can and should provide essential securityrelated information/intelligence to their private-sector constituents. Doing so ultimately 

results in greater security for American businesses and citizens. Equally important, 

through such partnership, government receives information/intelligence that otherwise 

might not be made available to its law enforcement and homeland security agencies. 
72 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiiP 

Examples of Training Topics Delivered by Law EnforcementPrivate Security Partnerships 

  Terrorism and critical-incident training is covered in many partnerships. Examples of training 

subtopics, along with a few partnerships that have addressed them, are these: 

—	 how to identify suspicious packages (hartSCan) 

—	 impact of terrorism on special events (illinois association of Chiefs of Police) 

—	 Tabletop and/or full-scale exercises on responding to critical incidents (michigan 

State university CiP-Community Facilitation Program, milwaukee Critical incident 

Protocol partnership, virginia Police and Private Security association [vaPPSa], hazard 

management advisory Committee) 

—	 industry-specific critical infrastructure protection (mid-atlantic utilities group; Calvert 

Cliffs nuclear Power Plant/local law enforcement; international Lodging Safety and 

Security association-Boston) 

—	 introductory and refresher courses on incident Command System (iCS), national 

incident management System (nimS), and national response Plan (hazard 

management advisory Committee) 

  Surveillance issues/techniques (Boston Financial district information network; dallas Law 

Enforcement and Private Security Program [LEaPS]) 

  Ethics (Frontline defense initiative) 

  Conducting specialized risk and physical security assessments (training for law 

enforcement by various chapters of aSiS international) 

  Tourism safety and security (anaheim Crime alert network) 

  Bombings on college campuses (Boston Consortium for higher Education, Public Safety 

group) 

  Crime response techniques for security officers, e.g., protecting crime scenes, arrest laws, thefts 

and burglaries, search and seizure, anger diffusion (dallas LEaPS) 

  investigating crimes that affect the oil industry (Energy Security Council) 

  Patterns of gang activity; other crime patterns (hillsborough County, Florida, Sheriff’s 

office) 

  introduction to law enforcement-private security cooperation (virginia department of Criminal 

Justice Services training video) 

  Financial crimes such as identity theft and check forgery (hillsborough County, Florida, Sheriff’s 

office); all financial crimes, including mortgage fraud and crimes associated with international 

terrorism (international association of Financial Crimes investigators) 

  how to screen employees and conduct background investigations (illinois association of 

Chiefs of Police) 

  role of private security in responding to nuisance crimes (minneapolis SafeZone) 

  Law enforcement leadership training (Target Corporation’s Target & BLuE program) 
73 

TyPES oF ParTnErShiP aCTiviTiES and ProgramS
 

training 

Nearly two-thirds of the LE-PS partnerships identified in this study cited training as a 

significant activity. Partnership-sponsored training varies greatly with respect to the 

following: 

  Planning and development, which may be done by law enforcement, private security, 

or both, with or without the assistance of other subject matter experts 

  Duration, which ranges from lectures or demonstrations at partnership meetings to 

intensive courses culminating in professional certifications 

  Intended audiences (law enforcement, private security, or both; CEOs, managers, first 

responders; businesses; citizens’ groups, etc.) 

  Format (classroom lectures, demonstrations, tabletop exercises, field exercises, online/ 

CD/DVD courses, etc.) 

  Subject matter. 

The training topics that LE-PS partnerships offer are wide-ranging (see sidebar, “Examples 

of Training Topics Delivered by Law Enforcement-Private Security Partnerships”). Further, 

critical incident-response training, provided to police and private security together, 

has been an important benefit of LE-PS partnerships. This may include other partners 

(medical, fire, etc.) and has included field and tabletop exercises as well as guest lecturers 

at regular meetings and larger conferences. 

Training for Law Enforcement and Private Security Audiences 

Many partnerships report that delivering high-quality training is an important motivator 

for members’ continued participation. Challenges include finding the time to plan and 

produce training curricula and events; identifying topics that are compelling for both law 

enforcement and private security members; accommodating trainees’ work schedules; 

and addressing training issues that are on the cutting edge. 

In-Person Training Events 

Even partnerships known for successful training can find it difficult to consistently 

address members’ needs and interests. Solutions include assigning the lead to members 

who are experienced trainers; rotating the responsibility among members; providing less 

frequent but more intensive training; and encouraging participation in training provided 

by larger organizations (e.g., a regional ASIS or InfraGard chapter, the state police chiefs/ 

sheriffs association). 
74 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

VaPPSA, for example, which currently is led by a police major/training academy director, 

assigns training development responsibilities to members who are police district 

commanders. The director also ensures that training events are well-publicized through 

the partnership’s e-mail list, often following with event highlights for those who could 

not attend. Police who provide training through the Minneapolis SafeZone partnership 

changed from a monthly training schedule to a quarterly, 8-hour “super seminar,” with 

certificates awarded to security leaders who complete at least one session. 

Training via Electronic Formats 

Other training challenges include scheduling and the costs of missing work; a need 

for relatively inexpensive means to reach broader audiences; and employee turnover, 

especially in certain segments of the private security industry (e.g., guard services).103 To 

address these concerns, some partnerships have turned to online and CD/DVD formats, 

and more can be expected to do so in the future. 

One example is the “Shopping Center Terrorism Awareness Training Program” developed 

by the International Council of Shopping Centers and George Washington University’s 

Homeland Security Policy Institute. This 14-hour course, delivered by DVD and over the 

Internet, is geared to mall security guards. It emphasizes RAIN (recognition, avoidance, 

isolation, notification) techniques when faced with weapons of mass destruction.104 

Other examples include training on LE-PS partnerships themselves. The Virginia 

Department of Criminal Justice Services, with COPS Office funding, developed a DVD on 

this topic for police recruits. A COPS Office-supported follow-up project to this Operation 

Partnership study will produce LE-PS collaboration training in online electronic formats. 

Training for Other Audiences 

Most LE-PS partnerships that were studied focused on training for law enforcement, private 

security personnel, or both, but some sponsor training that includes or is geared primarily to 

other groups. 

Terrorism and Homeland Security 

Heightened concern about homeland security has been the impetus for some LE-PS 

partnerships to sponsor training that reaches broader audiences. One example is terrorism 

awareness training for building superintendents, apartment doormen, service and delivery 

workers, and others in a position to recognize terrorist threats.105 

Another is training by partnerships that have formed or expanded to address all hazards. 

For example, Critical Incident Protocol (CIP) partnerships supported by Michigan 

State University106 include other government and private-sector members, as well as 

nongovernmental organizations (e.g., American Red Cross) and citizens who volunteer 
75 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TyPES oF ParTnErShiP aCTiviTiES and ProgramS
 

to be of service in emergencies. Another example is the Hazard Management Advisory 

Committee led by Union Carbide Corporation, which has trained local Community 

Emergency Response Teams in such topics as crisis response systems (e.g., ICS, NIMS107), 

blood-borne pathogens, defensive driving, first aid, and CPR. 

Crime Prevention 

Another type of collaborative training is delivered through business police academies. 

Similar to the citizens’ police academies that law enforcement has been offering for 

years, business police academies are geared to owners, managers, and employees of retail, 

banking, and other businesses.108 Instructors have included private-sector loss-prevention 

experts, federal law enforcement (e.g., FBI, Secret Service), and researchers who help 

interpret local crime statistics. In addition, the typical curriculum is quite different from 

that of most citizens’ police academies and focuses on property and personal crimes of 

greatest concern to the business audience (credit card fraud, shoplifting, identify theft, 

counterfeiting, robbery, etc.).109 

One example is the Business Police Academy on Crime Prevention sponsored by the 

Baltimore County (Maryland) Police Department in conjunction with Security Square Mall in 

October–November 2006. The 6 weeks of 1-hour classes addressed incident reporting and 

police response, gang activity, fraud and counterfeit prevention, identity theft, robbery and 

shoplifting prevention, bank drops, auto theft prevention, personal safety, terrorism updates, and 

workplace violence.110 

Crime Control and Loss Prevention 

Field Operations 

Many LE-PS partnerships have significantly changed how policing is done with respect to field 

operations, particularly patrol and access control. Some areas in which these collaborations 

have produced notable results are described here. 

Business Improvement Districts 

Business improvement districts (BID) with strong public safety components are excellent 

examples of LE-PS partnerships. BIDs are formal organizations supported by special 

assessments paid by district property owners and businesses. Depending on community 

needs and budget, BIDs offer a range of services that may include public safety and 

security, sanitation and maintenance (often including graffiti removal), marketing and 

promotion, capital improvements, tourism and visitor services programs, and business 

assistance initiatives. 
76 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BID approaches to providing safety services vary. For example, larger BIDs may 

offer extra patrol services by both private security and police (in the Grand Central 

Partnership example below, the BID pays police for off-duty work). Many BIDs have 

“community service representatives,” “safety teams,” “downtown ambassadors,” or 

similar positions. Job titles, duties, and training differ from BID to BID, but (at a 

minimum) people in these positions are instructed in making appropriate referrals to 

police and other services, such as organizations helping homeless persons, and they 

may receive CPR/first aid and other training. An example of extensive training is seen 

in the Los Angeles Downtown Center Business Improvement District which in 2006 

launched a BID academy for its Safety Team members. Described as the first of its kind, 

this 10-day program covers “39 aspects of security training, including report writing, 

cultural diversity, drug abuse recognition, terrorism response, crime scene preservation, 

first aid, and homeless and mentally ill outreach.”111 

New York City’s Grand Central Partnership (GCP), incorporated in 1988, covers 68 blocks 

in Midtown Manhattan,112 and the public safety force is one of GCP’s largest components. 

GCP employs 45 uniformed public safety officers, trained by the NYPD, who patrol 

neighborhood streets and may assist the NYPD with investigations. In addition, 

approximately 15 NYPD officers, with department approval, work with the GCP on their 

days off. 

The Downtown Partnership of the Baltimore Downtown Management District113 covers a 

106-block area and offers additional examples of public safety services, including these: 

  Public safety guides, who give directions, provide safety escort services, check on businesses, 

provide outreach to homeless persons, deter panhandling, and coordinate with police. 

  Downtown public safety coalition, a partnership that links police, building and hotel 

security, property and business owners/managers, the state’s attorney’s office, federal 

law enforcement, and others. The coalition operates an e-mail information system 

and meets monthly. 

  Video patrol program, which includes about 80 CCTV cameras. 

  Safety training and education for downtown residents, workers, and visitors (provided 

through printed materials, displays, and seminars).114 

  “Make a Change” program, which provides collection boxes throughout the district to 

encourage people to contribute to Baltimore Homeless Services, Inc., rather than give 

money directly to homeless persons. 

The examples above are approaches taken in larger BIDs, but various activities are 

adaptable to smaller ones. Downtown Visions in Wilmington, Delaware, for example, 

does not have private security patrols but has an extensive CCTV system and employs 

community service representatives who act as additional eyes and ears for police. 
77 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TyPES oF ParTnErShiP aCTiviTiES and ProgramS
 

Special Event Safety and Security 

Law enforcement and private security have a long history of collaborating to reduce risks to 

life and property at special events. The Institute for Law and Justice recently completed a 

national study for the U.S. Congress and the COPS Office on public safety at special events, with 

a focus on large events of regional or national significance. Interviews and case studies explored 

safety and security at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, the Olympics, 

and G8 Summits; sporting events like the Super Bowl, NASCAR races, and the Kentucky Derby; 

and other events, such as July 4th and Mardi Gras celebrations, college football games, county 

fairs, and cultural events. Nearly all of these events require extensive coordination among law 

enforcement agencies (local, state, federal) and private security. The report contains many 

detailed examples of how major special events are planned and produced through LE-PS 

collaboration.115 

Community Policing 

Partnership building and problem solving—core community policing principles—are also 

key to successful LE-PS collaborations, whether a given LE-PS partnership makes strong 

links between its work and community policing or not. Among the partnerships studied, 

community policing approaches are perhaps most clearly seen in LE-PS collaborations 

focused on crime and quality of life in specific geographic areas—downtown business 

districts, areas that attract tourists, and residential neighborhoods. The police in BIDs 

such as the Philadelphia Center City District and Grand Central Partnership in Manhattan 

collaborate not only with private security but also sanitation, public works, code 

enforcement, and many other services toward creating safer, more welcoming, and more 

prosperous communities. 

Another example is the LE-PS partnership led by the Hillsborough County (Florida) Sheriff’s 

Office, which involves community policing deputies as active participants in partnership 

meetings. One of this partnership’s founding members, the CEO of Critical Intervention 

Services, a private security company, is an advocate of community policing and is the 

coauthor of two books on the topic.116 The Anaheim (California) Police Department’s Tourist 

Oriented Policing Team builds on the team’s foundation in community policing in working 

with private security. Through Anaheim’s Crime Alert Network, the police have set up a 

monthly forum for in-person information exchange with the community—in this case, 

the segment of the community that provides services to tourists. Like other communities, 

this business community has its own crime concerns and can offer insights into trends 

and solutions. Businesses in the Crime Alert Network, for example, informed Anaheim 

police about online reservation fraud and together they developed means of preventing 

it. According to police, online reservation fraud declined precipitously and there also was 

a drop in local crimes because fewer fraudsters were staying in stolen hotel rooms, which 

they used to commit more crimes.117 
78 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As discussed in Chapter 1, the full potential of private security to aid community 

policing efforts has not yet been fully realized. The Minneapolis SafeZone partnership, 

which recently won a community policing award from the International Association of 

Chiefs of Police (IACP), illustrates how police, private security, and the private sector 

more generally, can work together within a community policing framework (see sidebar 

on Minneapolis SafeZone). 

Alarms 

From the alarm industry point of view, when a business or homeowner installs a 

monitored alarm that police will respond to (at least under certain conditions), private 

security and law enforcement are indeed working together to prevent and respond to 

crime. In addition, a different variety of partnership has developed because of the high 

rate of false dispatches (that is, when police respond to an alarm signal that was not 

triggered by a crime). Security and law enforcement associations have collaborated for 

years on research and policy development geared toward minimizing the false alarm 

problem. As far back as 1993, the IACP sponsored research on false alarm reduction 

strategies with help from five security associations.118 Currently, the Security Industry 

Alarm Coalition (SIAC) works with law enforcement toward the same goal. More 

information and a model alarm ordinance are available at the SIAC web site 

(www.siacinc.org/model_ordinance.asp). 

Investigations 

As discussed in Chapter 1, LE-PS partnerships have been vital for investigating computer, 

financial, and intellectual property crimes. Collaboration on investigations is also evident across 

virtually all other crime types and numerous industries—transportation, retail, communications, 

and many others. Some partnerships reported specific results of LE-PS collaboration on 

investigations, for example: 

  Southeastern Transportation Security Council recovered stolen tractor trailers, each 

containing more than $100,000 worth of merchandise. 

  Mobile Phone Interest Group broke up a $2 million mobile phone theft ring on eBay; other 

organized thefts investigated and indictments issued. 

  International Association of Financial Crimes Investigators stopped a Nigerian money 

transfer scheme at a Colorado bank, helping prevent losses in the millions; many instances of 

disrupting bad check cashing, wire transfer fraud, and other financial crimes. 

  Security/Police Information Network credits the partnership with solving 

serial bank robberies and thefts from gas stations worth more than $100,000. 
79 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TyPES oF ParTnErShiP aCTiviTiES and ProgramS
 

Minneapolis SafeZone and Community Policing 

Founded in 2005, Minneapolis SafeZone (www.mplssafezone.org) is a partnership that 

embodies community policing principles. How can a police department handle downtown 

crime with limited officers? According to Minneapolis Deputy Chief Rob Allen, commander 

of the First Precinct, the answer is partnership with private security. In his district, private 

security employs 15 to 20 times as many personnel as law enforcement. The emphasis on 

equal partnership between law enforcement and the community, enhancing community 

livability, and generating proactive responses to concerns of business owners and residents 

have made this partnership a model community policing program. 

Minneapolis SafeZone, a precursor to the Safe City program, connects beat officers with 

private security personnel in more than 35 organizations through e-mail, radio, cell phones, 

pagers, and other means to share crime alerts, crime tips, pictures, video, incident reports, 

and online victim impact statements. The Minneapolis Police Department reported a 44 

percent reduction in robbery in the first year and, most notably, a nearly 100 percent 

conviction rate. The program’s 30 Target Corporation-supplied cameras, and hundreds of 

additional cameras controlled by SafeZone members, have led to more than 750 arrests. 

The partnership has trained more than 700 private security officers on such topics as 

citizen’s arrest, livability crimes, report writing, and video monitoring. 

A shining example of SafeZone success took place August 9, 2006. At 2:42 p.m., a suspect 

robbed Highland Bank; at 2:44 p.m., a First Precinct officer aired the suspect’s description 

on the shared radio system; at 2:51 p.m., a security officer at a downtown corporation saw 

the suspect in a skyway and called 911; and at 3:03 p.m., the suspect was in custody. 

According to Deputy Chief Allen, a key to the success of Minneapolis SafeZone is 

communication: “Our officers now view private security officers as partners. We walk 

together, talk often, and share information. And because we get local businesses to make 

online community impact statements, we get longer sentences for offenders.” 

  Boise Organized Retail Theft/Fraud Prevention and Interdiction Network has 

contributed to early identification and arrest of hundreds of suspects involved in 

theft, refund fraud, credit card fraud, drug trafficking, vehicle theft, armed robbery, 

and assault; merchandise valued at several hundred thousand dollars recovered; 

large-scale organized theft rings disbanded. 
80 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Secret Service New York/New Jersey Electronic Crimes 

Task Force* 

The uSa PaTrioT act of 2001 mandated that the director of the u.S. Secret Service establish a 

network of Electronic Crimes Task Forces (ECTF) throughout the nation** modeled after the new 

york ECTF, which was formed in 1995. in addition to multiple local, state, and federal law enforcement 

partners, the new york/new Jersey task force is composed of representatives of academia and private 

industry, including corporate security from some of the world’s largest financial institutions. Crimes 

investigated have included the following: 

  Computer-generated counterfeit currency 

  Bank fraud 

  Counterfeit checks 

  Credit card fraud 

  virus and worm proliferation 

  access device fraud 

  Telecommunications fraud 

  internet threats 

  Computer system intrusions and 

cyberattacks

  Phishing/spoofing

  assistance with internet-related child

pornography and exploitation 

  Cd/dvd piracy 

  Terrorism/terrorist financing nexus 

  identity theft. 

in addition, the new york ECTF places great emphasis on training, meets regularly with hardware 

manufacturers and software publishers to keep at the leading edge of the technologies, and 

conducts research and development projects. a former partnership leader (now a private-sector 

member) provides these insights on task force accomplishments: 

Since its inception in 1995, the task force has charged 800-some individuals with 

electronic crimes valued at more than $425 million. it has recovered more than 2,000 

cloned cell phones, and resolved 2,100-odd identity thefts. Perhaps most important, the 

task force has trained more than 11,000 law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, and 

private industry representatives in the criminal abuses of technology and how to prevent 

them. when the local, state, and federal law enforcement members of this task force can 

sit down and work with one of the largest financial institutions in the country to protect 

the financial privacy and account information of millions of credit card holders, that is a 

success story. 

*	 In 2006, the New York ECTF merged with the Newark Electronic Crimes Working Group to form the New York/ 

New Jersey Electronic Crimes Task Force. 

**	 As of early 2007, there were 24 USSS ECTFs. See www.secretservice.gov/ectf.shtml for links to the task forces 

and more information. 
81 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TyPES oF ParTnErShiP aCTiviTiES and ProgramS 

Electronic and Financial Crimes Investigations 

The U.S. Secret Service Electronic Crimes Task Force (ECTF) network provides an excellent 

example of LE-PS collaboration to address some of the nation’s greatest homeland 

security concerns. The Secret Service explains that “[o]ther law enforcement agencies 

bring additional criminal enforcement jurisdiction and resources to the task forces, while 

representatives from private industry and academia bring a wealth of technical expertise 

and research capabilities.”119 

As of early 2007, 24 ECTFs were in the network. The first of these, the New York ECTF, was 

formed in 1995 and was cited in the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 as a model for forming 

additional task forces (see sidebar, “U.S. Secret Service New York/New Jersey Electronic 

Crimes Task Force”). Although there are some differences among the task forces in areas 

of emphasis, specific partners, and more, their common purpose is the “prevention, 

detection, mitigation and aggressive investigation of attacks on the nation’s financial 

and critical infrastructures.”120 

CCTV Systems 

An important development for LE-PS partnerships—one that has contributed to successful 

investigations in many cities—has been law enforcement’s increased implementation of 

CCTV systems and use of private security’s CCTV systems to aid investigations. As discussed 

in other sections of the report, various partnerships have greatly facilitated installation of 

CCTV products and systems in downtown BIDs, special event venues, shopping malls, and 

other strategic sites. 

In 2005, the British Home Office conducted a national research project on the 

effectiveness of CCTV in London and surrounding areas.121 While police in the United 

Kingdom have implemented CCTV much more than in the U.S., the value of CCTV still 

needs more study. A finding from the Home Office study notes: 

Too much must not be expected of CCTV. It is more than just a technical 


solution; it requires human intervention to work to maximum efficiency 


and the problems it helps deal with are complex. It has potential, if properly 


managed, often alongside other measures, and in response to specific 


problems, to help reduce crime and to boost the public’s feeling of safety; and 


it can generate other benefits. For these to be achieved though, there needs to 


be greater recognition that reducing and preventing crime is not easy and that 


ill-conceived solutions are unlikely to work no matter what the investment.
 
82 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While the effectiveness of CCTV is still under study, systems are being implemented 

in many U.S. cities, which are starting to gain more experience in using them.122 For 

example, the Wilmington, Delaware, BID reports that CCTVs have helped solve major 

crimes, including five homicides within about 1 year, contributed to 500 arrests during 

the course of 5 years, and aided in reducing drug activity in residential areas (narcotics 

officers can monitor cameras at BID headquarters). 

Loss Prevention 

LE-PS partnerships also reported activities to prevent and investigate losses of retail 

merchandise, cargo (e.g., SPIN, MetroTech Atlanta), industrial and construction materials 

and equipment (e.g., theft of crude oil, natural gas, and equipment addressed by the Energy 

Security Council), laptops (e.g., from financial institutions, addressed by the Boston Financial 

District Information Network), and other property. Theft of copper wire, for example, is of 

particular concern to partnerships involving utilities (e.g., Mid-Atlantic Utilities Group). A 

recent sting led by the San Jose (California) Police Department demonstrates that such 

thefts are community problems, not simply industry losses. During the sting, a policeoperated recycling center that accepted stolen copper wire soon attracted other thieves 

who brought in weapons and other stolen materials and contraband.123 

An example of a community-oriented approach to retail loss prevention comes from an 

LE-PS partnership involving the Miami Township, Ohio, police and Dayton Mall. Police 

help mall management’s private security officers enforce the mall’s “Must-Be-16” rule on 

weekend nights, contributing to a significant decline in shoplifting.124 

Resource sharing 

Virtually every LE-PS partnership involves sharing a vital resource—information—to 

some degree. Further, most partnerships share additional resources, such as training 

opportunities, meeting facilities/logistics, investigative resources, or technical expertise. 

Another dimension of private security support for law enforcement is donations or loans 

of equipment, as well as funding to support crime prevention, enhance law enforcement 

field operations, bolster investigative capabilities, or support other mutual goals. Some 

examples include these: 

  Willingness to lend generators and other equipment to assist in emergencies 

(Southeast Wisconsin Homeland Security Partnership) 

  Grants to purchase CCTV equipment in downtown business districts and other 

strategic locations (multiple jurisdictions through the Safe City program) 

  Access to corporate forensic capabilities, e.g., for video enhancement (Target Corporation) 

  Donations of video equipment, cell phones, and computers (various partnerships) 
83 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TyPES oF ParTnErShiP aCTiviTiES and ProgramS
 

  Donations of logistical support (food, meeting space, etc.) for partnership meetings 

and training events (many partnerships) 

  Cosponsorship of an informational web site on identity theft for law enforcement and 

the general public (Bank of America partnership with the IACP)125 

  Cosponsorship of electronic crimes training in online, CD, and DVD formats 

(U.S. Secret Service ForwardEdge II training, developed in partnership with 

Target Corporation, Bank of America, the National Institute of Justice-supported 

CyberScience Laboratory, the IACP, and the National Sheriffs’ Association).126 

The Safe City program noted above is described in Chapter 6. In addition to funding CCTV 

for local jurisdictions and providing other resources, it serves as a model of corporate 

security leadership in support of local law enforcement. 

Another example of corporate support for law enforcement can be seen with the 

Austin Metro High Tech Foundation. In 1994, seven high-tech companies worked with 

law enforcement officials to establish a high-tech crime unit within the Austin (Texas) 

Police Department and created the nonprofit foundation. Foundation membership with 

advisory board eligibility and voting privileges requires an initial contribution of at least 

$5,000 and an annual contribution of $2,500, but nonvoting membership levels are less 

expensive. The Foundation provides training and equipment funds to the Austin Police 

Department’s High Tech Crime Unit and other agencies. 

The California High-Tech Crime Task Forces serve as another resource-sharing example. 

These task forces are funded by state grants and receive in-kind support from businesses. 

They were set up under state law to provide services with mandated participation by 

law enforcement at all levels in five regions. The task forces are overseen by a civilian 

committee that includes professional security executives, many of whom have law 

enforcement experience. 

All-Hazards Preparation and Response 

Because the Operation Partnership study was focused on LE-PS partnerships that 

address crime and terrorism, the study did not fully explore all-hazards partnerships— 

that is, partnerships that are also concerned with natural disasters and man-made 

disasters unrelated to terrorism and enlist law enforcement and private security but 

also fire and emergency medical services, hospitals, health departments, public works, 

and other private- and public-sector partners. The study team did review several allhazards partnerships (see sidebar “All-Hazards Partnership Examples”). Some were 

supported by Michigan State University’s Critical Incident Protocol (CIP) Community 

Facilitation Program, which (as of June 2008) has been initiated in 39 communities in 

23 states.127 In addition, various LE-PS partnerships whose alert systems were originally 

intended to address local crimes later developed protocols for communicating terrorism 

and hazard-related information. 
84 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiiP 

All-Hazards Partnership Examples 

Southeast Wisconsin Homeland Security Partnership, Inc., began after a citizen convened 

a meeting to explore the benefits of bringing public and corporate leaders together to enhance 

domestic preparedness. originally focused on the milwaukee area, the group became a nonprofit 

organization in 2004, now serves much of southeast wisconsin, and has more than 200 members. 

its 15-member board represents both public- and private-sector organizations. goals include 

developing appropriate, cost-effective policy and technology solutions; and testing and validating 

responses to homeland security threats or major disasters. 

Banking, manufacturing, health care, and insurance companies are among the private-sector 

members, while public-sector partners include the office of Emergency management, district 

attorneys, various municipal public health departments, fire departments, and law enforcement 

agencies. The american red Cross, energy/power corporations, and area hospitals are also members. 

key partnership activities include the following: 

  annual meeting with training on topics such as credentialing, evacuations, pandemic 

preparedness, and critical elements of crisis communication 

  other training events that may be scenario-based or include emergency drills 

  development of a system of crisis-event credentialing 

  Emergency response exercises in downtown milwaukee. 

Through this partnership, law enforcement, fire, and emergency management agencies have 

become more aware of the private-sector resources—generators, firefighting apparatus, and earthmoving equipment, for example—that can prove vital in responding to disasters. 

Milwaukee Critical Incident Protocol (CIP) partnership. in 2004, the milwaukee Police 

department and northwestern mutual insurance Company security launched this partnership 

as one component of a department of homeland Security-supported urban area Security 

initiative. The events of September 11, and then a 2003 bomb threat on a milwaukee federal 

building, underscored a need for greater police-private security collaboration to clarify roles and 

responsibilities, improve communication, and develop better coordinated responses to critical 

incidents. 

The partnership’s governing committee comprises representatives from the city of milwaukee, 

including police, fire, health, and emergency response professionals, as well as corporate security 

professionals from larger businesses in the downtown area. michigan State university’s CiP 

program assisted with kickoff meetings and meeting facilitation. Participating corporations, notably 

northwestern mutual, have contributed significant resources. a January 2006, half-day tabletop 

exercise involved about 50 private-sector participants along with public agency representatives; 

and in march 2006, a day-long full-scale exercise was conducted on site at northwestern mutual, 

followed by a debriefing in which other corporate representatives/observers participated. 
85 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TyPES oF ParTnErShiP aCTiviTiES and ProgramS
 

The Union Carbide/Dow Hazard Management Advisory Committee (HMAC) in New 

Jersey provides a different example of a partnership’s evolution to address all hazards. 

Formed in 1990 to deal primarily with spills and protester disruptions of material 

transport, the HMAC128 reorganized after September 11, 2001, to improve planning and 

provide LE-PS training for potential disasters such as terrorist acts involving hazardous 

materials. The partnership also developed more structured means for corporate security 

directors to coordinate with law enforcement and other emergency responders, and 

it has been developing better buffer zone129 protections. The 40 HMAC members now 

include communication companies, pharmaceutical companies, petroleum facilities, and 

utilities. There is also a community advisory panel that may raise concerns about safety 

and security. 

Research, Policy Development, and Legislation 

research and Evaluation 

Although few Operation Partnership survey respondents identified research as a key partnership 

activity, some significant LE-PS research collaborations were identified. For example, the CIP 

program directed by Michigan State University began as a research project (see Chapter 3). In 

addition to providing technical assistance, the CIP program continues to conduct research on 

elements of successful partnerships and associated partnership dynamics. 

Another example is the National Institute of Justice, Office of Science and Technology, 

which supports the Cyberscience Lab and often partners with the private sector, including 

manufacturers of security equipment, for research and development. For the COPS 

Office-sponsored guide Planning and Managing Major Special Events: Guidelines for Law 

Enforcement, private security was involved extensively in the research, as was law enforcement 

at all levels.130 

Most LE-PS partnerships do not appear to be conducting formal evaluations of their efforts; 

however, partnerships with significant funding, those sponsored by large organizations, 

and those with dedicated staff seemed more likely than others to keep statistics and other 

records of specific accomplishments. This places them in a good position to publicize 

their successes and, potentially, to participate in future research and evaluation projects or 

evaluate their own efforts more systematically. 
86 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiiP 

Washington Law Enforcement Executive Forum (WLEEF) 

a model partnership, the wLEEF was established in 1980 as a subgroup of the washington association 

of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (waSPC). The wLEEF is one of the oldest LE-PS partnerships in the nation 

and the first statewide partnership. its founder, and the 1980 president of the waSPC, former 

Chief michael Shanahan, saw a major need for greater cooperation between law enforcement and 

private security throughout the state of washington. as a leader of the iaCP Private Sector Liaison 

Committee, he went on to encourage LE-PS partnerships nationwide throughout the 1990s and into 

the new millennium. 

during the past 27 years, the wLEEF has undertaken a broad range of projects and has achieved noteworthy 

results, including the following: 

  Sponsoring statewide legislation enabling employees to have access to criminal justice records for 

employment screening 

  Sponsoring computer security legislation 

  developing a public/private loaned-executive program 

  Establishing a toll-free hot line for reporting suspected drunk drivers 

  Preparing training standards for contract security officers 

  Establishing an Economic Crime Task Force to combat fraud and other white-collar crimes 

  Preparing numerous manuals, videos, alerts, and training documents for the law enforcement and business 

communities 

  adding private security professionals to the state’s homeland Security Counter-terrorism Fusion Center 

The major lesson from wLEEF is that broad-based, statewide LE-PS partnerships can work and become 

institutionalized as part of a permanent organization such as a state’s chiefs and/or sheriffs 

association. 

For more details on the history and mission of wLEEF, see www.waspc.org/wleef/wleef history.pdf. 
87 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TyPES oF ParTnErShiP aCTiviTiES and ProgramS
 

Policy Development and Legislation 

Policy development, development of professional standards, and advocacy for legislative or 

regulatory change are on the agendas of many national and international membership 

associations representing large segments of the private security industry and the policing 

profession. Among them are key supporters of this study, such as ASIS International and its Law 

Enforcement Liaison Council and the IACP Private Sector Liaison Committee, as well as 

organizations representing private-security specialties—financial crime investigators; the 

guard, alarm, and armored car industries; and others. 

One major concern has been the need for private security industry standards. ASIS 

International offers training that leads to professional certifications, and it has developed 

numerous voluntary guidelines for the security industry. The National Association of Security 

Companies (NASCO) represents contract security firms that, together, employ nearly 450,000 

security personnel. NASCO’s objectives include promoting “higher standards, consistent 

regulations and ethical conduct for private security businesses.” 131 On behalf of its membership, 

NASCO advocates for legislation and regulation at the state and federal levels, supporting 

various initiatives that encourage the training, licensing, and screening of contract security 

officers. NASCO has advocated for improved private employer access to federal criminal 

records background checks under the Private Security Officer Employment Authorization Act of 

2004. NASCO also maintains a database of state regulatory requirements for its membership. 

Some of the state, regional, and local LE-PS collaborations identified in this study also conduct 

activities to effect policy and legislative changes, for example: 

  Washington Law Enforcement Executive Forum (see sidebar), whose experience in this area 

spans more than 27 years. 

  Illinois Association of Police Chiefs Public & Private Sector Liaison Committee, also a 

longstanding partnership, which has advocated on such issues as private security access to 

state criminal history records, private security licensing, and a Chicago ordinance to improve 

critical incident response in high-rise buildings. 

  Chicago Building Owners and Managers Association 

  Boise Organized Retail Theft/Fraud Prevention and Interdiction Network, which was 

instrumental in persuading the prosecutor’s office to file under a new state law that 

permitted combining multiple retail thefts into a felony case. 
oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

88 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

summary 

Information-sharing and training activities predominated among the partnerships 

studied. This was also true in the 2000 Operation Cooperation project, but there have been 

tremendous increases in both the number and types of activities. Increasingly sophisticated 

computer-facilitated and financial crimes have made joint LE-PS investigative activities 

a necessity, and there has been significant resource sharing, including public-private 

funding, to pursue these crimes. Finally, the nation’s heightened state of alert concerning 

homeland security and natural disasters has greatly influenced LE-PS partnership activities. 

At the same time, crimes and quality-of-life issues that are not terrorist-related continue 

to demand the attention and best efforts of LE-PS partnerships. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

kEy ComPonEnTS oF Law EnForCEmEnT-PrivaTE SECuriTy ParTnErShiPS
 

ChAPTEr SIx: Key Components of Law Enforcement-Private 


Security Partnerships 

This chapter examines key components of law enforcement-private security (LE-PS) 

partnerships, clustering the components into five major categories: 

1. Compelling mission. 

2. External support or model for formation. 

3. Founders, leaders, and facilitators as active enablers. 

4. Means of communication. 

5. Sustaining structure and resources. 

The hundreds of partnerships identified in this research take different approaches to 

coordinating and managing their partnerships, and there are many reasons why they started 

the partnerships in the first place. Our study also shows that there is no single, perfect model 

for a successful LE-PS partnership. Nevertheless, most successful partnerships, that is, those 

that are ongoing and effective, include or use the key components in this chapter. 

Compelling Mission 

A compelling mission is indeed one of the essential components of a successful 

LE-PS partnership. The mission—which is typically to solve a problem or improve a 

condition—motivates people to join, remain in, and work hard for the partnership. As 

John P. Kotter, author of Leading Change, observes, one of the signs of a complacent 

and weak organization is one where “[t]here is no focus on a compelling mission.”132 In 

the LE-PS partnership setting, without a compelling mission the costs of maintaining 

the partnership (planning, expense, time) outweigh the benefits of membership, and 

participation will be extinguished by the demands of everyday business. 

In the most successful LE-PS partnerships studied, the study team found that the vision, 

mission, goals, and objectives were determined by key partnership leaders and were 

communicated continuously throughout the partnership and outside the partnership to 

other stakeholders and the public. 

89 
90 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A compelling mission, coupled with some tangible successes, 

creates a “buzz” about the LE-PS partnership that keeps existing 

members engaged and entices potential new members to join. 

For example, Operation DelAWARE (founded as Operation 

Cooperation of Delaware), which focuses on all-hazards 

emergency preparedness, began in 1998 with about 10 members 

and now draws about 100 people to its seminars. A private-sector 

leader of Operation DelAWARE attributes the group’s success to 

the fact that “neither the public nor private sector predominates 

in its operation—something I have seen in other ‘partnership’ 

programs that have failed. As a result, we are able to present 

programs that have wide appeal to both sectors.”133 The flyer 

for a recent meeting (see accompanying box) shows how the 

group keeps the interest level high. As discussed in Chapter 4 

(Forms of Partnership Organizations), the mission of a partnership 

may evolve over time (typically widening to encompass more public safety and security 

concerns). The partnership, however, must always have a compelling mission or it will 

cease to exist. 

The following are some of the problems that became the subject of partnership missions. Also 

listed are examples of specific partnerships that have adopted missions to solve those 

problems. The wide range of problems suggests that nearly any law enforcement or private 

security matter can become the focus of an LE-PS partnership. 

  Critical incident planning. Morris County (New Jersey) Infrastructure Advisory Group 

and numerous projects following the Michigan State Critical Incident Protocol model: 

need for more comprehensive, better coordinated response plan after 9/11 for crises 

and catastrophes. 

  Crimes in hotels and tourist areas. Greater Chicago Hotel Loss Prevention Association: 

pick-pocketing; Anaheim Crime Alert Network: hotel burglary and fraud; Hawaii Tourism 

Association: muggings and vehicle break-ins at beaches and state parks. 

  Crimes against energy and utility resources. Energy Security Council: crimes 

affecting the petroleum industry; Mid-Atlantic Utilities Group: copper thefts from 

power stations. 

  Laptop thefts. Metropolitan Atlanta Technological Crimes Task Force; Boston 

Financial District Information Network. 

  Organized retail thefts. Organized Retail Theft/Fraud Prevention and Interdiction 

Network (Boise): refund fraud, especially by methamphetamine dealers and addicts 

and traveling groups. 

  general urban crime. Most business improvement districts, including Wilmington 

Downtown Visions, Philadelphia Center City District, and Grand Central Partnership; 

Association for Security Administration Professionals (Miami). 
91 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

— 

kEy ComPonEnTS oF Law EnForCEmEnT-PrivaTE SECuriTy ParTnErShiPS
 

  Crime on college campuses. Boston 

Consortium for Higher Education. 

  Police budget cuts. Minneapolis 

SafeZone Collaborative: need to 

employ private security resources to 

compensate for loss of police officers 

after budget cut. 

  Inadequate LE-PS relationship. Dallas 

Law Enforcement and Private Security: 

need to improve relations between law 

enforcement officers on the street and 

private security guards throughout the 

city. 

  need to comply with federal 

mandate. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power 

Plant partnership: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission requirement to partner 

with local law enforcement to develop 

plans to respond to threats, thefts, and 

sabotage. 

A partnership’s vision, mission, strategy, 

goals, and objectives are best achieved if 

they are set out in writing. The highest-level 

item, the vision, is, according to Kotter, “an imaginable picture of the future.”134 The vision does the 

following:135 

  Clarifies the general direction of change, thereby simplifying hundreds or thousands of more 

detailed decisions. 

  Motivates people to take action in the right direction, “even if the initial steps are personally 

painful.” 

  Helps coordinate the actions of different people in a fast and efficient way. 

The sidebar “Characteristics of an Effective Vision” provides Kotter’s description of the 

characteristics of an effective vision. 

Characteristics of an Effective Vision 

Imaginable: Conveys a picture of what the 

future will look like 

Desirable: Appeals to the long-term interests of 

employees, customers, stockholders, and others 

who have a stake in the enterprise 

Feasible: Comprises realistic, attainable goals 

Focused: Is clear enough to provide guidance in 

decision-making 

Flexible: Is general enough to allow individual 

initiative and alternative responses in light of 

changing conditions 

Communicable: Is easy to communicate; can be 

successfully explained within five minutes 

Kotter, John P., Leading Change, Boston: Harvard 

Business School Press, 1996, 72. 
92 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

external support or Models for Formation 

Successful LE-PS partnerships do not necessarily need or have large budgets, but certain resources 

and support give most partnerships a better chance of success. The following types of help 

have boosted many of the partnerships studied: 

  Publications and guides 

  Conferences 

  Consultation with, and site visits to, existing partnerships 

  Descriptions of various partnership models 

  Guidance from ASIS chapters and other associations 

  Institutional support from law enforcement agencies and corporations 

  Initial and ongoing financial support from outside sources. 

Some LE-PS partnerships have gotten off to a good start with external support or by 

deliberately modeling themselves after existing partnerships. The Frontline Defense 

Initiative of the Institute for Public Safety Partnerships, for example, which focuses on the 

security of Chicago’s major buildings, received startup funding from the U.S. Department 

of Justice after 9/11. Similarly, funding for Critical Incident Protocol activities, such as 

planning meetings and tabletop exercises, comes from a grant from the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security to Michigan State University. Minneapolis SafeZone received an early, 

essential boost from Target Corporation, which contributed funds for 30 CCTV cameras. 

The power of examples may be even stronger than the effect of outside funding. The 

initial organizer of the Mobile Phone Interest Group followed the model of a program 

in Germany that he had learned about at a conference in that country. The Suffolk 

County Alert Network (New York) was inspired by the Security/Police Information 

Network in neighboring Nassau County. Nassau County’s Commissioner was inspired 

by the New York Police Department’s Area Police/Private Security Liaison model. The 

Virginia Police and Private Security Alliance (VaPPSA), was inspired by a workshop on 

how to establish an effective public-private partnership that several of its founders had 

attended together at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. 

Many partnerships report frequent requests for information or visits from law 

enforcement and private security practitioners looking to found their own partnerships. 

The Energy Security Council reports that other industries consult with it about its model, 

as does the Anaheim Crime Alert Network. Leaders of Minneapolis SafeZone Collaborative 

note that their program is spurring similar efforts in other city precincts. The web 

communications model in the SafeZone LE-PS partnership has also been duplicated in 

at least five other partnerships across the nation. 
93 

 

 

 

 

kEy ComPonEnTS oF Law EnForCEmEnT-PrivaTE SECuriTy ParTnErShiPS
 

Written materials also influence the development of new partnerships. The founder of 

the Plainsboro Township Police Department/Business Initiative notes that he had access 

to many useful materials, including Operation Cooperation: Guidelines for Partnerships 

between Law Enforcement & Private Security Organizations (2000). 136 

Founders, Leaders, and Facilitators as Active enablers 

Most successful LE-PS partnerships have one or more founders, leaders, or facilitators who 

have served as “active enablers”—charismatic figures who fostered success. These key roles 

have been carried out by members of both law enforcement and private security. 

Founders 

Establishing LE-PS partnerships requires vision, communication, and energy. To motivate 

prospective participants, a partnership founder needs a clear vision of the partnership’s 

potential and the ability to convey the importance of that vision. Founders bring key 

parties together to form the partnership organization, but they may or may not stay in 

place to lead it. Some partnerships were formed by committees or through unions of 

groups, but in most successful cases, partnerships began when the right (motivated and 

persistent) party in law enforcement and the right party in private security found each 

other. At the point when they decided to create an ongoing, structured relationship, they 

became partnership founders. 

The following are examples of how some selected LE-PS partnerships started: 

  The Southeastern Transportation Security Council was founded by a senior special 

agent with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of the Inspector General and a 

private security professional working for a supply chain logistics provider. 

  The Mobile Phone Interest Group was founded by a corporate security investigator 

for a mobile phone manufacturer. He then invited law enforcement and other mobile 

phone manufacturers to join. 

  The Metropolitan Atlanta Technological Crimes Task Force (MetroTech Atlanta) was 

founded when a private security director contacted a local police officer for advice. 

The advice produced results, and the security director invited other security members 

to join him in meeting with local law enforcement, and more law enforcement 

agencies joined in, as well. 

  The Anaheim Crime Alert Network grew into an ongoing partnership after Anaheim 

Police Department burglary detectives started talking to hospitality industry 

representatives to gather information for use in solving a rash of hotel burglaries. 
94 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiiP 

Taking the Lead, Not the Spotlight 

demonstrating leadership in law enforcement–private security cooperation, Target Corporation 

supports law enforcement agencies across the country with grants, materials, expertise, 

information, and investigative support. moreover, Target does so without making itself the primary 

focus. its efforts benefit entire communities and apply to many crimes that are unrelated to Target. 

in 2007, FBi director robert mueller iii awarded the FBi director’s Community Leadership award to 

Target for its “extraordinary contributions to communities and law enforcement throughout the 

united States.” 

“Target & BLuE” is the name for the company’s many efforts to collaborate with and support law 

enforcement agencies. activities include the following: 

  Safe City. Formerly called SafeZone, this program establishes LE-PS partnerships that 

use technology and communication tools to reduce crime—for example, by supplying 

radio systems that link police and private security officers or by funding closed-circuit 

television in urban areas. (more details are at www.mysafecity.com) Though founded by 

Target, the Safe City model is designed to be law enforcement-led, not Target-led, so other 

corporations—and law enforcement agencies—will be more inclined to participate. The Safe 

City model is in place in 16 communities, and implementation is under way in nine more. 

  Forensic services. Two Target labs (in minneapolis and Las vegas) focus on video analysis, 

computer forensics, and latent fingerprint analysis. about 20 percent of the lab’s work is 

done for law enforcement agencies investigating violent felonies that are unrelated to 

Target. 

  Investigative support. Target provides expertise, materials, and information in support of 

law enforcement investigations. For example, it supplies gift cards for law enforcement use 

as bait in theft investigations; once a card is used at a Target store, the company provides 

video of the transaction and a copy of the signature slip. Likewise, Target investigators 

routinely partner with law enforcement to combat cargo theft. The company has lent 

semitrailers equipped with surveillance and tracking capabilities for law enforcement use 

in cargo theft investigations. 

  Twin Cities Security Partnership. Federal, state, and local law enforcement executives 

and their security counterparts from Fortune 500 companies exchange information to 

improve public safety in the minneapolis/St. Paul community. 
95 

  Law enfor cement gre ants. Target awarg ds grants to mor e than 250 agencies annually for e l for 

equipment, trq i t aining, and prn ogr ams that enhance community safety . grants range between 

$250 and $2,000, and law enfor 0 n , , a d la fo cement agencies can apply online. Since its inception, the i c 

grant pr ogr am has awarm h ded millions of dollar d d mi l s to local law enfor oc f cement. grants ar e used 

for patr ol bicycles bic l , child identification kits , c d n a , night-vision equipment, pr m operty engravers, 

crime-pr evention liter e t o t atur e, equipment for P , qu p f olice Explori e er and citizen patr e n i ol groups, and 

computer s and digital camer d i a c meras . 

  Spon sorships . Tar get sponsor s s criminal justice confer c ences and tre aining for the

international e n t association of Chiefs of P o a i f i olice, national district attorneys association, c r 

FBi national academy associates F atio a a i , women in Feder n al Law Enfor cement, Police Executive ce 

research Forum, and national organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, 

among other s. 

  Supply chain security S pply h r . Target has partner get a ed with the u.S. department of homeland e w e e e m 

Security and u.S. Customs and Bor S u i o n B der Pr otection to receduce risks in the supply chain and is ed k i p 

a charter member of the Customs-T a c ar r m mbe f e s o rade Partnership against T err orism. 

  CriMNet. Target sharge ed its inventory and knowledge-management expertise to help i s e k w e i e 

minnesota criminal justice agencies cr n ot r i a j s i a e eate a fr amework of business and technology k o y 

standar ds for sharing information. d o a i n ma i 

deputy Chief rob allen, Patrol Bureau, minneapolis Police department, says he appreciates 

Target’s financial and material contributions, but even more valuable is the company’s national 

scope and connections. For example, when he wanted to learn more about license plate cameras, 

he contacted Target staff, who were familiar with other agencies using that technology and 

made useful introductions. Similarly, after hurricane katrina, when a Louisiana law enforcement 

colleague called him for help in keeping food refrigerated for officers and emergency workers 

so it would not spoil, allen called Target, which promptly sent generators. Similarly, with stores 

throughout the country, Target is able to identify some crime trends even before police in 

different cities realize the trend exists. 

The company has institutionalized LE-PS partner ship. Store managers are rated on their 

partnerships with law enfor cement, and company policy calls for pr oviding surveillance video to 

police immediately upon r equest in serious crime cases , such as kidnappings . Likewise, corpor ate 

investigators are rated on their level of participation in LE-PS task for ces, surveillance, and sear ches, 

as well as their sharing of investigative r esources—regardless of whether those r esources are used 

in cases involving T arget. 
96 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In May 2006, the Chiefs of Police Associations in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa hosted 

a conference titled “Midwest Summit 2006: Economics of Disaster—Enhancing Critical 

Incident Preparedness through Public-Private Partnerships.” Supported by the Bureau of 

Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, the summit drew 300 participants from 

the public sector (including state, local, and federal law enforcement professionals) and 

the private sector (including corporate security directors). Summit attendees developed a 

template for founding a public-private partnership, with an emphasis on critical incident 

response. Its key components are as follows:137 

  Provide leadership. One or more individuals must initiate the call to action and assume 

the responsibility of preliminary organization. The public sector has traditionally 

provided the call to action; however, the private sector can initiate a partnership. In 

this context, leadership is the ability to convince people to the point that a majority will 

follow and act on the decisions reached. 

  Obtain commitment. Critical public- and private-sector entities need to collaborate 

in advance of any critical incident to ensure preparedness. Feelings of safety and 

trust come only from working together. Partners must be provided with realistic 

expectations, not lofty promises. 

  Establish a leadership council. Successful partnerships require an appropriate 

platform for open communications. The council should take inventory of available 

public and private assets. In a crisis, the private sector has been very willing to provide 

assistance. That same spirit should be fostered during noncrisis times. 

  Develop a public-private emergency response plan. The plan should be practical to 

implement and flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances in an emergency. 

Businesses should be encouraged to develop their own comprehensive emergency 

response plans. 

  Activate action plans. The plans should be communicated to public and private 

employees, and emergency responders should be told how their families will be 

protected while the responders are serving the community. The community should 

be informed of the plans, as well. 

  Monitor progress and review results. The leadership council should continue 

cross-boundary communications and mutual training efforts. Tabletop exercises and 

continuing goal assessments are essential. 
97 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

— 

 

kEy ComPonEnTS oF Law EnForCEmEnT-PrivaTE SECuriTy ParTnErShiPS
 

Leaders 

Founders may or may not continue to lead a 

partnership once it is established. In this context, 

leaders address the issues of how decisions are 

made and what the LE-PS partnership’s direction 

will be. (The excerpt in the sidebar notes differences 

between management and leadership.) This 

research found many partnerships led by law 

enforcement and private security, as well as some 

that are led by the two sectors together (through 

cochairs, for example). Regardless of which 

discipline supplies leadership, several important 

factors contribute to the effectiveness of an LE-PS 

partnership leader. These factors are discussed in 

the sections that follow and include continuity, 

consensus in collaboration, short-term progress 

combined with patience, champion behavior, and 

special leadership skills and involvement. 

Management Versus Leadership
 

Management is a set of processes that can 

keep a complicated system of people 

and technology running smoothly. The 

most important aspects of management 

include planning, budgeting, organizing, 

staffing, and problem solving. 

Leadership is a set of processes that 

creates organizations in the first place 

or adapts them to significantly changing 

circumstances. Leadership defines what 

the future should look like, aligns people 

with that vision, and inspires them to 

make it happen despite the obstacles. 

Kotter, John P., Leading Change, Boston: 


Harvard Business School Press, 1996, 25.
 

Continuity 

Continuity of leadership is a major issue in LE-PS partnerships. Based on the study 

of about 60 partnerships, the 2000 report titled Operation Cooperation cited several 

reasons for partnership failure, among which was that founders, “drivers,” or staff 

coordinators are reassigned or retire.138 The frequency of reassignment or retirement 

seems to be especially acute among law enforcement officers. The present research 

found much the same phenomenon: when a partnership has been strongly supported by 

a law enforcement leader and that leader is reassigned, the partnership stands a good 

chance of foundering, especially if it has not developed a strong structure and become 

institutionalized. By contrast, when the leader continues in his or her leadership role for a 

long period and helps the partnership establish a plan for succession, the partnership has 

a much better chance of surviving turnover at the top. 
98 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consensus in Collaboration 

In most partnerships examined, regardless of who held the leadership position, decisions 

on partnership activities were made through consensus among representatives of both 

sectors. One example is the Security Communications Network (Secomnet), a program 

whereby the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department and local security directors can 

communicate with each other by radio to share crime-related information and coordinate 

emergency responses. Secomnet is guided by a panel that includes a representative of the 

chief of police and security directors of companies in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg business 

community. 

Leaders face special challenges in supporting multiagency, multicorporation teams. A parallel 

can be found in the workings of special-purpose teams in business. Recent research on team 

behavior at 15 multinational companies uncovered a paradox:139 

Although teams that are large, virtual, diverse, and composed of highly 

educated specialists are increasingly crucial with challenging projects, those 

same four characteristics make it hard for teams to get anything done.... [T]he 

qualities required for success are the same qualities that undermine success. 

Members of complex teams are less likely—absent other influences—to share 

knowledge freely, to learn from one another, to shift workloads flexibly to 

break up unexpected bottlenecks, to help one another complete jobs and meet 

deadlines, and to share resources—in other words, to collaborate. 

The “other influences” mentioned by the researchers include key actions by team leaders. 

Among them are the following: 

  Invest in relationship practices. The team leader should attempt to strengthen 

relationships among team members through activities that are “memorable, difficult 

for others to replicate, and particularly well suited to [the] environment.”140 

  Model collaborative behavior. Leaders should set good examples by letting 

team members see them practice effective collaboration in their main jobs. 

  Mentor members. Leaders need to coach and mentor team members, providing 

them with contacts and introductions to strengthen their ability to collaborate. 

Such mentoring helps establish a cooperative culture instead of a culture 

dependent on reciprocity. 

  Be both task- and relationship-oriented. At the early stages of a partnership, 

leaders should focus on tasks, such as clarifying the group’s goal, engaging in debates 

about commitments, and clarifying the responsibilities of individual team members. Later, 

once the partnership has gotten off the ground, leaders should focus on strengthening 

relationships within the partnership and between the partnership and other key parties. 
99 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

kEy ComPonEnTS oF Law EnForCEmEnT-PrivaTE SECuriTy ParTnErShiPS
 

Short-Term Progress Combined with Patience 

Some partnership leaders observe that it can take time before a partnership bears fruit (for 

instance, reducing crime). To keep partners participating throughout those early months, it is 

essential that partnership meetings are worthwhile and provide an immediate benefit. Some LE-PS 

partnerships focused on developing valuable presentations at partnership meetings; some even 

arranged in-service training credits for law enforcement participants who attended. 

Again, a parallel from the business world provides some insights into effective 

leadership behavior. Researchers studied approximately 40 global companies to learn 

why the excitement over a company’s “bold new vision” often wears off after a few 

months.141 LE-PS partnerships may also start with a level of excitement about solving 

an urgent problem but experience a loss of energy. Several reasons for failure or lost 

momentum that the researchers observed apply to LE-PS partnerships, as well: 

  Failing to focus. If the team attempts to handle too many initiatives at once, the 

“bold vision will get mired in a haze of other priorities.”142 

  “Dancing without a partner.” It is awkward to dance alone, and many leaders in the 

companies studied “started the dance by explaining the vision but didn’t engage a 

partner to make it work.”143 

  Skipping the skill building. It is essential to determine whether team members need 

special skills to realize the vision, to acknowledge whether those skills are lacking, and 

then to help members develop those skills. 

  Mismatching messages and metrics. This problem occurs when the stated goal 

collides with “subtle reinforcements of business as usual.”144 Ready and Conger 

found that the new visions required new behaviors and mind-sets, but employee 

performance evaluations failed to take this into account. Similarly, in the Operation 

Partnership study, some LE-PS partnership members noted that at performance 

review time, employers judged only how well employees performed their main jobs 

instead of giving them credit for their partnership work. 

Clearly, leaders can help LE-PS partnerships succeed by avoiding those causes of failure— 

in other words, by helping the members focus on an achievable range of goals, by 

explaining the partnership’s vision and engaging other parties to help make it happen, by 

nurturing essential skills among partnership members or recruiting new members who 

possess those skills, and by encouraging team members’ employers to recognize their 

partnership activities as a valuable part of their primary jobs. 
100 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Staffing Resources to Support the 

Security/Police Information Network 

The nassau County (new york) Police department’s (nCPd) Security/Police information network (SPin) is an 

e-mail-based, public-private information-sharing partnership that began in June 2004. in planning for the 

network, James Lawrence, then commissioner of police, had to consider whether personnel resources would 

be dedicated to this new initiative, or whether SPin would be an additional responsibility for a preexisting 

unit within the department. The commissioner opted to dedicate two police officers and a sergeant to the 

new SPin unit. 

in planning for SPin, the ability to reach hundreds of security directors, each with his or her own internal 

networks, offered the nCPd an opportunity to potentially leverage thousands of security professionals whose 

mission and responsibilities significantly overlapped with that of law enforcement. The true scale of this kind of 

connectivity became evident when we learned that one of the security companies in nassau County had more 

security guards than the police department had officers—and the nCPd has 2,700 sworn members! 

in addition, each of these security directors worked for companies that had their own network of employees, 

with some that numbered in the thousands. recent data show that approximately 164,000 people are 

employed in the organizations of SPin’s 700 security entities. with most of those employees having their 

own personal e-mail networks, the potential for information sharing has reached a level that in the past was 

simply not possible. 

realizing the potential leverage and reach that technology offered, combined with a desire to make the 

network as interactive as possible, the commissioner determined that assigning dedicated personnel was not 

only essential, but would also be well worth the cost to the department. 

Since SPin’s inception, daily e-mail contact with its members and quarterly meetings have built relationships 

among the police department and our security industry that would not have been possible without a 

dedicated SPin unit. The face-to-face contacts that meetings enable have had a dramatic impact on the 

quality of those relationships, as well as the perceived connection that SPin members have with the police 

department. members feel very comfortable e-mailing SPin officers or picking up the phone if issues need 

to be addressed. 

The relationships built among our SPin officers and security personnel have also enabled the department to 

become aware of private-sector resources that may be made available in case of emergencies. These are the 

types of emergency management connections that are vital in constructing disaster plans. 

Building on the network’s success of bank robbery arrests, uncovering a major scam, and other investigative 

leads developed through the network, SPin has reached a tipping point in acceptance within the 

department’s internal organizational culture. Looking back, the assignment of dedicated officers to SPin had 

a significant impact on policing in nassau County. 

The full-time assignment of officers was essential in building the kind of law enforcement-private security 

partnership that SPin has provided. The return on investment has included increased information sharing and 

awareness, better coordination and cooperation with private security directors (especially those responsible for 

critical infrastructure), enhanced homeland security, and improved intelligence-led policing. The development 

of SPin has meant an exponential expansion of the department’s law enforcement intelligence network. 

The leadership challenge involved in making this initiative a success has been in empowering SPin personnel 

to be able to share information. Breaking down the walls of institutional police culture is not easy, and 

it took Commissioner Lawrence’s leadership to reinforce the message that it was the police department’s 

responsibility to share information and that SPin was now part of the department’s overall policing strategy. 

Matthew J. Simeone, Jr., Inspector, Nassau County (New York) Police Department 
101 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

kEy ComPonEnTS oF Law EnForCEmEnT-PrivaTE SECuriTy ParTnErShiPS
 

Philadelphia Crime Prevention Council’s Instant Communications 

Founded in 1997 as a venue for federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to exchange information, the 

Philadelphia Crime Prevention Council (PCPC) soon added private-security members. Its initial focus was crime 

prevention; after 9/11, it began to devote half its efforts to homeland security and disaster preparedness. 

In 2004, the Center City District (CCD), a downtown business improvement district, and the Philadelphia Police 

Department each provided $25,000 to fund an instant communication system for the PCPC. The system has grown 

to include about 1,200 participants from the public and private sectors. About 300 are law enforcement officials 

from 50 different federal, state, and local agencies; the rest are private-sector partners. 

Both the Philadelphia Police and the CCD send out alerts on serious crime and public safety incidents that may 

affect the area, demonstrations and serious accidents that may affect traffic patterns, and related disruptions. For 

example, information was disseminated after the Madrid and London transit bombings in 2004 and 2005. 

The PCPC’s first alert system used e-mail only, but members were unlikely to be able to receive the alerts if they were 

away from their desks. The new system notifies participants through computer e-mail, text message, and cell phone. 

The new system showed its value when, on September 21, 2006, in Center City Philadelphia a number of explosions 

occurred in underground electric power vaults. Smoke and fire poured out of exploding manhole covers, and 

electricity went off in a large area of the center city. Initially, it was not clear whether the explosions were caused 

by a fire, utility malfunction, or terrorist activity. 

The program coordinator started to receive calls immediately from building security directors, who provided and 

requested information. Philadelphia police began to send information over the alert system. The coordinator called 

police and fire responders on their cell phones and passed vital information via the alert system between the public 

and private sectors all day. Panic was averted and orderly evacuations were conducted where necessary. 

Champion Behavior 

An LE-PS partnership leader may need to be a highly motivated champion of the cause. 

Such leadership can be a significant undertaking. Some leaders in the partnerships 

studied remarked on how time-consuming it is to serve as a leader, even as co-chair. 

Where does the necessary motivation come from? Former Chief Michael Shanahan, 

founder of the Law Enforcement Executive Forum of the Washington Association of 

Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (see sidebar in Chapter 5), used to say that the leader must feel 

that the LE-PS partnership is a moral necessity. 

Regardless of whether many others will support the effort at first, the leader must not 

walk away from it until it is self-sufficient. To strengthen and truly lead the partnership, 

he or she should also be able to communicate and work credibly with people from several 

different environments (including big business; small business; and local, state, and 

federal law enforcement). 
102 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research by Stephen Markhem supports those observations. After studying 53 champions 

of innovation projects in four large firms, as well as project team members, Markhem 

observed the following:145 

  Ownership and effort. In interviews, nearly every champion referred to the project 

as “my project.” They tended to use the word “passion,” and their accounts of 

their projects’ history all included “episodes of extraordinary effort and risk on the 

champion’s part.” 

  Influence and conflict. Champions and team members often talked about trying 

to influence others to assist with critical tasks. Markhem notes, “The championing 

process is not a neat, clean exercise in management. Promoting a project involves 

influencing many people who may not wish to be influenced. This situation may lead 

to tension and conflicts even if the champion and targets of influence have positive 

preexisting relationships.” 

Special Leadership Skills and Involvement 

Leaders of LE-PS partnerships, for the most part, are not the employers of partnership 

members. They cannot use all the same influence techniques that a typical manager can 

employ, such as mentoring and having influence over salary and promotions. LE-PS 

partnerships are not the same as corporate or law enforcement departments but are more 

akin to what the business management literature calls “self-managing teams.” Such teams 

require a different type of leadership. 

Researchers studied 300 self-managing teams at a large manufacturing plant of a 

Fortune 500 corporation.146 They found that the successful leaders associated with those 

teams “excelled at one skill: managing the boundary between the team and the larger 

organization.” Such leaders served their teams best by developing useful relationships 

with persons both inside and outside the team and using those relationships to obtain 

resources, information, and favorable decisions for the team. 

A related issue is the role of corporate executives in LE-PS partnerships. Increasingly, 

chief executive officers (CEO) are being asked to step up and exercise leadership in LE-PS 

partnerships, especially those addressing homeland security. A report by the Business 

Roundtable, an association of CEOs of leading U.S. companies, urges CEOs to get involved 

with law enforcement and to encourage their staffs to do the same:147 

In this new risk environment, a CEO must be sure the corporation is closely 

connected to the public sector, particularly with DHS, state officials, the law 

enforcement community and the military. CEOs also should support corporate 

executives in developing new connections with government officials to share risk 

information, coordinate crisis response and proliferate new security practices.... 
103 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

kEy ComPonEnTS oF Law EnForCEmEnT-PrivaTE SECuriTy ParTnErShiPS
 

American business and political leaders may be called on increasingly to 

partner in brokering common-sense solutions to pervasive security and critical 

infrastructure problems. New threats will continue to challenge our nation’s 

security, our economic institutions, and the public’s trust and confidence in 

both business and government. 

Facilitators 

A lower-profile role than that of the founder or leader is that of the facilitator. Nevertheless, 

it is a truly essential component of an LE-PS partnership. Clearly, a partnership needs 

someone to schedule meetings, issue invitations, round up participants, produce a 

newsletter, distribute alerts, and arrange for meeting space. The present research found 

that such facilitation may be provided by the partnership’s private security members 

(International Lodging Safety and Security Association Intelligence Network), staff paid 

by the partnership (Energy Security Council), or police members (Nassau County Security/ 

Police Information Network). 

Means of Communication 

Nearly all LE-PS partnerships studied consider information sharing important for 

carrying out the partnership’s mission. Further, communication is essential even in 

partnerships that do not have specific information-sharing objectives or systems 

(joint radio channels, e-mail alerts, etc.). Regular communication builds good working 

relationships among public- and private-sector members. LE-PS partnerships share 

information in many ways, from meeting announcements to crime alerts, and more, as 

the following sections describe. 

Meetings and Training Sessions 

Most of the LE-PS partnerships studied hold monthly or bimonthly meetings to facilitate 

information sharing and face-to-face communication. Many partnerships emphasize 

the importance of keeping the meetings focused on useful action and not letting them 

become merely social luncheons. Partnership meetings may also be used as training 

opportunities. For example, at monthly meetings of the Boston Financial District 

Information Network, the police department schedules educational presentations. 

Recent topics have included domestic violence in the workplace, presented by the police 

department; terrorism, conducted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; drugs 

in the workplace, conducted by the Drug Enforcement Administration; and disaster 

response, conducted by the Boston Emergency Medical Service. 
104 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some groups hold monthly meetings for members and then periodic (often annual) 

conferences or training sessions to which a larger audience is invited. The Anaheim Crime 

Alert Network holds monthly meetings to discuss emerging crime problems that affect 

the hospitality industry and its customers. Once a year it holds a conference for a national 

audience. While the group’s monthly meetings may average 50 attendees, the conference 

draws about 400 and features dozens of speakers. 

newsletters 

Many LE-PS partnerships also communicate via newsletters, generally delivered 

electronically, not by postal mail. For example, VaPPSA publishes a monthly electronic 

newsletter, which it distributes by e-mail. The newsletter shares crime information with 

about 250 readers. The crime information it contains comes from the intelligence fusion 

center of the Washington metropolitan area, which includes federal, state, and local law 

enforcement and the Intelligence Community. The information shared is scrubbed of 

classified and highly sensitive details but is nonetheless a valuable resource that private 

sector partnership members could not otherwise readily obtain. 

E-mail 

The SPIN program in Nassau County, New York, describes itself as “an e-mail based, 

public–private information sharing partnership.” It holds quarterly meetings, but most 

of the program’s information sharing work is done by e-mail. The International Lodging 

Safety and Security Association Intelligence Network sends e-mails to members in real 

time to alert them to thefts, break-ins, suspicious activity, crime rings, fraud suspects, 

counterfeit documents, missing persons, and many other issues. These e-mail alerts may 

also contain photos and requests for information. 

Text Messaging 

E-mail is an easy and inexpensive means of communication, but many partnership members 

cannot receive e-mails if they are away from their computers. To ensure that members 

can receive urgent messages even if they are out of their offices, the Philadelphia Crime 

Prevention Council uses text messaging among its several means of communication (see box). 

radio 

The Hartford (Connecticut) Security Communications Access Network (SCAN) sends 

alerts to members via portable, two-way radios, which each member must purchase 

and maintain. Radio alerts address natural disasters, terrorism, power outages, building 

evacuations, and similar events. During a recent labor dispute that drew some 4,000 

protestors to the downtown area, SCAN members were able to keep the area free of 

incidents by continuously communicating with each other by radio regarding the location 

and direction of the protesters. 
105 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

kEy ComPonEnTS oF Law EnForCEmEnT-PrivaTE SECuriTy ParTnErShiPS
 

web Sites 

Web sites are common communication tools for LE-PS partnerships. Some sites are 

used for little more than posting general information about a partnership and perhaps 

meeting dates or contact information. Other sites, generally open to members only, 

provide detailed, up-to-date information on crime and security issues. For example, 

the secure web site of the Greater Chicago Hotel Loss Prevention Association is used 

frequently as an early warning system for hotel security and local, state, and federal 

law enforcement agencies. Its information is current and sometimes posted within 

minutes of the occurrence of crimes or suspicious activities. Law enforcement and 

private-security members can also post information. Crime information is often detailed, 

including the nature of the crime; the suspect’s description, name, or other identifying 

information; pictures; names of police agencies involved in the case; and points of 

contact for the law enforcement or private security member who issued the alert. The 

Minneapolis SafeZone Collaborative’s CityWorkSite web site is another good example of 

a useful web-based communications tool.148 

sustaining structure and Resources 

LE-PS partnerships need to consider how the partnership should best be organized to 

both accomplish initial objectives and prepare for possible expansion. Chapter 4, Forms 

of Partnership Organization, discusses a wide range of partnership structures, noting that 

some partnerships evolved to form nonprofit organizations, came to need dedicated staff, 

or were developed as a business improvement district component. Others function well 

without that degree of formality, but key aspects of structure are still needed, for example, 

a clearly stated purpose and scope of work; operating and membership guidelines; 

assignments of responsibility for key tasks; and leadership, including planning ahead for 

changes in leadership. 

It is also important to maintain records of the partnership’s main activities, training 

events, and accomplishments (e.g., crimes and incidents prevented and solved) and 

provide summaries to stakeholders and, if appropriate, the public. This can help sustain 

and build the partnership. It can help both police and private-security members justify 

to their employers the time they spend on partnership work; help attract new members; 

and justify future requests for staff or funding if those become important for expansion. 

It may be worth exploring whether an intern or researcher (e.g., at a local university’s 

criminal justice department) could help document the partnership’s effectiveness. 

Finally, a certain amount of nonstaff resources will be needed to operate and sustain any 

partnership. These might include meeting space, venues for training events, software, 

computers, other equipment, and a “home base” or office for storing partnership 

materials, records, equipment, etc. 
106 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiiP 

Factors and Efforts Related to Success and Failure 

of LE-PS Partnerships 

in the course of this study, the project team observed a number of efforts by law enforcement and 

private security that were related to the success or failure of the relationships. a small number of 

the LE-PS partnerships that we identified in this project were not successful because they could 

not obtain adequate membership or experienced other problems that resulted in less success than 

expected. The experiences of these programs also provide lessons on what can go wrong in LE-PS 

partnerships. one partnership that the project team tracked over the years decided to shut down 

because, as the newly elected sheriff reported in a press release, the partnership had met all its 

goals and served its purpose. 

Factors Associated with Successful LE-PS Partnerships 

  Strong support from organizational leaders. This includes a commitment from both 

public and private sector leadership to make the partnership work. 

  Shared leadership and power. Successful partnerships show members that the public 

and private sectors are sharing leadership and power. all members feel they have the 

opportunity to provide input and be heard. 

  Benefits to all participants. Partnership members have to find benefits and utility in 

being a member. Partnerships need to offer much more than “feel-good” events; everyone 

is too busy to waste time on meetings or systems that do not result in meaningful 

exchanges of important information. 

  Acceptance and trust. Both the public and private sector members in the partnership 

must feel accepted by each other and demonstrate a sense of trust so that the 

relationships can be supportive and informative. 

  Tangible products. Successful partnerships show results in terms of crimes prevented or 

solved. Particularly useful is early success on an important issue. Early in its development, 

the minneapolis SafeZone Collaborative used its internet listserv alert system to aid in 

arrests. The wilmington (delaware) Business improvement district used its closed-circuit 

television system in support of arrests for serious crimes, including homicide. 

  Sustaining structure and resources. a key characteristic of ongoing LE-PS 

partnerships is a structure and resources to sustain the organization. a long-standing 

example (see sidebar on wLEEF in Chapter 5) is the washington Law Enforcement 

Executive Forum, which is dedicated to law enforcement and public safety problem 

solving, resource sharing, and training among the public and private sectors. Started 

by former university of washington Police Chief michael Shanahan, wLEEF has been 

supported since 1980 under the umbrella of the washington association of Sheriffs and 

Police Chiefs, an entity created by state legislation. This arrangement has provided a 
107 

solid foundation for sustaining the LE-PS partnership. The extent of resources required 

to sustain an LE-PS partnership ranges from minimal to, for example, the three full-time 

officers supplied by the nassau County (new york) Police department for its Security/ 

Police information network. (See sidebar on SPin on page 68.) 

  Publicity and recognition. Successful LE-PS partnerships report that a key to success has 

been partnership publicity and recognition, which provide legitimacy and prestige, making 

members feel good about belonging to and working in a worthwhile partnership. The 

metropolitan atlanta Technological Crimes Task Force partnership used its alliance with the 

atlanta Crime Commission to achieve publicity and gain recognition, thus leading to an 

increase in membership and usefulness. 

  Flexibility to adapt to changing environments. operation delawarE continues to 

thrive 10 years after its founding, in part because it has changed its focus to reflect 

members’ priorities. at first it was oriented toward boosting relations between the 

delaware State Police and private security organizations to increase the effectiveness of 

increased motor and bicycle patrols by law enforcement. now it focuses on all-hazards 

emergency preparedness. 

  Rewarding those responsible for the partnership. Private security and law enforcement 

management need to reassure personnel working on partnership issues that their labors 

will be considered when promotion and pay issues arise. 

Factors Associated with Failed LE-PS Partnerships 

  Failure to address or solve joint problems. if no successful work is accomplished, there 

is little reason to continue the partnership. 

  Changes in leadership, with no succession plan. Leaders, founders, “drivers,” or staff 

coordinators may be reassigned or retire. during part of its history, vaPPSa floundered 

because of a lack of leadership. The partnership recently reconvened and sought the 

recommitment of executives in both law enforcement and private security. 

  Inadequate resources. in some cases, funding is inadequate or conditioned on 

unacceptable terms, or the partnership may lack support staff to carry out or communicate 

its activities. 

  Lack of innovative thinking. meetings may bore participants by failing to bring in 

interesting speakers or conduct meaningful activities. it is a challenge to find highly 

qualified trainers and training topics that appeal to both law enforcement and private 

security audiences. a key challenge is keeping businesses involved after a crisis passes. 

  Time constraints of busy executives and managers. if high-level private security and 

law enforcement executives do not dedicate sufficient time or organizational resources, 

partnerships suffer and may fail. 
oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

108 

summary of Factors Leading to success and Failure 

This chapter has discussed the key factors that were repeatedly found to be vital for 

operating successful LE-PS partnerships over the long term. Of course, not every 

partnership has grown at the desired rate, consistently accomplished its objectives, or 

withstood the test of time. The sidebar, “Factors and Efforts Related to Success and 

Failure of LE-PS Partnerships” summarizes lessons drawn not only from partnerships that 

are thriving, but also from some that are struggling in various areas, and from others that 

have disbanded. This information can be used as a ready reference guide for partnerships. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ConCLuSionS and FuTurE STEPS
 

ChAPTEr SEVEn: Conclusions and Future Steps
 

Conclusions 

Private security and law enforcement professionals have been forming effective personto-person liaisons and relationships for years. But changing crime patterns and increasingly 

difficult problems, whether in high-crime urban areas or high-tech venues like the Internet, 

necessitate different approaches and group activities, not just individual efforts. Further, 

the continuing threat of terrorism demands greater collaboration to ensure maximum 

resources. To combat these threats effectively, both law enforcement and private security 

(LE-PS) must be involved in homeland security programs at the local, state, and national 

levels. Both private security and law enforcement must work jointly to protect the 

infrastructures on which society depends. These factors as well as resource limitations, have 

fueled a desire to build more, more structured, and more lasting LE-PS partnerships. 

Since the Operation Cooperation project was completed in 2000, thousands of private 

security and law enforcement executives and practitioners have come to consider, form, 

and enhance partnerships with one another. Private security is gaining recognition as 

an important partner in community policing. Law enforcement today has a greater 

awareness of private security’s vast resources and increasing growth, and a better 

understanding of private security’s need for crime and threat information. Numerous, 

diverse examples of successful partnerships show how obstacles can be overcome, 

and how results can be achieved that simply would not have been possible without 

collaboration. 

The Law Enforcement-Private Security Consortium congratulates the key partners that 

have pushed the LE-PS partnership movement the most: the Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office), Law Enforcement Liaison Council/ASIS 

International, and the Private Sector Liaison Committee/International Association 

of Chiefs of Police (IACP). These organizations have shown significant leadership in 

supporting and promoting LE-PS partnerships. 

This chapter highlights some additional steps that these organizations and others, 

including law enforcement and private-security executives, should support in the future 

to keep the LE-PS partnership movement alive and well. 

109 
110 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiiP 

Law Enforcement-Private Security Partnerships 

when we study cooperative efforts between law enforcement agencies, we find numerous 

examples of comprehensive and highly developed partnerships that exist to promote public safety 

within our communities. These partnerships, at their core, stem from relationships of people in 

leadership positions. Some of our partnerships are codified by agreements and memoranda of 

understanding that define the roles and responsibilities of the respective parties. Typically, we find 

that these relationships or partnerships have defined goals or objectives set by the participants in 

the collective efforts. 

when we look at similar arrangements or relationships between these same law enforcement 

agencies and private industry or corporations, our partnerships or relationships are nebulous in 

many cases. when we ask about the existence of partnerships or relationships between public 

and private entities, we discover a voiced concern for the lack of developed relationships between 

police executives and the management of primary industries and corporations in our states. we 

also may discover the existence of informal networking, but no central point or forum at which 

problems can be discussed, strategies developed, goals identified, and objectives attained. 

This law enforcement and corporate culture is changing, and in many areas of our country, 

the culture has changed. gradually, this concept of public-private partnerships is becoming an 

acceptable way to formalize our heretofore informal relationships. industry and law enforcement 

leaders recognize that establishing relationships permits both to speak with a unified voice on 

issues that affect the safety of all stakeholders. The balance that exists also stands as a testimony 

to those involved. The example of the washington Law Enforcement Executive Forum (see sidebar 

in Chapter Five) can be duplicated by others; it was built on a foundation where law enforcement 

can speak with one voice in communicating with its counterparts in the private sector. 

Those of us who have engaged in law enforcement-private security partnerships realize their 

relevance and importance to our communities. These partnerships have benefited our largest cities 

and smallest rural towns and counties. Some of our best achievements are directly attributable to 

our collective efforts through our law enforcement-private security partnerships. 

we must also consider the goodwill that exists as a result of these joint efforts between the public 

and private sectors. This goodwill is fostered, in part, through recognizing and valuing our private 

sector partners. The cooperation we have developed stems from our respect for each other, not our 

differences. 

Randall Carroll, Former Co-Chair, Private Sector Liaison Committee, International Association of Chiefs of Police 

(IACP); retired Chief of Police, Bellingham (Washington) Police Department 
111 

ConCLuSionS and FuTurE STEPS
 

Future steps 

1. Every police chief and sheriff should give serious consideration to engaging 

in an existing LE-PS partnership or assisting in the formation of a new 

region-wide partnership. Although some new partnerships may be local in scope, 

regional approaches are critical, given the multijurisdictional nature of most crimes, 

disasters, and terrorist threats. The benefits, as described throughout this report, 

can be mutually rewarding to the law enforcement agencies and the private sector 

organizations. 

2. Law enforcement agency executives should treat managers’ outreach to 

the private sector on security-related matters as a key factor in community 

policing performance evaluations. Department leaders and agencies that promote 

community policing and its core principle of partnership development should consider 

the security field within corporate America to be as essential a partner as schools, 

religious institutions, community-based service organizations, and others in the 

community. 

3. Security directors and managers should reach out to their counterparts in law 

enforcement and explore how collaboration and information sharing might 

improve security, aid in combating crimes, and strengthen preparation for 

critical incidents. Corporate executives are encouraged to consider the potential 

return on investment in LE-PS partnerships and allot their security directors sufficient 

time and resources for partnership matters. 

4. The COPS Office, other U.S. Department of Justice agencies, and the U.S. 

Department of homeland Security should persist in supporting the LE-PS 

partnership movement. This includes continuing to examine, analyze, and report on 

the details, activities, successes, and issues in LE-PS partnerships around the nation 

and world; and support training and technical assistance to promote new LE-PS 

partnerships and enhance existing ones. 
oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

112 

5. The COPS Office, other U.S. Department of Justice agencies, or the U.S. 

Department of homeland Security should consider supporting a national 

conference of LE-PS partnerships. The COPS Office was very forward-thinking and 

generous in funding the 2004 National Policy Summit: Building Private Security/ 

Public Policing Partnerships to Prevent and Respond to Terrorism and Public Disorder, 

organized by the IACP (see footnote 5). This summit was attended by chiefs of police, 

sheriffs, private security executives, academics, and other experts. The proposal in this 

recommendation is to bring representatives from active LE-PS partnerships together 

to exchange ideas, discuss promising practices, and plan future steps. One step that 

a collaboration of LE-PS partnerships might consider is to form an association to 

create a central clearinghouse for best practices, contacts, technology, etc. Another 

step might be to develop a web site to share that information so LE-PS collaborations 

around the nation and world do not have to reinvent the wheel when developing their 

own partnerships or web sites. 
APPEnDIxES 

aPPEndixES
 

Appendix A: Fifteen Key Steps for Getting Started and Five Tips for 

Enhancing an Ongoing Law Enforcement-Private Security Partnership 

Appendix B: Resources 

Appendix C: Selected Partnerships 

Appendix D: Additional Acknowledgments 

Appendix E: Executive Summary, COPS/IACP National Policy Summit: 

Building Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships to Prevent and Respond 

to Terrorism and Public Disorder 

113 
oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

114 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A: Fifteen Key Steps for Getting Started and Five Tips 

for Enhancing an Ongoing Law Enforcement-Private Security 

Partnership 

The following steps have been culled from interviews and focus groups with law 

enforcement-private security (LE-PS) partnership leaders, practitioners, and experts across the 

country. The steps are suggestions based on actual LE-PS experiences. 

Starting an LE-PS Partnership 

1.	 Make initial contact leader to leader. Either the law enforcement chief executive 

or private-sector security director should make initial contact with the other. Law 

enforcement managers, working with their counterparts in private security, often lay 

the groundwork for partnership formation, but organizational leaders must set the 

tone so that others will realize the importance of the proposed partnership and the 

leaders’ commitment to it. 

2.	 Agree on a vision and purpose. As described by Kotter in Chapter 6, the vision 


should be simple, clear, motivational, and communicable. The purpose should be 


compelling for both law enforcement and private security.
 

3.	 Begin to document strategy and initial plans. Put initial plans on paper and 


circulate them by e-mail to start the ball rolling.
 

4.	 Identify other stakeholders. Think of as many stakeholders as possible who might 


be an asset to, and resource for, the partnership. Look to existing contact lists from 


ASIS International, the local chamber of commerce, and other sources.
 

5.	 Identify and select other leader(s). Guidelines developed by the police chiefs 

associations in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa during the conference titled 

“Midwest Summit 2006: Economics of Disaster—Enhancing Critical Incident 

Preparedness through Public-Private Partnerships” (as discussed in Chapter 6) 

suggest establishing a leadership council to help steer and guide the partnership. 

Broadening the leadership role might help bring in more executives with assets and a 

commitment to the partnership mission. 

6.	 recruit additional stakeholder-members. The lifeblood of any partnership venture 

is its membership. After agreeing on a vetting process for new members, the 

partnership’s leadership needs to recruit aggressively to build the membership.149 

Select stakeholders with assets who share the partnership’s goals. 

7.	 Establish a structure and home base. LE-PS partnership support costs vary (as 

discussed in Chapter 4), but to survive, the partnership will require initial support for 

staffing, housing (e.g., meeting, office, or training space), and other resources. Although 

the partnership may not need to hire staff to get started, partnership leaders must 

ensure that personnel from their respective organizations are allotted sufficient time 

and resources for partnership matters. 
115 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aPPEndixES
 

8.	 Address legal formation of the entity. As discussed in Chapter 4 under 

“Organizational Structure,” the legal organization of the partnership must be 

considered. Less formal partnerships are easier to establish and require less ongoing 

paperwork, but they may find it difficult to manage funds and to continue operations 

as membership turns over. By contrast, more formal partnerships may require 

substantial setup efforts (such as incorporation) but often experience greater longevity. 

9.	 Develop a detailed plan of action. After startup activities are successful, the 


partnership needs to agree on a more detailed plan of action for building and 


sustaining the organization. This should address, among other key areas, plans for 


advancing the mission, raising funds, recruiting new members, and more.
 

10.	 Decide how the organization will communicate with its members. This is one 

of the central foundations of LE-PS partnerships (discussed in Chapter 6). Nearly all 

LE-PS partnerships studied consider information sharing extremely important for 

carrying out the partnership’s mission. Regular communication (joint radio channels, 

e-mail alerts, etc.) builds good working relationships among public- and privatesector members. 

11.	 Market the partnership—raise funding and resources for support. Early in the 

LE-PS partnership development process, the leadership group or council needs 

to market the partnership to raise enough funds and resources to ensure the 

first year or two of support. Steps 12, 13, and 14 may be required as part of a 

successful marketing campaign. The campaign needs to emphasize awareness of 

the partnership. 

12.	 Conduct initial training. As discussed in Chapter 5, many partnerships reported that 

delivering high-quality training was an important motivator for members’ continued 

participation. LE-PS partnerships need to use quality training as an incentive to 

keep members motivated and recruit new members. 

13.	 Carry out a project. Chapter 5 includes a number of examples in which law 

enforcement used an LE-PS partnership’s resources to solve a serious crime and 

make an arrest. There are many other examples of successful partnership projects 

involving community policing, crime prevention, special investigations, and more. 

To gain credibility in the eyes of law enforcement and the private sector, the startup 

LE-PS partnership needs to implement a successful project. Experts recommend 

starting with a small, manageable, doable project. 

14.	 Monitor progress, measure success, and report to members and perhaps to 

the public. This step makes the partnership’s activities transparent, and it builds 

credibility. A public report on progress and outcomes will build goodwill among law 

enforcement and the private sector, help retain current membership, and make other 

potential members aware of the partnership’s benefits. 

15.	 Select more issues and problems to address. As soon as the LE-PS partnership has 

a solid foundation, a growing membership, and its first successful project, the group 

should select more issues and problems to address. 
116 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

Enhancing an Ongoing LE-PS Partnership 


1.	 Improve the communication process. The study found that LE-PS partnership 

members consider the flow of information to be critical to their level of participation 

and support for the partnership. An active and informative web site, like the 

New York Police Department’s SHIELD (www.nypdshield.org) or the Minneapolis 

SafeZone CityWorkSite (www.mplssafezone.org), and text messaging are two types 

of communications innovations that LE-PS partnership stakeholders find especially 

useful and appealing. 

2.	 Improve the content of the communication. This obviously goes with #1 above. 

While the communication process should be state-of-the-art, especially given the 

affordability of today’s communications technology, the content should also be 

extensive and beneficial. The SHIELD web site in #1 is an example of good web site 

content. 

3.	 Improve training content. The study also noted that, as with communication, LE-PS 

partnership stakeholders value training delivered as a result of partnership resources. 

Many partnership members note that improving the training would cause them to 

place a higher value on sustaining their membership. One avenue to explore in the 

future is to add online training offerings to the partnership web site. 

4.	 Facilitate personal contacts among the membership. The LE-PS partnership’s 

leaders should make it a point to actively facilitate contacts among the membership. 

They should not assume that all members know each other and participate in 

the partnership. Some members need a push, and others need a helping hand. 

Membership events, such as lunches, might include facilitated contact activities. Web 

sites might include biographical sketches of members that include areas of interest 

and expertise. 

5.	 Find out what other LE-PS partnerships are doing. One of the best tips for 

improving the partnership is to know what other LE-PS partnerships are doing. 

Search out other partnerships to review their communications tools and content, 

training, and activities. Try to emulate best practices. 
117 

aPPEndixES
 

Appendix B: Resources 

Selected Federal Programs 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. InfraGard program 

www.infragard.net 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

www.fletc.gov 

Information Sharing and Analysis Centers Council 

www.isaccouncil.org/about 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office), 

U.S. Department of Justice 

www.cops.usdoj.gov 

Overseas Security Advisory Council 

www.osac.gov 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

DHS-supported Critical Incident Protocol–Community Facilitation Program at Michigan 

State University. www.cip.msu.edu 

DHS National Response Framework (NRF) Resource Center www.fema.gov/emergency/nrf 

United States Secret Service. Electronic Crimes Task Forces and Working Groups 

www.secretservice.gov/ectf.shtml 

Associations 

Alarm Industry Research & Educational Foundation 

www.airef.org 

ASIS International. Law Enforcement Liaison Council 

www.asisonline.org/councils/LELC.xml 

International Association of Chiefs of Police. Private Sector Liaison Committee 

www.theiacp.org/About/Governance/Committees/PrivateSectorLiaisonCommittee/tabid/423/ 

Default.aspx 

International Association of Security and Investigative Regulators 

www.iasir.org 

International Security Management Association 

www.isma.com 
118 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

National Association of Security Companies 

www.nasco.org 

National Sheriffs’ Association. Crime Prevention/Private Security Committee 

www.sheriffs.org/about/NSACommittees20070829.asp 

Security Industry Alarm Coalition 

www.siacinc.org 

Security Industry Association 

www.siaonline.org 

Materials 

Critical Incident Protocol–Community Facilitation Program of Michigan State University. 


Reports, newsletters, and other materials. 


www.cip.msu.edu 


Law Enforcement and Private Security: On the Job Together. Video produced in 2007 by 


Ohlhausen Research, Inc., for the Virginia Center for Policing Innovation with funding 


from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. 


www.ohlhausen.com/vcpi-demo.htm
 

National Policy Summit: Building Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships 

to Prevent and Respond to Terrorism and Public Disorder: Vital Issues and Policy 

Recommendations 2004 

www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/publications/National Policy Summit.pdf 

Operation Cooperation: Guidelines for Partnerships between Law Enforcement & Private 

Security Organizations by Connors, Edward, William Cunningham, Peter Ohlhausen, Lynn 

Oliver, and Clifford Van Meter. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2000. 

www.ilj.org/research/Operation Cooperation.pdf 

Literature review. www.ilj.org/publications/Lit.Rev-final.pdf 

“Partnership Profiles.” www.ilj.org/publications/Partshp.Profiles.pdf 

The Private Side of Public Safety. Video produced by the Virginia Department of Criminal 

Justice Services. 

www.dcjs.virginia.gov/pss/LELiaison/index.cfm?menuLevel=5&mID=36 
119 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aPPEndixES
 

Appendix C: Selected Partnerships 

The following are some of the more formally organized law enforcement-private security 


(LE-PS) partnerships that were reviewed during the Operation Partnership study. Many 


have been in operation for 20 years or more. The web sites listed for contact information 


were current as of July 2009.
 

Anaheim Crime Alert network (C.A.n.). In the early 1980s, Anaheim (California) 


Police Department (APD) burglary detectives launched C.A.N. to address crimes in hotels. 


Collaborators now include the APD’s Tourist Oriented Policing Team and private security 


members representing all segments of the hospitality industry, with about 50 members 


participating in monthly meetings and 400 persons attending the C.A.N. 


annual training conference. anaheimoc.org/Articles/Archive/Webpage101091.asp
 

Boise Organized retail Theft/Fraud Prevention and Interdiction network. During the 


past 19 years, the Network has contributed to early identification and arrest of hundreds 


of suspects involved in merchandise refund fraud, credit card fraud, drug trafficking, 


vehicle theft, armed robbery, and other crimes. Hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth 


of merchandise have been recovered and large-scale organized theft rings disbanded. 


www.cityofboise.org/Departments/Police/CommunityOutreachDivision/CrimePrevention/ 


page5794.aspx
 

Boston Consortium for higher Education. Public Safety Group. The Boston Consortium, 


composed of 14 Boston area colleges and universities, encourages collaboration for cost 


saving and quality improvement across numerous communities of practice, including 


public safety. Public Safety Group projects have included participation in statewide 


disaster planning for higher education, training on handling campus protests, and 


development of a campus police information network. 


www.boston-consortium.org/about/what_is_tbc.asp
 

Chicago Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA). Formed more than 


20 years ago by proprietary security directors of large buildings in the Chicago Police 


Department’s First Precinct, the Committee expanded its membership after September 


11, 2001, to include employees of contract security firms. Activities include daily fax 


alerts from the police, an emergency radio alert system, e-mail alerts, and use of closed-


circuit television (CCTV) to share photos of suspects. 


www.boma-chicago.org/about/staff.asp for BOMA staff contact information.
 

Dallas Law Enforcement and Private Security (LEAPS) Program. Formed in the 1980s 


to foster better communication among police and private security, the Dallas Police 


Department’s LEAPS partnership has sponsored numerous training workshops for private 


security and a fax information distribution network. www.leaps.us/contact.php.
 
120 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

Energy Security Council. Created in 1982 and based in Houston, Texas, the Energy 

Security Council (ESC) is a nonprofit corporation funded by private-sector members. 

The ESC Law Enforcement Liaison Committee, composed of ESC members who 

conduct investigations, works with law enforcement on oil field theft cases, trains law 

enforcement on the oil and gas industry, and shares information and intelligence on 

trends, crime patterns, and suspects. 

www.energysecuritycouncil.org/index.cfm/MenuItemID/149.htm 

Frontline Defense Initiative (FDI) of the Institute for Public Safety Partnerships 

(IPSP) is housed at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and is one of about 15 educational 

programs offered by the IPSP. FDI training is designed specifically for private security, 

hospitality, and other industries that are in a position to notice potential terrorist activity. 

www.ipsp.us/trainings.cfm#frontline 

grand Central Partnership (gCP), a business improvement district incorporated 

in 1988, covers 68 blocks in Midtown Manhattan and employs about 45 uniformed 

public safety officers, trained by the New York City Police Department (NYPD), who 

patrol neighborhood streets and may assist the NYPD with investigations. In addition, 

approximately 15 NYPD officers, with department approval, work with the GCP on their 

days off. www.grandcentralpartnership.org/what_we_do/protect.asp 

greater Chicago hotel Loss Prevention Association (gChLPA). The GCHLPA 

partnership began in the early 1980s when a few security professionals joined together 

to address pickpocketing in a tourist area and is now concerned with virtually any 

crime committed in or near hotels. Its members represent 46 hotels, three local police 

departments, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security, and Office of Emergency Management. 

www.ilssa.org/gchlpa/GCHLPA_Info.htm 

hillsborough County (Florida) Public Safety & Security Partnership. This partnership 

has addressed auto thefts, graffiti, gang activities, disturbances at nightclubs, and other 

problems. The sheriff’s department has a long history of involvement in community 

policing and regularly involves community resource deputies at partnership meetings; 

and a founding partner, Critical Intervention Services, has devoted a portion of its web 

site to partnership concerns. www.safetampabay.org 

Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, Public & Private Police Liaison Committee 

(PPPLC). Founded in 1975 with goals related to education, liaison, and legislation, the 

committee is led by two chairpersons—an active police chief and a private security 

representative selected by private-sector members of the committee. Activities include 

homeland security training for private security personnel. www.ilchiefs.org. For current 

PPPLC chairs, www.ilchiefs.org/subpage.asp?pagenumber=46358. 
121 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aPPEndixES
 

Infragard. Founded in 1996, InfraGard is a partnership among the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation and businesses, academic institutions, state and local law enforcement, and 

others. InfraGard has more than 70 chapters nationwide whose purpose is to share and 

analyze information and intelligence to prevent hostile acts against the United States. 

www.infragard.net (Select “Find Your Chapter” for contact information). 

Michigan Intelligence Operations Center for homeland Security. The state 

fusion center’s initial activities included developing a business plan for privatesector collaboration. All 13 critical infrastructure sectors (utilities, medical, education, 

automotive industry, etc.) are represented on the advisory board. 

www.michigan.gov/mioc 

Michigan State University (MSU) Critical Incident Protocol–Community 

Facilitation Program. Developed by the MSU School of Criminal Justice and funded by 

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the program’s goal is to build public-private 

partnerships across the nation for critical incident management. The program is active in 

39 communities in 23 states. Activities include joint planning and tabletop and full-scale 

exercises. cip.insu.edu 

Minneapolis SafeZone Collaborative for Downtown. SafeZone accomplishments 

include installing CCTV cameras downtown; establishing a common police-private 

security radio channel; creating a web site that allows its 900 members to share police 

incident reports, videos and photos, and other information; and delivering training events. 

Officially launched in 2005, the Minneapolis SafeZone partnership won a community 

policing award from the International Association of Chiefs of Police. 

www.minneapolissafezone.org 

nassau County SPIn (Security/Police Information network), started by the Nassau 

County (New York) Police Department in 2004, has a membership of some 1,600 

businesses, trade associations, civic associations, government agencies, hospitals, utilities, 

and others. Information is shared within SPIN primarily by e-mail, as well as through text 

messaging and meetings. www.police.co.nassau.ny.us/SPIN/spininfo.htm 

Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC). OSAC, a Federal Advisory Committee, 

is a highly structured partnership involving the U.S. Department of State, federal law 

enforcement, numerous corporations doing business overseas, and academia. OSAC has 

a 34-member core council, an executive office, and more than 100 country councils. 

www.osac.gov/About/index.cfm 

Philadelphia Center City District (CCD). The CCD, a business improvement district with 

a long history of public/private cooperation, has private security officers (called community 

service representatives) who work closely with Philadelphia Police Department officers on 

a daily basis. In addition, the Philadelphia Crime Prevention Council, created by the CCD in 

1997, has expanded over the years and now devotes about half of its efforts to homeland 

security and disaster preparedness issues. www.centercityphila.org/about/Safe.php 
122 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Southeast wisconsin homeland Security Partnership, Inc. This nonprofit organization 

was formed in 2004, serves seven southeast Wisconsin counties, and has more than 200 

members. The partnership tests and validates responses to homeland security threats and 

major disasters; works to develop cost-effective policy and technology solutions; and has 

facilitated resource sharing (e.g., equipment, expertise). www.swhsp.org 

Southeast Transportation Security Council. This corporate security-law enforcement 

partnership was formed in 2002 to facilitate prevention and recovery of stolen cargo 

in the transportation industry. In addition to operating several task forces, the Council 

operates a blast fax system reaching about 200 law enforcement agencies, provides 

member access to the Georgia Cargo Theft Alert System, and offers POST-certified 

training. www.setsc.org 

Target & BLUE. This program of the Target Corporation includes many efforts to 

collaborate with and support law enforcement agencies across the country by providing 

grants, materials, expertise, information, forensic services, and investigative support. In 

2007, Target received the FBI Director’s Community Leadership Award for extraordinary 

contributions to communities and law enforcement. For more information, contact the 

Outreach Programs Manager at AP.Community@Target.com. 

U.S. Secret Service Electronic Crimes Task Forces and working groups. This is a 

nationwide network of 24 task forces involves federal, state, and local law enforcement, 

private industry, and academia in preventing and investigating attacks on the nation’s 

financial and other critical infrastructures. Although the task forces differ somewhat in 

areas of emphasis and other characteristics, priorities include crimes involving significant 

economic impact, organized criminal groups, and schemes using new technologies. 

www.secretservice.gov/ectf.shtml 

washington Law Enforcement Executive Forum (wLEEF). Founded in 1980 by the 

Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, WLEEF is one of the longestlived LE-PS partnerships in the nation. Over the years, WLEEF has sponsored numerous 

legislative, training, information sharing, and other initiatives. 

www.waspc.org/index.php?c=Law%20Enforcement%20Executive%20Forum 

wilmington Downtown Visions. Downtown Visions, a business improvement district, 

sponsors public safety initiatives that include deployment of private security personnel 

(community resource officers); use of CCTV cameras at strategic locations; and in 

cooperation with the Wilmington Police Department, a new “bridge program” to help 

prepare individuals for law enforcement careers. 

www.downtownvisions.org/safety-division/bridge-program 
123 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aPPEndixES
 

Appendix D: Additional Acknowledgments
 

On-Site Interview/Site Visit 

Participants 

Deputy Chief robert Allen 

Minneapolis (Minnesota) Police Department 

Talia Beck, Manager 

Outreach Programs 

Target Corporation 

Mahogany Eller 

Government & Community Partnerships 

Target Corporation 

Oksana Farber 

President 

Trident Master Executive Development 

Vice Chair 

ASIS Law Enforcement Liaison Council 

Chief John harrington 

St. Paul (Minnesota) Police Department 

Steve Persian 

National Program Manager 

Safe City Target Corporation 

Inspector Matt Simeone 

Nassau County (New York) Police Department 

Security/Police Information Network (SPIN) 

Focus group Participants, March 13, 

2007, Alexandria, Virginia 

Tor Bennett 

Fairfax County (Virginia) Police Department 

Virginia Police and Private Security Alliance 

(VaPPSA) 

randall Carroll 

Chief of Police (retired), Bellingham 

(Washington) Police Department 

Washington Law Enforcement Executive 

Forum (WLEEF) 

Bret DuChateau 

Northwestern Mutual 

Milwaukee Critical Incident Protocol 

Partnership 

Peter higgins 

One Secure Audit 

Board Director 

National Capital Members’ Alliance, 

InfraGard 

Mary B. hostert 

Allegheny Energy 

Mid-Atlantic Utilities Group 

Luther Krueger 

Minneapolis (Minnesota) Police Department 

Minneapolis SafeZone 

Inspector Matt Simeone 

Nassau County (New York) Police 

Department 

Security/Police Information Network (SPIN) 

Sergeant James wilkes 

Anaheim (California) Police Department 

Anaheim Crime Alert Network 

Telephone Interview Participants: 

Law Enforcement/Public Sector 

Captain Chuck Adkins 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) 

Police Department 

Dan Alexander 

City of Milwaukee Emergency Government 

Coordinator 

Officer Keith Allen 

Dallas (Texas) Police Department 
124 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Captain Elizabeth Bondurant 

Plainsboro Township (New Jersey) Police 

Department 

Supervisory Special Agent Bob Coffey 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Washington, D.C. 

Curt Crum 

Boise (Idaho) Police Department 

Major Paul Davis 

Hillsborough County (Florida) Sheriff’s Office 

Supervisory Special Agent Kenneth geide 

(retired) 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Luther Krueger 

Minneapolis (Minnesota) Police Department 

Sergeant william Leahy 

Nassau County (New York) Police Department 

Special Agent in Charge Clayt Lemme 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Washington, D.C. 

Deputy Assistant Director Keith Lourdeau 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Washington, D.C./Indianapolis, Indiana 

Steve Mancuso 

Durham, North Carolina 

Pablo Martinez 

United States Secret Service 

Chief Daniel McDevitt 

Lansing (Illinois) Police Department 

Supervisory Special Agent John Mencer 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Denver, Colorado 

Major Monty Monteiro 

Providence (Rhode Island) Police 

Department 

Major Tyrone r. Morrow 

Fairfax County (Virginia) Police Department 

Joseph Mykytyn 

Cobb County (Georgia) Police Department 

Captain Bernard O’rourke 

Boston (Massachusetts) Police Department 

Lieutenant Mary Pekrul 

Michigan State Police 

Sergeant walt Quering 

Las Vegas (Nevada) Metropolitan Police 

Department 

Steve Sargeant, Sr. 

Michigan National Guard 

Inspector Matthew J. Simeone 

Nassau County (New York) Police Department 

Special Agent in Charge Leslie wiser, Jr. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Newark, New Jersey 

Detective Dave wiggins 

Anaheim (California) Police Department 

Private Security/Private Sector 

gary Boudreaux 

Energy Security Council 

h. Skip Brandt 

Boston Park Plaza Hotel and Towers 

Dave Camella 

Grand Central Partnership Business 

Improvement District 
125 

 

 

 

 

 

aPPEndixES
 

Sandra Kaminska Costello 

Institute for Public Safety Partnerships 

Chris Curnan 

Sensormatic Hawaii 

Michael Dunaway 

Chesapeake Critical Incident Partnership 

Bret DuChateau 

Northwestern Mutual Insurance Company 

Oksana Farber 

Trident Master Executive Development 

richard Eastman 

Morris County (New Jersey) 

Chamber of Commerce 

gene gwiazdowski 

Constellation Energy 

James holley 

Securitas, Inc. 

Mary B. hostert 

Allegheny Energy 

Stacy Irving 

Philadelphia Center City District 

ray Johnson 

Wilmington Trust Company 

Austin Jordan 

Securitas, Inc. 

Janell Kavanaugh 

Wells Fargo Bank 

Steve Kay 

GE Health Care, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 

James Keathley 

Security Management and Investigations, Inc. 

June Kevorkian 

Boston Consortium for Higher Education 

Peter Lempin 

Grand Central Partnership Business 

Improvement District 

Frank Moran 

Association for Security Administration 

Professionals 

K. C. Poulin 

Critical Intervention Services, Inc. 

gene richards 

Nokia 

Jennifer Saltzman 

Colorado Bankers Association 

Luis Seranno 

Westin Hotels, Chicago 

Michael J. Soper 

Sheraton Framingham Hotel/ 

Pyramid Hotel Group 

Ed Spaulding 

American Century Investments 

Mike Stephenson 

The Dow Chemical Company 

Dean Vietri 

Downtown Visions Business Improvement 

District, Wilmington, Delaware 
126 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix e: Executive Summary, COPS/IACP National Policy 

Summit: Building Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships to 

Prevent and Respond to Terrorism and Public Disorder 

Since September 11, 2001, law enforcement agencies have been under tremendous 

pressure to conduct their traditional crime-prevention and response activities, along 

with 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, as well as 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 (the COPS Office), 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 cosponsorship 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 important, the 

report features the specific recommendations—the action agenda—that resulted from 

the concentrated work of summit participants. The paper is also available on a CD that 

includes additional resource materials. 
127 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aPPEndixES
 

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, Firearms and Explosives, 

Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. 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 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 of 

private security suggest that 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 more than 6 hours during the summit, with each group 

working 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. 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. 
128 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Private security also has much to gain from this cooperation. This segment can coordinate 

its plans in advance with the public sector 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 nationallevel, mainly information-sharing programs (such as the federal Information Sharing 

and Analysis Centers) to local-level, operational partnerships (such as the nation’s 

approximately 1,200 business improvement districts). Summit participants suggested, 

though, that only 5 to 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 government authorities but leave out private security. 

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 

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 for local and regional efforts. 

1.	 Leaders of the major law enforcement and private security organizations should 

make a formal commitment to cooperation. 

2.	 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and/or U.S. 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. 
129 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aPPEndixES
 

3.	 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and/or U.S. 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 U.S. Department of Homeland Security and/or U.S. 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 

—	 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: 

  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. 
oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 
EnDnOTES 

EndnoTES
 

CHAPteR 1 

1. operation Partnership staff also received invaluable assistance from numerous law enforcement 

and private security professional organizations, an experienced group of consultant-interviewers, and police 

and private security professionals throughout the nation who participated in interviews and case studies. See 

appendix d, acknowledgments. 

2. operation Cooperation was funded through a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Justice 

assistance, u.S. department of Justice. 

3. Connors, Edward, william Cunningham, and Peter ohlhausen, Operation Cooperation: Guidelines 

for Partnerships between Law Enforcement & Private Security Organizations, washington, d.C.: Bureau 

of Justice assistance, 2000, www.ilj.org/publications/docs/operation_Cooperation.pdf. also see the operation 

Cooperation literature review at www.ilj.org/publications/docs/operation_Cooperation_Literature_review.pdf and 

the project’s Partnership Profiles document at www.ilj.org/publications/docs/Partnership_Profiles.pdf. 

4. The american Society for industrial Security (aSiS), founded in 1955, changed its name in 2002 to 

aSiS international. 

5. iaCP and the CoPS office, iaCP/CoPS National Policy Summit: Building Private Security/Public 

Policing Partnerships to Prevent and Respond to Terrorism and Public Disorder. washington, d.C.: office of 

Community oriented Policing Services, 2004. www.cops.usdoj.gov/riC/resourcedetail.aspx?rid=246. The report’s 

Executive Summary is included as appendix E in this report. 

6. none of the partnerships featured in this report received federal grants specifically to form or expand 

LE-PS partnerships. neither doJ nor the department of homeland Security (dhS) sponsors such a grant program. 

a few benefited from dhS funding to public-sector partners related to the development of critical incident 

protocols. 

7. National Policy Summit, 6. 

8. The 9/11 Commission, Final Report, Official Government Edition, washington, d.C.: u.S. government 

Printing office, 2004. 

9. The 2 million figure, which is frequently cited in the literature, comes from the 1990 Hallcrest Report 

II, which estimated there would be nearly 2 million private security officers in the u.S. by 2000. a more accurate 

figure is not on record. 

10. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that in 2004, the nation had about 732,000 full-time officers 

employed by state and local law enforcement agencies. See Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin: Census 

of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2004, June 2007, 1. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ 

csllea04.pdf. also see the present report’s Chapter 3 on partnership trends. 

11. For a brief review of these differences, see Connors, Edward F., william C. Cunningham, and Peter E. 

ohlhausen, Operation Cooperation: A Literature Review of Cooperation and Partnerships between Law 

Enforcement & Private Security Organizations, washington, d.C.: Bureau of Justice assistance, 1999. 

www.ilj.org/publications/Lit.rev-final.PdF 

12. See Chapter 3, “Trends in Law Enforcement-Private Security Collaboration,” for more on the history 

and growth of private security. 

13. nationwide, from 2000 to 2004, the number of sworn police increased by only 1 percent (2 percent 

for state police and 6 percent for sheriffs’ departments). Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007. 

14. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007, 1. 

131 
132 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

15. in contrast, between 2000 and 2004, many special police departments serving transportation systems 

and facilities (mass transit systems, airports, tunnels, bridges) saw increases in sworn personnel. The average 

growth rate in the 10 largest transit system police departments was 20 percent. 

16. appel, Edward, “operation Partnership: guidelines for Law Enforcement-Private Security Cooperation,” 

presentation, aSiS annual conference, Las vegas, nevada, September 2007. 

17. See for example, gauden, Sharon, “interpol Calls for global Effort to Battle Cybercrime: interpol’s 

Secretary general Says the Private Sector needs to Become much more involved in Law Enforcement 

investigations to give Police the Edge They need,” Information Week, September 13, 2007. 

www.informationweek.com/news/showarticle.jhtml?articleid=201806194 

18. Symantec Corporation, “internet Security Threat report: Trends for January–June 2007,” volume vii, 

September 2007, 2, www.symantec.com/business/theme.jsp?themeid=threatreport. 

19. Symantec, 2007. 

20. See Take Charge: Fighting Back Against Identity Theft, washington, d.C.: u.S. Federal Trade 

Commission, www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/idtheft/idt04.shtm. The publication explains in detail the 

multiple steps victims must take on their own to access the legal rights to which they are entitled. 

21. For example, the identity Theft assistance Center (iTaC), a nonprofit organization, was established by a 

coalition of financial services companies in cooperation with law enforcement. www.identitytheftassistance.org 

22. noble, ronald k. , Secretary general of inTErPoL, “The Links Between intellectual Property Crime and 

Terrorist Financing,” remarks before the united States house Committee on international relations, July 16, 2003. 

www.interpol.int/Public/icpo/speeches/sg20030716.asp 

23. See Prosecuting Intellectual Property Crimes, u.S. department of Justice, Computer Crime and 

intellectual Property Section, September 2006. www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ipmanual 

24. noble, 2003. 

25. See Simeone, matthew J., Jr., “integrating virtual Public-Private Partnerships into Local Law 

Enforcement for Enhanced intelligence-Led Policing,” Homeland Security Affairs, naval Postgraduate School 

Center for homeland defense and Security, 2009. www.hsaj.org/?special:fullarticle=supplement.2.8. also see 

Intelligence-Led Policing: The New Intelligence Architecture, u. S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice 

assistance, 2005. www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/210681.pdf 

26. witte, griff, “Private Security Contractors head to gulf,” The Washington Post, September 8, 2005, 

a14, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/ar2005090702214.html. 

27. See www.cip.msu.edu. 

28. National Policy Summit, 3. 

29. See Understanding Community Policing: A Framework for Action, washington, d.C.: Bureau of 

Justice assistance, august 1994, 13. www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/commp.pdf 

30. See www.popcenter.org. 

31. National Policy Summit, 1. 

32. See, for example, Solé Brito, Corina, Jessica i. Toliver, and gerard murphy, Protecting Your 

Community from Terrorism: Strategies for Local Law Enforcement, Volume 6, Partnering for 

Preparation and Response to Critical Incidents, washington, d.C.: national institute of Justice and Police 

Executive research Forum, 2007. 

33. See Chapter 5 for more information on training provided by various LE-PS partnerships. 
133 

EndnoTES
 

34. downtown visions, a wilmington, delaware, business improvement district, recently launched a Bridge 

Program with the wilmington Police department to assist security personnel who aspire to law enforcement 

careers. in addition to training and employment as goodwill ambassadors, the program includes classroom 

instruction on preparing to apply for police work. www.downtownvisions.org/safety-division/fridge-program 

35. Building owners and managers association. 

36. international Lodging Safety and Security association. 

37. See National Policy Summit, 13, “what would help Eliminate the obstacles to Cooperation?” 

38. among the influences mentioned during the study interviews were the earlier operation Cooperation 

project, knowledge and contacts gained through a state-level police chiefs association, training by FLETC (Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Center) on law enforcement-private security partnerships, and partnership examples 

from other jurisdictions. 

39. See, for example, Career Opportunities in Security, aSiS international. 

www.asisonline.org/careercenter/careers2005.pdf 

40. an exception is work by the virginia department of Criminal Justice Services, which produced a video, 

The Private Side of Public Safety, on law enforcement-private security cooperation for use in police recruit 

training. www.dcjs.virginia.gov/pss 

41. The use of specialized software applications to sort through large amounts of data and identify 

previously unknown patterns and relationships. hand, david, heikki mannila, and Padhraic Smyth, Principles of 

Data Mining, Cambridge, massachusetts: miT Press, 2001. 

42. See, for example, Spadanuta, Laura, “42 million data mining System Scrapped,” Security Management, 

September 7, 2007. www.securitymanagement.com/news/42-million-data-mining-system-scrapped 

43. See www.gao.gov/new.items/d08352t.pdf. 

44. The use of video cameras to transmit signals to a specific, nonbroadcast set of monitors. See 

Fredericks, grant, “CCTv: a Law Enforcement Tool,” The Police Chief, February 2008. 

www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=359&issue_id=82004 

45. groundbreaking work by the iaCP Private Sector Liaison Committee (PSLC) and the Sia addressed 

ethical, social, legal, and practical challenges involved in CCTv use for public safety and security. See Chace, 

richard w. , An Overview on the Guidelines for Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) For Public Safety 

and Security: Promulgating the Responsible Use of CCTV Technology in Public Safety and Security 

Applications, washington, d.C.: iaCP and Sia, 2001. 

46. For example, more than 100 license plate readers in fixed and mobile locations, a center staffed by 

police and private security, and moveable roadblocks. See Buckley, Cara, “new york Plans Surveillance veil for 

downtown,” The New York Times, July 9, 2007 (correction appended). 

www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/nyregion/09ring.html 

47. See for example, gotbaum, Betsy, Undertrained, Underpaid, and Unprepared: Security Officers 

Report Deficient Safety Standards in Manhattan Office Buildings, Public advocate for the City of new 

york, February 2005. www.pubadvocate.nyc.gov/policy/pdfs/securityofficersreport.pdf 

48. ricci, Joseph, Executive director, national association of Security Companies, Testimony before the 

House Committee on Homeland Security, May 1, 2007. 

49. woska, william J., “Police officer recruitment: a Public Sector Crisis,” The Police Chief, october 2006. 
134 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

CHAPteR 2 

50. aSiS international was formerly the american Society for industrial Security (aSiS). 

CHAPteR 3 

51. Connors, Edward, william Cunningham, and Peter ohlhausen, Operation Cooperation: Guidelines 

for Partnerships between Law Enforcement & Private Security Organizations, washington, d.C.: Bureau of 

Justice assistance, 2000, 3. 

52. Simeone, matthew, Jr., “The Power of Public–Private Partnerships: P3 networks in Policing,” National 

Academy Associate (magazine of the FBi national academy associates), January/February 2006, 28. 

53. Connors et al., 3. 

54. atherton, raymond, “units maintaining Liaison,” The Police Chief, november 1964. See also Brown, 

Thad, “Types of assistance available,” The Police Chief, november 1964. 

55. kakalik, James and Sorrel wildhorn, Private Police in the United States, vol. i (r-869) and vol. ii 

(r-870), washington, d.C.: u.S. government Printing office, 1971. 

56. national advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and goals, Law Enforcement assistance 

administration, Private Security: Report of the Task Force on Private Security, washington, d.C.: 

u.S. government Printing office, 1976. 

57. Cunningham, william C., and Todd Taylor, Private Security and Police in America: The Hallcrest 

Report I, Stoneham, massachusetts: Butterworth-heinemann, 1985. Cunningham, william C., John J. Strauchs, 

and Clifford w. van meter, Private Security Trends 1970–2000: The Hallcrest Report II, Stoneham, 

massachusetts: Butterworth-heinemann, 1990. 

58. Connors et al., 2000. 

59. National Policy Summit, 3. 

60. Bureau of Justice Statistics, u.S. department of Justice, “Law Enforcement Statistics 2007.” 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/lawenf.htm 

61. hughes, kristen a., Justice Expenditure and Employment in the United States, 2003, 

washington, d.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006. 

62. Cunningham, william C., and Todd Taylor, Private Security and Police in America: The Hallcrest 

Report I, Stoneham, massachusetts: Butterworth-heinemann, 1985. 

63. Cunningham, william C., John J. Strauchs, and Clifford w. van meter, Private Security Trends 

1970–2000: The Hallcrest Report II, Stoneham, massachusetts: Butterworth-heinemann, 1990. 

64. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Security guards and gaming Surveillance officers,” Occupational 

Outlook Handbook 2004. www.bls.gov/oco/ocos159.htm 

65. Cunningham, william C., Peter ohlhausen, Lynn oliver, and Thomas Seamon, Enhancing Private 

Security Officer Surety, washington, d.C.: department of homeland Security, 2005. 

66. ohlhausen, Peter, Edward Connors, and william C. Cunningham, “The Changing relationship Between 

Private Security and Law Enforcement,” in National Policy Summit: Building Private Security/Public 

Policing Partnerships to Prevent and Respond to Terrorism, sponsored by the international association of 

Chiefs of Police and the office of Community oriented Policing Services, u.S. department of Justice, 2004. 

67. moran, mike, “on the money,” Security Management, august 2006. 

68. u.S. department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “occupational Employment and wages,” may 2007. 

www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes339032.htm#ind 
135 

EndnoTES
 

69. Cunningham, william C. , Peter ohlhausen, Lynn oliver, and Thomas Seamon, Enhancing Private 

Security Officer Surety, washington, d.C.: department of homeland Security, 2005. 

70. u.S. department of Labor, may 2007. 

71. amitay, Steve, “implementing the Private Security officer Employment authorization act,” Security 

Executive, February/march 2007. 

72. Cunningham, william C., Peter ohlhausen, Lynn oliver, and Thomas Seamon. Enhancing Private 

Security Officer Surety, washington, d.C.: department of homeland Security, 2005. 

73. Parfomak, Paul. Guarding America: Security Guards and U.S. Critical Infrastructure Protection. 

CrS report rL32670, washington, d.C.: Congressional research Service, Library of Congress, 2004. 

74. aSiS international. “academic institutions offering degrees and/or Courses in Security.” 

www.asisonline.org/education/universityPrograms/traditionalprograms.pdf 

75. Connors, Edward, william C. Cunningham, and Peter ohlhausen, Operation Cooperation: Guidelines 

for Partnerships between Law Enforcement & Private Security Organizations, washington, d.C.: Bureau of 

Justice assistance, 2000, 3. 

76. Connors et al., 3. 

77. National Policy Summit. 

78. new york City department of Small Business Services, “help for neighborhoods: Business 

improvement districts.” www.nyc.gov/html/sbs/html/neighborhood/bid.shtml 

79. Cunningham, william C., John J. Strauchs, and Clifford w. van meter, Private Security Trends 

1970–2000: The Hallcrest Report II, Stoneham, massachusetts: Butterworth-heinemann, 1990, 244. 

80. aSiS Foundation, ASIS Foundation Security Report: Scope and Emerging Trends, alexandria, 

virginia: aSiS Foundation, 2004, 42. 

81. Cunningham, william C., John J. Strauchs, and Clifford w. van meter, Private Security Trends 

1970–2000: The Hallcrest Report II, Stoneham, massachusetts: Butterworth-heinemann, 1990, 244. 

82. aSiS Foundation, 41. 

83. See www.mplssafezone.org. 

84. Swidey, neil, “Private Eyes,” The Boston Globe, april 9, 2006. 

85. Pesquera, adolfo, “Private Security industry raises the Bar,” San Antonio Express-News, 

September 9, 2006. Similarly, the firm Blackwater uSa is reported to have sent “about 200 personnel [to] the 

hurricane-ravaged area. The vast majority—164 employees—[were] working under a contract with the Federal 

Protective Service, a division of the department of homeland Security, to protect government facilities.” 

Sizemore, Bill, “Blackwater Employees Create a Stir in new orleans,” The Virginian-Pilot, September 15, 2005. 

86. aSiS Foundation., ASIS Foundation Security Report: Scope and Emerging Trends, alexandria, 

virginia: aSiS Foundation, 2004. 

87. Business roundtable, Committed to Protecting America: CEO Guide to Security Challenges, 

washington, d.C.: Business roundtable, 2005. 

88. See www.cip.msu.edu. 

89. michigan State university, “CiP update,” June 21, 2008. www.cip.msu.edu/news_jun_21_2008.htm 

90. aSiS Foundation, ASIS Foundation Security Report: Scope and Emerging Trends, alexandria, 

virginia: aSiS Foundation, 2004. 

91. apuzzo, matt, “mall Security guards Learn Suicide Bombers’ Tricks,” The Florida Times-Union, 

december 3, 2004, a-8. 
136 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP 

CHAPteR 4 

92. See www.asisonline.org/councils/LELC.xml. 

93. See www.infragard.net. 

94. oSaC was established under authority of the u.S. Secretary of State pursuant to 22 u.S.C. 2656 and in 

accordance with the Federal advisory Committee act as amended. 

95. hetherington, Christopher John, “Private Security as an Essential Component of homeland Security,” 

master’s thesis, naval Postgraduate School, June 2004, 35. 

96. mulick, Stacey, “Pierce Transit Beefs up Security,” Tacoma News Tribune online, november 15, 2007. 

CHAPteR 5 

97. Johnson, Bart r., “a Look at Fusion Centers: working Together to Protect america,” FBI Law 

Enforcement Bulletin, december 2007. 

98. See Lipowicz, alice, “CSx to Share data with kentucky Fusion Center,” WashingtonTechnology, august 2, 

2007. www.washingtontechnology.com/articles/2007/08/02/csx-to-share-data-with-kentucky-fusion-center.aspx 

99. See Lipowicz, alice, “Boeing to Staff FBi Fusion Center,” WashingtonTechnology, June 1, 2007. 

www.washingtontechnology.com/articles/2007/06/01/Boeing-to-staff-FBi-Fusion-Center.aspx 

100. government accountability office, Homeland Security: Federal Efforts Are Helping to Alleviate 

Some Challenges Encountered by State and Local Information Fusion Centers. gao-08-35, washington, 

d.C.: october 2007. www.gao.gov/new.items/d0835.pdf 

101. See Chapter 4 for more on infragard’s membership criteria and its organizational structure. 

102. “u.S. Private Public Partnership Program,” www.usp3.org/uSP3. 

103. The Public advocate for the City of new york cited this as a major concern with respect to terrorism 

awareness training provided to guards, doormen, and others (gotbaum, 2005). 

104. See www.icsc.org/government/terrorism_awareness_training.php for a brief description. 

105. See “new york doormen get anti-Terrorism Training,” associated Press, June 22, 2004. 

www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-22-doormen-training_x.htm 

106. See the CiP web site, www.cip.msu.edu. 

107. The incident Command System (iCS) and national incident management System (nimS) are 

emergency response standards adopted by the u. S. department of homeland Security. 

108. aryani, giant a., Carl L. alsabrook, and Terry d. garrett. “The Business Police academy.” Law 

Enforcement Bulletin, January 2003, 10. www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2003/jan03leb.pdf 

109. aryani et al., 2003. 

110. “The Business Police academy on Crime Prevention,” announcement/agenda, Baltimore County 

(maryland) Police department and Security Square mall, 2006. 

111. See p. 8, “operations,” in the dCBid 2006 Annual Report,

 www.downtownla.com/frame.asp?mainPage=pdfs/about/annualreport_2006.pdf. 

112. grand Central is one of 59 Bids in new york City. For more on new york City Bids, see “help for 

neighborhoods: Business improvement districts.” www.nyc.gov/html/sbs/html/neighborhood/bid.shtml 

113. See www.godowntownbaltimore.com/cleansafe.cfm?id=41 for an overview of public safety services 

and contact information for each service. 
137 

EndnoTES
 

114. another example of safety education materials is the “Safety Savvy” brochure series produced by the 

golden Triangle Bid in washington, d.C.: 

www.goldentriangledc.org/pdfs/2007_PublicSafetySavvySeries_download.pdf 

115. Connors, Edward, Planning and Managing Security for Major Special Events: Guidelines for 

Law Enforcement, washington, d.C.: u.S. department of Justice office of Community oriented Policing Services, 

march 2007. www.cops.usdoj.gov/ric/resourcedetail.aspx?rid=441 

116. See Poulin, k. C., and Charles P. nemeth, Private Security and Public Safety: A Community-Based 

Approach, upper Saddle river, new Jersey: Pearson Prentice hall, 2005. also see Poulin, k.C., and Charles P. 

nemeth, The Prevention Agency: A Public Safety Model for High Crime Communities in the 21st Century, 

California, Pennsylvania: California university of Pennsylvania Press, 2005. 

117. For more on how anaheim addressed this problem, see Law Enforcement and Private Security: 

On the Job Together, a video produced in 2007 by ohlhausen research, inc., for the virginia Center for Policing 

innovation with funding from the office of Community oriented Policing Services, u.S. department of Justice. 

www.ohlhausen.com/vcpi-demo.htm 

118. ohlhausen research, inc., “False alarm Perspectives: a Solution-oriented resource,” white paper 

published by the international association of Chiefs of Police, alexandria, virginia, 1993. 

119. www.secretservice.gov/ectf_about.shtml 

120. u.S. Secret Service Electronic Crime Task Forces and working groups. 

www.secretservice.gov/ectf.shtml 

121. home office, Assessing the Impact of CCTV, Research Study 292, February 2005. 

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pdf 

122. See the washington, d.C., metropolitan Police department’s web site for information on its CCTv 

program. app.mpdc.dc.gov/info/comm/CCTv.shtm 

123. webby, Sean, “Cops who Secretly ran Fencing operation Bust 74,” San Jose Mercury News, 

January 24, 2008. 

124. ohlhausen research, inc., Law Enforcement and Private Security: On the Job Together. 

125. See www.idsafety.org. 

126. See www.forwardedge2.com. The full training program is intended for law enforcement, but the public 

can access many portions of the accompanying field guide and four training videos (select “Scenarios” on the 

home page’s top toolbar). 

127. “CiP update,” michigan State university, June 21, 2008, www.cip.msu.edu/news_jun_21_2008.htm. 

The CiP program is also discussed in Chapter 3, “Trends in Law Enforcement-Private Security Collaboration.” 

128. originally, the partnership was called the hazard material advisory Committee. 

129. This includes geographic areas outside a facility’s perimeter fence or property line that may be 

affected by a significant event. 

130. Connors, 2007. www.cops.usdoj.gov/ric/resourcedetail.aspx?rid=441 

131. See www.nasco.org. 

CHAPteR 6 

132. kotter, John P., Leading Change, Boston: harvard Business School Press, 1996, 37. 

133. Johnson, raymond, vice President and Security Section manager, wilmington Trust Company. Private 

communication, march 31, 2008. 

134. kotter, 72. 
138 

oPEraTion ParTnErShiP
 

135. kotter, 67–68. 

136. See www.ilj.org/research/operation_Cooperation.PdF. 

137. Midwest Summit 2006: Economics of Disaster—Enhancing Critical Incident Preparedness 

through Public-Private Partnerships: Final Report, 2006, 13–14. 

138. Operation Cooperation, 8. 

139. gratton, Lynda and Tamara J. Erickson, “8 ways to Build Collaborative Teams,” Harvard Business 

Review, november 2007, 102. 

140. gratton, 103. 

141. ready, douglas a., and Jay a. Conger. “Enabling Bold visions.” MIT Sloan Management Review 

online edition. sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/articles/2008/winter/49202/enablins-bild-visions 

142. ready and Conger. 

143. ready and Conger. 

144. ready and Conger. 

145. markhem, Stephen k. “a Longitudinal Examination of how Champions influence others to Support 

Their Projects,” in The Dynamics of Innovation: Strategic and Managerial Implications, ed. klaus Brockhoff, 

alok k. Chakrabarti, and Jurgen hauschildt, new york: Springer, 1999, 182–212. 

146. druskat, vanessa urch, and Jane v. wheeler. “how to Lead a Self-managing Team.” MIT Sloan 

Management Review, Summer 2004, vol. 45, no. 4, 65–71. 

147. Committed to Protecting America: CEO Guide to Security Challenges, new york: Business 

roundtable, 2005, 6–8. 

148. See www.mplssafezone.org. 

Appendixes 

149. Exceptions are partnerships whose composition is intentionally bilateral or unilateral, as discussed in 

Chapter 4 under “member organizations.” 

Trends and Practices in Law Enforcement and Private Security Collaboration 

is intended to help law enforcement and private security organizations 

develop and operate effective partnerships to address issues of mutual 

concern. It provides guidelines and analyses that are supplemented with 

examples from partnerships throughout the nation of trends, innovative 

practices, obstacles, lessons learned, and results. These partnerships were 

formed or expanded to address a range of critical policing and privatesector needs, including terrorism preparedness and prevention, supporting 

neighborhood and downtown revitalization efforts, combating financial 

crimes, improving security at special events, improving security for the 

nation’s critical infrastructure, bringing community policing strategies to 

bear on crimes against businesses and the community. 

U. S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

145 N Street, N.E. 

Washington, DC 20530 

To obtain details about COPS Office programs, call the 

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770. 

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-38-6

 e08094224