International Expansion
Prior to the creation of the first modern police force in London in 1829, private security was a common form of policing and social control.3 This changed with the advent of industrialisation and urbanisation, and the growth of the modern state. By the 1960s, public police had monopolised their control over security and crime prevention in virtually all countries.

In the early 1970s, the private security industry began to re-emerge, and expanded rapidly over the following two decades. By the end of the 1980s, private security had become a lucrative business, with many corporations relying on contracted out or in-house security, rather than on the police, for protection.

By 1989, the private security industry in the United States was expanding at twice the rate of the police, and has continued to expand at much the same rate since then. Today, there are two security guards for every federal, state and local police officer in the US.4 Canada and the United Kingdom experienced similar growth patterns, and in parts of Asia the private security industry, established in the late 1950s, has grown at twenty to thirty per cent per year. Even in China, where the industry was established in 1983, some 250 000 guards are employed by the industry (see Table 1).5

There are a number of reasons why the private security industry expanded rapidly over the last twenty years:
  • The growth of private security is directly related to the scaling down, and subsequent withdrawal, of the police from some of its functions. Private security companies fill the gap created by this withdrawal.

  • Private property has increasingly become open to the public. Much of public life has moved away from public streets to ‘private-public’ property (private property which houses facilities extensively used by the public, such as shopping malls and entertainment centres). Owners of this property make use of private security to police the public who use such property.

  • There is a perception that the police are unable to protect the public. "If citizens believe the police are ineffective they will seek other forms of protection."6

Table 1: Size and growth of the private security industry in selected countries.
Country
Numberof companies
 Number of guards Annual growth rate
Australia
1 000
70 000
 12 to 14%
United Kingdom
7 850
162 000
 20 to 30%
United States
57 000
2 000 000
 20 to 25%
Philippines
1 000
226 448
 12 to 20%
Japan
8 160
350 000
 10 to 15%
Thailand
1 100
330 000
 15 to 20%
Singapore
180
20 000
 15 to 20%
  • Insurance companies are increasingly insisting on private security measures. In certain parts of the US, public liability cases have succeeded because the owner of private property used by the public had provided insufficient security. As a result, many insurance companies link the provision of security to public liability insurance. In Asia, private security companies double as insurance brokers, and many security companies sell insurance coverage.
  • Security breeds security. According to a security company owner quoted in Partners against crime: "If your neighbor gets in a [security] company, you wonder if you should."7
  • Governments in a number of countries make use of private security companies. Some governments spend more on hiring private security than they do on public policing. In the US, nearly one-third of all active security guards are employed by the state.

The silent revolution

Private security companies are increasingly performing functions previously performed by the police. This has, and will continue to have, a significant influence on the functioning of the criminal justice system as a whole.

Shearing and Stenning refer to the re-emergence and growth of forms of private security in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the provision of safety and security services became pluralised, as a "silent revolution."8 They refer to this pluralisation as ‘silent’ because the expansion in the role played by private security occurred without much input from, or interaction with, the formal criminal justice system and the state. Shearing argues that this lack of public debate about changes in policing constitutes a serious risk to democratic societies.9

Expansion of the industry

The first component of the private security industry to expand significantly was that of guarding. This component plays a largely proactive role, with security guards patrolling defined areas with the intention of preventing crime. The system is modelled on the ‘bobby on the beat’ concept. It includes the cash-in-transit category where armed guards are hired by businesses to protect their cash and other valuable possessions while in transit.

A reason for the guarding component's continued expansion is the tendency of many governments to outsource the guarding of state institutions, buildings and events to private security companies (largely because private security firms can perform these duties more cost-effectively than the state).

An example of the state’s role in this expansion is in China, where a private security industry emerged only in the mid-1980s. The Chinese government assisted in setting up security companies in a number of cities. These companies provide security for large public events, and foreign companies operating in China.

Businesses and private home owners have been using sophisticated electronic security systems, and employing guards to protect their families and property, for some time. More recently, however, these systems have emerged on public streets, financed largely by businesses and local governments. In some large cities, particularly in the US, businesses and local councils contract private security companies to patrol public streets. Areas previously patrolled by the police are increasingly being policed by private security companies on a commercial basis.

Public perceptions

Given the expansion of the private security industry into areas previously catered for by the police and the state, it is understandable that the public is confused about the different roles of the police and the private security industry. Moreover, the phenomenon of police officers moonlighting for private security companies, or police officers who are owners of security companies, adds to this confusion.

The confusion is also further exacerbated by security guards who wear uniforms similar to those worn by the police. One police officer who was interviewed, believed this similarity is intentional. From a distance, a security guard might look like a police officer, and according to one security company owner, this has the desired effect of deterring potential criminal action.10

Filling the vacuum

Some argue that the functions performed by the private security industry and the police are ‘two sides of the same coin’. Moreover, it is felt that a vacuum has been created in the policing of crime because of the police’s withdrawal from certain areas of policing. This vacuum is subsequently filled by private security.

There is some validity to the argument that private security performs a function which the police are unable or unwilling to do, and that there are gaps in the provision of security that can be met by private security companies. However, it is questionable whether the roles performed by the private security industry and the police are two sides of the same coin.

Private security cannot replace the police. The two have different objectives and roles:
  • Public policing aims to protect the public. Private security has a profit motive and has as its main objective the protection of its clients’ interests. The interests of private clients and those of the public are not always the same.

  • Private security companies are accountable to the market and their clients. The police are accountable to local, provincial and national government and, therefore, the electorate and the public at large.

  • Private security’s main role is the reduction of the risk of crime and loss, while policing seeks to deter future crime by punishing criminals after they have committed a crime.

  • The police have special powers which are exercised in the context of public accountability. Private security companies have no special powers beyond those of ordinary citizens and those delegated to them by owners of private or ‘public-private’ property.
An argument in favour of expanding the private security industry’s role is that it allows the police to concentrate its resources on more serious matters. Private security outfits could thus play a greater role in acting as the ‘eyes and ears’ of the police. However, private security companies, rather than reducing the burden on the police, increase it in some situations. An example is the alarm sector, where police forces around the world spend considerable time and resources responding to false alarms belonging to the private security industry.

Policing for profit

Private security guards do not have the same legal powers as police officers. Security guards, however, do exercise discretion over criminal matters that occur on the private property of their clients. For example, a private security company may decide not to involve the police in a crime committed on the private property of their client. The decision whether to involve the police usually depends on the interest of the security company’s clients.

Morgan and Shanahan comment on the discretion that private security companies have over criminal matters occurring on private property. Moreover, they point out that there has not been any systematic inquiry into how private security companies exercise this discretion. This makes it difficult to calculate the long-term impact that the exercise of discretion has on the concepts and values of the criminal justice system. Could the growth and expanding influence of private security constitute the emergence of an "alternate criminal justice system", where the profit motive and loyalty to clients replace or undermine existing criminal justice systems based on principles of law and fairness?12

Moreover, some private security companies, on discovering that their guards have committed crimes, often choose (for the sake of their image and the possible liability that may be incurred), simply to dismiss the guards. However, such guards can then seek employment with another security firm that is unaware that it is employing criminals.

Over the last decade, the police has come under intense scrutiny by the state and the public. This has not been the case with the private security industry whose accountability is market-driven. Regulatory systems have been set up to monitor and regulate the private security industry in many countries. In most cases, however, these systems are weak, ineffective and inadequate. As a result, the private security industry is more security conscious than rights conscious. Because the private security industry is less constrained by statutory limitations, it is more likely to infringe the rights of the people it polices than the police.13

Problems regarding the roles of the police and the private security industry as two sides of the same coin include:
  • Private security is profit-driven which favours the wealthy. Shearing and Bayley point out that the private security industry takes power away from the state, but does not distribute it to more people. Those who can afford it employ private security companies, and those who cannot, have to rely on public policing.14
  • Private security shifts the responsibility for social control and order away from the state.
  • The expansion of private security involvement, such as patrolling the neighbourhoods of those who can afford it, has the effect of creating ‘enclaves’. There may be a reduction in crime in an enclave, but this does not lead to an overall reduction in crime. Studies in the US have shown that crime simply relocates to other areas not protected by private security.