Proactive vs. Reactive Policing: Police and Private Security

Introduction: Two Approaches to Policing

One of the biggest differences between the services offered by traditional police forces and private security forces stems from the fact that police work is generally reactive, while private security work is proactive. This fundamentally different approach to policing and security results in different emphases on prevention, investigation, and the relationship with the broader community. As a reactive force, police tend to deal with crime after the fact, whereas private security forces are designed to prevent crime through a system of risk management and proactive investigation.

Defining Reactive and Proactive Police Work

Before examining how this difference in emphasis affects the delivery of services, it is useful to define the terms "reactive" and "proactive" more clearly, especially as they relate to police work. Reactive police work responds to crime after the fact, so that the majority of the time police are only found at "scenes where a crime is threatened, is underway, or has just occurred" (Culbertson, 2000, p. 13). The term "reactive" should not necessarily be taken as a pejorative, as it sometimes is in other contexts. Rather, it is simply descriptive, connoting police efforts that rely on 911 and dispatch, coupled with the widespread adoption of police cruisers and mobile communications technology, in order to effectively respond to reports of crime or citizen requests. Thus, the majority of work done by patrol officers is highly reactive.

Private Security as a Proactive Force

This stands in contrast to proactive police work — and private security work — which places an emphasis on stopping crime before it starts as well as aggressively seeking out criminal enterprises. Proactive approaches can take a variety of forms, ranging from "proactive, aggressive, military-style crime-fighting by what are called PPUs — police paramilitary units — within police departments," to officers spending "countless hours coaching little-league baseball teams, supervising activities at the local YMCA, speaking to high school kids about the dangers of drugs, escorting parades, unlocking car doors, and so on" (Culbertson, 2000, p. 14). Although these activities appear wildly disparate, the motivation and crime-fighting emphasis is the same: to prevent crimes before they occur, either by aggressively removing criminal elements from society or preemptively engaging at-risk populations. Although no effective crime-fighting or security force is entirely reactive or proactive, in general the police are a reactive organization, whereas private security forces, by definition, are largely proactive.

Conclusion: Complementary Roles

Although no security force is entirely reactive or proactive, they do tend to lean toward one category or the other. Traditional police forces are largely reactive, placing an emphasis on responding to individual crimes and treating the immediate symptoms of criminality. Private security forces, on the other hand, are largely proactive and place a much greater emphasis on risk management, crime and loss prevention, and proactive investigations and operations. An overly reactive police force risks alienating itself from the community it serves, whereas an overly proactive private security force risks the appearance of unaccountability. Nonetheless, these respective emphases produce security organizations each suited to their particular areas of expertise, and as a result police and private security forces are increasingly working in tandem to reduce crime overall.