Whether they are preventing crime or responding to it, professional law enforcement officers are unanimously recognized as the most effective tool in a free society’s arsenal. As a result, since the beginning of policing, off-duty officers have been contracted by private business owners to provide added security.

Most U.S. enforcement agencies support the hiring of their personnel for private assignments. These agreements place additional officers in the community, augment officer salaries, and improve the community’s perception of its police. Typically seen as a benefit for the agency, the private client, and the officer, most departments have internal administrative units staffed with sworn, command level officers and clerical personnel dedicated to supporting and overseeing off-duty work. These units receive the requests from the client, determine the hourly rate, solicit and select interested officers, ensure department policy is upheld, and handle collection of funds and officer payment.

Recently, however, internal oversight of off-duty programs is undergoing a dramatic change. More and more chiefs and sheriffs are choosing to outsource the management of these programs to private companies.

Why the change? There are multitude of reasons, including human resource management, costs, concerns about a conflict of interest, and advances in technology.

Resources

The typical off-duty support unit is overseen and staffed by both sworn and civilian employees. As a direct result of reduced law enforcement resources and greater agency transparency, the public now demands that those serving in sworn positions be returned to the street where they can directly impact crime. This increased scrutiny has also brought criticism of the high cost of paying public service employees to coordinate private security assignments.

Cost

Outsourcing off-duty program management is free to the law enforcement agency. The management companies pass program costs to the company or individual requesting the off-duty officer in the form of modest administrative fees. In some cases, a percentage of those fees is returned to the police agency to augment its existing budget. Some departments have reportedly used these funds to hire additional officers and purchase needed equipment.

Conflict of Interest

In one case, a police lieutenant had unsuccessfully attempted to get reimbursed for off-duty work done over a year prior at the convention center in his jurisdiction. Despite repeated attempts, the officer had yet to be paid the hundreds of dollars he was owed. He explained that, despite his inability to get paid, he frequently answered calls for service at the convention center while one duty, where he dealt with the same people who had not paid him for his off-duty work. He voiced concern that if there was ever a complaint by the center employees about him, the matter would be complicated by the payment issue.

Reputable outsourcing companies  avoid this conflict of interest by paying officers immediately, then handling the reimbursement by the client so the officer and the department don’t have to.

 Technology

A police chief from a large urban department sought to outsource his agency’s multimillion dollar off-duty program primarily because of the technology that is now available. Using a smartphone app,  officers working off-duty assignments can be tracked in real time, allowing dispatchers to immediately identify the presence of off-duty sworn personnel in proximity to critical incidents. Other law enforcement executives receive periodic reporting, made possible by advances in technology, to ensure officers are not working too many off-duty hours and compromising their on-duty alertness. This technology also facilitates audits by capturing officer clock-in and clock-out times. This is a critical tool when responding to claims that officers are inappropriately overlapping on-duty and off-duty hours.

These are just a few of the reasons sheriffs and chiefs are privatizing management of their off-duty programs, but most agree that these agreements can be extremely advantageous. Reputable companies stand between the client and the agency. They handle administrative details from client request to officer payment, while ensuring department procedures are followed, and put cops back on the street. They are free to the agency, they insulate officers from awkward bill-collection discussions, and provide added insurance to indemnify officers and agencies. In addition, they employ state-of-the-art technology to ensure programs are appropriately administered.

Jeff Sweetin joined Athos in 2016 after a 30-year local and federal law enforcement career, followed by senior security leadership positions in two multinational corporations. He currently serves as Athos’ Chief Operating Officer, overseeing the operations of the company’s worldwide business interests. He began his law enforcement career in 1982 as an officer in the Arlington County, Virginia, Police Department and entered on duty as a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agent in 1986.