- by Christine Prior
Historically, there has been little overlap between public and private law enforcement. We have discussed in lecture that private policing usually emerges to fill a gap left by public policing. But a new arrangement between Facebook and the Menlo Park Police Department blurs the line between public and private policing. Earlier this month, the Menlo Park City Council agreed to let Facebook fund a police officer located near Facebook headquarters. Facebook will spend $200,000/year to fund a Menlo Park police officer for three years, with the option of extending the agreement an additional two years. The officer would be stationed in a substation in the low-income neighborhood of Belle Haven. This new form of cooperation between public law enforcement and private corporations offers benefits to the police department and the community, but also raises questions of accountability and autonomy.
Supporters of the plan argue that plan would increase safety in the area. According to the agreement, the officer’s main duties would include focus on school safety, truancy, and corporate security. Facebook insists that it will not have any undue influence over the officer, or how he/she responds to calls. The officer would be a Menlo Park Police officer, not a Facebook employee, which hopefully will guarantee some degree of autonomy from Facebook. The City Council, not Facebook, has control over the hiring of the officer, which will most likely be an already experienced officer. This is a time when many police departments are forced to cut costs and manpower due to budget constraints. Proponent say that allowing Facebook to fund the officer will enable them to maintain a police presence in the area, which has a higher crime rate than the rest of Menlo Park.
Parts of the officer’s proposed duties reflect soft community policing. The officer would be embedded in the area so he/she would get to know local businessmen and the community. He would also work with local schools to coordinate safety plans and reduce truancy. Working with schools shows a more problem-solving orientation where the police discourage potential criminal behavior by ensuring kids stay in school. The officer would also be more readily available to the area than current responses if there were an emergency. If this can be achieved, Facebook should be thanked for funding the police and enabling them to better serve the community.
Despite the potential benefits, blurring the distinction between public police and private money raises significant concerns. The most pressing one is whether the source of the funding will affect the officer’s priorities. The officer may feel pressured, either overtly or subconsciously, to place Facebook’s security/policing concerns above those of the public. This is a major issue because as city employees, the police should be primarily beholden to the public’s interests. Money from a private corporation threatens the objectivity of the police. Even if it means only responding to a call from Facebook before one from a citizen, preferential treatment is a slippery slope. As the agreement is put into action, the police need to demonstrate that they are still accountable to the public first.
The only real way to judge the deal between Facebook and Menlo Park PD is to see it in action. If successful, it would allow the police to continue working with local schools and businesses in a low-income area with very little additional costs to taxpayers. However, there are also possible drawbacks regarding objectivity and accountability.
Source:
I agree that as city employees, the police should be held accountable for public welfare first. Facebook's private money influencing the officer’s priorities to place Facebook interest over public welfare is a slippery slope argument. However if we analyze the article through a professional policing perspective it fails to make crime top priority and the "community" seems to be blurred between Facebook as a group and Belle Haven. I say it seems blurred because if a situation arises where Facebook has a security problem and so does Belle Haven which one should be addressed first. A decentralization of power occurs where an outside influence has a strong say to influence public resources. Like the author of the blog post said the only way to judge the deal is to see it in action.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that Facebook is using the idea of needing a police officer to create public safety plans and emergency drills to equate itself as a community member in Belles Haven when in fact it's a company situated in a community. Whether they give back to the local economy of the neighborhood is key to determine if its use of public resources is justifiable. If Facebook needs security they can hire private security and help out the private sector instead of taking away from the public. Although there is a money being invested by Facebook it's not sure what might happen after the 3 to 5 year period.
Christine, Your blog entry hits on a very new trend in which corporations utilize their deep pockets to "sponsor" the hiring of a public law enforcement officer. You embed your analysis in the course material very effectively and alert me to a phenomenon I need to keep a close eye on. You might want to consider asking our guest speaker -- Chief Figueroa -- what his response would be if such an offer was made to the Oakland PD and why?
ReplyDeleteI find this blog post very interesting, as it shows a new way private companies are making an impact on the local community. I have heard of private corporations donating money to local schools, food banks and shelters, but never deciding to fund a local police officer. I think this program is a good idea, but I also foresee the problem of professional accountability of this officer. While the police officer will be stationed and actively involved in the community of Belle Haven, the reality is the officer will still be in the city that houses the private corporation. And in the case of an emergency at the headquarters he/she may chose to attend the corporation's needs over those of the local community, as they are the ones that are paying him/her. While I do find this program a good idea, it may be a better if Facebook implements such a program in another surrounding Bay Area city that may need additional officer patrol. This would allow the officer to avoid facing the dilemma of choosing to respond to a local community call or one from Facebook Headquarters.
ReplyDelete-Michaela Acebedo
From the media and various reports that I have read on this topic, I have a tough time believing there is not more collusion going on than we are told. Companies like Facebook should be more explicit in their privacy policy about how our data is shared with the public law enforcement.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not have a problem with companies that benefit the public law enforcement receiving extra services from the police. Our market runs on transactions and the exchange between private and public policing is no different. I think if people were to pay extra, or give extra information, there is nothing wrong with receiving extra policing.
-Alex Rose