Running Head: PROJECT PHASE II 1

Project Phase II: The Agency Perspective of Private Security

Full Name

Number and Time of Class

November 18, 2017

PROJECT PHASE II 2

In examining the function and purpose of the Virtual Security Force (VSF) in this

scenario, its principal mission is to protect the assets and property of the members of the Virtual

Commercial Merchants Association. As such, its mission is not a general law enforcement one

but instead a supplemental one. With the literature suggesting that private security firms engaged

in the mall environment are likely to focus the brunt of their efforts on the mandates of their

contracting parties, in this case the Virtual Commercial Merchants Association, any VSF

interdiction efforts associated with the Very Bad Bike Club are likely to be nothing more than

incidental in nature. Rather, and because of phenomena like the principal-agent problem,

historical cooperative difficulties between law enforcement and private security as well as the

profit motive that is intrinsic to private security. As such, the VSF will never be a fully

cooperative partner in the fight against the Very Bad Bike Club unless the Virtual Commercial

Merchants Association provides it with such a mandate.

At the baseline, an examination of a representative sample of American shopping mall

security managers through the National Shopping Center Security Survey used to examine the

typical practices that private security companies engage in within such environments reveals that

property is the principal focus of such organizations. In this respect, private security companies

tend to focus their efforts on retail shrinkage, juvenile delinquency, and the interdiction of

individuals who are banned from entering mall premised. With Lee et al. (1999) making it clear

that private security’s principal function in such an environment is to protect the property of the

business association or other firm owning the store or mall, it is thus clear that the interdiction of

theft is the primary task of this type and entity like the VSF (Lee et al., 1999).

Beyond this, and demonstrating relevance to the organized crime activities of the Very

Bad Bike Club and their presence at the mall, this research study proposes that mall-based
PROJECT PHASE II 3

private security companies’ deployments at these shopping centers have no statistically

significant influence on the levels of violent and public order crimes committed on the premised.

In contrast, they have a significant effect, modulated by the size of the mall in question, on

incidences of crime related to problematic persons like loitering youth and gangs. Thus, applying

the traditional model of private security to this case, it becomes clear that VSF may play an

important role in terms of mitigating potential property crimes committed by the crime, this will

be incidental to its broader task of providing public order and protecting infrastructure within this

commercial setting (Lee et al., 1999).

With this, the VSF is unlikely to engage in any significant attempts to follow broader law

enforcement priorities in relation the Very Bad Bike Club. Because private security firms are

mandated with providing order and protection that is supplemental to that provided by law

enforcement, the missions of entities like the VSF are restricted to activities that fulfill

contractual obligations, and which are associated with profit motive. Indeed, and in examining

how a given private security firm operates, it is critical to recognize that it will seek to maximize

profit. As such, it is likely to present the minimal number of assets necessary so as to fulfill the

mission provided to it by the party that it has contracted with. As such, and in examining the

situation in Virtual City, the VSF is unlikely to aid in the broader interdiction of the Very Bad

Bike Club under its mandate unless (Shearing & Stenning, 1983)

In explaining this phenomenon, the principal-agent relationship is of incredible

theoretical importance. Indeed, and given that private security operates on the basis of a for-

profit motive in relation to the interests of a given client, it is an agent that must absolutely be

responsible to its principal. With the principal in this case representing the Virtual Commercial

Merchants Association, the mission of the VSF is that which is mandated by the Association
PROJECT PHASE II 4

rather than the public interest broadly speaking. Understanding the specific and limited activity

that will be undertaken by a private security group like the VSF requires understanding that such

a force is contractually beholden to a private company that may have end goals different from

those of the broader community (Abrahamsen & Williams, 2007).

Beyond this, a long history of poor cooperation between law enforcement and private

security further problematizes the degree to which a private security firm like VSF would

cooperate with a broader social mandate put in place by the local police department. Indeed, and

given that relationships between private security and law enforcement are typically premised on

reciprocal skepticism and mistrust given law enforcement perceptions that private security

officers are either incompetent or over-eager, this produces a situation in which line private

security officers are unlikely to cooperate with police officers. Similarly, police officers are

likely to view the efforts of a private security force as sub-standard, and thus not recognize them

as valuable to the task at hand (Gill, 2015).

Finally, it is critical to note that the profit motive will also dramatically influence VSF’s

approach in this case. Because its mandate is focused primarily on providing physical security to

the mall and what is found inside of it, it would be irrational for VSF to provide additional

resources to combat the Very Bad Bike Gang without being paid for these assets’ deployment.

Tangibly then, it should not be expected that VSF will actually work to put an end to any of the

gang’s activities unless these directly interact with its mandate on the premises of the mall

facilities themselves.

In the end then, the VSF’s mandate, tied to protecting the assets of the Virtual

Commercial Merchants Association, does not provide it with any rational incentive to cooperate

with local law enforcement in terms of a community-wide fight against the Very Bad Bike Gang.
PROJECT PHASE II 5

While the Virtual Commercial Merchants Association could mandate it to do so by providing it

with a contract indicating such a mission, the VSF will not be proactive on its own absent such a

decision by the principal.

PROJECT PHASE II 6

References

Abrahamsen, R., & Williams, M.C. . (2007). Securing the city: private security companies and

non-state authority in global governance. International relations, 21(2), 237-253.

Gill, M. . (2015). Senior police officers' perspectives on private security: sceptics, pragmatists

and embracers. Policing and Society, 25(3), 276-293.

Lee, G., Hollinger, R.C., & Dabney, D.A. (1999). The relationship between crime and private

security at US shopping centers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 23(2), 157-177.

Shearing, C.D., & Stenning, P.C. . (1983). Private security: implications for social control. Social

problems, 30(5), 493-506.