Book Review of "Regulating the Use of Biological Hazardous Materials in Universities: Complying With the New Federal Guidelines"
By Keith Haley
Tiffin University
Copyrighted. All rights pertain.
There are things that we should know and don't and our ignorance has very little consequence in our life one way or the other. On the other hand, some things we ought to know because they have real potential for altering the way we live. In Nick Valcik's book Regulating the Use of Biological Hazardous Materials in Universities: Complying With the New Federal Guidelines we find out that perhaps not all is well in many of the nation's finest research university laboratories and he clearly makes the point that this could have dire consequences.
At a time when the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Health and Human Services have stopped work at a dozen or more university biological and radiological labs, Dr. Nicolas Valcik delivers for us the story of one such distinguished (name absent) research university and its problems in complying with new health and safety standards issued by the federal government.
The book is a good story of how dedicated and exceptionally talented scientists get immersed in their work and the safety and security standards do not get the attention required. The author is sympathetic to the scientists who deliver for us research findings we need to remain prominent in the health, medical, and security fields. They are scientists first and the regulations, no doubt needed, get compromised, apparently a lot more than we imagine.
In the book's report of trying to comply with new federal biological and radiological protection guidelines at one distinguished research university we begin to see what could be a much larger problem throughout the nation. We are even treated in this book to pictures of regulation and security violations that were overlooked by the scientific staff.
If you want to take one book that is well researched and documented which will give you an inside glimpse of what may be a serious problem at our research universities and in their communities, read Dr. Valcik's treatise that unfolds like a story and gives you enjoyably what you need to know about this critical area in scientific research.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Monday, June 4, 2007
BOOK REVIEW OF STATE OF EMERGENCY: THE THIRD WORLD INVASION AND CONQUEST OF AMERICA
BOOK REVIEW OF STATE OF EMERGENCY: THE THIRD WORLD INVASION AND CONQUEST OF AMERICA
Author: Patrick J. Buchanan
Publisher: Regnery Publishing 2006
By
Keith Haley
Professor of Criminal Justice
Book review is copyrighted. All rights pertain.
INTRODUCTION
No matter one’s political persuasion, it is impossible to complete Patrick Buchanan’s book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America without being fully impressed with the depth and breadth of scholarship replete in the work. Backed by the most trusted sources on immigration and historical data, Buchanan makes the case that America is faced with a crisis like no other in its history.
The author readily makes the point by means of convincing statistics that we now face numbers of illegal immigrants, particularly from Mexico, that are creating burdens on the United States and its people like none we have ever seen. Sheer numbers of illegal immigrants total anywhere from 12 to 20 million, more than all of the Irish, Jewish, and British immigrants that ever came to the U.S. legally since the founding of the nation. Buchanan points out that most of the new immigrants are uneducated and seek low paying jobs that far too many American employers are willing to provide illegally. But along with the desire to work comes a major drain on social services, public school funding, medical costs, welfare and social security fraud, and a questionable at best desire of these illegal immigrants to assimilate into the American culture. The author points out with documented sources that we can no longer assume that the vast majority of these illegal immigrants seek to be Americans.
WHAT IS A NATION?
Much of the book works from the foundation that a nation is more than a creed that is accepted as worthy, i.e. believing in democratic ideas alone does not make a nation. A nation, according to the author, has one culture, a common language, and a definable and enforceable border. Are these critical elements in tact at the start of the 21st Century? Buchanan thinks they are not. Where once upon a time immigrant parents insisted that their children learn the English language, engulf themselves in the culture of the nation in order to become American, and make a better life for themselves by obeying the laws of the land and working hard, America now sees hundreds of thousands stream across its borders illegally every year and within hours many of these are in possession of several sets of false identification that will allow them to soak up welfare and other government assistance under more than one name. Finally, as disturbing as any point in the book, not only do many not want to become an American, some are, in fact, committed to the idea that they are here to reclaim the land in 4 southwest states that the United States took from Mexico.
With relentless reliance on valid data from government and private immigration research authorities Buchanan chronicles the major forces that are ripping at the heart of our nation: the multiplicity of languages used to conduct business and education; the increasing number of OTM’s (other than Mexicans) streaming across the border illegally; the sizeable portion of the illegal immigrant population that are criminal; and the negative consequences for those who dare suggest that the near unrestricted flow in illegal immigrants is destroying the most prosperous and opportunity laden nation on earth.
BORDER ENFORCEMENT
According to Patrick Buchanan, again backed with statistical support, it is hard to make the claim that our enforcement at the Mexican border with the United States is anything beyond token. Perhaps as many as a million or more are getting through each year and if caught and sent back, they sometimes return within days. Three southwest governors, Buchanan notes, have declared a state of emergency as a result of the illegal immigration crisis in their states.
Who is to blame for this laggard approach to protecting our borders? That blame rests with the federal government that simply does not see protection of the borders as a priority. Buchanan chronicles and discusses our immigration “reforms” in the 1960’s and 1980’s and the disastrous effects they have had on national security, unity, the state of the American middle class, an entity that may be on its way to extinction as a result of the erosion of jobs that once paid a decent wage but now go to illegal immigrants by the millions.
Illegal immigrant involvement in crime is substantial in the brutal drug smuggling business in the Border States with Mexico. But violent and property crime rates in our large cities are often perpetrated by substantial numbers of illegal immigrants. Buchanan points out, for example, that in 2006, 95% of all outstanding warrants for homicide in Los Angeles, which number 1,200-1,500, were for illegal aliens. Moreover, about 330,000 illegal immigrants are incarcerated in the United States.
THE ROAD AHEAD
A “state of emergency” is indeed the condition America finds itself in according to Patrick Buchannan. No one will have to look at an Internet website such as immigrationcounters.com to grasp the Buchanan thesis that perhaps it is too late and the course has been set to drastically alter the nature of America in such a way that our most distinguishing and desirable features will be all but erased by the year 2050.
After reading a few chapters of some of the most fact-based persuasive writing on the illegal immigration issue available an urge takes hold of the reader that draws them to take a peek and then to be absorbed by the final chapter of the book entitled “The Last Chance.” This chapter is a call to action to resolve what Buchanan believes is an unequivocal crisis. But ingesting the emergency plan of action early only adds to the enthusiasm the reader will have for digesting the background and foundation material found in the earlier chapters of the book. This is a book that most readers will mark up and take notes on indeed.
What is Patrick Buchanan’s rescue plan? In a section he entitles “What Is to Be Done” the author recommends eight action steps: have a time-out on all immigration until we can control of the border and assess our dire state (we did it from 1924-1965); provide no amnesty to illegal immigrants in the nation; build a border fence that works; stop allowing citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants in the U.S.(about 380,000 per year); stop chain migration that allows dozens of relatives to enter the U.S. as a result of one immigrant being here; end dual citizenship, which most all nations do not allow; remove the magnets that draw illegal immigrants (free health care, social services, welfare, rent supplements, food stamps, free education, in-state college tuition, etc.); and remigration – persuade many to go back home by removing our generous supplements to their existence while they reside in the U.S. illegally.
That is the plan according to Mr. Buchanan. To make it happen, he says we must conger up “the confidence and courage of our forefathers, who made no apologies for who and what they were as they believed---and rightly so--- that theirs was the greatest civilization and culture the world had ever produced, and they meant to preserve and protect it.”
Buchanan ends the book with a question, “Do our leaders have the vision and will to do it?” Without question we will know the answer soon.
Author: Patrick J. Buchanan
Publisher: Regnery Publishing 2006
By
Keith Haley
Professor of Criminal Justice
Book review is copyrighted. All rights pertain.
INTRODUCTION
No matter one’s political persuasion, it is impossible to complete Patrick Buchanan’s book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America without being fully impressed with the depth and breadth of scholarship replete in the work. Backed by the most trusted sources on immigration and historical data, Buchanan makes the case that America is faced with a crisis like no other in its history.
The author readily makes the point by means of convincing statistics that we now face numbers of illegal immigrants, particularly from Mexico, that are creating burdens on the United States and its people like none we have ever seen. Sheer numbers of illegal immigrants total anywhere from 12 to 20 million, more than all of the Irish, Jewish, and British immigrants that ever came to the U.S. legally since the founding of the nation. Buchanan points out that most of the new immigrants are uneducated and seek low paying jobs that far too many American employers are willing to provide illegally. But along with the desire to work comes a major drain on social services, public school funding, medical costs, welfare and social security fraud, and a questionable at best desire of these illegal immigrants to assimilate into the American culture. The author points out with documented sources that we can no longer assume that the vast majority of these illegal immigrants seek to be Americans.
WHAT IS A NATION?
Much of the book works from the foundation that a nation is more than a creed that is accepted as worthy, i.e. believing in democratic ideas alone does not make a nation. A nation, according to the author, has one culture, a common language, and a definable and enforceable border. Are these critical elements in tact at the start of the 21st Century? Buchanan thinks they are not. Where once upon a time immigrant parents insisted that their children learn the English language, engulf themselves in the culture of the nation in order to become American, and make a better life for themselves by obeying the laws of the land and working hard, America now sees hundreds of thousands stream across its borders illegally every year and within hours many of these are in possession of several sets of false identification that will allow them to soak up welfare and other government assistance under more than one name. Finally, as disturbing as any point in the book, not only do many not want to become an American, some are, in fact, committed to the idea that they are here to reclaim the land in 4 southwest states that the United States took from Mexico.
With relentless reliance on valid data from government and private immigration research authorities Buchanan chronicles the major forces that are ripping at the heart of our nation: the multiplicity of languages used to conduct business and education; the increasing number of OTM’s (other than Mexicans) streaming across the border illegally; the sizeable portion of the illegal immigrant population that are criminal; and the negative consequences for those who dare suggest that the near unrestricted flow in illegal immigrants is destroying the most prosperous and opportunity laden nation on earth.
BORDER ENFORCEMENT
According to Patrick Buchanan, again backed with statistical support, it is hard to make the claim that our enforcement at the Mexican border with the United States is anything beyond token. Perhaps as many as a million or more are getting through each year and if caught and sent back, they sometimes return within days. Three southwest governors, Buchanan notes, have declared a state of emergency as a result of the illegal immigration crisis in their states.
Who is to blame for this laggard approach to protecting our borders? That blame rests with the federal government that simply does not see protection of the borders as a priority. Buchanan chronicles and discusses our immigration “reforms” in the 1960’s and 1980’s and the disastrous effects they have had on national security, unity, the state of the American middle class, an entity that may be on its way to extinction as a result of the erosion of jobs that once paid a decent wage but now go to illegal immigrants by the millions.
Illegal immigrant involvement in crime is substantial in the brutal drug smuggling business in the Border States with Mexico. But violent and property crime rates in our large cities are often perpetrated by substantial numbers of illegal immigrants. Buchanan points out, for example, that in 2006, 95% of all outstanding warrants for homicide in Los Angeles, which number 1,200-1,500, were for illegal aliens. Moreover, about 330,000 illegal immigrants are incarcerated in the United States.
THE ROAD AHEAD
A “state of emergency” is indeed the condition America finds itself in according to Patrick Buchannan. No one will have to look at an Internet website such as immigrationcounters.com to grasp the Buchanan thesis that perhaps it is too late and the course has been set to drastically alter the nature of America in such a way that our most distinguishing and desirable features will be all but erased by the year 2050.
After reading a few chapters of some of the most fact-based persuasive writing on the illegal immigration issue available an urge takes hold of the reader that draws them to take a peek and then to be absorbed by the final chapter of the book entitled “The Last Chance.” This chapter is a call to action to resolve what Buchanan believes is an unequivocal crisis. But ingesting the emergency plan of action early only adds to the enthusiasm the reader will have for digesting the background and foundation material found in the earlier chapters of the book. This is a book that most readers will mark up and take notes on indeed.
What is Patrick Buchanan’s rescue plan? In a section he entitles “What Is to Be Done” the author recommends eight action steps: have a time-out on all immigration until we can control of the border and assess our dire state (we did it from 1924-1965); provide no amnesty to illegal immigrants in the nation; build a border fence that works; stop allowing citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants in the U.S.(about 380,000 per year); stop chain migration that allows dozens of relatives to enter the U.S. as a result of one immigrant being here; end dual citizenship, which most all nations do not allow; remove the magnets that draw illegal immigrants (free health care, social services, welfare, rent supplements, food stamps, free education, in-state college tuition, etc.); and remigration – persuade many to go back home by removing our generous supplements to their existence while they reside in the U.S. illegally.
That is the plan according to Mr. Buchanan. To make it happen, he says we must conger up “the confidence and courage of our forefathers, who made no apologies for who and what they were as they believed---and rightly so--- that theirs was the greatest civilization and culture the world had ever produced, and they meant to preserve and protect it.”
Buchanan ends the book with a question, “Do our leaders have the vision and will to do it?” Without question we will know the answer soon.
Monday, April 9, 2007
State Sex Offender Registry Web Sites: A Content Analysis of all 50 States and the District of Columbia
State Sex Offender Registry Web Sites: A Content Analysis of All 50 States and the District of Columbia
Christina Lombardo
The article is copyrighted. All rights pertain.
Introduction
A significant social problem that many people face today is sexual abuse and violence. Most people who experience a form of sexual abuse and/or violence are extremely ashamed. The intense feelings of shame that accompany the victims of sexual offenses cause those victims to keep that shame and the cause of it a secret. For that reason, many victims of sexual violence keep their victimization a secret. The secret nature of sexual abuse and violence often veils the elevated number of Americans who actually do experience such victimization (Welchans, 2005).
History and Nature of the Problem
In 2004, the Uniform Crime Reports, compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, calculated that 94,635 forcible rapes had been reported in the United States (U.S. Department of Justice, USDOJ, 2004). The Bureau of Justice Statistics, in one report, stated that in 2005, for every 1,000 people age twelve and older, one rape or sexual assault occurred (USDOJ, 2005). In examining college-age women, one study found that 28 out of every 1,000 women were the victim of rape or attempted rape within a six month period (Fisher et al., 2000 as cited by Welchans, 2005).
Children can be the victims of sexual offenses and assaults too. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 16% of all rape victims, across twelve studied states, were under the age of twelve (Langan, et al, 1994 as cited by Welchans, 2005). In 1998 alone, the number of corroborated cases of child sexual abuse reached over 103,500 in the United States (Jones, et al, 2001 as cited by Welchans, 2005). Freeman-Longo (1996) reported that as many as one in every five children is at risk for sexual victimization before reaching their eighteenth birthday.
Sex Offender Characteristics
Popular media outlets, like fictional books and movies, may lead most people to believe that sexual perpetrators are strangers to their victims. For example, a common vision may be that of a man jumping out of a bush and grabbing a woman from behind. This is not, however the usual case. In fact, in most instances of sexual victimization, the perpetrator of the offense is someone the victim knows (Levenson et al, 2005). According to Welchans (2005), the usual suspect is actually a friend, acquaintance, or even a family member of the victim. In 2002, Lisak and Miller (as cited by Welchans, 2005), reported that in studying 1,225 acts of rape, battery, child sexual abuse, and child physical abuse, a total of 120 individuals were responsible for all of them. All of the above mentioned acts of interpersonal violence were unreported to law enforcement agencies. In 1995, Elliot et al (as cited by Malesky et al, 2001) found that 30% of all child sex offenders reported that they had each victimized between 10 and 450 different children. Given that some sexual offenders do in fact have multiple victims, it is crucial to examine techniques that will prevent recidivism by sexual offenders (Malesky et al, 2001). Community notification and sex offender registry statutes are avenues currently being explored by criminal justice professionals in an attempt to make citizens more aware, and also to combat recidivism rates of sexual offenders.
Definitions & Goals of Community Notification
Community notification laws are those that compel criminal justice and law enforcement agencies to provide information to citizens and certain community groups when released sexual offenders move in to a neighborhood (Johnson et al., 1999). The idea behind community notification statutes is that by increasing community awareness, parents will be able to better protect their children from dangerous sex offenders because they will know who, and where, such offenders are (Freeman-Longo, 1996). Another idea behind community notification and registration laws is the reduction of sexual offender recidivism rates. By notifying communities of who sexual offenders are, the offender will less likely be able to lure potential victims. This is due to the fact that the potential offender will know that the entire community is aware of their presence and their history (Freeman-Longo, 1996). In other words, the two main goals of community notification statutes are (1) to increase public safety by providing increased awareness of the presence of sexual offenders, and (2) to prevent recidivism by released sexual offenders on future potential victims. If a potential victim knows that a convicted sexual offender is living near them, it is assumed that they can take necessary steps to prevent the victimization of themselves and those around them (Petrosino, 1999). The dissemination of information regarding sexual offenders living among communities allows citizens to make more informed decisions, thus enhancing their safety (Levenson et al., 2005).
What Led To Community Notification and Registration Laws?
In order to explain how community notification laws came to be, it is important to review some very important pieces of legislation. The first community notification law was passed in Washington State in 1990. The Community Protection Act allowed law enforcement agencies to provide information about sex offenders to citizens, under certain circumstances. At this time, states varied in the amount of information they provided, what procedures to follow before notification of a sexual offender’s release in to a community, the category of sex offender for which the information would be released, and to whom the information would be released (Berliner, 1996).
In 1994, after the 1989 abduction, sexual assault, and murder of an eleven year old boy, the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act was passed. The passage of this act led to a sexual offender registration and notification movement across the United States (Beck et al., 2004). The Wetterling Act required that each state implement registries of sexually violent offenders, or crimes against children, but allowed for discretion of how community notifications would be disseminated through out each state’s communities (Beck et al, 2004; Welchans, 2005). States were required to embrace and stick to certain minimum standards (Tewksbury, 2005). Under the Wetterling Act, each state was required to track an offender’s residences, annually, for a minimum of ten years (Welchans, 2005). Each state was given until September of 1997 (approximately three years) to comply with the law or the consequence would be a 10% reduction of that state’s federal anti-crime funding (Beck et al, 2004). Offenders who were known to be repeat offenders or those who committed extremely heinous sexual offenses were made to be lifetime registers (Office of the Attorney General, 1999 as cited by Welchans, 2005).
Also in 1994, a seven year old girl named Megan Kanka was raped and strangled to death by a neighbor. That neighbor had already been convicted of a sexual offense on two previous occasions (Caputo et al, 2004). Megan Kanka’s parents were unaware that their neighbor was a twice-convicted sexual offender (Petrosino, 1999). Maureen Kanka, Megan’s mother, led the movement to enact a sex offender registration law accompanied by community notification attributes (Petrosino, 1999). The legislation passed in New Jersey – Megan’s home state – by Governor Whitman and went in to effect in late 1994 (Petrosino, 1999). The death of Megan Kanka in 1994, along with public outrage regarding the perpetuation of sex offender anonymity, led to the amendment of the Wetterling Act in 1996 (Levenson et al, 2005; Caputo et al, 2004). The amendment, known as Megan’s Law, changed the language of the Wetterling act from “local law enforcement ‘may’ disclose relevant information as needed to protect the public, to local law enforcement ‘shall’ release relevant information that is necessary to protect the public” (Koenig, 1998 as cited by Beck et al, 2004). Under Megan’s Law, states now had an obligation to construct and implement community notification statutes in an effort to inform citizens about convicted sex offenders living in their communities (Levenson et al., 2005).
Finally, in 2003, immediately following some notable legal battles (which will be discussed in further detail), the Wetterling Act was again modified. The new amendment is called the Prosecutorial Remedies & Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act, or simply, the PROTECT Act. This new amendment mandates that all 50 states develop and maintain Internet web sites displaying sexual offender registry information for the purpose of citizen awareness (Levenson, 2005).
Legal Claims and Criticisms
Levenson and Cotter (2005) suggest that legal statutes held up by the United States Supreme Court indicate that community notification laws and sexual offender registries are practices that are here to stay. There have been several legal battles, brought upon by convicted, and released sexual offenders, aimed at ending, or getting around, such practices. There are also countless criticisms of community notification statutes and sexual offender registration.
In 2003, two main legal battles were heard and decided upon by the United States Supreme Court. In the first, Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, the defendants argued that Megan’s Law was unconstitutional because it violated the right to due process guaranteed by the 14th amendment (Welchans, 2005). A statute in Connecticut allowing sex offenders to be identified on an Internet registry was challenged (Levenson et al, 2005). The defendants in Connecticut v. Doe maintained that a hearing should be held to determine whether or not the sex offender is “currently dangerous” before posting their registry information on the Internet (Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, 2003). The Supreme Court justices, however, held that a trial and conviction was enough, and therefore, gave due process, thus Connecticut’s statute did not violate the 14th Amendment (Welchans, 2005; Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, 2003).
In a second case, Smith v. Doe, two convicted sexual offenders challenged Alaska’s version of Megan’s Law. The defendants argued that the law retroactively imposes punishment on convicted sexual offenders who were sentenced before the law was passed and took affect. (Smith v. Doe, 2003). The two argued that because they had fulfilled all of their requirements for being sexual offenders before the passage of Alaska’s Megan’s Law, mandating their participation in public sexual offender registration, violated their constitutional right against ex post facto punishment (Petrosino, 1999; Welchans, 2005; Smith v. Doe, 2003). A majority of the United States Supreme Court decided against the defendants and, according to Welchans (2005) found that “Megan’s Law is regulatory, not punitive; therefore, the defendants could be mandated to register.”
In addition to the legal claims that have been made against, and defeated by community notification and registration legislation, many criticisms of the practice exist. First, some critics believe that community notification is a response to sexual violence that is driven by emotions and that in turn, it may provide a false sense of security to communities (Levenson et al, 2005; Freeman-Longo, 1996; Malesky et al, 2001). Also, just because a person is known through out one community to be a sexual offender does not mean that his/her urges will hot be displaced on another community which is unaware of the person’s past (Freeman-Longo, 1996). Levenson and Cotter (2005) suggest that because it is known that many sexual offenses are committed by family members, community notification and pubic registry laws may avert reporting by victims of family members. Additionally, notification may lead to the unintended identification of victims (Levenson et al, 2005), vigilantism toward known offenders by fearful citizens (Freeman-Longo, 1996; Malesky et al, 2001; Levenson et al, 2005; Miller, 1998 as cited by Trivits et al, 2002), and increased public fear within communities (Freeman-Longo, 1996; Beck et al, 2004).
Mental health professionals have their own take on sexual offender notification and registration policies. They believe that sexual offender registries and community notification laws lead to increased stress on offenders which, in turn, increases the likelihood that an offender will recidivate (Tewksbury, 2005; Malesky et al, 2001). Malesky and Kiem (2001) studied the opinions of mental health professionals and found that most believe that the fear of being placed on a sexual offender registry will not deter instances of offending, rather they believe that fear will decrease sexual offenders’ desire to be honest about past crimes, thus hindering the entire treatment process.
In 2005, Tewksbury reported what he called the “collateral consequences of sex offender registration.” The most common consequences that released convicted sex offenders made to publicly register face, according to prior research, include loss of employment, losing or being denied a place of residence, impolite treatment while in public, loss of friends, and being harassed due to public registration (Tewksbury, 2005; Miller, 1998 as cited by Trivits et al, 2002). Another common condemnation of sexual offender registries and community notification statutes is that the current notification laws assume that sexual offenders are a homogeneous group and that all types of sexual offenders (adult, child, child pornographers, exhibitionists, etc.) will recidivate at the same rates (Sample et al, 2006). Finally, community notification statutes have been compared to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter. Scholars have contended that making registries public allow for communal humiliation of the released, and supposedly treated, sexual offender (Johnson et al, 1999).
Why Study Sex Offender Registry Web Sites?
Despite the various legal battles and countless criticisms of sexual offender notification and registry statutes, each of the 50 states has enacted legislation mandating that information regarding released sexual offenders is made public. In fact, registration laws were expanded to include those people convicted of violent sexual acts against both children and adults, and nonviolent sexual acts against children, including possessing, viewing, or manufacturing of child pornography, juvenile solicitation, and enticement of a child over the Internet (Sample et al, 2006). Today, such statutes exist in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia (Zevitz et al, 2000 as cited by Beck et al, 2004).
Due to concerns regarding dodging methods by sexual offenders or potential sexual offenders in families, along with the stigma that encases sexual abuse, a community-wide approach seems to be the answer (Miller et al, 1988 as cited by Cox, 1998). Research suggests that there is evidence that programs that proactively promote education of child sexual abuse and child abduction can in fact, improve knowledge and enhance prevention skills (MacMillan et al, 1994 as cited by Cox, 1997; Beck et al, 2006). The strides in legislation toward community notification and public registry imply a shift in the penal process from one that sought to normalize sexual offenders to community norms, to one that aims to manage sex offenders in different categories and sub-categories (Simon, 1998).
Sex offenders are seen as today’s monsters (Simon, 1998). Unpromising rates of recidivism, by sexual violators of both adults and children; compounded by the high number of children being sexually victimized, along with media coverage of especially egregious re-offenders encouraged the use of community notification and registration statutes (Welchans, 2005).
Methodology
There are several notification methods commonly used by communities to publicly notify residents of a convicted, and released sexual offender’s presence. Some of these include media releases, door-to-door flyers, community meetings, phone calls, and most recently, Internet web sites. The purpose of this study is to examine the content of the sex offender registry web sites of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Currently, there are various studies that look in to the effect of the sexual offender registration and public notification statutes on communities, and also on the offender. There are even studies that compare methods for dissemination of public notification and registry information between counties in one state, or between two states. However, no research exists to date that examines the contents of each state’s sex offender registry web site.
Objectives
1. Review existing literature on sex offender registries and community notification statutes.
2. Describe the contents of the sex offender registry web sites of all 50 states.
3. Identify the similarities and differences in the contents of the sex offender registries of all 50 states.
Results
For the purpose of this study, the District of Columbia should be included wherever reference is made to all U.S. states. All of the states in the United States, including the District of Columbia, have a sex offender registry web site made accessible to citizens. The department that is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of such sites varies from state to state. In general, those departments fall in to seven different categories.
In just over one third (33.33%) of all U.S. states, sex offender registry web sites are maintained by state police. In almost 22%, such web sites are kept up by the state’s Department of Public Safety. The Department of Corrections controls and maintains sex offender registry web sites in close to 6% of U.S. states, while the Office of the Attorney General is responsible for almost 10% of such web sites. Various states utilize some type of investigative bureau (13.73%) in order to ensure the upkeep of their sex offender registry website. Only two states (Rhode Island and South Carolina) have a specific Sex Offender Registry Unit that is held responsible for web site update and maintenance, and almost 12% of the states utilize some “other” department. In two states (Arkansas and Vermont) the Criminal Information Center is used. Others include the Division of Criminal Justice Services (New York), the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (Minnesota), the State Bureau of Identification (Delaware), and finally, the State Department of Justice (Montana).
The majority of the state sex offender registry (SOR) web sites (80.39%) have placed links to the various laws and statutes – state and federal – that mandate that such web sites exist. In fact, only two states (Illinois and Kansas) do not mention those laws and statutes at all. The majority of U.S. states’ SOR web sites list two different disclaimers, or warnings, regarding the information available on their web sites. The first disclaimer was found on over 94% of U.S. state’s SOR web sites, stating that the information publicly available should not be used to threaten, intimidate, harass, or injure those listed on the registry, or legal, criminal action would be the result. On over three quarters (78.43%) of all U.S. state’s SOR web sites, a second disclaimer warns citizens that the information is updated regularly, but that because the sex offenders themselves report the information provided, it may not always be accurate.
Searchable Attributes
Research in this study shows that citizens are provided with certain general attributes in order to search SOR web sites for sex offenders in their communities. Those general attributes are highlighted in Figure 1. Approximately 96% of all states offer searches of their databases by the sex offender’s last name, while the first name is sufficient in almost 65% of state’s online registries. In less than 30% of all state’s online registries, residents have the option to search for offenders using their home address. Citizens in over 75% of all U.S. states can search by city and county, and in over 88% of states, databases are searchable by zip code. Only seven states (13.73%) offer an option to search all entries, and over half (56.86%) of the state SOR web sites allow a citizen to search by only the first letter of a sex offender’s last name.
In addition to the general searchable attributes offered by most states, there are also states that offer searches of physical characteristics. For instance, in seven states (13.73%), citizens have the option to search for a registered sex offender by his/her race, and in just over 9% of all U.S. states, a citizen can search the SOR web site by the offender’s gender. Physical characteristics including height, weight, eye color, and hair color can be used to search for registered offenders in four states (7.84%). Additionally, in nine states (17.65%), residents have the option to search SOR databases by the offender’s birth date or age range.
Citizens in eight states (15.69%) can search SOR databases by offender type (i.e. sex offender, sex predator, non-compliant offender) or by level, or tier, of the committed offense (i.e. level/tier 1, 2, 3). In both Hawaii and Maryland, residents are given the option to search the state’s SOR website for only those who commit offenses against children.
Information Provided Regarding Registered Sexual Offenders
In over half of all U.S. states (56.86%), sex offenses are categorized, classified, or placed on levels or tiers of seriousness. Even though those who commit lower levels of offenses are considered to carry less potential for risk, 58.82% of all U.S. states still require them to register, and still provide residents with pertinent information about them. In five states (9.80%), information is provided for only those offenders who have been classified as either “high-risk” offenders or sexual predators. In over half (64.71%) of all U.S. states, juveniles are required to register and have their information posted on the SOR web site. Many of those states require that juveniles meet certain conditions in order to have their registry information posted. Some of those conditions include those juveniles who are convicted in an adult court, those who have public registry included in their sentence, as well as those who are both non-compliant and meet varying age requirements.
As with the types of searchable attributes, there are also certain types of offender information that are generally listed on each state’s SOR web sites. Slightly over 94% of all state SOR web sites provide pictures of all registered offenders. Three states (Arkansas, Colorado, and Montana) supply pictures for those who have been convicted of sexual offense, but not for those who are registered because they have committed a violent non-sexual act against a child. Every state provides the name of the offender, and almost 63% provide known aliases of each offender.
Over 92% of U.S. states provide citizens with the full home address of each registered sexual offender. Certain states only offer limited address information. For instance, California only lists the offender’s zip code, Rhode Island only lists the street name, Vermont only lists the offender’s city of residence, and Washington lists the entire address of the offender, but leaves out the last two digits of the offender’s street number. A little under one third (31.37%) of all states also inform residents of each registered offenders work, school, or temporary address, and Nebraska provides the places that each offender frequents throughout the state.
Most states provide certain standard physical characteristics of each of the registered sex offenders. These are shown in Figure 2. Over 92% of all state's SOR web sites list the offender’s gender, and the majority (94.12%) list either the offender’s age or his/her date of birth. Nevada only provides the offender’s birth year. Additionally, the race or ethnicity of each registered offender is listed on the SOR web site of 88.24% of all states. Also commonly provided for residents are the height and weight (86.28%) as well as the hair and eye color (84.31%) of each offender required to register. Surprisingly, only slightly more than 41% of all states provide citizens with any marks, scars, or tattoos that each registered offender may have.
Almost every state (94.12%) provides residents with the sexual offense(s) that each offender has been convicted of, and slightly over half (50.98%) offer descriptions of the actual crime. Twenty-two (43.14%) states provide the age and gender of the offender’s victim, but only five states (9.80%) tell residents whether or not the victim knew his/her perpetrator. Surprisingly, only a little over 37% of all state SOR registries provide the offender’s registration date, and only one-third provide citizens with the most current date that the offender’s information had been verified. Just over three quarters (76.47%) of all state’s online registries do inform citizens if an offender is non-compliant.
Useful Links
Most citizens do not have knowledge of criminal codes or legislative terminology used by criminal justice professionals to define certain crimes; however, only 58.82% of all state SOR web sites provide residents with such a web link (see Figure 3). In fact, only slightly over one-half of all state’s SOR web sites offer a list of “Frequently Asked Questions” and their answers, and surprisingly, only nineteen states (37.26%) provide information for citizens regarding safety tips for themselves and for those around them, including their children. Sixteen states (31.37%) provide some form of information for registered offenders regarding sex offender registration requirements, including forms for address change or temporary address change.
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to gain knowledge on what is provided for residents in the United States on state provided, web-based, public sex offender registries. Research in this study shows that there are commonalities from state to state in what attributes are searchable and in what is provided upon obtaining search results. The majority of all state SOR web sites are searchable by the offender’s last name, and by the resident’s city, zip code, and county. A great number of state SOR registries provide citizens with the offenders name, part of his/her address, age or date of birth, and a picture of the offender. Many states also provide safety tips for parents as well as information for those offenders who must register with the state. There are also some states in the U.S. that have gone beyond minimum notification criterion as mandated by state and federal legislation.
E-mail Notification, Alert Lines, & Information lines
The overabundance of technology that is available in the United States today makes it hard to believe that very few state SOR web sites offer e-mail notification, telephone alert lines, and/or telephone information lines to citizens when a sexual offender moves in to their community. Only six (11.77%) U.S. states provide an e-mail notification service for their residents to notify them that a sex offender has, or will be moving in to their area. One state (Virginia) only provides electronic notification via e-mail to childcare facilities, public and private educational institutions, foster homes, nursing homes and to those citizens who reside in the same zip code as the notified facility. Similarly, there are only two states (3.92%) in the U.S. that provide alert lines for their residents. Such alert lines allow residents to submit their phone numbers so that when a registered sex offender is known to be relocating to their community, they will receive a phone call telling them to check the state’s SOR web site for information regarding the sexual offender that will be moving in. Even more shocking is the fact that only one state (New York) offers a sex offender information line where residents can call and ask questions about sexual offenders and sexual crimes. Since many of the concerns regarding state sex offender registry web sites surround harassment of sexual offender’s and increased citizen fear, it is surprising that more states would not offer some sort of informational line that concerned residents could call to ease their fears and answer their questions.
Absconders & Non-Compliant Sexual Offenders
There are many different sexual crimes and many different classifications used from state to state, throughout the U.S. for categorizing sexual offenders. Not all sexual offenders are known to pose a high, or even moderate risk to citizens once released from prison or treatment facilities. However, there are those offenders who are known to be very dangerous and often repeat offenders. Although many states inform citizens if an offender is non-compliant, not all states allow residents to search strictly for non-compliant or absconding offenders. In fact, less than 16% of all U.S. states allow citizens to perform a search for non-compliant or absconding sexual offenders. Given the seriousness of some sexual crimes and the effects that victims of sexual offenses endure, one may consider that a convicted sexual offender who refuses to comply with registry laws may pose more of a potential risk to the community that they reside in. Therefore, it is surprising that more states do not allow searches of non-compliant or absconding offenders, if for no other reason than to protect their citizens. In addition, citizens may have information regarding those who are non-compliant and therefore may have the potential to assist law enforcement agencies in ensuring that those who fail to register or verify their registry information are found and made to comply with registration laws.
Vehicle Information
Only six (11.77%) of all U.S. states provide citizens with sexual offenders’ vehicle information. This number is surprising given the fact that victims of sexual crimes are often abducted by their perpetrators before any sexual offense is committed. Providing citizens with vehicle characteristics such as license plate number, make, model, and color of a known sexual offender’s vehicle may further prevent sexual crimes and repeat offenses from occurring because people would know which cars in their communities they and their children should avoid.
Utilization of Mapping Tools
There are many mapping tools available for utilization on state SOR web sites that would provide useful information to citizens. If a sex offender’s address (work, school, and home) were plotted on a map in relation to schools, daycares, parks, and libraries, for example, many citizens would be better able to protect themselves and those around them, including children from contact with a sexual offender. However, only one third of state SOR web sites employ mapping instruments for use by citizens. Interactive and satellite maps could prove to be extremely useful to residents who want to protect themselves and those around them from a potentially dangerous offender.
The National Public Sex Offender Registry
The United States Department of Justice, in collaboration with all 50 states and the District of Columbia has recently introduced a nationwide, Internet-based sex offender registry web site. The National Sex Offender Public Registry is somewhat of a one-stop shop for citizens across the U.S. to search for the identity and location of sexual offenders. Participating states provide the information that they keep regarding sexual offenders to the U.S. Department of Justice who then makes that information available through their web site. Using this website, citizens can search for information regarding sexual offenders by providing a name, zip code, county, city, or state. The criterion for searching is limited by what each individual state provides. Some sexual offenders may choose to reside in a state where people would not be aware of the crimes they had previously committed thus bettering their chances for finding new potential victims. The National Public Sex Offender Registry allows citizens to locate a sexual offender, even if that offender is not originally from their state, or if a sex offender who has committed a crime in one state has relocated to a different state.
This one stop shop for registered sex offenders throughout the U.S. could also be very helpful to citizens who do not know how to go about finding information in their own state, or those who are thinking of relocating to a different state. There are some cities within states that are known to have many sexual offenders living in them, and someone who is relocating may not be aware of that. Given the potential for protecting the United States from sexual offenders, it is surprising that only less than one fifth of states in the U.S. provide a link to the National Public Sexual Offender registry.
Recommendations
The current study examined the content of sexual offender registry web sites of all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia and found that there are general attributes that citizens can search for, as well as general listings that are provided for informational use by citizens. There are also those states that go beyond the generalities provided by the majority of U.S. states, as mandated by state and federal legislation. One recommendation that stems from this study is that each state should implement a type of electronic notification, via e-mail for its citizens when a known sexual offender moves within one mile of their home. It would also be helpful if parents could look at a map of a certain school or daycare and see if there are any registered sexual offenders living close to that facility. Next, a separate search for only those sexual offenders who are non-compliant or absconders should be endorsed by each state and by the National Public Sex Offender Registry, especially given that the potential for finding new victims becomes easier for an offender who resides in a community where no one knows of their previous offenses. Even though there are some states that do provide such a listing, that offender may not be residing in that state and thus, a national non-compliant list would be more effective.
The emergence of Internet-based sexual offender registries has been both applauded and criticized; however, the information provided seems to have the potential to protect citizens from victimization. This study shows what general information can be located on state sex offender registry web sites and what types of information are provided that seem to go above and beyond generalities provided, as well as which types tools and information should be added to better inform citizens of the presence of sexual offenders in their neighborhoods.
REFERENCES
¨ Beck, V.S., & Travis III, L.F. (2004). Sex Offender Notification and Fear of Victimization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, Retrieved November 1, 2006, from http://journals.ohiolink.edu:20080/local-cgi/send-pdf/061013091348227968.pdf.
¨ Beck, V.S., & Travis III, L.F. (2006). Sex Offender Notification: An Exploratory Assessment of State Variation in Notification Processes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, Retrieved November 3, 2006, from http://journals.ohiolink.edu:20080/local-cgi/send-pdf/061013092510229001.pdf.
¨ Caputo, A.A., & Brodsky, S.L. (2004). Citizen coping with community notification of released sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 22, 239-252.
¨ Cox, A.D. (1997).Preventing child abuse; A review of community-based projects I: Intervening on processes and outcome of reviews. Child Abuse Review. 6, 243-256.
¨ Cox, A.D. (1998).Preventing child abuse; A review of community-based projects II: Issues arising from reviews and future directions. Child Abuse Review. 7, 30-43.
¨ Federal Bureau of Investigation, (unknown). Investigative programs: Crimes against children. Retrieved October 28, 2006, from State Sex Offender Registry Web Sites Web site: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/states.htm
¨ Freeman - Longo, R.E. (1996).Feel good legislation: Prevention or calamity. Child Abuse & Neglect. 20, 95-101.
¨ Johnson, M., & Babcock, W.A. (1999). Toward a Moral Approach to Megan's Law. Journal of Mass Media Ethics. 14, 133-145.
¨ Levenson, J.L., & Cotter, L.P. (2005). The Effect of Megan's Law on Sex Offender Reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, Retrieved November 3, 2006, from http://journals.ohiolink.edu:20080/local-cgi/send-pdf/061013094833230201.pdf.
¨ Malesky, A., & Keim, J. (2001). Mental health professionals’ perspectives on sex offender registry web sites. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. 13, 53-63.
¨ Petrosino, A.J., & Petrosino, C (1999). The Public safety potential of Megan's Law in Massachusetts: An Assessment from a sample of criminal sexual psychopaths. Crime and Delinquency. 45, 140-158.
¨ Sample, L.L., & Bray, T.M. (2006). Are sex offenders different? An Examination of arrest patterns. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 17, 83-102.
¨ Simon, J. (1998).Managing the monstrous: Sex offenders and the new penology. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 4, 452-467.
¨ Tewksbury, R. (February 2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, Retrieved November 8, 2006, from http://journals.ohiolink.edu:20080/local-cgi/send-pdf/061013113529249081.pdf
¨ Trivits, L.C., & Reppucci, D. (2002). Application of Megan's law to juveniles. American Psychologist. 57, 690-704.
¨ United States Supreme Court (2003). Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe (538 U. S. ____ (2003), October Term: 2002 from U.S. Supreme Court Web site: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-1231.pdf
¨ United States Supreme Court (2003). Smith v. Doe (Cite as: 538 U. S. ____ (2003)). October Term: 2002, from U.S. Supreme Court Web site: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-729.pdf
¨ United States Department of Justice, (2006). Dru Sjodin national sex offender public web site. Retrieved November 15, 2006, Web site: http://www.nsopr.gov/
¨ United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2004). Uniform Crime Reports. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from U.S. Department of Justice Web site: http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeOneYearofData.cfm
¨ United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2005). Criminal Victimization. Retrieved November 10, 2006, from U.S. Department of Justice Web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvictgen.htm
¨ Welchans, S. (2005).Megan's Law: Evaluations of sexual offender registries. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 16, 123-140.
Christina Lombardo
The article is copyrighted. All rights pertain.
Introduction
A significant social problem that many people face today is sexual abuse and violence. Most people who experience a form of sexual abuse and/or violence are extremely ashamed. The intense feelings of shame that accompany the victims of sexual offenses cause those victims to keep that shame and the cause of it a secret. For that reason, many victims of sexual violence keep their victimization a secret. The secret nature of sexual abuse and violence often veils the elevated number of Americans who actually do experience such victimization (Welchans, 2005).
History and Nature of the Problem
In 2004, the Uniform Crime Reports, compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, calculated that 94,635 forcible rapes had been reported in the United States (U.S. Department of Justice, USDOJ, 2004). The Bureau of Justice Statistics, in one report, stated that in 2005, for every 1,000 people age twelve and older, one rape or sexual assault occurred (USDOJ, 2005). In examining college-age women, one study found that 28 out of every 1,000 women were the victim of rape or attempted rape within a six month period (Fisher et al., 2000 as cited by Welchans, 2005).
Children can be the victims of sexual offenses and assaults too. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 16% of all rape victims, across twelve studied states, were under the age of twelve (Langan, et al, 1994 as cited by Welchans, 2005). In 1998 alone, the number of corroborated cases of child sexual abuse reached over 103,500 in the United States (Jones, et al, 2001 as cited by Welchans, 2005). Freeman-Longo (1996) reported that as many as one in every five children is at risk for sexual victimization before reaching their eighteenth birthday.
Sex Offender Characteristics
Popular media outlets, like fictional books and movies, may lead most people to believe that sexual perpetrators are strangers to their victims. For example, a common vision may be that of a man jumping out of a bush and grabbing a woman from behind. This is not, however the usual case. In fact, in most instances of sexual victimization, the perpetrator of the offense is someone the victim knows (Levenson et al, 2005). According to Welchans (2005), the usual suspect is actually a friend, acquaintance, or even a family member of the victim. In 2002, Lisak and Miller (as cited by Welchans, 2005), reported that in studying 1,225 acts of rape, battery, child sexual abuse, and child physical abuse, a total of 120 individuals were responsible for all of them. All of the above mentioned acts of interpersonal violence were unreported to law enforcement agencies. In 1995, Elliot et al (as cited by Malesky et al, 2001) found that 30% of all child sex offenders reported that they had each victimized between 10 and 450 different children. Given that some sexual offenders do in fact have multiple victims, it is crucial to examine techniques that will prevent recidivism by sexual offenders (Malesky et al, 2001). Community notification and sex offender registry statutes are avenues currently being explored by criminal justice professionals in an attempt to make citizens more aware, and also to combat recidivism rates of sexual offenders.
Definitions & Goals of Community Notification
Community notification laws are those that compel criminal justice and law enforcement agencies to provide information to citizens and certain community groups when released sexual offenders move in to a neighborhood (Johnson et al., 1999). The idea behind community notification statutes is that by increasing community awareness, parents will be able to better protect their children from dangerous sex offenders because they will know who, and where, such offenders are (Freeman-Longo, 1996). Another idea behind community notification and registration laws is the reduction of sexual offender recidivism rates. By notifying communities of who sexual offenders are, the offender will less likely be able to lure potential victims. This is due to the fact that the potential offender will know that the entire community is aware of their presence and their history (Freeman-Longo, 1996). In other words, the two main goals of community notification statutes are (1) to increase public safety by providing increased awareness of the presence of sexual offenders, and (2) to prevent recidivism by released sexual offenders on future potential victims. If a potential victim knows that a convicted sexual offender is living near them, it is assumed that they can take necessary steps to prevent the victimization of themselves and those around them (Petrosino, 1999). The dissemination of information regarding sexual offenders living among communities allows citizens to make more informed decisions, thus enhancing their safety (Levenson et al., 2005).
What Led To Community Notification and Registration Laws?
In order to explain how community notification laws came to be, it is important to review some very important pieces of legislation. The first community notification law was passed in Washington State in 1990. The Community Protection Act allowed law enforcement agencies to provide information about sex offenders to citizens, under certain circumstances. At this time, states varied in the amount of information they provided, what procedures to follow before notification of a sexual offender’s release in to a community, the category of sex offender for which the information would be released, and to whom the information would be released (Berliner, 1996).
In 1994, after the 1989 abduction, sexual assault, and murder of an eleven year old boy, the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act was passed. The passage of this act led to a sexual offender registration and notification movement across the United States (Beck et al., 2004). The Wetterling Act required that each state implement registries of sexually violent offenders, or crimes against children, but allowed for discretion of how community notifications would be disseminated through out each state’s communities (Beck et al, 2004; Welchans, 2005). States were required to embrace and stick to certain minimum standards (Tewksbury, 2005). Under the Wetterling Act, each state was required to track an offender’s residences, annually, for a minimum of ten years (Welchans, 2005). Each state was given until September of 1997 (approximately three years) to comply with the law or the consequence would be a 10% reduction of that state’s federal anti-crime funding (Beck et al, 2004). Offenders who were known to be repeat offenders or those who committed extremely heinous sexual offenses were made to be lifetime registers (Office of the Attorney General, 1999 as cited by Welchans, 2005).
Also in 1994, a seven year old girl named Megan Kanka was raped and strangled to death by a neighbor. That neighbor had already been convicted of a sexual offense on two previous occasions (Caputo et al, 2004). Megan Kanka’s parents were unaware that their neighbor was a twice-convicted sexual offender (Petrosino, 1999). Maureen Kanka, Megan’s mother, led the movement to enact a sex offender registration law accompanied by community notification attributes (Petrosino, 1999). The legislation passed in New Jersey – Megan’s home state – by Governor Whitman and went in to effect in late 1994 (Petrosino, 1999). The death of Megan Kanka in 1994, along with public outrage regarding the perpetuation of sex offender anonymity, led to the amendment of the Wetterling Act in 1996 (Levenson et al, 2005; Caputo et al, 2004). The amendment, known as Megan’s Law, changed the language of the Wetterling act from “local law enforcement ‘may’ disclose relevant information as needed to protect the public, to local law enforcement ‘shall’ release relevant information that is necessary to protect the public” (Koenig, 1998 as cited by Beck et al, 2004). Under Megan’s Law, states now had an obligation to construct and implement community notification statutes in an effort to inform citizens about convicted sex offenders living in their communities (Levenson et al., 2005).
Finally, in 2003, immediately following some notable legal battles (which will be discussed in further detail), the Wetterling Act was again modified. The new amendment is called the Prosecutorial Remedies & Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act, or simply, the PROTECT Act. This new amendment mandates that all 50 states develop and maintain Internet web sites displaying sexual offender registry information for the purpose of citizen awareness (Levenson, 2005).
Legal Claims and Criticisms
Levenson and Cotter (2005) suggest that legal statutes held up by the United States Supreme Court indicate that community notification laws and sexual offender registries are practices that are here to stay. There have been several legal battles, brought upon by convicted, and released sexual offenders, aimed at ending, or getting around, such practices. There are also countless criticisms of community notification statutes and sexual offender registration.
In 2003, two main legal battles were heard and decided upon by the United States Supreme Court. In the first, Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, the defendants argued that Megan’s Law was unconstitutional because it violated the right to due process guaranteed by the 14th amendment (Welchans, 2005). A statute in Connecticut allowing sex offenders to be identified on an Internet registry was challenged (Levenson et al, 2005). The defendants in Connecticut v. Doe maintained that a hearing should be held to determine whether or not the sex offender is “currently dangerous” before posting their registry information on the Internet (Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, 2003). The Supreme Court justices, however, held that a trial and conviction was enough, and therefore, gave due process, thus Connecticut’s statute did not violate the 14th Amendment (Welchans, 2005; Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, 2003).
In a second case, Smith v. Doe, two convicted sexual offenders challenged Alaska’s version of Megan’s Law. The defendants argued that the law retroactively imposes punishment on convicted sexual offenders who were sentenced before the law was passed and took affect. (Smith v. Doe, 2003). The two argued that because they had fulfilled all of their requirements for being sexual offenders before the passage of Alaska’s Megan’s Law, mandating their participation in public sexual offender registration, violated their constitutional right against ex post facto punishment (Petrosino, 1999; Welchans, 2005; Smith v. Doe, 2003). A majority of the United States Supreme Court decided against the defendants and, according to Welchans (2005) found that “Megan’s Law is regulatory, not punitive; therefore, the defendants could be mandated to register.”
In addition to the legal claims that have been made against, and defeated by community notification and registration legislation, many criticisms of the practice exist. First, some critics believe that community notification is a response to sexual violence that is driven by emotions and that in turn, it may provide a false sense of security to communities (Levenson et al, 2005; Freeman-Longo, 1996; Malesky et al, 2001). Also, just because a person is known through out one community to be a sexual offender does not mean that his/her urges will hot be displaced on another community which is unaware of the person’s past (Freeman-Longo, 1996). Levenson and Cotter (2005) suggest that because it is known that many sexual offenses are committed by family members, community notification and pubic registry laws may avert reporting by victims of family members. Additionally, notification may lead to the unintended identification of victims (Levenson et al, 2005), vigilantism toward known offenders by fearful citizens (Freeman-Longo, 1996; Malesky et al, 2001; Levenson et al, 2005; Miller, 1998 as cited by Trivits et al, 2002), and increased public fear within communities (Freeman-Longo, 1996; Beck et al, 2004).
Mental health professionals have their own take on sexual offender notification and registration policies. They believe that sexual offender registries and community notification laws lead to increased stress on offenders which, in turn, increases the likelihood that an offender will recidivate (Tewksbury, 2005; Malesky et al, 2001). Malesky and Kiem (2001) studied the opinions of mental health professionals and found that most believe that the fear of being placed on a sexual offender registry will not deter instances of offending, rather they believe that fear will decrease sexual offenders’ desire to be honest about past crimes, thus hindering the entire treatment process.
In 2005, Tewksbury reported what he called the “collateral consequences of sex offender registration.” The most common consequences that released convicted sex offenders made to publicly register face, according to prior research, include loss of employment, losing or being denied a place of residence, impolite treatment while in public, loss of friends, and being harassed due to public registration (Tewksbury, 2005; Miller, 1998 as cited by Trivits et al, 2002). Another common condemnation of sexual offender registries and community notification statutes is that the current notification laws assume that sexual offenders are a homogeneous group and that all types of sexual offenders (adult, child, child pornographers, exhibitionists, etc.) will recidivate at the same rates (Sample et al, 2006). Finally, community notification statutes have been compared to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter. Scholars have contended that making registries public allow for communal humiliation of the released, and supposedly treated, sexual offender (Johnson et al, 1999).
Why Study Sex Offender Registry Web Sites?
Despite the various legal battles and countless criticisms of sexual offender notification and registry statutes, each of the 50 states has enacted legislation mandating that information regarding released sexual offenders is made public. In fact, registration laws were expanded to include those people convicted of violent sexual acts against both children and adults, and nonviolent sexual acts against children, including possessing, viewing, or manufacturing of child pornography, juvenile solicitation, and enticement of a child over the Internet (Sample et al, 2006). Today, such statutes exist in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia (Zevitz et al, 2000 as cited by Beck et al, 2004).
Due to concerns regarding dodging methods by sexual offenders or potential sexual offenders in families, along with the stigma that encases sexual abuse, a community-wide approach seems to be the answer (Miller et al, 1988 as cited by Cox, 1998). Research suggests that there is evidence that programs that proactively promote education of child sexual abuse and child abduction can in fact, improve knowledge and enhance prevention skills (MacMillan et al, 1994 as cited by Cox, 1997; Beck et al, 2006). The strides in legislation toward community notification and public registry imply a shift in the penal process from one that sought to normalize sexual offenders to community norms, to one that aims to manage sex offenders in different categories and sub-categories (Simon, 1998).
Sex offenders are seen as today’s monsters (Simon, 1998). Unpromising rates of recidivism, by sexual violators of both adults and children; compounded by the high number of children being sexually victimized, along with media coverage of especially egregious re-offenders encouraged the use of community notification and registration statutes (Welchans, 2005).
Methodology
There are several notification methods commonly used by communities to publicly notify residents of a convicted, and released sexual offender’s presence. Some of these include media releases, door-to-door flyers, community meetings, phone calls, and most recently, Internet web sites. The purpose of this study is to examine the content of the sex offender registry web sites of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Currently, there are various studies that look in to the effect of the sexual offender registration and public notification statutes on communities, and also on the offender. There are even studies that compare methods for dissemination of public notification and registry information between counties in one state, or between two states. However, no research exists to date that examines the contents of each state’s sex offender registry web site.
Objectives
1. Review existing literature on sex offender registries and community notification statutes.
2. Describe the contents of the sex offender registry web sites of all 50 states.
3. Identify the similarities and differences in the contents of the sex offender registries of all 50 states.
Results
For the purpose of this study, the District of Columbia should be included wherever reference is made to all U.S. states. All of the states in the United States, including the District of Columbia, have a sex offender registry web site made accessible to citizens. The department that is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of such sites varies from state to state. In general, those departments fall in to seven different categories.
In just over one third (33.33%) of all U.S. states, sex offender registry web sites are maintained by state police. In almost 22%, such web sites are kept up by the state’s Department of Public Safety. The Department of Corrections controls and maintains sex offender registry web sites in close to 6% of U.S. states, while the Office of the Attorney General is responsible for almost 10% of such web sites. Various states utilize some type of investigative bureau (13.73%) in order to ensure the upkeep of their sex offender registry website. Only two states (Rhode Island and South Carolina) have a specific Sex Offender Registry Unit that is held responsible for web site update and maintenance, and almost 12% of the states utilize some “other” department. In two states (Arkansas and Vermont) the Criminal Information Center is used. Others include the Division of Criminal Justice Services (New York), the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (Minnesota), the State Bureau of Identification (Delaware), and finally, the State Department of Justice (Montana).
The majority of the state sex offender registry (SOR) web sites (80.39%) have placed links to the various laws and statutes – state and federal – that mandate that such web sites exist. In fact, only two states (Illinois and Kansas) do not mention those laws and statutes at all. The majority of U.S. states’ SOR web sites list two different disclaimers, or warnings, regarding the information available on their web sites. The first disclaimer was found on over 94% of U.S. state’s SOR web sites, stating that the information publicly available should not be used to threaten, intimidate, harass, or injure those listed on the registry, or legal, criminal action would be the result. On over three quarters (78.43%) of all U.S. state’s SOR web sites, a second disclaimer warns citizens that the information is updated regularly, but that because the sex offenders themselves report the information provided, it may not always be accurate.
Searchable Attributes
Research in this study shows that citizens are provided with certain general attributes in order to search SOR web sites for sex offenders in their communities. Those general attributes are highlighted in Figure 1. Approximately 96% of all states offer searches of their databases by the sex offender’s last name, while the first name is sufficient in almost 65% of state’s online registries. In less than 30% of all state’s online registries, residents have the option to search for offenders using their home address. Citizens in over 75% of all U.S. states can search by city and county, and in over 88% of states, databases are searchable by zip code. Only seven states (13.73%) offer an option to search all entries, and over half (56.86%) of the state SOR web sites allow a citizen to search by only the first letter of a sex offender’s last name.
In addition to the general searchable attributes offered by most states, there are also states that offer searches of physical characteristics. For instance, in seven states (13.73%), citizens have the option to search for a registered sex offender by his/her race, and in just over 9% of all U.S. states, a citizen can search the SOR web site by the offender’s gender. Physical characteristics including height, weight, eye color, and hair color can be used to search for registered offenders in four states (7.84%). Additionally, in nine states (17.65%), residents have the option to search SOR databases by the offender’s birth date or age range.
Citizens in eight states (15.69%) can search SOR databases by offender type (i.e. sex offender, sex predator, non-compliant offender) or by level, or tier, of the committed offense (i.e. level/tier 1, 2, 3). In both Hawaii and Maryland, residents are given the option to search the state’s SOR website for only those who commit offenses against children.
Information Provided Regarding Registered Sexual Offenders
In over half of all U.S. states (56.86%), sex offenses are categorized, classified, or placed on levels or tiers of seriousness. Even though those who commit lower levels of offenses are considered to carry less potential for risk, 58.82% of all U.S. states still require them to register, and still provide residents with pertinent information about them. In five states (9.80%), information is provided for only those offenders who have been classified as either “high-risk” offenders or sexual predators. In over half (64.71%) of all U.S. states, juveniles are required to register and have their information posted on the SOR web site. Many of those states require that juveniles meet certain conditions in order to have their registry information posted. Some of those conditions include those juveniles who are convicted in an adult court, those who have public registry included in their sentence, as well as those who are both non-compliant and meet varying age requirements.
As with the types of searchable attributes, there are also certain types of offender information that are generally listed on each state’s SOR web sites. Slightly over 94% of all state SOR web sites provide pictures of all registered offenders. Three states (Arkansas, Colorado, and Montana) supply pictures for those who have been convicted of sexual offense, but not for those who are registered because they have committed a violent non-sexual act against a child. Every state provides the name of the offender, and almost 63% provide known aliases of each offender.
Over 92% of U.S. states provide citizens with the full home address of each registered sexual offender. Certain states only offer limited address information. For instance, California only lists the offender’s zip code, Rhode Island only lists the street name, Vermont only lists the offender’s city of residence, and Washington lists the entire address of the offender, but leaves out the last two digits of the offender’s street number. A little under one third (31.37%) of all states also inform residents of each registered offenders work, school, or temporary address, and Nebraska provides the places that each offender frequents throughout the state.
Most states provide certain standard physical characteristics of each of the registered sex offenders. These are shown in Figure 2. Over 92% of all state's SOR web sites list the offender’s gender, and the majority (94.12%) list either the offender’s age or his/her date of birth. Nevada only provides the offender’s birth year. Additionally, the race or ethnicity of each registered offender is listed on the SOR web site of 88.24% of all states. Also commonly provided for residents are the height and weight (86.28%) as well as the hair and eye color (84.31%) of each offender required to register. Surprisingly, only slightly more than 41% of all states provide citizens with any marks, scars, or tattoos that each registered offender may have.
Almost every state (94.12%) provides residents with the sexual offense(s) that each offender has been convicted of, and slightly over half (50.98%) offer descriptions of the actual crime. Twenty-two (43.14%) states provide the age and gender of the offender’s victim, but only five states (9.80%) tell residents whether or not the victim knew his/her perpetrator. Surprisingly, only a little over 37% of all state SOR registries provide the offender’s registration date, and only one-third provide citizens with the most current date that the offender’s information had been verified. Just over three quarters (76.47%) of all state’s online registries do inform citizens if an offender is non-compliant.
Useful Links
Most citizens do not have knowledge of criminal codes or legislative terminology used by criminal justice professionals to define certain crimes; however, only 58.82% of all state SOR web sites provide residents with such a web link (see Figure 3). In fact, only slightly over one-half of all state’s SOR web sites offer a list of “Frequently Asked Questions” and their answers, and surprisingly, only nineteen states (37.26%) provide information for citizens regarding safety tips for themselves and for those around them, including their children. Sixteen states (31.37%) provide some form of information for registered offenders regarding sex offender registration requirements, including forms for address change or temporary address change.
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to gain knowledge on what is provided for residents in the United States on state provided, web-based, public sex offender registries. Research in this study shows that there are commonalities from state to state in what attributes are searchable and in what is provided upon obtaining search results. The majority of all state SOR web sites are searchable by the offender’s last name, and by the resident’s city, zip code, and county. A great number of state SOR registries provide citizens with the offenders name, part of his/her address, age or date of birth, and a picture of the offender. Many states also provide safety tips for parents as well as information for those offenders who must register with the state. There are also some states in the U.S. that have gone beyond minimum notification criterion as mandated by state and federal legislation.
E-mail Notification, Alert Lines, & Information lines
The overabundance of technology that is available in the United States today makes it hard to believe that very few state SOR web sites offer e-mail notification, telephone alert lines, and/or telephone information lines to citizens when a sexual offender moves in to their community. Only six (11.77%) U.S. states provide an e-mail notification service for their residents to notify them that a sex offender has, or will be moving in to their area. One state (Virginia) only provides electronic notification via e-mail to childcare facilities, public and private educational institutions, foster homes, nursing homes and to those citizens who reside in the same zip code as the notified facility. Similarly, there are only two states (3.92%) in the U.S. that provide alert lines for their residents. Such alert lines allow residents to submit their phone numbers so that when a registered sex offender is known to be relocating to their community, they will receive a phone call telling them to check the state’s SOR web site for information regarding the sexual offender that will be moving in. Even more shocking is the fact that only one state (New York) offers a sex offender information line where residents can call and ask questions about sexual offenders and sexual crimes. Since many of the concerns regarding state sex offender registry web sites surround harassment of sexual offender’s and increased citizen fear, it is surprising that more states would not offer some sort of informational line that concerned residents could call to ease their fears and answer their questions.
Absconders & Non-Compliant Sexual Offenders
There are many different sexual crimes and many different classifications used from state to state, throughout the U.S. for categorizing sexual offenders. Not all sexual offenders are known to pose a high, or even moderate risk to citizens once released from prison or treatment facilities. However, there are those offenders who are known to be very dangerous and often repeat offenders. Although many states inform citizens if an offender is non-compliant, not all states allow residents to search strictly for non-compliant or absconding offenders. In fact, less than 16% of all U.S. states allow citizens to perform a search for non-compliant or absconding sexual offenders. Given the seriousness of some sexual crimes and the effects that victims of sexual offenses endure, one may consider that a convicted sexual offender who refuses to comply with registry laws may pose more of a potential risk to the community that they reside in. Therefore, it is surprising that more states do not allow searches of non-compliant or absconding offenders, if for no other reason than to protect their citizens. In addition, citizens may have information regarding those who are non-compliant and therefore may have the potential to assist law enforcement agencies in ensuring that those who fail to register or verify their registry information are found and made to comply with registration laws.
Vehicle Information
Only six (11.77%) of all U.S. states provide citizens with sexual offenders’ vehicle information. This number is surprising given the fact that victims of sexual crimes are often abducted by their perpetrators before any sexual offense is committed. Providing citizens with vehicle characteristics such as license plate number, make, model, and color of a known sexual offender’s vehicle may further prevent sexual crimes and repeat offenses from occurring because people would know which cars in their communities they and their children should avoid.
Utilization of Mapping Tools
There are many mapping tools available for utilization on state SOR web sites that would provide useful information to citizens. If a sex offender’s address (work, school, and home) were plotted on a map in relation to schools, daycares, parks, and libraries, for example, many citizens would be better able to protect themselves and those around them, including children from contact with a sexual offender. However, only one third of state SOR web sites employ mapping instruments for use by citizens. Interactive and satellite maps could prove to be extremely useful to residents who want to protect themselves and those around them from a potentially dangerous offender.
The National Public Sex Offender Registry
The United States Department of Justice, in collaboration with all 50 states and the District of Columbia has recently introduced a nationwide, Internet-based sex offender registry web site. The National Sex Offender Public Registry is somewhat of a one-stop shop for citizens across the U.S. to search for the identity and location of sexual offenders. Participating states provide the information that they keep regarding sexual offenders to the U.S. Department of Justice who then makes that information available through their web site. Using this website, citizens can search for information regarding sexual offenders by providing a name, zip code, county, city, or state. The criterion for searching is limited by what each individual state provides. Some sexual offenders may choose to reside in a state where people would not be aware of the crimes they had previously committed thus bettering their chances for finding new potential victims. The National Public Sex Offender Registry allows citizens to locate a sexual offender, even if that offender is not originally from their state, or if a sex offender who has committed a crime in one state has relocated to a different state.
This one stop shop for registered sex offenders throughout the U.S. could also be very helpful to citizens who do not know how to go about finding information in their own state, or those who are thinking of relocating to a different state. There are some cities within states that are known to have many sexual offenders living in them, and someone who is relocating may not be aware of that. Given the potential for protecting the United States from sexual offenders, it is surprising that only less than one fifth of states in the U.S. provide a link to the National Public Sexual Offender registry.
Recommendations
The current study examined the content of sexual offender registry web sites of all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia and found that there are general attributes that citizens can search for, as well as general listings that are provided for informational use by citizens. There are also those states that go beyond the generalities provided by the majority of U.S. states, as mandated by state and federal legislation. One recommendation that stems from this study is that each state should implement a type of electronic notification, via e-mail for its citizens when a known sexual offender moves within one mile of their home. It would also be helpful if parents could look at a map of a certain school or daycare and see if there are any registered sexual offenders living close to that facility. Next, a separate search for only those sexual offenders who are non-compliant or absconders should be endorsed by each state and by the National Public Sex Offender Registry, especially given that the potential for finding new victims becomes easier for an offender who resides in a community where no one knows of their previous offenses. Even though there are some states that do provide such a listing, that offender may not be residing in that state and thus, a national non-compliant list would be more effective.
The emergence of Internet-based sexual offender registries has been both applauded and criticized; however, the information provided seems to have the potential to protect citizens from victimization. This study shows what general information can be located on state sex offender registry web sites and what types of information are provided that seem to go above and beyond generalities provided, as well as which types tools and information should be added to better inform citizens of the presence of sexual offenders in their neighborhoods.
REFERENCES
¨ Beck, V.S., & Travis III, L.F. (2004). Sex Offender Notification and Fear of Victimization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, Retrieved November 1, 2006, from http://journals.ohiolink.edu:20080/local-cgi/send-pdf/061013091348227968.pdf.
¨ Beck, V.S., & Travis III, L.F. (2006). Sex Offender Notification: An Exploratory Assessment of State Variation in Notification Processes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, Retrieved November 3, 2006, from http://journals.ohiolink.edu:20080/local-cgi/send-pdf/061013092510229001.pdf.
¨ Caputo, A.A., & Brodsky, S.L. (2004). Citizen coping with community notification of released sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 22, 239-252.
¨ Cox, A.D. (1997).Preventing child abuse; A review of community-based projects I: Intervening on processes and outcome of reviews. Child Abuse Review. 6, 243-256.
¨ Cox, A.D. (1998).Preventing child abuse; A review of community-based projects II: Issues arising from reviews and future directions. Child Abuse Review. 7, 30-43.
¨ Federal Bureau of Investigation, (unknown). Investigative programs: Crimes against children. Retrieved October 28, 2006, from State Sex Offender Registry Web Sites Web site: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/states.htm
¨ Freeman - Longo, R.E. (1996).Feel good legislation: Prevention or calamity. Child Abuse & Neglect. 20, 95-101.
¨ Johnson, M., & Babcock, W.A. (1999). Toward a Moral Approach to Megan's Law. Journal of Mass Media Ethics. 14, 133-145.
¨ Levenson, J.L., & Cotter, L.P. (2005). The Effect of Megan's Law on Sex Offender Reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, Retrieved November 3, 2006, from http://journals.ohiolink.edu:20080/local-cgi/send-pdf/061013094833230201.pdf.
¨ Malesky, A., & Keim, J. (2001). Mental health professionals’ perspectives on sex offender registry web sites. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. 13, 53-63.
¨ Petrosino, A.J., & Petrosino, C (1999). The Public safety potential of Megan's Law in Massachusetts: An Assessment from a sample of criminal sexual psychopaths. Crime and Delinquency. 45, 140-158.
¨ Sample, L.L., & Bray, T.M. (2006). Are sex offenders different? An Examination of arrest patterns. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 17, 83-102.
¨ Simon, J. (1998).Managing the monstrous: Sex offenders and the new penology. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 4, 452-467.
¨ Tewksbury, R. (February 2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, Retrieved November 8, 2006, from http://journals.ohiolink.edu:20080/local-cgi/send-pdf/061013113529249081.pdf
¨ Trivits, L.C., & Reppucci, D. (2002). Application of Megan's law to juveniles. American Psychologist. 57, 690-704.
¨ United States Supreme Court (2003). Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe (538 U. S. ____ (2003), October Term: 2002 from U.S. Supreme Court Web site: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-1231.pdf
¨ United States Supreme Court (2003). Smith v. Doe (Cite as: 538 U. S. ____ (2003)). October Term: 2002, from U.S. Supreme Court Web site: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-729.pdf
¨ United States Department of Justice, (2006). Dru Sjodin national sex offender public web site. Retrieved November 15, 2006, Web site: http://www.nsopr.gov/
¨ United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2004). Uniform Crime Reports. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from U.S. Department of Justice Web site: http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeOneYearofData.cfm
¨ United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2005). Criminal Victimization. Retrieved November 10, 2006, from U.S. Department of Justice Web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvictgen.htm
¨ Welchans, S. (2005).Megan's Law: Evaluations of sexual offender registries. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 16, 123-140.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
PRIVATE SECURITY IN EASTERN EUROPE: ROMANIA - A CASE STUDY
PRIVATE SECURITY IN EASTERN EUROPE:
ROMANIA – A CASE STUDY
Keith Haley
Tiffin University
Theodora E. D. Ene
University of Bucharest
Article is copyrighted. All rights pertain.
The article is also a paper presented at the
2007 Annual Meeting of the
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
March 13 – 17, 2007
Seattle, Washington
PRIVATE SECURITY IN EASTERN EUROPE:
ROMANIA – A CASE STUDY
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
A nation needs to be secure, of course, in order to survive. Security for a nation manifests itself in many ways, especially in light of recent terrorist attacks and attempts in the United States and throughout the world. Security scholars and commentators can reel off a list of particular security concerns: physical; personal; information; cyber; border; transportation; school; homeland and all of the manifestations thereof since the 9/11 tragedy in the United States. At first glance, for the uninformed, the thought is likely to be that the protection of all of the human, physical, information, and border security falls upon the heavily burdened public law enforcement and security agencies. The reality is that private security agencies in the United States and in many nations of the world employ more personnel than public law enforcement. In America, for example, more that 1 million employees now work in private security and about 800,000 work in public law enforcement (Bohm and Haley, 2007). Substantial growth is forecast for private security well into the 21st century (Cunningham, 1990).
Private Security in the United States
Haley, Ene, and Collins (2005) studied the 10 largest private security firms in the United States. Table 1 below identifies those companies along with the size of their workforces and revenue.
Table 1. U. S. Private Security Agencies, Headquarters City, and Number of Employees (Haley, Ene, and Collins, Private Security on the Web. A paper presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences).
Securitas
Chicago, IL
200,000
$2,701,300,000
Group 4 Securicor
Gatwick, Sussex, UK
340, 000
$1,351,900,000
Allied Barton Security
King of Prussia, PA
37,000
$1,000,090,000
Guardsmark
Memphis, TN
17, 447
$456,500,000
Day and Zimmerman
Philadelphia, PA
3,298
$1,300,000,000
Initial Security
San Antonio, TX
14,000
$312,500,000
U.S. Security Associates
Roswell, GA
17,000
$311,760,000
Transnational Security Group
St. Louis, MO
14,653
$302,392,000
American Commercial Security
Houston, TX
11,000
$247,500,000
MVM. Inc.
Vienna, VA
4,300
$164,228,227
TOTAL = 10
It almost goes without saying that private security is big business in the United States. Even the smallest of the top ten private security companies, MVM, employs 4,300 workers while the largest company, Group 4 Securicor, employs 340,000 worldwide. The mean number of workers for the top ten U.S. private security corporations is 65,872.
The security business in the U.S. and worldwide would indeed seem profitable with Securitas grossing annual revenue of $2,701,300,000, the most of the top ten U.S. security firms. The least amount of revenue collected by a "top-ten" security company was the $164,228,227 attributed to MVM, also the smallest of the corporations. The mean amount of annual revenue collected by the top-ten U.S. security companies was $814,817,022.
Securitas, the largest company operating in the United States employs 200,000 workers worldwide and has an annual revenue of $2,701,300,000. The smallest of the 10 in this study was MVM Inc., employing 4,300 workers with an annual revenue of $164,228,227. Private security in the United States is big business with a workforce now larger than those who work in public law enforcement.
Private Security in Romania
The size of the Romanian private security industry is also impressive given the relatively short period of time the nation has allowed private security agencies. Romania is now the nation of choice for investment in Southeastern Europe. While not all sectors of the free Romanian economy have grown as fast as the leaders and the citizens of the nation would prefer, it is now named as the nation of choice by investors in Europe (Budapest Business Journal, February 13, 2007). The largest company operating in Romania is Group 4 Falk Valahia with a workforce of 2,500 and annual revenue of $5,723,304. Table 2 below identifies 10 largest private security firms in Romania, along with the size of their workforce and annual revenue.
Table 2 below lists the Romanian private security companies included in the study.
Table 2. Romanian Private Security Agencies, Headquarters City, Number of Employees, and Annual Revenue. (Haley, Ene, and Collins. Private Security on the Web. A paper presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences).
Group 4 Falck Valahia
Bucharest, Romania
2,500
$5,723,304
Cobra Security
Bucharest, Romania
1,500
$3,951,679
Prima Guard Security
Bucharest, Romania
1,200
$1,889,628
Bidepa Security
Bucharest, Romania
750
$2,100,000
Guard One Alarm Systems
Bucharest, Romania
370
Not available
Bartguard Services
Bucharest, Romania
161
$941,454
Roval Group
Bucharest, Romania
100
Not available
International CPI Security
Bucharest, Romania
720
Not available
Bronec Protection
Bucharest, Romania
510
$370,000
Watchman Security
Timisoara, Romania
Not available
Not Available
TOTAL = 10
The size of the top Romanian companies is impressive given the relatively short time they have been in business. While not all sectors of the free Romanian economy have grown as fast as the leaders and people of the nation would have liked after the revolution in 1989, private security seems to have fared well. The smallest company in the study, Bartguard Services, has 161 employees while the largest, Group 4 Falck Valahia, employs 2,500.
The mean number of workers in nine of the top ten Romanian private security companies is 868. Watchman security does not list its number of employees.
Group 4 Falck Valahia collected $5,723,304 as the top revenue generating Romanian private security company. Bronec Protection collected $370,000. The mean amount of revenue collected by the 6 companies that posted that information was $2,496,010.
Given the size of Romania and its only recent ascent into capitalism and a free market economy it is expected that its top security companies gross far less revenue than those in the U.S., some of which have been in existence for more than a century. The prospects look very good, however, for the growth of the private security industry in Romania.
Note that all revenues cited in Tables 1 and 2 are the most recent annual revenue figures available to the public, most being from the year 2003.
The total number of private security companies operating in Romania is 877 as of May 31, 2006. (Bucharest General Police Inspectorate, www.politiaromana.ro ). Of the total number 338(38%) are in Bucharest city and county, the capital of the nation. The better developed a county is economically, of course, the more private security companies it has operating within its jurisdiction. Timisoara, in Timis County, and Constanta City and County are well developed economic centers on opposite sides of the nation and are host to a large number of private security firms.
Romanian private security companies are licensed by the government to offer services based on their ability to demonstrate that they have the assets to successfully fulfill the obligations of those agencies, business, institutions, and people who request them. Of the 877 private security companies in Romania, 791(90.1%) are licensed to transport items of value (to include large some of cash) for private companies and government. The same number and percent offer personal protection services. Consultancy services to private companies, people, and government agencies concerning security and protection matters are offered by 794(90.4%) of the 877 Romanian private security companies.
It should be noted that protection services is a term that is used broadly in Romania. For example, some of the companies in this study offer ambulance, emergency medical care, and other medical services.
The Change in Romania
A number of things make Romania unique among its Southeast European neighbors and in general:
1. Romania is the only non-Catholic Latin nation in the world.
2. Romania is the only Eastern Bloc nation that had a bloody revolution to overthrow communism. They tried and executed their dictator and his wife on Christmas day in 1989.
3. Romania is the only former communist nation that was debt free on the date that communism fell.
4. Romania was the only communist nation during the Cold War that had most favored trade nation status with the United States.
5. Romania was the only Eastern Bloc nation that managed to keep Soviet troops off its soil for most of the period of the Cold War.
6. Romania's people have a very high regard for America with 64% having a fine opinion of the U.S., second only to Albania (Press Review, October 17, 2006, www.pressreview.ro).
One of the most admired Americans in Romania is Microsoft's Bill Gates. He was just awarded Romania's highest national honor, the Star of Romania, at the grand opening of a new Microsoft Technology Center in Bucharest. Gates gets about 75% of his new programmers for Microsoft each year from Romania.
As of January 1, 2007, Romania is one of the 29 nations which comprise the European Union, a move that will allow it to receive millions of dollars in development funds from the EU and to compete in more EU nations' markets on an equitable basis. Investments and business are already booming in Romania, but it still has some work to do in rooting out government corruption and the remaining vestiges of power still held by those who were favored and profited under communism.
The Look in Bucharest: You Can See the Difference
What a difference the demise of a dictator, the inception of democracy and a decade in time can mean in a nation of people that love freedom. As the first author of this paper, I have visited Romania 19 times and every time I return I see progress on so many fronts. The economy is now growing 7% per year, the small utilitarian, B-grade Dacia automobile is slowly vanishing from the streets, and the potholes are filled in Bucharest. In fact, the Romanian government will buy your Dacia so you can purchase a bigger, better, and less polluting car to the tune of 3,000 RON to each of the owners of 16,500 cars (Budapest Business Journal, February 14, 2007).
In July of last year, many times I walked north from the Piata Unirii where there is a shopping mall and the flat where I stayed to Piata Romana a lovely square about 2 miles away. Private security officers and vehicles were very visible, much more so than walking a comparable distance in a large U.S. city. I saw private security officers at the Bank of Romania, the Planet Casino, the Banca Transilvania, Banca Pireus, FinansBank, Sensiblu Pharmacy, Eva Store for Women, Banca Commerciala, Flamingo Computers, Libraria Dalles (a wonderful book store), Zapp Phone Company, McDonald's, KFC, and in the tunnels and on the new trains where Scorseze Security just started watching the rail system and its passengers. It is an understatement to say that private security companies and their staff are virtually everywhere. The Romanian Police are far less visible.
Only optimism can characterize the outlook toward the economy and the concomitant growth of the private security industry in Romania. In an Ernst and Young LLP Survey of 200 companies from mostly West Europe, 58% of the companies said they considered Romania a good place to invest in 2007 and 68% said that it will be a prospective investment location within 3 years. (Budapest Business Journal, February 2, 2007)
METHODOLOGY
The purposes of this study are several:
1. Describe the rapid growth of the private security industry in Romania since the demise of communism in 1989;
2. Describe the major functions that private security companies in Romania perform for government and private enterprise;
3. Discuss the results of three in-depth, structured interviews with the owner-executives of two of Romania's largest private security corporations and the president of that nation's private security professional association.
All of the structured interviews were conducted during the month of June in 2006, in the city of Bucharest, Romania.
RESULTS
Interview with Nicu Stefan (June 26, 2006)
Nicu Stefan is the General Manager of Prima Guard Security Group and the Vice President of the Association of Private Security Companies in Romania (Patronatul Societatilor de Securitate). When we entered his suite of offices in Bucharest it was obvious from surroundings that the company was a very successful competitor in the private security industry. The offices were luxurious and impeccably maintained. We soon came to learn in the interview how hard this professional had worked to reach this position of prominence and the motivation he had to do so.
His background was impressive before he decided to enter the field of private security: graduate of both the Romanian Military Academy and the Romanian Police Academy at the University of Bucharest; 30 years of service in the Romanian military; worked from 1990 to 1997, in the Romanian Presidency Secret Service. In 1997, he was only 44 years old.
Mr. Stefan spent a considerable amount of time explaining why he decided to leave the Romanian Presidency Secret Service and the story represents a look inside of one of the exceptional members of the government services in Romania and the merger of his motivation and courage with burgeoning business opportunity in Romania in the late 1990's.
Two people had considerable influence over his decision to enter the private security business. The first was a Captain in the French Prime Minister's Secret Service that he had worked with and became his friend. Before saying good bye to the French Captain at the airport in Bucharest several years ago, the Captain mentioned to Stefan that he was not paid enough for his talent and all of this work that he did in the Romanian Presidency Secret Service. The thought stuck with him and, in fact, he began to compare the working conditions, salary, and the kind of protection the Romanian Presidency Secret Service in comparison to the French service. He sensed that he was being undervalued given his level and quality of performance in service to Romania.
But more important was his relationship with his 6 year old son. His son would ask him for toys and other items and he would reply that they would need to wait until his government payday on the 25th of each month. His son said that his child friend “always gets what he wants when he wants it.” After hearing that several times, he asked what does the father of his friend do, wondering how he always has money. His son told him that the father did not work but the mother owns two doughnut establishments in Big Berceni, and important marketplace in Bucharest. This caused Mr. Stefan to resign from the Secret Service. His colleagues in the Secret Service were shocked that he would leave the position of prominence that he had achieved in a relatively short period of time. But Stefan was ready to take the risk to make things better for his family.
Mr. Stefan went to work for a private security company. He worked there for about a year and he told us that he learned more in that job working on the streets than he had in both the Police and Military Academies. At the end of a year, he asked the owner of the company to raise his salary as originally promised, but the owner said the finances of the company would not allow that. Hearing that, Stefan resigned again.
Now he was ready to risk the small amount of savings that he had accumulated in order to make a better life for his son and family. In a matter of two weeks, he established Prima Guard Security Company. He became what he said was a “jack of all trades,” hustling to obtain and sign security contracts and supervising his 40 security guards that he furnished and equipped out of his own apartment that doubled as the company’s office.
In less than two years, the company grew to 200 employees. Then he met with his current partner and discussed the possibility of joining private security forces and further advance the development of Prima Guard Security. They did join forces and the company continued to grow.
In 2002, it was Stefan's Prima Guard Security that initiated the formation of the Association of Private Security Companies. Currently 120-130 companies are members of the Association and the companies represent 50,000 private security employees in Romania. Like Mr. Stefan, all of the vice presidents of the Association are executives in Romanian private security companies. The one exception is the President of the Association. Ion Popescu, who was chosen from outside the private security industry in order to maintain impartiality in dealing with all of the Association's members. Mr. Stefan stated that on October 4, 2005, the Association became an associate member of the Confederation for European Security Services (CoESS). Now that Romania is a member state in the European Union and the Association is an active member of the CoEES.
While initially the other larger private security companies did not pay much attention to Prima Guard Services, in time the other companies discovered that Prima Guard Services was indeed a worthy competitor in the private security industry. In time, the company developed into Prima Guard Security Group (a holding company) that consisted of the following companies: Prima Guard International; Prima Guard Security Services; Fire and Private Detective Company.
In time, Prima Guard Security developed partnerships with private security companies in Hungary, Moldova Republic, Greece, Italy, and Israel. Prima Guard Security has partnership contracts with 14 companies and half of those companies have exclusive contracts that allow Prima Guard Security Service to supply security services for a period of two years before the contracts have to be renegotiated.
Mr. Stefan said that one of the Israeli companies he is working with is huge and was responsible for ensuring the security services at the Athens Olympic Games in 2000, by providing security services at the airports. Mr. Stefan emphasized that he is also responsible for the operation of contracts not only in Romania but throughout all of East Europe. Joining forces with larger companies has been a successful strategy that has allowed the company to become more and more profitable over the years. Particularly with the international contracts, Mr. Stefan said that he has become friends with many of those he is working with, no matter what country. He claimed his ability to make friends easily is one reason he is able to establish even strong partnerships and contractual arrangements in other nations.
The authors asked Mr. Stefan if he employs a lot of former police officers in his company. He mentioned that Hungary does this a lot and that it does have some advantages and also identifiable disadvantages. The advantage, of course, is that knowledge and experience the police officers bring to the job, but there are some disadvantages that he did not elaborate on.
In 2005, he met with a former CIA superior officer and an Italian lady for the purpose of setting up an European Institute for Security. One of the things that the Institute was supposed to do was provide a Masters degree in Security Services. The Institute was supposed to work as a shareholding company where each member got a quota of the shares. In this project, the Romanian government was supposed to receive a certain number of shares too. If Romania would have sent 100 private security agents to get their masters degree, their tuition fee would have been covered by the Romanian government. Mr. Stefan came to realize later that the Italian and American were not interested in the program, but only intended to access some funds from the European Union and the Italian government. In short, the project fell through.
We asked him if a newly employed security agent that comes from the police force has any chance of advancing through the hierarchy of Prima Guard Services and becoming a high-ranking manager in the company.
Instead of answering the question directly, he gave us what he called a "real-life" example. He mentioned a woman named Camelia that became employed with the company in 2004. He mentioned that she was shy in the beginning but she proved to be a real asset, becoming one of his most trustworthy employees from the Marketing and Tenders Department. He said that several days ago, he shocked the staff of his company by asking Camelia to become one of the executive directors. He said that she had learned a lot since she joined the company and she has more to learn. He mentioned that she reminds him of what he was like when he was developing Prima Guard Services. Mr. Stefan said that Camelia fights like a lioness for her rights among the other employees and this impresses them.
Mr. Stefan stated that if he has to choose between a police department general that does not perform and a young person that has been trained and educated at Prima Guard Services and does perform, he would rather have the young person.
Since video surveillance technology is so prominent in the field of private security in the United States and in other nations, we asked Stefan what was going on in Romanian private security as it relates to video surveillance technology. He answered that Romanian private security was only in the beginning stages of implementing the video surveillance services.
As closing question, we asked Mr. Stefan what changes need to take place in the private security field in Romania. First, he mentioned that he hoped the 98 amendments the Association sent to the Romanian government concerning the new private security law would be accepted. The overall result of accepting those amendments would be that only the professional private security companies would be able to survive in, the least professional ones would no longer be allowed to stay in business.
One of the government regulations that Mr. Stefan disagreed with had to do with requiring all Romanian private security officers, regardless of the company, to where a uniform with standard and distinctive marks. The Association took this matter to a civilian trial court and the Association won the case thereby blocking the requirement that all private security agents in Romania had to wear essentially the same uniform. He mentioned this as a rare event when a company can win a trial against the government.
Interview with Ion Popescu (June 30, 2006)
Mr. Ion Popescu is President of the Association of Private Security Companies in Romania (Patronatul Societatilor de Securitate). The authors arrived in mid-morning of June 26, 2006, at the office of the Private Security Association. The office suite consisted of a several private offices, a general area for welcoming and common work, and a conference room. Mr. Popescu is a gracious and hospitable man and agreed to give us all of the time that we needed to conduct our interview.
Mr. Popescu began by saying that private security companies started at the beginning of 1990, in Romania. Law number 31\1990 established the grounds for starting and regulating the field of business. There was no such legislation, however, that dealt specifically with private security. The result was that private security companies formed and offered services but there was no regulation concerning what they did or the qualifications of their personnel.
In the early 1990s, Mr. Popescu was promoted to the position of Director at the Public Order Division of Bucharest General Police Department. Almost immediately upon establishing his position as the director, he requested that the original private security companies establish a set of rules to govern themselves. He told the heads of the private security companies at the time that by forming a set of rules for self-governance the private companies and commercial enterprises that would employ their services would look more favorably upon them and it would result in more business. He mentioned that private enterprises, sometimes, would not trust private security companies, thinking that the security personnel would breach their contract and, actually, plunder the same companies that they were hired to protect.
In 1996, Law number 18\1996 established the rules and governing circumstances under which a private security company could operate. Mr. Popescu had been the person who conceived these ideas that ended up in law while he was with his job as the Director of Police in Bucharest.
After his retirement in 2001, Mr. Popescu was contacted by different representatives of private security companies that wanted to establish a professional association. They wanted his assistance in founding and administering such an organization.
The name of the association was the Romanian Association of the Professionals in Guarding and Security Systems. The original membership consisted of 50 private security companies that employed approximately 35,000 private security agents. Currently, there are 102 members in the association that Mr. Popescu heads up. In all of Romania, there are about 900 to 950 private security companies which employ about 60,000 workers. The number of public police officers in Romania is also about 60,000.
In 2003, the Association changed its name to the Association of Private Security Companies in Romania (Patronatul Societatilor de Securitate). Popescu mentioned that this was more than just a name change. The status of the professional body changed and certain advantages began to emerge:
1. The Association was able to take part in the official dialogue with the Romanian government and unions concerning work agreements and contracts;
2. Even more important, the Association was permitted to conceive new regulations in law and could provide amendments to current and new legislation concerning private security. This was indeed a leap forward for the professionalization of private security in Romania. This is a privilege not given to most professional associations.
3. The Association would now act as a single voice for all private security companies that operate in Romania, allowing the industry's requests, issues, and, sometimes, demands to be heard by the national government.
Mr. Popescu noted that it was important to remember that the Romanian police have the main responsibility in supervising the private security industry. That, of course, was the reason a special service was instituted within the national police to oversee private security.
In 2003, the Association became a member of the Council of European Security Services. But Mr. Popescu found out that there was no common legislation concerning private security in Europe. Even though there were some similar services in the private security enterprises in each nation, each country preferred to originate and maintain their own legislation regarding the regulation of the private security field.
Providing an example of the range of private security services that private security companies in Romania offer, he said that some military units in Romania are actually guarded and protected with the support of private security companies. Furthermore, about 80% of cash in the nation of Romania is transported by private security companies. He emphasized that that essentially means that about 80% of the national economy in terms of its wealth is in the hands of private security companies on any given day. The companies have even more responsibility concerning money. They have established currency centers for the counting, sorting, and processing of money before it is transported to its rightful destinations.
On a personal note, Mr. Popescu mentioned that in 2003 his replacement as the Director of Police conceived a new law regarding the operation of private security companies in Romania. He mentioned that his replacement had no experience working in the field of policing with private security and he was trying to make an impression with the government and the private security. The new law 333\2003 was replete with errors and contained too many restraints on the activities of private security companies. The Association submitted a list of over 90 amendments to this new law, but not one of them was considered by the authorities. His point was that his replacement should have been someone who had experience working in and with the private security industry.
Mr. Popescu mentioned that the new law requires that owners and managers that just established a new private security company should undergo a special training program. But there are no training programs designed for the owners and managers, so they have to attend the same training as the future private security personnel who work at the operations level. There have been a couple of examples, he said, where universities have stepped in and provided some training for the owners and managers. One of those programs was provided by Professor Suceava, a former police officer and faculty member at the Police Academy housed in the University of Bucharest.
The authors had mentioned to Mr. Popescu the study they had conducted of the 10 largest private security companies in Romania. That study was presented in a paper at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. He mentioned that seven out of the ten private security companies in our study were members of the Association. One of the companies, BartGuard Services, had to cancel its membership because the fee to join the Association was considered to be too high.
We had asked a question about the kinds of people that head up these private security companies. He mentioned that the owners and investors at the private security companies are former sportsmen, meaning from the field of athletics, and not from the field of police work. He said that the former police and military force members can be found in the positions of Operations Director and Manager in these private security companies, but very seldom are they owners or entrepreneurs of these companies. Popescu mentioned that the thought crossed his mind to start a private security company, but when he seriously considered such an endeavor he concluded that he would not be financially capable of doing this.
Concerning membership in the organization, there are two categories of members. There are association members and affiliate members. Logically, each category of membership has different responsibilities and privileges. The association members have full voting rights and veto rights over matters that the Association proposes. And association membership costs about $860 per year. The affiliate members have many of the same rights as the association members however they do not have veto rights over matters the Association proposes and they cannot be elected to the board of governors of the association. And affiliate membership costs approximately $260 per year. In 2004, the Association developed a professional code of ethics, which new members must subscribe to before joining the Association.
We asked Mr. Popescu about the state of video surveillance technology in private security services in Romania. He said that it was only in the formative stages and is likely to increase.
Before we left the office of the association, Mr. Popescu thanked us for our professional interest in his work and offered his assistance should we need any more information. We told him how grateful we were for this interview and that we would share the results of our study with him.
Interview with Costin Oprea (June 30, 2006)
On the afternoon of June 30, 2006, we interviewed Mr. Costin Oprea, the General Director of BartGuard Services (BGS). Oprea is a tall, well-built private security executive in his 30's. During the Revolution in 1989, he was a teenage boy. He has about one year of experience working as a private security agent at the operations level.
BartGuard Services is a family business and is run by three brothers. One of them is Bogdan Oprea, the President of BGS. Mr. Oprea said that the way his parents raised him and his two brothers at home was a factor in their eventual striking out on their own and becoming security entrepreneurs.
While they worked a short time as private security agents, they soon became dissatisfied with the poor quality of the work done at the company they worked for.
Feeding off of that dissatisfaction, the brothers founded BartGuard Services in 1993, later known as BGS as a result of rebranding. The company has been successful. BGS is the only private security company that offers medical ambulance services. They provide this service in order to answer the urgent medical needs they or their clients may encounter.
According to Oprea, the company has branched out into other areas that are not common among other private security companies. They have established a charity known as BGS Association for Disasters and Calamities. The charity is supported with funds from the private security company and its purpose is to develop various social programs such as training children, students, and professors on how to deal with the circumstances deriving from natural disasters.
We asked Mr. Oprea how developed the practice of police and private security video surveillance was in Romania. He said that BGS is now in the beginning stages of offering this service. Relatively few of his clients at this time were using it. Oprea commented that it would be cheaper if some of his clients used video surveillance rather than employing private security agents on site. The fee for basic video surveillance service offered by BGS is 14-20 Euros per month plus the installation fee. Oprea seemed very interested in expanding the video surveillance business.
It was obvious from the start that BGS was interested in providing the best service possible for their clients in Romania. Oprea had even visited the United States, including Ohio, and worked with American private security companies in various capacities, including patrol work, in order to better understand the private security business.
We asked Oprea about the arming of private security agents in Romania. He stated that firearms were issued only to those private security agents who were assigned to work in banks and in the transporting of high value items and currency. The other private security agents are equipped with batons and pepper spray.
Private security legislation was of interest to Mr. Oprea since it has such an effect on this business. While seeing the value in the legislation to regulate the private security industry, he said that each enactment had some “stupid parts” to it. For example, according to the first law in the early 1990’s, men could not be employed in the private security field unless they had already satisfied their military obligation. But women could work in private security with no previous military experience. He related that out of 700 employees in BGS, only 10 women worked as private security agents.
Mr. Oprea wanted us to understand that BGS is interested in quality private security services, and not offering service just for the sake of making money. To date, Oprea said that none of the BGS contracts had been terminated in regard to not meeting quality standards for service. This level of service comes with a price for the clients and BGS. BGS clients pay more for services than they would from most other private security companies and the BGS private security agents make more than the average market salary for their work. This results in slower growth for the company when compared to some other ones, but the tenure of their clients makes up for that.
DISCUSSION
The differences and similarities in the backgrounds of the three Romanian private security professionals we interviewed alone provides and interesting backdrop for discussion. They came from a military and secret service background; a police officer background; and from a background of only private security operations level experience resulting in owning and managing a successful private security business. All in their own way are leaders in the burgeoning private security industry in Romania.
Already the object of forecasts that make it perhaps the best place in Eastern Europe to invest, Romania may be facing a labor shortage for its more menial jobs. Politicians and business leaders are already talking about bring in workers from the Ukraine, Russia, and Vietnam.
Professionalization of Private Security
It is obvious from the interview responses of all three interviewees that the private security industry in Romania is in the throes of professionalization. It seems that most of the stimuli for that movement are coming from the leaders in private security themselves as they work through the auspices of the Association of Private Security Companies in Romania.
This professionalization movement is not unlike what happened in the U.S. under the leadership of the American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS). We should not forget either that in the late 1980’s in the U.S. there were still only 4 states that had any regulation at all over the private security industry. Romania, in contrast, would seem to be moving faster although
given the multiplicity of political parties and coalitions at the national level, realizing any legislative improvements in the private security industry will require patience.
Growth Potential of the Private Security Industry (video surveillance)
We are confident with the solid and numerous predictions for growth in the Romanian economy that there will be a concomitant increase in the number of private security agencies and personnel. It is virtually impossible to find a pessimistic prediction concerning the Romanian economy for the next several years.
Equally impressive is the character and preparedness of the Romanian workforce. The public education and higher education systems rank high among the other nations of Europe and are at the top of the ladder in Eastern Europe. But one of the serious issues Romania will need to deal with that has already hurt the nation is the loss of about 1 million of its capable young people who have left to work and live in other nations. As mentioned earlier, Bill Gates of Microsoft knows how talented and well educated many in the workforce are and he goes to Romania regularly to recruit IT professionals. The new Microsoft center in Bucharest should stem some of the exodus of talent from the nation.
Given the proliferation of both private and public video surveillance systems in the U.S and in other parts of the developed world, Romania is ripe for implementation of this technology within the private security industry. As was mentioned by our three interviewees, video surveillance technology is just getting started. The technical talent to design and implement these surveillance systems is certainly readily available in this nation that is a leader in producing IT professionals.
One matter in relation to the growth potential of surveillance technology in both the private and public sectors is of interest. Will this nation quietly accept the proliferation of video and audio surveillance to protect its businesses, public, and private property, and the people? Romania is a nation that suffered under one of the most personally intrusive dictators in modern history. Ceausescu established intelligence files on millions of Romanians. These same people and their descendants may resist with vigor the deployment of intrusive video surveillance even when it is to “protect” them and their property.
Women and Private Security
Almost absent in our conversation was the existence and advance of women in the private security industry in Romanian society. BartGuard Services employed only 10 (1.4%) women out of 700 employees. Stefan mentioned his recent promotion of a woman to a managerial position based on her zeal and competence in the business. But is it clear that women do not comprise any sizable portion of the operations or managerial staff of the Romanian private security industry.
We can assume, that like the situation in many other areas of the Romanian economy, women have not strived for private security positions since it was not traditional and the lingering restrictions of the past communist regime have not allowed women to realize their full potential in positions that were once held by virtually all males. We sense that the Romanian government is starting to promote the participation of women in areas that were once reserved for men only, and that membership in the European Union will assist in providing more job opportunities for women in positions once held almost exclusively by men.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Private security is destined to become a booming enterprise in Romania. The Romanian economy is positioned and forecast for substantial growth over the next decade. Membership in the European Union, visible progress in prosecuting corruption, and a leadership pool of leading private security entrepreneurs backed by a strong and influential Association of Private Security Companies are assets that will advance the private security profession.
Misters Popescu, Stefan, and Oprea, while coming out of different backgrounds and experiences, are more than likely typical of the leaders that will inspire the professionalization of the private security industry in Romania. Their pioneer work already has jumped started an industry that was virtually non-existent a decade ago. Make no mistake about it, there is money to be made in the private security business in Romania since so much of what we would consider public protection agency service lies in the private sector in Romania. That is not likely to change. The rapid growth in the number of private security companies in such a short period of time is evidence enough that there is no indication that this growth has peaked.
Caveats and complications do exist, however. Working with a cumbersome national Parliament that seems to be regularly embroiled in political squabbles makes stability in moving forward on needed legislation and the formulations of necessary government rules dealing with private security standards difficult but the three private security leaders in this study have a record of success in improving the private security industry and are not likely to be deterred in the future either.
If what has happened in Mr. Stefan’s private security company is any hint of what is to come, it even looks as if women may soon break out of their traditional roles in business and industry and start acquiring private security operations level and management positions in private security.
While there seems to be a Yugoslav proverb for about every condition in life, there are just as many proverbs in Romania and this one comes to mind: Ziua buna de dimineata se cunoaste. “You can spot a good day from early morning.” The morning is indeed good in Romania only 17 years out from under communist rule and there is every reason to believe that the rest of the day will be prosperous and rewarding for Romania and its people.
REFERENCES
Bohm, R and K. Haley. Introduction to Criminal Justice. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 2007.
Bucharest General Police Inspectorate. www.politiaromana.ro
Budapest Business Journal, February 2, 2007.
Budapest Business Journal, February 13, 2007.
Budapest Business Journal, February 14, 2007.
Cunningham, W., Strauchs, S., & Van Meter, C. (1990). The Hallcrest Report II: Private Security Trends 1970-2000. MacLean, VA: Hallcrest Systems.
Haley, K, T. Ene, and J. Collins. Private Security on the Web: A Content Analysis of Private Security Corporation Websites in the United States and Romania. A Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, March 15-19, 2005, Chicago, Illinois.
Personal Interview with Ion Popescu, June 26, 2006.
Personal Interview with Nicu Stefan, June 26, 2006.
Personal Interview with Costin Oprea, June 30, 2006.
Press Review. www.pressreview.ro
ROMANIA – A CASE STUDY
Keith Haley
Tiffin University
Theodora E. D. Ene
University of Bucharest
Article is copyrighted. All rights pertain.
The article is also a paper presented at the
2007 Annual Meeting of the
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
March 13 – 17, 2007
Seattle, Washington
PRIVATE SECURITY IN EASTERN EUROPE:
ROMANIA – A CASE STUDY
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
A nation needs to be secure, of course, in order to survive. Security for a nation manifests itself in many ways, especially in light of recent terrorist attacks and attempts in the United States and throughout the world. Security scholars and commentators can reel off a list of particular security concerns: physical; personal; information; cyber; border; transportation; school; homeland and all of the manifestations thereof since the 9/11 tragedy in the United States. At first glance, for the uninformed, the thought is likely to be that the protection of all of the human, physical, information, and border security falls upon the heavily burdened public law enforcement and security agencies. The reality is that private security agencies in the United States and in many nations of the world employ more personnel than public law enforcement. In America, for example, more that 1 million employees now work in private security and about 800,000 work in public law enforcement (Bohm and Haley, 2007). Substantial growth is forecast for private security well into the 21st century (Cunningham, 1990).
Private Security in the United States
Haley, Ene, and Collins (2005) studied the 10 largest private security firms in the United States. Table 1 below identifies those companies along with the size of their workforces and revenue.
Table 1. U. S. Private Security Agencies, Headquarters City, and Number of Employees (Haley, Ene, and Collins, Private Security on the Web. A paper presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences).
Securitas
Chicago, IL
200,000
$2,701,300,000
Group 4 Securicor
Gatwick, Sussex, UK
340, 000
$1,351,900,000
Allied Barton Security
King of Prussia, PA
37,000
$1,000,090,000
Guardsmark
Memphis, TN
17, 447
$456,500,000
Day and Zimmerman
Philadelphia, PA
3,298
$1,300,000,000
Initial Security
San Antonio, TX
14,000
$312,500,000
U.S. Security Associates
Roswell, GA
17,000
$311,760,000
Transnational Security Group
St. Louis, MO
14,653
$302,392,000
American Commercial Security
Houston, TX
11,000
$247,500,000
MVM. Inc.
Vienna, VA
4,300
$164,228,227
TOTAL = 10
It almost goes without saying that private security is big business in the United States. Even the smallest of the top ten private security companies, MVM, employs 4,300 workers while the largest company, Group 4 Securicor, employs 340,000 worldwide. The mean number of workers for the top ten U.S. private security corporations is 65,872.
The security business in the U.S. and worldwide would indeed seem profitable with Securitas grossing annual revenue of $2,701,300,000, the most of the top ten U.S. security firms. The least amount of revenue collected by a "top-ten" security company was the $164,228,227 attributed to MVM, also the smallest of the corporations. The mean amount of annual revenue collected by the top-ten U.S. security companies was $814,817,022.
Securitas, the largest company operating in the United States employs 200,000 workers worldwide and has an annual revenue of $2,701,300,000. The smallest of the 10 in this study was MVM Inc., employing 4,300 workers with an annual revenue of $164,228,227. Private security in the United States is big business with a workforce now larger than those who work in public law enforcement.
Private Security in Romania
The size of the Romanian private security industry is also impressive given the relatively short period of time the nation has allowed private security agencies. Romania is now the nation of choice for investment in Southeastern Europe. While not all sectors of the free Romanian economy have grown as fast as the leaders and the citizens of the nation would prefer, it is now named as the nation of choice by investors in Europe (Budapest Business Journal, February 13, 2007). The largest company operating in Romania is Group 4 Falk Valahia with a workforce of 2,500 and annual revenue of $5,723,304. Table 2 below identifies 10 largest private security firms in Romania, along with the size of their workforce and annual revenue.
Table 2 below lists the Romanian private security companies included in the study.
Table 2. Romanian Private Security Agencies, Headquarters City, Number of Employees, and Annual Revenue. (Haley, Ene, and Collins. Private Security on the Web. A paper presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences).
Group 4 Falck Valahia
Bucharest, Romania
2,500
$5,723,304
Cobra Security
Bucharest, Romania
1,500
$3,951,679
Prima Guard Security
Bucharest, Romania
1,200
$1,889,628
Bidepa Security
Bucharest, Romania
750
$2,100,000
Guard One Alarm Systems
Bucharest, Romania
370
Not available
Bartguard Services
Bucharest, Romania
161
$941,454
Roval Group
Bucharest, Romania
100
Not available
International CPI Security
Bucharest, Romania
720
Not available
Bronec Protection
Bucharest, Romania
510
$370,000
Watchman Security
Timisoara, Romania
Not available
Not Available
TOTAL = 10
The size of the top Romanian companies is impressive given the relatively short time they have been in business. While not all sectors of the free Romanian economy have grown as fast as the leaders and people of the nation would have liked after the revolution in 1989, private security seems to have fared well. The smallest company in the study, Bartguard Services, has 161 employees while the largest, Group 4 Falck Valahia, employs 2,500.
The mean number of workers in nine of the top ten Romanian private security companies is 868. Watchman security does not list its number of employees.
Group 4 Falck Valahia collected $5,723,304 as the top revenue generating Romanian private security company. Bronec Protection collected $370,000. The mean amount of revenue collected by the 6 companies that posted that information was $2,496,010.
Given the size of Romania and its only recent ascent into capitalism and a free market economy it is expected that its top security companies gross far less revenue than those in the U.S., some of which have been in existence for more than a century. The prospects look very good, however, for the growth of the private security industry in Romania.
Note that all revenues cited in Tables 1 and 2 are the most recent annual revenue figures available to the public, most being from the year 2003.
The total number of private security companies operating in Romania is 877 as of May 31, 2006. (Bucharest General Police Inspectorate, www.politiaromana.ro ). Of the total number 338(38%) are in Bucharest city and county, the capital of the nation. The better developed a county is economically, of course, the more private security companies it has operating within its jurisdiction. Timisoara, in Timis County, and Constanta City and County are well developed economic centers on opposite sides of the nation and are host to a large number of private security firms.
Romanian private security companies are licensed by the government to offer services based on their ability to demonstrate that they have the assets to successfully fulfill the obligations of those agencies, business, institutions, and people who request them. Of the 877 private security companies in Romania, 791(90.1%) are licensed to transport items of value (to include large some of cash) for private companies and government. The same number and percent offer personal protection services. Consultancy services to private companies, people, and government agencies concerning security and protection matters are offered by 794(90.4%) of the 877 Romanian private security companies.
It should be noted that protection services is a term that is used broadly in Romania. For example, some of the companies in this study offer ambulance, emergency medical care, and other medical services.
The Change in Romania
A number of things make Romania unique among its Southeast European neighbors and in general:
1. Romania is the only non-Catholic Latin nation in the world.
2. Romania is the only Eastern Bloc nation that had a bloody revolution to overthrow communism. They tried and executed their dictator and his wife on Christmas day in 1989.
3. Romania is the only former communist nation that was debt free on the date that communism fell.
4. Romania was the only communist nation during the Cold War that had most favored trade nation status with the United States.
5. Romania was the only Eastern Bloc nation that managed to keep Soviet troops off its soil for most of the period of the Cold War.
6. Romania's people have a very high regard for America with 64% having a fine opinion of the U.S., second only to Albania (Press Review, October 17, 2006, www.pressreview.ro).
One of the most admired Americans in Romania is Microsoft's Bill Gates. He was just awarded Romania's highest national honor, the Star of Romania, at the grand opening of a new Microsoft Technology Center in Bucharest. Gates gets about 75% of his new programmers for Microsoft each year from Romania.
As of January 1, 2007, Romania is one of the 29 nations which comprise the European Union, a move that will allow it to receive millions of dollars in development funds from the EU and to compete in more EU nations' markets on an equitable basis. Investments and business are already booming in Romania, but it still has some work to do in rooting out government corruption and the remaining vestiges of power still held by those who were favored and profited under communism.
The Look in Bucharest: You Can See the Difference
What a difference the demise of a dictator, the inception of democracy and a decade in time can mean in a nation of people that love freedom. As the first author of this paper, I have visited Romania 19 times and every time I return I see progress on so many fronts. The economy is now growing 7% per year, the small utilitarian, B-grade Dacia automobile is slowly vanishing from the streets, and the potholes are filled in Bucharest. In fact, the Romanian government will buy your Dacia so you can purchase a bigger, better, and less polluting car to the tune of 3,000 RON to each of the owners of 16,500 cars (Budapest Business Journal, February 14, 2007).
In July of last year, many times I walked north from the Piata Unirii where there is a shopping mall and the flat where I stayed to Piata Romana a lovely square about 2 miles away. Private security officers and vehicles were very visible, much more so than walking a comparable distance in a large U.S. city. I saw private security officers at the Bank of Romania, the Planet Casino, the Banca Transilvania, Banca Pireus, FinansBank, Sensiblu Pharmacy, Eva Store for Women, Banca Commerciala, Flamingo Computers, Libraria Dalles (a wonderful book store), Zapp Phone Company, McDonald's, KFC, and in the tunnels and on the new trains where Scorseze Security just started watching the rail system and its passengers. It is an understatement to say that private security companies and their staff are virtually everywhere. The Romanian Police are far less visible.
Only optimism can characterize the outlook toward the economy and the concomitant growth of the private security industry in Romania. In an Ernst and Young LLP Survey of 200 companies from mostly West Europe, 58% of the companies said they considered Romania a good place to invest in 2007 and 68% said that it will be a prospective investment location within 3 years. (Budapest Business Journal, February 2, 2007)
METHODOLOGY
The purposes of this study are several:
1. Describe the rapid growth of the private security industry in Romania since the demise of communism in 1989;
2. Describe the major functions that private security companies in Romania perform for government and private enterprise;
3. Discuss the results of three in-depth, structured interviews with the owner-executives of two of Romania's largest private security corporations and the president of that nation's private security professional association.
All of the structured interviews were conducted during the month of June in 2006, in the city of Bucharest, Romania.
RESULTS
Interview with Nicu Stefan (June 26, 2006)
Nicu Stefan is the General Manager of Prima Guard Security Group and the Vice President of the Association of Private Security Companies in Romania (Patronatul Societatilor de Securitate). When we entered his suite of offices in Bucharest it was obvious from surroundings that the company was a very successful competitor in the private security industry. The offices were luxurious and impeccably maintained. We soon came to learn in the interview how hard this professional had worked to reach this position of prominence and the motivation he had to do so.
His background was impressive before he decided to enter the field of private security: graduate of both the Romanian Military Academy and the Romanian Police Academy at the University of Bucharest; 30 years of service in the Romanian military; worked from 1990 to 1997, in the Romanian Presidency Secret Service. In 1997, he was only 44 years old.
Mr. Stefan spent a considerable amount of time explaining why he decided to leave the Romanian Presidency Secret Service and the story represents a look inside of one of the exceptional members of the government services in Romania and the merger of his motivation and courage with burgeoning business opportunity in Romania in the late 1990's.
Two people had considerable influence over his decision to enter the private security business. The first was a Captain in the French Prime Minister's Secret Service that he had worked with and became his friend. Before saying good bye to the French Captain at the airport in Bucharest several years ago, the Captain mentioned to Stefan that he was not paid enough for his talent and all of this work that he did in the Romanian Presidency Secret Service. The thought stuck with him and, in fact, he began to compare the working conditions, salary, and the kind of protection the Romanian Presidency Secret Service in comparison to the French service. He sensed that he was being undervalued given his level and quality of performance in service to Romania.
But more important was his relationship with his 6 year old son. His son would ask him for toys and other items and he would reply that they would need to wait until his government payday on the 25th of each month. His son said that his child friend “always gets what he wants when he wants it.” After hearing that several times, he asked what does the father of his friend do, wondering how he always has money. His son told him that the father did not work but the mother owns two doughnut establishments in Big Berceni, and important marketplace in Bucharest. This caused Mr. Stefan to resign from the Secret Service. His colleagues in the Secret Service were shocked that he would leave the position of prominence that he had achieved in a relatively short period of time. But Stefan was ready to take the risk to make things better for his family.
Mr. Stefan went to work for a private security company. He worked there for about a year and he told us that he learned more in that job working on the streets than he had in both the Police and Military Academies. At the end of a year, he asked the owner of the company to raise his salary as originally promised, but the owner said the finances of the company would not allow that. Hearing that, Stefan resigned again.
Now he was ready to risk the small amount of savings that he had accumulated in order to make a better life for his son and family. In a matter of two weeks, he established Prima Guard Security Company. He became what he said was a “jack of all trades,” hustling to obtain and sign security contracts and supervising his 40 security guards that he furnished and equipped out of his own apartment that doubled as the company’s office.
In less than two years, the company grew to 200 employees. Then he met with his current partner and discussed the possibility of joining private security forces and further advance the development of Prima Guard Security. They did join forces and the company continued to grow.
In 2002, it was Stefan's Prima Guard Security that initiated the formation of the Association of Private Security Companies. Currently 120-130 companies are members of the Association and the companies represent 50,000 private security employees in Romania. Like Mr. Stefan, all of the vice presidents of the Association are executives in Romanian private security companies. The one exception is the President of the Association. Ion Popescu, who was chosen from outside the private security industry in order to maintain impartiality in dealing with all of the Association's members. Mr. Stefan stated that on October 4, 2005, the Association became an associate member of the Confederation for European Security Services (CoESS). Now that Romania is a member state in the European Union and the Association is an active member of the CoEES.
While initially the other larger private security companies did not pay much attention to Prima Guard Services, in time the other companies discovered that Prima Guard Services was indeed a worthy competitor in the private security industry. In time, the company developed into Prima Guard Security Group (a holding company) that consisted of the following companies: Prima Guard International; Prima Guard Security Services; Fire and Private Detective Company.
In time, Prima Guard Security developed partnerships with private security companies in Hungary, Moldova Republic, Greece, Italy, and Israel. Prima Guard Security has partnership contracts with 14 companies and half of those companies have exclusive contracts that allow Prima Guard Security Service to supply security services for a period of two years before the contracts have to be renegotiated.
Mr. Stefan said that one of the Israeli companies he is working with is huge and was responsible for ensuring the security services at the Athens Olympic Games in 2000, by providing security services at the airports. Mr. Stefan emphasized that he is also responsible for the operation of contracts not only in Romania but throughout all of East Europe. Joining forces with larger companies has been a successful strategy that has allowed the company to become more and more profitable over the years. Particularly with the international contracts, Mr. Stefan said that he has become friends with many of those he is working with, no matter what country. He claimed his ability to make friends easily is one reason he is able to establish even strong partnerships and contractual arrangements in other nations.
The authors asked Mr. Stefan if he employs a lot of former police officers in his company. He mentioned that Hungary does this a lot and that it does have some advantages and also identifiable disadvantages. The advantage, of course, is that knowledge and experience the police officers bring to the job, but there are some disadvantages that he did not elaborate on.
In 2005, he met with a former CIA superior officer and an Italian lady for the purpose of setting up an European Institute for Security. One of the things that the Institute was supposed to do was provide a Masters degree in Security Services. The Institute was supposed to work as a shareholding company where each member got a quota of the shares. In this project, the Romanian government was supposed to receive a certain number of shares too. If Romania would have sent 100 private security agents to get their masters degree, their tuition fee would have been covered by the Romanian government. Mr. Stefan came to realize later that the Italian and American were not interested in the program, but only intended to access some funds from the European Union and the Italian government. In short, the project fell through.
We asked him if a newly employed security agent that comes from the police force has any chance of advancing through the hierarchy of Prima Guard Services and becoming a high-ranking manager in the company.
Instead of answering the question directly, he gave us what he called a "real-life" example. He mentioned a woman named Camelia that became employed with the company in 2004. He mentioned that she was shy in the beginning but she proved to be a real asset, becoming one of his most trustworthy employees from the Marketing and Tenders Department. He said that several days ago, he shocked the staff of his company by asking Camelia to become one of the executive directors. He said that she had learned a lot since she joined the company and she has more to learn. He mentioned that she reminds him of what he was like when he was developing Prima Guard Services. Mr. Stefan said that Camelia fights like a lioness for her rights among the other employees and this impresses them.
Mr. Stefan stated that if he has to choose between a police department general that does not perform and a young person that has been trained and educated at Prima Guard Services and does perform, he would rather have the young person.
Since video surveillance technology is so prominent in the field of private security in the United States and in other nations, we asked Stefan what was going on in Romanian private security as it relates to video surveillance technology. He answered that Romanian private security was only in the beginning stages of implementing the video surveillance services.
As closing question, we asked Mr. Stefan what changes need to take place in the private security field in Romania. First, he mentioned that he hoped the 98 amendments the Association sent to the Romanian government concerning the new private security law would be accepted. The overall result of accepting those amendments would be that only the professional private security companies would be able to survive in, the least professional ones would no longer be allowed to stay in business.
One of the government regulations that Mr. Stefan disagreed with had to do with requiring all Romanian private security officers, regardless of the company, to where a uniform with standard and distinctive marks. The Association took this matter to a civilian trial court and the Association won the case thereby blocking the requirement that all private security agents in Romania had to wear essentially the same uniform. He mentioned this as a rare event when a company can win a trial against the government.
Interview with Ion Popescu (June 30, 2006)
Mr. Ion Popescu is President of the Association of Private Security Companies in Romania (Patronatul Societatilor de Securitate). The authors arrived in mid-morning of June 26, 2006, at the office of the Private Security Association. The office suite consisted of a several private offices, a general area for welcoming and common work, and a conference room. Mr. Popescu is a gracious and hospitable man and agreed to give us all of the time that we needed to conduct our interview.
Mr. Popescu began by saying that private security companies started at the beginning of 1990, in Romania. Law number 31\1990 established the grounds for starting and regulating the field of business. There was no such legislation, however, that dealt specifically with private security. The result was that private security companies formed and offered services but there was no regulation concerning what they did or the qualifications of their personnel.
In the early 1990s, Mr. Popescu was promoted to the position of Director at the Public Order Division of Bucharest General Police Department. Almost immediately upon establishing his position as the director, he requested that the original private security companies establish a set of rules to govern themselves. He told the heads of the private security companies at the time that by forming a set of rules for self-governance the private companies and commercial enterprises that would employ their services would look more favorably upon them and it would result in more business. He mentioned that private enterprises, sometimes, would not trust private security companies, thinking that the security personnel would breach their contract and, actually, plunder the same companies that they were hired to protect.
In 1996, Law number 18\1996 established the rules and governing circumstances under which a private security company could operate. Mr. Popescu had been the person who conceived these ideas that ended up in law while he was with his job as the Director of Police in Bucharest.
After his retirement in 2001, Mr. Popescu was contacted by different representatives of private security companies that wanted to establish a professional association. They wanted his assistance in founding and administering such an organization.
The name of the association was the Romanian Association of the Professionals in Guarding and Security Systems. The original membership consisted of 50 private security companies that employed approximately 35,000 private security agents. Currently, there are 102 members in the association that Mr. Popescu heads up. In all of Romania, there are about 900 to 950 private security companies which employ about 60,000 workers. The number of public police officers in Romania is also about 60,000.
In 2003, the Association changed its name to the Association of Private Security Companies in Romania (Patronatul Societatilor de Securitate). Popescu mentioned that this was more than just a name change. The status of the professional body changed and certain advantages began to emerge:
1. The Association was able to take part in the official dialogue with the Romanian government and unions concerning work agreements and contracts;
2. Even more important, the Association was permitted to conceive new regulations in law and could provide amendments to current and new legislation concerning private security. This was indeed a leap forward for the professionalization of private security in Romania. This is a privilege not given to most professional associations.
3. The Association would now act as a single voice for all private security companies that operate in Romania, allowing the industry's requests, issues, and, sometimes, demands to be heard by the national government.
Mr. Popescu noted that it was important to remember that the Romanian police have the main responsibility in supervising the private security industry. That, of course, was the reason a special service was instituted within the national police to oversee private security.
In 2003, the Association became a member of the Council of European Security Services. But Mr. Popescu found out that there was no common legislation concerning private security in Europe. Even though there were some similar services in the private security enterprises in each nation, each country preferred to originate and maintain their own legislation regarding the regulation of the private security field.
Providing an example of the range of private security services that private security companies in Romania offer, he said that some military units in Romania are actually guarded and protected with the support of private security companies. Furthermore, about 80% of cash in the nation of Romania is transported by private security companies. He emphasized that that essentially means that about 80% of the national economy in terms of its wealth is in the hands of private security companies on any given day. The companies have even more responsibility concerning money. They have established currency centers for the counting, sorting, and processing of money before it is transported to its rightful destinations.
On a personal note, Mr. Popescu mentioned that in 2003 his replacement as the Director of Police conceived a new law regarding the operation of private security companies in Romania. He mentioned that his replacement had no experience working in the field of policing with private security and he was trying to make an impression with the government and the private security. The new law 333\2003 was replete with errors and contained too many restraints on the activities of private security companies. The Association submitted a list of over 90 amendments to this new law, but not one of them was considered by the authorities. His point was that his replacement should have been someone who had experience working in and with the private security industry.
Mr. Popescu mentioned that the new law requires that owners and managers that just established a new private security company should undergo a special training program. But there are no training programs designed for the owners and managers, so they have to attend the same training as the future private security personnel who work at the operations level. There have been a couple of examples, he said, where universities have stepped in and provided some training for the owners and managers. One of those programs was provided by Professor Suceava, a former police officer and faculty member at the Police Academy housed in the University of Bucharest.
The authors had mentioned to Mr. Popescu the study they had conducted of the 10 largest private security companies in Romania. That study was presented in a paper at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. He mentioned that seven out of the ten private security companies in our study were members of the Association. One of the companies, BartGuard Services, had to cancel its membership because the fee to join the Association was considered to be too high.
We had asked a question about the kinds of people that head up these private security companies. He mentioned that the owners and investors at the private security companies are former sportsmen, meaning from the field of athletics, and not from the field of police work. He said that the former police and military force members can be found in the positions of Operations Director and Manager in these private security companies, but very seldom are they owners or entrepreneurs of these companies. Popescu mentioned that the thought crossed his mind to start a private security company, but when he seriously considered such an endeavor he concluded that he would not be financially capable of doing this.
Concerning membership in the organization, there are two categories of members. There are association members and affiliate members. Logically, each category of membership has different responsibilities and privileges. The association members have full voting rights and veto rights over matters that the Association proposes. And association membership costs about $860 per year. The affiliate members have many of the same rights as the association members however they do not have veto rights over matters the Association proposes and they cannot be elected to the board of governors of the association. And affiliate membership costs approximately $260 per year. In 2004, the Association developed a professional code of ethics, which new members must subscribe to before joining the Association.
We asked Mr. Popescu about the state of video surveillance technology in private security services in Romania. He said that it was only in the formative stages and is likely to increase.
Before we left the office of the association, Mr. Popescu thanked us for our professional interest in his work and offered his assistance should we need any more information. We told him how grateful we were for this interview and that we would share the results of our study with him.
Interview with Costin Oprea (June 30, 2006)
On the afternoon of June 30, 2006, we interviewed Mr. Costin Oprea, the General Director of BartGuard Services (BGS). Oprea is a tall, well-built private security executive in his 30's. During the Revolution in 1989, he was a teenage boy. He has about one year of experience working as a private security agent at the operations level.
BartGuard Services is a family business and is run by three brothers. One of them is Bogdan Oprea, the President of BGS. Mr. Oprea said that the way his parents raised him and his two brothers at home was a factor in their eventual striking out on their own and becoming security entrepreneurs.
While they worked a short time as private security agents, they soon became dissatisfied with the poor quality of the work done at the company they worked for.
Feeding off of that dissatisfaction, the brothers founded BartGuard Services in 1993, later known as BGS as a result of rebranding. The company has been successful. BGS is the only private security company that offers medical ambulance services. They provide this service in order to answer the urgent medical needs they or their clients may encounter.
According to Oprea, the company has branched out into other areas that are not common among other private security companies. They have established a charity known as BGS Association for Disasters and Calamities. The charity is supported with funds from the private security company and its purpose is to develop various social programs such as training children, students, and professors on how to deal with the circumstances deriving from natural disasters.
We asked Mr. Oprea how developed the practice of police and private security video surveillance was in Romania. He said that BGS is now in the beginning stages of offering this service. Relatively few of his clients at this time were using it. Oprea commented that it would be cheaper if some of his clients used video surveillance rather than employing private security agents on site. The fee for basic video surveillance service offered by BGS is 14-20 Euros per month plus the installation fee. Oprea seemed very interested in expanding the video surveillance business.
It was obvious from the start that BGS was interested in providing the best service possible for their clients in Romania. Oprea had even visited the United States, including Ohio, and worked with American private security companies in various capacities, including patrol work, in order to better understand the private security business.
We asked Oprea about the arming of private security agents in Romania. He stated that firearms were issued only to those private security agents who were assigned to work in banks and in the transporting of high value items and currency. The other private security agents are equipped with batons and pepper spray.
Private security legislation was of interest to Mr. Oprea since it has such an effect on this business. While seeing the value in the legislation to regulate the private security industry, he said that each enactment had some “stupid parts” to it. For example, according to the first law in the early 1990’s, men could not be employed in the private security field unless they had already satisfied their military obligation. But women could work in private security with no previous military experience. He related that out of 700 employees in BGS, only 10 women worked as private security agents.
Mr. Oprea wanted us to understand that BGS is interested in quality private security services, and not offering service just for the sake of making money. To date, Oprea said that none of the BGS contracts had been terminated in regard to not meeting quality standards for service. This level of service comes with a price for the clients and BGS. BGS clients pay more for services than they would from most other private security companies and the BGS private security agents make more than the average market salary for their work. This results in slower growth for the company when compared to some other ones, but the tenure of their clients makes up for that.
DISCUSSION
The differences and similarities in the backgrounds of the three Romanian private security professionals we interviewed alone provides and interesting backdrop for discussion. They came from a military and secret service background; a police officer background; and from a background of only private security operations level experience resulting in owning and managing a successful private security business. All in their own way are leaders in the burgeoning private security industry in Romania.
Already the object of forecasts that make it perhaps the best place in Eastern Europe to invest, Romania may be facing a labor shortage for its more menial jobs. Politicians and business leaders are already talking about bring in workers from the Ukraine, Russia, and Vietnam.
Professionalization of Private Security
It is obvious from the interview responses of all three interviewees that the private security industry in Romania is in the throes of professionalization. It seems that most of the stimuli for that movement are coming from the leaders in private security themselves as they work through the auspices of the Association of Private Security Companies in Romania.
This professionalization movement is not unlike what happened in the U.S. under the leadership of the American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS). We should not forget either that in the late 1980’s in the U.S. there were still only 4 states that had any regulation at all over the private security industry. Romania, in contrast, would seem to be moving faster although
given the multiplicity of political parties and coalitions at the national level, realizing any legislative improvements in the private security industry will require patience.
Growth Potential of the Private Security Industry (video surveillance)
We are confident with the solid and numerous predictions for growth in the Romanian economy that there will be a concomitant increase in the number of private security agencies and personnel. It is virtually impossible to find a pessimistic prediction concerning the Romanian economy for the next several years.
Equally impressive is the character and preparedness of the Romanian workforce. The public education and higher education systems rank high among the other nations of Europe and are at the top of the ladder in Eastern Europe. But one of the serious issues Romania will need to deal with that has already hurt the nation is the loss of about 1 million of its capable young people who have left to work and live in other nations. As mentioned earlier, Bill Gates of Microsoft knows how talented and well educated many in the workforce are and he goes to Romania regularly to recruit IT professionals. The new Microsoft center in Bucharest should stem some of the exodus of talent from the nation.
Given the proliferation of both private and public video surveillance systems in the U.S and in other parts of the developed world, Romania is ripe for implementation of this technology within the private security industry. As was mentioned by our three interviewees, video surveillance technology is just getting started. The technical talent to design and implement these surveillance systems is certainly readily available in this nation that is a leader in producing IT professionals.
One matter in relation to the growth potential of surveillance technology in both the private and public sectors is of interest. Will this nation quietly accept the proliferation of video and audio surveillance to protect its businesses, public, and private property, and the people? Romania is a nation that suffered under one of the most personally intrusive dictators in modern history. Ceausescu established intelligence files on millions of Romanians. These same people and their descendants may resist with vigor the deployment of intrusive video surveillance even when it is to “protect” them and their property.
Women and Private Security
Almost absent in our conversation was the existence and advance of women in the private security industry in Romanian society. BartGuard Services employed only 10 (1.4%) women out of 700 employees. Stefan mentioned his recent promotion of a woman to a managerial position based on her zeal and competence in the business. But is it clear that women do not comprise any sizable portion of the operations or managerial staff of the Romanian private security industry.
We can assume, that like the situation in many other areas of the Romanian economy, women have not strived for private security positions since it was not traditional and the lingering restrictions of the past communist regime have not allowed women to realize their full potential in positions that were once held by virtually all males. We sense that the Romanian government is starting to promote the participation of women in areas that were once reserved for men only, and that membership in the European Union will assist in providing more job opportunities for women in positions once held almost exclusively by men.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Private security is destined to become a booming enterprise in Romania. The Romanian economy is positioned and forecast for substantial growth over the next decade. Membership in the European Union, visible progress in prosecuting corruption, and a leadership pool of leading private security entrepreneurs backed by a strong and influential Association of Private Security Companies are assets that will advance the private security profession.
Misters Popescu, Stefan, and Oprea, while coming out of different backgrounds and experiences, are more than likely typical of the leaders that will inspire the professionalization of the private security industry in Romania. Their pioneer work already has jumped started an industry that was virtually non-existent a decade ago. Make no mistake about it, there is money to be made in the private security business in Romania since so much of what we would consider public protection agency service lies in the private sector in Romania. That is not likely to change. The rapid growth in the number of private security companies in such a short period of time is evidence enough that there is no indication that this growth has peaked.
Caveats and complications do exist, however. Working with a cumbersome national Parliament that seems to be regularly embroiled in political squabbles makes stability in moving forward on needed legislation and the formulations of necessary government rules dealing with private security standards difficult but the three private security leaders in this study have a record of success in improving the private security industry and are not likely to be deterred in the future either.
If what has happened in Mr. Stefan’s private security company is any hint of what is to come, it even looks as if women may soon break out of their traditional roles in business and industry and start acquiring private security operations level and management positions in private security.
While there seems to be a Yugoslav proverb for about every condition in life, there are just as many proverbs in Romania and this one comes to mind: Ziua buna de dimineata se cunoaste. “You can spot a good day from early morning.” The morning is indeed good in Romania only 17 years out from under communist rule and there is every reason to believe that the rest of the day will be prosperous and rewarding for Romania and its people.
REFERENCES
Bohm, R and K. Haley. Introduction to Criminal Justice. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 2007.
Bucharest General Police Inspectorate. www.politiaromana.ro
Budapest Business Journal, February 2, 2007.
Budapest Business Journal, February 13, 2007.
Budapest Business Journal, February 14, 2007.
Cunningham, W., Strauchs, S., & Van Meter, C. (1990). The Hallcrest Report II: Private Security Trends 1970-2000. MacLean, VA: Hallcrest Systems.
Haley, K, T. Ene, and J. Collins. Private Security on the Web: A Content Analysis of Private Security Corporation Websites in the United States and Romania. A Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, March 15-19, 2005, Chicago, Illinois.
Personal Interview with Ion Popescu, June 26, 2006.
Personal Interview with Nicu Stefan, June 26, 2006.
Personal Interview with Costin Oprea, June 30, 2006.
Press Review. www.pressreview.ro
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
