Of Moonlighting Police and Innovation

Recently, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette featured an interesting story around innovations within the Pittsburgh police department. From the article we learn:

“The Pittsburgh Bureau of Police yesterday finalized its new method of handling side jobs for moonlighting officers who provide security at banks, bars, ballparks and other businesses. The bureau will use a computerized system to keep track of all off-duty details and charge employers $3.85 per hour per officer, a policy that went into effect on Monday for the Pirates’ home opener. Previously, if a business wanted to rent off-duty city police, it would contact one of several officers who ran their own security networks. That person would line up officers for the job in return for a cut of the pay.”

This concept makes a great deal of sense as local law enforcement has quickly become the eyes and ears of Homeland Security and even National Security within their communities. In addition, the police already engage in outside enforcement exercises where the costs are not easily tracked and fall outside of the standard 40 hour work week.

We have written about law enforcement innovation many times on this blog and have sought the expertise of Dr. Paul O’Connell to offer his assessment of the utility of this concept. Dr. O’Connell is a leading expert on the Compstat system that helped transform operations of the New York City police force. In an email exchange with Dr. O’Connell he said:

“This is a new application of a Compstat-like system. I haven’t seen it before. It makes sense and was a long time in coming.

Departments have traditionally struggled with this issue, having cops perform “security-related” jobs off duty. In New York State for example, some police officers actually ride around in patrol cars in OTHER jurisdictions as “part-time” police officers. This is very cost-efficient for the secondary employer, but places the original employer at great risk, from a liability standpoint. Departments have attempted to limit this practice, but it is often a bargained-for item in their collective bargaining agreement or, at the very least, a firmly engrained practice. To change this practice, you really need to change the culture.

This is another example of how “just counting, can bring about a positive change.” By seeing who is doing this, when and where, the employers can discern certain patterns that will inform their decisions regarding allowing this practice. It’s also a good way to see who is calling in sick after “racking up the overtime” during their regular days off. This is behavior that certainly needs to be monitored, and it seems reasonable that outside employers seeking to employee these people “as police officers” should be asked to pay a moderate fee for that right. As the article says, it’s used to offset insurance costs, etc. that are being incurred and borne by the original employer/jurisdiction.

There is no new technology or process involved here. It’s simply an example of inventive application of a Compstst-like system.– a good use of imagination and innovation.”

Thoughts or reactions? Please send them to us.