[Jamurai]

Fascinating. For one thing I'm amazed that $8,000 gets your neighborhood 60 hours a week of private security patrol for 4 months. Sounds way too economical.

Also, in the article, the CEO of Crowdtilt implies that this is a net-positive because Oakland PD will be able spend more time patrolling other areas--implying that Rockridge will now get less police attention. If that's true, I wouldn't want to pay money for my neighborhood to get less real police patrol.

[bjterry]

It's hard to imagine a scenario where this would result in worse overall law enforcement. They are going to get 60 hours of patrol per week. Police don't really drive around upper middle class neighborhoods at all much less 35% of every hour of the week. I live in a fairly nice area in San Francisco and I go weeks without seeing a police car, and this is a denser area than Rockridge (obviously parking enforcement doesn't count, and if they do count I don't see any reason they would be displaced by security officers since they have to continue doing their jobs there no matter what the crime rate is).

It doesn't really make sense to pay for expensive personnel that are authorized to write tickets, perform searches, and use deadly force to patrol your streets when the main benefit is mostly (a) the possibility of witnessing illegal activity while it's going on, and (b) a visible presence that dissuades potential criminals from their activities. Neither of these requires nearly the level of training or expertise.

I'm not sure what the exchange rate in terms of hours is where I'd rather have the police officer patrolling rather than a security dude, but we can get a handle on the relative cost. Indeed.com says security officers in San Francisco have an average salary of $35,000, and the starting pay for police in San Francisco is $89K-$112K. If you fully burden the security officer with benefits, and fully burden the police officer with their dramatically higher level of benefits and pension, it's not difficult to imagine that the security officer is 5-6x as cost effective. So would you rather have 12 hours of police patrols or 60 hours of security officer patrols?

I suspect there is a tipping point in terms of presence past which a neighborhood gets known by thoughtful criminals as being well-patrolled, which causes a significant decrease in crimes committed there.

[allochthon]

Although it is true that you can probably wring savings out of using private security personnel over unionized police, I personally don't think the higher costs for the police are a problem -- it's hard to live on wages less than what the police in San Francisco are being paid, even in Oakland. A real problem with the legal and law enforcement systems is that they're bureaucratic and unresponsive. I do not mind more money going to them, but I also want to see them enter the Internet age and do things like answer emails.

[michaelt]

Works out at about $7.66 per hour - less than the Californian minimum wage of $8/hour.

And that's assuming there's no overheads to pay for like tax, health insurance, paid leave, pension contribution, social security, unemployment insurance, worker's comp, uniform, car, gun...

So I'd agree with your assessment that $8000 isn't very much.

[anigbrowl]

I don't know why this is being downvoted; it's simple fact. The security firm is either offering this neighborhood a loss leader (which will be temporary) or overstating the amount of service it intends to provide. $8000 for 4 months implies $24k/year, which is considerably lower than the average salary for a security guard (which is not that much to begin with).

Something doesn't add up here.

[dnautics]

presumably, the services that the firm provides don't necessarily have to be everywhere within the area at all times.

[charliepinto]

The net positive is that you obtain more security than you otherwise would with a real police patrol. Apartment and commercial office complexes have been doing this for years. I'm happy crowd-funding enables this for private residence communities too.

[DanBC]

Is the security effective or is it theatre?

What's the research like?

[vellum]

The $8000 is a teaser rate for this pilot program. On the Crowdtilt page[1], it says:

VMA Security Group will only continue the patrol beyond February 2014 if 250 households have entered into contract at $20 per month, renewable and paid at six-month intervals. If we sign up 250 households at $20 per month for the four month trial period ($82.05 per household x 250 households = $20,513), that will put us in position to have service continuing beyond February 2014.

$5000/month (250 x $20) would be the monthly fee after February. 12 hrs x 5 days x 4 weeks = 240 hr/month, so that comes out to $20.80/hr gross salary.

1: https://www.crowdtilt.com/campaigns/security-patrol-for-lowe...

[jjb123]

Sorry, didn't mean for my comments to be misleading. The context was that if the number of robberies and muggings are reduced in that neighborhood from 60 per week to say 50 or cut in half to 30, then fewer police resources are needed for responding to calls for robberies and muggings in that neighborhood and more resources can be spent towards preventative police patrolling throughout Oakland.

I used the comments section of the article to further clarify some of my/our views on this topic if you're interested.