The terms 'wider policy family' and 'extended police family' have become common parlance ever since Home Secretary David Blunkett revealed the key components of the Police Reform Act. What do they really mean, though? As we explain, these are phrases that demand closer attention.
Speaking at this year's SITO National Conference in Birmingham, BSIA chief executive David Dickinson asked exactly what the frequently-used term 'wider police family' actually means. Some weeks before, several professional security managers employed by large corporate players challenged my assumption that everybody within the private security industry wants to become part of this extended family, so it's a term that may require further thought.

The outcome of everybody's work within the currently-titled 'wider police family' is intended to include local community reassurance, improved visibility, crime and disorder prevention and the detection and apprehension of any 'wrong-doers'. Who it is that actually completes each of these tasks depends upon where they play on the field.

Primarily, police officers manage public crises, provide response and detect and arrest (but not exclusively). Neighbourhood Wardens deal with minor instances of anti-social behaviour, but not necessarily crime. For their part, security officers 'guard' premises (and may well be tasked with gathering information), alarm installers set up alarm systems and corporate security managers manage corporate risk.

Time for some recognition
Maybe the time has now come to recognise the fact that, since not all of the duties mentioned are police duties, claiming some of these players as members of the 'wider police family' may be a mistake.

I suspect that this term has gained its currency as most of the activities outlined above have traditionally been viewed as roles for the police service. Thus it has been nothing if not convenient to describe those involved as part of 'The Family'.

Also, at a time of increasing pressure on the police service, it may have been a convenient way for them of seeking to share an unrealistic burden. While that may well be understandable, it's a term that could be taking on a rather exclusive appearance.

Some of those players who can make a contribution to the work of the police service are either not remotely 'police-like' and don't want to become 'police', or they simply do not wish to be 'controlled' by the police.

Indeed, as is the case with my corporate security friends, some of them desire much more mainstream policing and are disinclined – for understandable reasons – to engage in what they believe to be 'DIY policing' simply because the police would like them to do so.

Looking for an alternative
If concern over this matter is justified, is there an alternative solution we could aim for? An approach which might broaden the focus away from the straight-jacket of quasi-policing and language to round on outcomes.

The outcome of everybody’s work within the currently-titled ‘wider police family’ is intended to include local community reassurance, improved visibility, crime and disorder prevention and the detection and apprehension of any ‘wrong-doers’. Who it is tha

In finding a term, the underlying sentiment should perhaps not be: "Do you want to join The Family?", but: "What can you bring to the party?" A much less threatening or prescriptive sentiment and one which does not bring with it preconceived rules and controls.

Therefore, a term is needed which does away with the hierarchy so evident in being part of a family where the police service is seen to be – for better or worse – at the head of the 'family unit'. Of course some people will say that this is just playing with words, but words are important. Moreover, as the understanding of community empowerment becomes better refined, it may well be time to revisit some early shorthand language.

Alongside any change will be a critical need to orchestrate everybody's role by way of avoiding chaos. Just changing the name – and, by implication, dropping the assumption or reality of a 'police lead' – will not work by itself unless the vacuum of leadership created is filled by someone.

All that said, my concern is that the challenge of achieving social well-being may now be so enormous that, while the police are essential players, seeing them as the overall driver outside of their areas of competence may be increasingly less helpful in terms of developing the broader-based engagement.

Neutrality from a third party
In a sense, the lead may need to be taken by a neutral and unbiased third party. Having the capability to identify the strengths and weaknesses in everybody, such a party would be able to balance the possible against the impossible (in particular, I'd argue, for the police) and help construct working relationships which are truly baggage-free.

In addition, such an approach might lead to others – including those in a regulated private security industry – finding it much easier to become engaged.

Do I have any suggestions for a name, or views on the leadership structure for this third party body? That would be telling.