Should my agency have more control over Secondary Employment?
Police officers walking around our communities is something that everyone can relate to.
The very sight of a police officer implies that an area is safely secured, and most will continue walking by without giving it a second thought.
However, despite donning the local police uniform and badge…
Can you be certain that any particular officer is on-duty?
Is it possible that he or she is being employed by one of the local businesses to protect private interests?
Off-duty officers commonly use agency-issued equipment to enforce the law in off-duty positions, making it difficult to determine who is working for who.
A 2017 analysis of off-duty employment in the United States found that 80% of law enforcement agencies allow their officers to work off-duty jobs in some capacity.*
To put that number in perspective, researchers surveyed non-federal law enforcement agencies that collectively employ more than 143,000 full time sworn officers. That is almost a fifth of all state and local officers in the country.
Whether it be working security at a sporting event, or maintaining peace at a bar or nightclub, 43% of those eligible officers chose to work these off-duty jobs to supplement their income, which begs the question:
Who is keeping track of all those details?
It’s no secret that off-duty employment is essential to many law enforcement agencies, but there seems to be considerable disagreement over how much involvement the agency itself should have.
Some agencies view an officer’s off-duty jobs as none of their business. Everything is handled directly between the officer and the third-party vendor, from schedule details to payment collection. Others have an entire department dedicated to scheduling, assigning, and thoroughly tracking every aspect of these jobs from start to finish.
For the agencies that maintain oversight over their off-duty employment process, frequent data analysis has proven effective in identifying and correcting errors/misconduct.
One of the ways that agencies are maintaining accountability and enforcing policies is using software to track and report on details. Tracking software allows them to identify and address issues before they develop into much more serious problems.
Common concerns for agencies that permit off-duty employment include:
Officer Fatigue:
Most agencies have rules in place to limit the number of off-duty jobs and hours that an officer can work within a given time period. While the policies themselves are typically sound, the challenge lies in enforcing these rules. Agencies that operate on a “virtual honor system” run the risk of inaccurate details, which can quickly lead to issues of officer misconduct due to the fatigue of working too many hours.
Unfair Job Distribution:
Agencies with an off-duty details coordinator can attest that complaints about inequitable job distribution are all too common. “Why does John always get the good jobs?” or “How come I never get picked to work off-duty?” are just a couple of the common complaints that coordinators hear.
While some agencies have a priority list based on seniority or rules that dictate who can sign up, others still stick to a pen and paper method that puts some officers at a significant disadvantage depending on when they receive notifications about opportunities. Internal arguments are never good for morale, which makes preventative actions so much more important to enforce.
Payments & Biases:
Cash payments made directly between third-party vendors and officers are standard for many agencies, but it is also one of the more concerning off-duty employment issues. When an officer is paid in cash, there is a lack of documentation to verify the amount of money changing hands. There is also confusion over whom the officer represents. To a certain degree, officers who are paid in cash tend to feel more responsibility and loyalty towards the private interests they are protecting.
This can quickly lead to an unhealthy relationship between the police and third parties, which could be avoided by the agency taking more accountability for collecting payments.
Additionally, this sort of oversight can even benefit the agency by allowing them to obtain service fees, vehicle usage fees, and cover other departmental expenses that are incurred through off-duty work.
Liability Risk:
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, a lack of involvement in the management of off-duty details can put agencies at a significant risk of liability. Time and time again, agencies have been caught up in a news story highlighting one of their officers using improper police methods or unlawful use of force while working an off-duty job.
Even though the officer acted independently, they did so wearing the agency’s uniform, carrying the agency’s gun, wearing the agency’s badge.
Without oversight and accountability, how well can this agency defend itself and not be held liable?
While the amount of available off-duty jobs has fallen considerably since the start of COVID-19, off-duty employment opportunities are sure to remain a part of everyday society.
Agencies looking to improve their off-duty management process can rest assured that there are solutions to these concerns, and oversight is attainable for any agency, big or small.
*Moonlighting: The Private Employment of Off-Duty Officers; by Seth W. Stoughton, University of South Carolina School of Law (2017)
If you would like to learn more about ways that your agency can gain more accountability over its secondary employment process, please schedule a brief web-demonstration with us.
We can show you all the different ways PowerDetails can keep track of your information and enforce your policies automatically.
Are you ready to streamline your Extra-Duty Details?
