top of page
Writer's pictureSam Wilks

The Role of NGOs in Sustaining Crime for Profit


The impact of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) operating in the Northern Territory has become an increasingly pertinent issue for security professionals. These entities, ostensibly funded by taxpayers to provide promoted essential services to struggling communities, have, in effect, turned into sophisticated cartels profiting from the very societal issues they are supposed to ameliorate. Instead of tackling the root causes of crime and social disorder, many NGOs have allowed, if not indirectly encouraged, the persistence of high crime rates to maintain a profitable demand for their services. For those in the security field, understanding the motivations behind this phenomenon is crucial, as it underscores the obstacles we face on the frontlines of protecting communities and fostering a safer society.


The rise of these taxpayer-funded organisations reveals a troubling contradiction, rather than eliminating social problems, the current system rewards NGOs for the persistence of those issues. In essence, they operate within a framework where the continuation of crime is a business asset. This creates a symbiotic relationship between crime and those meant to combat it. With increasing crime rates come higher funding demands, which these organisations claim is essential for their continued operations. The cycle is as vicious as it is profitable.


For security personnel, this dynamic poses a frustrating and complex landscape. While private-sector security professionals work tirelessly to reduce crime, NGOs benefit from the opposite effect. This dichotomy not only undermines the effectiveness of security efforts but can also erode the morale of those who work tirelessly to ensure public safety. Many security personnel who provide contract work for these NGOs struggle to deal with protecting personnel that actively encourage the destruction of the vulnerable they are paid to protect. The mental health of those working with such obviously morally, if not legally corrupt organisations is often negatively impacted.


The concept of dependency is crucial to understanding how this system perpetuates itself. NGOs, through their funding and operational mandates, create a culture where communities become reliant on external assistance rather than empowered to develop self-sustaining solutions. The emphasis shifts from addressing core issues to maintaining superficial engagement, allowing these organisations to justify their continued existence without ever tackling the underlying causes of crime and social dysfunction.


This dependency fosters a reliance on “solutions” that are neither effective nor sustainable. When security efforts focus on preventative measures and community resilience, NGOs resist these efforts, as they threaten their own revenue streams. For security professionals, navigating this environment demands both an understanding of how dependency serves as a profitable model and the fortitude to push for genuine change in crime prevention strategies with groups active opposed to community safety.


Bureaucratic rules that favour NGOs over other potential solutions further support this dependency system. A labyrinth of rules and requirements often ensures that these organisations remain the go-to for government funding, reinforcing their position in the community without demanding accountability or tangible results. For instance, an NGO receives funding based on the number of individuals it “supports” rather than on meaningful outcomes, such as crime reduction or successful rehabilitation. This rewards bad behaviour and punishes behavioural improvements.


Security professionals observe the effects of this bureaucracy firsthand, especially when incidents and behaviours clearly reflect a lack of tangible progress. It is not uncommon to encounter repeat offenders or communities caught in cycles of crime, where the same NGOs have been “assisting” for years or decades with little positive outcome. For those tasked with protecting communities, the reality becomes clear, these entities, rather than reducing the need for security intervention, often ensure its necessity. This perpetuates the shortage of staff and resources available for critical security situations, leading to overwork, stress, and PTSD. This perpetuates a cycle of inefficiency and burnout for those in the security field.


When crime is viewed as a growth industry, the incentives of NGOs become evident. In the Northern Territory, where socio-economic challenges and high crime rates persist, crime has become a revenue source rather than a problem to be solved. The ripple effects extend to every aspect of society, from the community members who suffer directly to the security personnel charged with protecting them. This model, where human suffering is commodified, raises moral and ethical concerns that are especially poignant for those who dedicate their lives to public safety.


The question of incentives is a fundamental economic principle. When profit is tied to the persistence of a problem, the motivation to solve it dissipates. Instead, organisations shift their focus to maintaining high levels of “need.” Security professionals, particularly those experienced in crime prevention and behavioural analysis, recognise how these incentives create an environment that nurtures crime rather than combats it.


As those on the front lines, security professionals are keenly aware of the ethical implications of such practices. When NGOs present themselves as helpers yet are incentivized to perpetuate social problems, the result is a devaluation of genuine efforts to reduce crime. Security personnel are left to bear the brunt of this contradiction, facing an uphill battle to create safer environments within a system designed to maintain disorder.


The ethical dilemma extends beyond NGOs to government bodies that support this model without question. Funding decisions often ignore the potential of private security solutions or alternative community-based initiatives, instead perpetuating the established order. This is compounded by the fact that those within the security industry often lack the political voice to challenge such powerful, well-established organisations.


For those working in security, recognising the role NGOs play in sustaining crime is critical to developing effective strategies. A profound understanding of the economic and psychological principles at work can better equip security personnel to navigate the complexities of their roles.


Acknowledging the motivations of NGOs allows security teams to anticipate certain behaviours or patterns within the communities they serve. Recognising that high crime rates are deliberately not addressed shifts a security strategy from reactive to proactive, focusing on empowering community members rather than relying on external “assistance.”


Security professionals should advocate for greater accountability and transparency in how taxpayer funds are used within these organisations. By pushing for measurable results over mere participation metrics, the security industry helps drive a shift towards genuine, lasting solutions to crime. ASIAL continuously fights for the industry, seeking recognition of the roles and responsibilities of security professionals.


Understanding the mechanisms of dependency and bureaucracy that sustain this system empowers security professionals to be advocates for change. Security leaders can explain the need for strategies that promote self-reliance and reduce dependency when NGOs or government representatives approach them. This advocacy is not only a professional responsibility but a moral imperative for those committed to public safety.


Some companies have taken steps to address this issue by implementing policies that prioritise self-sufficiency and limit reliance on external resources. However, bureaucratic interventionism thwarts many attempts at this. In the NT, for instance, the originally successful rollout of private security in public housing was lauded for its successes. Then, all but dismantled by bureaucratic interventionism, government-employed public housing officers have faced constant accusations of violence, abuse, and bullying since their creation. There are plenty more examples of this type of ideological change. I've witnessed police disparage the success of security personnel, stating, "If you get rid of the problem, you will get rid of the need for security." There will always be a need for security; problems don't stop; they just geographically move on.


For too long, NGOs in the Northern Territory have operated within a structure that profits from high crime rates. This has turned taxpayer-funded assistance into a lucrative business at the expense of community safety and security. Security professionals are in a unique position to challenge this model, advocating for accountability, transparency, and genuine progress.


However, the police, NGOs, judges, and law societies have refused to collaborate with private security personnel, instead seeking joint ventures and seeking to impose failed police strategies into the private sector.


By examining the economic, psychological, and bureaucratic factors that underpin this system, those in the security industry better understand the motivations behind NGO operations. This insight provides a foundation for more effective, sustainable security strategies that prioritise the well-being of communities over the profitability of external organisations. Ultimately, breaking this cycle requires a concerted effort from all who seek a safer, more self-sufficient Northern Territory.


As we continue to work in this challenging landscape, let us remember that true safety and security cannot be built on a foundation of dependency and profit from suffering. The time has come to re-evaluate the role of NGOs and advocate for a system that rewards tangible, positive change over the mere perpetuation of social ills. Injustice is not supposed to be a "jobs programme" for the morally corrupt, it's important that security is prioritised over personal gain. From the author.


The opinions and statements are those of Sam Wilks and do not necessarily represent whom Sam Consults or contracts to. Sam Wilks is a skilled and experienced Security Consultant with almost 3 decades of expertise in the fields of Real estate, Security, and the hospitality/gaming industry. His knowledge and practical experience have made him a valuable asset to many organizations looking to enhance their security measures and provide a safe and secure environment for their clients and staff.

2 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page