경찰과 민간경비 간 협력치안을 위한 치안공백 해소 기대성과의 영향 요인 연구 = Factors Influencing Expected Outcomes in Addressing Policing Gaps through Police–Private Security Collaboration

국문 초록 (Abstract)

현대사회는 범죄 수법의 지능화·다양화, 사이버범죄 확산에 따른 시공 간적 제약의 약화, 범죄 연령의 하향화, 외국인 범죄 증가, 테러 위험의 상존 등 복합적인 치안환경 변화를 경험하고 있다. 이러한 변화는 범죄 발생 양상의 변화에 그치지 않고 시민의 범죄피해 위험 인식과 범죄 두려 움을 증대시키며, 사회 전반에서 안전에 대한 요구와 치안서비스 수요를 지속적으로 확대시키고 있다. 경찰은 범죄예방, 질서유지, 위험방지 등 광범위한 치안서비스를 담당하고 있으나, 인력과 자원의 구조적 한계로 인해 증가하는 치안수요를 단독으로 감당하는 데에는 현실적인 제약이 존재한다.
통계청(2024)에 따르면 경찰관 1인당 담당 인구수는 지속적으로 감소하는 추세이나, 여전히 지역별 치안수요의 불균형과 업무 편차로 인해 특정 영역에서는 경찰의 대응 공백이 발생할 가능성이 꾸준히 제기되고 있다.
이와 같은 치안공백은 인력·자원 한계로 인해 일부 치안 영역에서 예방·대응·관리 기능이 충분히 작동하지 못하는 상태로 이해될 수 있으 며, 결과적으로 시민 안전의 위협, 범죄 두려움의 증대, 범죄피해 가능성의 증가로 이어질 수 있는 사회적 문제로 인식된다.
그 동안 치안공백 해소를 위한 정책적 대응은 경찰 인력 증원을 중심으로 논의되어 왔으나 이는 막대한 국가 재정 부담과 함께 조직 내부의 관리·운영 측면에서 한계를 동반할 수 있다는 점에서 대안적 접근의 필요 성이 제기된다. 이러한 맥락에서 경찰이 수행하던 일부 치안업무를 보완·분담할 수 있는 주체로서 민간경비의 역할이 주목받아 왔으며, 경찰과 민간경비 간 협력치안은 치안공백 해소를 위한 현실적인 정책 대안으로 논의되어 왔다. 그러나 기존의 협력치안 관련 논의는 협력의 필요성이나 제도적 도입의 당위성에 초점을 두는 경향이 강했으며, 협력치안이 어떠한 요인을 통해 성과에 대한 ‘기대’ 형성으로 이어지는지에 대한 실증적 검증은 충분히 이루어지지 못하였다. 특히 협력치안을 제도적 장치나 역할 분담의 문제로 환원하여 설명하는 한계로 인해, 협력치안이 실제 현장에서 어떻게 작동하고 인식되는지에 대한 분석은 제한적이었다.
이에 본 연구는 경찰과 민간경비 간 협력치안을 치안공백 해소의 대안적 정책 수단으로 설정하고, 협력치안이 어떠한 요인과 과정을 통해 ‘치 안공백 해소 기대성과’로 연결되는지를 실증적으로 규명하는 데 목적을 두었다. 이를 위해 본 연구는 Ansell & Gash(2008)의 협력적 거버넌스 모형을 적용하여 실증적으로 분석하였다. 구체적으로 긍정적 초기조건, 제도적 설계, 협업과정 과정, 촉진적 리더십을 협력치안의 핵심 구성요인으로 설정하고, 이들 요인이 치안공백 해소 기대성과에 미치는 영향을 검증하였다.
설문조사는 서울·경기 지역의 경찰과 민간경비원을 대상으로 2025년 11월 2일부터 11월 18일까지 약 17일간 실시되었으며, 총 140부를 배포하여 113부가 회수되었다(회수율 약 77%). 이 중 불성실한 응답을 제외한 109부를 최종분석에 이용했다. 빈도분석으로 조사대상자의 일반적 특성을 파악하고, 요인분석과 신뢰도 분석을 통해 측정도구의 타당성과 신뢰성을 검증하였다. 또한 독립표본 t-검정을 통해 경찰과 민간경비 간 협력치안 관련 인식 차이를 분석하였고, 다중회귀분석을 통해 협력치안 핵심 요인이 치안공백 해소 기대성과에 미치는 영향을 검증하였다. 아울러 가설은집단 간 인식 차이 가설 Ⅰ과 영향 관계 가설 Ⅱ로 구성되며, 영향 관계 가설은 4개로 설정하였다.
분석 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, t-검정 결과 제도적 설계 영역에서 경찰과 민간경비 간 인식 차이가 확인되었다. 이는 협력치안 제도와 관련된 기대와 현실 인식이 조직별로 상이함을 시사하며, 협력치안 정책 설계 시 조직 특성을 고려할 필요성을 제기한다.
둘째, 전체표본을 대상으로 한 다중회귀분석 결과 긍정적 초기조건, 협업과정, 촉진적 리더십은 치안공백 해소 기대성과에 유의미한 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 이는 협력치안의 기대성과가 형식적인 제도 정비 보다는 협업 이전 단계에서 형성되는 신뢰와 참여 동기, 실제 협업과정의 질, 그리고 이를 조정·촉진하는 리더십을 통해 형성 됨을 의미한다. 반면 제도적 설계는 통계적으로 유의미한 영향 요인으로 나타나지 않았는 데, 이는 현재의 제도 설계가 협업과정과 충분히 연결되지 못하고 있음을 시사하는 결과로 해석할 수 있다.
셋째, 조직별 분석에서는 전체표본과 상이한 결과가 도출되었다. 경찰 조직의 경우 회귀모형은 유의미하였으나 개별 독립변수는 통계적으로 유의하지 않았다. 이는 경찰조직이 제도화된 구조 속에서 협력치안을 인식 하고 있어 특정 요인의 영향이 단독으로 나타나지 않고 조직 전반의 인식 속에서 함께 작용한 결과로 판단된다. 반면, 민간경비 조직에서는 협업과 정만이 유의수준 .01에서 매우 유의미한 정(+)의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났는데, 이는 민간경비 조직이 협력치안을 제도나 리더십보다 실제 협업 경험을 중심으로 평가하는 경향이 강하며, 그 결과 협업과정이 기대성 과에 핵심 요인으로 작용하였다는 것을 보여준다.종합하면 본 연구는 협력치안의 치안공백 해소 기대성과가 과정 중심으로 형성된다는 점을 실증적으로 확인하였고, 협력적 거버넌스 이론이 치안 영역에서도 유효한 분석틀임을 검증하였다. 또한 협력치안의 영향이 경찰과 민간경비 조직 간에 상이하게 나타난다는 점을 규명함으로써, 협력치안 정책이 단일한 설계 방식이 아니라 조직 특성을 고려한 차별적 접근이 필요함을 제시하였다. 이러한 점에서 본 연구는 협력치안 관련 후속 연구와 정책 논의를 위한 이론적·실증적 기초 자료를 제공한다는 의의를 가진다

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서 론 ···········································································1
• 제1절 연구의 필요성과 목적 ····················································· 1
• 1. 연구의 필요성 ·········································································· 1
• 2. 연구의 목적 ·············································································· 3
• 제2절 연구의 범위와 방법 ······················································5
• 1. 연구의 범위 ················································································ 5
• 2. 연구의 방법 ················································································ 7
• 제2장 이론적 배경 ·····················································9
• 제1절 용어의 정의 ·········································································9
• 1. 치안공백 해소 기대성과 ·························································· 9
• 2. 협력치안의 개념과 범위 ······················································10
• 제2절 경찰과 민간경비의 관계 ···················································14
• 1. 보조·보충적 관계 ······························································14
• 2. 경쟁적 관계 ············································································16
• 3. 협력적 관계 ······································································17
• 제3절 경찰과 민간경비 조직 간 협업 이론 ·····························19
• 1. 경제환원론적 이론 ··································································19
• 2. 수익자 부담 이론 ····································································20
• 3. 공동화 이론 ··············································································21
• 4. 이익집단 이론 ········································································22
• 5. 치안서비스 공동 생산 이론 ················································22
• 6. 협력적 거버넌스 이론 ··························································24
• 제4절 선행연구의 검토 ·······························································28
• 제3장 연구 방법 ·························································33
• 제1절 연구모형 및 연구가설 ·······················································33
• 1. 연구모형 ··················································································33
• 2. 연구가설 ····················································································36
• 제2절 연구 대상 및 표집 방법 ·················································39
• 1. 연구 대상 ················································································39
• 2. 표집 방법 ··················································································40
• 제3절 변수의 조작적 정의와 측정 방법 ···································41
• 1. 종속 변수 ··················································································41
• 2. 독립 변수 ··················································································43
• 3. 연구 방법 ··················································································52
• 제4장 연구 결과 ·························································54
• 제1절 기술통계 분석 결과 ·························································54
• 1. 경찰공무원 ················································································54
• 2. 민간경비원 ··············································································55
• 제2절 요인분석 및 신뢰도 분석 결과 ·····································57
• 1. 요인분석 결과 ········································································57
• 2. 신뢰도 분석 결과 ····································································59
• 제3절 경찰조직과 민간경비 조직 간 차이 결과 ·····················61
• 1. 경찰조직과 민간경비 조직 간 차이 ··································61
• 2. 가설 검증 결과 ······································································63
• 제4절 상관관계 분석 및 다중회귀 분석 결과 ·······················64
• 1. 상관관계 분석 결과 ······························································64
• 2. 다중회귀 분석 결과 ································································65
• 3. 가설 검증 결과 ······································································72
• 제5장 결론 및 정책적 제언 ·····································78
• 제1절 연구의 요약 ·········································································78
• 제2절 선행연구와의 비교 및 연구 결과의 해석 ···················80
• 제3절 정책적 제언 ·······································································83
• 1. 초기조건의 전략적 강화 ······················································84
• 2. 참여와 과정 기반의 제도적 설계 ······································89
• 3. 협업과정에서의 합의 형성 수준 향상 ······························93
• 4. 촉진적 리더십의 전략적 활용 ············································95
• 제4절 연구의 의의 및 한계 ·······················································97
• 참 고 문 헌 ······························································································99
• [설 문 지] ································································································109
• ABSTRACT ································································································116