UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS

Improving Law Enforcement in New

Orleans

Changing the Structure Of Law Enforcement in

New Orleans

Donald L. Marshall, Jr. 4/27/2012

Abstract: This is a study of the structure of law enforcement in New Orleans, Louisiana and how to improve cooperation amongst the numerous law enforcement agencies in the city to decrease violent crime and improve the public sentiment about the crime in New Orleans.

Key Terms: Consolidation, Contract Policing, Collaboration, Multi-Joint Task Force, and

Primary Law Enforcement Authority

2

TAbLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1: Introduction Page 3

Section 2: Literature Review Page 15

Section 3: Methodology Page 26

Section 4: Analysis Page 35

Section 5: Conclusions & Recommendations Page 50

Appendix A: Definitions Page 57

Appendix B: Technical Page 59

Appendix C: Telephone Survey #1 Page 66

Appendix D: Interview Questions Page 72

Appendix E: Telephone Survey #2 Page 74

Appendix F: Statistical Data Page 82

Appendix G: Listing of law enforcement Page 85

Agencies in Orleans Parish Affected

Bibliography Page 86

3

SECTION ONE: INTROdUCTION TO STUdY

This is a study of the structure of law enforcement in the City of New Orleans and

Orleans Parish. This study examined the likely effects that either full or partial

consolidation of multiple local primary law enforcement agencies would have on their

efficiency and effectiveness. The New Orleans local primary law enforcement

community is comprised of seventeen local law enforcement agencies with no central

command and each with its own leadership. The main purpose of this study is to

introduce areas of local law enforcement should be further explored in order to

produce an approach for Orleans Parish to establish a more financially efficient method

of providing local primary law enforcement services for the City of New Orleans that

also produces a police force that is more effective in reducing the violent crime rate in

the city at least equal to the national crime rate.

Local Context

The media, based on data from the FBI, has named New Orleans “The murder

capital of the nation”. While the violent crime rate in New Orleans has been on the

decline since 2007, the New Orleans violent crime rate has consistently been above the

national crime rate per 100,000 residents as measured by the FBI (Federal Bureau of

Invesitgations 2012). In 2007 and 2008 the New Orleans violent crime rate was more

than double the national crime rate and in 2010 the violent crime rate in New Orleans

was more than 50% higher than the national crime rate (table 1-1). The long trend of

higher violent crime rates in New Orleans than the national crime rate has created a

statewide, as well as, a nationwide perception that New Orleans is one the most

4

dangerous cities in America which has been widely publicized by the local and national

media. The negative publicity by the media has likely had a negative impact on new

business, tourism, and the economy.

Table 1-1 Violent crime rates as reported by the FBI.

The University of New Orleans has conducted quality of life surveys over the last

several years and in these surveys the residents of New Orleans have consistently stated

that crime is their biggest concern. In 2006 31% of Orleans Parish residents thought that

crime was the most important problem facing the city and in 2012 that percentage has

nearly doubled to 61% of the residents believing that crime is the biggest problem facing

New Orleans (Chervenak and Mihoc 2012). The fact that the percentage of residents in

New Orleans that believe crime is the most important factor facing New Orleans has

consistently risen since Hurricane Katrina is a telling sign that the local primary law

enforcement community in New Orleans must consider new ways of fighting crime.

473.5 471.8 458.6 431.9 403.6

523.02

1564.27

1019.4 776.99

727.72

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Violent Crime Rates (per 100,000 residents)

National Crime Rate New Orleans Crime Rate

5

Table 1-2: Timeline of % of New Orleans Residents who believe crime is biggest

problem facing New Orleans (based on data from the UNO survey research center)

Although New Orleans has multiple local primary law enforcement agencies, the

New Orleans local primary law enforcement community has been unable to effectively

reduce the current violent crime rate enough to at least match the national crime rate.

Additionally, the local law enforcement communities’ current crime fighting methods

and strategies have not been able to alter the trend of New Orleans residents

increasingly viewing crime as the city’s most important issue. . A new unified approach

by the local law enforcement community in the fight against crime is needed to reduce

the New Orleans crime rate at least equal to the national crime rate and reduce the

percentage of residents who believe crime is the most important problem facing the

city.

Law Enforcement in New Orleans

The City of New Orleans currently has seventeen local law enforcement agencies

with primary law enforcement authority operating inside the municipal limits with varying

missions that sometimes produce duplication of services to fulfill their individual missions.

These agencies are controlled by a variety of governmental and non-governmental

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2004 2006 2007 2008 2010 2012

% of New Orleansresidents who believecrime is biggest problem

6

agencies ranging from the New Orleans Police Department’s (NOPD) Superintendent of

Police appointed by the City Mayor, the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office (OPSO) overseen by

the elected Sheriff, numerous state agencies that operate under the authority of various

appointed boards of commissioners, and public and private universities controlled by

police chiefs appointed by the administration of each university; all of which primary law

enforcement authority within their geographical areas. Additionally, each of these

agencies also have their own administrative and support staff, such as dispatchers,

records clerks, and other various positions.

The reason for so many primary local law enforcement agencies with overlapping

geographical boundaries in New Orleans is due in large part to conflicts in the Louisiana State

Constitution, state law, the City of New Orleans home rule charter, and federal court

decisions, as well as parts of those documents not being clear and concise; specifically

regarding Orleans Parish and the City of New Orleans. The state constitution specifically

states in Article 5 Section 27 the Sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer in every parish;

however, it exempts Orleans Parish without specifying who is the chief law enforcement

officer (Legislature, Louisiana State Constitution 1974). The City Charter clearly states that

the Superintendent of the NOPD is the chief law enforcement officer in New Orleans (City of

New Orleans 2009); however, Article 6 Section 5 of the state constitution specifies parish

officials cannot be affected by a home rule charter that is inconsistent with the constitution

(Legislature, Louisiana State Constitution 1974). In 1993 the United States 5th Circuit Court of

Appeals held that the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff was no different than the other sheriffs

in Louisiana except that he was not the tax collector (Charles A. Jackson v. State of Louisiana,

7

Defendant, Charles C. Foti, Jr., indivudually and in his Offical Capacity as Criminal Sheriff of the

Parish of Orleans, et al., Defendants-Appellants. 1993). Additionally, the state legislature over

the years has passed legislation authorizing various governmental entities and universities

the authority to create their own police forces (Legislature, Louisiana Laws 2010) creating

additional ambiguity.

While several other locales across the United States have numerous local primary

law enforcement agencies with overlapping geographical boundaries, many of these areas

have clear and concise statutes that specify which agency is the chief law enforcement

agency for the locale and thus ultimately has command authority. After the terror attacks

in New York, New York on 9/11 several local law enforcement agencies were consolidated

into the New York City Police Department to specifically address the problems that arose

from a lack of a unified command structure. New Orleans had similar problems during the

Hurricane Katrina response with several agencies claiming not to be subordinate to the

NOPD which likely exacerbated and hindered the local response by all local law

enforcement agencies.

Problems of Multiple Agencies

The Orleans Parish 911 communications center receives all incoming 911 phone calls

in New Orleans. The Orleans Parish 911 communications center is operated by an

independent board whose members are appointed by the Mayor of New Orleans or a state

entity. However, the only local primary law enforcement agency with police dispatchers

located in the 911 call center is the NOPD. The absence of the other police dispatchers from

the other local law enforcement agencies with primary law enforcement authority likely

8

creates a disconnect between the NOPD and those agencies. This likely disconnect requires

911 call takers to transfer a caller from the 911 center to the dispatcher for the other local

primary law enforcement agencies. The time lapse that occurs between when the 911 call

taker receives the call for service, obtains the necessary information to determine that the

call should be transferred to another local primary law enforcement agency with

jurisdiction likely creates a lapse of time that would be verifiable if the appropriate tracking

measures were in place.

Additionally, in some cases when the Orleans Parish 911 communications center

receives a 911 call neither the 911 call taker nor the NOPD dispatcher are aware that the

caller is in an area primarily serviced by another local primary law enforcement agency. In

such cases, officers are dispatched until an NOPD patrol supervisor notifies the NOPD

dispatch to inform the other local law enforcement agency of the incident. It is plausible

that correcting these inefficiencies would likely result in reduced response times by local

primary law enforcement agencies, further reduced crime rates in New Orleans, and improve

officer safety for all participating agencies through increased cooperation.

Some administrators in the past have attempted to correct these inefficiencies created by

the conflicts through the execution of memoranda of understanding (MOU). An MOU is a written

agreement, similar to a contract, between two or more governmental entities that defines a

problem, creates a way to potentially correct the problem, and stipulates what each partner in the

MOU will be responsible for. The purpose of the MOU is to accomplish a goal through increased

cooperation. While an MOU does correct many of the problems that arise out of the fragmented

system and the absence of police dispatchers from all local primary law enforcement agencies in

9

the 911 center, an MOU is only temporary. MOU’s must be reaffirmed from time to time and in

some instances the reaffirming authority has changed leadership. In some cases when a change

in leadership occurs the MOU is not reaffirmed or it’s changed. The failure to reaffirm the MOU

can create confusion for the officers and low level supervisors on the street, as well as, the public

when the MOU is changed or ended and not publicized.

At one time a former NOPD superintendent used an MOU and cross certification of the local

university police officers to increase effectiveness. The purpose of the officer cross certification was

to grant authority to university police officers to act outside of the geographical jurisdiction of the

university created by the state legislature. This cross certification enabled university police officers

to patrol the area surrounding the campus where students often reside and frequent local business

establishments. The benefit to the NOPD was the increased presence of law enforcement to aid in

reducing crime; which allowed the NOPD to deploy assets in other areas without reducing the

overall presence in areas surrounding campus. This MOU was not reaffirmed by the incoming

NOPD superintendent nor was it publicized in the local community.

Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of this study was to determine if total or partial consolidation of all

or some of the local law enforcement agencies with primary jurisdiction would likely create a

more efficient or effective approach that would lead to reducing the New Orleans crime rate

either equal to or lower than the national crime rate. An ancillary purpose of the study was to

determine what specific areas of operations in local law enforcement agencies with primary

law enforcement authority would likely benefit from consolidation or other form of increased

cooperation and how. In the end this study outlines a general strategy for the local primary

10

law enforcement community in New Orleans to implement that will likely result in further

reducing the local violent crime rate, higher case closure rates, and fewer residents of New

Orleans who believe that crime is the biggest problem facing New Orleans.

Rationale

The City of New Orleans has a long history of being one of the most violent cities in

the United States, as well as having one of the most corrupt police departments in the

nation, which is evident from the disbanding of the NOPD at least five times in its history

(New Orleans Police Department 2011). The two constant variables in New Orleans law

enforcement during the ten years I have been a member, are the inability of the local primary

law enforcement community to reverse the long term trend of violent crime rates higher

than the national crime rate and the continuation of limited cooperation and collaboration

amongst all of the local primary law enforcement agencies in New Orleans. The ultimate

goal of this study was to provide a roadmap for New Orleans to create a new approach for

the local law enforcement community in New Orleans that would likely result in a violent crime

rate below the national violent crime rate and reduce the percentage of residents who believe

crime is the biggest problem facing New Orleans. An additional benefit of the study is the

opportunity for New Orleans to forge a path for local law enforcement from across the nation that

possess primary law enforcement authority and has overlapping geographical jurisdictions that

will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of local law enforcement. In order to

accomplish this, state constitutional changes and legislation should be considered in order

to create a more permanent collaborative effort that places all of the local primary law

enforcement community stakeholders on equal footing rather than the current temporary

11

MOU method utilized in New Orleans.

Questions to be answered

Can the law enforcement community in New Orleans totally consolidate all of its

resources in an effective and efficient way or would a partial approach to consolidation in

areas identified by this study as essential to a best practices approach, better serve the

people of New Orleans? In order to determine if total consolidation is the best approach

or if a partial approach would likely garner the best results several other questions

should be answered first. Considering the political obstacles that must be overcome in

order for law enforcement consolidation to become a reality in New Orleans, this study

will attempt to determine what factors were essential in communities where

consolidation of governmental services was successful and if those factors could be

utilized to successfully lobby for increased collaboration in law enforcement in New

Orleans. In order to successfully create a best practices approach to local law

enforcement in New Orleans this study will identify who the stakeholders (Kingdon 2003)

are and which stakeholders will have the most effect in championing (Gladwell 2002) the

effort to create the conditions necessary for a successful effort to create a local law

enforcement community in New Orleans that strives to establish, continues to pursue,and

improve the effectiveness and efficiency of local law enforcement in New Orleans.

Scope and limitations

This study was based on the local primary law enforcement community in Orleans

Parish, Louisiana and will have numerous limitations outside of New Orleans because of the

unique jurisdictional boundaries, legal framework, history, and culture of New Orleans as

12

compared to other areas of the nation and even within Louisiana itself. This study focused on

locating areas of local law enforcement agencies with primary law enforcement authority

that would likely benefit from increased cooperation. This study was limited to local primary

law enforcement related services only and excludes any other governmental services

including emergency medical, fire services, and emergency management services. While the

study addresses reducing violent crime rates through more effective and efficient local

primary law enforcement services it did not include corrections, rehabilitative services, or

court services provide by local law enforcement.

This data collected in this study was limited to department type and size. This study

did not collect any data that would indicate the geographical region of the United States that

any department was located in, nor did the study collect any data that would indicate if the

department was located in either a rural or urban area. This study also did not collect any

data relative to the length of time any respondent had been in law enforcement, length of

time as a law enforcement executive, educational background, or law enforcement training

background of any respondents. Therefore, this study is limited to a determining what the

national consensus is among law enforcement leaders as it relates to increased cooperation

among local primary law enforcement agencies as a matter of administration of

governmental services.

Another limitation to this study is that no law enforcement executive from inside of

New Orleans was surveyed or interviewed for this study. While the Orleans Parish Sheriff

and local Police Chiefs were not surveyed it was merely because including them in the

surveys would have removed the randomness from the survey pool. They were also not

13

interviewed. They were specifically not chosen for interviews because of my personal

connection to law enforcement in New Orleans. As a member of the local law enforcement

community in New Orleans including law enforcement leaders from New Orleans may have a

negative impact on the researchers’ ability to perform his duties as a law enforcement

officer in New Orleans. Additionally, law enforcement executives in New Orleans would

likely be apprehensive to grant an open interview given the current climate in the New

Orleans local law enforcement community; with the two largest local primary law

enforcement agencies nearing a consent decree with the United States Department of

Justice.

Outline of the study

Section two explored literature other researchers, law enforcement professionals, public

administrators, legal scholars, and elected officials have discovered in attempts to consolidate

multiple local governmental bodies into a single entity. The literature assisted this study in

eliminating areas of research within the consolidation process that have no bearing on whether a

consolidation will achieve the desired results, while at the same time determining which areas of

research in the consolidation process are essential in determining whether consolidation will

achieve the desired results. Additionally, the literature guided the research in determining if a

collaborative effort within the local primary law enforcement community was more likely to result

in the desired effect as opposed to a consolidation of local primary law enforcement services in

Orleans Parish.

Section three is comprised of the data collected during the three phases of this study, the

methods used to collect the data, and how the data was analyzed. The data was collected through

14

telephone surveys of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs during two of the phases of the study. During one

phase of the study interviews with Sheriffs, Mayors, and Police Chiefs that have participated in

very successful and not so successful consolidation or contract policing efforts of local primary law

enforcement agencies was conducted. This chapter also details what statistical analysis was used

to determine the significance, reliability, validity, and correlations amongst the data.

Section four shows the results of the three phases of research conducted in the study.

The first phase of the study details overall attitudes of local primary law enforcement leaders

regarding a more collaborative effort by local primary law enforcement agencies in the areas

of economies of scale and effectiveness. Phase two of the study aided in establishing which

areas of local primary law enforcement will benefit and have the best opportunity of success

in creating a more collaborative approach to providing local primary law enforcement

services. Phase three of the study details which areas of local primary law enforcement

chosen from phase two has the most likelihood of success, what level of success can be

expected, and why local primary law enforcement leaders’ attitudes towards success of these

areas is stronger than other areas.

Section five lays out a plan to create a more effective and efficient method for

administering local primary law enforcement services in New Orleans in a manner that seems

to be politically feasible. First, the plan indicates what form of increased cooperation would

have the greatest opportunity to be successfully implemented. Next it recommends what

areas should be included in the increased cooperative effort, if not all of the areas. The plan

also details which areas of local primary law enforcement would likely benefit the most from

increased cooperation and how.

15

SECTION TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

History of Government Consolidation

The idea of local governments consolidating for various reasons has existed for

decades in the United States. The two most common reasons for local government

consolidation throughout the world has been the perception that consolidating multiple local

governments will result in a more efficient bureaucracy which then results in improved

efficiency and economies of scale correlating into savings for the consolidated areas (Myers

and Myers 2008). However, in many cases the local populations in the areas that will be

affected by a consolidation fight against consolidation because of two reasons. The main

reason the local populations are against consolidation is fear of losing local autonomy and

control (Benton and Gamble 1984) (Myers and Myers 2008). A secondary reason local

populations stand up against consolidation is fear of subsidizing services for other areas or

fear of increased taxes; dependent upon which geographical area of consolidation the person

resides in (Benton and Gamble 1984).

A fair amount of research has been done in the area of government consolidation,

amalgamation, and contracting for services but does need to be further explored. The

literature focuses on two main areas. First, it focuses on the factors that contribute to a

successful attempt to consolidate and what factors play a role in unsuccessful attempts to

consolidate. Second, the literature discusses whether or not consolidation results in

economies of scale and more efficient uses of resources. Additionally, the literature

explores what short term and long term affects consolidation has on the area economically.

History indicates governmental consolidation usually fails but when it does succeed it has

16

some unique qualities that tend to closely mirror one another. While literature is available

concerning the history of some of the areas that were successfully consolidated; there is

little literature available closely comparing these similar characteristics to determine if one

or more of these characteristics plays a substantial role in successfully consolidating

municipal governments. Between 1968 and present numerous governmental

consolidations at varying levels have occurred. While no literature is easily available

comparing the reasons the citizens of the respective jurisdictions supported consolidation; a

comparison of the history of governments that consolidated indicates increasing the tax

base and duplicative services was involved (Benton and Gamble 1984) (Bucy 1995)

(Department 2010).

The Duval County-City of Jacksonville consolidation that occurred in 1968 included all

county-city services and was due to a reduction of the tax base in Jacksonville and the desire

for residents outside the city limits to receive municipal services (Benton and Gamble 1984).

Benton and Gamble’s 1984 research explores the economies of scale issue for Duval-

Jacksonville through a comparison with the Hillsborough-Tampa area. Their research suggest

consolidation does not result in any long term savings; however, the research fails to

consider the possibility the reason the consolidation referendum passed after six previous

failed attempts was due to widespread public corruption (Jacksonville Historical Society

2011). Because Benton and Gamble’s research did not take into consideration the public

corruption issue it also did not account for the possibility of excessive spending that may

have resulted from the widespread public corruption.

Davidson County and the City of Nashville merged prior to the Duval-Jacksonville

17

consolidation. But unlike the Duval-Jacksonville merger, the Davidson-Nashville merger did

not include merging the Davidson County Sheriff and the Nashville Police Department. While

all other governmental services were merged local law enforcement remained fragmented.

The reasoning behind the consolidation attempts was similar to the reasoning of the Duval-

Jacksonville consolidation but, the consolidation would not include law enforcement services.

However, the Nashville Police Department would take over all primary law enforcement

services for all of Davidson County.

Again the literature reveals that in 1962 after several failed attempts the Davidson-

Nashville consolidation referendum was passed by the voters (Bucy 1995). Before the

consolidation passed Nashville was experiencing economic problems similar to Jacksonville.

Many of the middle class and affluent residents of Nashville moved outside of the city limits

and into the suburbs, this period in the south is commonly referred to as “white flight”. This

period of “White Flight” left the affected cities lacking the necessary tax base to adequately

provide municipal services (Jacksonville Historical Society 2011). Additionally, while the

county tax base increased rapidly from the growth of the suburbs the counties did not have

the infrastructure to supply the municipal services that the new residents of the suburbs were

accustomed too.

Several studies have been conducted to determine if municipal consolidation results

in any short term or long term goals and the value of any economic gains. Benton and

Gamble (Benton and Gamble 1984) studied how city/county consolidation affects economies

of scale. The study indicated that as compared to a similar city-county that did not

consolidate a significant difference does not exist. While the study used numerous data

18

points before and after consolidation to determine how consolidation affected taxing and

spending amounts, the study did not measure differences in level of services or the quality of

services provided by the consolidated government as compared to the comparison area.

Until the data is controlled for the differences in the level and the quality of the services, as

well as, the difference in the increase or decrease of service level and quality it will be

impossible to answer with any degree of certainty whether or not consolidation results in

economies of scale. Additionally, Benton and Gamble did not test the individual areas of

services to determine if economies of scale exist in some departments and not others after

consolidation.

Svara (Svara 1994) details the history of structural reform in the United States, as well

as, breaking down the progression into five distinctive periods. Svara’s (1994) second, third,

and fourth periods explain reasons for reform to consolidation and what the reforms were

attempting to accomplish. Svara, like other researchers fails to include the obvious political

reasons that may have played a large role in the governmental reform periods from post

WWII to present. The lack of testing to control for racial reasons or race related reasons by

Svara leaves out one the most important control factors for that period of time in American

history and even today. Because of the historical significance and the well documented

political and social reactions to the civil rights movement including forced desegregation

control factors should have been included.

Controlling for the racial tensions after WWII and especially after the Brown v Board

of Education (Warren 1954)and the subsequent Baker v Carr (Brennan 1962)is critical

because of the subsequent “White Flight” and increased racial tensions after the decisions.

19

After the United States Supreme Court mandated integration of public schools many of the

middle class families that lived in cities across America began to flee the inner cities and

move to the suburbs which were not incorporated. These middle class families that fled the

city were predominantly white and worked in the cities they had fled. The relocation of

these “White Flight” families resulted in a demographic and population change of the voter

base in the cities which eventually resulted in the voter redistricting. The Baker v Carr

(Brennan 1962) decision was a result of the redrawing of voting district boundaries.

Researchers can control for the possibility these issues significantly contributed to the

eventual success of numerous consolidation efforts through the use of more qualitative data

to determine reasons individuals moved from inside incorporated areas to the

unincorporated areas and what changes occurred between the time periods when

consolidation was defeated to when consolidation was successful. If the qualitative data

indicates the reason the effort to consolidate was successful is something other than

economies of scale than testing for economies of scale will likely not indicate economies of

scale. Likewise, if the qualitative data does not suggest that the reason for consolidation

approval was not effectiveness than the data will likely not indicate a more effective

government. This is not to say that if the reason was efficiency or effectiveness that

consolidation would achieve the goal.

Law Enforcement Cooperation Efforts

While there has been a great deal of research on city-county consolidation and

municipal amalgamation, very little research has been done in the area of law enforcement

consolidation or contracting for services. Nelligan and Bourns’ (Nelligan and Bourns

20

2011)research addressed the affect contract policing had on crime. Most of the research in

the area of law enforcement consolidation and contracting for services has focused on

economies of scale though cost per resident and the level of service through the use of crime

data rather than the overall effect on crime and citizen satisfaction of contract policing. Also

in 2011, Schwester examined the effects of contract policing by comparing data for non-

violent crimes. Research in the area of law enforcement consolidation was not readily

available.

Most contract policing services are provided to municipalities by Sheriff’s departments.

Sheriff’s Departments are typically an independent division of the state and led by one elected

executive who operates independently of other governmental departments. The legal framework

in which a Sheriff’s Office operates obstructs the ability of researchers to obtain accurate financial

data on the cost to the Sheriff’s Office providing police services to contract municipalities.

However, given the inaccessibility of accurate financial data on the actual cost of contract police

services to the contractor both Schwester (2011) and the Nelligan- Bourns (2011) studies used the

populations of the analyzed areas and compared cost per capita and crime rates. The fiscal data

of these studies was consistent with previous research results from Mehay and Gonzales

indicating that for smaller police departments it is financially responsible to contract police

services to a larger agency (Nelligan and Bourns 2011) (Schwester 2011).Although the financial

data indicates that it is financially responsible, it does not establish a relationship that indicates

cities that contract out for police services sacrifice quality for cost (Schwester 2011). Nelligan and

Bourns address the question of quality of service through an examination of case closure rate for

contract cities versus case closure rate for cites that do not contract out police services.

21

The Nelligan and Bourns 2011 study utilizes crime clearance rates to determine the

effectiveness of both contract cities and cities that provide its own police force. The data

analysis suggests that not only do contract cities get their monies worth but they get more

productivity from their officers than cities that do not contract for police services (Nelligan

and Bourns 2011). While cities that provide independent police services for its citizens do

report more arrests than contract cities these same cities also report higher crime rates than

contract cities, which is consistent with the theory contract cities receive at least the same

level of service as independent cities; however, there is a significant difference in case closure

rates for crimes of violence.

Law enforcement leaders often correlate crime clearance rates for crimes of violence

with quick response times, the sooner the first officer is on the scene of a violent crime the

higher the probability the perpetrator will be identified. Contract cities have a crime

clearance rate of 6 to 7 points higher than independent cities which indicates at least three

possibilities (Nelligan and Bourns 2011) (Schwester 2011). The first possibility is that

contract cities response times to reports of criminal activity, specifically crimes of violence, is

lower than independent cities. The second possibility is that contract cities investigators

have fewer cases to investigate and therefore have more time to spend investigating crimes

of violence than independent cities. The third possibility is independent cities do not have

the financial resources to invest in the latest law enforcement technologies that contract

cities benefit from by contracting police services with a larger agency. Any individual or

combination of these explanations for higher case clearance rates supports the data that

contract cities do receive the services at least commensurate with the amount paid to the

22

contractor.

Schwester’s 2011 research is more detailed than the 2011 research of Nelligan and Bourns.

Schwester uses multiple control factors that criminal justice research indicates are good

predictors of expected crime rates. The use of multiple control factors is important to determine if

consolidation, contract policing, or an independent municipal police force is more effective and

efficient; as well as, what the tipping factors are to initiate a change in the method police services

are provided. Schwester 2011 study used the number of foodservice outlets as an alternative for

alcohol outlets. This substitute likely distorted the outcomes of the research to an extent that

makes the alcohol variable unreliable. Schwester used restaurants as a predicator for alcohol

related crimes; however, that likely skewed the alcohol control factor because of the difference in

clientele between individuals who consume alcohol at a restaurant and individuals who consume

alcohol at a nightclub or bar. While research is consistent that alcohol establishments increase

crime rates in areas where they are located, the research does not support a correlation between

a significant increase in property crime rates and the presence of alcohol establishments;

however, a significant increase is observed between an increase in crimes of violence rates and

the presence of alcohol establishments (Jang, Hoover and Joo, An Evaluation of Compstat's

Effect on Crime: The Fort Worth Experience 2010). Therefore, Schwester’s 2011 results would

have been more reliable had the study used the number of businesses that serve alcohol as the

primary purpose of business rather than restaurants. Considering the difference in the customer

base between restaurants and nightclubs the likely difference in the customer base would create

a significant difference. Additionally, had Schwester used the suggested method the data could

have been analyzed to determine any difference in the affects alcohol establishments have on

23

property crimes and crimes of violence individually and combined.

The most thorough examination of the effect that governmental structure has on crime

was conducted by Ling Ren, Jihong, and Nicholas P. Lovrich (2011). Their study focused on how

the form of local government affects crime rates. Unlike the research that has been conducted

concerning the effects on crime through consolidation, contract law enforcement, and multi-

agency joint task forces (MJTF) this research included a wide variety of control factors known to

have a direct or indirect correlation to crime rates. Law enforcement professionals and

researchers from across the spectrum agree that criminals do not restrict their criminal activities

to the geographical barriers that have been established by governments and in response to those

limitations on law enforcement many law enforcement leaders have established various MJTF’s to

reduce criminal activity in their regions (Shernock 2004). This study failed to include control

variables for cities that have a MJTF as well as determining if participation in a MJTF is dependent

upon the type of governmental structure. Criminal justice professionals and academia alike agree

that some types of crime can be definitively linked to other types of crimes. For instance, high

rates of illegal drug use results in higher rates of drug distribution which correlates into a higher

violent crime rates. Additionally, higher illegal drug use in certain categories often times results in

a higher rates of burglaries and robberies. Whereas Schwester (2011) did not take many of the

variables that contribute to crime, he did control for the distance from a major metropolitan area

in an attempt to control for the affects that certain criminal activity has on an area.

Applying it to New Orleans

The existing literature reviewed for this study indicated while several studies have

been conducted those studies failed to include one or more sets of qualitative data to

24

determine the impact qualitative factors such as socio-economic background, perceived

level of service, perceived quality of service, or public corruption issues would have

revealed. Economies of scale studies that fail to include qualitative and quantitative data to

determine either the perceived or actual quality of service cannot be trusted with a high

degree of certainty because the higher the quality of service the more the cost. The

economies of scale theory supports the idea that lower costs are associated with purchasing

higher quantities (Benton and Gamble 1984) and if the consolidated entity is providing

higher quality services the per capita cost would likely be similar to the unconsolidated

entity providing a lower quality service.

The literature reviewed also discusses the effects of contract policing and the use of a

MJTF as a means to provide more cost efficient and effective policing services. While the NOPD

and the OPSO do participate in various MJTF’s the other local agencies do not participate in many

of these MJTF’s. The lack of participation in the MJTF’s by the other agencies likely reduces the

overall effectiveness of the MJTF. Additionally, the agencies that do not participate receive benefits from

the MJTF without the financial burden. The NOPD also provides support services such as detectives for

serious crimes, crime lab services, crime scene services, record keeping for arrest reports, and

initial call takers and dispatchers for 911 services without direct compensation from the other

local law enforcement agencies. Schwester (2011) examines the benefits of municipal contracting,

independent police departments, and consolidated departments. He also explains several

municipalities receive municipal police services from the state police in New Jersey without having

to compensate the state for the service beyond the standard compensation paid by all residents

of the state including those residents that reside in incorporated areas with an independent

25

police force. This type of state subsidy reduces the incentive for those municipalities without an

independent police force to provide police services independent from the services being received

from the state police.

The situation in New Jersey is similar to the current practice of NOPD subsidizing local

university and state agencies with primary law enforcement support services without direct

compensation, especially private universities, for those services. The literature reviewed for this

study brings out several different possibilities for the New Orleans local primary law enforcement

community to explore. Total consolidation would create a unified front in the fight against violent

crime in New Orleans but, current research does not support that it would result in further

reducing the local violent crime rate. Partial consolidation of local primary law enforcement services

is another option that could be explored. While current research does support that some

governmental functions experience economies of scale after consolidation, the research does not

specify which functions experience economies of scale as a result of consolidation. Another option

the New Orleans local primary law enforcement community could explore is contract policing.

While research indicates that governmental entities that contract law enforcement services

receive services equal to or better than independent departments little research has been

conducted to determine why. Law enforcement agencies in New Orleans currently receive a

majority of their specialized services such as crime lab, major investigations, crime scene

processing, and 911 emergency dispatch services, and record keeping systems for police reports

from the NOPD without compensating the NOPD for those services, which equates to an

economically depressed municipality subsidizing state law enforcement agencies and law

enforcement agencies operated by private universities.

26

SECTION 3: METhOdOLOgY

Areas of Law Enforcement Consolidation to be study

The focus of this study was to determine which method of increasing collaboration

between multiple local primary law enforcement agencies with overlapping geographical

areas will have the best opportunity for success in New Orleans. A secondary focus was to

determine which areas of local primary law enforcement would likely benefit the most from

increased cooperation and why. In order to successfully increase cooperation amongst local

primary law enforcement agencies in New Orleans the study had to identify which groups in

New Orleans are the largest stakeholders and who the possible champions are in each of

those groups.

Stakeholders were identified through the literature and interviews. The stakeholders

included the residents of New Orleans, all members of law enforcement in Orleans Parish,

individual law enforcement organization leaders in Orleans Parish, elected legislators and

executives in Orleans Parish, the New Orleans Business Council, the New Orleans Police and Justice

Foundation, and various other local organizations that are politically active. The data will likely

indicate which stakeholders would support official increased cooperation between the various

local primary law enforcement agencies operating in New Orleans and what level of increased

cooperation they would likely support the most and why.

Every group of stakeholders has at least one individual whom they look to as a

leader (Kingdon 2003). This study will identify those likely champions for each of the groups

of stakeholders. Locating the champions in each of the stakeholder groups should not be

difficult considering the intense media scrutiny the crime problem in New Orleans has

27

received; however, convincing those champions that increased collaboration will result in

the violent crime rate being reduced to at least equal to the national crime rate is expected

to be difficult. Likewise, convincing the champions that increased cooperation will result in

fewer Orleans Parish residents believing that crime is the biggest problem facing New

Orleans will also be a very difficult task.

Local primary law enforcement agencies are divided into various divisions which

often times includes communications, criminal patrol, investigations, crime scene

investigations, narcotics, administration, training, and special operations. This study

explored attitudes of local primary law enforcement executives from across the United

States regarding increased cooperation in the areas of communications, crime scene

investigations, and narcotics. All of the respondents evaluated each area through a series of

questions designed to determine if similarities exist and why specific attitudes exist towards

increased local primary law enforcement cooperation.

Data Collection Method

The data was collected through the literature, phone surveys, and personal

interviews. The literature assisted in determining who the stakeholders are, possible

champions for the effort, which forms of reorganization of local law enforcement is most

likely to be successful in New Orleans, and how reorganization might affect efficiency and

effectiveness in the New Orleans local primary law enforcement community. Phone surveys

of appointed police chiefs and elected Sheriffs were conducted to determine the general

outlook local primary law enforcement administrators have towards increased cooperation

relative to effectiveness and efficiency; as well as, specific areas of local primary law

28

enforcement that might benefit from increased cooperation. Personal interviews were

conducted to assist in determining why efforts to increase local primary law enforcement

consolidation have been successful in other jurisdictions, which areas of local primary law

enforcement would benefit the most and why, who the stakeholders are, and who are the

possible champions in each stakeholder group.

The literature included a wide variety of academic and professional literature from

both the governmental field in general and the law enforcement field, as well as, research

studies conducted by the University of New Orleans concerning quality of life issues in

Orleans Parish. Additionally, media sources were also used to assist in determining if the

academic and professional literature was representative of New Orleans culture.

The literature revealed several stakeholder groups which included residents,

businesses, members of law enforcement, and elected officials. The literature also revealed

that each of these groups have similar champions. Members of law enforcement are often

times represented by a fraternal organization such as the Fraternal Order of Police or similar

organizations that have a leader elected by the membership. Police Chiefs are represented

by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and Sheriffs are represented by the

National Sheriffs Association (NSA). Businesses are often members of the local chamber of

commerce which elects its leader from the membership. Residents are often times members

of neighborhood organizations, churches, and other local groups; each of which has a leader

that the members typically support when the leader champions an idea.

Phone surveys of appointed police chiefs and elected sheriffs were done in two

separate rounds. The first round of phone surveys was conducted to determine if they

29

agreed that consolidation would result in increased effectiveness, efficiency, or both. The

first round of phone surveys was also used to determine if the respondents would support

increased collaboration between local law enforcement agencies and if so what form of

increased collaboration they supported most. Ten Sheriffs were chosen from the NSA and

ten Police Chiefs were chosen from the IACP at random after controlling for factors listed in

the technical appendix. Sheriffs and Police Chiefs were identified through their respective

organizations list of current executives. Sheriffs and Police Chiefs were called at random

and asked to participate in the survey until ten executives agreed to participate. In order to

increase the likelihood of participation the respondents were informed that they would

only be identified by a department ID number based on the number of respondents to the

survey.

The second round of phone survey’s included twenty five sheriffs and twenty five

appointed police chiefs chosen from the same pool of possible respondents, but excluded anyone

who participated in the first phone survey or the interviews. The respondents in the second phone

survey were given the same assurances regarding confidentially as the first survey respondents. In the

second phone survey each respondent was asked a series of five questions in the areas of

communications, crime scene investigations, narcotics investigations, and five questions

concerning overall increased collaboration. Additionally, each respondent was also asked what

form of increased collaboration he would support, if any. All participants in both surveys were

guaranteed complete confidentially with regards to name, department, and location of the

department. The only identifier for each respondent was department type.

The study also included interviews with sheriffs, Mayors, and appointed police chiefs. Six

30

individuals were interviewed based on their experience with increased law enforcement

collaboration in the communities they represent. The interviews focused on effectiveness,

efficiency, and the politics involved with increased local law enforcement collaboration. The

interview also obtained information detailing the different operational divisions within the

agency. All of the individuals interviewed were guaranteed strict confidentially with regards to

name, department, and location of the agency.

Analysis of the Data

The data collected in the first phone survey of twenty local primary law enforcement

executives consisting of four questions was sorted for department type in order to determine

if a significant difference existed between Sheriffs and Police Chiefs for each question. A two

tailed Pearson correlation test with a significance level of .01 was conducted for each question

while controlling for department type. The results of the Pearson test indicated that a

correlation between the idea of economies of scale and department type was significant (table

3-1).

Table 3-1 Correlation between type of Department and consolidation having a

positive effect on efficiency.

Dept Type

Q2

Dept Type Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

1 -.612**

.004

20

20

Q2 Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

-.612**

1

.004

20

20

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

31

The mean and mode for Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 was calculated for each question and

then controlled for department type. Afterwards the calculated means and modes for each

question were compared for any differences or similarities between the department types

for each question to indicate which department type likely had the strongest attitudes either

for or against the issue. The overall mean and the department mean from Q1 and Q2 were

calculated for all of the respondents who answered in the affirmative to Q3. The means were

then compared to determine if either effectiveness (Q1) or economies of scale (Q2) played a

more significant role in a law enforcement leader’s attitude towards increased cooperation

by local law enforcement(Table 3-2).

Table 3-2 Mean score of responses to determine possible effect of consolidation

on effectiveness (Q1) & efficiency (Q2)

Sheriff’s & Police Chiefs

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Q1

Q2

Valid N (listwise)

19

19

19

1.32

1.37

.478

.496

Police Chiefs

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Q1

Q2

Valid N (listwise)

9

9

9

1.44

1.67

.527

.500

Sheriffs’

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Q1

Q2

Valid N (listwise)

10

10

10

1.20

1.10

.422

.316

32

The first step in analyzing the data from the personal interviews was to determine

which divisions the sheriffs and mayors identified as receiving the most benefit from either

consolidation or contract policing. In order to determine which divisions benefited most

according to the interviewees a two-step process was utilized. First, the three divisions that

received the most positive responses from the interviewees for increased effectiveness or

efficiency were isolated from the other divisions. Afterwards, the intensity of the responses

and the stated reasons for the belief and intensity were then examined for commonality. The

three divisions with the overall strongest positive responses were compared to the three

divisions identified as most likely to result in positive changes. The most common reasons

for the most intense responses were determined in order to formulate the questions to be

utilized in phase three of the study.

The second phone survey data was tested for reliability using Cronbach’s alpha model

to determine how closely the questions in the survey were related to one another (table 3-3).

The mean response for each of the questions in the second phone survey was then calculated

for all respondents, police chiefs, and sheriffs then compared. The communications area had

a strong overall positive response for consolidating the communications and a slightly positive

response for consolidating narcotics investigations. The crime lab portion of the survey

resulted in a neutral responses.

33

Table 3-3 Scale used to establish the internal reliability of the questions and the

extent to which responses are relative to one another

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items

N of Items

.704

.645

19

Q 21 was used to determine the level of support each of the possible responses had

amongst the respondents and identify any differences between Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. The

mode and mean response was calculated for all respondents and each department type to

determine which method of increased collaboration had the most support. Additionally, the

response that was chosen the least in each group was also calculated to determine which method

of increased collaboration had the least support. Q21 responses were also compared to each of

the grouped responses using Cronbach’s formula to determine if a stronger relationship possibly

existed between the overall response and a specific area of law enforcement more than another

(table 3-4).

34

Table 3-4 Internal Reliability of the 2nd Phone Survey Questions

For each of the 3 categories and the Overall Question Of increased Cooperation

Communications

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items

N of Items

.533

.531

6

Crime Lab

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items

N of Items

.068

.123

4

Narcotics Investigations

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items

N of Items

-.133

-.121

6

35

SECTION 4: ANALYSIS RESULTS 1st Phone Survey

The first phase analysis results were as expected. A majority of sheriffs and local police

chiefs agreed that the overall effectiveness of the consolidated agencies would be increased.

There is a substantial divide between sheriffs and local police chiefs’ attitudes concerning the

possible economies of scale that may be realized as a result of a local primary law enforcement

consolidation. However, even though there is a substantial divide in attitudes as it relates to a

correlation between consolidation and economies of scale there is almost unanimous support

for some form of increased official cooperation amongst local primary law enforcement leaders.

The responses by local primary law enforcement leaders to increased effectiveness in

the initial phone survey was as expected with 70% of the twenty respondents agreeing that

consolidation of local law enforcement agencies with primary law enforcement authority

having overlapping geographical jurisdictions would have a positive result. While the overall

agreement was 70%; 80% of the ten sheriffs agreed and 60% of the ten police chiefs agreed

increased cooperation would result in improved effectiveness (table 4-1). Of the four local

police chiefs who did not agree that a consolidated local primary law enforcement agency

would result in a more effective local primary law enforcement community none of them

stated they would oppose some form of increased official cooperation.

36

Table 4-1 1st phone survey responses to consolidation increasing effectiveness

Overall a majority of the respondents also agreed that consolidation would result in

economies of scale; however, there was a noticeable difference between sheriffs and local

police chiefs. Sheriffs agreed at rate of 90% with the idea that consolidating local primary law

enforcement agencies would result in economies of scale (table 4-2). Local police chiefs

disagreed with the idea at a rate 70% (table 4-2); but 57% of those who disagree with the idea

would support some form of increased official cooperation through either consolidation or an

MJTF.

Table 4-2 1st phone survey responses to consolidation increasing efficiency

All of the respondents, with the exception of one police chief, supported some form of

increased cooperation amongst local primary law enforcement agencies. The form of increased

official cooperation supported by a majority of local primary law enforcement leaders was the

MJTF (table 4-3). However, Sheriffs supported total consolidation at a rate of 50% as opposed to

70%

30%

Sheriffs & Police Chiefs

Yes

No80%

20%

Sheriff's

Yes

No 60%

40%

Police Chiefs

Yes

No

60%

40%

Sheriffs & Police Chiefs

Yes

No90%

10%

Sheriff's

Yes

No

30%

70%

Police Chiefs

Yes

No

N=20 N=10 N=10

N=20 N=10 N=10

37

20% of the police chiefs supporting total consolidation of local primary law enforcement

agencies. While a majority of police chiefs do not agree that increased cooperation will result in

economies of scale, a majority of them do believe that increased cooperation will result in

increased effectiveness (table 4-4). Based on the level of the differences in attitudes towards

the effectiveness and economies of scale compared to the overall attitude towards increased

cooperation by police chiefs it is likely that police chiefs prioritize effectiveness over economics.

However, because Sheriffs support consolidation at nearly the same level police chiefs support

the MJTF it is likely that if total consolidation were to occur Sheriff’s would increase their

political powerbase and police chiefs would lose political power.

Table -4-3 Number of respondents that supported the different forms of increased

cooperation

0 2 4 6 8 10

Consolidation

Contract Policing

Collabroative

Police Chiefs

Sheriffs

Sheriffs & Police Chiefs

38

Table 4-4 1st phone survey results comparing support for increased consolidation ,

consolidation resulting in increased efficiency, and consolidation resulting in increased effectiveness

Interviews

The interview results of the study were consistent with the findings in the first phone

survey. However, the intensity of the attitudes of sheriffs and police chiefs was considerably

stronger than was anticipated in some areas. While the attitudes of the sheriffs were stronger

than anticipated the reason for the intensity of the attitude as stated by the sheriffs was not

consistent with the reasoning expected. In contrast, the attitudes of the police chiefs were as

expected and the reasoning for the intensity of the attitudes was as expected. In addition to

validating the data obtained in the first phone survey, the interviewees consistently identified

the same divisions within local primary law enforcement agencies that benefited the most and

least from either consolidation of agencies or contracting of services between agencies. All of

the sheriffs and police chiefs agreed that a consolidated communications center would increase

local primary law enforcement effectiveness and likely result in fiscal benefits to all agencies

involved. All of the interviewees also stated during the interview that a single communications

center for all agencies with overlapping geographical jurisdictions would have a significant

positive effect on officer safety.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Increased Efficiency

Increased Effectiveness

Consolidaton

Sheriffs & Police Chiefs

Police Chiefs

Sheriffs

39

One sheriff interviewed went so far as to make clear that in his jurisdiction one of the

municipal police departments operates its own 911 dispatch center and utilizes its own two way

radio system. The sheriff continued to give details that indicated he provided a sufficient

number of sheriffs’ system two way radios to the police chief at no cost for the municipal police

officers to have in an effort to increase officer safety for both deputies and police officers. The

sheriff then stated that more than a year later the radios had still not been issued to the police

departments’ officers. The sheriff was unwavering that if municipal officers were in a position

to render assistance to one his deputies but were unaware one of his deputies need for

assistance and as a result the deputy was injured he would pursue criminal and civil action

against the police chief for negligence and malfeasance in office. Additionally, the Sheriff went

further to state that if a municipal officer was injured under similar circumstances he might take

similar action against the police chief.

The interviewer also inquired about any possible effects on response time to calls for

service. The sheriff’s stances were consistent in cases where multiple agencies each operate their

own 911 communications and dispatch center; response times would likely be increased in some

cases, most notably those calls originating from cell phones or areas recently annexed by the city.

While all of the respondents agreed that 911 calls from cell phones are routed to a 911 center

based on the cell tower location being utilized by the cell phone; the respondents did not agree

that the delay would significantly alter response time to calls for service. The sheriffs position was

more intense in this area than that of the police chiefs. The interviewers’ interpretation of the

sheriffs’ stance was because the Sheriff has primary law enforcement authority throughout the

county (parish in Louisiana), including inside the incorporated areas and because the Sheriff is

40

elected from the entire population of the county he is obligated legally and politically to

responded to high priority emergency calls for service even when the location of the incident is

inside of an incorporated area or area serviced by another agency. Sheriffs thought increased

response times would occur in unincorporated areas near municipalities as a result of 911 calls

originally being routed to the incorrect 911 operations center and a delay in either incorporated

or unincorporated areas would negatively affect the Sheriff.

The interviewer’s interpretation of the Police chiefs’ stance was because they do not have

jurisdiction outside of the incorporated area and therefore are not obligated or concerned with

a delay in response time outside the city limits because delays to calls for service just outside of

the municipal limits would not negatively affect the Police Chief. Furthermore, because often

time’s calls for service originating from a cell phone are initially routed to the city police force

since many cities have at least one cell tower located within their jurisdictions, police force

response times are less affected than sheriffs’ office response times in unincorporated areas

near the city limits.

This is not always the case; for example, the sheriff of a rural county in the southeastern

portion of the country informed the interviewer of one incident where the police department

response time was delayed because the victim used a cell phone to call 911. The sheriff stated

that his departments’ communications center received a 911 call in reference to a carjacking in

which the assailants took the vehicle at gunpoint and the victim’s child was still in the vehicle.

The sheriff’s office immediately dispatched deputies to the location of the incident and

transferred the 911 call to the local police department. However, it took approximately seven

minutes for the first deputy to arrive on the scene. According to the Sheriff, the first police

41

officer arrived on the scene approximately nine minutes after the Sheriffs communications

center received the call, but only four minutes after the local police department communications

center received the call transfer. Based on the information provided by the Sheriff, it appears

that at delay of approximately seven minutes resulted from the call having to be transferred

from the Sheriffs communications center to the police department communications center

(table 4-5). It should be noted that typically when a high priority 911 call is received the caller

often times is not aware of their location and is only able to give descriptions of the area such as

businesses and buildings, which also slows response times. However, when dispatchers relay this

information to officers on the streets, those officers can typically locate the general area and

inform dispatch of a more exact location.

Table 4-5 Timeline of an actual 911 call that was transferred to another agency with

concurrent jurisdiction

The crime lab/crime scene investigations division was identified by the most

interviewees and with the most intense feelings as the division that would benefit the most

fiscally through increased cooperation between multiple agencies. While the interviewees did

not agree that fiscal savings would be a result of economies of scale, they all agreed that

4:48 AM

4:50 AM

4:53 AM

4:56 AM

4:59 AM

5:02 AM

5:05 AM

5:08 AM

5:11 AM

Time 911 callreceived

Time OfficeDispatched

Time 1st Officerarrived on Scene

Sheriff's Department

Police Department

42

because of the high cost of constantly improving technology available for crime scene

processing, collection, and testing it is cost prohibitive for all but the largest local primary law

enforcement agencies to keep current with the latest technology. However, through a contract

for services or consolidation midsized and smaller local agencies would be able to pool

resources enabling the participating agencies to keep current with new technologies and as a

result have an increased positive effect on crime within their geographical areas. The

interviewees also agree that improved crime scene investigation technology increases

conviction rates.

The interviewees agreed that narcotics investigations would benefit greatly from a

more collaborative effort in reducing the amount of illegal narcotics available in the area.

While all of the interviewees had varying degrees of strength in their attitudes towards the

positive effect created by a more collaborative effort, they were all in agreement that there

was no fiscal effect. While Sheriffs agreed with the police chiefs that the overall effectiveness

of the narcotics divisions was positive, police chiefs’ attitudes regarding improved

effectiveness were more enthusiastic than sheriffs. It is likely that the reason for the difference

is due to Sheriffs having jurisdiction inside of the incorporated areas while police chiefs do not

have jurisdiction in the unincorporated areas. However, it is also likely that sheriffs believe

increased cooperation in narcotics investigation has a minimal positive affect due to municipal

police department officers having closer ties to the community they serve than the sheriff

currently has in those same communities.

Because of the consistency of the interviewees regarding the positive results in crime scene

investigation division and the inconsistency in the degree of the positive results for the

43

communications and narcotics divisions the research was further analyzed to determine possible

reason why the degree of intensity was different between Sheriffs and Police Chiefs in the

communications and narcotics divisions. It became clear through further analysis, police chiefs

were protective of their budgets and there sphere of control over local primary law enforcement

inside the municipality. It was also apparent that sheriffs were more concerned with public safety

than power; this may be the case because sheriff’s offices are typically mandated in state

constitutions as a subdivision of the state and their authority and duties are defined in state

constitutions. Whereas municipal police departments are established by the municipality and in

most cases are subordinate to county and state government. Therefore, police chiefs and Mayors

are very protective of their domain. For example, one local police department contracted out all

police services to the local sheriff’s office; however, the city did maintain one commissioned

officer to act as a liaison between the city and the sheriffs’ office. This liaison position allowed the

city to contract out services without major changes to the city’s incorporating documents making

it easier for the city to reorganize a police force if the contract services become cumbersome.

2nd Phone Survey

The second phone survey data was divided into three distinct categories and one overall

category. Results were analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha model to determine reliability of the

questions. The results indicated that it was questionable whether or not the questions were

interrelated. Because the sample size was only fifty total respondents a high reliability level was

not expected. However, based on the researchers ten years’ experience in local primary law

enforcement combined with the similar backgrounds and experience of the respondents; it is

believed that a larger population of Sheriffs and police chiefs would not significantly alter the

44

results. The paired samples T-test did not indicate any statistical difference between sheriffs and

police chiefs in any of the questions; however, the research did indicate some actual differences in

the responses based on mean and mode for each of the questions.

The first category was used to evaluate the communications division, which includes

the 911 center call takers and police dispatchers. Overall both sheriffs and police chiefs

agree that a single communications center would improve response times for service (table

4-6). The sheriffs and the police chiefs mean response both individually indicated they lean

heavily towards an agree response. Sheriffs and Police Chiefs also both lean strongly towards

an agree response that a single communications center would result in economies of scale.

Table 4-6 Mean Response from the 2nd phone survey indicating what effects would

likely occur from increased cooperation in communications

There was a slightly noticeable difference between the sheriffs and police chiefs’

responses in case clearance rates (table 4-6). The overall mean was indicative of the overall

belief that a single communications center would not affect case clearance rates. However, the

Sheriffs mean response demonstrated that they were open to the possibility that a single

communications center might have a positive effect on case clearance rates. Whereas, police

chiefs consistently believed that a single communications center would have no effect on case

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Response Time

Case Clearance Rates

Officer Safety

Suspects Apprehended

Economies of Scale

Police Chiefs

Sheriffs

45

clearance rates.

While there was noticeable difference between the response of the sheriffs and police

chiefs on how a single communications center would affect the number of suspects

apprehended both groups of respondents agreed the result would be positive. The mean

response for sheriffs indicated an agree response for their group, while police chiefs had a

mean response which also represents a response that strongly leans towards an agree

response.

Most importantly, both Sheriffs and police chiefs agree a single communications center

would improve officer safety (table 4-6). The sheriffs mean response point to sheriffs

agreeing a single communications center would improve officer safety and even indicated

sheriffs leaned towards strongly agreeing. While police chiefs did not lean towards strongly

agreeing with the idea they did none the less soundly agree that a consolidated

communications center would increase officer safety.

The second area of the survey measured the attitudes of the respondents in the area of

crime lab/crime scene investigations and a single crime lab unit. Respondents agreed a unified

crime lab would not have any effect on officer safety or response time. They also agreed the

effect on suspect apprehension and case clearance rates would be minimal leaning towards

negative. However, as expected based on the interview portion of the study Sheriffs and

Police Chiefs both agreed a unified crime lab would benefit from economies of scale and the

sheriffs leaned towards strongly agreeing (table 4-7).

46

Table 4-7 Mean Response from the 2nd phone survey indicating what effects would

likely occur from increased cooperation in the crime lab

The third area measured by the survey was narcotics investigations. While none of

the overall response means were representative of agreement that a consolidated

narcotics investigation division would result in positive changes, two areas did have a

neutral mean which leaned towards agreement. The overall mean response for both case

clearance rates and number of suspects apprehended had mean averages that were

neutral but leaned heavily towards agreement suggesting that a consolidated narcotics

investigation division might be worth further exploration (table 4-8).

Table 4-8 Mean Response from the 2nd phone survey indicating what effects would

likely occur from increased cooperation in narcotics investigations

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Response Time

Case Clearance Rates

Officer Safety

Suspects Apprehended

Economies of Scale

Police Chiefs

Sheriffs

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Response Time

Case Clearance Rates

Officer Safety

Suspects Apprehended

Economies of Scale

Overall

Police Chiefs

Sheriffs

47

The fourth area, which measured the overall outlooks of the respondents towards

increased official cooperation between local law enforcement agencies consistently had a

neutral mean response with the exception of one area. The one area which was not

neutral was consolidations effect on officer safety. Both Sheriffs and Police agreed a

consolidated local primary law enforcement agency would increase officer safety with

sheriffs and Police chiefs having nearly the exact same mean score which suggests that

both groups may support consolidation of the divisions that would have the greatest

positive effect on officer safety (table 4-9).

Table 4-9 Overall likely effect of increased cooperation on participating agencies

Finally, Q21 tested the attitudes of sheriffs and police chiefs to determine which form of

improved local primary law enforcement cooperation would be supported the most by local

primary law enforcement leaders and thus have the highest possibility of success. Of the four

possible responses, which included consolidation, contract policing, MJTF, and none; the most

common response overall was the MJTF approach (table 4-10). None of the respondents

preferred no increased cooperation amongst local primary law enforcement agencies. The

Sheriffs preferred consolidation at a higher rate than other forms of increased cooperation

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Response Time

Case Clearance Rates

Officer Safety

Suspects Apprehended

Economies of Scale

Police Chiefs

Sheriffs

48

(table 4-11). While police chiefs supported the MJTF at higher rate than the other forms of

increased cooperation (table 4-12). However, three sheriffs did prefer a MJTF approach and ten

sheriffs preferred a contract policing approach as opposed to the remaining sheriffs preferring

consolidation. In contrast to the sheriffs’ attitudes towards increased cooperation amongst local

primary law enforcement agencies, all but two police chiefs supported a MJTF effort as the best

approach.

Table 4-10 Preferred forms of increased cooperation by respondents

Table 4-11 Sheriffs preferred form of increased cooperation as a percentage

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Consolidation Contract Policing MJTF None

Sheriffs & Police Chiefs

Sheriffs

Police Chiefs

45%

44%

11%

0%

Consolidation

Contract Policing

MJTF

None

n=25

49

4-12 Police Chiefs preferred form of increased cooperation as a percentage

0%

8%

92%

0%

Consolidation

Contract Policing

MJTF

None

n=25

50

SECTION 5: CONCLUSIONS ANd RECOMMENdATIONS

This study revealed factors that should be incorporated into any attempt to change the

current form of fragmented local primary law enforcement with limited collaboration and

cooperation amongst the affected agencies. The study highlighted the differences and the

similarities in the beliefs of elected sheriffs and appointed police chiefs nationwide. Sheriffs

tend to be more in favor of consolidation rather than the MJTF, whereas Police Chiefs tend to

favor the MJTF approach. The reasoning for the difference appears to be the fear of losing

power on the part of the police chiefs versus the amassing of power on the part of the sheriffs.

New Orleans has a unique local primary law enforcement structure that is anything but clear

when it comes to determining who the chief law enforcement officer in the jurisdiction is.

Additionally, because of the that lack of clarity every agency has its own dispatchers and

dispatch system which results in a lack of coordination that likely has a negative effect on local

law enforcements efforts in the community. This study determined total consolidation of all

affected agencies would not be politically viable nor would it likely result in having a significant

positive impact on reducing the violent crime rate or the percentage of residents who believe

crime is the most important factor facing New Orleans.

While there are seventeen local primary law enforcement agencies operating in New

Orleans, each has its own independent mission; however, the main mission of every local

primary law enforcement agency is to protect and serve the public. This study was able to

identify three areas in local primary law enforcement that would likely benefit from

increased collaboration and enhance the local primary law enforcement agencies ability to

protect and serve the public. Communications was the area respondents believed would

51

benefit the most overall from increased collaboration. The responses indicated the crime

lab would benefit from economies of scale because of the high cost of equipment and

training. Respondents seemed to agree that the narcotics division would benefit minimally,

if at all from increased collaboration and the only area of possible improvement was case

clearance rates.

Communications

In all five categories surveyed, neither sheriffs nor police chiefs thought a consolidated

communications center would have a negative effect on the local primary law enforcement

community. Most importantly, both sheriffs and police chiefs agreed a single communications

center would significantly increase officer safety. As an added advantage a single

communications center would also likely result in reduced response times overall. The likely

positive effect on officer safety and response time creates an opportunity for the champions in

the local primary law enforcement community that represent officers on the street to unite with

the champions of neighborhood groups for a positive initiative during a time when tensions are

high between law enforcement and the public in New Orleans.

The advantages of consolidating communications under the umbrella of the Orleans Parish

911 communications district are numerous. Some advantages will likely be evident almost

immediately; such as increased officer safety and reduced response times. Some long term

advantages might be a single records clearing house for all agencies rather than the current

system which often times results in university police departments and the NOPD having duplicate

records. Likewise, another possibility in the future is the creation of one item number system

housed and controlled by the 911 communications center rather than the current system

52

controlled by the NOPD.

One way to create a unified 911 communications center for New Orleans is through the

use of newer technologies such as a web based dispatch system utilizing a secure internet cloud

that 911 call takers and police dispatchers would input all pertinent call information into.

Through a combined effort organized by the Orleans Parish 911 Communications District

financial resources could be pooled to purchase the necessary equipment, including handheld

two way radios for agencies that do not currently have systems that are compatible with the

current radio system utilized by NOPD which would correct any inter-operability problems. An

added advantage would be the ability to apply for homeland security grants and research grants

to test for increased effectiveness.

Crime Lab/Crime Scene Investigations

The respondents identified the crime lab as the area likely to benefit the most from

economies of scale. The NOPD currently provides all crime lab services as well as other various

services on an as needed basis for local primary law enforcement in New Orleans and is not

directly compensated for the cost of those services. New Orleans also has numerous universities

located inside the city limits that benefit from those services, which creates a prime opportunity

to further increase collaboration in the form of a MJTF that would mutually benefit the NOPD and

participating universities.

The NOPD and the Orleans Parish Coroner should begin to utilize the resources of the local

universities that provide educational training in the areas of DNA testing, chemical structure

testing of narcotics, and identification of pharmaceutical drugs, photo development, computer

forensics, image enhancement, and medical forensic services. Many of the universities already

53

have the equipment, supplies, and experts on staff to perform the necessary tasks. This form of

MJTF would benefit the NOPD and the coroner through reduced cost and manpower required to

operate the crime lab and coroner’s office.

The participating universities would benefit from being able to promote their graduates as

having both the theoretical background and the real world experience many employers look for.

The universities would also benefit from the positive image in the community created when

institutions of higher learning give back to the communities they are in. Finally, the universities

could utilize the partnerships, the community participation, and likely improved employment

prospects of students after graduation to increase student enrollment and possibly create new

programs of study.

Narcotics Investigations

Both sheriffs and police chiefs agreed that increased cooperation in the narcotics

investigation division would have little positive effect in any of the categories surveyed. All

respondents agreed that no form of increased collaboration would result in economies of

scale, mainly because narcotics investigations are labor intensive rather than technology

driven. Likewise, because narcotics officers typically do not respond to calls for service

increased collaboration would not result in reduced response times. In fact, because of

increased numbers of narcotics investigations response times might increase in some areas as a

result of more resources being allocated to narcotics investigations. The two areas of

narcotics investigations that sheriffs and police chiefs leaned towards agreeing increased

collaboration might have a positive effect was suspect apprehension and case clearance rates.

According to the interviews, the reason for this possibility is based on increased collaboration

54

resulting in increased sharing of intelligence information amongst the participating agencies.

This is an area that would benefit from a small MJTF operating for a trial period to determine

the benefits.

Recommendations to Gather Support

A three prong approach should be utilized to reform the current organization of local

primary law enforcement in New Orleans in two of the three areas on a small scale in the

beginning. One prong of the approach will be gathering support from the Police Association

of New Orleans, the individual Fraternal Order of Police chapters in New Orleans, and the

New Orleans Police and Justice Foundation. This is likely possible by emphasizing the

increased officer safety aspects of a unified communications center. The second prong will

be gathering support from the community through the emphasis of the data suggesting

response times to calls for service will be reduced. The third prong will be convincing the

mayor, NOPD superintendent, and university officials increased collaboration between the

NOPD and the other local primary law enforcement agencies will benefit everyone

involved, which can likely be achieved with the support of the New Orleans Police and

Justice Foundation, New Orleans Business Council, Chamber of Commerce, the various

neighborhood organizations, and local media. In addition to the local media I recommend

using social media outlets such as a webpage, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and a variety of

other social media outlets to champion the effort to increase cooperation amongst New

Orleans local primary law enforcement agencies.

Recommendations for Communications

In order to gain support from the smaller primary law enforcement agencies in New

55

Orleans I would not recommend consolidating the police dispatchers. Instead, I recommend

using new technology to link the current dispatchers for two or three of the agencies that

do not currently have a police dispatcher in the 911 center. This would likely increase in

officer safety and reduce response times to call for service while at the same time maintaining

the independence and feel of connectedness to the community for the smaller agencies,

which is sometimes reduced or absent thru the use of a centralized location.

Recommendations for Crime Lab

As the national push to reduce federal spending continues it is likely federal subsidies will

be either eliminated or reduced in many areas. These reductions will inevitably affect state and

local government, as well as, private universities. The governmental agencies and the private

universities still have an opportunity to receive some federal funding for criminal justice and

educational research programs that could offset some of the initial cost associated with creating

a new collaborative effort. If after the initial cost of establishing the collaborative effort, studies

determine the cost of collaboration in the crime lab does not increase effectiveness enough to

justify the added expenditure then the effort could be ended. However, because of the initial

cost of collaboration, the appropriate time to initiate a collaborative effort of this nature is when

outside sources of revenue are available. These outside sources are likely available for a short

period of time in New Orleans from FEMA, the U.S. Department of Justice, and other federal

resources.

Future areas of Study

Test trials for both increased collaboration in communications and crime lab should be

conducted using NOPD and two or three smaller agencies. Likewise, a test trial between NOPD

56

and at least one university should also be conducted for increased efficiency as a result of

collaboration for the crime lab. In order to obtain reliable data a timeline series study should

be conducted that gathers the pertinent data for a set period of time before implementation,

during implementation, and one year after implementation. If the data collected during the

timeline series study concludes that either trial period resulted in increased effectiveness or

efficiency the program should be expanded to include the other local primary law

enforcement agencies operating in New Orleans.

Furthermore, if either of these areas proves to increase effectiveness or efficiency

research should be conducted to determine if there are other areas for local primary law

enforcement agencies where increased cooperation could further increase either

effectiveness or efficiency. One area that was revealed in the interview process that would

also likely produce increased efficiency was initial and continued officer training. Although a

slow and lengthy process, it is possible to improve cooperation among local primary law

enforcement agencies in a way that provides the highest quality of service at an acceptable

cost to the taxpayers. As an added benefit for the taxpayers, they will no longer be

subsidizing private Universities that do not pay property tax and receive costly local primary

law enforcement services without direct compensation.

57

Appendix A

dEFINITIONS

Call for Service- Call from an individual requesting the police in response to any given situation.

Champion - A person who supports a cause and attempts to increase support for the cause.

Typically a person who has political clout amongst stakeholders.

Chief Law Enforcement Officer - The law enforcement officer who is ultimately the senior officer

in charge of any situation that occurs in a geographical area with overlapping jurisdiction.

Collaboration - A joint effort by multiple entities controlled by independent leaders, in which each

entity provides resources in order to achieve a single goal.

Consolidation - Merging of multiple entities controlled by independent leaders into one unified

entity under the control of one independent leader.

Contract Policing - A system of providing law enforcement services by one law enforcement

agency to another law enforcement agency through a contractual agreement.

Crime Clearance Rates – The percentage of case considered solved from the total number of

cases known.

Crime Lab – A division within a law enforcement agency that processes and collects evidence

from crime scenes. The division is also responsible for conducting scientific test on evidence such

as narcotics analysis, DNA, and ballistics.

Crime Rates – The total number of report crimes per 100,000 persons in a geographical area.

Economies of Scale - A theory that when a cost is spread over a larger population per capita cost

decreases. This theory does not take into account any cost associated with improved services.

58

Appendix A

Effective – a level of measurement used in determining how successful a specific action is in

accomplishing a goal.

Efficient - reducing the financial cost of providing a service.

Local Law Enforcement Executive - Sheriff, Police Chief, or other law enforcement agency head.

Multi-Joint Task Force - A common form of collaboration used in law enforcement.

Primary Law Enforcement Authority – The authority granted to a law enforcement agency to

conduct criminal investigations, enforce all criminal statutes, traffic statutes, conduct criminal

patrol, and respond to calls for service.

Response Time – The time that elapses from when a call for service is received and the first

officer arrives on the scene.

Stakeholder - A person who has a vested interest in the outcome of cause.

59

Appendix B

TEChNICAL AppENdIx

Telephone Survey #1

The first phone survey of ten Sheriffs and ten Police Chiefs was conducted over a thirty

day period to determine whether total consolidation or partial consolidation should be

attempted. The Sheriffs were chosen randomly from the National Sheriffs Association, excluding

Sheriffs who command agencies in excess of three hundred patrol deputies and have

concurrent jurisdiction with at least one municipal police department that employees at least

three hundred patrolman. Utilizing the National Sheriffs Association (NSA) database researchers

called member sheriffs who met the qualifications until ten sheriffs completed the telephone

survey. The ten police chiefs were chosen randomly using the International Association of

Chiefs of Police (IACP) database of police chiefs. However, because the IACP is an international

organization which includes police chiefs from outside the United States those departments

outside of the United States were excluded as well as police chiefs who manage a primary law

enforcement agency with no overlapping local jurisdictions, and those departments that

employee less than three hundred patrolman.

The first phone survey consisted of four questions Q1 thru Q4 (See Appendix C). Q1 thru

Q3 were closed ended questions designed to illicit a yes or no response from the respondent.

Responses to questions Q1, Q2, and Q3 were given a value of 1 for positive responses and 2 for

negative responses. Any respondent that answered Q3 in the positive was asked question 4

(Q4) which was designed as a nominal response closed ended question. The possible responses

to Q4 were consolidation which was given a value of 3, contract policing with a value of 2, and

60

Appendix B

Collaborative or MJTF with a value of 1.

The data collected in the first phone survey was sorted for department type in order to

determine if a significant difference exist between Sheriffs and Police Chiefs for each of the

four questions of the first phase survey. A one tailed Pearson correlation test with a

significance level of .05 was conducted for each of the four questions while controlling for

department type. The mean and mode for Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 was calculated for each

question and then controlled for department type. Afterwards the calculated means and

modes for each question were compared for any differences or similarities between the

department types for each question, as well as determining the degree of any differences. The

degree of the difference in the means of the departments was determined by subtracting the

total mean for the question from the department mean for the question. After calculating the

differences and removing any positive or negative indicators the department with the larger

distance from the overall mean was used to indicate which department type would likely have

stronger attitudes either towards or against increased local law enforcement cooperation

during phases two and three of the study. The overall means and the department means from

Q1 and Q2 were calculated for all of the respondents who answered in the affirmative to Q3.

The means were then compared to determine if either effectiveness or economics of scale

played a more significant role in a law enforcement leader’s attitude towards increased

cooperation by local law enforcement.

61

Appendix B

Interviews

The interview portion of the study was conducted by a single interviewer interviewing

four sheriffs, four mayors, and one police liaison officer over a thirty day time period. A single

interviewer was chosen for this phase to establish a more consistent rating of attitudes by the

interviewees. The sheriffs, mayors, and one police liaison officer were not chosen randomly,

but rather based on having experience in law enforcement consolidation or contract policing.

The four Sheriffs, four mayors, and one police liaison officer were chosen from areas that have

completed a consolidation or contract policing agreement. One sheriff, one mayor, and one

police liaison officer were chosen from a single area where the police department was the

larger agency. One sheriff and one mayor were chosen from a single area where the sheriff’s

department was the larger agency. Two sheriffs and two mayors were chosen based on extent

of experience with law enforcement consolidation or contract policing that were not from the

same area. The interviews were guided in a way that indicated which divisions within the

agency operated more effectively and efficiently as a result of the combined effort.

The data collected in the interview portion of the study was constructed using open

ended questions which would indicate the areas of operation where the interviewees had or

were currently operating a department at one of the three levels of law enforcement

cooperation identified in this study would benefit from a more collective effort by local law

enforcement. Interviewees’ were first asked to identify and describe the different areas of

operation that existed within their department. Interviewees were then asked a series of open

ended questions to indicate their attitudes towards the affects that increased law enforcement

62

Appendix B

cooperation has had on each of the self-identified areas of operations within their law

enforcement agencies. Interviewees were asked which areas of operations within their

department did not result in any significant differences in effectiveness or efficiency and why.

Interviewees were then asked which area of operation benefited the most from the new

organization of law enforcement services and why. The interviewer then inquired about which

area benefited the least from the reorganization and why. The interviewer recorded all

divisions that the interviewee identified with either a positive or negative response. The

intensity of the interviewees’ response was also recorded using a nominal scale of extreme,

strong, or weak. Interviewers also recorded the reasons stated for the interviewees’ belief and

intensity of the belief.

The first step in analyzing the interviews was to determine which divisions the sheriffs,

mayors, and the police liaison officer identified as receiving the most benefit from either

consolidation or contract policing. In order to determine which divisions benefited most according

to the interviewees a two-step process was utilized. First, the four divisions that received the most

positive responses from the interviewees for increased effectiveness or efficiency were isolated

from the other divisions. Afterwards, the intensity of the responses and the stated reasons for the

belief and intensity were then examined for commonality. The three divisions with the overall

strongest positive responses were compared to the three divisions identified as most likely to

result in positive changes. Finally, the most common reasons for the most intense responses were

determined in order to formulate the questions to be utilized in the second phone survey

63

Appendix B

Telephone Survey #2

The second phone survey of twenty five sheriffs and twenty five police chiefs was

conducted over a ninety day time period. The sheriffs and the police chiefs that participated in

this phone survey were chosen in the same manner as in the first phone survey with the

additional condition that no sheriff or police chief who participated in the first phone survey or

interview portion of the study was permitted to participate in the second phone survey. The

reason for the exclusion was to reduce to possibility that responses in the second phone survey

were not influenced by survey questions in the first phone survey or the interviews. Survey

questions for each identified division were categorized using a standard five point ordinal

scales with categories of strongly agree to strongly disagree including a neutral category. Each

identified division was evaluated on response time to calls for service, case clearance rates,

officer safety, apprehending suspects, and cost effectiveness. Additionally, each respondent

was asked if they would support either total or partial consolidation, contract policing, or a

collaborative effort or oppose any such efforts. The data obtained in this phase will be utilized

to determine if a consensus exist amongst law enforcement leaders regarding either

effectiveness, efficiency, or both for divisions identified for possible consolidation during phase

two.

The data collected in phase three was broken into four sections on the survey. The

first three sections of the survey focused on the three areas of operation that were identified

during the interviews as most likely to result in improvements which included

communications, crime scene investigations/Crime lab, and narcotics investigations.

64

Appendix B

Each of these sections was comprised of five close ended likert scale style questions to test

attitudes in areas the literature review and interviews revealed as a possible factor for either

support or opposition to reorganization of local law enforcement agencies with primary

authority operating with overlapping geographical jurisdiction. The five areas questioned were

response time, case clearance rates, officer safety, apprehension of suspects, and economics of

scale. Possible responses for each question were strongly agree which was coded as 5, agree 4,

no affect 3, disagree 2, and strongly disagree 1. The fourth section was comprised of six

questions to test overall attitudes of the respondents. The first five questions in section 4 (Q15-

Q20) were designed the same as the previous three sections and would test the same five areas

that were tested in the first three sections of the survey. The sixth question in section 4 (Q21)

was a nominal style closed ended question to determine which form of local law enforcement

reorganization law enforcement executives would support most, if any. The possible nominal

responses in the final question were given a numerical value with consolidation having a value

of 4, contract policing 3, collaborative effort or MJTF 2, and no reorganization a value of 1.

Phase three data was tested for reliability using Cronbach’s alpha model to determine

how closely the questions in the survey were related to one another. Each of the questions

that were included in the second phone survey were then individually tested using a paired

samples T-Test with a level of 90% confidence level to determine if a statistically significant

difference existed between sheriffs and police chiefs in each of the twenty one questions. The

mean response was then calculated for each question in each subcategory and the mean

65

Appendix B

response of sheriffs and police chiefs for each question. Questions with a mean of 3.51 and

above were considered to have a positive response consensus towards increased local law

enforcement cooperation. Questions with a mean from 3.50 to 2.50 were considered to have

neutral response consensus towards increased local law enforcement cooperation. Questions

with a mean of 2.49 and below were considered to have negative responses consensus towards

increased local law enforcement cooperation.

Q 21 was used to determine the level of support each of the possible responses

had amongst all of the respondents in phone survey 2 as well as any differences that existed

between Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. In order to determine the level of support the mode in Q21

was determined for all respondents, sheriffs, and police chiefs. Additionally, the mean for Q21

was also determined for all respondents, sheriffs, and police chiefs. The response to Q21 which

was chosen by the respondents the least was also determined for all respondents, Sheriffs, and

Police Chiefs. Q21 responses were compared to responses in the divisions; communications,

crime lab, and narcotics investigations. Responses to similar questions in each division were

grouped and then tested using Cronbach’s formula to determine if a relationship existed

between the grouped responses and responses to Q21.

66

Telephone Survey #1

***Read to respondents prior to questioning**

Appendix C

This is a survey of law enforcement executives to determine experiences,

beliefs, and attitudes concerning law enforcement consolidation, contract policing,

and collaborative efforts in geographical areas that have local law enforcement

agencies with concurrent jurisdiction.

1.) In geographical areas that have two or more local law enforcement agencies with

concurrent jurisdiction would consolidation increase the effectiveness of the affected

agencies? Yes – No

2.) In geographical areas that have two or more local law enforcement agencies with

concurrent jurisdiction would consolidation result in economics of scale for the

affected agencies? Yes - No

3.) If your agency had concurrent jurisdiction with another local law enforcement agency

would you consider either consolidation, contract policing, or a collaborative effort

with the other agency or agencies? Yes or No

4.) If yes to Q3 : Which approaches would you support?

Consolidation Contract Collaborative

67

Appendix C

TELEphONE SURVEY #1 Responses

Dept ID

Dept Type

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

1 1 2 2 1 3

2 1 2 2 1 1

3 1 1 2 1 1

4 1 2 2 1 1

5 1 1 1 1 1

6 1 1 2 2

7 1 2 2 1 1

8 1 1 1 1 2

9 1 1 1 1 1

10 1 1 2 1 3

11 2 1 1 1 3

12 2 1 1 1 3

13 2 1 1 1 2

14 2 1 1 1 2

15 2 1 1 1 1

16 2 2 1 1 3

17 2 1 1 1 1

18 2 1 2 1 2

19 2 1 1 1 3

20 2 2 1 1 3

68

Appendix C

Telephone Survey #1

Question #1

In geographical areas that have two or more local law enforcement agencies with

concurrent jurisdiction would consolidation increase the effectiveness of the affected

agencies?

Overall

Yes No

30%

70%

Sheriff's

Yes No

20%

80%

Police Chiefs

Yes No

40%

60%

N=20

N=10

N=10

69

Appendix C

Question #2

In geographical areas that have two or more local law enforcement agencies

with concurrent jurisdiction would consolidation result in economics of scale for

the affected agencies?

Overall

Yes No

40%

60%

Sheriff's

Yes No

10%

90%

Police Chiefs

Yes No

70%

30%

N=20

N=10

N=10

70

Appendix C

Question #3

If your agency had concurrent jurisdiction with another local law enforcement

agency would you consider either consolidation, contract policing, or a collaborative effort

with the other agency or agencies? Yes or No

Overall

Yes No

5%

95%

Sheriff's

Yes No

0%

100%

Police Chiefs

Yes No

10%

90%

N=20

N=10

N=10

71

Appendix C

Question #4:

Which approaches would you support?

Consolidation -1 Contract -2 Collaborative -3

Overall

1 2 3

42% 32%

26%

Sheriff's

1 2 3

20%

20%

60%

Police Chiefs

1 2 3

0%

33%

67%

N=20

N=10

N=10

72

Appendix D

Interview Questions

1.) What is the current relationship between the Sheriff are Office and the city?

Departments consolidated-Contract services agreement- other

2.) Why this type of relationship as opposed to the other common forms collaboration used

in law enforcement?

3.) What were the contributing factors that led to the combined effort? Efficiency-

economics- other

4.) How many times was the formation of the new collaborative effort attempted before it

was successfully completed?

5.) What was the major contributing factor to its final realization?

6.) What political obstacles did you expect?

7.) What political obstacles did you have?

8.) What was the biggest political obstacle?

9.) What legal obstacles did you have?

10.) What was the toughest legal obstacle?

11.) Does the Sheriff’s Office receive tax revenues for criminal patrol and related

activities from inside municipal limits?

12.) Does this include all municipalities?

13.) Does the Sheriff’s Office provide support services to municipalities when

requested?

14.) Is the Sheriff’s Office compensated for the services it provides to municipalities?

73

Appendix D

15.) Has the collaborative effort had an effect on response time?

If so, has it

Improved considerably – Improved Slightly- remained the same – Slightly worse-

considerably worse

Why?

16.) Has there been an effect on case clearance rates?

Improved considerably – Improved Slightly- remained the same – Slightly worse-

considerably worse

Why?

17.) Has it affected officer safety?

Improved considerably – Improved slightly- remained the same – Slightly worse-

considerably worse

Why?

74

Appendix E

Telephone Survey #2

***Read to respondents prior to questioning**

This is a survey of law enforcement executives to determine attitudes concerning

law enforcement consolidation, contract policing, and collaborative efforts in the areas of

communications, crime lab services, and narcotics investigations.

Area One

**Communications includes 911 call takers, police dispatchers, and communication

equipment maintenance.

1.) A single communications center for all involved agencies would reduce response time to

calls for service?

Strongly agree Agree No affect Disagree Strongly Disagree

2.) A single communications center for all involved agencies would increase case clearance

rates?

Strongly agree Agree No affect Disagree Strongly Disagree

3.) A single communications center for all involved agencies would increase officer safety?

Strongly agree Agree No affect Disagree Strongly Disagree

4.) A single communications center for all involved agencies would increase the number of

suspects apprehended?

Strongly agree Agree No affect Disagree Strongly Disagree

5.) A single communications center for all involved agencies would result in economics of

scale?

Strongly agree Agree No affect Disagree Strongly Disagree

75

Appendix E

Area Two

**Crime Lab services includes Crime processing personnel, crime lab

technicians, crime lab equipment and equipment maintenance.

6.) A crime lab for all involved agencies would reduce response time to calls for

service?

Strongly agree Agree No affect Disagree Strongly Disagree

7.) A single crime lab for all involved agencies would increase case clearance rates?

Strongly agree Agree No affect Disagree Strongly Disagree

8.) A single crime lab for all involved agencies would increase officer safety?

Strongly agree Agree No affect Disagree Strongly Disagree

9.) A single crime lab for all involved agencies would increase the number of

suspects apprehended?

Strongly agree Agree No affect Disagree Strongly Disagree

10.) A single crime lab for all involved agencies would result in economics of

scale?

Strongly agree Agree No affect Disagree Strongly Disagree

76

Appendix E

Area Three

**Narcotics Investigations includes all officers whose primary duties is

narcotics investigation and the equipment and supplies commonly used in

narcotics investigations by officers whose primary duty is narcotics investigations .

11.) A single narcotics division for all involved agencies would reduce

response time to calls for service?

Strongly agree Agree No affect Disagree Strongly Disagree

12.) A single narcotics division for all involved agencies would increase case

clearance rates?

Strongly agree Agree No affect Disagree Strongly Disagree

13.) A single narcotics division for all involved agencies would increase officer

safety?

Strongly agree Agree No affect Disagree Strongly Disagree

14.) A single narcotics division for all involved agencies would increase the

number of suspects apprehended?

Strongly agree Agree No affect Disagree Strongly Disagree

15.) A single narcotics division for all involved agencies would result in

economics of scale?

Strongly agree Agree No affect Disagree Strongly Disagree

77

Appendix E

Area Four

**This section will be used to determine overall attitudes concerning law

enforcement consolidation, contract policing, and collaborative efforts by law

enforcement.

16.) A unified effort by all involved agencies would reduce response time to

calls for service?

Strongly agree Agree No affect Disagree Strongly Disagree

17.) A unified effort by all involved agencies would increase case clearance

rates?

Strongly agree Agree No affect Disagree Strongly Disagree

18.) A unified effort by all involved agencies would increase officer safety?

Strongly agree Agree No affect Disagree Strongly Disagree

19.) A unified effort by all involved agencies would increase the number of

suspects apprehended?

Strongly agree Agree No affect Disagree Strongly Disagree

20.) A unified effort by all involved agencies would result in economics of

scale?

Strongly agree Agree No affect Disagree Strongly Disagree

21.) Would you support either a partial or total

Consolidation contract policing collaborative effort None

Dept ID Dept Type Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21

31 1 2 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 5 1 3 3 5 3 4 3 5 3 1 2

32 1 3 3 5 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 1 3 3 4 3 2 3 5 3 3 2

33 1 3 3 4 3 5 3 3 3 5 5 1 3 3 4 3 3 3 5 2 2 2

34 1 5 4 5 3 5 3 3 3 5 5 1 3 3 4 3 2 3 5 2 3 2

35 1 3 3 4 3 5 3 4 3 2 5 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 5 1 4 2

36 1 5 4 5 3 4 3 3 3 2 5 2 4 3 3 3 1 3 4 3 3 2

37 1 3 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 1 5 1 4 3 4 3 2 2 5 4 2 3

38 1 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 1 5 1 4 3 4 3 1 2 5 2 1 2

39 1 5 2 5 3 2 3 3 3 1 5 2 3 3 4 3 1 1 5 3 3 2

40 1 3 3 5 3 4 3 5 3 2 5 1 2 3 4 3 3 1 4 4 3 3

41 1 2 2 3 3 4 3 5 3 2 5 3 3 3 4 3 2 1 5 3 3 2

42 1 5 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 4 2 4 3 5 3 3 1 5 2 3 2

43 1 5 3 5 4 3 3 2 3 2 4 1 3 3 5 3 3 2 5 4 2 2

44 1 4 5 5 3 2 3 1 3 1 4 1 3 3 5 3 1 1 3 3 4 2

45 1 5 5 4 5 4 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 2

46 1 5 4 4 5 4 3 3 3 2 4 1 4 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 3 2

47 1 4 1 4 5 4 3 3 3 1 4 1 4 3 2 3 1 1 5 2 3 2

48 1 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 4 3 5 3 1 1 5 2 3 2

49 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 1 3 3 5 3 1 2 5 1 2 2

50 1 2 1 3 4 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 4 3 5 4 1 2 5 2 2 2

51 1 5 4 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 5 1 3 4 5 3 2 2 5 3 2 2

52 1 4 4 3 5 4 3 2 3 3 5 2 4 3 2 3 2 2 5 3 1 2

53 1 4 5 3 5 4 3 2 3 3 5 3 5 3 2 3 3 3 5 3 2 2

54 1 3 5 5 5 4 3 1 3 2 5 1 5 3 2 3 5 5 4 2 3 2

55 1 5 3 4 5 4 3 3 3 4 5 1 4 3 4 3 5 5 5 4 5 2

56 2 5 5 5 5 2 3 3 3 5 5 1 4 3 5 3 5 4 5 4 5 4

57 2 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 5 3 1 3 2 5 3 5 4 5 4 5 3

58 2 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 5 1 5 3 5 2 4 3 5 4 5 3

59 2 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 2 5 1 5 3 5 3 4 2 5 4 4 4

60 2 4 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 1 5 1 5 3 4 3 3 2 5 5 4 3

61 2 3 4 5 5 5 3 3 3 2 5 1 4 3 4 3 4 2 5 3 3 3

62

2

3

3

4

5

5

3

3

3

1

5

1

4

3

4

4

4

2

5

4

5

4

Phone Survey #2 Responses

Appendix E

Dept ID Dept Type Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21

63 2 4 4 5 4 2 3 3 3 2 5 2 3 3 4 3 4 2 5 4 3 3

64 2 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 1 5 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 5 3 3 4

65 2 2 2 5 3 3 3 4 3 2 5 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 2 3 4

66 2 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 2 5 1 5 3 3 3 2 4 4 1 4 3

67 2 4 5 4 5 4 3 2 3 2 4 1 5 2 3 2 2 4 4 1 4 3

68 2 4 4 5 4 4 3 2 3 3 4 1 5 3 2 2 2 5 3 1 4 3

69 2 3 5 4 3 4 3 1 3 3 3 1 4 3 3 3 1 5 5 3 5 3

70 2 3 3 3 5 4 3 1 3 5 5 1 5 2 1 3 4 4 5 3 5 4

71 2 4 4 5 5 5 3 1 3 3 5 1 5 4 4 3 5 4 5 5 5 4

72 2 5 4 5 4 5 3 1 3 3 5 3 4 3 4 3 5 4 5 5 5 4

73 2 5 4 5 4 3 3 2 3 2 5 1 5 2 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 4

74 2 5 3 5 4 5 3 3 3 2 5 1 4 2 4 4 5 3 5 4 3 4

75 2 4 3 3 4 5 3 3 3 1 5 1 3 4 5 5 4 3 5 4 3 2

76 2 3 5 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 5 1 4 4 5 3 4 4 3 4 2 2

77 2 4 4 5 4 3 3 3 3 1 5 1 4 3 5 2 5 4 5 4 1 2

78 2 2 1 4 4 5 3 2 3 2 3 2 4 3 4 2 3 3 5 3 5 4

79 2 2 3 4 4 5 3 2 3 3 4 1 5 3 5 3 5 4 5 3 4 4

80 2 5 4 4 4 5 3 2 3 3 5 3 5 3 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 3

Phone Survey #2 Responses Contd.

Appendix E

Appendix E Table 4-7

Communications

Economies of Scale

Suspects Apprehended

Officer Safety

Case Clearance Rates

Police Chiefs

Sheriffs

Response Time

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Crime Lab

Economies of Scale

Suspects Apprehended

Officer Safety

Case Clearance Rates

Police Chiefs

Sheriffs

Response Time

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Appendix E

Narcotics

Economies of Scale

Suspects Apprehended

Officer Safety

Case Clearance Rates

Police Chiefs

Sheriffs

Response Time

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Overall

Economies of Scale

Suspects Apprehended

Officer Safety

Case Clearance Rates

Police Chiefs

Sheriffs

Response Time

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Appendix F

STATISTICAL dATA

Phone Survey #1

Police Chiefs

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1 Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

1

.535

-.272

-.060

.111

.447

.879

10

10

10

9

Q2 Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

.535

1

.218

.189

.111

.545

.626

10

10

10

9

Q3 Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

-.272

.218

1 .a

.447

.545

.000

10

10

10

9

Q4 Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

-.060

.189 .a

1

.879

.626

.000

9

9

9

9

a. Cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant.

Sheriff’s

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1 Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

1

-.167 .a

.448

.645

.

.194

10

10

10

10

Q2 Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

-.167

1 .a

-.128

.645

.

.724

10

10

10

10

Q3 Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

.a

.a

.a

.a

.

.

.

10

10

10

10

Q4 Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

.448

-.128 .a

1

.194

.724

.

10

10

10

10

a. Cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant.

N

%

Cases Valid

Excludeda

Total

50

83.3

10

16.7

60

100.0

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items

N of Items

.533

.531

6

Phone Survey #2 Appendix F

Case Processing Summary Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

N of Items

.700

21

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

Question 21

Communications

Crime Lab

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items

N of Items

.068

.123

4

Narcotics Investigations

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items

N of Items

-.133

-.121

6

Appendix F

Paired Samples Correlations T-Test 90% Confidence

N

Correlation

Sig.

Pair 1 Dept type & Q1

Pair 2 Dept type & Q2

Pair 3 Dept type & Q3

Pair 4 Dept type & Q4

Pair 5 Dept type & Q5

Pair 6 Dept type & Q6

Pair 7 Dept type & Q7

Pair 8 Dept type & Q8

Pair 9 Dept type & Q9

Pair 10 Dept type & Q10

Pair 11 Dept type & Q11

Pair 12 Dept type & Q12

Pair 13 Dept type & Q13

Pair 14 Dept type & Q14

Pair 15 Dept type & Q15

Pair 16 Dept type & Q16

Pair 17 Dept type & Q17

Pair 18 Dept type & Q18

Pair 19 Dept type & Q19

Pair 20 Dept type & Q20

Pair 21 Dept type & Q21

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

.111

.320

.273

.311

.043

.

-.221

.

.084

.138

.000

.441

-.180

.000

.000

.582

.526

.031

.404

.541

.775

.444

.023

.055

.028

.765

.

.123

.

.561

.341

1.000

.001

.212

1.000

1.000

.000

.000

.832

.004

.000

.000

Appendix G

LISTINg OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AgENCIES IN ORLEANS pARISh

AFFECTEd

New Orleans Police Department Orleans Parish Sheriff

1st City Court Constable 2nd City Court Constable

New Orleans Harbor Police Crescent City Connection Police

Orleans Parish Levee District Police University of New Orleans Police

Medical Center of Louisiana Hospital Police City Park Police

Tulane University Police Loyola University Police

Baptist Seminary Police Xavier University Police

Southern University of New Orleans Police Dillard University Police

Delgado Community College Police City Park Police

Housing Authority of New Orleans Police

Bibliography Baker v. Carr. 369 US 186 (United States Supreme Court, March 1962).

Baker, Stewart. "Regulating Technology For Law Enforcement." Texas Review of Law & Politics 4, no. 1

(1999): 53-57.

Baumgartner, Frank R, and Bryan D Jones. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press, 1993.

Benton, Edwin J, and Darwin Gamble. "City/County Consolidation and Economies of Scale: Evidence From

A Time-Series Analysis in Jacksonville, Florida." Social Science Quartely 65, no. 1 (March 1984):

190-198.

Berkman, Michael B., and Christopher Reenock. "Incremental Consolidation and Comprehensive

Reorganization of American State Executive Branch." American Journal of Political Science 48, no. 4

(2004): 796-812.

Brown v. Board of Education. 347 US 483 (United States Supreme Court, May 17, 1954).

Bucy, Carole. Short History of Metrpolitian Government for Nashville-Davidson County. November 1995.

http://www.library.nashville.org/research/res_nash_history_metrohistory.asp (accessed

November 2011).

Charles A. Jackson v. State of Louisiana, Defendant, Charles C. Foti, Jr., indivudually and in his Offical

Capacity as Criminal Sheriff of the Parish of Orleans, et al., Defendants-Appellants. 980 F.2d1009

(United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 12, 1993).

Chervenak, Edward E, and Bogdan Mihoc. 2012 Quality of Life Survey Orleans and Jefferson Parishes.

Political Science Survey Research Center, New Orleans: University of New Orleans, 2012.

City of New Orleans. "Home Rule Charter." City of New Orleans. February 2, 2009.

http://www.cityofno.com/Portals/Intelliport/Resources/HomeRuleCharterCNO2009_2.pdf

(accessed February 2010).

Dabney, Dean. "Observations Regarding Key Operational Realities in a Compstat Model of Policing." Justice

Quarterly 27, no. 1 (February 2010): 28-51.

DeLorenzi, Daniel, Jon M Shane, and Karen L Amendola. "The CompStat Process: Managing Performance

on the Pathway to Leadership." The Police Chief 73, no. 9 (September 2006).

Department, Las Vegas Metropolitian Police. LVMPD About Us. 2010.

http://www.lvmpd.com/AboutLVMPD/HistoryoftheDepartment/Consolidation.aspx (accessed

February 2010).

Dollery, Brian. "Are there Tensions between Democracy and Efficiency in Local Government? A Conceptual

Note on the Structural Reform Debate." Urban Policy and Research 28, no. 1 (March 2010 ): 117-

123.

Elmore, Richard F. "Backward Mapping: Implementation Research adn Policy Decisions." Political Science

Quartely 94, no. 4 (1979-80): 601-616.

Epstein, David, and Sharyn O'Halloran. "Administrative Procedures, Information, and Agency Discreations:

Slack and flexibility." American Journal of Political Science 38 (1994): 697-722.

Etemo, John A, and Eli Silverman. "THe NYPD's Compstat: compare statistics or compose statistics."

International Journal of Police Science & Management 12, no. 3 (2010): 426-449.

Federal Bureau of Invesitgations. FBI UCR Statistics. 2012. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

(accessed Feb 2012).

Feiock, Richard C. City County Consolidation Efforts: Selective Incentives and Instituional Choice. April 2006.

http://localgov.fsu.edu/publication_files/Feiock&Park&Kang_Consolidation_K3.pdf (accessed

February 2010).

Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Criminal Justice Professionalism Program. 2008.

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/05c013ca-a32e-48a1-aca8-df7f06854d49/CJP-Home-

Page.aspx (accessed 2010).

Fries, Ryan, Mashrur Chowdhury, and Yongchang Ma. "Accelerated Incident Detection and Verification: A

benfit to Cost Analysis of Traffic Cameras." Journal of Intellgent Transportation Systems 11, no. 4

(October 2007): 191-203.

Gal, Michal S. "Regional Competition Law Agreements: An Important Step for Antitrust Enforcement."

University of Toronto Law Journal, 2010: 60-70.

Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point. New York : Back Bay Books, 2002.

Goyeneche, Rafael C. Metropolitian Crime Commission. 2009.

http://www.metropolitancrimecommission.org/index.html (accessed November 13, 2010).

Hammond, Thomas H. "Agenda Control, Organizational structure, and Bureaucratic Politics." American

Journal of Political Science 30, no. 2 (1986): 379-420.

International Association of Chiefs of Police. IACP consolidating police services: an IACP planning approach.

IACP, 2003.

Jacksonville Historical Society. Jacksonville's Consolidated Government. March 2011.

http://www.jaxhistory.com/journal11.html (accessed March 2011).

Jang, Hyunseok, Larry T Hoover, and Hee-Jong Joo. "An Evaluation of Compstat's Effect on Crime: The Fort

Worth Experience." Police Quarterly 13, no. 4 (December 2010): 387-412.

Jang, Hyunseok, Larry T Hoover, and Hee-Jong Joo. "An Evaluation of Compstat's Effect on Crime: The Fort

Worth Experience." Police Quarterly 13, no. 4 (December 2010): 387-412.

Kingdon, John W. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: Longman, 2003.

Koops, Bert-Jaap. "Law, Technology, and Shifting Power Relations." Berkeley Technology Law Journal 25

(2010): 973-1035.

Krebs, Timothy B, and P John Pelissero. "Urban Managers and Public Policy: Do Institutional Arangements

Influence Decisions to Initate Policy?" Urban Affairs Review 45, no. 3 (January 2010): 391-411.

LaGrange, Randy L. "The Future of Police Consolidation." Journal of Contemporary Justice 3, no. 1 (1987):

6-16.

Legislature, Louisiana State. "Louisiana Laws." Louisiana State Legislature. 2010.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/ (accessed April 2012).

—. "Louisiana State Constitution." Louisiana State Senate. 1974.

http://senate.legis.state.la.us/documents/constitution/constitution.pdf (accessed February 19,

2010).

Lersch, Kim Michelle, and Linda L Kunzman. "Misconduct Allegations and Higher Education in A Southern

Sheriff's Department." American Journal of Criminal Justice 25, no. 2 (2001): 161-172.

Linden, Russell M. Leading Across Boundaries. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2010.

Malkia, Matti, Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko, and Reijo Savolainen. eTransformation in Governance: New Directions

in Government and Politics. Hershey: Idea Group Publishing, 2004.

Marshall, Jr. , Donald Lawrence. "Orleans Parish Law Enforcement Consolidation: THe Human Resource

Issue." Public Administration, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, 2010.

Matland, Richard E. "Synthesizing the implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy

Implementation." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1995: 145-174.

McIntyre, Jennie. "Public Attitudes toward Crime and Law Enforcement." Annals of the American Academy

of Political Science and Social Science (Sage Publications) 374 (November 1967): 34-46.

Menzel, Donald C. Ethics Management for Public Administrators. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2007.

Myers, and Patrick A Myers. Consolidating Police Services: Local Control vs Financial Choice. Florida

Department of Law Enforcement, 2008.

National Sheriffs' Association. "Sheriff's Directory." National Sheriffs' Association, 2010.

Nelligan, Peter J., and William Bourns. "Municipal Contracting with County Sheriffs for Police Services in

California:nComparision of Cost and Effectiveness." Police Quartely 14, no. 1 (2011): 70-95.

Nelson, Michael A. "Municipal Government Approaches to Service Delivery: An Analysis from a

Transactions Cost Perspective." Economic Inquiry, 197: 82-96.

New Orleans Police Department. History of the New Orleans Police Department. 2011. (accessed 2009).

Perez, Katherine, Marc Mari-Dell'Olmo, Aurelio Tobias, and Carme Borrell. "Reducing Road Traffic Injuries:

Effectivness of Speed Cameras in an Urban Setting." American Journal of Public Health 97, no. 9

(September 2007): 1632-1637.

Reed, Jr., Ben. "Future Technology in Law Enforcement." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 77, no. 5 (May

2008): 15-21.

Reese, Laura A. "Same Governance, Different Day: Does Metropolitian Reorganization Make a Difference."

Review of Policy Research 21, no. 4 (2004): 595-609.

Ren, Ling, Jihong Zhao, and Nicholas P Lovrich. "Local Political Structures and Violent Crime in U.S. Cities:

Patterns of Association in aLongitudinal Panel Study." Criminal Justice Policy Review 22, no. 4

(December 2011): 448-470.

Roebuck, Julian B, and Thomas Barker. "A Typology of Police Corruption." Social Problems (University of

California Press) 21, no. 3 (1974): 423-437.

Rojek, Jeff, and Michael R Smith. "Law Enforcement Lessons Learned from Hurricane Katrina." Review of

Policy Research (The Policy Studies Organization) 24, no. 6 (2007): 589-608.

Sabatier, Paul A. "Towards Better Theories of the Policy Process." Political Science and Politics 24, no. 2

(1991): 144-156.

Schwester , Richard W. "Examining The Merits of Municipal Police Contracting." Journal of Public

Procurement 11, no. 1 (2011): 95-107.

Shernock, Stan. "The MJTF as a Type of Coordination Compatible with both Police Consolidation and

Community Policing Movements." Police Practice and Research 5, no. 1 (2004): 67-85.

Sims, Robert T. 2008 Quality of Life Study Orleans and Jefferson Parishes. Political Science Survey Research

Center, University of New Orleans, New Orleans: University of New Orleans, 2008.

Sims, Robert T., Maria Pisaneschi, and Tristan Greene. 2010 Quality of Life Study Orleans and Jefferson

Parishes. Political Science Survey Research Center, University of New Orleans, New Orleans:

University of New Orleans, 2010.

Skogan, Wesley G. "Community Organizations and Crime." Crime and Justice (THe University of Chicago

Press) 10 (1988): 39-78.

Smith, Theodore M. "Corruption. Tradition and Change." Indonesia (Southeast Asia Program Publications

at Cornell University) 11 (April 1971): 21-40.

Svara, James H. "Reform Impulse in Local Government: Its Past and Relevnace to the Future." National

Civic Review, 1994: 323-343.

Texas Commission on Law enforcement Officers Standards and Education. Texas Commission on Law

Enforcement Officers Standards and Education. 2009. http://www.tcleose.state.tx.us/ (accessed

June 2010).

Tully, Edward J. Regionalization or Consolidation of law Enforcement services in the United States. National

Institute Associates, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriff's Association, 2002.

U.S. Government Printing Office. Hurricane Katrina: Managing Law Enforcement and Communications in a

Catastrophe. Congressional Hearing, Committee on Homeland Security and Govermental Affairs ,

United States Senate, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office, 2006, 128.

United States Senate. "Hurricane Katrina: Managing Law Enforcement and Communications in a

Catastrophe." Hearing Before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (U.S.

Government Printing Office), February 2006.

Vojnovic, Igor. "The Tranitional Impacts of Municipal Consolidations ." Journal of Urban Affairs 22, no. 4

(2000): 385-417.

Willis, James. "Compstat and the New Penology: A Paradigm Shift in Policing." Law & Society, 2009.

Willis, James J, Stephen D Mastrofski, and Tammy Rinehart Kochel. "The Co-implementation of Compstat

and Community Policing." Journal of Criminal Justice 38, no. 5 (October 2010): 969-980.