interagency collaboration: an administrative and operational assessment of the metro-lec approach

Interagency collaborationAn administrative and operational assessment

of the Metro-LEC approach

Julie Schnobrich-DavisCenter for the Study of Criminal Justice, Westfield State College, Westfield,

Massachusetts, USA

William TerrillSchool of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, East Lansing,

Michigan, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine an interagency collaboration (The MetropolitanLaw Enforcement Council – Metro-LEC), consisting of 42 law enforcement agencies that providemutual aid and assistance to member agencies in times of need.

Design/methodology/approach – In total, four sources of data (personnel interviews, writtensurvey, organizational documents and participant observation) were used as part of a case studymethod, to assess the administrative and operational functioning of the Metro-LEC.

Findings – In sum, the findings conclude that the organization is meeting the needs of the memberagencies, with few unmanageable impediments.

Research limitations/implications – Since the current study relies on a case study from a singlecollaborative agency, the findings come with caution, in terms of generalizability.

Originality/value – This psprt contributes to the literature on police interagency collaboration andis the first known study on a Law Enforcement Council (LEC).

Keywords Law enforcement, Partnership, Knowledge sharing, Team management,United States of America

Paper type Case study

IntroductionThe fragmentation of the American police structure is both beneficial and limiting.

Since the establishment of the first organized police forces in the nineteenth century,the idea that local communities should oversee the style and manner of policing hasgenerally been viewed as a desirable feature. While estimates vary (see Hickman andReaves, 2006; Maguire et al., 1998), there are upwards of 21,000 distinct autonomouspolice agencies within the USA. Such a degree of fragmentation presents a number ofchallenges. First, criminal activity is not always confined to boundaries of municipalorigin; crimes ranging from property and cyber-space-related offenses to gang anddrug-oriented offenses sometimes cross-jurisdictional lines. Second, larger-scaleincidents such as school related shootings, natural disasters, and terrorist attacks canexceed the capabilities of any one single agency, particularly smaller agencies with

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1363-951X.htm

The points-of-view in this paper are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent theofficial position of the police departments from which the data are drawn.

PIJPSM33,3

506

Received 1 July 2009Revised 8 February 2010Accepted 19 February 2010

Policing: An International Journal ofPolice Strategies & ManagementVol. 33 No. 3, 2010pp. 506-530q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1363-951XDOI 10.1108/13639511011066881

limited resources and expertise levels. In an effort to combat these challenges,interagency collaboration becomes crucial. While the importance of establishing andmaintaining collaborative efforts within a fragmented system has always beenrecognized by police officials, the issue has taken on a renewed emphasis within thepost-911 era (Maguire and King, 2004).

One form of interagency collaboration is a Law Enforcement Council (LEC). A LECpools the resources and talents of small to medium sized police agencies located withina similar geographic location. The purpose of this type of model is to provide variousmutual aid assistance, programs, and services to its member agencies by expandingresources and capabilities in the form of sharing equipment, knowledge, and personnel(Metro-LEC Bylaws, 2007). In effect, a LEC requires each member agency to devote aspecified percentage of resources and personnel time so as to form any number ofoperational units such as Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT), crisis negotiations,and cyber-investigation Units. With the LEC serving as the umbrella organization,police administrators are provided the dual benefit of having highly specializedoperational capabilities while also maintaining local control.

The present article examines the Metropolitan Law Enforcement Council(Metro-LEC), which consists of 42 agencies located directly outside the city ofBoston, so as to assess the operational and organizational merits of implementing thistype of regional multi-jurisdictional collaboration among law enforcement agencies.Given this is the first known study involving a LEC collaborative approach, the presentanalysis will serve as a starting point in identifying and describing the functions ofsuch an organization with concluding remarks identifying the need to furtherinvestigate its successes and/or failures, and if such an organization is practical, viable,and affordable.

In the following section we review the literature on each of the various types ofinteragency collaborative approaches in greater detail, followed by a theoreticaljustification for collaborations as well as elements of successful collaborative ventures.Next we outline our methodology in detail and describe our data sources. We thenpresent a means for understanding the structure and capacities of Metro-LEC bydrawing on Kelling and Wycoff’s (2002) conceptual framework involvingorganizational strategy. This is then followed by an assessment of theadministrative and operational functioning of Metro-LEC. We conclude with adiscussion regarding the merits and drawbacks of this type of interagencycollaboration and recommendations for future research in this area.

Interagency collaboration modelsIt has been a long-standing goal of our country to have better coordination andinteraction among criminal justice agencies at all levels; historically, however, this hasnot occurred (Reynolds et al., 2006). Indeed, the International Association of Chiefs ofPolice (2002) recommended the establishment of regional collaborative efforts as ameans of combating terrorism, sharing information and mobilization for disasters. Alaw enforcement collaboration, as defined by Russell-Einhorn et al. (2004, p. 4), consistsof “law enforcement operations or operational planning involving two or moreenforcement agencies that cross geographic or criminal justice system boundaries”.Interagency collaboration among law enforcement agencies can take various forms,

Interagencycollaboration

507

most of which can be categorized within four distinct models: task forces, partnerships,law enforcement councils, and data sharing networks.

The most common type of collaboration used is taskforces, which often bringtogether numerous jurisdictions (e.g. national-local agencies, multiple local agencies,etc.) to combat a specific problem and are usually short-term oriented (i.e. disbandedonce the task at hand is remedied) (Phillips and Orvis, 1999)[1]. There are national taskforces led by different federal law enforcement agencies as well collaborations that arefunded by federal grant programs[2]. These collaborations are classified as vertical innature since they seek to maximize relationships among agencies at various levels ofgovernment (Coldren et al., 1993). There are also less formal types of collaborationsinvolving federal and local law enforcement agencies. The purpose of many of thesecollaborations is to investigate and prosecute various forms of crime thatcross-geographic or criminal justice system boundaries. Most federal-local taskforces are within major cities or urban areas of the country. The multi-jurisdictionaltask forces that exist in suburban contexts involve less frequent interaction withfederal authorities and thus are not as evolved in terms of their operational interactions(Russell-Einhorn et al., 2004, p. 8).

Task forces also exist on a horizontal plane, meaning that they involvecollaborations that link together similarly situated jurisdictions operating at the samegovernmental level (Coldren et al., 1993). Examples of these kinds of task forces arefound throughout the country and center around specific crime problems as well. Theyalso tend to incorporate other social service or criminal justice agencies, but they tooare generally limited in duration. The effectiveness of task forces has received limitedattention despite the numerous existing task forces (Schlegel and McGarrell, 1991;Smith et al., 2000). There are a few notable exceptions, however, as Smith et al. (2000),Jefferis et al. (1998), McGarrell and Schlegel (1993), and Schlegel and McGarrell (1991)have examined the outcomes of task forces. The culminating results of their researchconcluded that effective communication among the agencies was a key component toany measurement of success and that future research into collaborative ventures isneeded.

Another collaborative approach, a partnership, is described by Rosenbaum (2002,p. 172) as “a cooperative relationship between two or more organizations, to achievesome common goal”. Partnerships are similar to task forces with a focus on a specificproblem for a set amount of time, but tend to incorporate a broader based approach bybringing together institutional support beyond the police (e.g. schools, social serviceagencies, businesses, etc.). Partnerships exist primarily with a limited number ofagencies and sometimes are tied specifically to funding allocations. Partnerships tendto be voluntary and informal; sometimes with no memorandums of understandingbetween the agencies. Partnerships have been marketed as a promising process forplanning, coordinating, and implementing complex and innovative social interventions(Rosenbaum, 2002). The goals can focus on various outcomes such as mobilizing thecommunity, prevention of crime, neighborhood security groups, or improvement ofsocial services (Rosenbaum, 2002) and often have a direct link into community policingobjectives[3].

A third collaborative design is the use of an information-sharing network as ameans to gather and distribute mutually beneficial intelligence to multiple agencies(Reynolds et al., 2006). The federal government has taken great interest in this model,

PIJPSM33,3

508

especially over the past decade (e.g. the National Information Exchange Model inpartnership with the US Department of Justice and the Department of HomelandSecurity). Since its establishment, the Office of Homeland Security has emphasized theimportance of data sharing among the police population, and data sharing networkshave become more prevalent (Reynolds et al., 2006). The Florida Law EnforcementData Sharing Consortium (LEDSC) includes over 100 municipal law enforcementagencies that share low-level information in their record management systems[4]. Theability to tap into more than one database in search of information for investigativepurposes is the main objective of data sharing networks. These types of collaborationsdo not include a true coordinating of police activities, but rather an agreement to sharedata as well as delineating the what, when, who, and how of sharing their data(Buerger et al., 2008).

In addition to data sharing at the local level, there have been new initiatives toinvolve data sharing across multiple jurisdictional levels. The federal government hasrecommended and funded state and local fusion centers that have the specific objectiveof sharing information and intelligence throughout a region. The purpose of fusioncenters is to collect and analyze data, and then to disseminate this information toappropriate law enforcement agencies. The New York State Intelligence Center(NYSIC) is one example of how fusion centers can be utilized[5]. Moreover, the federalgovernment has invested in developing tools to assist law enforcement agencies withthe technological issues of sharing data[6]. The structure of these data sharingnetworks may indeed have some governing body (see Mission Possible)[7] in order tofacilitate the technical issues and recruitment of additional agencies; however, there isno coordination of police operations or activities in response to the data that is received.

The last type of collaboration, Law Enforcement Councils (LECs), involvesmulti-jurisdictional collaborations based on mutual aid agreements. LECs allow for thedevelopment of comprehensive strategies and resource deployment on a regional basis,and act as an aid for localities for incidents that go beyond their capability in scope (e.g.may not have the specialized skill set locally) or duration (e.g. incident spans severaldays). As an umbrella organization, LECs are often comprised of a number ofmunicipal police departments and county law enforcement agencies within a localizedregion[8]. This type of collaborative effort is thought to be an efficient and effectiveway of coping with the insufficiencies individual agencies suffer from in terms offinancial resources and personnel shortages (Interviews, 2008).

While individual agencies may each lack the tools and expertise to properly contendwith certain types of incidents and activities, a LEC, as a consortium, can utilize theresources of the participant communities as well as employing state and federalorganizations in an effort to prevent and prepare for threats to their citizens(Interviews, 2008; Peterson, 2005). In essence, an officer working for an agency thatparticipates in a LEC works full-time for his/her own department and part-time for theLEC. For example, an officer assigned to patrol duties in one department will continuein this role on an everyday basis, but may also train and be part of the LEC SpecialWeapons and Tactics (SWAT) Unit along with officers from other surrounding towns.When an incident occurs that requires activation of the LEC SWAT Unit, the officerwill be relieved of his/her patrol duties and will respond to the town where theemergency exists to work with other specially trained officers.


509

In addition to the more common types of law enforcement collaborations, a LEC alsohas parallels to public sector collaborations. In the middle part of the twentieth centurythere were numerous attempts at consolidation, which took various forms. In fact, itwas emphasized by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations thatlaw enforcement agencies with ten or less sworn officers should consolidate with otherarea agencies or with larger law enforcement agencies for efficiency and effectiveness(Skoler, 1977). However, many studies (Ostrom et al., 1973; Wickum, 1986; Norrgard,1975) concluded that intergovernmental agreements or some form of sharing resourceswas a better approach for providing necessary services (e.g. records, radio, dispatch) atan economy of scale as well as still providing local services (e.g. patrol) at a highquality. Kuhn (1981), however, argued that small police agencies would still need todepend on larger agencies for assistance with such specialized functions andoperational units as SWAT. Indeed, the LEC approach leaves patrol and basicfunctions most appropriate for the local level intact and focuses on those aspects ofpolicing that would benefit from a regional perspective.

In sum, Law Enforcement Councils incorporate many of the elements found withinthe other collaborative models, while attempting to strengthen each member’s ownoperational capabilities and maintaining control of the process internally. A LEC is aunique approach that has not been studied before. It is important to note that the kindsof collaborations discussed here are not meant to be exhaustive. Nor is their descriptionmeant to identify all variants within each type of collaboration, but serve only as ameans of generalizing the scope of these particular types of collaborations. Ourdescription is meant to facilitate the comparison among the kinds of collaborations inan effort to better understand the methods and objectives of each.

Elements of successful collaborationsThe theoretical justification for collaborations in general emphasizes that a collectivecomprehensive approach/strategy to any given problem results in a better means ofresolving that problem than a single-agency or single-strategy approach would afford.There are numerous examples throughout the literature that show how multi-levelinter-organizational strategies have led to increases in public safety (Rosenbaum, 2001;Margo, 1992). However, there are also examples of collaborations that have failed toachieve their goals because of a breakdown in their collaborative process (Giacomazziand Smithey, 2001; Rosenbaum, 2001). Indeed, the basic premise of collaborations andtheir ability to achieve their goals depends on how well these collaborations function(Lasker et al., 2001).

When efforts are not coordinated tensions between federal, state, and localauthorities often occur. Russell-Einhorn et al. (2004), state that tensions form regardingthe appropriate organization and governance of the collaboration. Determining whatorganizational practices ensure the best teamwork and maximize the respectivecontributions of each law enforcement agency has assumed great importance asopportunities for partnering have increased. They go on to state that without aneffective means of coordinating activities, duplication of effort and potentiallydangerous collisions of personnel may result (Russell-Einhorn et al., 2004, p. 5). The useof Memorandums of Understanding and Mutual Aid Agreements that spell out theresponsibilities of the agencies involved helps to alleviate potential grievances(Russell-Einhorn et al., 2004, p. 5).

PIJPSM33,3

510

There are numerous studies that outline the elements necessary for a successfulcollaboration to exist (Hayseslip and Russell-Einhorn, 2003; Margo, 1992; Prestby andWandersman, 1985; Rosenbaum, 2002; Lasker, 2001). Each analysis has identified a listof different critical components to achieve a synergistic collaboration. Some elementsoverlap and some are particular to a certain kind of collaboration[9], while othercomponents are essential for all types of collaborations[10]. Furthermore, while theliterature is replete with analyses examining collaborations in general, an agreed uponlist of successful elements does not exist. Nonetheless, there are core themes that arecontained within the literature: effective leadership, effective communication, andsteady resources are among the most prevalent.

Although it is the objective of any collaboration to achieve its goals through asocially cohesive manner, that result can be difficult to obtain. Minor et al. (2002)describe factors that can act as enhancers and/or inhibitors to interagencycollaboration:

. the culture of the organizations involved;

. bureaucratic structures in the involved agencies; and

. the individuals and associated personal networks.

Indeed, Lasker et al. (2001) describes some concerns of partners in deciding whether toparticipate in a collaboration (diversion of time and resources, reduced independence indecisions, conflict between their own work and the collaboration’s work, possiblenegative exposure, frustration with the cooperative process, and insufficient credit fortheir contribution), which can impede the growth and reduce the reputation of thecollaboration. Successful collaborations tend to encompass the characteristics of opensystems, which continually interact with their environment to make changes through afeedback loop. This study assesses the Metro-LEC collaboration as an organizationalstrategy that was developed to incorporate a more efficient and effective way ofhandling incidents that would benefit from a regional perspective and providing anumbrella organization to coordinate the cooperative management of the associatedactivities.

MethodologyWe rely on a case study method for examining the Metro-LEC organization. Thisapproach is “invaluable as both an exploratory tool that can lay the foundation formore statistically sophisticated work and a mechanism for providing contextualinformation that quantitative analysis is generally unable to supply” (Howard et al.,2000, p. 171). The obvious advantage to this methodological approach is its contextualanalysis of one organization, which allows for a deeper understanding.

When utilizing the case study method, it is necessary to collect data from a varietyof sources in order to develop an accurate depiction of the unit of analysis (i.e.Metro-LEC). As such, data are derived from four primary sources. First, a series oforganizational documents (e.g. Bylaws, Mutual Aid Agreement, application forms,executive summaries, grant applications, newsletters, Executive Board meetingminutes, etc.) were collected to provide an overview description of the structure andoperational features of Metro-LEC. Metro-LEC is incorporated as a non-profitorganization and operates through the use of a set of Bylaws, which were developed bythe pioneers of the Metro-LEC. The Mutual Aid Agreement is the document that all


511

members must sign and adhere to and which delineates the responsibilities of allparties. The application survey sets forth the conditions of membership. The executivesummary provides information on the accomplishments of the prior year along withgoals for the upcoming year. Additional documents (e.g. internal newsletters, grantapplications, internal memos, and newspaper articles) provide supplementaryinformation to the workings of the organization.

Second, researchers attended Executive Board committee meetings (held once amonth) for three years. The board consists of nine officers voted on by the membershipas a whole (one President, two Vice Presidents, one Secretary, one Treasurer and fourat-large officers). As noted in further detail below, the Executive Board meets on amonthly basis to review progress, set goals, handle problems, review applications andprovide for the general operations of the organization. These meetings typically lastedabout two hours each.

Third, eight intensive interviews were conducted with personnel involved invarious positions throughout the organization. Purposive sampling was used to collectinformation and viewpoints of personnel including the President, Vice President,Treasurer, Executive Director, and Unit Commanding Officers. All interviews lasted aminimum of one hour (most lasted two to three hours) and were accompanied withfollow-up phone calls and e-mails. The interview questions focused on the strategicplanning process that was undertaken by the developers of the Metro-LECorganization, as well as questions pertaining to the operational and administrativetasks involved from the chief executive officer’s point-of-view (see the Appendix).

Finally, a survey was developed and administered to all front line-level workers(n ¼ 94)[11], to assess their views as to the operational and administrative functions ofthe Metro-LEC. The survey was developed to understand the elements that act asenhancers and/or inhibiters to collaborations. There were six basic themes thataccompanied the survey:

(1) role definition;

(2) preparedness;

(3) workload;

(4) communications;

(5) activation process; and

(6) morale.

The survey was administered to all operational units at the time by the commandingofficers of that unit during regularly scheduled training sessions. Specific, writteninstructions were provided by the research team, on how to complete the survey, and toaffirm that participation was voluntary, confidential, and anonymous (i.e. noidentifying markers). A self-addressed stamped envelope was provided so officerscould mail completed surveys directly back to the research team without anysupervisory input, review, or tampering. The response rate was 75 percent (n ¼ 74).

Organizational strategy descriptive analysisCurrently, there are 42 law enforcement agencies that are members of the Metro-LEC(see Figure 1). The member police departments are considered small to medium sized,ranging from 15 to 101 sworn law enforcement personnel (US Department of Justice,

PIJPSM33,3

512

2006). The majority of police departments, 71 percent, have fewer than 50 swornofficers. The Metro-LEC services an area spanning approximately 655 square milesacross five different counties that are situated on the outskirts of Boston, MA (UnitedStates Census Bureau, 2000). There are three interstate highways that pass through theregion (I90 and I95 and I93), as well as major thoroughfares (Routes 495, 128, 24 and 3).Further, all major highways can and are utilized for the transport of illegal goods, witha reported increase in the nature and volume of criminal activity occurring across theregion (Metropolitan Law Enforcement Council, 2007, p. 1). The total number of indexcrimes ranges from 61 to 1,016 across these communities (US Department of Justice,2006).

The Metro-LEC serves a population of nearly one million people, which represent 12percent of the Commonwealth’s total population (Metropolitan Law EnforcementCouncil, 2007). The communities involved in the Metro-LEC range in size of populationfrom 4,300 to 54,000 (US Department of Justice, 2006) and 12 of the communities, host aresident population that exceeds 25,000. Additionally, there are 12 communities thathost a resident population of below 10,000:

Geographically, the Metro-LEC communities represent an equal mix of bedroomcommunities, industrial communities, and communities that reside on the immediateoutskirts of Boston and Providence (Metro-LEC, 2007b, p. 1).

Figure 1.Metro-LEC communities


513

The specific purpose of the Metro-LEC, upon incorporation in 2002 as a non-profitorganization, is to promote greater public safety through collaboration between lawenforcement agencies located in the southeast/west region of Boston, MA (Metro-LEC,2007b).

To begin to understand and assess the merits of an approach such as the Metro-LECwe draw on Kelling and Wycoff’s (2002, p. 2) conceptual framework involvingorganizational strategy, which they define as a “determination of long term goals,adopting courses of action, and allocating resources to obtain goals.” In particular,Kelling and Wycoff (2002, pp. 5-7) identified seven elements of an organizationalstrategy:

(1) Authorization – the sources of authority that provide the mandate andresources for the agency to operate.

(2) Function – the values, missions, and goals of the organization.

(3) Organization and administrative processes – the structure, human resources,management processes, and culture of agencies.

(4) Demand – the requests for an organization’s service and how an organizationshapes and manages those requests.

(5) Environment – the pattern of external conditions that affect the organization.

(6) Tactics – the methodologies that organizations use to obtain their goals.

(7) Outcomes – the results of an organization’s activities.

Using these elements as a guide, we break down the Metro-LEC to determine thestructure and capacities of this type of regional multi-jurisdictional collaboration. Onestablishing how Metro-LEC fits within these seven elements, we can then begin toassess the extent to which Metro-LEC, as an organizational strategy, may (or may not)be deemed a success. We begin with a descriptive analysis of the organizationalstructure and command configuration, the various functions of the different divisionsand units, financial obligations of member agencies, legal concerns, resourcedevelopment, and impediments.

AuthorizationThe first element of Kelling and Wycoff’s (2002) organizational strategy isauthorization. The Metro-LEC derives its authority from its member agencies asadopted through a Mutual Aid agreement. In 2002, the Metro-LEC was incorporated asa non-profit organization with a membership of 30 police departments. One reason anon-profit organization was sought rather than some other form of collaborativeventure was fiduciary in nature (e.g. it can collect dues and purchase items or serviceswithout having various towns involved in the monetary aspect of dispersing fundsequitably) (Interviews, 2008). Another pertinent reason for establishing themselves asa non-profit organization was so the LEC would become a long-standing fixture withthe ability to leverage resources and talent from member agencies (Interviews, 2008).

There are five primary requirements for becoming a member agency. First, eachindividual town/ city must first adopt the Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40Section 8 g that allows their jurisdiction to enter into mutual aid agreements. Second,each agency must file an application outlining what expertise or specialized equipmentthe member agency has to offer the organization, as well as areas where the member

PIJPSM33,3

514

agency would like to have its personnel assigned (e.g. Regional Response Team,Cyber-Crime, etc.) if admitted. Third, each agency must enter into a mutual aidagreement that permits officers to posses’ police powers in all participating agencies(e.g. crossing jurisdictional lines). Fourth, each municipal community must providepolice liability insurance of at least one million dollars for their sworn officers[12].Finally, each agency must agree to both a monetary and staffing commitment ($2,500initiation fee, $2,500 annual dues, and 10 percent of staffing time or other resources)(Metro-LEC, n.d., 2007a). Agencies meeting all requirements are full members, and as aresult can draw on the council in times of need[13].

The organization has adopted a set of Bylaws identifying the rules that govern thecorporation and outlining governance via an Executive Board consisting of ChiefExecutive Officers (e.g. chiefs of police, Sheriffs) of member agencies. Each memberagency has one vote and all Executive Board members are elected by a majority vote atthe annual general Council meeting (Metro-LEC, 2007a). The Executive Board meetsmonthly with authority to make decisions, adopt rules and regulations, and managethe affairs of the organization. In addition, the board has the authority to raise revenuein the form of dues, fees, grants, or other means, as well as expending funds in the bestinterest of the organization[14].

FunctionFunction, according to Kelling and Wycoff (2002, p. 5), “refers to the values, missions,and goals of the organization”. The Metro-LEC has several goals as described in theirBylaws and interagency mutual aid agreement (Metro-LEC, 2005), the first of which is to:

[. . .] provide mutual aid programs for the member police departments because of terrorist orenemy action, natural disaster, unusual occurrence including but not limited to fire, flood,storm, earthquake, landslide, aircraft accident, search or rescue operations, other natural orman-caused incidents requiring exceptional police action, school or workplace violence, riot,mob action, civil disturbance, demonstration, urban insurgency or any situation threatening thepeace and tranquility of the requesting party’s jurisdiction (Metro-LEC, 2007a, p. 1).

The organization also identifies additional goals such as “to continually prepare andimplement a comprehensive plan for mutual assistance to enhance the law enforcementcapability throughout the region” (Metro-LEC, 2005, p. 1). Furthermore, the Metro-LEChas a stated mission of providing a “system for the receipt and dissemination ofinformation, data, and directives within the organization and its members in an effortto coordinate services between the organization and other law enforcement agencies atthe local, state, and federal levels” (Metro-LEC, 2005, p. 1). The last stated function ofthe Metro-LEC is to provide cooperation and assistance in combating criminal activitywithin the region and to promulgate the operational procedures of the organization(Metro-LEC, 2005, p. 1).

Organization and administrative processesKelling and Wycoff’s (2002, p. 6) third organizational strategy element is organizationand administrative processes, which refer “to the structure, human resources,management processes, and culture of agencies”. The Metro-LEC is structured as acooperative organization with the member agencies participating in the governing ofthe organization, paying dues, attending an annual business meeting, electing thegoverning Executive Board, and participating on numerous committees. Under the


515

Executive Board are five distinct divisions that constitute the operational aspects of theorganization. Each division has a Control Chief and a Commanding Officer. Thespecific units with Unit Commanders are situated under each division (see Figure 2).

Member agencies are queried on the resources, equipment, expertise, certifications,or other assets they will contribute towards the organizational objectives. For instance,the Sheriff’s office has trained personnel and K9 units for search and rescue operations,some police departments have officers that are expertly trained snipers, while otherdepartments have officers that are specialized in computer programming (Interviews,2008). Each agency is also asked to participate in the various divisions or units (asshown in Figure 2), as well as serving on any number of committees (e.g. policy andprocedure review, technology, logistics and equipment, training, education, etc.). Theconcept behind the use of a LEC is to use the specialized talent in each policedepartment and expand on it, train others, and make full utilization of their skills.

The management of the Metro-LEC organization, as a whole, is handled by theExecutive Board, with several committees in place to assist with the planning andoperational aspects of the organization. Moreover, each Control Chief has commandand oversight of the division and each Unit Commander has direct supervision over theunit. Unit members are nominated by their home chief executive officer and are thensubject to successful completion of the selection process for that particular unit.Continued membership in an operational unit is subject to the discretion of the ControlChief. In terms of disciplinary issues, any inappropriate behavior or failure to perform

Figure 2.Metro-LEC organizationalchart

PIJPSM33,3

516

at the prescribed level may be considered sufficient grounds for suspension ordismissal from the unit (Interviews, 2008). There are no unions to contend with, soparticipation in the Metro-LEC is deemed a privilege (Interviews, 2008). Last, theTreasurer has the responsibility of keeping financial records as well as acquiringrevenue and dispersing funds with the approval of the Executive Board (Metro-LEC,2007a). Further, the organization retains a Executive Director who is assigned amultitude of duties (e.g. attend committee meetings, provide accounting services, seekand write grants for agencies which fund Metro-LEC operations, and serve as a liaisonwith other LECs in the area) (Interviews, 2008).

Finally, culture “refers to the myths and beliefs of an organization, its informalpatterns of communication and expected roles, personal values, attitudes and beliefsabout why things happen and how decisions are made” (Kelling and Wycoff, 2002, p. 6).According to interviews with top administrators (Interviews, 2008), the culture of theorganization appears to police itself. Numerous interviewees stated, “the people thatare in it are in it for the right reasons” and there are stringent entrance requirements foran officer to become part of a division/unit (e.g. each unit has its own set of prescribedrequirements that must be passed). All units train together for large scale events andhave all trained with outside partners such as the State Police, Coast Guard, as well asother LECs in the area. In addition, the Executive Board attempts to update itsmembers periodically through various forms (mail, e-mail, phone, etc.). Each individualunit is responsible for developing its own set of rules, policies and procedures, codes ofconduct, and operational guidelines, which are then approved by the Executive Board.Moreover, each unit is required to keep records on attendance, participation, training,and after-action reports (Metro-LEC, 2007a).

DemandThe fourth element in Kelling and Wycoff’s (2002, p. 6) organizational strategy isdemand, which “refers to requests for an organization’s service and how anorganization shapes and manages those requests”. The most frequent demand forMetro-LEC services comes from the member agencies themselves. The causes fordemand vary and are unpredictable. Some examples include: barricaded suspects,hostage situations, high risk search warrants, search and rescue operations, crowdcontrol, traffic control and escorts for major events, computer related crimes, computerforensic exams, investigative services and intelligence gathering on a subject orsituation (Metro-LEC, 2007b; Interviews, 2008). In addition to these more commonthreats to public safety, there are also the rare threats of terrorist actions, natural orman-made disasters, or mass casualty incidents that would exceed the resources of anyagency and thus activate the Metro-LEC for assistance (Metro-LEC, 2007a). Othersources of demand come from area task forces and regional LECs. The Metro-LEC hasseveral agreements or memorandums of understanding with organizations such as theBoston Police Department, North East Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council(NEMLEC), the Coast Guard, FBI, the Massachusetts Department of EnvironmentalManagement, and Boston University.

EnvironmentKelling and Wycoff’s (2002, p. 6) fifth organizational strategy element is environment,which “refers to the pattern of external condition that affects the organization. Most


517

often environmental influences are technological, economic, social, and political inkind”. Numerous technological conditions and advancements affect the organization.The ability to share information that is stored on different platforms is a keycomponent to interagency collaboration. The State Wide Information Sharing System(SWISS), a statewide data-sharing network not yet operational, will enable state andlocal law enforcement agencies to exchange critical information[15]. Metro-LEC alsouses mobile command posts with computer and other necessary technology (mappingtechnology, telecom equipment) to respond to critical incidents. Moreover, the forensiclaboratory uses the most up-to-date sophisticated equipment available (specializedsoftware for decryption). In addition, the organization has a number of other forms ofequipment and technologies to assist their mission (e.g. Incident Command post,cameras, computers, special munitions, and SWAT vehicles), as well as equipment thatthe host community or member agency has available for use. Further, the Metro-LECalso utilizes equipment available from other sources, such as the State Police (e.g. bombsquad robot) (Interviews, 2008).

The economic conditions that affect Metro-LEC operations are directly influencedby the broader economic state of affairs. The ability of member agencies to pay theirannual dues and the required 10 percent of personnel to the organization areparticularly challenging in times of economic decline. Moreover, the fluctuations ofdifferent grant opportunities does not always allow for a consistent flow of outsidefunds. Additionally, the problem of staffing the organization can also be problematic.For example, when a police chief of a member agency retires or leaves, the new chiefmust decide to continue participation with Metro-LEC; and when a member of a unitleaves, it takes time and resources to bring in new personnel and train them. The costof equipment alone can be somewhat high (e.g. $2,000 to outfit one officer in SWATprotective gear) (Interviews, 2008).

Social and political issues also have an impact on the Metro-LEC organization(Interviews, 2008), most predominantly, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.When the concept of the Metro-LEC was first formed, terrorist attacks had not figuredinto the discussions; the founders knew they would need to be prepared for naturaldisasters, strikes, and crowd control issues. Post 9/11, the organization realized it washeading in the right direction with regionalizing and building a capacity to respond tocritical incidents that also included terrorism.

TacticsTactics refers to “the methodologies that organizations use to obtain their goals”(Kelling and Wycoff, 2002, p. 7). The Metro-LEC has five operational divisions, withvarying units subsumed within each division[16]. The Metropolitan Special Tacticsand Response (Metro-STAR) Division is comprised of several operational units that arespecially trained to expertly handle certain situations. The Special Weapons andTactics Unit (SWAT) is trained to effectively deal with high threat incidents. TheRegional Response Team (RRT) is trained to deal with search and rescue situations,crowd control and demonstrations, control and diversion of traffic, and various typesof security operations (Metro-LEC, 2007b). The Crisis Negotiations Team (CNT) isspecifically trained in crisis negotiations for critical incidents and work with trainedforensic psychological and psychiatric specialists (Metro-LEC, 2007b). The TacticalCanine Team (TCT) is comprised of law enforcement professionals who have been

PIJPSM33,3

518

trained as canine officers and to operate during critical incidents (Metro-LEC, 2007b).The last unit in this division is the Administrative and Logistical Support Team (ALS)which is comprised of sworn and non-sworn law enforcement professionals who havebeen trained to assist in the operation of a command post and to provide additionallogistical support to the other operational components of the Metro-STAR Division(e.g. communications, assistance to local incident command, investigative assistance,generation of maps and diagrams, etc.) (Metro-LEC, 2007b). All specialized units underthe Metro-STAR Division train together so as to provide a regional tactical police forceconsisting of approximately 100 officers (Interviews, 2008).

The second division of the Metro-LEC is the Cyber-Crime Investigations Divisionand includes sworn and non-sworn law enforcement personnel who have been trainedand equipped to possess a level of expertise to investigate a wide range of computerrelated crimes (e.g. cyber-threats, computer related larcenies, frauds and scams,cyber-stalking, and identity theft) (Metro-LEC, 2007b). The Investigative Unit works incollaboration with other law enforcement agencies, prosecutorial agencies, the privatesector, and with the Forensics Unit (Metro-LEC, 2007b), which is responsible forconducting forensic exams of all types of digital media, as well as preserving,recovering, and testifying about evidence (Metro-LEC, 2007b). Finally, the EducationUnit develops training materials and conducts presentations at local schools, as well asin communities affiliated with the Metro-LEC (Metro-LEC, 2007b).

The third division of the Metro-LEC is the Metro Regional CommunicationsDivision, which provides proactive planning and implementation services to aid theradio communications infrastructure across member agencies (Metro-LEC, 2007b). Itexpands the inter-operational abilities among member agencies and provides fortactical communication operations for a large-scale incident (Metro-LEC, 2007b).Additionally, the division has engaged in several projects to expand the radio networkutilized in the event of a critical incident (Metro-LEC, 2007b).

The fourth division of the Metro-LEC is the Metro Regional Traffic Safety Division.This division is comprised of a Motorcycle Unit. The focus of this unit is primarilytraffic and crowd control, various safety initiatives, and providing escorts for majorevents occurring in and among the metropolitan area (Metro-LEC, 2007b).

The last division of the Metro-LEC is the Metropolitan Criminal InvestigationsDivision, which is comprised of three units. The Investigative Support Unit isstaffed exclusively by detectives with special training in conducting criminalinvestigations, interrogations, and interview processes (Interviews, 2008). It offersservices for a range of activations and works in tandem with Metro-STAR units(Interviews, 2008). The Public Information Unit works with the press at on sceneincidents and serves as a liaison between the onsite Command Chief and the press(Interviews, 2008). The third Unit is the Child Abduction Response Team (CART)whose members are specially trained to investigate and respond to child abductions(Interviews, 2008).

OutcomesThe last element of Kelling and Wycoff’s (2002, p. 7) organizational strategy isoutcomes or “the results of an organization’s activities”. These outcomes are defined asthe anticipated and unanticipated results that occur in relation to the actions of theorganization.


519

One outcome requires each unit to complete an after-action report post activation.These reports summarize the nature of the incident, the identity of the requestingparty, the actions that were taken by members of the operational component, theidentity of the members of the unit who participated in the operation, and the outcomeof the incident, which includes any recommendations or suggestions for futureoperations (Metro-LEC, 2007a). These reports allow the organization to review theways in which they attempt to meet the needs of their members.

In addition, the organization shows growth for a young entity. The Metro-LECstarted out with the operational division of the Metro-STAR and has continuallyadded and expanded the available resources for its members. Not only has it addedmore units and teams, but 12 more organizational members from the original 30. Ithas also helped to initiate other LECs such as the South Eastern Massachusetts LawEnforcement Council (SEMLEC), the Cape Cod Regional Law Enforcement Council,and the Western Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council (WEMLEC) (Interviews,2008).

Another outcome is the frequency in which the organizational units are called outfor activation, displaying the trust agencies have in utilizing the operational units. Nowthat the Metro-LEC has become an established organization, a measurement of itssuccess can be seen in the increase in the number of calls it receives (Interviews, 2008).In 2005 there were 102 activations, followed by 150 in 2006, 215 in 2007, and 248 in2008[17]. In fact, the Metro-LEC was receiving so many calls for service that officialsstreamlined the process and trained supervisors in an effort to be more fiscallyresponsible and only activate a unit when necessary.

Yet another beneficial outcome includes maintaining local control over policeoperations. This was a key issue in the creation of the organization and the ability forsustaining it. Historically, municipal police departments would call upon the aid of theState Police for assistance in situations or critical incidents that went beyond the localpolice department’s ability to effectively control. However, at times the State policewould come to the situation and “take over and not take any direction from local chiefs,thus there was no accountability” (Interviews, 2008). Membership in the Metro-LECallows local chiefs to maintain control over incidents in their jurisdiction and have finalsay in what methods will or will not be used.

Finally, other outcomes reported by members of the Metro-LEC include jobstimulation and officer retention in the home police department. Because Metro-LECagencies are small to medium sized, they generally do not have high levels of crime anddisorder. Hence, for officers seeking job stimulation the Metro-LEC provides an arenafor specialization and expertise in the more traditional crime fighting type of areas (e.g.SWAT). Further, Metro-LEC can also serve as a knowledge multiplier in that officersmay pass on their knowledge and training to other officers in their home department(Interviews, 2008).

Organizational strategy evaluationUsing a variety of data sources and the conceptual framework provided by Kelling andWycoff (2002) a first time descriptive analysis of the Metro-LEC organization isprovided. The obvious question now is: does it work? To help answer this question weagain rely on Kelling and Wycoff’s (2002) organizational strategy for guidance. More

PIJPSM33,3

520

specifically, Kelling and Wycoff (2002, pp. 7-8) identify eight criteria to help evaluatethe success of an organizational strategy:

(1) identifiability;

(2) internal coherence;

(3) extent of exploitation of current opportunities;

(4) consistency with its competence and resources;

(5) consistency between the strategy and personal values of key managers;

(6) effectiveness;

(7) maximum contribution to society; and

(8) the extent of stimulation of the organization to ongoing productivity andcreativity.

First, the Metro-LEC is identifiable as a distinct entity that is easily distinguished fromother agencies. All members wear the same uniforms in their respective unitsidentifying themselves as members of the Metro-LEC. Additionally, survey resultsfrom the front line officers on their views of how well their role has been defined andidentified in the organization has shown that 80.3 percent of the respondents believetheir role in Metro-LEC is well defined with the another 19.7 percent responding thattheir role is somewhat defined (see Table I)[18]. No one reported that their role was notwell defined. The fact that officers have their role clearly defined in this separateorganization allows it to be identified as distinct from their home police department.

Second, the Metro-LEC also shows internal coherence. More specifically, as depictedin Table II, survey results of front line officers indicate that members are satisfied withcommunications. Nearly 85 percent of respondents are very satisfied or somewhatsatisfied with the amount and types of communications within their own division.

STAR Cyber crimeRegional

traffic Totaln % n % n % n %

Very well defined 47 87.0 3 50.0 7 63.6 57 80.3Somewhat defined 7 13.0 3 50.0 4 36.4 14 19.7Not well defined 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Total 54 100.0 6 100.0 11 100.0 71 100.0

Table I.How well do you believe

your role is defined?

Withindivision

Acrossdivision

Executiveboard

Outsideagencies

n % n % n % n %

Very satisfied 37 52.1 26 36.6 19 26.8 12 16.9Somewhat satisfied 23 32.4 22 31.0 25 35.2 28 39.4Somewhat unsatisfied 7 9.9 12 16.9 12 16.9 10 14.1Very unsatisfied 2 2.8 6 8.5 7 9.9 11 15.5Total 69 97.2 66 93.0 63 88.7 61 85.9

Table II.Satisfaction with theamount and type of

communication


521

Respondents were also asked about their satisfaction with the amount and types ofcommunications with members of other Metro-LEC divisions. Here, the amount ofsatisfied respondents (very or somewhat satisfied) is still fairly high (67.6 percent).Third, respondents were asked about communications with the Executive Board and62 percent reported being very or somewhat satisfied with their communications withthe Executive Board. In addition to satisfaction with communications within theorganization, a large majority (76 percent) of front line workers demonstrate high levelsof morale (Table III), a clear indication that there is internal coherence.

Third, the Metro-LEC seeks to maximize on current opportunities through variousoutlets. First, they employ an Executive Director who actively seeks grant-fundingopportunities. Additionally, the organization has also formed partnerships with otherprivate and public agencies as a means of obtaining additional resources. Moreover,Metro-LEC Units operate on a part-time basis, only being activated when the needarrives and thus being fiscally cognizant of local budgets. They have streamlined theactivation process with 90 percent of the members reporting their satisfaction with thecall-out process (Table IV).

Fourth, the Metro-LEC shows consistency with its competence and resources. EachDivision screens officers from member departments before admission. Since theorganization is a non-profit entity, there are no unions to contend with nor are thereany means for grievances. If an officer does not want to participate, he/she is under noobligation (Interviews, 2008). Furthermore, members answered questions about howprepared they felt in accomplishing their missions. This involves question pertainingto adequate training and equipment. Approximately 82 percent of respondentsreported receiving adequate training (Table V), however, only 48 percent reportedhaving adequate equipment to fulfill their needs (Table VI). Moreover, while resourcesvary depending on the influx of external grant funds, annual dues and the 10 percent



Very satisfied 32 59.3 1 16.7 8 72.7 41 57.7Somewhat satisfied 18 33.3 2 33.3 3 27.3 23 32.4Somewhat unsatisfied 2 93.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.8Very unsatisfied 0 0.0 2 33.3 0 0.0 2 2.8Total 52 96.3 5 83.3 11 100.0 68 95.8

Table IV.Satisfaction withactivation process



Excellent 22 40.7 1 16.7 6 54.5 29 40.8Good 20 37.0 1 16.7 4 36.4 25 35.2Fair 8 14.8 1 16.7 0 0.0 9 12.7Poor 1 1.9 1 16.7 0 0.0 2 2.8Total 51 94.4 4 66.7 10 90.9 65 91.5

Table III.How would you ratemorale in yourdivision/unit?

PIJPSM33,3

522

personnel dedication to the organization from each member agency provides a degreeof stability. Thus, the organization appears to have high quality personnel andresources to accomplish its mission.

Kelling and Wycoff’s (2002) fifth criterion involves the consistency between it and thepersonal values of key managers. The Executive Board is responsible for managing theMetro-LEC and are elected by members of the organization as well as being membersthemselves, thus it is assumed that they share the same values and visions for theorganization. As stated previously, “the people that are in it are in it for the right reasons”(Interviews, 2008). Moreover, candidates are screened through a rigorous process beforeparticipating in a particular unit. Although personality conflicts do occur, they do notseem to hinder the overall mission of the Metro-LEC. Furthermore, the respondents to thesurvey on whether the workload for Metro-LEC was overly burdensome in tandem withtheir responsibilities from their home department found that 49 percent felt the workloadwas just right with another 38 percent thinking there should be more work (Table VII).The fact, that the organization is run by the members themselves and the majority ofofficers do not complain about the workload in addition to their workload at their homedepartment demonstrates a consistency between the managers and the organization.

Sixth, while trying to determine the effectiveness of the Metro-LEC approach is partof the task at hand here, the organization as a whole has not undertaken any seriousattempt to determine if the approach works in a more systematic way. Rather,self-assessment seems more reflective of anecdotal evidence (e.g. a SWAT call-out that



Yes 32 59.3 0 0.0 2 18.2 34 47.9No 21 38.9 5 83.3 7 63.6 33 46.5Total 53 98.2 5 83.3 9 81.8 67 98.6

Table VI.Have you received

adequate equipment?

STAR Cyber crime Regional traffic Totaln % n % n % n %

Yes 49 90.7 1 17.0 8 73.0 58 81.7No 4 7.4 5 83.0 3 27.0 12 16.9Total 53 98.1 6 100.0 11 100.0 70 98.6

Table V.Have you receivedadequate training?



Less than it could be 17 31.5 4 66.7 6 54.5 27 38.0Just right 29 53.7 2 33.3 4 36.4 35 49.3Overly burdensome 4 7.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 5.6Total 50 92.6 6 100.0 10 90.9 66 93.0

Table VII.Do you believe your

workload is?


523

results in the capture of a barricaded suspect without injuries or death) as opposed toassessing patterns (e.g. the number of SWAT call-outs that result in the capture of abarricaded suspect without injuries or death compared to the number with injuries ordeath). Nevertheless, as shown in Table VIII, nearly all respondents felt their unit wassuccessful (93 percent).

The final two criteria involve whether the organizational strategy offers a maximumcontribution to society and if there is stimulation to ongoing productivity and creativity.Metro-LEC was founded on the basis of providing mutual aid and assistance to memberagencies in situations that exceed their own operational capabilities. The organizationhas expanded to serve not only in an emergency capacity but also has the ability to helpwith more full-time investigations. The kinds of incidents it can respond to has alsoexpanded in that now it has the ability to withstand a large scale, multiple day, tieredresponse to a critical incident or natural or man-made disaster (Interviews, 2008). Finally,the Metro-LEC has grown from the initial 30 members to 42 members and nowencompasses five different counties. It has also assisted other regions in establishingLECs because it could not feasibly incorporate agencies outside a certain region(Interviews, 2008). The Metro-LEC has also grown in terms of the number of divisionsand units that are now operational (ten new units have been added in the past sevenyears). On the whole, Metro-LEC appears to be a successful organizational strategy asdefined by Kelling and Wycoff (2002). At the outset all member agencies know whattheir responsibilities will include and can weigh the costs and benefits of membershipprior to any commitment. Moreover, the organization is managed by the members. Thus,the member agencies have decision making powers, they gain advantages by providingadditional services to their communities, they have influence on the activities theybecome involved in, and the work that is included for the Metro-LEC enhances theabilities of the officers in their home department.

ConclusionHistorically, separate and distinct police entities are a cornerstone of the Americanpolicing structure. As a result of such fragmentation, interagency collaboration hasalways been an issue as crime is not always confined to delineated governmentalboundaries nor is it always small in scale, so as to not overwhelm any given policeagency. In the past few decades, particularly in the post-911 era, interagencycollaboration has taken on greater recognition. Such collaborative efforts haveemerged in a variety of forms including task forces, partnerships, information sharingnetworks, and law enforcement councils. As noted by Maguire and King (2004, p. 29),“Together, the development of these various forms of networks and partnerships

STARCybercrime

Regionaltraffic Total

n % n % n % n %

Very successful 43 79.6 4 66.7 11 100.0 58 81.7Somewhat successful 7 13.0 1 16.7 0 0.0 8 11.3Somewhat unsuccessful 1 1.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.4Very unsuccessful 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Total 51 94.4 5 83.3 11 100.0 67 94.4

Table VIII.How successful is yourdivision/unit inaccomplishing itsmission?

PIJPSM33,3

524

signals a potential transformation in which police organizations appear more open,more transparent, and more cooperative.

The present paper examined one type of interagency collaboration that has not beenstudied before. The Metro-LEC is a unique interagency cooperation that bringstogether local and county law enforcement agencies for the purposes of providingmutual aid services to member agencies as well as providing selected police services ona regional basis. Today, with the myriad responsibilities encountered by police officersand the economic fluctuations faced by localities, the organization provides a means ofresponding to the needs of the community by regionalizing specific police services.

From the evaluation strategy we used, the Metro-LEC seems to have in place theelements for a successful collaboration; effective leadership, effective communication,and steady resources. Additionally, the factors that can act as enhancers or inhibitorsfor collaborative ventures (i.e. culture, structure, and personal networks) appear toresult in a socially cohesive environment. Therefore, future research should beconsidered for understanding in depth the means in which the organization hasovercome any impediments and whether the organization is suitable for replication inother areas of the country.

Future research should also examine additional Law Enforcement Councils in orderto determine if the Metro-LEC is unique in some way. Indeed, with the future ofpolicing appearing to head towards regionalization of services, it is important to knowif LECs are a viable, practical, and affordable means of sharing resources. From thepresent study, it looks as if a Law Enforcement Council can provide small and mediumsized police departments with the tools to handle any number of critical incidents. Ahost of other questions should also be examined in future research, such as the costeffectiveness of such an amalgamation and the impacts of participation on the homedepartment. Additionally, the organization is organic and has endured many changessince our initial survey was distributed in 2004, thus a time two examination of theorganization may prove substance to the claims made by the pioneers of theMetro-LEC with respect to sustainability and viability. Last, an in-depth analysis of thestructure and decision-making process of the organization may prove useful forunderstanding the components for a successful interagency collaboration.

Notes

1. There are task forces that have existed for a number of decades and are still operationaltoday, thus giving them some validity as a long-standing cooperative relationship, amongsome agencies. The Narcotics Task Force in San Diego is one of the oldest in the country,starting in 1973.

2. Geller and Morris (1992) and Russell-Einhorn et al. (2004) provide a historical perspective ofthe federal-local police relationship and describe some of the disincentives as well asincentives to building collaborations at different law enforcement levels.

3. The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services funded many partnership-buildingopportunities, and one can find evidence of the successes and failures from their literature.

4. See Reynolds et al. (2006) for a description of this data-sharing network.

5. See Johnson and Dorn (2008) for a description of NYSIC.

6. See www.niem.gov, www.ncirc.com, www.iir.com/riss/ for more information.


525

7. See Mission Possible: Strong Governance Structures for the Integration of Justice InformationSystems, published by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (2002), No. NCJ 192278.

8. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in particular, has moved to adopt the LEC approach.Five different LECs are located in the Commonwealth.

9. See Hayeslip and Russell-Einorn (2003) for critical elements for successful task forces. SeeMargo (1992) for elements for a successful Joint Power Agreement/Joint Service Agreement.

10. See Prestby and Wandersman (1985) for components for successful collaborations.

11. The number of officers surveyed in each operational division was as follows: Metro-STAR,n ¼ 75; Cyber crime, n ¼ 13; Regional traffic safety division, n ¼ 6. Of these 94 officerssurveyed the number of responses was as follows: Metro-STAR, n ¼ 54; Cyber crime,n ¼ 11; Regional traffic safety division, n ¼ 6.

12. All member agencies are responsible for insuring their own officers even when they areattending Metro-LEC events.

13. The County Sheriff is also considered a full member with numerous units and equipmentbeneficial to the LEC (trained dogs, command post, radios, armored vehicles). Additionally,in incidences of mass arrests, the sheriff’s office can provide care and custody.

14. Article IV, Section 18 of the Bylaws (Revised January, 2007) lists several additionalresponsibilities of the Executive Board.

15. The operational time frame has not yet been set as the State is currently working with theCAD/RMS vendors to export data.

16. The Tactical Emergency Medical team is supplied by a private ambulance service.

17. Data supplied by the Metro-LEC Executive Director (May, 2009).

18. Note that a large majority of the respondents were from the Metro-STAR Division since thiswas, by far, the largest of the operational units (see endnote 11). As a result, much of thefindings are driven by the views of Metro-STAR officers. Nonetheless, while thenumber/percentages are small in the Cyber Crime and Regional Traffic columns, and hencerequire caution when interpreting results across divisions, we include these breakdowns inthe tables (with the exception of Table II) for those readers who are interested.

References

Buerger, M.E., Gardner, K.E., Levin, B.H. and Jackson, J.A. (2008), “Incorporating local policeagencies into a national intelligence network”, Futures Working Group White Paper, Vol. 1No. 1, pp. 2-54.

Bureau of Justice Assistance (2002), Mission Possible: Strong Governance Structures for theIntegration of Justice Information Systems, No. NCJ 192278, BJA, Washington, DC.

Coldren, J., McGarrell, M., Sabath, K., Schlegal, K. and Stolzenberg, L. (1993), MultijurisdictionalDrug Task Force Operations: Results of a Nationwide Survey of Taskforce Commanders,Justice Research and Statistics Association, Washington, DC.

Geller, W.A. and Morris, N. (1992), “Relations between federal and local police”, in Tonry, M. andMorris, N. (Eds), Modern Policing, Crime and Justice Series, Vol. 15, University of ChicagoPress, Chicago, IL, pp. 231-348.

Giacomazzi, A.L. and Smithey, M. (2001), “Community policing and family violence againstwomen: lessons learned from a multi-agency collaborative”, Police Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 1,pp. 99-122.

Hayeslip, D.W. and Russell-Einhorn, M.L. (2003), Evaluation of Multi-Jurisdictional Task ForcesProject: Phase I Final Report, available at: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/200904.pdf

PIJPSM33,3

526

Hickman, M.J. and Reaves, B.A. (2006), Local Police Departments 2003, Bureau of JusticeStatistics, Washington, DC.

Howard, G.J., Newman, G. and Pridemore, W.A. (2000), “Theory, method, and data incomparative criminology”, Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice, CriminalJustice 2000 Series, Vol. 4, Dartmouth Publishing Company, Brookfield, VT, pp. 139-211.

International Association of Chiefs of Police (2002), Criminal Intelligence Sharing: A NationalPlan for Intelligence-led Policing at the Local, State, and Federal Levels – Recommendationsfrom the IACP Intelligence Summit, Office of Community Oriented Policing, USDepartment of Justice, Washington, DC.

Interviews (2008), Interviews with Metro-LEC Executive Officials and Commanding Officers,Boston, MA.

Jefferis, E.S., Frank, J., Smith, B.W., Novak, K.J. and Travis, L.F. III (1998), “An examination ofproductivity and perceived effectiveness of drug task forces”, Police Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 3,pp. 85-107.

Johnson, B.R. Colonel and Dorn, S. (2008), “Fusion centers: New York State Intelligence strategyunifies law enforcement”, Police Chief, February issue, available at: http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction¼archivecontents&issue_id¼22008 (accessed August2008).

Kelling, G.L. and Wycoff, M. (2002), Evolving Strategy of Policing: Case Studies of StrategicChange, No. NCJRS 198029, National Institute of Justice, Rockville, MD.

Kuhn, B.J. (1981), Regionalization of Police Services: Final Report to Law Enforcement AssistanceAdministration, No. NCJ 80519, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Lasker, R.D., Weiss, E.S. and Miller, R. (2001), “Partnership synergy: a practical framework forstudying and strengthening the collaborative advantage”, The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 79No. 2, pp. 179-205.

McGarrell, E.F. and Schlegel, K. (1993), “The implementation of federally fundedmultijurisdictional drug task forces: organizational structure and interagencyrelationships”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 21, pp. 231-44.

Maguire, E.R. and King, W.R. (2004), “Trends in the policing industry”, The Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Vol. 593 No. 1, pp. 15-41.

Maguire, E.R., Snipes, J.B., Uchida, C.D. and Townsend, M. (1998), “Counting cops: estimating thenumber of police departments and police officers in the USA”, Policing: An InternationalJournal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 97-120.

Margo, R.N. (1992), Interlocal Government Cooperation: A Growing Trend among CitiesAttempting to Cut Costs while Maintaining Services, Dissertation Publishing, UMI, AnnArbor, MI.

Metro-LEC (2007a), By-laws of the Metropolitan Law Enforcement Council Incorporated, (Revised,2007), Metro-LEC, Boston, MA.

Metro-LEC (2007b), Executive Summary, Metro-LEC, Boston, MA.

Metro-LEC (n.d.), Member Agency Information Survey and Membership Application, Metro-LEC,Boston, MA.

Metropolitan Law Enforcement Council (2005), Interagency Mutual Aid/Assistance Agreement,Boston, MA.

Minor, K.I., Fox, J.W. and Wells, J.B. (2002), “An analysis of interagency communication patternssurrounding incidents of school crime”, Journal of School Violence, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 81-100.

Norrgard, D.L. (1975), A Feasibility Study for Consolidating Police Services in the Waterloo, Iowa,Metropolitan Area, No. NCJ 29655, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC.


527

Ostrom, E., Baugh, W.H., Guarasci, R., Parks, R.B. and Whitaker, G.P. (1973), “Communityorganization and the provision of police services”, Administrative & Policy Studies Series,Vol. 1 No. 3.

Peterson, M. (2005), Intelligence-led Policing: The New Intelligence Architecture, No. NCJ 210681,Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice,Washington, DC.

Phillips, P.W. and Orvis, G.P. (1999), “Intergovernmental relations and the crime task force:a case study of the East Texas Violent Crime Task Force and its implications”, PoliceQuarterly, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 438-61.

Prestby, J.E. and Wandersman, A. (1985), “An empirical exploration of a framework oforganizational viability: maintaining block organizations”, Journal of Applied BehaviorScience, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 287-305.

Reynolds, K.M., Griset, P.L. and Scott, E. (2006), “Law enforcement information sharing: a Floridacase study”, American Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-19.

Rosenbaum, D.P. (2002), “Evaluating multi-agency anti-crime partnerships: theory, design, andmeasurement issues”, in Tilley, N. (Ed.), Evaluation for Crime Prevention, Criminal JusticePress, New York, NY, pp. 171-225.

Russell-Einhorn, M., Ward, S. and Seeherman, A. (2004), Federal-Local Law EnforcementCollaboration in Investigating and prosecuting Urban Crime, 1982-1999: Drugs, Weapons,and Gangs, No. NCJRS 201782, The National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Rockville,MD.

Schlegel, K. and McGarrell, E.F. (1991), “An examination of arrest practices in regions served bymultijurisdictional drug task forces”, Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 408-26.

Skoler, D.L. (1977), “Standards for criminal justice structure and organization: the impact of thenational advisory commission”, Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-13.

Smith, B.W., Novak, K.J., Frank, J. and Travis, L.F. III (2000), “Multijurisdictional drug taskforces: an analysis of impacts”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 28, pp. 543-56.

United States Census Bureau (2000), available at: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm¼y&-geo_id¼04000US25&-_box_head_nbr¼GCT-PH1&-ds_name¼DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_lang¼en&-format¼ST-7&-_sse¼on

US Department of Justice (2006), Crime in the United States, US Department of Justice,Washington, DC, available at: www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_78_ma.html

Wickum, T.G. (1986), Year 2000 – California City Police Departments: A Dying Tradition . . . ?,No. NCJ 109611, California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training,Sacramento, CA.

AppendixInterview topics for strategic planning process

(1) General background information:. What is your present rank in your police department?. What is your current role in the Metro-LEC?

(2) Was there an event that triggered the beginning process of developing the Metro-LEC?

(3) What was your role/your police department’s role in the inception of the Metro-LEC?

(4) Was there a strategic planning process that took place?. If so, who was involved?

PIJPSM33,3

528

. How long did the strategic planning process take before the Metro-LEC becameincorporated?

. Is the Metro-LEC modeled after another LEC?

. If so, are there distinct differences? What are they?

(5) How did other members become involved in the Metro-LEC? Was there a recruitmentprocess?

(6) Was there a relationship among the PDs before the Metro-LEC existed? How would youcharacterize it?

(7) Were there a certain number of agencies (target goal) that was trying to be obtained?

(8) What are the criteria for becoming a member agency?

(9) Is full membership limited to local municipal law enforcement agencies?. How are the sheriff departments included? Are they full members?

(10) How was the amount of the annual dues determined?. Is it modified every year or does it stay consistent?. What other resources are members obligated/ asked to contribute?. Is there a withdrawal fee for agencies to disengage from the Metro-LEC?

(11) Who developed the Bylaws for the organization? Reviewed by 3rd party?

(12) Who developed the Mutual Aid Agreements? Reviewed by 3rd party?

(13) What is the Town’s role? Do they need to approve of the PD’s membership? Can a PDbecome a member without town approval?

(14) Do police departments generally received support from their town or is thereapprehension from the town when deciding on whether to join as a member? Whathappens with political turnover?

(15) Are you aware of any officer resistance in terms of their PD becoming a member of theMetro-LEC?. What issues were of concern to officers?. How were the issues resolved?

(16) What were the legal concerns involved in creating this entity? How were they resolved?

(17) Why make this into a non-profit entity? Why not a task force with MOUs or apartnership?

(18) As one of the pioneers of the Metro-LEC – what do you perceive to it be its greatestaccomplishment? And what do you hope for the future of the Metro-LEC organization?

Interview topics for operational aspects of the organization

(1) General background information:. What is your present rank in your police department?. What is your role in the Metro-LEC?

(2) Please explain the mission of your Unit. Provide examples of operations the Unit hasbeen called out to. Provide an overall sense of the structure in your Unit (operatingprocedures, budget, # of officers).

(3) What other organizations does your Unit coordinate activities/info/operations/trainingwith? How often?

(4) How well do members work together inside your Unit?


529

(5) How are grievances handled?

(6) How would you characterize the culture of your Unit?

(7) Is there a forum for feedback? Does it produce results?

(8) Do members communicate outside of work?

(9) Are meetings/trainings well attended?

(10) How are everyone kept informed (minutes distributed, e-mail discussions, etc.)? Howoften?

(11) Are there performance measures in place for your Unit? How does that work?

(12) How do officers in the home PD feel about other officers’ involvement in the Metro-LEC?

(13) Do you have enough qualified applicants to fill all necessary staff positions?

(14) How has technology helped or hurt your Unit and its goals?

(15) Do you have any way of measuring or assessing how successful your Unit is?

(16) Is there room for advancement within the Unit?

(17) What do you perceive as changes in the social climate of the region that has either helpedor hindered the Metro-LEC as an organization? (9/11, rising crime, transportation ofillegal goods).

(18) What are the Unit’s short-term goals? Are there plans in place to achieve these goals? Arethey updated? When?

(19) What are the Unit’s long-term goals? Are there plans in place to achieve these goals? Arethey updated? When?

About the authorsJulie Schnobrich-Davis is an Assistant Professor in the Center for the Study of Criminal Justice atWestfield State College. She is also finishing her doctorate in the School of Criminal Justice at theState University of New York at Albany. Her research interests involve investigating issuespertaining to small and mid-sized police agencies including organizational theory, collaborativestrategies, community-oriented and problem-solving policing, intelligence-led policing andplanned change. Julie Schnobrich-Davis is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected]

William Terrill is an Associate Professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan StateUniversity. He is currently directing a nationally funded research project on police use of forceand has published numerous scholarly articles on policing, crime in public housing, andsystematic social observation. He earned his PhD in 2000 from the School of Criminal Justice atRutgers University, Newark, New Jersey.

PIJPSM33,3

530

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

interagency collaboration: an administrative and operational assessment of the metro-lec approach

Documents