Best Practice Number 11:

SECTION 1: NATIONAL RESEARCH
The amount of research that has been completed in the study of governmental consolidation is extensive. Consolidation of smaller city and suburban police departments into a single large police agency occurs on rare occasions when metropolitan government functions as a whole are consolidated. In most instances, police agencies, regardless of size or perceived cost savings, have elected to remain autonomous and maintain their own police services. Nevertheless, consolidation of law enforcement agencies has been recommended by countless reports, commissions and experts. It is an issue that still evokes much emotion and one that will probably be debated regularly for years to come. Primarily researched has been the absorption of smaller police departments that are adjacent to larger police agencies in metropolitan areas. Popularized in the late 1960’s, attempts at law enforcement consolidation have been few and actual consolidations even fewer. The pooling of specialized services such as communications, records management and crime laboratories or the contracting of such services from larger agencies have been more common. But as many suburban areas continue to grow and encroach upon mutual jurisdictional boundaries, both urban and rural governments are looking for ways to reduce the escalating costs of law enforcement operations and provide a higher quality of law enforcement service.

Some departments have explored sharing common tasks and functions and have realized a better use of resources within their communities. However, the majorities of agencies, for a myriad of reasons, remain exclusively committed to their communities and provide their own police services without any assistance from other communities or consideration of any merging of resources.

On one end of the consolidation debate, some police professionals and many researchers tout large scale consolidation as the only way to establish effective and efficient policing. On the other side of the discussion, some academics who have looked at the research say that large consolidated agencies breed bureaucracies, do not necessarily save tax dollars and often make police less responsive to neighborhood issues. During the 1960’s and early 1970’s, a substantial number of police department mergers occurred as a result of local governmental consolidation.

This study examined 13 law enforcement agencies in the United States serving from 2.2 million to 25,000 in population. The degrees of consolidation vary from complete governmental consolidation of all services, to only partial integration of tasks or sharing of resources. Exploration of consolidation has occurred in many jurisdictions and opinions vary as to the necessity or effectiveness of integrating law enforcement services. Of the handful of jurisdictions that have made the decision to consolidate law enforcement, whether independently or as a part of governmental consolidation, substantive measurable outcomes have either not been evaluated or have not been published. Nevertheless, the arguments for and against consolidation of law enforcement services seem to focus primarily in seven areas:

1. Economies of Scale
2. Duplication of Efforts or Services
3. Economic/Community Development
4. Effectiveness
5. Efficiency
6. Accountability
7. Harmony

A. The key findings during this examination included:

• Although many departments have merged selected resources, or have been absorbed by larger agencies, few significantly sized law enforcement agencies have fully consolidated in the United States.
  
  
• Even fewer are the number of police agencies where both departments had staffing of over 500 commissioned officers each.
  
  
• The majority of consolidation models and research are with smaller police agencies merging into larger departments.
  
  
• Law enforcement consolidation has been discussed and reviewed in many areas, but most often not ultimately supported or endorsed by the policy makers or the community, usually citing political and/or union resistance.
  
  
• Many of the departments consolidated in the 1970’s or earlier - only a handful of agencies have consolidated in recent years, limiting the review of data and the ability to contact those who were in positions of influence at the time of consolidation.
  
  
• In virtually all cases, law enforcement consolidation was opposed initially, citing political and/or union issues.
  
  
• Events are occurring in some locations that suggest that consolidation may not be satisfactory or successful over the long term: Miami-Dade County reports several pockets within the county attempted to secede and re-incorporate their own cities, citing that the consolidated government is "too big."
  
  
• In virtually every case reviewed, there were smaller cities that chose not to participate in consolidation regardless of the perceived cost savings.
  
  
• Consolidations that serve a smaller population appear to be more frequently successful.

B. Site Visits – In order to obtain a firsthand look into different phases of consolidation, three site visits were conducted during this study. The City of Louisville/Jefferson County, Kentucky, represents a newly consolidated location. The City of Charlotte/Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, represents a model that has been consolidated for over 10 years and the City of Nashville/Davidson County, Tennessee, represents a city that has had consolidated law enforcement for over 40 years.

C. Identification of Issues - During this study, numerous positive and negatives expectations were revealed from stakeholders who had participated in surveys, symposiums and workshops. Included were constitutional and funding areas of concerns.

D. Measurements - Additionally, the degree and type of measurements that identify if consolidation is effective were discussed, which included;

• Crime Rate
• Victimization Rate
• Number of Arrests by Officers
• Response Time
• Number of Contacts
• Calls for Service
• Citizen Complaints
• Citizen Perspective
• Litigation and Lawsuits

E. Summary of Literature Research - Government consolidation is often proposed as a strategy for improving both the efficiency and effectiveness of public services. Proponents of consolidation must recognize that there is nothing intrinsic in merging two agencies that necessarily produces greater efficiency and lower costs. Many times, the consolidation outcome falls short of its desired intention.

Larger government units and departments require larger administrative staffs and more complicated operating procedures, which can increase costs and similarly, effectiveness may not be improved. Consolidation may provide an alternative strategy for smaller police agencies; however, merging law enforcement agencies is not the answer for every municipality or county. Research has identified some liabilities in interagency approaches to policing. These include management problems with discretion and accountability and the inability to handle conflicts, especially when one agency is dominant.

This is not to suggest that all law enforcement consolidation is inappropriate. Law Enforcement consolidation has merit; unification between law enforcement agencies can lead to economies of scale and resulting decreases in costs especially when the consolidation occurs in smaller municipalities searching for ways to control rising costs and to increase efficiency. One alternative to ‘total’ consolidation is the formation of ‘cooperatives’ or ‘functional consolidation.’

A. Is law enforcement consolidation an applicable alternative in the City of Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee?

In January of 2002, the City of Memphis Mayor, Dr. Willie Herenton, endorsed a decision by the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission Board of Directors to study law enforcement consolidation possibilities for the City of Memphis and Shelby County.

At the onset of this examination, the question of law enforcement consolidation was specifically limited to operational functions within the Memphis Police Department and the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office. The exclusion of the four incorporated cities of Bartlett, Collierville, Germantown and Millington in no way reflects an attempt to prevent these agencies from participation. In fact, participation from these law enforcement agencies would enhance the metropolitan effort in virtually all the recommended categories.

In order to ascertain if consolidation is a viable option within this community, a detailed examination of the current structure, operation, personnel deployment and population served of both the Memphis Police Department and the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office must be conducted. Although it is not practical to conduct an exhaustive study of all possible factors involved in merging two separate law enforcement departments, this review provides a summary of key findings and identifies options.

Fact: The entire City of Memphis is contained completely within Shelby County. There is no part of the City of Memphis that exceeds the boundaries of Shelby County.

Fact: According to the US Bureau of the Census, 2000, the population of the City of Memphis is 650,100. Over the last decade, the City of Memphis population has increased by 6.5%.

According to the American Chamber of Commerce Research Association, the City of Memphis’s 2002 estimated population is 645,306, excluding the newly annexed areas.

The Division of Planning for the City of Memphis reports an additional 30,245 residents and 24.1 square miles that have been annexed in latter 2002 which brings the current estimated population of the City of Memphis to 675,551 residents. Adding the annexed areas, the current geographic area within the City of Memphis is approximately 320 square miles.

Fact: The Memphis Police Department has 2,832 employees, of which 1,886 are commissioned officers. The largest percentages of personnel assigned to the Memphis Police Department are within the Uniform Patrol function. The bulk of the remaining commissioned officer complement is deployed to Investigations and Special Operations.

Fact: According to the US Bureau of the Census, 2000, the population of Shelby County is 897,472. Over the past decade, Shelby County has increased its population by 8.6%. On the other hand, according to the American Chamber of Commerce Research Association, the estimated population for Shelby County in 2002 is 908,222 residents. This is an increase of 9.9% since the 1990 census data. Over 754 square miles of land are within Shelby County, including the City of Memphis.

The City of Memphis is one of seven cities within Shelby County. According to the most recent census data, the number of people who live within Shelby County but outside the City of Memphis corporate city limits is estimated at 247,372 residents. Almost 9,500 of these residents live in either the City of Arlington or the City of Lakeland. About one half of these residents reside in one of the four incorporated cities within Shelby County. These cities; Bartlett, Collierville, Germantown or Millington provide independent police services to their respective communities.

Currently, the cities of Arlington and Lakeland rely on the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office for police services. Subtracting this figure, this leaves approximately 127,745 citizens who currently live in the unincorporated areas of Shelby County that rely on the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office for police services.

Fact: The SCSO has 2,538 employees, of which 509 are commissioned officers. The majority of the personnel employed by the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office (80%) are assigned in support and operation of the jail. Of the 509 commissioned officers, the highest percentages are assigned to courts, civil and fugitive divisions with only 17% assigned to the patrol function. The remaining commissioned officer complement provides support in investigations (gang and drugs); special weapons and tactical response units (SWAT), training, crime prevention and traffic.

D. Identification of Independent or Duplicate Functions

When considering the question of consolidation, the issue of two agencies performing virtually the same functions and tasks must be considered. Some tasks are mandated to be performed by a particular agency by state legislation.

Fact: By statute, the Sheriff is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the jail. Over 1,700 personnel are assigned to the Shelby County Jail. The duties and responsibilities of the Sheriff and deputies are set forth in the Tennessee Code Annotated § 8-8-201 and 8-8-213. The Sheriff is the constitutionally elected Peace Officer of the county and has the responsibility of the operation and maintenance of the jail, court management and civil and criminal document service.

A small number of initiatives have combined the efforts of officers from both agencies; the Metro Gang Unit, and the Metro Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Unit currently utilize commissioned officers from both the Memphis Police Department and the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office as well as officers from other incorporated cities.

The MPD and the SCSO employ over 2,500 personnel respectively, which is indicative of a significantly sized law enforcement agency. However, the personnel deployments of the two agencies differ greatly and reflect the different mission of each agency. Approximately 67% of MPD personnel are employed in commissioned police officer positions; conversely 80% of personnel within the SCSO serve in civilian positions. The overwhelming focus of the Memphis Police Department is law enforcement while the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office’s primary mission is the operation and maintenance of the jail.

Returning to the initial purpose of this examination, the question remains "should the Memphis Police Department and the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office should merge into one police agency?" The answer and recommendation, at this time, is no.

However given this information within this study, the question to be posed is, "Are there any functions being performed separately by either law enforcement agency that could be accomplished more efficiently or effectively if merged?" The answer is a definitive ‘yes.’ More effective delivery of services can be provided to the residents of the City of Memphis and to the citizenry of Shelby County by the combining of selected resources within the Memphis Police Department and the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office.

1. BASIC TRAINING ACADEMIES

Consolidate the majority of the training between the two existing police training academies. There will be differences to address, especially in the ‘practical’ application areas, such as firearms training, self defense, use of oleoresin capsicum, (OC) spray, and use of baton. The Memphis Police Department and the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office differ in their application of these ‘hands on’ areas. The Memphis Police Department has performed as a Regional Police Training Academy in the past and should be selected as the regional host and basic training provider for both the Memphis Police Department, Shelby County Sheriff’s Office, as well as all incorporated cities, airport authority, and university peace officers. A Board of Visitors should be established for oversight and curriculum decisions made up of stakeholders and users of the training academy. The training would be divided into levels to differentiate differences in state and local departmental requirements. For example, Level 1 would be the longest amount of training available (for Memphis Police Officers) totaling 21 weeks. Level 2 would be a 16 week program that meets the state certification requirements for Shelby County Sheriff’s Office and other law enforcement agencies. The Shelby County Sheriff’s Office Academy should serve as the site for all in service training, correctional training and other identified and specialized training. The availability of separating academies during practical training would aid in providing the needed space for both academies during firearms training and on the Emergency Vehicle Operation Course (EVOC).

2. COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY

Create a Consolidated Communications Center for Shelby County by joining forces with the regional 911 effort to construct a public safety communications center. Appoint a communications director that is separate from either the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office or the Memphis Police Department and civilianize the leadership position. Include the Emergency Management function in this building and designate it as the primary Emergency Operations Center. Insure the facility is large enough to house the emergency operations of the entire county in the event of emergency management activation. The facility constructed would be large enough to conduct all communications training on site with classroom space and on-the-job training space. The facility would allow CAD to CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) communication yet separate and secure dispatching location for each entity. The ability to provide effective communication between these two law enforcement agencies is a costly proposition but one that will enhance operations from virtually every aspect and be an investment to the future of policing in Shelby County.

3. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS

Criminals do not respect boundaries of different jurisdictions and often commit similar crimes in adjacent areas. Intelligence sharing contributes to the process of criminal investigation and solving crime. A standardized crime investigations unit, along with metropolitan mobile crime units, will enhance criminal investigation in Shelby County. Collection of evidence and chain of custody should be handled in a standardized manner throughout the county. Combine the equipment needed for processing crime scenes in Crime Response Units. Consideration should be given to the civilianizing of the crime response unit position due to the specialization of this role. Metropolitan burglary investigation is an area that demands consolidation.

4. COMPSTAT (Computer Statistics)

COMPSTAT is a crime analysis and police management process that involves the collection, analyzing and mapping of crime data and other essential police performance measures on a regular basis. COMPSTAT allows the sharing of accurate and timely intelligence and mandates that leadership develop effective tactics for the problems which are revealed. Once a problem is identified, then appropriate deployments of personnel and resources should be rapid and focused. All action conducted by police personnel must be consistent and have periodic follow-ups to insure the desired results have been achieved. Managers and leaders are held accountable for their performance as well as the performance of their individual precincts, and officers, as measured by the data collected.

Consolidated Computational Statistics and Crime Trend Analysis should occur throughout the county. Information sharing, technical and tactical response to crime trends is appropriate and timely. A Metropolitan Consolidated COMP STAT should be established as soon as possible.

5. TRAFFIC

A better and more efficient utilization of the traffic divisions would be to combine resources for blanket traffic enforcement and investigation. Motorcycle training and combined traffic operations are already taking place in select assignments such as dignitary response and escort. Combined in-service training with focus specifically in the area of traffic enforcement and investigations should also occur. A personnel analysis of the proposed traffic division should be conducted to insure that resources are being used appropriately and the number of resources dedicated to this effort is sufficient.

6. TACTICAL RESPONSE

Combine the functions of the tactical response units from each agency to create a Metropolitan Tactical Response Unit. Differentiate the responses by identifying offensive and defensive teams and specially trained riot response for detention facilities. Consolidation of the Bomb Response Units is included in this recommendation.

7. CANINE UNIT

Create a Consolidated Canine Unit, eliminating the term "Dog Squad" and combine the functions of the separate canine units into one that includes training and response. These units already train and work special operations jointly on many occasions. The utilization of the county canines would provide assistance to city operations and the number of canines trained to provide scouting and tracking would be helpful to the county during special searches and rescue missions. Determine a centralized location where assignments are made throughout the metropolitan area. Coordination with tactical units and narcotics units in searches and training will occur in a consolidated format.

8. WATER PATROL/SEARCH & RESCUE

Consolidate the function of search, rescue and recovery to create a Metropolitan Search, Rescue and Recovery Unit that provides both land and water search and rescues. Combine the training and resources for paid and volunteer personnel. Research the involvement of organized resources such as Tennessee Volunteer Militia and Amateur Radio Operators for large scale assistance. Develop a policy and procedure manual that encompasses all resources available and protocol for callout and utilization. Establish satellite locations to aid in quick response and activation of both commissioned and volunteer resources.

9. SPECIAL EVENTS

Review the process for deployment of all reserve officers during special events and consolidate into a Memphis Shelby Special Events Division. Create standardized criteria for police reserve deployment and utilization to include assistance from other departments, (public works, streets, etc.) Have one central location and facilitator to monitor all special events occurring within Shelby County that require police presence or involvement. Standardize the request process so that each event is handled according to pre-specified criteria. Special deputy commissions will have to be issued to former city reserve officers for a specified time period to allow reserve officers formally serving only the city to support county functions as well.

10. PUBLIC INTEGRITY UNIT

Create a Metropolitan Public Integrity Unit that is autonomous of both the Memphis Police Department and the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office. Select and appoint an independent executive that has support from the Director of the Memphis Police Department and the Shelby County Sheriff. Oversight to this unit will be from an executive board comprises of the Memphis Police Director, the Shelby County Sheriff, the City of Memphis Mayor and the Shelby County Mayor (or their Chief Administrative Officers) and the District Attorney General. This unit should include individuals from both the Memphis Police Department and the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office who would investigate all police personnel complaints in a standardized manner. The formation of a Memphis Shelby Metropolitan Public Integrity Unit would allow the public to submit a standard complaint to be forwarded to the unit for investigation. Once the investigation was complete, the individual departments would be notified of the outcome and if disciplinary action was warranted, it would be applied in accordance to the particular employee policies and procedures. The operation of the unit would be standardized and without departmental or political influence. Marketing of the public integrity unit would serve both agencies well and send a signal of accountability throughout the metropolitan area.

F. Conclusion

This examination concludes that there are a number of tasks and responsibilities that are being performed by both the Memphis Police Department and the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office in which a merging of resources should occur. The discussion of full governmental consolidation provokes much emotion, controversy and the perception of political hidden agendas. Conversely, unification of individual tasks and public safety functions makes good business sense. If the Memphis/Shelby law enforcement consolidation question inspires a fraction of the controversy that the attempted consolidation of the school system has stirred, the path to even functional consolidation may be complicated. But it is a path that should be journeyed.

Therefore this report has concluded that Functional Consolidation of selected tasks identified in this report should occur between the City of Memphis Police Department and the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office in accordance with the implementation process as outlined.