An ongoing executive series providing overviews of critical community policing issues

Police Consolidation and 

Shared Services

Identifying, Developing and Sharing 

Lessons

Jeremy M. Wilson, PhD

Clifford Grammich, PhD

Michigan State University

1 Chapter Head Here 

POLICE CONSOLIDATION

Collaborating 

with Stakeholders

by Michael J. Polzin 

and Jeremy M. Wilson 

Program on Police Consolidation and Shared Services

1 Chapter Head Here 

POLICE CONSOLIDATION

Engaging the News Media

Steven Chermak 

Michigan State University

Charlie Scheer 

University of Southern Mississippi

Jeremy M. Wilson 

Michigan State University

Program on Police Consolidation and Shared Services

1 Chapter Head Here 

PATHWAYS TO CONSOLIDATION:

TAKING STOCK OF TRANSITIONS TO ALTERNATIVE 

MODELS OF POLICE SERVICE

Jeremy M. Wilson 

Michigan State University

Alexander Weiss 

Michigan State University

Clifford Grammich 

Michigan State University

Program on Police Consolidation and Shared Services

Jeremy M. Wilson

Michigan State University

Meghan Hollis

Michigan State University

Clifford Grammich

Michigan State University

Program on Police Consolidation and Shared Services

CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENTS

A Census and Administrative Examination

1 Chapter Head Here 

INTEGRATING CIVILIAN STAFF INTO 

POLICE AGENCIES

William R. King, PhD 

Sam Houston State University

Jeremy M. Wilson, PhD 

Michigan State University

Program on Police Consolidation and Shared Services

e03145632_PCASS_CivilianStaff_v4.indd 1 4/7/2015 1:10:27 PM

a Program on Police Consolidation and Shared Services Chapter Head Here 

PUBLIC SAFETY CONSOLIDATION 

A MULTIPLE CASE STUDY ASSESSMENT OF 

IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME

Jeremy M. Wilson 

Michigan State University

Alexander Weiss 

Michigan State University

Clifford Grammich 

Michigan State University
2

Contents

About the Program on Police Consolidation and Shared Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . . . . .

 . .

3

About the Essentials for Leaders Series . . . . . 3

The PCASS Program in Context 3

The PCASS Website: Gathering Perspectives 4

New Research on Evolving Issues . . . . . . . . . 6

Pathways to consolidation . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Civilianization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Consolidation of police and fire agencies 8

Implementing Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Collaborating with stakeholders 9

Engaging the news media

11

Conclusion 13

This project was supported by grant numbers 2011-CK-WX-K011 and 2012-CK-WX-K023 awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the 

U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement by the authors or 

the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. 

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of publication. Given that URLs and websites are in constant flux, neither the 

authors nor the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity. 

Recommended citation: Wilson, Jeremy M., and Clifford Grammich. 2016. Police Consolidation and Shared Services: Identifying, Developing and Sharing 

Lessons. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 

 

e071614771

Published 2016
3

About the Program on Police 

Consolidation and Shared 

Services

Although consolidating and sharing public safety 

services has received much attention in recent 

years, such efforts are not new. Moreover, despite 

the many communities that have in one way or 

another consolidated or shared these services, 

the process of doing so has not become any 

easier. In fact, to say that changing the structural 

delivery of public safety services is difficult or 

challenging is an understatement. At the core 

of contemplating these transitions, regardless 

of the form, is the need for open, honest, and 

constructive dialog among all stakeholders. Key to 

this dialog is evidence derived from independent 

research, analysis, and evaluation.

To help provide such independent information, 

the Michigan State University School of Criminal 

Justice, with the assistance of the U.S. Department 

of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS Office), established the Program 

on Police Consolidation and Shared Services 

(PCASS) to help consolidating police agencies, 

and those considering consolidating, increase efficiency, enhance quality of service, and bolster 

community policing. Together, they also developed 

resources, such as publications, videos, and the 

PCASS website, to assist communities exploring 

options for delivering public safety services. These 

resources do not advocate any particular form of 

service delivery but rather provide information to 

help communities determine for themselves what 

best meets their needs, circumstances, and desires.

The PCASS provides a wealth of information and 

research on structural alternatives for the delivery 

of police services, including the nature, options, 

implementation, efficiency, and effectiveness of 

all forms of consolidation and shared services. 

PCASS resources allow local decision makers to 

review what has been done elsewhere and gauge 

what model would be best for their community.

For more information on the PCASS 

and to access its resources, please visit 

http://policeconsolidation.msu.edu/. 

About the Essentials for Leaders 

Series

This document provides an executive summary of 

research conducted by the MSU team regarding 

public safety departments. In this examination, 

the team gathered and analyzed data and 

experiences regarding communities that have 

consolidated and deconsolidated public safety 

services. Through an assessment of the nature, 

implementation, and outcome of such efforts, 

this report provides decision makers considering 

public safety consolidation with lessons on its 

context and applicability for their community. 

For those that have implemented consolidation, 

it offers lessons on improving its implementation 

and effectiveness.

The PCASS Program in Context

The provision of police and fire services is 

among the largest tasks local governments 

undertake. In 2013, local governments in the 

United States spent more than $150 billion on 

public safety services—more than it spent on 

any other function but education (2013 Census 

of Governments, http://www.census.gov/govs/

local/index.html). Managing these services is 

a complex task. Budget pressures, particularly 

those following the “Great Recession” of 2008 

and 2009, have further complicated the efforts of 

public safety agencies to improve their efficiency 

and effectiveness. Many police agencies continue 

to face budget cuts and staff reductions.

As cuts continue, many local governments have 

found that standard responses have not been 

enough to balance budgets. While some communities have overcome their traditional reluctance 

to cut public safety services, instituting measures 

such as hiring freezes, layoffs, furloughs, or even 

disbanding of departments, others have experimented with differing modes of service delivery. 

These have included consolidating services within 

or across agencies, contracting for service, or having civilians provide more services. Such measures 

raise questions that communities have not previously needed to address or known how to answer.
4

To provide a resource for communities addressing 

new and pressing questions on alternative means for 

delivering public safety services, the COPS Office 

supported the Michigan State University School 

of Criminal Justice in establishing the Program on 

Police Consolidation and Shared Services (PCASS). 

As an evidence-based hub for the creation and 

sharing of lessons, the PCASS Program does not 

advocate for any form of consolidation or shared 

service. Rather, it provides a single-point resource 

on structural options for delivering police services 

to help communities assess for themselves the form 

of service delivery that best meets their needs and 

circumstances—which may in fact be the one they 

are currently implementing. 

The PCASS Program creates, assembles, and 

disseminates research and other resources on 

the nature, options, implementation, efficiency, 

and effectiveness of consolidation and shared 

services. Including both costs and benefits, it offers 

information developed by peer agencies across 

the country. It provides information on managing 

transitions effectively, including strategies for 

structure and staffing, insight on what other 

communities are doing and how they are performing, 

and best practices and bottom-line implementation 

guidelines from expert practitioners and researchers.

These resources are gathered on a program website 

(http://policeconsolidation.msu.edu/). They comprise 

collections of previous research, documentation 

and insights from practitioners, and analysis by 

PCASS researchers of evolving issues. This document 

reviews and summarizes the insights of key COPS 

Office–supported resources developed by PCASS 

researchers. 

The PCASS Website: 

Gathering Perspectives

As financial constraints tightened, policymakers, 

police chiefs, and planners considering consolidating 

or sharing services had limited information and few 

empirical lessons readily available to guide their 

decisions. One of the first steps the PCASS Program 

took to fill this need was to search, annotate, code, 

and make available through a web portal all forms 

of open-source information and literature on police 

consolidation.

Altogether, we have made roughly 400 different 

resources on police mergers, regionalization, public 

safety consolidation, and contracting available to 

policymakers, practitioners, and researchers. For 

each, we provide standard bibliographic information 

(author, date and place of publication, and abstract), 

and, where available, web locations. We also classify 

these resources by subject (contracting, police 

merger, policies/contracts/agreements, public 

safety consolidation of police and fire services, 

regionalization, and shared services / functional 

consolidation), purpose (academic research, 

evaluation study, feasibility study, lessons learned, 

reasoning/advocacy, templates), and form (book/

monograph, brief/commentary/newsletter, journal 

article, policies/contracts/agreements, presentation/

webinar/website, report), and allow keyword searches 

by title, abstract, or author. This enables those 

seeking research for a specific topic to do so, or to 

identify templates that may be adapted to a particular 

sharing of services.

There are, however, unavoidable limitations to this 

collection—limitations that could be corrected only 

by more updated work. First, most of the resources 

we found were at least 35 years old—and only 

about 100 were published in the past two decades. 

A great deal has changed in U.S. police agencies 

and the communities they serve since the bulk of 

this research was published. Second, much of this 

research was done by consultants seeking to help 

specific communities with specific problems. There 

was little rigorous analysis assessing the evidence. 

Third, nearly all this work, regardless of who 

executed it, did not systematically compare different 

communities using the same or different approaches. 

Practitioners perusing it must make their own 

assessments for how well this research translates to 

other settings.

In short, research on police consolidation was scant 

and outdated. Whether the motivation to consolidate 

was to improve operational efficiency or the overall 

quality of service provision, local governments 

considering or implementing consolidation lacked 

contemporary lessons from other communities. 

Consequently, the increasing number of police executives and planners looking at such options lacked 

a road map outlining the realities, successes, and 

challenges of implementation, as well as the potential 

costs and effectiveness of different approaches. 
5

To overcome the limitations of previous research, 

the PCASS Program invited sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, 

chiefs, public safety directors, and police scholars with 

extensive experience in public safety consolidation and 

contracting to share their knowledge and experience 

in a series of videos. The videos, made available 

on the PCASS website, showcase practitioners and 

academics speaking about various topics related 

to public safety consolidation and contracting, 

including definitions, approaches to consolidation 

and contracting, delivering police services in an 

innovative or unconventional way, lessons learned, 

public misperceptions, and community reactions to 

consolidation and shared services.

Videos were made on the following topics:

•	 An Introduction to Public Safety Consolidation and 

Contracting. In this video, the director of the PCASS 

Program provides viewers with an introduction to the 

topic and how our program addresses it.

•	 What Is Public Safety Consolidation and Contracting?

In this video, field practitioners and academic experts 

define public safety consolidation and contracting. 

Practitioners also describe and provide examples 

of how their communities have consolidated or 

contracted public safety functions. Discussants note 

how consolidation may reduce administrative or staffing 

needs, the reasons for approaches to consolidation, and 

the need for close working relationships in pursuing 

consolidation.

•	 Why Do Communities Undertake Public Safety 

Consolidation and Contracting? In this video, field 

practitioners and academic experts explain what drives 

communities to explore public safety consolidation or 

contracting options. These may include small isolated 

communities discovering they need to provide more 

services; large established communities seeing a need 

to do more with less; and other desires to improve the 

efficiency, quantity, or quality of public safety services.

•	 How Does Public Safety Consolidation and 

Consolidation Work? In this video, field practitioners 

and academic experts explain the different models 

of consolidation and contracting that have been 

implemented, why a community might decide to 

consolidate or contract, and what their first steps might 

be. Discussants note, for example, how to calculate all 

base costs and divide them fairly among communities.

•	 What Are Some of the Lessons Learned about Public 

Safety Consolidation and Contracting? In this video, 

field practitioners and academic experts share the 

lessons learned from various communities deciding to 

consolidate or contract services and the implementation 

of these strategies. Discussants note initial difficulties of 

consolidation and the needs to identify ultimate goals 

and educate stakeholders, accurately estimate savings 

(which are more likely to be long-term than shortterm), and tailor solutions for individual communities.

•	 What Are the Challenges to Public Safety 

Consolidation and Contracting? In this video, field 

practitioners share the challenges they experienced 

while consolidating or contracting as well as how they 

overcame these challenges. Challenges discussed 

include those posed by collective bargaining and lack of 

consensus, while solutions include blending approaches, 

developing political support, and learning from others.

•	 What Are the Common Misconceptions about Public 

Safety Consolidation and Contracting? In this video, 

field practitioners and academic experts share the 

misconceptions that many communities and public 

safety officials have regarding consolidation and 

contracting. These include misperceptions about both 

the intent of consolidation, such as that consolidation 

will necessarily lead to reduced services, and about 

its outcomes, such as the fear that communities will 

inevitably experience declining control, jobs, and 

identity. They also note how research can reduce many 

of these misperceptions.

•	 How Do Communities React to Public Safety 

Consolidation and Contracting? In this video, field 

practitioners and academic experts share reactions 

of communities that have consolidated or contracted 

services. They note examples of communities that have 

seen improvements of services through consolidation 

and contracting, including reductions in complaints, 

as well as the importance of open, frequent, and 

constructive communication.

•	 What Is the Future of Public Safety Consolidation 

and Contracting? In this video, field practitioners and 

academic experts share their views on what the future 

holds for consolidation and contracting. Discussants 

note continuing pressures on agencies to do more with 

less, the ways this can lead to further consolidation 

and contracting, and the lessons that will become 

increasingly available as more communities share their 

experiences.
6

New Research on Evolving Issues

To supplement these resources, PCASS staff also 

conducted more in-depth research, including focus 

groups, case studies, and comprehensive analysis 

of evolving options available to communities. One 

of our efforts conducted focus group analysis and 

case studies of different pathways communities 

took to consolidate police services, such as merging 

departments to reduce staff, sharing services 

regionally, contracting for services, or consolidating 

police and fire services in a single agency. A second 

study explored in greater depth approaches to 

civilianization of police duties—that is, having 

civilians perform duties traditionally reserved for 

sworn officers. A third study focused on approaches 

to consolidation of police and fire agencies, and why 

agencies may persist with or abandon this model. We 

review each of these below.

Pathways to consolidation1

Merging police organizations is a complex process. 

Each organization has its own traditions, history, 

style, policy, procedures, structure, pension and 

benefits system, and culture. Failure to recognize 

these characteristics can make consolidation even 

more challenging.

To help practitioners better understand the 

implementation of various forms of consolidation, 

particularly the transition process, PCASS 

researchers undertook a two-pronged approach.

First, they convened a focus group of more than 

60 practitioners, including representatives of 

state and local police and sheriff departments, 

public safety departments, dispatch services, 

and university agencies. To structure the discussion, 

PCASS researchers guided attendees through a 

series of consolidation scenarios and asked them 

to discuss key considerations concerning each. 

Specifically, they asked about issues agencies 

would confront should they (1) merge into a 

regional organization that reduced combined 

staffing, (2) participate in regionally shared 

services, (3) determine what services to provide 

1 This discussion is based on Jeremy M. Wilson, Alexander Weiss, and Clifford 

Grammich, 2015, Pathways to Consolidation: Taking Stock of Transitions to 

Alternative Models of Police Service, Washington, DC: Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services, available at http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/copsp319-pub.pdf. 

and how much to charge for them when contracting, 

and (4) adopt a public safety model integrating police, 

fire, and emergency medical services.

A common theme participants mentioned in these 

four scenarios was implicit trust or understanding 

among agencies. Communities merging police 

agencies need to have a similar policing philosophy. 

Those sharing services regionally use pre-established 

friendly relationships to help pave the way for 

more formal agreements. Similarly, a community 

contracting for services will avoid damaging its 

relationship with the agency holding such contracts, 

such as the county sheriff. Those in public safety 

agencies emphasized the need to build trust among 

firefighters who might be merging with them.

Many focus group participants also recognized 

the need for other resources than trust, including 

guidance from top city management or political 

leaders and sufficient means to provide equitable 

services to all communities.

The second prong of our research comprised four 

case studies of departments that had undergone 

merger, regionalization, public safety consolidation, 

or contracting:

•	 Fraser/Winter Park (Colorado) Police Department, 

a department of eight full-time officers serving two 

communities, which merged in 2005

•	 Buffalo Valley (Pennsylvania) Regional Police 

Department, formed as the result of a 2012 merger 

between Lewisburg Borough police and East Buffalo 

Township police

•	 Rockford (Michigan) Department of Public Safety, which 

combined police and fire departments in 2012

•	 San Mateo County (California) Sheriff’s Office, which 

provides contract law enforcement services to more 

than a half-dozen jurisdictions

While these agencies differed in location, size, and 

form, they exhibited several commonalities. Each 

community encountered challenges in adopting 

new policies, whether from ill will generated by 

previous arrangements, concerns about how new 

arrangements might affect participants, or employees’ 

concern about how the changes would affect them. 

And just as trust was the common theme of the 

focus group responses, so understandings of culture 

recurred prominently in the case study research.
7

We took several common lessons from the focus 

groups and case studies. First, agency leaders 

must emphasize how a proposed change will affect 

service delivery and demonstrate that it will not 

reduce quality of service. Second, any plan to share 

services must treat employees equitably and take 

their concerns into account. Agencies must ensure 

all employees know precisely how they would be 

affected by the change. Third, details are important. 

Agency leaders must anticipate problems with their 

plans and have solutions for them—and must ensure 

they can answer questions about them, particularly 

from critics. Fourth, leadership is fundamental. In 

some cases, leaders will have to expend political 

capital to ensure successful implementation of a new 

organization scheme. Finally, cost savings may be 

elusive. While the large portion of local government 

budgets that go to public safety may seem a logical 

target for savings, savings may be elusive if years of 

budget cuts preceded the merger. Communities may 

also be sensitive to perceptions they are subsidizing 

others in any arrangement.

Civilianization2

2 This discussion is based on William R. King and Jeremy M. Wilson, 2014,

Integrating Civilian Staff into Police Agencies, Washington, DC: Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services, available at http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/copsp290-pub.pdf. 

Not all police work requires coercive force. Civilian 

police employees have a long tradition in the United 

States, with the number and proportion of civilian employees increasing from the 1930s through the 1980s. 

Police agencies today vary widely in their proportions 

of civilian employees, but they all might fruitfully consider which of their new or continuing duties can be 

performed more economically by civilians.

PCASS researchers assessed the use of and 

prospects for civilians in seven task areas: routine 

administrative and operational tasks; uniformed first 

responders to nonviolent calls for service; crime 

scene processors and forensic crime lab employees; 

crime victim service providers in the field; analysts, 

researchers, and planners; community liaisons and 

public information officers; and command staff and 

strategic leaders. Some of these tasks have been 

performed by civilians for decades while others are 

more novel.

Civilian employees can offer police agencies a 

number of benefits. They are less expensive than 

sworn officers in salary, retirement, and benefits. 

They enable sworn officers to concentrate on 

a narrower range of functions. They can bring 

specialized skills or formal training, such as 

engineering, legal, or scientific training, that regular 

sworn officers might not have. They can help 

improve community relations, a benefit especially 

important for community policing. And they often 

provide managers with greater flexibility in personnel 

assignments—the civilian hiring process is usually 

measured in weeks, while hiring and training a 

new recruit class of sworn officers takes months. 

Empirical research generally finds that more 

affluent agencies employ a greater proportion of 

civilians. Agencies facing budget cuts sometimes lay 

off civilians rather than sworn officers—providing 

further evidence of the greater flexibility civilian 

employees offer to agencies.

Civilian employees can also pose costs to agencies. 

Sworn officers or their unions may resist civilian 

hiring for a number of reasons. They may 

see civilians as depriving officers of desirable 

assignments, especially in positions that would 

otherwise go to officers relieved of street duty or 

injured. They may hold stereotypes of appropriate 

civilian assignments and resist civilian hiring outside 

those areas. Sworn officers may fear civilians will 

compromise sensitive information, interfere in 

officers’ exercise of discretion, or disrupt operations. 

While each agency must assess for itself the positive 

and negative implications of using civilians, PCASS 

researchers identify six promising practices that 

agencies seeking civilianization can adopt. First, 

agencies should assess the novelty of the assignment 

for civilians. For example, they may find it easier to 

expand civilian hiring into areas that are similar to 

other civilianized tasks than into new functions such 

as leadership. Second, agencies should determine 

the true costs and benefits for the agency. Civilians 

are often less expensive in terms of salary and 

benefits, but may incur costs such as those for 

special equipment or making provisions for access 

to secure facilities. Third, police leadership seeking 

civilianization should build support among key 

constituents. Agencies should be clear with line 

officers, management, and unions on why they plan 

to civilianize positions—and should note, where 

applicable, that civilians may free officers from more 
8

mundane tasks or help the agency provide services 

it does not currently deliver. Fourth, agencies should 

develop a plan to train civilian employees. Civilians 

do not receive the benefit of academy and field 

training, so agencies must provide an appropriate 

level of training and orientation as well as a career 

ladder. Fifth, agencies should establish performance 

assessment criteria for civilian employees. Crafting 

useful performance criteria is especially important 

when the position is new for the agency. Sixth, 

agencies should determine the procedures for 

demoting, firing, and handling grievances about 

or from civilian employees. As with any employee 

classification, agencies should ensure that proper 

personnel policies and procedures are in place to 

account for adverse consequences associated with 

civilian employees.

Consolidation of police and fire agencies3

While most U.S. communities providing police and 

fire services do so through separate agencies, some 

do so through a single, consolidated agency. Some 

consolidated public safety agencies date back more 

than a century in the United States, with the history 

of such single agencies for police and fire services 

elsewhere dating to ancient times. Communities 

operating a single consolidated public safety agency 

for fire and police services often cite efficiency or 

cost-effectiveness as reasons for doing so—reasons 

that may be increasingly important as municipalities 

face greater fiscal constraints.

More than 100 communities across the United States 

provide police and fire services in a single agency, with 

more than one in four such agencies originating in the 

past decade. While implementation varies considerably, 

such agencies generally fall into one of three types:

•	 Nominal consolidation, with executive functions 

consolidated under a single chief executive but no 

integration of police and fire services

•	 Partial consolidation, with partial integration of police 

and fire services, including cross-trained public safety 

officers working alongside separate functional personnel 

as well as administrative consolidation

3 This discussion is based on Jeremy M. Wilson, Meghan Hollis, and Clifford 

Grammich, A Census and Administrative Examination of Consolidated Public 

Safety Departments in the United States (Washington, DC: Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services, 2016), and Jeremy M. Wilson, Alexander Weiss, and 

Clifford Grammich, Public Safety Consolidation: A Multiple Case Study Assessment 

of Implementation and Outcome (Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Service, 2016).

•	 Full consolidation, with full integration of public and 

fire services, including cross-trained officers and 

consolidated management and command.

To provide better understanding of consolidated 

public safety agencies and the advantages and 

challenges that communities may find in them, 

PCASS researchers undertook two projects. First, 

they conducted a census of all such agencies in the 

United States, identifying ways they compare with 

each other and the common characteristics they 

share. Second, they conducted in-depth case studies 

of public safety agencies that have consolidated and 

deconsolidated, exploring how agencies consolidate 

police and fire services, how they respond to calls, 

advantages and disadvantages of the model, and 

issues that may lead agencies to deconsolidate.

Of the 131 public safety agencies in the United 

States, nearly half (61, or 47 percent) are in 

Michigan. The median size of communities with a 

consolidated public safety agency is about 10,000 

residents. Crime rates in these communities, at 

3,437 per 100,000 residents, were slightly above 

the national rate of 3,099 in 2013, perhaps not 

surprising given most public safety jurisdictions are 

in metropolitan areas. Most of these communities are 

at least 85 percent non-Hispanic white, compared to 

64 percent for the nation, although one in seven are 

“majority-minority.”

Agencies typically study public safety consolidation 

one to two years before implementing it. Many also 

conduct a formal study before doing so. As noted, 

agencies may vary in their level of consolidation, 

with the extent of cross-training varying as well. 

Public safety agencies respond to a wide variety and 

number of calls. Some report responding to fewer 

than 1,000 calls per year, while some respond to tens 

of thousands. Public safety agencies have relatively 

flat organizational structures, perhaps due to their 

relatively small size.

To better understand the reasons agencies 

consolidate and deconsolidate, PCASS researchers 

conducted focus groups among agency leaders 

in communities that had consolidated and 

deconsolidated, as well as case studies of several 

consolidation and deconsolidation communities in all 

sections of the country. Consolidation communities 

they considered were Aiken, South Carolina; 

Ashwaubenon, Wisconsin; East Grand Rapids, 

Michigan; Glencoe, Illinois; Highland Park, Texas; 
9

Kalamazoo, Michigan; and Sunnyvale, California. 

Deconsolidation communities they considered were 

Alamogordo, New Mexico; Durham, North Carolina; 

Eugene, Oregon; Meridian Charter Township, 

Michigan; and West Jordan, Utah.

In most of the consolidation case study communities, 

consolidation was an idea that evolved over time. 

Most of these communities pursued consolidation 

to gain efficiencies, and point to lower costs than 

their neighbors incur for police and fire services. The 

approaches that consolidated agencies take to public 

service integration vary by their circumstances. 

While all the consolidation case study communities 

had fully integrated their police and fire services, 

some differentiation remains both within and across 

their organizations, with some, for example, having 

separate police and fire divisions within the agency. 

Separate police and fire cultures have posed problems 

for these agencies, both in their own operations 

and in gaining acceptance from agencies in other 

communities. Public safety directors, however, note 

few problems in handling simultaneous police and 

fire emergencies as they arise.

Desire for specialization was a common theme in 

many of the deconsolidation communities. Among 

reasons these communities noted for specialization 

were growth and homeland security needs (which 

had been noted in other research as a reason for 

consolidation). Concerns about large or diverse 

communities are also evident in several cases of 

deconsolidation. Management difficulties were 

evident in some communities, as was failure to 

demonstrate the continued utility of the model.

Altogether, public safety consolidation has 

worked well in some communities, often leading 

to efficiencies and savings; other benefits include 

enabling communities able to grow their public safety 

departments as their communities have grown and 

fostering a public safety “culture.” Yet several other 

communities did not find the model to be responsive, 

and concluded that separate police and fire agencies 

would better serve their needs. 

If there is one overarching lesson in communities 

that have consolidated or deconsolidated their 

police and fire agencies, it is that consolidation 

is not a panacea, nor a one-size-fits-all solution. 

Rather, communities must very carefully assess 

for themselves alternative models of delivering 

police and fire services, which ones may best serve 

their circumstances, and how best to implement 

any changes.

Implementing Changes

Regardless of alternatives that communities may 

choose for delivery of police services, change will 

likely bring communities to uncharted territories 

for them. The quality of solutions and the success 

of their implementation will depend on the ability 

of leaders and citizens to gather and in good faith 

analyze relevant information, carry on careful 

and rational discussions of tough issues, and craft 

workable plans in a timely fashion with minimum 

conflict. Not all communities have the essential 

resources and tools for such deliberation and 

decision making. PCASS researchers therefore 

compiled guides on collaborating with stakeholders 

in consolidation and sharing of services, with special 

attention to working with the media on such issues.

Collaborating with stakeholders4

PCASS researchers suggest a process adapted on 

interest-based bargaining or interest-based problem 

solving for collaborating with stakeholders in 

consolidation or sharing of police services. These 

processes are particularly useful for projects involving 

a group of stakeholders. If followed correctly, these 

processes can be inclusive and transparent, reducing 

resistance to change and building support for 

solutions reached by stakeholders involved. They 

will not eliminate conflict or reduce passion about 

the issues, but they will provide a means to channel 

passion and energy to produce wise decisions. Not all 

communities may benefit from this approach, despite 

the best efforts or intentions of those overseeing the 

process. In such cases, change may occur without 

stakeholder input. Nevertheless, the process PCASS 

researchers outline can help communities wishing 

to engage stakeholders in a good faith effort to craft 

solutions that receive the greatest acceptance.

The first stage of the process is building a foundation. 

Typically, the need for change will not be surprising, 

as stakeholders may already be aware of a reduction 

4 This discussion is based on Michael J. Polzin and Jeremy M. Wilson, Police 

Consolidation: Collaborating with Stakeholders (Washington, DC: Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2014), available at http://ric-zai-inc.com/

Publications/cops-p291-pub.pdf. 
10

in funds to support current efforts, positions not 

being filled, or services cut. Ideally, stakeholders 

would agree to engage in deliberative dialogue to 

build a shared understanding of the problem. This 

stage has seven steps: 

1. Articulate the problem or goal and the role stakeholders 

can play. Sponsors (e.g., the unit of government 

responsible for public safety) should be clear and 

specific about what it is seeking and the roles 

stakeholders can play, including their ability to offer 

alternative suggestions. 

2. Obtain agreement from all stakeholders to participate 

in a deliberative process. This requires stakeholders to 

engage in all tasks in good faith, to listen to understand 

and speak to be understood, and to support the 

interest-based process by stating what they and their 

constituents need from a solution, articulating their 

support when they can provide it and offering other 

options when they cannot. 

3. Identify who will be part of the planning team. Ideally 

this group will include those with the knowledge and 

experience necessary to build a thorough understanding 

of the issue; it will be diverse and large enough to form 

subgroups to perform assigned tasks but small enough to 

keep discussions manageable. 

4. Build a shared understanding of the circumstances 

facing the units of government and departments 

involved. Each stakeholder should have the same 

information so that none is at a disadvantage and all can 

contribute to a solution.

5. Lay the groundwork for working together. This includes 

identifying stakeholder interests (separating what is 

wanted from what is needed), creating and agreeing on 

a set of principles to guide deliberations, and identifying 

constraints. 

6. Strengthen the team through an environmental scan. 

The environmental scan is a collaborative process in 

which group members identify what they perceive to be 

the internal strengths and weaknesses that reside within 

their environment, the external opportunities presented 

by challenges affecting the environment, and the threats 

that challenge it. 

7. Develop a plan for communicating with stakeholders. 

The planning team should follow a consistent plan for 

managing communication with constituents, deciding 

what to report, how much to report, how frequently to 

report, and who will do 

the reporting.

The second stage of the process is exploring the 

possibilities. In addition to ensuring stakeholders 

have access to the same information, the sponsor 

of the process should gather and share information 

about regionalization, consolidation, and shared 

services to build understanding and stimulate 

discussion of these concepts. Once this has been 

done, this stage has five steps:

1. Review the evidence base and collect, share, and review 

information about regionalization, consolidation, 

and shared services. Before staking out a position on 

whether or how to develop a plan for regionalizing, 

consolidating, or sharing services, it is best to review 

existing evidence. 

2. Analyze the evidence. Most likely, a community cannot 

replicate the exact plan implemented elsewhere, but it 

can learn from the experience of others that previously 

have sought to share services. 

3. Compare the evidence with the community’s situation 

or needs. Stakeholders should consider if they can draw 

lessons from the experiences of others that suggest 

options or variations on options 

to consider. 

4. Identify desirable attributes. Listing attributes does not 

mean they will be embedded in whatever solution is 

reached, but it does begin a process of articulating how 

various stakeholder interests might be addressed. 

5. Identify what issues, problems, and concerns to address. 

It may not be necessary to create a segment within 

a stakeholders’ meeting to raise questions, issues, or 

concerns; rather, these may arise and be answered 

throughout the entire process.

The third stage of the process is designing a plan. 

A planning team will be ready to proceed when it 

has collected and reviewed the evidence gathered, 

discussed what the group learned, and identified 

desirable attributes as well as questions, issues, or 

concerns to address. Once the team has done this, 

this stage has seven steps: 

1. Generate options and ideas. Two methods for doing so 

are creating a draft plan and generating and evaluating 

options as a large group. 

2. Address questions for clarification. Participants should 

hold off discussion of the merits of the draft plan or 

options generated until there is a shared understanding 

of what has been proposed. 

3. Discuss and critique the draft plan or options. Such 

discussion might overlay stakeholder interests with 

various options or plan elements. 
11

4. Craft a solution or plan. Participants may use the results

from the third step to focus their attention on options

or elements that have a high degree of acceptability,

meeting more stakeholder interests than other options.

5. Reach agreement. If reaching agreement proves difficult,

organizers may ask those who disagree their reasons

for doing so and to offer an alternative, to identify key

interests that have not been addressed, or to allow more

time for reflection.

6. Obtain feedback on the plan. During discussion about

rules of engagement, stakeholders should also devise a

process for obtaining feedback from constituents.

7. Make adjustments to the plan and finalize. Stakeholders

should be asked individually if they are willing to

support the decision, with any failures in consensus

handled as the group’s rules of engagement specify.

The fourth stage of the process is implementing 

the plan. Implementation plans may create a 

timeline with pilot or testing periods, establish 

measurement criteria, create monitoring plans, 

identify and resolve collective bargaining issues, 

educate constituent groups, and create a process 

for continuous improvement.

Making decisions that transform the organization 

and delivery of public safety services is not easy. 

Nevertheless, a structured and inclusive process can 

help build understanding of the need for change and 

of its implementation.

Engaging the news media5

Local media may prove to be both an observer and 

an ally in processes to consolidate or share police 

services. Managing media relationships is a critical 

and vital challenge to receiving community support. 

Yet, like so much else relating to consolidation and 

shared services, guidance here has been lacking. 

In fact, no prior study specifically examined how 

news media presented the consolidation of law 

enforcement agencies.

To address this lack of information, PCASS 

researchers explored how the news media presents 

consolidation, specifically in terms of community 

interests, budgetary concerns, and other potential 

considerations and outcomes. They also explored 

5 This discussion is based on Steven Chermak, Charlie Scheer, and Jeremy M. 

Wilson, Police Consolidation: Engaging the News Media (Washington, DC: Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2014), available at http://ric-zai-inc.com/

Publications/cops-p292-pub.pdf. 

what sources news reporters use to construct 

consolidation stories and how reporters use these 

sources to convey messages.

News articles the researchers identified on 

consolidation from 2002 to 2012 largely focused 

on initial considerations of consolidation. Most of 

these articles dealt with consolidating neighboring 

law enforcement agencies. Relatively few dealt with 

consolidating units within an agency. Fewer still 

were on consolidating specific services, such as 

communications or police and fire services.

Nearly all stories on consolidation mentioned a local 

or state government agency. Typically, these stories 

included a mayor or other high-ranking political official. They were less likely to include finance or other 

officials with less of a stake in the presentation of 

consolidation in the news. Community organizations 

and police labor unions appeared in less than half the 

stories about consolidation or sharing of services.

Economic concerns were the dominant issue in 

stories about consolidation or sharing of services. In 

84 percent of stories, cost savings were the primary 

reason cited for consolidation, though several stories 

on implementation mentioned efficiency concerns as 

well. Nine in ten stories mentioned the economy in 

general. Stories before the “Great Recession” were 

as likely to mention the economy as those afterward, 

indicating that the potential or perceived economic 

benefits are critical to public discussions, regardless 

of broader economic conditions.

Reporters used a wide variety of specific sources of 

information for their news stories on consolidation 

or sharing of services. News stories on these topics 

are not routine, hence reporters will have more 

time to produce them and to reach out to diverse 

stakeholders. Governors, mayors, city council 

members, and other state and local politicians 

account for 44 percent of all sources cited in 

these stories and 65 percent of first sources cited. 

Governmental sources were also most likely to 

provide positive evaluative information about 

consolidation or sharing of services in these stories, 

while public safety sources were more neutral.

Several agencies covered in the stories that PCASS 

researchers reviewed appeared to be managing news 

coverage extraordinarily well. PCASS researchers interviewed representatives from these agencies for their 

perspectives on best practices for communicating about 
12

consolidation or sharing of services. All interviewees, 

regardless of whether their consolidation effort succeeded, highlighted similar concerns and stressed five 

similar practices for media communication.

First, they stressed effectively managing the 

relationship with the media, including the need 

to have a foundation for positive relationships 

with community media organizations. All said 

they were open to media scrutiny and emphasized 

the importance of communicating to reporters. 

They noted they constantly work on developing 

relationships because of the high turnover at news 

organizations and the frequent occurrence of issues 

that strain the relationship.

Second, they communicate with key stakeholders 

to agree on talking points. Consolidation can be 

contentious for several reasons. Executives stressed 

the need to hear and respond to concerns, to discuss 

as best they can the reasons for choosing (or not 

choosing) to consolidate, and to present the results of 

their efforts in a uniform manner. 

Third, executives should share data with the media. 

All interviewees stressed that data were critical 

to their decision making and highlighted the 

expectations for supporting data and analysis. Several 

discussed extraordinary efforts to calculate savings 

and produce staffing models and projections about 

needs and costs, which they provided to news media.

Fourth, executives should pursue all communication 

channels. Those interviewed acknowledged consolidation was not a high news priority and that coverage is 

limited and may not be read by most key constituents. 

Community meetings, social media, and blogs can 

provide alternative means of communication.

Fifth, executives should rebrand the new agency. 

Those interviewed noted agencies can use news 

and social media to rebrand themselves, but should 

also take other steps to communicate the change, 

including having new business cards and letterhead, 

annual reports for the new agency, and press releases 

about the agency.

Altogether, research on media coverage of 

consolidation and sharing of services highlights 

three important policy considerations. First, law 

enforcement agencies should consider developing 

broad and nuanced publicity campaigns for 

consolidation. In contrast to most crime and criminal 

justice policy stories that emphasize the opinions 

of police sources, stories on consolidation include 

a larger number of community stakeholders with 

great interest in the issue. One strategy to engage 

the public in a discussion of a wider range of issues 

about police consolidation is to devise a broader 

organizational strategy for communicating to the 

public consolidation information and the issues 

surrounding it. Taking full advantage of various 

communication sources can help disseminate as 

much information as possible to the public.

Second, an agency must discern when to access and 

approach the media. News reporters have time and 

space constraints, but law enforcement executives 

can still provide the types of information and 

guidance that would allow reporters to write more 

nuanced stories. This can be particularly important 

given how rare it is for reporters to have relevant 

research or reports about consolidation.

Finally, an agency may encourage the media to 

provide more than single or short-term coverage 

of consolidation. Consolidations typically receive 

no more than two or three articles in a community 

considering it. Criminal investigations and arrests 

by police receive frequent coverage, but policing 

programs and policies do not. Law enforcement 

agencies and surrounding communities would benefit 

from additional follow-up stories as consolidation 

moves forward, is implemented, and leads to specific 

changes. Such coverage would provide a broader 

understanding of this issue as well as opportunity 

for the community to understand the mission of the 

consolidated agency.
13

Conclusion

Recent years have seen police agencies confront 

new, tighter constraints on resources—constraints 

that they have not always been able to address with 

standard responses. Some non-standard measures 

that communities might take to overcome such 

constraints, such as consolidation or sharing of 

services, have been around for decades but were 

often not known or fully understood. The PCASS 

Program has sought to develop a publicly accessible 

baseline of knowledge on these alternatives and to 

update and expand knowledge on them.

The program highlights the importance of 

collaboration between practitioners and 

researchers—a collaboration that has included 

pioneering research. The program has worked with 

agencies to identify both lessons learned and those 

yet to be learned through new research. The program 

has also succeeded by drawing on interdisciplinary, 

seasoned experts with academic and practical 

experience to develop and disseminate decisionsupport resources regarding all forms of consolidation 

and shared services.

The lessons to be drawn from these efforts will 

increase as the efforts do. As more communities 

explore consolidation or sharing of services, they 

will offer more insights in more settings applicable or 

adaptable to more communities. Similarly, as police 

agencies explore new roles for their employees, such 

as civilianization of roles previously reserved to 

sworn officers, they will offer insights on what roles 

may, or may not, be adapted or modified to meet 

changing circumstances.

Efforts to consolidate or share services are not 

irreversible. As the analysis of deconsolidation of 

public safety agencies shows, communities can and 

do reverse their decisions to consolidate services. In 

some cases, they may even do so for reasons thought 

to favor consolidation. Gathering lessons not just 

on implementation of consolidation or sharing of 

services but on reversals of such implementations 

can help communities determine if a model is best 

for them and what challenges they may find in it.

Many communities considering or implementing 

these initiatives will be entering uncharted territories 

for them. Nevertheless, if engaging in transparent 

interest-based bargaining or problem solving, they 

can ensure proper consideration of the issues 

surrounding consolidation or sharing of services. 

Structured and inclusive processes, such as that 

outlined by PCASS researchers, and consideration 

of resources such as those identified and developed 

by the program, can help build better understanding 

of the need and processes for change. As PCASS 

researchers also highlight, several communities offer 

insights on best practices for communicating the 

need for change and its implementation.

Communities are not likely to find one ideal solution 

in consolidation or sharing of services. They may find 

themselves carefully assessing and experimenting 

with a variety of alternatives to determine what 

best suits their needs. Research cannot recommend 

whether all communities ought to adopt a particular 

reform; rather, communities need to consider what 

best suits their circumstances, needs, and resources. 

PCASS resources and research can, however, outline 

the range of alternatives a community may consider, 

and provide several insights into what may be 

applicable, and how it may best be adopted. 

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

145 N Street NE

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call 

the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770.

Visit the COPS Office online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

e017614771

Published 2016