Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Interagency Cooperation in the Era of Homeland Policing: Are Agencies Answering the Call?

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the rise of “homeland security policing” (Oliver International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 20(1-2), 49–62, 2006), police agencies from all levels of organization are called on to cooperate by sharing intelligence, equipment, tactics, and training. While the increased level of cooperation between local policing agencies and Federal-level agencies has been well documented, far less attention has been paid to cooperation among agencies that share contiguous jurisdictions. Similarly, a body of research assesses if information is shared across agencies, but far less research exists that investigates if agencies cooperate in ways other than simply sharing information. Through interviews with officers from agencies operating in several adjacent jurisdictions, this research documents the ways in which agencies cooperate, the perceived benefits of cooperation, and the perceived challenges to cooperation. These findings suggest that agencies engage a variety of joint activities, and they agree on the benefits that working together affords. However, the broader political and contextual climates in which these organizations operate often limit the extent to which they can cooperate. Implications of this research for police management are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Local police departments set the boundaries of the region as state police have much larger regional areas to oversee.

  2. One sheriff’s office in region 1 did not participate in an interview, but they returned the completed interagency activities survey for inclusion in this project.

  3. Examples of special events include political rallies, speedway security, festivals, marathons, and planned public demonstrations.

  4. Established in 1984, National Night Out is a community event to raise awareness of police-community partnerships.

  5. Town, city, and county names have been changes to protect the confidentiality of respondents.

  6. Analysis of perceived benefits by small/medium and large departments is available upon request.

References

  • Akbulut, A. Y., Kelle, P., Pawlowski, S., Schneider, H., & Looney, C. (2009). To share or not to share? Examining the factors influencing local agency electronic information sharing. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 4(2), 143–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amsler, L., & O’Leary, R. (2017). Collaborative public management and systems thinking. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 30(6-7), 626–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auerbach, C., & Silverstein, L. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardach, E. (1998). Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braga, A., Kennedy, D., Waring, E., & Morrison Piehl, A. (2001). Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: An evaluation of Boston’s operation ceasefire. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(3), 195–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, J. G., Carter, D., & Chermak, S. (2013). Intelligence training. Law Enforcement Executive Forum, 13(2), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, J. G., Phillips, S. W., & Gayadeen, S. M. (2014). Implementing intelligence-led policing: An application of loose-coupling theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 433–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chermak, S., Carter, J., Carter, D., McGarrell, E. F., & Drew, J. (2013). Law enforcement’s information sharing infrastructure: A national assessment. Police Quarterly, 16(2), 211–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. (2017). Cultural fragmentation as a barrier to interagency collaboration: A qualitative examination of Texas law enforcement officers’ perceptions. American Review of Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074017744659.

  • Comfort, L. K., & Kapucu, N. (2006). Inter-organizational coordination in extreme events: The world trade center attacks, September 11, 2001. Natural Hazards, 39(2), 309–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooney, M., Rojek, J., & Kaminski, R. J. (2011). An assessment of the utility of a state fusion center by law enforcement executives and personnel. IALEIA Journal, 20, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordner, G., & Scarborough, K. (2010). Information sharing: Exploring the intersection of policing with national and military intelligence. Homeland Security Affairs, 6(1), 1–19. http://hdl.handle.net/10945/25059.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Guzman, M. (2002). The changing roles and strategies of the police in time of terror. ACJS Today, 22(3), 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisinger, P. (2006). Imperfect federalism: The intergovernmental partnership for homeland security. Public Administration Review, 66(4), 537–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falcone, D. N., Wells, L. E., & Weisheit, R. A. (2002). The small-town police department. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 25(2), 371–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, C., & Cordner, G. (2005). The impact of terrorism on state law enforcement: Adjusting to new roles and changing conditions. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazley, B. (2010). Linking collaborative capacity to performance measurement in government-nonprofit partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 653–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazley, B. (2013). Building collaborative capacity for disaster resiliency. In N. Kapucu, C. V. Hawkins, & F. I. Rivera (Eds.), Disaster resiliency: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 84–89). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawdon, J. (2018). The evolution of policing styles in the United States from 1860 – 2017: Balancing security and legitimacy. In L. Eargle amp; A. Esmail (Eds), Police & citizen brutality in America. Lynchburg: Virginia University of Lynchburg Press.

  • Henry, V. (2002). The need for a coordinated and strategic local police approach to terrorism: A practitioner’s perspective. Police Practice & Research, 3, 319–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homeland Security Council. (2007). National strategy for homeland security. Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security.

  • Hu, Q., Connolly Knox, C., & Kapucu, N. (2014). What have we learned since September 11, 2001? A network study of the Boston Marathon bombings response. Public Administration Review, 74(6), 698–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imperial, M. (2005). Using collaboration as a governance strategy: Lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration & Society, 37(3), 281–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiao, A., & Rhea, H. (2007). Integration of police in the United States: Changes and development after 9/11. Policing and Society, 17(4), 388–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapucu, N. (2006). Interagency communication networks during emergencies: Boundary spanners in multiagency coordination. American Review of Public Administration, 36(2), 207–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapucu, N., & Garayev, V. (2013). Designing, managing, and sustaining functionally collaborative emergency management networks. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(3), 312–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelling, G., & Moore, M. (1988). The evolving strategy of policing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettl, D. (2006). Managing boundaries in American administration: The collaborative imperative. Public Administration Review, 66(SI), 10–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koski, C. (2015). Does a partnership need partners? Assessing partnerships for critical infrastructure protection. American Review of Public Administration, 45(3), 327–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, D. (2018). Addressing challenges to homeland security information sharing in American policing: Using Kotter’s leading change model. Criminal Justice Policy Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403418786555.

  • Mandell, M., & Steelman, T. (2003). Understanding what can be accomplished through interorganizational innovations the importance of typologies, context and management strategies. Public Management Review, 5(2), 197–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, D., & Sun, I. (2007). The impact of 9/11 on organizational development among state and local law enforcement agencies. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(2), 159–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masterson, M., & Raney, G. (2012). In pursuit of cooperation. Idaho police agencies join together. Police Practice, December, 13-15.

  • Mattessich, P. W., Murray-Close, M., & Monsey, B. (2001). Collaboration: What makes it work? Saint Paul: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, M., Agranoff, R., & Silvia, C. (2011). Putting the “public” back into collaborative public management. A paper presented at the Public Management Research Conference, Syracuse, NY, June 1-4.

  • McGuire, M., & Silvia, C. (2009). Does leadership in networks matter? Public Performance & Management Review, 33(1), 34–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Middlemiss, A., & Gupta, N. (2007). US interagency law enforcement cooperation since September 11, 2001: Improvements and results. Journal of Financial Crime, 14(2), 138–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, W. R. (1977). Cops and bobbies: Police authority in New York and London, 1830-1870. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, G., & Plotkin, M. (2003). Protecting your community from terrorism: Strategies for local law enforcement: Volume 1: Local-federal partnerships. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, W. (2004a). Stress in small town and rural law enforcement: Testing the assumptions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(1), 37–56.

  • Oliver, W. (2004b). The homeland security juggernaut: The end of the community policing era? Crime and Justice International, 20, 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, W. (2006). The fourth era of policing: Homeland security. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 20(1-2), 49–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, W. (2007). Homeland security for policing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, W. (2009). Policing for homeland security: Policy and research. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(3), 253–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz, C., Hendricks, N., & Sugie, N. (2007). Policing terrorism: The response of local police agencies to homeland security concerns. Criminal Justice Studies, 20(2), 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peaslee, L. (2009). Community policing and social service partnerships: Lessons from New England. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 10(2), 115–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelfrey Jr., W. (2007). Local law enforcement terrorism prevention efforts: A state level case study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(3), 313–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelfrey Jr., W. (2009). An exploratory study of local homeland security preparedness: Findings and implications for future assessments. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(3), 261–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randol, B. (2012). The organizational correlates of terrorism response preparedness in local police departments. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 23(3), 304–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaible, L., & Sheffield, J. (2012). Intelligence-led policing and change in state law enforcement agencies. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 35(4), 761–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnobrich-Davis, J., & Terrill, W. (2010). Interagency collaboration: An administrative and operational assessment of the metro-LEC approach. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 33(3), 506–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedgwick, D. (2016). Building collaboration: Examining the relationship between collaborative processes and activities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(2), 236–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sowa, J. E. (2008). Implementing interagency collaborations: Exploring variation in collaborative ventures in human service organizations. Administration & Society, 40(3), 298–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sully, P., Greenaway, K., & Reeves, S. (2005). Domestic violence—Policing and health care: Collaboration and practice. Primary Health Care Research & Development, 6(1), 31–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Justice. (2003). National criminal intelligence sharing plan. Washington, DC: Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2014). Building and using the theory of collaborative advantage. In R. Keast, M. Mandell, & R. Agranoff (Eds.), Network theory in the public sector: Building new theoretical frameworks (pp. 51–59). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn Lee, J. (2010). Policing after 9/11: Community policing in an age of homeland security. Police Quarterly, 13, 347–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, S., & Katz, C. (2008). The police in America: An introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waugh, W., & Streib, G. (2006). Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public Administration Review, 66(S1), 131–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisheit, R. A., Falcone, D. N., & Wells, L. E. (2005). Crime and policing in rural and small-town America. Waveland Press.

  • Weisheit, R. A., Wells, L. E., & Falcone, D. N. (1995). Crime and policing in rural and small-town America: An overview of the issues. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, C. R. (2006). Organizing for homeland security after Katrina: Is adaptive management what's missing? Public Administration Review, 66(3), 302–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (2009). Case study research (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donna Sedgwick.

Ethics declarations

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Appendix

Interview Questions

These are examples of types of questions to be asked, but the questions may change given the information provided by the informant.

  1. 1.

    What is your current job title?

  2. 2.

    Describe your current job duties and responsibilities.

  3. 3.

    How long have you worked in law enforcement? Can you tell me your job history?

  4. 4.

    What police departments do you cooperate, coordinate, or collaborate with? How often do you interact with these departments?

    (For questions 5 – 24, ask about each partnership that informant mentions)

  5. 5.

    REVIEW SHORT SURVEY ACTIVITIES AND ASK FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.

  6. 6.

    How often do you communicate with someone from [PD Name?] Do you meet regularly? Exchange phone calls/emails regularly?

  7. 7.

    Do you interact with other agencies (government, nonprofit) in your role in the PD? If so, in what capacity?

If you participate in a joint task force, city-state partnership, the law enforcement summit, or some similar type of partnership with another police department, continue to the questions below. If not, please skip to Question 25.

  1. 8.

    In your relationship with (PD name), do you have clearly defined roles and responsibilities? If so, what is your role? What is the other department’s role? If so, how did these come to be defined?

  2. 9.

    Who coordinates your relationship with (PD name)? Who is most likely to initiate a meeting or phone call? How was the coordination worked out?

  3. 10.

    Do you and (PD name) have the same goals? If yes/no, can you discuss some of the similarities (differences)? If yes, how were these goals established? If yes, do you revisit these?

  4. 11.

    Do you participate in group brainstorming sessions with (PD Name)? If yes, what about?

  5. 12.

    Do you think your counterpart(s) at [PD Name] take your opinions (or the opinions of your supervisors) seriously? If yes/no, can you provide an example?

  6. 13.

    Do you consider (PD Name) to be a serious partner? Explain.

  7. 14.

    What are some formal aspects of your relationship with (PD Name)? (agreements, MOUs, other contracts). What are some informal aspects of your relationship with PD Name (phone calls, conversations at other meetings/professional meetings, etc.)? How did these formal agreements get established?

  8. 15.

    Do you think that by working with (PD Name) you achieve goals better? Explain.

  9. 16.

    Do you think that (PD Name) appreciates what your program brings to your relationship? Do you appreciate what (PD Name) brings to the relationship? Explain.

  10. 17.

    Can you count on [PD Name] to meet their obligations? If yes/no, explain.

  11. 18.

    Do you trust your counterpart at (PD Name)? Explain. If yes, how do you think trust was established? Can you give an example? If no, do you think that the lack of trust hinders your relationship?

  12. 19.

    Have you had to work through disagreements/differences with [PD Name]? If yes, did you think that the outcome resulted in a win/win for both departments? If yes/no, explain.

  13. 20.

    Is your program committed to continuing with a collaborative (cooperative) relationship with (PD Name)?

  14. 21.

    (If Joint Task Force/Shared resources, etc) Does your organization commit resources to [Joint Task Force Name]? If yes, what are they? How do you think overall commitment and resource commitment (if applicable) developed?

  15. 22.

    Does working with [PD Name] hinder you from reaching your own goals? If yes/no, explain? How do you balance your program goals with collaborative goals?

  16. 23.

    Is your department’s independence affected by working with [PD Name]? If yes/no, explain.

  17. 24.

    Are there any policies or procedures (both formal and informal) that you developed with [PD name] to bring about your envisioned goals? How did these policies/procedures develop?

  18. 25.

    What are the advantages to collaboration?

  19. 26.

    What are the challenges to collaboration?

  20. 27.

    Any disadvantages to collaboration?

Please fill in the name of the local or state police departments that you work with. Mark all of the activities that you engage in with the various police departments. Also, use the blank at the bottom to fill in additional activities that you undertake with other departments that are not included.

Police Department

    

Information sharing

    

 Crime analysis/trends

    

 Training opportunities

    

 Current cases/leads

    

 Active warrants

    

 Bulletins (public/officer safety, fraud, missing persons)

    

Communications

    

 911/Dispatch Centers

    

 Frequencies/Channels

    

 Social Media

    

Resources

    

 Equipment

    

 Shared Training Sessions (Please Specify)

    

 Shared Academies

    

 Personnel

    

 Crime Lab

    

Decision making/Tactical

    

 Working Cases with other department(s)

    

 Joint Task Forces (Drug, Anti-terrorism, etc)

    

 Special Events (Football games, concerts, car races, etc.)

    

 Hosting Community Events (public safety, citizen police academy, etc.)

    

Memoranda of Understanding/Mutual Aid Agreements

    

Additional Activities?

    

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sedgwick, D., Hawdon, J. Interagency Cooperation in the Era of Homeland Policing: Are Agencies Answering the Call?. Am J Crim Just 44, 167–190 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-018-9456-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-018-9456-4

Keywords