1 / 26

KEY ASSUMPTION

LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACTING: A PARTNERSHIP MODEL Scott Sotebeer, PhD Briahna, Taylor, esq . DeWayne Pitts, Chief Financial Officer, CPA, CFE waco Conference 2012. KEY ASSUMPTION. FEAR OF CHANGE = THE MYTHS THAT DRIVE SOMEONE’S REALITY

whitney
Télécharger la présentation

KEY ASSUMPTION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACTING:A PARTNERSHIP MODELScott Sotebeer, PhDBriahna, Taylor, esq.DeWayne Pitts, Chief Financial Officer, CPA, CFEwaco Conference 2012

  2. KEY ASSUMPTION • FEAR OF CHANGE = THE MYTHS THAT DRIVE SOMEONE’S REALITY • Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future. John F. Kennedy

  3. Myth… or REALITY?????????

  4. Consolidation Modeling:National Trends & Issues COMMON ASSUMPTIONS: • The existing business model of local government is under fire and may no longer be viable or sustainable. • Municipal and other smaller local government units are increasingly looking at bankruptcy and other measures to address inevitable insolvency. • This trend has accelerated efforts to consolidate, merge, share services, and contract with other units of government.

  5. National Trends & Issues • Under current conditions, labor and other costs are likely to continue to outstrip revenue growth or any marginal opportunities to increase revenues. This trend is not likely to reverse itself without structural change. • Law enforcement and the criminal justice system are generally the single biggest drain on local general fund revenues. • Contracting as one of several models, has shown to save from 20%-34% annually. • Other strategies being implemented nationally in a variety of service areas show fiscal and operational promise.

  6. National Trends & Issues • The immediate structural problem is primarily driven by redundant infrastructures • we most likely do not need fewer police officers 911 call receivers, or parks maintenance workers, etc.—but there is NOT an arguable need for overlapping administrative structures

  7. National Trends & Issues • Fed -- GAO Housing Study: Collaborate & Consolidate! • NSA- beginning to learn & help educate • COPS Office • Nov 2011 Melekian told a House Judiciary Committee panel, “American law enforcement is changing…. Four key areas where the agency and law enforcement can collaborate: the use of technology, public and private partnerships, regionalization and consolidation, and an increase in civilians and volunteers. • “A major shift is the consolidation and regionalization around core functions or entire departments. Regionalization is often confused with a loss of agency identity,” said Melekian. • Research projects- good start, not enough • MSU - COPS educational pieces on consolidation “BOLO” • NSA – contracting primer • 2013 – the presidential vote will come into play- COPS priorities

  8. National Trends & Issues:Consolidations Defined • 4 models exist that are most talked about: • Shared services- combined functions • Merger/consolidation- two or more form a single, new unit • Regionalization- multiple jurisdictions combine regionally (Metropolitan operation such as Las Vegas Metro, Louisville, Indianapolis, Salt Lake City ) • Contracting- typically the Sheriff model (but not necessarily)

  9. National Trends: The Common Advantages to Consolidation • Economies of scale • Lower cost per capita- total reduced cost • Risk is spread • Improved uniformity, consistency and coordination of services • Improvement in personnel (competitive) • Improved management & supervision • Improved training and expanded personnel opportunities (regional) • Quality of service opportunity is broad theme

  10. Can’t do it alone: States’ efforts throughout the nation New York, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Florida, West Virginia, Kansas, Indiana, and others have all tackled consolidation. • Incentives (financial & otherwise) • Transition funding- post implementation • Changing statutes to make consolidation process easier or more effective • Technical assistance • Legislators supporting consolidation efforts

  11. Washington State: The Current State • Consolidation efforts in other states have been motivated by the state legislature. • Washington State is behind the curve on exploring consolidation across all services areas. • There are no consolidation statutes • No funding to support jurisdictions in completing consolidation analyses.

  12. Washington State: The Current State • Washington has more special purpose districts than most other states. • There are about 1,700 special purpose districts in Washington State • History: Populist approach; hesitancy to give local governments control. • In recent years, the concept of adding a law enforcement district to the books has been introduced.

  13. Washington State: The Current State Special Purpose Districts • Advantages: • Local Control • Protected Revenue Streams • Disadvantages: • Inequity within a jurisdiction; e.g. utility rates. • Multiple layers of governance/administration

  14. Washington State: The Current State • Things are changing… • Joint Municipal Utility Act • Joint Select Committee on Junior Taxing Districts • Good news: Current law works for contracting • While legislative support/funding would be nice, current law allows contracting; current law allows for savings.

  15. Washington State: The Current State • Local Government Budgets – More jurisdictions are pursuing consolidation. • Examples: • University Place is contracting with Lakewood for municipal court services; new Auburn courts contract with King County District Court. • Yakima County and City of Yakima have combined purchasing departments. • City of Snohomish is contracting with Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office for police services. • Granite Falls Sheriff’s contracting vote???

  16. Washington State: The Current State • The Legislature is interested in consolidation. • Jurisdictions are looking at consolidation. • What needs to happen next? • Local electeds need to communicate to the Legislature what they need to make consolidations and efficiencies successful. And, the Legislature needs to listen. • What can you do? Talk to County Councilmembers/ Commissioners, county administrators – They are looking for cost savings too!

  17. Contracting Model“Police Service Partnership” A Police Service Partnership is a contractual arrangement between the Sheriff’s Office and an incorporated city (or other entity) for the provision of a specific set of police services, as desired by the customer.

  18. The Model’s Key Premise: Local Control & Identity • The city chief is selected by the partner city; is responsible for the operations; reports directly to the city manger • The city determines staffing level, services and police priorities. • The partner city selects uniforms and vehicles with unique city markings

  19. Contracting: Partnership benefits • Contract provides a complete police department • All support services and equipment • Access to specialized services • Major Crimes Investigation, SWAT, Traffic Reconstruction • Avoid infrastructure start-up costs • Single Inter-local Agreement – fair to all partners • Concept of Mutual Benefit

  20. Economies of Scale Savings • Administrative and Overhead • Traditional overhead such as payroll, HR, IT • Police specific - records, property mgmt, training • Operational • Shared supervision: Sergeants & Command level • Highly trained specialty units • Communications • Cross-dispatching cuts staffing needs for both partner and provider

  21. The Financial Reality Average Cost of Police Services per Capita Comparing Contracts with other Cities

  22. REALITY: The Challenges of Contracting • Concerns about……… • Local control • Growth in overhead & labor- costs beyond the contract’s scope • Management, accountability, continuity, & oversight • Personality and quality of citizen contact (citizen perception) • Unions/complex contracts • Loss of position – including support staff • Lack of political cooperation/will (slippery slope?) • Potential legislative hurdles • Loss of services- community Policing • Cost of entry—and threat of “buyer’s remorse”—no turning back

  23. Lessons Learned – Keys to sustainability • Trust-driven Relationships • Communication: listen, learn and adapt • Local control: translation– chief is advocate for city, sets LE priorities, unique identity • Transparency – costs and operations • Cost management = labor & overhead • Customer-driven structure= responsiveness • Keeping current on local issues

  24. Obstacles to new Contracts? • Politics • Labor • Poor financial analytics • Public perceptions: loss of control, loss of personal cops • Human nature = everyone’s aversion to change

  25. What Can & Should the Sheriffs DO? • The legislature and a NEW Governor provide a unique timing opportunity • WASPC- Must be legislative agenda issue • Sheriffs and Chiefs must discuss openly • LAW Group: Adopt a policy and strategy • Focus on the 3 legs of the stool: pre-advocacy • Educate your workforce • Don’t forget other police dept. officers! • Educate your community “base” • Educate ALL politicians in your reach

  26. Thank you! • “And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.” - Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 – 1527), The Prince, Chapter 4

More Related