Staff Perceptions of Public Safety Consolidation: A Multi-Site ...

Staff Perceptions of Public Safety Consolidation

A Multi-Site Assessment

Meghan E. Hollis, Ph.D.

Jeremy M. Wilson, Ph.D.

January 2014

Introduction

Diminishing resources, particularly since the economic recession

of 2008 and 2009, have made it difficult for communities to

provide and maintain police and fire services. The overall costs for

such services—$80 billion for police and $40 billion for fire in

2009 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009)—plus the large proportion—

typically about 80 percent—of expenses for police and fire

personnel (Wilson et al., 2010; Shaitberger, 2003) have

necessitated that communities look for new ways to make the

greatest uses of their resources. One response to these difficulties

has been to consolidate these services in a single agency.

Michigan has pioneered many such consolidations. Its public-

safety departments sometimes serve as models for other

communities moving toward consolidation. Understanding how

such efforts have fared in Michigan can yield insights on how they

might fare elsewhere. To that end, we surveyed public-safety

personnel at three Michigan departments for their perspectives

on consolidation.

We begin by providing some background on consolidation,

including its types. We then review the methods and results of

our survey. Finally, we discuss our overall findings and their

implications.

Consolidation and Its Types

Public safety consolidation involves some form of merging police,

fire, and emergency medical services into a single agency. It may

range from complete integration of such services, with personnel

fully trained to provide all services, to nominal consolidation,

involving only the highest level of command (More, 1970; Lynch

and Lord, 1979; Wilson and Grammich, 2012).

Full consolidation, as noted, involves a full integration of police

services with fire services. This model uses public-safety officers

who are cross-trained in both police and fire services and who

perform both police and fire service functions. A small number of public safety officers typically remain

in the fire station, ready to respond with the larger fire apparatus, while the rest may be on patrol,

performing normal police and fire-prevention duties as needed. Such agencies consolidate the

management and command of both police and fire services into a single entity.

Preface The Program on Police Consolidation and Shared Services (PCASS) of the Michigan State University (MSU) School of Criminal Justice develops resources to assist communities as they explore their options for delivering public safety services. These resources do not advocate any particular form of service delivery but rather are designed to help communities determine for themselves what best meets their needs, circumstances, and desires.

PCASS resources include reports, journal articles, presentations, books, commentary, and policies regarding, among other topics, police mergers, regionalization, contracting, shared services, contracts, and, the topic of this report, public-safety consolidation of police and fire services. MSU research on public-safety consolidation is ongoing. This report highlights some research conducted by MSU researchers regarding line staff perceptions of public-safety consolidation.

This research was supported by a Michigan Applied Public Policy Research Grant from the MSU Institute for Public Policy and Social Research.

1

Partial consolidation incorporates a limited integration of police and fire services. Partially-consolidated

departments have a limited number of cross-trained public safety officers who work alongside separate

police and fire personnel in the same agency. Public-safety officers perform police functions until there

is a need to respond to a fire call, when they work under fire department supervision.

Nominal consolidation does not integrate police and fire services, nor does it have cross-trained public-

safety officers. Rather, a public-safety director may oversee separate police and fire divisions within a

single department. Such departments may also have police and fire services share facilities, training, or

dispatch resources.

Public-safety consolidation has both benefits and costs (e.g., Wilson and Grammich, 2012; Wilson et al.,

2012). Proponents claim benefits in efficiency and in improving some policing efforts. Opponents claim

increased costs and loss of needed specialization.

Proponents claim consolidating police and fire services can help reduce costs for cities in dire financial

straits (see, for example, City of Kalamazoo, 2013). Proponents claim that consolidation allows

communities to reduce the total need for line staff; duplication in administration, communication, and

infrastructure; and dispatch of large equipment and personnel. Consolidation may also make more staff

available for a wider variety of calls (Wilson and Grammich, 2012). This could improve community

policing and enhance deployment options, including those for homeland security (Matarese et al., 2007;

Mata, 2010). Proponents also suggest that public-safety positions and the broader skills they require

may attract candidates with broader skills and interests (Lynch and Lord, 1979).

At the same time, there are some perceived costs to consolidation that might hamper its

implementation (Wilson and Grammich, 2012). Upfront costs for consolidation might include those for

increased training, new branding, new uniforms, new equipment, and new vehicles. The level of

organization required for consolidation to be successful could amplify pre-existing labor- and/or facility-

management problems. More specifically, labor organizations and unions as well as administrators

might block consolidation efforts in some areas. As Holzer et al. (2009) write, “Police and fire are

difficult to consolidate, because of the public’s concerns with safety (in terms of response times) and

organized labor’s concerns with employment security” (p.19).

Unfortunately, there is little direct research on costs and benefits of police consolidation. To help

address this gap, we surveyed staff at three Michigan public-safety departments about their perceptions

of consolidation, including its advantages and disadvantages as well as its effect on the performance of

their duties.

Survey Methods and Findings

We surveyed sworn staff in three Michigan public-safety departments. All three are in metropolitan

areas and serve communities of less than 30,000 population and less than 20 square miles of land area.

All three have similar levels of per capita income, between $20,000 and $30,000, college-educated

(four-year degree) populations of about 20 to 40 percent, and (single-race) white non-Hispanic majority

2

populations. All three have adopted public-safety consolidation relatively recently, but at differing

levels, with two cross-training some personnel but the third limiting its consolidation to administrative

levels. That is, two of these agencies are partially consolidated, while one is nominally consolidated.

We sought to survey all sworn staff—fire, police, or cross-trained—in the three departments. We sent

them by email a link to an online survey, which 80, or 62 percent, completed. In the two cross-training

departments, 83 percent of staff completed the survey (84 percent in one and 77 percent in the other).

In the department that does not cross-train, 49 percent of staff completed the survey—possibly

indicating officers in this department did not feel that the survey applied to them. Altogether, 66

percent of our respondents were from cross-training departments.

Nearly all our respondents (98 percent) were full-time officers. Our sample included a variety of

positions: supervisors of both police and fire personnel (13 percent), police supervisors only (13

percent), fire supervisors only (9 percent), non-cross-trained police officers (19 percent), non-cross-

trained firefighters (8 percent), and cross-trained (or currently cross-training) public safety officers (40

percent). More than 97 percent of our respondents were non-Hispanic white, and 93 percent were

male. Most had a four-year college degree or a post-graduate degree; only 3 percent had no college

education.

Large majorities of our respondents said they supported consolidation, with about half saying they

“strongly” support it (Table 1). Large majorities also perceived support from their supervisors, with,

again, about half saying their supervisors “strongly” support it. Perceptions of support from residents

were somewhat more tempered: most officers said they thought local residents supported the

consolidation, but fewer than one in four respondents perceived “strong” support from residents. In

addition, more than one in five officers said they opposed consolidation, and nearly one in five said their

supervisors opposed it.

Table 1. “In general, to what extent do [local residents / supervisors / you] oppose or support

consolidation?”

Strongly oppose

Somewhat oppose

Neither oppose nor support

Somewhat support

Strongly support

Local residents 4% 7% 29% 39% 22%

Department supervisors 9 8 12 20 52

Individual officer’s view 12 9 8 18 53

Most officers also thought consolidation would be “very likely” (43 percent) or “likely” to save the

community money (27 percent), although more than one in five thought this “unlikely.” This mirrors the

officers’ levels of support for public safety consolidation. In fact, support for consolidation tended to

coincide with the perceived likelihood that consolidation would save money for the community. Of the

personnel who supported consolidation, more than four out of five believed it would save money. By

contrast, of those who opposed consolidation, two out of three thought it unlikely to do so.

3

Most respondents perceived little change to the mission of their organizations since consolidation (Table

2). About three in five said they saw little or no change to the police mission of their organization since

consolidation, and more than half also said they saw little or no change to the fire mission of their

organization since consolidation. Nevertheless, some respondents saw considerable change, including

three in ten who said there was “a lot” of change to the fire mission.

Table 2. “To what extent has the local [police/fire] mission changed since consolidating?”

Not at all A little Some A lot

Police mission 38% 22% 28% 12%

Fire mission 31 20 19 30

Line officers felt varying levels of engagement with the implementation process (Table 3). About one in

three felt that their input in planning or implementation was not a priority for their department, while

one in four felt it was a low priority. Nevertheless, most felt that keeping them informed on planning or

implementation was at least a “medium” priority of their department, although only one in three felt it

was a “high” priority or “essential” to their department.

Table 3. “To what extent [do you feel that keeping you informed of planning details / keeping you

informed of implementation details / your input on planning decisions / your input on

implementation decisions” were a priority?”

Not a priority

Low priority

Medium priority

High priority

Essential

Keep informed in planning 21% 23% 24% 13% 19%

Keep informed in

implementation 17 20 31 13 19

Input in planning 33 26 16 16 10

Input in implementation 33 24 20 13 10

Overall, respondents indicated relatively little change with job characteristics resulting from

consolidation. Most indicated their job performance, opportunities for promotion, and quality of police

services remained “about the same” after consolidation, while pluralities said job security, morale

among sworn personnel, and quality of fire services also remained “about the same.” Nevertheless,

nearly three in four said workload was at least somewhat higher, and nearly three in five said job-

related stress was also at least somewhat higher. More positively, at least half said job security and

quality of fire services were somewhat higher, and nearly two in five said opportunities for promotion

were also somewhat higher.

By specialization, more variation in job characteristics is evident (Table 4). Considering perception of job

characteristics by whether respondents (both line and supervisors) are cross-trained, police-only, or fire-

only, we find, for example, that while most police and cross-trained personnel report “about the same”

4

or improved job satisfaction, most fire personnel report lower levels of satisfaction. Similarly, more than

one in three fire personnel report lower job security, nearly one in five reported lower opportunities for

promotion, and nearly half reported lower quality of fire services since consolidation.

Table 4. “Please indicate how you feel the following [job characteristics] have been affected by

consolidation.” Results by specialization: cross-trained, police-only, or fire-only.

Much lower

Somewhat lower

About the same

Somewhat higher

Much higher

Job

satisfaction

Cross-trained 0% 8% 48% 33% 13%

Police only 5 5 60 30 0

Fire only 36 18 18 9 18

All respondents 7 9 47 28 10

Job security Cross-trained 0 3 28 33 38


Fire only 27 9 36 27 0


Job-related stress

Cross-trained 0 0 35 40 25


Fire only 0 0 18 55 27


Workload Cross-trained 0 0 20 53 28


Fire only 0 0 9 55 36


Job

performance



Fire only 0 4 69 23 4


Opportunities

for promotion



Fire only 18 0 36 18 27


Morale among sworn personnel



Fire only 55 9 0 27 9


Quality of

police

services



Fire only 0 0 82 18 0


Quality of fire

Services



Fire only 36 9 18 27 9


5

While most cross-trained officers thought consolidation had improved quality of fire services in their

department, many also recognized fire-service issues were a concern of their department (Table 5).

More than two in three said whether public-safety officers “have enough on-the-job fire training” was at

least a “moderate” concern in their department. Most also said the “ability to practice ‘team’

firefighting” was a “moderate” or “serious” concern in their department, while nearly half said “ability

to meet fire call volume” was at least a “moderate” concern. More than two in three cross-trained

officers said “keeping [public-safety officer, or] PSO certifications up to date” was a “moderate” or

“serious” concern. By contrast, nearly two in three said “ability to meet police call volume” was no more

than a “minor” concern for their department, and most said “training costs” were no more than a minor

concern.

Table 5. “Thinking about your department’s cross-training program, to what extent [do] you feel the

following things are a concern or not for your department?” (Asked of respondents in cross-training

departments)

Not a concern

Minor concern

Moderate concern

Serious concern

Training costs 26% 37% 28% 10%

Keeping PSO certifications up to date 10 24 43 24

Role conflict among PSOs 24 34 32 10

Ability to practice team firefighting 16 26 34 24

PSOs have enough on the job police training 33 31 28 8

PSOs have enough on the job fire training 6 26 40 28

Ability to meet police call volume 34 28 18 20

Ability to meet fire call volume 39 14 28 20

Officers at the department that did not cross-train did not consider it likely their department would

implement cross-training, nor did they consider it likely they would want to become cross-trained (Table

6). Similarly, most said they would oppose cross-training if it were implemented (Table 7).

Table 6. “What is the likelihood that your department will someday implement a police/fire cross-

training program? What is the likelihood that you would want to become cross-trained?” (Asked of

respondents in non-cross-training department)

Very unlikely

Unlikely Neutral Likely Very likely

Likelihood department will cross-train 29% 48% 10% 5% 10%

Desire to become cross-trained 33 29 14 19 5

6

Table 7. “Would you oppose or support police/fire cross-training if it was implemented in your

department?”

Strongly oppose

Somewhat oppose

Neither oppose nor

support

Somewhat support

Strongly support

Cross-training

implementation 29% 33% 19% 19% 0%

Respondents did report some difficulty with consolidation of their department (Table 8). While a

plurality of respondents was “neutral” on how difficult it was to consolidate their department, and

nearly one in four said it was “easy,” one in three said it was “difficult” or “very difficult.” Perceptions of

difficulty also varied by type of agency and professional specialization. Those in cross-training agencies

were four times as likely as those in non-cross-training agencies to say consolidation was difficult. And

while fewer than two in ten police-only line officers and supervisors said consolidation was difficult,

nearly four in ten cross-trained personnel said it was, as did half of fire-only personnel.

Table 8. “Overall, how difficult or easy has it been for your department to consolidate?”

Very difficult

Difficult Neutral Easy Very easy

All personnel 7% 27% 44% 23% 0%

Agency type

Cross-training agency 10 33 42 15 0

Non-cross-training agency 0 11 47 42 0

Professional specialization


Police-only 0 19 43 38 0

Fire-only 30 20 30 20 0

Half of our respondents said their department has at least “somewhat” developed a “public safety

culture” (Table 9). The extent to which respondents viewed their department as having a public safety

culture varied both by type of agency and, especially, personnel. Those at cross-training agencies were

more likely to say their agency had “somewhat” or “to a great extent” developed a public safety culture.

While more than half of cross-trained personnel said this, as did nearly half of police-only personnel, few

fire-only personnel saw such a culture in their agency. In fact, nearly half of the fire-only personnel said

their agency had “not at all” developed a public safety culture and an additional third of fire personnel

indicated that this existed “very little”.

Though respondents varied in their views on public safety culture, few saw deconsolidation as a likely

possibility. In fact, more than two-thirds said it was unlikely, with half saying it was “very” unlikely, while

fewer than one in fifteen thought it “likely.”

7

Table 9. “To what extent does your department have a ‘public safety culture’?”

Not at all Very little Somewhat To a great extent

All respondents 13% 38% 37% 13%

Agency type

Cross-training agency 12 35 37 16

Non-cross-training agency 15 45 35 5

Professional specialization

Cross-trained 8 35 43 15

Police-only 9 46 32 14

Fire-only 44 33 22 0

Implications for Practitioners and Policy Makers

Public Safety Consolidation Support

Officers tend to perceive lower support from local residents for public-safety consolidation than from

departmental supervisors or that they themselves had. While this seems to indicate a need to

strengthen external support for public-safety consolidation efforts, many officers believed that public-

safety consolidation would save money for their community. This, in turn, might lead to greater

community support.

Changes to Police and Fire Mandates and Involvement of Officers

Respondents were more likely to perceive changes to the fire mission than to the police mission

resulting from public safety consolidation. Future ethnographic or observational research should

determine whether this has indeed been the case. Better understanding what changes are occurring

could help practitioners and policymakers seeking to successfully navigate these changes with their

employees.

Most respondents did not feel that keeping them informed during planning and implementation of

public safety consolidation was a priority for their department. Even more indicated that their input in

planning and implementation during public safety consolidation was not a priority. This could affect

how personnel respond to consolidation, including their morale and performance on the job after

consolidation. To improve personnel transitions to consolidation, administrators may wish to make

extensive efforts to keep personnel informed throughout the process and to provide multiple

opportunities for input. Further research could help elaborate the best means for involving personnel.

Job Attributes

Respondents tended to have the same or slightly improved perceptions of their job as a result of

consolidation. Nevertheless, fire personnel tended to have less job satisfaction than cross-trained or

police personnel, and they also reported lower levels of job security and opportunities for promotion.

8

Most respondents indicated that the quality of police services had remained the same or improved.

Nevertheless, nearly half of fire personnel indicated that fire services had decreased in quality.

Altogether, fire personnel had more negative views regarding their job, its roles, and its opportunities

than other personnel had. This may indicate that those considering or implementing consolidation

involving cross-training should make special efforts to improve or maintain morale and encourage the

support and involvement of fire personnel in the change process.

Cross-trained personnel, though believing the quality of fire services in their department had improved,

also expressed some concerns about having sufficient on-the-job fire training and ability to practice

team firefighting, as well as about keeping their public-safety officer certifications up to date. Those

considering or currently implementing public safety consolidation should seek to reduce these concerns

by providing training, examining the role and importance of team firefighting activities, and developing

explicit planning and policy for certifications. Other public-safety agencies have found training,

particularly maintaining certification, to be a continuing challenge (Wilson et al., 2012).

Overall Views of Consolidation

Respondents from the agency that does not cross-train are not anxious for their department to do so.

Most such respondents also did not see cross-training as likely in their departments. This may indicate

that agencies that are administratively consolidated but seeking to later incorporate cross-training

efforts should consider the views of personnel. This might require special efforts to generate support

and acceptance for cross-training before implementation. Earlier research (Crank and Alexander, 1990)

has also suggested that the continued presence of separate police and fire organizations can pose an

ongoing source of opposition to public-safety consolidation efforts.

Respondents had mixed views on the ease of implementation. Fire personnel were also far less likely

than others to say they see a public safety culture emerging in their department. Identifying and

understanding any difficulties affecting ease of implementation or development of a public safety

identity, particularly among fire personnel, could help future such efforts. It may even help ongoing

efforts, given that even among our sample very few thought deconsolidation would occur.

Concluding Remarks

Many communities that turn to public safety consolidation do so because of a reduction in resources.

As more communities confront limited resources, they may turn to consolidation as a potential solution.

This report provides some lessons regarding a single, but important, part of the public safety

consolidation process – the perspectives of those charged with providing public safety services under

the new model. Our results indicate that those considering consolidation should examine the existing

culture and seek to improve views of consolidation and job opportunities under it as they guide

personnel through the consolidation process. Keeping personnel informed and seeking their input in the

planning and implementation stages may help improve perceptions of consolidation. Personnel also

have considerable concerns about adequate training and maintaining certifications. Policymakers

9

considering consolidation for their communities would do well to address these concerns beforehand,

as well as how they might best solicit personnel input on these and other issues, thereby improving

personnel acceptance, capacity, and performance under consolidation.

References

City of Kalamazoo. (2013). History. www.kalamazoocity.org/hsty

Crank, J.P., and Alexander, D. (1990). Opposition to public safety: an assessment of issues confronting

directors of public safety departments. Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol. 17, No.

1, pp. 55-65.

Holzer, M., Fry, J., Charbonneau, E., Shick, R., Burnash, E., Ceesay, A., Kwak, S., Lin, W., Nayer, G.,

Schatteman, A. (2009).Literature Review and Analysis Related to Costs and Benefits of Service

Delivery Consolidation Among Municipalities. Local Unit Alignment, Reorganization, and

Consolidation Commission: Rutgers University, School of Public Affairs and Administration.

Lynch, R.G. and Lord, V. (1979). Public safety programs: Consolidating police and fire services. Popular

Government, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 1-8, 33

Mata, V.R. (2010). The Contribution of Police and Fire Consolidation to the Homeland Security Mission.

Monterey, Calif.: Naval Postgraduate School Master’s Thesis.

Matarese, L., Chelst, K., Fisher-Stewart, G. and Pearsall, A. (2007).Public Safety Concept in the Post-9/11

World. Public Management, Vol. 89, No. 4, pp. 14-17

More, H.W. (1970). The New Era of Public Safety. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Shaitberger, H. (2003). Economic decline threatens staffing benefits. International Association of Fire

Fighters. www.iaff.org/about/GP/jf03.html

U.S. Census Bureau (2009). Annual Surveys of State and Local Government Finances.

www.census.gov/govs/estimate

Wilson, J.M., Rostker, B., and Fan, C. (2010). Recruiting and Retaining America’s Finest: Evidence-Based

Lessons for Police Workforce Planning. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, MG-960-NIJ.

Wilson, J.M. and Grammich, C. (2012). Police Consolidation, Regionalization, and Shared Services:

Options, Considerations, and Lessons from Research and Practice. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Wilson, J.M., Weiss, A. and Grammich, C. (2012). Public Safety Consolidation: What Is It? How Does It

Work? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services.

10

http://www.kalamazoocity.org/hsty

http://www.iaff.org/about/GP/jf03.html

http://www.census.gov/govs/estimate

Staff Perceptions of Public Safety Consolidation: A Multi-Site ...

Documents