Staff Perceptions of Public Safety Consolidation

Staff Perceptions of Public Safety Consolidation A Multi-Site Assessment Meghan E. Hollis, Ph.D. Jeremy M. Wilson, Ph.D. January 2014

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, publicsafety 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 publicsafety consolidation. This research was supported by a Michigan Applied Public Policy Research Grant from the MSU Institute for Public Policy and Social Research. 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 publicsafety 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. 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 publicsafety 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 facilitymanagement 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-crosstrained 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 oppose Neither oppose nor support 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 Low Medium High priority priority priority 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 jobrelated 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 fireonly, 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 lower About the same higher Much higher Job Cross-trained 0% 8% 48% 33% 13% satisfaction 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 Police only 0 5 55 20 20 Fire only 27 9 36 27 0 All respondents 4 4 37 28 27 Job-related stress Cross-trained 0 0 35 40 25 Police only 0 0 65 35 0 Fire only 0 0 18 55 27 All respondents 0 0 41 41 18 Workload Cross-trained 0 0 20 53 28 Police only 0 0 55 45 0 Fire only 0 0 9 55 36 All respondents 0 0 28 51 21 Job performance Opportunities for promotion Morale among sworn personnel Quality of police services Quality of fire Services Cross-trained 0 3 68 23 8 Police only 0 0 85 15 0 Fire only 0 4 69 23 4 All respondents 0 4 69 23 4 Cross-trained 0 5 58 28 10 Police only 0 0 65 25 10 Fire only 18 0 36 18 27 All respondents 3 3 56 25 13 Cross-trained 0 26 51 18 5 Police only 5 5 70 20 0 Fire only 55 9 0 27 9 All respondents 10 17 49 20 4 Cross-trained 0 3 68 18 13 Police only 0 5 65 25 5 Fire only 0 0 82 18 0 All respondents 0 3 69 20 9 Cross-trained 3 10 30 35 23 Police only 0 0 58 32 11 Fire only 36 9 18 27 9 All respondents 7 7 36 33 17 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 crosstraining program? What is the likelihood that you would want to become cross-trained? (Asked of respondents in non-cross-training department) Very Very Unlikely Neutral Likely unlikely 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? Cross-training implementation Strongly oppose oppose Neither oppose nor support support Strongly support 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 Very Difficult Neutral Easy difficult 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 Cross-trained 5 33 48 15 0 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 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 publicsafety 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