Interagency collaboration

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine an interagency collaboration (The Metropolitan Law Enforcement Council – Metro‐LEC), consisting of 42 law enforcement agencies that provide mutual aid and assistance to member agencies in times of need.Design/methodology/approachIn total, four sources of data (personnel interviews, written survey, organizational documents and participant observation) were used as part of a case study method, to assess the administrative and operational functioning of the Metro‐LEC.FindingsIn sum, the findings conclude that the organization is meeting the needs of the member agencies, with few unmanageable impediments.Research limitations/implicationsSince the current study relies on a case study from a single collaborative agency, the findings come with caution, in terms of generalizability.Originality/valueThis psprt contributes to the literature on police interagency collaboration and is the first known study on a Law Enforcement Council (LEC).

A Multiple Case Study of the Interagency Relationship Between School Administrators and Law Enforcement Personnel in the Creation, Implementation, and Sustaining of School Emergency Management Plans

“…One of the formal steps in creating an interorganizational relationship with a law enforcement agency that provides law enforcement services within the jurisdiction is through a memorandum of understanding (MOU). An MOU is an agreement between agencies that spells out the responsibilities of each agency that assists in alleviating any misunderstandings of each other's roles in the agreement (Burling & Hyle, 1997;Schnobrich-Davis, & Terrill, 2010). Cray and Weller (2011) added that effective SRO programs must have an MOU in place that contains the goals of reducing school violence and the steps to provide a safe learning environment.…”

“…She explained that in some cases, it was easier to communicate with the SRO, but in other cases, it was difficult because of their conflicting personalities. In developing organizational relationships, each entity must define each other's roles, expectations, missions, styles of operation, capabilities, and limitations (Perry & Lindell, 2003;Schnobrich-Davis & Terrill, 2010 Building principals have the responsibility of ensuring their respective school site plans are not only in place, but also maintained through meetings, training, emergency drills, and regular audits. The enormity of establishing school safety is one that cannot be completed without assistance (Cray & Weller, 2011;Fletcher & Nicholas, 2015;Trump, 2011 (Coon & Travis, 2012).…”

“…In developing organizational relationships, each organization must understand each other's missions, structures, styles of operation, capabilities, and limitations (Perry & Lindell, 2003;Schnobrich-Davis & Terrill, 2010). Comments from participants in this study reflect the desire to understand each other's operational capabilities while working toward a collaborative relationship; however, various obstacles exist that deter this from being a possibility.…”

“…Interview question two provided insight into the actual perception of the relationship between the schools and the law enforcement agencies (Lambert & McGinty, 2002;Schnobrich-Davis & Terrill, 2010;Cray & Weller, 2011). This information was crucial to the entire framework of this study and the research question.…”

“…Interview questions 6 and 7 were related to interorganizational relationships and some of the obstacles and influences involved in bringing two individual agencies to work together effectively (Coon & Travis, 2012;Jackson, 2002;Schnobrich-Davis & Terrill, 2010).…”