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

Enabling Collaboration and Communication Across Law Enforcement Jurisdictions: Data Sharing in a Multiagency Partnership

“…Therefore, communicating with other local agencies and sharing crime data can help law enforcement officials identify persistent offenders in the region and agencies can work together to apprehend these offenders. This finding is consistent with those from prior studies (Marks & Sun, 2007; Sedgwick & Hawdon, 2019), providing more evidence that criminal justice personnel recognize the benefits associated with sharing information with other criminal justice agencies. It is important that key personnel acknowledge—and believe in—the benefits to cross-jurisdictional information sharing as this may solidify their continued commitment to this large-scale data-sharing effort after grant funding for this partnership has ceased.…”

“…If the goal of working with neighboring agencies is to identify offenders whose criminal paths cross jurisdictional bounds, it is imperative that these agencies communicate with one another consistently and exhaustively. Scholars who have studied interagency partnerships among law enforcement have found that officers recognize and acknowledge the benefits of sharing information with other agencies due to the fact that offenders can—and do—cross jurisdictional bounds and, as such, there is a need to share data and intelligence with other agencies to identify and apprehend offenders within the region (Marks & Sun, 2007; Sedgwick & Hawdon, 2019).…”

“…Finally, even if agencies agree to share data and intelligence with others, such sharing may not always be consistent or equal. That is, there may be some agencies that consistently share everything, whereas others may share sporadically and choose to withhold information from other agencies (Sedgwick & Hawdon, 2019). In sum, the aforementioned issues may lead to instances where multiagency collaborations become a source of conflict rather than a source of mutual support, leading such partnerships to be unsuccessful, fizzle out quickly, and/or exist in name only (Crawford, 1997).…”

The Evolving Regulatory Landscape for Fentanyl: China, India, and Global Drug Governance

“…Countries without a domestic fentanyl crisis are often unconcerned about fentanyl, regulating their pharmaceutical and chemical industries, etc., which impedes the implementation of treaty obligations. Systemic corruption [ 42 , 43 ], cooperation concerns among different enforcement agencies [ 44 ], and congested domestic legal systems also provide serious challenges to engaging the fentanyl problem. Therefore, global fentanyl governance requires the additional strength of a binding international convention.…”

Enhancing Community Safety through Interagency Collaboration: Lessons from Connecticut's Project Longevity

“…This finding is consistent with the extant literature on interagency collaboration, which recognizes that it is not uncommon for organizations holding distinct missions to see the injunction to work together as a threat to their specialism, and interpret it as a negative assumption about the value of their own work. 32 In New Haven, this challenge was at least partially addressed by the hiring of a program manager who worked as a ‘boundary spanner’ and was capable of bridging the community-law enforcement divide. In the public management literature, boundary spanners (also known as ‘nurturing reticulists’) are skilled communicators capable of “talking the right language” and working across agency boundaries.…”