HR Green ASD for Local Governments Handbook - Executive Summary - Manual (Page 10)

10
CHAPTER 5: SERVICE CONSOLIDATION
Katherine Piker and Craig Maher
Definition: Service consolidation focuses on agreements between governments to merge existing
departments into one unit which is overseen by representatives from both governments. That definition
excludes arrangements in which one government contracts with another in order to receive a specific service
(e.g., regional dispatch). Under service consolidation, there is one department administrator who oversees the
department and answers to both communities equally. Typically an oversight board comprised of
representatives from both governments is established to oversee the consolidated department.
Why consider service consolidation?
To some degree, the latest recession can be seen as a crisis event that spurred consolidation discussions;
however, the economy was not a sufficient condition for these discussions. Were it not for an existing history
of cooperation and mutual trust, these communities would not have attempted service consolidation.
What we learned from a survey of recent research:
• Service-level consolidation has been a popular approach to cost savings among elected officials and
administrators for labor-intensive services such as public safety.
• The expectation is that by combining services with another government, reductions in service
duplication and personnel costs will generate cost savings without affecting service quality.
Surprisingly, there is limited research demonstrating this relationship and several studies have
challenged the cost-saving argument.
• While management, employment options, and service standards dominate the personnel side of the
consolidation debate, the political arena remains one of the biggest obstacles to consolidation efforts.
• Regardless of the economic benefit or service improvements, local politicians may still act to prevent
consolidation for fear of losing local control or because of mistrust of other government officials.
What we learned from the focus group discussions:
• One important lesson from the Hinsdale and Clarendon Hills fire protection agreement was the
ability to integrate the fire fighters through shared training programs. The shared training fostered a
level of comfort and respect among the fire fighters that alleviated any service quality concerns
associated with a service consolidation.
• Transparency throughout the service consolidation process is essential. The perceived lack of
transparency by police personnel in Hinsdale and Clarendon Hills was an impediment to success.
• A unique element of the Clarendon Hills and Hinsdale police consolidation case was that it required
state legislative approval. Illinois statutes do not permit a police department consolidation that
extends into two counties, as with this case. In order for police officers from the other community to
enforce multiple counties’ laws, state legislation is required. The ability of the police lobby to block
state legislation led to the demise of this consolidation effort.
• The public has been generally supportive of service consolidation efforts for police and fire.
• The Peoria city and county arrangements are only possible because of the culture of cooperation
between the managers and elected officials. Also, a citizen advisory board of 36 citizens, mainly from
the business community, was tasked with evaluating and recommending city and county services for
potential consolidation, and overseeing the process. Their role may have prevented public opposition.
Readiness checklist for service consolidation:
 Identify and Include Relevant Stakeholders  Establish Realistic Goals for Success
 Review Similar Consolidation Agreements and
Consult Other Municipalities
 Communicate Plan Transparently with Employees
and Residents
 Conduct an Internal Evaluation of the Department  Establish and Maintain Ongoing Performance
Evaluation Measures
 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 