Colin McNickle: Keeping an eye on police regionalization |
Featured Commentary

Colin McNickle: Keeping an eye on police regionalization

Colin McNickle

Cheswick Borough and Springdale Township have joined forces to form Allegheny County’s second regional police force.

And if the conclusions of a state study that led to the creation of the Allegheny Valley Regional Police Department come to fruition, it could be an operational and financial win-win for local taxpayers, finds an analysis by the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy.

“Although intergovernmental cooperation can be complicated, the study indicated that, in this case, the benefits outweighed the challenges,” say Eric Montarti, research director, and Hannah Bowser, research assistant.

Article IX, Section 5, of the Pennsylvania Constitution allows for such consolidations. It was in the 1960s that Allegheny County’s first consolidation came with creation of the Northern Regional Police Department, combining departments in Pine, Marshall and Bradford Woods. Richland joined the group in 2006.

Statewide, 122 municipalities are part of regional police forces.

An October 2018 study by the Governor’s Center for Local Government Services recommended the Cheswick/Springdale merger.

Among the regional policing benefits noted by the study are improvement in uniformity and enforcement; coordination of law-enforcement services; recruitment; distribution and deployment of police personnel; training and personnel efficiency; management and supervision; career enhancement opportunities; and reduced costs.

But the study did not shy away from potential disadvantages. Among them are loss of local services, control, citizen contact and personnel rank.

According to a 2014 report by the Pennsylvania Legislative Budget and Finance Committee, loss of municipal control was the main obstacle identified in forming regional police departments. Labor issues were close behind.

Cheswick and Springdale officials agreed to consolidate their police forces in April, effective July 1. Cheswick’s annual police costs were $324,945 while Springdale’s were $373,364 for a total of $698,309.

But the combined force — with a police chief, two full-time officers and four part-timers — was projected to cost $499,998 annually. That represents a nearly 28.4% savings off the combined costs of running separate forces.

The actual budget and staffing ended up close to the projections: $449,839 with a police chief, a patrol officer and six part-time officers. That’s a nearly 35.6% drop from the communities’ prior combined policing costs. Cheswick and Springdale are splitting the cost 50-50.

The state Budget and Finance Committee’s report found that a sample of regional police departments cost approximately 25% less than stand-alone departments, though some had increased costs in initial years after formation.

Another consolidation of the Mon Valley’s Braddock, North Braddock, Rankin, East Pittsburgh and Whittaker police forces is being studied.

That said, not all considered police force consolidations go forward. To wit, a proposed regional force combining Sharpsburg, Aspinwall, O’Hara and Blawnox was not recommended because it would have resulted in higher costs.

“As such, residents of Cheswick and Springdale Township ought to keep a vigilant eye to see if the savings materialize and ultimately translate into lower taxes,” Montarti and Bowser say. “As the department continues in operation, it will be interesting to see if and how much the benefits pan out.”

Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy and can be reached via email.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.