This study examines the interorganisational relationships between chiefs of police and county sheriffs towards a state law enforcement agency. The findings revealed high levels of chiefs and sheriffs' contact with the state agency. High levels of requests for routine and major assistance were reported. With respect to request for major assistance, there was a significant difference between chiefs and sheriffs. Sheriffs were significantly more likely to seek help on major cases. While there were a few isolated cases of pointed dissatisfaction, overall, both chiefs and sheriffs reported high levels of satisfaction with the state agency. Sheriffs were also more likely to report service duplication by the state agency. Duplication, however, was not necessarily viewed as a negative.
MandellM.P. (1984) ‘Application of Network Analysis to the Implementation of a Complex Project’Human Relations37(8): 659–79.
14.
MandellM.P. (1990) ‘Network Management: Strategic Behavior in the Public Sector’, in GageR.W.MandellM.P. (eds), Strategies for Managing Intergovernmental Policies and Networks. New York, NY: Praeger, pp. 29–53.
15.
MirandaR.LernerA. (1995) ‘Bureaucracy, Organizational Redundancy, and the Privatization of Public Services’Public Administration Review55(2): 193–200.
16.
MorrisseyJ.P.HallR.LindseyM. (1982) Interorganizational Relations: A Sourcebook of Measures for Mental Health Programs, National Institute of Mental Health, Series BN No. 2, DHHS Pub. No. (ADM) 82–1187. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs, US Government Printing Office.
17.
NassC.I. (1986) ‘Bureaucracy, Technical Expertise, and Professionals: A Weberian Approach’Sociological Theory4(1): 61–70.
18.
OrtonJ.D.WeickK.E. (1990) ‘Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization’Academy of Management Review15: 203–23.
19.
OstromE.ParksR.B.WhitakerG.P. (1974) ‘Defining and Measuring Structural Variations in Interorganizational Arrangements’Publius, The Journal of Federalism, The Center for the Study of Federalism4(4): 87–108.
20.
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967) Task Force on the Police. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
21.
ProvanK.G.MilwardH.B. (1995) ‘A Preliminary Theory of Interorganizational Network Effectiveness: A Comparative Study of Four Community Mental Health Systems’Administrative Science Quarterly40(1): 1–33.
22.
ReitanT.C. (1998) ‘Theories of Interorganizational Relations in the Human Services’Social Service Review72(3): 285–309.
23.
RingP.S.Van de VenA.H. (1994) ‘Developmental Processes of Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships’Academy of Management Review19(1): 90–118.
24.
SabathM.J.DoyleJ.P.RansburgJ.W. (1990) Multijurisdictional Drug Task Forces in Indiana: The First Two Years of Operations. Indianapolis, IN: Center for Criminal Justice Research and Information.
25.
SchoplerJ. H. (1987) ‘Interorganizational Groups: Origins, Structure, and Outcomes’Academy of Management Review12(4): 702–12.
26.
TristE.L. (1983) ‘Referent Organizations and the Development of Inter organizational Domains’Human Relations36(3): 269–84.
27.
WalkerS.KatzC.M. (2008) The Police in America: An Introduction (6th edn). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
