CHAPTER THREE: WHY GIS IS DIFFERENT IN SMALL AND MEDIUM CITIES

Small and even medium law enforcement jurisdictions are different from large jurisdictions. For example, New York or Los Angeles differ from the small department in how they go about implementing geographic information systems, in the scope of what they may accomplish in GIS, and in what types of support they need from funding agencies. Some small and medium jurisdictions, despairing of emulating large-city models, may even discount the possibility of implementing a GIS function. Our research found that GIS functions may indeed be implemented effectively in small and medium jurisdictions if those in charge of implementation understand why GIS is different in small and medium cities. The policy implication of this research finding is that statewide agencies which seek to support small to medium law enforcement agencies must be prepared to provide support quite different from that generally available to larger jurisdictions.

Differences in need perception

The large-city model of GIS implementation appeals to top law enforcement management on the basis of maps as communication tools which allow those at the top to see "the big picture" more easily, a need that is readily felt in large jurisdictions. In smaller communities, however, top law enforcement management is apt to perceive less need, thinking that all crimes are already known, thus making mapping unnecessary. Because of differences in need perception, it is important to undertake initial projects which demonstrate need to top law enforcement management early. When confronted with the suggestion that in small communities such as his, top police officials may feel they already know where crime is and that maps are unnecessary, the respondent from the small community of Gallatin, TN, provided this example of how GIS may reveal findings different from those expected:

"I've been pin mapping all of our 1999 vehicle crashes and ... been working with grants [which focused on crashes at] specific intersections ... I wanted to look at the whole overall picture and went ahead and pin-mapped everything from 1999 and found out that, yes, those intersections were part of the role, but they weren't the largest part. So I was able to go back and was able to defend the position that while we're looking at the problem and we are addressing some of it, we're probably not addressing the place where we can have the largest impact. So I think, if anything, [GIS is] allowing us to be more informed ...."

While this will vary greatly from community to community, demonstration of justification for GIS is greater in small communities than in large jurisdictions.

Staffing differences

The large-city model calls for establishing a job description for a GIS specialist, then filling that position (and possibly additional positions) with recruits trained in geographic information systems and experienced in its application to crime analysis. The small-city model calls for designating an existing crime analysis officer to develop GIS capabilities for the law enforcement department or agency. That officer rarely has prior training in geographic information systems applications.

It is important to take a human capital development approach to personnel issues in implementing GIS in smaller jurisdictions. That is, local managers must plan for career development, reward, and develop retention systems that are adequate to protect the investment they have made in order to train GIS staff. The smaller the jurisdiction implementing geographic information systems, the more likely that reliance will depend on existing personnel. This is illustrated by the respondent from Gallatin, TN (pop. 23,000):

"Obviously, we're not [a community] where we're actually going to bring people on board and say, okay, this is your position, because we don't have the resources, we don't have the manpower,... so we've sort of been able to go with that quarter of a person, and a quarter of the time."

Much the same is reported even by larger communities, like Vacaville, CA (pop. 87,000):

"They wouldn't even look at hiring a GIS analyst ... not someone specifically, because we are so small, we're a population of 87,000 right now. They would just have that, either a part-time crime analyst or the full time crime analyst, myself, looking at some of my crime work ... so they wouldn't even develop a crime mapping unit."

In an environment where GIS is implemented through existing personnel and often through part-time staff, law enforcement management must understand GIS as an exercise in human capital development. That is, the local jurisdiction, with or without outside resources, must invest in their GIS staff. Ordinarily, especially in smaller jurisdictions, an existing GIS specialist must be trained for crime analysis skills or an existing crime analyst must be trained for GIS skills. The latter is generally the easier and ultimately more effective route.

Investment in GIS personnel may take the form of funding professional development leaves, funding training, providing professional-level equipment and software, and other forms of recognition and remuneration. As the existing staff member increases in value, market forces start to operate, threatening GIS staff recruitment by larger jurisdictions or by the private sector. A good human capital development program requires developing retention programs and incentives to prevent loss of the community's investment in people and training.

Organizational differences

The large-city model of GIS implementation involves creation of a separate GIS unit which is a support resource for existing units such as crime analysis, data and archive management, line operations, and others. The small-city model of GIS implementation involves integration of GIS functions in the existing crime analysis unit, which may be as small as a single officer. Organizational culture in crime analysis units therefore becomes critical in smaller jurisdictions and may affect, for instance, the extent to which GIS capabilities are brought to serve beat officers or just to support top law enforcement planning efforts. The position held by Officer C. K. Lamm of the Wilson Police Department is an example of creating a position from existing manpower and ensuring the position is integrated and important to the day-to-day operations of the agency. Major White described Officer Lamm's position:

"…we felt that it was so important, that we get involved in it (GIS), that we took a man off the street to do it (Officer Lamm). And that man is doing more work and more for the department, off the street, … than we could do with 10 or 12 of these officers."

Because the small-city model of GIS implementation may be based on a single officer, it is important to start small enough for manageability yet large enough to demonstrate results. It is important that the crime mapping officer be fully integrated into the organizational culture of the law enforcement agency, and that efforts be made to recognize the importance of crime mapping within that culture. Integration is difficult when the crime mapping officer is lower in status and rank than others in the organization (ex., clerical in status) or is given an office remote from daily operations or is not recognized as a co-equal member of decision-making meetings. Resources must be budgeted for success, not failure, to allow implementation of all the basic building blocks of crime mapping. At a minimum those include data acquisition and management, data entry and cleaning, training in software, and professional-quality hardware.

Intergovernmental differences

The large-city model of GIS implementation often involves the mobilization of federal, state, and local resources for a new or ongoing GIS unit. Grant specialists and others may be available to aid in this mobilization of resources for the benefit of the GIS unit. The small-city model of GIS implementation rarely involves such intergovernmental efforts and available resources are often unknown locally.

Funding agencies interested in GIS capacity-building in small and medium jurisdictions must undertake pro-active outreach efforts. Not only do small to medium jurisdictions need more training, technical, and other help than larger jurisdictions, they also need more pro-active efforts by funding agencies and other resource providers precisely because they lack specialized staff attentive to such opportunities. This is illustrated by the respondent from Gallatin, TN. When asked what funding agencies most need to do, he answered:

"I think one of the biggest things will be the outreach issue. I'd try to communicate the fact that this technology, as well as the funding is available from the state, and I think it becomes very difficult when you have such an influx of mail, even with such a small department as the city of Gallatin is, you still receive quite an influx of information. I think a lot of it gets overlooked. If anything, outreach will be the first and most important part of that funding process ... [More is needed than mailed or e-mailed notices] ... I think something even more personal might be stressed. I don't even know if that would necessarily be telephone calls, or even in some cases actual personal visits, it depends I guess on how far the organization is looking to actually take that, trying to get the message out, but obviously ... [more is needed]."

Pro-active efforts by funding agencies may include direct telephone contact, personal visits, regional meetings, booths at relevant state conferences, and placement of articles in pertinent professional publications read by law enforcement officials in small and medium jurisdictions.

Chapter summary

Small to medium jurisdictions implementing GIS for the first time should not compare themselves to larger jurisdictions that may have complex systems which are not appropriate in small settings. In general, small to medium jurisdictions have special requirements regarding incentives to budget and plan for GIS, more initial training, and earlier interagency coordination. As described in this chapter, the expectations of law enforcement management, the nature of staff organization, and technical support needs must be carefully examined and communicated at the local level in order to achieve long-term success.