The Role of Capacity and Problem Severity in Adopting Voluntary Intergovernmental Partnerships: The Case of Tribes, States, and Local Governments
Abstract
Literature on intergovernmental partnerships suggests the importance of several factors including organizational resources, capacity, and problem severity in understanding the adoption of these partnerships. This research improves our understanding about the adoption of intergovernmental partnerships by examining tribal and nontribal governments that adopted voluntary agreements to improve the administration of justice. Using data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, this research examines how socioeconomic conditions, problem severity, and law enforcement authority influence the adoption of partnership agreements between tribal and nontribal law enforcement. The results suggest that tribes that adopt partnerships have better socioeconomic conditions; nontribal actors have lower levels of authority and higher occurrences of violent crime. The presence of Indian gaming also increases the likelihood of adopting cooperative agreements. The results of this study provide an important insight into understanding intergovernmental cooperation in general and what drives cooperation between native and surrounding non-native communities in particular.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Previous studies have attempted to quantify and understand the nature, scope, and negotiation of intergovernmental agreements among tribal and state governments, but many of these do not reflect recent trends and need updating.
“Previous studies have attempted to quantify and understand the nature, scope, and negotiation of intergovernmental agreements among tribal and state governments (Conner and Witt 2016;Pommersheim 1991), but many of these do not reflect recent trends and need updating.”
From Dividing Authority Three Ways: Federal–Tribal–State Relations after<i>Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta</i> (2023) · cites this paper as Conner and Witt 2016
Cites
Tribal Policing: Asserting Sovereignty, Seeking Justice
Luna-Firebaugh, E. (2007) · doi:10.2307/j.ctv1prsrpj · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dividing Authority Three Ways: Federal–Tribal–State Relations after<i>Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta</i>
Carlson, K. M. (2023) · Publius: The Journal of Federalism · doi:10.1093/publius/pjad020 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Conner, T. W., & Witt, S. L.
- Affiliations
- New Mexico State University (US)
- Boise State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Conner, Thaddieus W.
- ORCID
- Conner, Thaddieus W.
- Venue
- State and Local Government Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-06
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 87-99
- ISSN
- 0160-323X (ISSN-L)
- 1943-3409
- OpenAlex
- W2429577934
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- State and Local Government Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Local Government Finance and Decentralization
- Keywords
- intergovernmental partnerships, tribal government, judicial administration, problem severity, organizational capacity, law enforcement authority, Indian gaming, intergovernmental cooperation, violent crime, socioeconomic conditions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review