>

We do lots of crime int he US. We need it. Then the agencies can also go after each other!
In my opinion, policing has huge issues with not enough oversight, not wisely spent budgets, and not nearly enough training and qualifications as European countries for example. However, I think the biggest issue is that our Social system does not have nearly enough money and there's expectation for the police to handle everything >

Yes. When every little town has its own police force and everyone has to handle all their own administrative matters, hiring, training, etc you create a lot of inefficiency, variability in standards and performance and reduce the ability to do oversight. >

What would be the solution to that problem?
Centralized training and administrative services for multiple localities? That would save some money. >

I am from New Jersey, the land of endless local government, and the result of endless local government is crazy levels of inefficiency which cause high property taxes and governments so small nobody even sees the corruption. 
The average American town is around 6000 people. That’s way to small to justify a police department. Either roll up a few towns with a single police department or handle it at the county level. Have standards, training and as much administration as possible handled at the state level with federal guidelines that must be met and a system for federal oversight. 
Maybe start treating the police as professionals and model things more like how we license doctors, lawyers, accountants and such. >

I upvoted you and I see some merit in your argument.
It seems, though, that big metroplitan areas are where we have most of the crime because that's where we have most of the people.
THOSE cops are overwhelmed. They need more officers, and they need other responders to take over some of the problems cops have thrown in their laps.
They also need stigma-free, mandatory psychotherapy. None of this "I can take it, I'm a tough guy." Objectively, police need community support as much as communities need service and protection.
Also, no more "code of silence" or "you can't touch me when I commit crimes. I got immunity and a union." We need to KICK OATHKEEPERS out of the police department. No more gang members "moonlighting" as police officers.
Do I support the police? Yeah. Do I support the KKK and white nationalist weirdos? NO. >

Yes, we should have one state police with divisions for cities and rural areas.  New York as an example would have a very large force with multiple divisions.  Montana would maybe have two divisions.  However all would be accountable to their state legislature; have standardized enforcement, training, complain procedures ect.  
That would give us 50 police agencies and something like 18 federal departments. Much easier to manage in my mind. >

The large number of agencies reflects the nation's political design and structure. We have a federal government with several law enforcement agencies. Then we have 50 separate states each with one or more state law enforcement agencies. Then we have separate forces in big cities and an independent sheriff in most every county or parish (Louisiana). Add that up and you have the large number you cite. Jurisdiction over cases can open a can of worms. Each agency has its own training process and content with often very little coordination. Police unions also seek to maintain each law enforcement agencies' independence. Separate data bases are maintained. Thank God the FBI has developed a single source of data for some evidence (e.g. fingerprints). But otherwise we have a law enforcement tower of Babel. The best first step at coordination, in my opinion, should start at the state level. Training standards, code of conduct requirements,  data collection and more must be directed by the state. But this will be difficult in huge cities like NY, Chicago, Los Angeles who want their own police for political rather than law enforcement reasons. >

Have you every heard a politician discuss the need for centralisation or more coordination at a minimum? Or does it fall into the too hard basket for them? >

Not often. I was heavily engaged in Los Angeles city government for over 20 years. I am a lawyer by training but pls don't hold it against me. As to your question, which is a good one, the answer is sometimes. The LA mayor and city council often tried to harmonize police deployment, training, etc with the LA County sheriff. But it was impossible. Maybe the geographic picture might help you see the complexity in LA. LA city is about 350 square miles with a population of over 4million. LA county is 4,000 square miles with an overall population of over 11million. There are about 88 cities within the County. Think of this like a huge piece of swiss cheese with the holes representing each city boundary and the solid areas the responsibility of the County. A number of small cities contract for the County Sheriff to be their law enforcement agency. But there are still roughly 65 cities with their own cops, including the city of Los Angeles. It just so happens and each city and county enjoy constitutional "police power' i.e. the power to maintain their own police force and other powers. So you get largely uncoordinated cops all over the county. It is a structural mess> Politicians view cops as necessary to cover their own ass. They do not get benefits from coordinating with other agencies. The state can change this with budgeted programs etc but state elected officials represent the various parts of this swiss cheese so nothing really happens. Full disclosure I taught some Urban Law sessions at UCLA law school many years ago. I hope this muddled picture helps you a bit. >

Wow very interesting insight! Thank you >

I don't know if raw numbers is really a good way to look at the problem.
The US system is also deliberately designed to be much different than the Australian system of government, specifically there's a focus (or at least a pretense) at federalism in the US system that isn't (to my knowledge) mirrored in the Australian system.
That means more bodies which should (in theory) allow power to be spread out rather than concentrated.
The US also has, effectively, 65 (50 states + 14 territories + DC) mini countries within itself that all need to do things. Australia has (IIRC) seven states. The complexity level is much, much higher in the case of the US.
Rather than too many I think it's probably better to point to how free these agencies are to act as a bigger problem.
For instance, the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) has been embroiled in a pretty big controversy lately regarding the definition of certain types of firearms that are legal to own in the US. By changing how it defined a particular legal term the ATF has been able to effectively make new things illegal.
This is a power the ATF is not supposed to have, they are an enforcement agency and do not have the power to make new rules per how the US system is set up but by changing existing rules (something that has a far lower standard) they can essentially "create" new rules. 
On a wider scale, you have law enforcement agencies getting caught in a wide variety of instances doing things like lying to the media, fabricating a scare ("rainbow fentanyl"), and an assortment of other  examples of coloring outside the lines and the response is...pretty minimal.
The 2020 uprisings were rife with a wide range of abuses by a number of agencies and the fallout from that has been essentially nothing. The police fired so much tear gas in Portland that they poisoned part of the local water supply and kicked off a ruling from a federal judge restricting the use of tear gas. That ruling was largely ignored.
Politically these agencies are immune from almost any form of attack (the exception being the ATF, for obvious reasons.) Anyone politically speaking ill of law enforcement in any way can expect a shellacking in an election for not being "tough on crime."  
To me, that is more of a concern than there being too many agencies. >

Yes, I'd say.
 Normally I try not to be the smug European who tells the Yanks "how it's done right", but America clearly does have a policing issue that stems from rigid decentralisation in my opinion.
We pay higher taxes over here, most municipialities are swimming in cash, yet still I doubt my hometown could properly 1. fund, 2. recruit, 3. train and 4. equip a police force to the highest of standards. There's a reason why in most countries law enforcement falls under the purview of higher subdivisions or even the central government: It's costly and requires thorough standardisation.
In these parts, cops receive a minimum 18 months of training, with some countries going as high as 3 years. Most US departments apparently don't even come close to offering that kind of training. And with the US seeing way more crime, it's not surprising that a police force that is on average less well-prepared would produce so many scandals.
From where I'm standing, BLM shouldn't demand the defunding of the police. They ought to advocate for the police being given better funding. Which would be achieved by making law enforcement a state matter entirely. I think it's proven now that small towns or bankrupt cities have neither business nor ability running their own police department. >


I wonder if the decentralised nature of our policing causes inefficiencies and additional costs?

That would almost certainly be case, I think. Economies of scale is the keyword here. 
According to this article, the average police department in the US has less than 50 employees. On the other hand, the NYPD as the biggest agency has more than 40,000 employees.
Whatever the NYPD needs – from pencils to shoelaces to service weapons – it can buy on masse, getting better prices than your rural department that only orders 50 pieces each. Synergetic effects will see to it that the NYPD has to spend less money per individual for an officer's training and equipment compared to a micro department. >

Not really. Most places have a police department for the individual cities, a sheriff's office for counties, a state police for the highways and non-incoporated spaces and the federal government has branches of law enforcement for each agency and the FBI.
They all have separate jurisdictions and operate in their own separate domains unless a crime crosses jurisdictions.
The prevalence of special task forces is concerning though, as they often operate like a separate agency with no clear oversight.
Other than that? I don't think it's excessive. What those agencies do however can definitely be problematic. >

I dont know. Seems to me like this is another vestige of history rather than practical experience, logic or good design .. >

Why? Compared to what?
What's your better idea? >

Well for the first one just history led to this hodgepodge of agencies that dont really make much sense.  Take florida where I live - someone could get murdered on one street and the investigors would be the Metro Pokice department and two streets over its County Sherriff.  (Stattistically Sheriffs by the way who are directlh elected do a much worse job especially on major crimes than police departments …they say if tou are going to murder someone do it in a sheriffs jurisdiction)    That in itself is kinda odd and inefficient but its worse elsewhere - some areas have plenty of budget for a modern efficient force and others dont (similar to education). And then there are areas where there are murders every day and others where you get one a decade.  Those agencies dont have the expertise to handle those crimes but they do and often badly. 
There are plenty of logistical inefficiencies also - fleet procurement and management, supplies etc. alot of wasted duplkcation that could be better spent. 
What I would prefer is a state police model broken into geographically and demographically sensible admin units. I would want the body (like a police force and not a sheriff) answerable through and elected body (the legislature or the chief executive??) 
Niot gonna solve everything but a better distribution of resources and manpower and expertise … >


Well for the first one just history led to this hodgepodge of agencies that dont really make much sense.

But...They do. Jurisdictions are a thing, and I broke most of them down in a few sentences. But anyways... 

Take florida where I live - someone could get murdered on one street and the investigors would be the Metro Pokice department and two streets over its County Sherriff.  

Yes, and? I don't see how that's a problem, either way a cop is showing up to investigate a murder. 

(Stattistically Sheriffs by the way who are directlh elected do a much worse job especially on major crimes than police departments …they say if tou are going to murder someone do it in a sheriffs jurisdiction)    

I don't have access to those statistics and even if I did, I know 2 things- They would vary according to the jurisdiction, and that not all Sheriffs are elected. They just may be where you live. 

That in itself is kinda odd and inefficient but its worse elsewhere - some areas have plenty of budget for a modern efficient force and others dont (similar to education).

Yep, taxes and funding are different in different places. That's a matter of states having the right to decide their own funding priorities and their legislatures providing the funding. 

And then there are areas where there are murders every day and others where you get one a decade.  Those agencies dont have the expertise to handle those crimes but they do and often badly. 

Where are you getting all this? I mean yes, the murder rate varies from place to place, but law enforcement agencies have more to do than solve and prevent murders, and it's up to each community and jurisdiction to decide how well or badly their local law enforcement is serving them. Some do well in some facets and terrible in others, and the size of the department says nothing about the skill of the officers and investigators in it. 
You are making conclusive statements like they're fact and it seems more like opinion. 

There are plenty of logistical inefficiencies also - fleet procurement and management, supplies etc. alot of wasted duplkcation that could be better spent. 

How do you know this? And which agency/agencies are we talking about? You know the inefficiencies of all 13000 of them? Again more opinions dressed as fact. 

What I would prefer is a state police model broken into geographically and demographically sensible admin units. 

Okay. Alright. So explain how this is different than the current system... which is broken into geographically sensible admin units (city, county, state, federal). 

I would want the body (like a police force and not a sheriff) answerable through and elected body (the legislature or the chief executive??) 

So the state police who answer to the governor (an elected chief executive) the sheriffs who answer to both the governor (an elected chief executive) and/or the voters, and the city police, whose chiefs answer to the governor and/or the voters, all funded by the individual legislatures in each state doesn't work for you, but this new thing, which seems like the old thing with a different name, does? Explain the difference please. 

Niot gonna solve everything but a better distribution of resources and manpower and expertise … 

How? I'm not even sure what you're trying to say at this point. The system you describe is the system that exists in most places in the US. >

Honestly not sure where to begin. Its Reddit so its a little unfair to expect a dissertation with cites. But even more to the point here it doesnt really seem like you have thought or know much about this topic.  For example the fact that sheriffs are generally directly elected.  I was a law enforcement officer so maybe I am a bit more attuned to thos but thjngs like clearance rates (and the differences in how departments are run) are common knowldege. 
If you are interested there are resources bit its unfair to expect me to do that work for you since i dont even know if this tolic really interesrs yku since tour response doesnt really belie alot of actual thought as opposed to the sort of shallow and very lazy “hmm i dont know where your statistics come from” rhetoric 101 response when you got nothing real to contribute .. 
But if you are really interested there is alot out there you cna find on the net and elsewhere >

I'm ignoring the part where you insult my knowledge or ability to understand. Petty insults don't really add to discussion I've found. If I were indulging in that...lets say there's definitely targets I could shoot for. 
Anyways all but 4 states require voting to determine sheriffs. You said every sheriff is elected, and I said not every one is. Being a LEO doesn't exempt you from having to be correct when you make claims. 
Again, skipping past your fresh set of insults, the general rule is if you make the claims, you provide the source, because you want me to find your claim credible. To ask me to research your claims is unfair and frankly not worth my time. If you can't back up your words with facts of any kind or even a source to go look at, at any level, then I'll give them exactly as much credit as you provided evidence- zero. 
Basically your claim is "I'm right, because I'm a cop and the internet says so... somewhere." 
Really?
I hope I don't live in your jurisdiction or anywhere near it. >

That last one was pretty good. But you dont have to worry about that. I am a corporate lawyer now.. if i was insulting, sorry about that. Its just a frustrating forum becaue on the one hand its conversatuonal which imploes one level of sourcing and formality but then its always easy to attack a converation by applykgn a more formal model whcih is sort of how i saw your respknse 
I was a bad LEO anyway because I was pretty chill and did not go after people for stupid BS.  When I became a prosecutor I similarly dumped the dumb arrests that came my way.  Again I know you discount anecdotal evidnece but there was a hhge variety in the quality of policing. Some agencies did excellent work and others not so much.  The bigger agencies paid more and tended to do better work in my experience. Even then (and i had no idea why back then) the sheriffs work was among  the worst. Maybe there are good sheriffs but I later learned that that trend is not isolated. 
But again this is Reddit. Its a platform for conversation more than anythjng. One thing I will know, is almost every time somebody tries to.”prove” something here the work is lazy. Throwing ablut a bunch of links tk articles most people (even the poster) hwve read os a dumb waste of time.  Again its a chat - not a dissertation defense. 
I gotta say for someone as pernickety as you i think your “stat” about the sheriffs more proves my point than yours.  They are generally (and certainly for purposes of this high level discussion) elected directly. I dont think that accountability helps and in my view contribute to image base politicking rather than results based. 
I am really not doing anythngn here aothet than sharing my view amd noting that whike I did give some thought to my answers and laying out what I saw were the issues you jsut sort kf did the easy armchair nitpick. Its alway easy to play at being Socrates but the e differnce here is Socrates did contribute alot. And i still havent gottne mich from except “I dont if or why that would be so”   
Like I said if you are really interested do some research and share some substance.  I am persuadable and change my mind when someone tells me somethign i didnt know >

That's an awful lot of words to say you refuse to say where you got the info.
Instead you could say things like:
"{source} says that Sheriff's have a lower clearance rate." Okay, if I want to see what you see, I can go look.
"When I was a LEO in {place} , we were briefed on  or  crime rate daily." Then I can go to the stats for that place and know what you're referring to.
Nobody's asking you to give extensive sourcing, just something other than "because I said so".
Why? Because right now you're a person who supposedly was a LEO, then got a law degree and became a prosecutor, then somehow became a corporate lawyer, which is a completely different field than criminal prosecutor. That's a lot of careers and education. At least a decade's worth. Completely possible, but not for someone who has the grammar and spelling of a 5th grader.
So yeah, I'm skeptical. And instead of using you expertise to educate me in what you know, you've had 2 responses now defending how you don't have to show how or why you know it.
So let's be simple about it. I think you're full of it and don't trust anything you say. >

That’s funny coming from somebody who’s contributed nothing of substance to this thread. Oh yes, except making puerile objections to grammar and spelling. You can look up that word if you don’t know what it means.  It’s one we learned in the fifth grade but I’m not sure what they teach you where you went to school
You can believe what you wanna believe it doesn’t matter to me. Like I said, you have contributed nothing of substance, so why should I really care what you think?   You seem one of those angry times have you conversations as an opportunity for one of us when shipping nothing else. OK then. Again nothing useful to contribute, so why should I waste my time any further.
But you would lose money on that bet if you were to make it. Not that I really care if you lose money that you would. 
Like I said, if you want to contribute something substantive, happy to read, but like I said, so far, you’ve contributed nothing so I’m not gonna hold my breath. Still like motel six I will leave the light on. >

Yes, probably. If there were fewer agencies, you wouldn't have this ridiculous "we aren't going to enforce the law" stuff that some agencies are pulling now because they would just get fired.but when they aren't accountable to any higher ups, they can get away with more. >

Devils advocate. Do you want federal marijuana possession laws to be enforced nationally? Every single store raided, person prescribed arrested, and customer list used to draw search warrants for every home connected to the legal sale?
11 states have laws on the books banning sodomy today. Practically every state banned it just 30-50 years ago. Would you want that enforced strictly? 
The open handed approach to marijuana possession largely comes from local agencies allowing people to stomp it out instead of arresting. Thats called discretion. FBI getting assigned a case doesn't have the same latitude a beat cop would. Your local PD has much more discretion than a federal agent. 
Most issues where people think something should be legalized has years of non enforcement by local law enforcements before the legislature ever makes it legal. If they ever make it legal. How many years do you think LAPD let people slide on possession before the state ever legalized the sale?
2013 mississippi ratified the 13th ammendment and made slavery illegal. Should the cops in that state  enforce slavery up until 2013? 
Surely you are not arguing police should enforce every law on the book and not be given discretion? >

There is a point about marijuana legalization, but perhaps forcing the federal government to commit unpopular enforcement activities would have forced their hand earlier in legalizing it.  But with complete and federal oversight, you'd also get an issue with cities and states needing to enforce federal immigration laws, which provides a massive disincentive for undocumented immigrants from working with their local police and city administrations to resolve issues of crime within that community, which just leaves everyone worse off.  That's a point well taken.
On sodomy and slavery, even if states had laws on the books, those laws were declared unconstitutional.  They are not enforceable.  Partially the reason Mississippi didn't ratify the 13th until 2013 was because their ratification didn't matter: the amendment was already ratified and enacted.  Slavery was still illegal in Mississippi for 140 or so years before they ratified the 13th.  
I think a potential solution is to have police departments consolidated at the state level, with mayors or city councils able to clarify enforcement priorities for police operating in their area.  Feds can make best practice recommendations, but don't have control over every department in the US. >

It's hard to tell. Until we get professional policing, its really difficult to tell how many local and state LEOs we need. It's also a question of when is deadly force the unit to send. Again, until the standards get raised, really hard to know. >

That many agencies is part of the reason the former guy is still walking around. Out of chaos comes opportunity. >

The US has a lot of wealth to protect from the poors. More police agencies means more police. More police means more protection of the wealth and usually badge-backed violence for the rest. 1312/ACAB >

When you think of the horrendous, & senseless crimes we see on the nightly news, we actually need more. However, If we followed the same gun & prescription medication guidelines as Australia, & like most other countries, we probably wouldn't need as many either. 
Meds for ADHD, narcotic pain meds & psychiatric meds are illegal in most countries, unlike the US. Just like guns. In 2022 the #1 drug abused drug in the US was prescription meds.