[cconover]

Not for reform reasons, but Camden, NJ did exactly that in 2012:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193971/Camden-poli...

The county police became the de facto police department for Camden, which is a model for what would likely happen in any city: the police or sheriff’s department for the next largest jurisdiction encompassing the city would start policing the city.

[chrisseaton]

Wait if the county police become your police if there's no other police department, then why does any city spend their taxes on their own police? And presumably if there's no county police the state police have jurisdiction.

[cconover]

> Wait if the county police become your police if there's no other police department, then why does any city spend their taxes on their own police?

Policy-wise the motivations for retaining a city police department can be differences in crime between urban and suburban/rural areas, and population density & subsequent patrol officer density - and as a subset of that, response times. I would imagine that cities, and specifically the elected leaders, are also under significant pressure from police unions to retain their departments. Furthermore, disbanding a police department for any major city means that the county or state police department suddenly has to take on the workload of what was previously being done by hundreds (or sometimes thousands) of city police, and no department is prepared for that.

> And presumably if there's no county police the state police have jurisdiction.

There are many cities in the US that are outside of any county, and are their own incorporated entity on par in the hierarchy with the surrounding counties. As such the state police would be the most likely department to take over policing. Again though, that's a major resource burden and logistics problem; any feelings about the pros and cons of reduced police presence aside no policy maker is likely going to be comfortable with that kind of impact.