This article uses the terminology contracting, provider, or vendor agency or entity to refer to the agency/entity providing the services, and customer agency or entity to refer to the agency/entity receiving the services. There are many good reasons to become involved with law enforcement contracting. For newly formed city of other municipal corporations, contracting out for a variety of services may save money. In addition liabilities can be spread to another entity with deeper pockets. A larger organization benefits from economies of scale, which can reduce per-officer administrative costs. Almost any government entity is a potential customer for law enforcement contracting. The types of law enforcement contracts in existence today are as varied as the types of potential customers. Departments, for example, dedicated to a menu-driven process, will allow the customer to choose from an extensive menu of options. The menu may allow for the contracting of one person to act as the temporary police chief of an existing department or for a single service or specialty. There are pitfalls to being either a service provider or a customer. Costing models and price structures must be realistic and the language of the contract must be carefully drafted. Political issues may play a major role in the decision to be a provider or a recipient of contract services. The question of how contracting will affect the public must be examined before a commitment can be made. There are three conditions that are important arguments for not entering into a contracting relationship. The first is when the provider’s complete focus is money. The second occurs when the provider’s total focus is its own growth. A third reason is when the provider’s employees will not “adopt” the customer. Officers’ labor organizations should be at the forefront of contracting, but they are not. While contracting can benefit police officers and the community, officers often resist it. But contracting can be a win-win opportunity for all involved.