No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Working Together or Working on the Same Task but Separately? A Comparison of Police Chief and Chief Probation or Parole Officer Perceptions of Partnership
Abstract
It remains unclear how pervasive police-community corrections partnerships are, and to what extent they are integrated into routine practice, as well as whether or not police chiefs and chief probation or parole officers within the same jurisdictions perceive them to be effective. The current study enhances our understanding of such partnerships between police and probation or parole. Data were collected through a statewide survey of a random sample of municipal police chiefs and county chief probation or parole officers in Pennsylvania. The primary research questions focus on identifying the following: (a) empirically derived and meaningful patterns of police-community corrections partnerships, (b) a comparison of police chief and chief probation or parole officer perceptions of benefits and problems regarding their partnerships, and (c) the predictors of these perceptions. Results reveal that such partnerships are prevalent, but they are predominantly informal, with formalization largely contingent on the progressiveness of the police chief (i.e., newer police chiefs were more likely to engage in formalized partnerships). Further, the crime prevention and recidivism reduction potential of these partnerships remain unclear from the perspectives of both law enforcement and community supervision leaders. In general, Pennsylvania police chiefs are less favorable to the partnerships than are the chiefs of probation or parole offices, and certain partnership types relate to the negative perceptions of some agency leaders. The implications of the findings reported here for policies, training, and future research are discussed.
... Within the MTS literature, evidence also highlights that disparity in membership can affect willingness to invest in inter-agency working, particularly if the objectives of one group receive greater priority over others (Shuffler et al., 2015). This may be the case in probation settings with chief police officers being found to view inter-agency information sharing less favorably than chief probation officers due to the greater resource burden placed on police, whilst probation is perceived to receive the greater benefit (Kim et al., 2016). This suggests that any information sharing strategies implemented would need to reduce resource burden, particularly for police. ...
... In line with previous research (Kim et al., 2016;Matz and Kim, 2017), another key barrier to information sharing was limited resourcing. Police and probation officers noted that with continued funding cuts, they were being expected to do more with less. ...
... Evidence from the MTS literature suggests that this prioritization of intra-agency over inter-agency goals is exacerbated by disparities in membership, whereby one group is viewed as receiving greater prioritization or benefit over others (Shuffler et al., 2015). Similar issues have been identified in offender management settings (Kim et al., 2016), and current findings further support this. Police and probation officers interviewed recognized that both parties were in a difficult position as information demands often exceeded resources. ...
Managing offenders released from prison requires a multiteam system (MTS) approach, with teams from across police, probation, and other criminal justice agencies. However, public inquiries highlight current approaches are impaired by poor information sharing that compromises risk assessment and recall decisions, which can allow serious further offences to occur. Little research has focused on the causes of these information sharing difficulties. The current study draws on the perspectives and experiences of probation and police officers to improve understanding of causes of information sharing difficulties. The research is conducted within the context of a new enhanced information sharing ‘Direct Access’ initiative implemented in one region of the UK (Devon and Cornwall) that permits probation to directly access police information technology systems. This provides a novel opportunity to cross validate MTS theory to the real-world context of offender management and considers what works in practise to overcome information sharing challenges. Eleven semi-structured interviews were conducted with police (N = 4) and probation (N = 7) officers. Thematic analysis revealed six themes: i) information sharing difficulties and impact; ii) causes of information sharing difficulties; iii) impact of ‘Direct Access’ on information sharing practices; iv) workload inequality; v) training; and vi) evolution of ‘Direct Access’. Overall, findings highlight that information sharing difficulties are causes by not knowing what information to request or share, limited resources, lack of clarity about General Data Protection Regulation and concern about consequences of breaching this. These barriers can result in delays and failures to share information, which hinders the accuracy of risk assessments and ability to safeguard. Findings also highlight that providing statutory partners with ‘Direct Access’ to I.T systems can improve the relevance and timeliness of information. However, ‘daring to share’ is not enough to address trust issues without also clarifying expectations regarding information use and perceived workload inequalities.
... Probation in Pennsylvania is generally a local criminal justice function rather than a state function. Sixty-five of the 67 counties in Pennsylvania operate county adult probation and parole departments, while the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (PBPP), an independent state agency under the jurisdiction of the governor of Pennsylvania, provides adult probation or parole supervision in two counties, Mercer and Venango counties (Conlon and Dammer 2014;Kim, Matz, and Lee 2017). Responsibility for juvenile probation supervision varies. ...
... Overall experience in the field of criminal justice was about 28 years. These basic demographic characteristics of the present study sample were compared with those in previous studies on community corrections in Pennsylvania (Kim and Matz 2018;Kim, Matz, and Lee 2017), and no significant difference was found. ...
... This is much higher participation than what was found in policing literature (Alpert, Rojek, and Hansen 2013;Rojek, Smith, and Alpert 2012). Recent research on other types of partnerships also revealed that compared with police chiefs, probation/parole chiefs reported higher levels of partnership participation (Kim and Matz 2018;Kim, Matz, and Lee 2017). However, because the data used in policing research on research partnership were relatively old (i.e., 2010 data in Alpert, Rojek, and Hansen 2013;Rojek, Smith, and Alpert 2012), it is impossible to draw firm conclusions concerning the differences in trends and patterns of researcher partnerships between police and probation/parole. ...
Calls to improve the interaction between academics and practitioners have been repeatedly pronounced by scholars and government leaders alike. A number of publications have focused on examining the experience and views of police leaders on partnerships with researchers. However, there is a general lack of knowledge about community corrections leaders’ receptivity to research and the experience and view of research partnerships. Our study addressed this limitation with a statewide survey of probation/parole chiefs in Pennsylvania. Guided by prior research on research partnerships in policing, the survey in the current project included questions about potential correlates of researcher-practitioner partnerships in addition to the questions measuring the experience and opinions of probation/parole chiefs in Pennsylvania on such partnerships. The current research results provide greater insight to inform practitioners and researchers on how to encourage the research utilization and tailor researcher-practitioner partnerships to the context and conditions within community corrections.
... This is due to the reality that the nature of the hierarchical structure of the police organization places police chiefs in a position in which their views of the effectiveness of PRMs for handling PWMI might be the most significant factor for the implementation and success of the models within a department. In fact, research indicates that the views of police chiefs strongly influence the adoption and implementation of any reform initiative, and subsequently, the achievement of significant organizational-level change (Kim, Matz and Lee, 2017;Stewart, 2011;Stewart and Morris, 2009). ...
... The sampling frame for the current study consisted of police chiefs working in police departments located in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is comprised of 67 counties (Kim et al., 2017) and has 1088 municipal police departments. As determined by an a priori Power Analysis in G*Power, a minimum of 176 chiefs was needed to ensure adequate statistical power based on the number of variables used in this study (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner and Lang, 2009). ...
... Relevant predictors influencing chiefs' favorability toward PRMs were derived from previous empirical studies. These included general police training and multi-agency partnerships (Kim et al., 2017;Kim, Gerber and Beto, 2010), chiefs' experience with PWMI (Bonfine et al., 2014), and general departmental characteristics (Kim et al., 2010(Kim et al., , 2017. Table 1 summarizes the variables assessed in the survey, including the type of variable, the name of variable, variable description (i.e., scale reliability and coding), and associated descriptive statistics. ...
To effectively respond to scenes involving people with mental illnesses (PWMI), many police departments in the United States have implemented police response models (PRMs) that improve officer training on mental illness and/or solicit cooperation with mental healthcare providers. No existing study has focused on examining police chiefs’ attitudes toward the effectiveness of PRMs. To help fill this gap in the literature, the current study analyzed survey data (N = 190) collected from police chiefs working in Pennsylvania to estimate the extent of favorability toward PRMs and to examine if the predictors of favorability toward PRMs vary across types of PRMs (i.e., CIT, co-response models, and other models with reduced training hours). Findings revealed that police chiefs showed favorable attitudes toward the CIT and co-response models, and their perceptions of these models were associated with the adoption of a PRM in their agencies. Further, results from multivariate analyses indicated that there are some differences in the factors that predict chiefs’ favorability toward the CIT and co-response models compared to other models with reduced training hours (OMRTH). Potential policy implications and directions for future research in light of these findings are discussed within.
... As discussed in the findings section, only one police agency in the sample had established a formal training programme on partnerships with community corrections, whereas about 20% of the various probation/parole agencies had established such training. The importance of training on formal partnerships, especially for police officers, has already been stressed in the research literature (Mawby and Worrall 2004, Axford and Ruddell 2010, Kim et al. 2017. In many jurisdictions in the US, probation/parole officers attend annual trainings hosted for and by law enforcement, including required attendance of a police academy for initial hires in some jurisdictions. ...
... Even those with a bachelor's degrees may only take as few as one course devoted to corrections (Southerland 2002). Previous studies, and the authors of this research, recommend that in-service training for municipal officers, joint-training programmes, and the entry-level training be provided in the police academy to foster mutual understanding of police and supervision approaches and to overcome the history of mistrust and misperception between these criminal justice system agencies (IACP 2012, Kim et al. 2017). ...
... Only a handful of police chiefs and probation or parole chiefs positively responded to statements concerning the presence of measurable or concrete goals and clear documentation to measure their achievement. The management and policy literature underscores the importance of the evaluation of both process and programme outcomes as a key to promoting and successfully implementing multi-agency partnerships (Kim et al. 2017). Collecting and analysing outcome measures are essential to determining the ultimate effectiveness of police-probation/parole partnerships (IACP 2007, Draper and Norton 2013, Kim et al. 2017. ...
As is the case in the UK, formal police–community corrections partnerships in the US have existed since the 1990s. However, unlike the UK where parliamentary developments and subsequent policy initiatives have provided a context in which criminal justice agencies formally work together, police–probation/parole partnerships in the US have experienced relatively little formalisation, with most extant partnerships existing informally based principally on interpersonal relations between individual police and corrections agency members. Relevant to research in the UK [Mawby, R.C., Crawley, P., and Wright, A., 2007. Beyond ‘polibation’ and towards ‘prisi-polibation’? Joint agency offender management in the context of the street crime initiative. International journal of police science & management, 9 (2), 122–134; Mawby, R.C. and Worrall, A., 2004. ‘Polibation’ revisited: policing, probation and prolific offender projects. International journal of police science and management, 6 (2), 63–73; Mawby, R.C. and Worrall, A., 2011. ‘They were very threatening about do-gooding bastards’: probation’s changing relationships with the police and prison services in England and Wales. European journal of probation, 3 (3), 78–94; Nash, M., 2008. Exit the polibation officer? Decoupling police and probation. International journal of police science and management, 10 (3), 302–312; Nash, M. and Walker, L., 2009. MAPPA – is closer collaboration really the key to effectiveness? Policing, 3 (2), 172–180; Wood, J. and Kemshall, H., 2007. The operation and experience of Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). London: Home Office], the current study explores the patterns and characteristics of formal partnerships and the perceptions of police chiefs and probation/parole chiefs in a US state concerning experiences with partnering agencies, benefits, and problems. Findings are compared with research findings in the UK and Canada.
... Very few attempts have been made to understand probation/parole perspectives of these partnerships and their desire and satisfaction in working with police. Aside from a quantitative study in Pennsylvania (Kim, Matz, & Lee, 2017), only a handful of predominantly qualitative studies look at probation/parole perspectives on these partnerships (Alarid, 2015;Alarid, Sims, & Ruiz, 2011). Further, studies to date have been geographically restricted to an individual state or jurisdiction. ...
... Kim and colleagues found most partnerships in Texas were informal, built on interpersonal relations (Kim et al., 2010;. The same pattern was reflected in research conducted in Pennsylvania (Kim et al., 2017). Thus, despite the championing of the practitioner literature it must be recognized that most of the partnership work between police and probation/parole agencies has gone undocumented, and few of the formal partnerships that have been documented were subjected to adequate empirical examination (Worrall & Gaines, 2006). ...
... Although past research has examined the benefits and concerns from police perspectives (Kim et al., 2010(Kim et al., , 2017Kim, Matz, et al., 2013), qualitatively discussed the nature of partnerships (Alarid, 2015;Alarid et al., 2011;Murphy, 2005), and made attempts to tie partnerships to crime rates (Corbett, 1998;McClanahan, 2004;Worrall & Gaines, 2006), none has attempted to systematically solicit the input and feedback of probation and parole on a national level; clearly, a large stakeholder within these initiatives. Probation and parole perspectives are important, and this research aims to give a collective voice to this profession as it pertains to partnerships with law enforcement, in addition to those recently gathered from chief probation/parole officers in Pennsylvania (Kim et al., 2017). ...
Formal police–probation/parole partnerships grew in popularity in the 1990s, supported heavily by federal funding until the early 2000s. Using the membership list of the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), this study represents the first attempt to survey a national sample of community supervision leaders concerning their interest, concerns, and perceived impact of partnerships with law enforcement. Few respondents indicated their agency was not already engaged in partnerships with police. However, the majority were informal, lacking clear interorganizational agreements, documentation, or evaluation outcomes. Results find the support of agency executives and supervisors is the most important variable in creating and maintaining viable and productive partnerships.
... Formalized police-probation/parole partnerships reached prominence in the mid-to-late 1990s as a consequence of the perceived success of Boston's Operation Night Light (Beto, 2005;Matz and Kim, 2016). However, recent studies have shown that the overwhelming majority of partnerships were based on individual relationships and were informal in nature, limited largely to periodic information sharing (Kim et al., 2017). The persistence of informal partnerships, or no partnerships at all, as opposed to formal partnerships, was consistent for both law enforcement studies (Kim et al., 2010; and the study of probation and parole agencies (Beto, 2005;Matz, 2016a). ...
... What made Operation Night Light unique was that it went beyond personal relationships and became a collaborative model embraced by a number of agencies and stakeholder organizations (Beto, 2005;Fitzgerald, 2006). Formalizing such informal working relationships between police and community corrections officers, officially sanctioning them at the organizational level, and engendering a commitment on behalf of both agencies in a more formal sophisticated set of partnerships, has proven to be important in reducing the potential for unintended negative consequences (Jannetta and Lachman, 2011;Kim et al., 2010Kim et al., , 2017Murphy, 2005). ...
... The interview data revealed that participants recognized that working closely and intensively with police and probation staff enabled them to move away from offending behavior. Although not generally supported by recent research on perceptions of police chiefs or community corrections chiefs/officers in the United States (Kim et al., 2017;Matz, 2016a), some have noted that the presence of police may encourage greater compliance from probationers/parolees and encourage them to take their supervision more seriously (Corbett, 1998). ...
Although there has been continuing and increasingly intensive interest in police–community corrections partnerships over the past two decades, recent studies have found that the majority of partnerships remain informal endeavors. Little is known about the reasons why police and community corrections agencies do not formalize partnerships. To address this gap in knowledge, we collected state-wide survey data from police chiefs and chief probation/parole officers in Pennsylvania regarding barriers to partnerships as well as interest in new partnership opportunities. The results revealed that for both police and probation/parole agencies, the most common reason for nonparticipation was that they have not been approached by the respective agencies. A lack of funding resources was the second most common barrier for both agencies. The so-called stalking horse concern was another significant barrier for probation/parole agencies, but it was not significant for police agencies. Regarding favorability to future partnerships, most respondents were interested in formal partnerships, but only a few agency representatives noted that they were actively seeking out opportunities to partner. The implications for policies, training, and future research are discussed.
... I n the previous PSN Update, Matz and Kim (2016) examined probation/parole leaders and officers' perceptions of partnerships with law enforcement, garnering national-level feedback from individuals associated with the APPA membership (see also Matz, 2016). In this issue the authors briefly examine the results of new research conducted in the State of Pennsylvania that involved surveying police chiefs and chief probation/parole officers about their attitudes, experiences, and interest in policeprobation/parole partnerships (for full results see Kim, Matz, & Lee, 2016). Specifically, the authors sought to • identify patterns of police-probation/parole partnerships (in Pennsylvania); ...
... In addition, police agencies with more officers were also more likely to engage in partnerships; no doubt the development of partnerships requires the capacity and staffing available to do so. Kim et al. (2016) utilized a statistical procedure known as ordinary least square (OLS) regression to determine what variables most influence respondents' perceptions of benefits and challenges associated with partnership. For community corrections, none of the agency characteristics or respondent demographics possessed a significant influence on their perceptions. ...
In the previous PSN Update, Matz and Kim (2016) examined probation/parole leaders and officers’ perceptions of partnerships with law enforcement, garnering national-level feedback from individuals associated with the APPA membership (see also Matz, 2016). In this issue the authors briefly examine the results of new research conducted in the State of Pennsylvania that involved surveying police chiefs and chief probation/parole officers about their attitudes, experiences, and interest in police- probation/parole partnerships (for full results see Kim, Matz, & Lee, 2016).
... Emeriau-Farges et al., 2019;Lawrence et al., 2017;Vickovic & Griffin, 2014).Cooperative. The police leader should be cooperative as this facilitates bridging and developing partnerships with entities outside the organization(Jurek et al., 2017;Kim et al., 2017;Martin et al., 2017;O'Neill & McCarthy, 2014). Literature emphasizes partnerships with academia/experts (e.g.,Sanders & Langan, 2021) and with elements of the community through participatory citizenship initiatives (e.g.,Lee & Zhao, 2016).Role model. ...
Police are required to operate in complex social, political, and organizational environments. Nowadays, challenging times highlight the role that police leaders play in ensuring that the organization is effective in dealing with such environments. The purpose of this paper is to expand the systematic review of literature of Pearson-Goff and Herrington (2014, ‘Police Leadership: A Systematic Review of the Literature.’ Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 8(1): 14–26) by: (1) including studies after the date considered by the authors; (2) following the PRISMA-P approach to systematic reviews; and (3) include European studies. Based on 7,041 records, which ended up in 101 eligible empirical pieces, evidence supports previous findings about what are the characteristics of police leaders as well as the actions expected by them. This comprehensive systematic review also identifies additional characteristics and actions that are important nowadays in police leadership. Overall, the current study encourages future studies on the thematic, and contributes to practitioners aiming to develop continuous improvement strategies inside the police.
... To the best of the authors' knowledge, to date, there have been few published studies that have empirically examined factors related to the adoption of the CIT model using a sample of police chiefs (c.f., Compton et al, 2015;Seo et al., 2020). This understudied group is important to research because prior work has suggested that the views and experiences of police chiefs can influence their department's adoption of various programs, practices, and partnerships (Kim et al., 2017;Seo et al., 2020;Stewart, 2011;Stewart & Morris, 2009). Thus, to help fill this gap in the literature, the current study used data collected from police chiefs to examine factors related to police departments' adoption/implementation of the CIT model. ...
In an effort to improve police responses for handling incidents involving people with mental illness (PWMI), many police departments have adopted the Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) model. However, to date, there has been very little published research that has focused on examining factors related to the adoption of CIT models through the lens of police chiefs. To help fill this gap in the literature, the current study used data collected from a sample of 204 police chiefs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to examine variables related to departmental adoption of the CIT model. Findings show that several factors (e.g., chief training, chief educational attainment, and departmental resources) were associated with departmental adoption of the CIT model. Policy implications and suggestions for future studies based on these findings are discussed within.
... These categorizations have guided several surveys administered by the Center for Project Spotlight in Texas (Kim et al. 2010) and later Pennsylvania (Kim et al. 2017b). These researchers were interested in understanding to what extent partnerships persisted despite the lack of federal or state funding support. ...
Formal police–probation/parole partnerships were popularized in the early 1990s, many modeled after the perceived success of Boston’s Operation Night Light. Yet, funding dissipated in the 2000s and little research was completed. This study represents the first national survey of frontline probation/parole officers concerning the prevalence of partnerships with the police, their support for partnerships, and an examination of factors that influence that support. Findings reveal that many partnerships exist informally and very few report the lack of any partnership with the police. Indeed, these results confirm that working with the police is an integral function of community supervision work, especially in regard to information sharing.
... Even if the benefits of such partnerships might not be directly crime-related in the short term, they can increase community satisfaction and police legitimacy which ultimately lead to long-term increases in compliance with the law (Telep & Weisburd, 2016). Of the interagency partnerships in the criminal justice field, the concept of police-probation partnerships has grown in popularity in response to a greater need for proactive supervision of probationers (Kim, Matz, & Lee, 2017). Beginning in the mid-1990s, police and probation officers began to collaborate informally on work (Parent & Snyder, 1999). ...
It has been almost 10 years since the Correctional Management Institute of Texas surveyed police chiefs in Texas in 2007, concluding that the overwhelming majority of police–probation partnerships in Texas were informal rather than formal. This study revisits police–adult probation partnerships in Texas using new state-wide data collected from both police and adult probation chiefs in 2016. This study found some troubling signs in the nature and extent of partnerships: The majority of police agencies in 2016 had no partnerships at all, but approximately 75 of probation agencies did, albeit mostly informal ones. Although both police and adult probation chiefs appeared to be open to future formal partnerships, they were only interested if initiated by another agency. The findings of this study highlight the importance of formalizing and institutionalizing partnerships for sustainability over the long term. The roles of regional professional organizations will be critical to expand partnerships.
This paper examines police and national probation service (NPS) practitioners’ experiences of utilising a dynamic risk management tool with registered sexual offenders (RSOs) in the community. The Active Risk Management System (ARMS) was designed as a multi-agency tool providing police with a dynamic tool for use with RSOs and the NPS with a sexual offender specific tool to support their original dynamic risk tool OASys (Offender Assessment System). Based on both quantitative and qualitative research with every police force and every NPS division in England and Wales, this paper highlights that despite a comprehensive adoption of ARMS within policing practice, the theoretical benefits of the ARMS tool have unfortunately not been realised. The resource implications of the tool’s utilisation, the different needs and siloed working practices of the police and NPS as well as a staggered implementation of the tool across both agencies has presented challenges for the practical use of ARMS in both single and joint agency offender management.
The authors highlight the historical importance of home visits as a key element of probation and suggest future avenues to inform the field about their full potential and utffity. They first provide an overview of the history of probation, then outline its evolution over the last century to encompass not only low-risk offenders but those at higher risk of recidivism and violating public safety, discussing how home visits are applicable to this population. They conclude with a discussion of the gaps in our knowledge on home visits and suggestions on how to address these gaps in future research.
Purpose
– The current study examines the prevalence, perceived effectiveness, and potential antecedents (e.g. departmental culture) of law enforcement agencies in collaborating with probation and parole agencies. Specifically, the study reveals how the leaders (i.e. police chief, sheriff) in law enforcement view police-community corrections partnerships.
Design/methodology/approach
– Data were collected from a state-wide survey of all sheriffs’ offices and a random sample of municipal police departments in Texas.
Findings
– Findings indicated information sharing and specialized enforcement partnerships were the most common partnership types, partnerships were more common with adult and juvenile probation than with adult parole, and partnerships remain predominantly informal. Finally, police chiefs/sheriffs in the departments with a culture supportive of offender reentry were more likely to support and engage in partnerships with adult/juvenile probation and adult parole agencies.
Originality/value
– Even without formal programs, it seems that police-probation/parole partnerships are, in one form or another, practically inevitable. The positive evaluation of law enforcement personnel leaves room for hope for expansions of such partnerships in the future.
This study was designed to evaluate the use of police officers to supervise juvenile offenders sentenced to a curfew check program. Data were collected using records research, questionnaires, and interviews. The data provided some support for the contention that a program using police officers to supervise juvenile offenders does reduce criminal behavior, and that parents and officers have positive views of the program.
The current study aimed to enhance the understanding of how law enforcement agencies collaborate with parole agencies and how they view police-parole partnerships. The data were collected through a state-wide survey of all sheriffs’ offices and a random sample of municipal police departments in Texas, the state with the nation’s largest parole population. The primary research question focused on identifying (1) empirically derived and meaningful patterns of police-parole partnerships and (2) the predictors of the perception among law enforcement agencies with regard to partnerships with parole agencies. The main finding was that police agencies who valued partnerships with parole agencies tended to already be involved in collaborations with parole agencies and had an organizational culture which supported working with other agencies.
Although traditional attitudes and policies toward family violence are now changing to reflect its magnitude and severity in the United States, multiagency collaborative partnerships have emerged in an effort to develop a system that promotes the safety and welfare of victims of family violence and to prevent further abuse. This study analyzes the process of a multiagency collaborative involving a large, municipal police department and other service providers as an attempt to find meaningful solutions to family violence against women in a southwestern metropolitan area. The results suggest that even in an era of multiagency collaboration, one cannot presume that personnel of relatively autonomous organizations have the organizational capacity and/or the willingness among personnel to truly collaborate. Formidable barriers toward effective collaboration abound and result in a less effective process of negotiation rather than collaboration.
Operation Ceasefire is a problem-oriented policing intervention aimed at reducing youth homicide and youth firearms violence in Boston. It represented an innovative partnership between researchers and practitioners to assess the city's youth homicide problem and implement an intervention designed to have a substantial near-term impact on the problem. Operation Ceasefire was based on the “pulling levers” deterrence strategy that focused criminal justice attention on a small number of chronically offending gang-involved youth responsible for much of Boston's youth homicide problem. Our impact evaluation suggests that the Ceasefire intervention was associated with significant reductions in youth homicide victimization, shots-fired calls for service, and gun assault incidents in Boston. A comparative analysis of youth homicide trends in Boston relative to youth homicide trends in other major U.S. and New England cities also supports a unique program effect associated with the Ceasefire intervention.
This research uses a quasi-experimental design to evaluate the impact of Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN) initiatives on neighborhood-level crime rates in Chicago. Four interventions are analyzed: (1) increased federal prosecutions for convicted felons carrying or using guns, (2) the length of sentences associated with federal prosecutions, (3) supply-side firearm policing activities, and (4) social marketing of deterrence and social norms messages through justice-style offender notification meetings. Using individual growth curve models and propensity scores to adjust for nonrandom group assignment of neighborhoods, our findings suggest that several PSN interventions are associated with greater declines of homicide in the treatment neighborhoods compared to the control neighborhoods. The largest effect is associated with the offender notification meetings that stress individual deterrence, normative change in offender behavior, and increasing views on legitimacy and procedural justice. Possible competing hypotheses and directions for individual-level analysis are also discussed.
This study was designed to evaluate the use of police officers to supervise juvenile offenders sentenced to a curfew check program. Data were collected using records research, questionnaires, and interviews. The data provided some support for the contention that a program using police officers to supervise juvenile offenders does reduce criminal behavior, and that parents and officers have positive views of the program.
This article provides a brief overview of street gang recidivism, discusses the potential of police-probation/parole partnerships, and introduces the American Probation and Parole Association's (APPA) C.A.R.E. (collaboration, analysis, reentry, and evaluation) model.
A recent study by the Justice Center (2013) concerning four California cities revealed that as many as one in five arrests (or 20 percent) involved an individual under probation or parole supervision. More specifically, one in six arrests for violent crimes and one in three substance abuse arrests involved an active probationer/parolee. Though some states have arguably shown some improvement in reducing recidivism, it continues to be a persistent and pervasive problem nationally (Justice Center, 2012; Pew, 2011). The recognition that police often come into contact with probationers and parolees is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, such a recognition led to the creation of the first formalized police-probation/parole partnership, Boston’s ‘Operation Night Light’ in 1992 (Corbett, 1998; Matz & Kim, 2013). Night Light would be replicated in various forms throughout the country during the 1990s and early 2000s. In addition to the need for greater research on such partnerships’ crime reduction effectiveness, a more practical need concerning the legal implications of such partnerships has also been voiced by practitioners at previous APPA Training Institutes. In response to this need, the authors examined state statutes and case law as they pertain to law enforcement searches of probationers/parolees.
While considerable research on partnerships had been levied concerning police officer perceptions and operations, few studies examined probation/parole perceptions, with one qualitative study conducted in an unnamed Pennsylvania county the exception (Alarid, Sims, & Ruiz, 2011). This study fills this gap in the empirical literature, utilizing the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) membership as a national proxy, by surveying probation/parole leaders and officers across the U.S. concerning their favorableness to partnerships with law enforcement in relation to a variety of important concepts derived from the empirical literature (Chrislip & Larson, 1994; Hughes, 2000; Jones & Sigler, 2002; Kim et al., 2010; Parent & Snyder, 1999; Rojek, Smith, & Alpert, 2012; Weiss, Anderson, & Lasker, 2002). Results reveal, similar to the law enforcement literature (Kim et al., 2010), that informal information sharing partnerships are the most prevalent across probation/parole agencies. Those in leadership positions and in frontline officer positions displayed considerable interest in partnerships with law enforcement. Probation/parole leaders’ partnership favorability was influenced by partnerships’ potential to reduce recidivism as well as buy in from agency executives and
supervisors. Officers’ partnership favorability was influenced by perceived leadership support, the notion that probationers/parolees benefit from a balance of services and accountability, and stalking horse concerns.
Probationers and parolees have a reduced expectation of privacy. In most states, they are subject to searches by their supervising probation or parole officer without prior notice or cause. However, for law enforcement officers, their ability to search a probationer or parolee can be constrained by the need to articulate probable cause or a reasonable suspicion. This legal review examines federal and state laws, providing guidance on when law enforcement officers can search probationers/parolees, and whether it requires probable cause, a reasonable suspicion, or the presence of the supervising probation/parole officer. Results of the legal review should prove especially informative for agencies engaged in multiagency partnerships.
This article reviews patterns of police behavior vis-à-vis juvenile offenders and proposes a model called reintegrative surveillance, which is an integration of community-based corrections and community policing. Neither community-based corrections nor community policing is designed to handle serious, repeat offenders who are returning to high-crime neighborhoods. Police need to reexamine their roles to ensure that (a) policies of maintaining order and consequences of disorder are not ambiguous or misleading to youths and (b) order maintenance and law enforcement practices do not interfere with police ability to protect youths as victims of crime. Both tendencies are clearly widespread problems, and neither will be addressed as long as the “worst” neighborhoods and youths are considered beyond salvation. Correctional programs need to reevaluate police as a pivotal community resource. Reintegrative surveillance must include a gradational, consistent criminal justice response, protection, vigilance, interagency goal setting, and agency coordination.
This article develops a critical approach to community-criminal justice partnerships. Drawing on case study data from one community partnership program developed by university administrators and staff from a state juvenile corrections department, we explore the strengths and weaknesses of increasingly popular partnership strategies for preventing and reducing crime. This partnership aimed to develop a transitional service center in which university personnel and community members worked with paroled youth in mentoring and community service projects. Through the analysis of the competing goals and implementation struggles in this case, we consider the validity of conflicting positive and negative perspectives on criminal justice partnerships. Our multilevel analysis reveals the innovations and limitations of a partnership approach. We demonstrate that to fully understand both the potential and dangers of partnership models, it is essential to consider the structural, organizational, and interactional levels of a project's emergence and implementation.
Most organizational theories assume that agency partnerships within a system are seamless and tightly fit. Through qualitative interviews with program personnel, this study measured the extent to which juvenile probation and police partnerships were characterized as a ‘‘loosely coupled system.’’ Loosely coupled systems were measured by each agency’s willingness to share information, willingness to share power, flexibility in decision making, open communication without fear of reprisal, valuing diverse backgrounds of outside agencies, and degree of mutual commitment toward a common goal. Evidence to support the existence of a loosely coupled system was the willingness of officers to expand and broaden their traditional roles and appropriately share power, such that there was no mission distortion and role confusion observed. Information sharing efforts had a significant impact on dissolving old ways of thinking about traditional roles and instead built a new sense of trust, improved morale, and greater access to information.
Over the past decade, aligning with the tenets of community policing and community corrections, there has been a growing interest in police-probation/parole partnerships. The authors review the literature on police-probation/parole partnerships, summarize the strength of partnerships, and provide recommendations to mediate unintended negative effects.
Purpose
– The growth of formal police‐probation partnerships in the USA has been accompanied by an increased awareness of the potential threats of mission distortion. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the dynamics of mission distribution
Design/methodology/approach
– The paper is based on interviews with police and community corrections officers involved in an active partnership in Spokane, Washington. The paper emphasizes the abuse of authority, stalking horse incidents, and the scope of legitimate police and probation authority.
Findings
– Ultimately, mission distortion has the potential to undermine the credibility of police‐probation partnerships.
Originality/value
– The paper offers training and policy recommendations for police and community corrections administrators.
As formal police-probation partnerships become more commonplace, the occasional incompatibility of police and probation functions becomes increasingly obvious. Understanding how police-probation partnerships create unique pressures on officers and ultimately reconciling the real or perceived incompatibility of police and probation objectives is an important prerequisite to partnership success. Few studies had considered how inter-agency collaborations have the potential to alter the role distinctions between police and probation officers and how the quality, diversity, and effectiveness of the services that they provide may be compromised or enhanced. This study, based on interviews with police and probation officers participating in a formally organized police-probation partnership in Spokane, Washington considered how close working relationships may influence the professional orientations of the participating officers. Findings suggest that tension between organizational objectives threatens to create an imbalance of power between partnership participants.
A number of jurisdictions have been experimenting with new problem-oriented policing frameworks to understand and respond to gun violence among gang-involved offenders. These interventions are based on the “pulling levers” deterrence strategy that focuses criminal justice and social service attention on a small number of chronically offending gang members responsible for the bulk of urban gun violence problems. Unfortunately, there is relatively little rigorous evaluation evidence on the effectiveness of these approaches to violence prevention. In Stockton, California, an interagency task force implemented a pulling levers strategy to prevent gun homicide among gang-involved offenders. A U.S. Department of Justice-sponsored impact evaluation suggests that the pulling levers strategy was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the monthly number of gun homicide incidents in Stockton. A comparative analysis of gun homicide trends in Stockton relative to other midsize California cities also supports a unique program effect associated with the pulling levers intervention.
This article reports the subjective views of young adult offenders, regarding their experience of a police-probation initiative in southwest England. Project ARC (Addressing Repeat Criminality) was a pilot scheme that targeted persistent offenders, mainly drug offenders, by offering them an intensive form of probation supervision. The procedure of allowing these offenders to speak & listening to their voices has been seen as an excellent & powerful method to depict vividly their perception of probation experience & views on the usefulness of the crime reduction project. Several central themes emerged from the in-depth interview data, regarding the success or otherwise of the initiative in addressing their criminal behavior. These include offenders' attitudes to offending, self-explanations for their criminality, views of peer associations, & the usefulness of the Project ARC intervention. Finally, the offenders' first hand accounts also offer invaluable insight to the police & probation services on how the project can & should be further improved in order to reform their offending behaviors. 1 Table, 39 References. Adapted from the source document.
U.S. v. knights: Supreme court rules on searches of probationers by police
- S E Adelman
Adelman, S. E. (2002). U.S. v. knights: Supreme court rules on searches of probationers
by police. The Journal of the American Probation and Parole Association: Perspectives,
26(3), 39-43.
Evidence-based practice in probation and parole: The implementation challenge. Executive Exchange
- T White
White, T. (2005). Evidence-based practice in probation and parole: The implementation
challenge. Executive Exchange, (Summer), 3-7.
Working together: Assessing organizational readiness for collaboration
- G E Sexton
Sexton, G. E. (2000). Working together: Assessing organizational readiness for collaboration. Knoxville, TN: The Knoxville Safety Collaboration.
Promoting partnerships between police and community supervision agencies
- J Jannetta
- P Lachman
Jannetta, J., & Lachman, P. (2011). Promoting partnerships between police and community
supervision agencies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services.
Probation partnerships: Insights from the past, a view of the present, and a call for leadership
- D R Beto
Beto, D. R. (2005). Probation partnerships: Insights from the past, a view of the present,
and a call for leadership. Executive Exchange, (Summer), 8-11.
Some further reflections on Samson v. California: Standing Morrissey v. Brewer on its head?
- S E Adelman
Adelman, S. E. (2007). Some further reflections on Samson v. California: Standing
Morrissey v. Brewer on its head? The Journal of the American Probation and Parole
Association: Perspectives, 31(4), 43-45.
Collaboration toolkit: How to build, fix, and sustain productive partnerships
- T A Rinehart
- A T Laszlo
- G O Briscoe
Rinehart, T. A., Laszlo, A. T., & Briscoe, G. O. (2001). Collaboration toolkit: How to
build, fix, and sustain productive partnerships. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
Police-corrections partnerships. Issues and practices
- D Parent
- B Snyder
Parent, D., & Snyder, B. (1999). Police-corrections partnerships. Issues and practices.
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Probationers, parolees, and the fourth amendment
- T D Colbridge
Colbridge, T. D. (2003). Probationers, parolees, and the fourth amendment. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, 72(7), 22-32.
The repeat sexual offender in Madison: A memorandum on the problem and the community's response
- H Goldstein
- C Susmilch
Goldstein, H., & Susmilch, C. (1982). The repeat sexual offender in Madison: A memorandum on the problem and the community's response. Madison, WI: University of
Wisconsin Law School.
Making police-probation partnerships work
- D Murphy
Murphy, D. (2005). Making police-probation partnerships work. New York, NY: LFB
Scholarly Publishing.
Police and probation community partnerships. Executive Exchange
- J Concannon
Concannon, J. (1996). Police and probation community partnerships. Executive
Exchange, (Winter), 6-7.
Falling crime rates, rising caseload numbers: Using police-probation partnerships
- C D Condon
Condon, C. D. (2003). Falling crime rates, rising caseload numbers: Using police-probation partnerships. Corrections Today, 65(1), 44-49.
The corrections system in Pennsylvania
- J T Conlon
- H R Dammer
Conlon, J. T., & Dammer, H. R. (2014). The corrections system in Pennsylvania. In M.
P. Brewster & H. R. Dammer (Eds.), Pennsylvania criminal justice system
(pp. 141-171). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP) Her research interests lie in corrections and rehabilitation, the developmental and lifecourse features of criminal behavior, and comparative studies
- Selye Lee
Selye Lee, M.S. is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Criminology and
Criminal Justice at Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP). Her research
interests lie in corrections and rehabilitation, the developmental and lifecourse features of criminal behavior, and comparative studies.
Putting public safety first: 13 parole supervision strategies to enhance reentry outcomes
- A L Solomon
Solomon, A. L. (2008). Putting public safety first: 13 parole supervision strategies to
enhance reentry outcomes. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Where and when police officers can conduct warrantless searches of probationers/parolees: A legal review
- A K Matz
- J R Turner
- C Hemmens
Matz, A. K., Turner, J. R., & Hemmens, C. (2015). Where and when police officers can
conduct warrantless searches of probationers/parolees: A legal review [PSN update].
Her research interests lie in corrections and rehabilitation, the developmental and lifecourse features of criminal behavior
- M S Selye Lee
Selye Lee, M.S. is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Criminology and
Criminal Justice at Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP). Her research
interests lie in corrections and rehabilitation, the developmental and lifecourse features of criminal behavior, and comparative studies.