Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work 9781593321697, 9781593320911

Citation preview

Criminal Justice Recent Scholarship

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Edited by Marilyn McShane and Frank P. Williams III

A Series from LFB Scholarly

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

David Murphy

LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC New York 2005 Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005 by LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Murphy, David, 1973Making police-probation partnerships work / David Murphy. p. cm. -- (Criminal justice : recent scholarship) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-59332-091-4 (alk. paper) 1. Probation--Washington (State)--Spokane. 2. Probation officers-Washington (State)--Spokane. 3. Police--Washington (State)-Spokane. I. Title. II. Series: Criminal justice (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC) HV9306.W2M87 2005 363.2'3--dc22 2005004910

ISBN 1-59332-091-4 Printed on acid-free 250-year-life paper. Manufactured in the United States of America.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

For my Mother and Father

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

CONTENTS Chapter 1: The Call for Police-Probation Partnerships

1

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework: The Unanticipated Consequences of Social Action

21

Chapter 3: Method

33

Chapter 4: Spokane’s Police-Probation Partnership: an Examination of the Anticipated Consequences

45

Chapter 5: Mission Creep

85

Chapter 6: Mission Distortion

105

Chapter 7: Organizational Lag

129

Chapter 8: Conclusions

153

Chapter Notes

167

References

171

Appendix

185

Subject Index

201

vii Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Acknowledgements Writing this book would not have been possible without the ongoing support of my wife Merideth. Her ability to inspire is unmatched. I would also like to thank Nicholas Lovrich, Faith Lutze and Otwin Marenin for their assistance with this book. Each provided invaluable input throughout the research, writing, and editing phases of the project. Their efforts to critique the early versions of the manuscript had a profound influence on the final product. I would like them to know how much I value their contributions. Finally, I wish to thank the police officers and probation officers who participated in this study. I deeply appreciate their willingness to offer their time and candid responses to my inquiries. I have taken every effort to produce a fair and honest portrayal of these individuals and their work.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

David Murphy

ix Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

CHAPTER 1

The Call for Police-Probation Partnerships

If community policing is to be successful, it must include problem solving, and this in turn requires the active involvement of other city agencies. Sadd and Grinc, 1996.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Introduction As a consequence of the public’s elevated fear of crime (among other reasons) over the past two decades, considerable media coverage and public attention has been devoted to the state of the American criminal justice system. Many public policy initiatives have been undertaken (e.g., the “war on drugs,” three strikes laws, etc.) to enhance the ability of the criminal justice system to respond to real and perceived increases in crime. Innovations have been particularly widespread in law enforcement, largely due to increased funding for crime fighting efforts at the local, state, and federal levels. The 1994 Crime Bill (the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act) is a prime example in this regard. Enhanced law enforcement efforts, however, have contributed to an increasingly heavy burden on the nation’s corrections systems. Purpose of the Study This study constitutes an in-depth examination (case study) of one example of a probation-police partnership underway in Spokane, Washington. It is designed to identify and analyze anticipated and 1 Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

2

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

unanticipated consequences of probation-police partnerships so that they can be managed effectively by the participating agencies. It is too early to determine whether probation-police partnerships work as intended--most are still in their developmental stages. Consequently, the endorsement or rejection of police-probation partnerships (as public safety initiatives) falls far beyond the scope of this study. The goal of this project is far more realistic--namely, to identify and analyze the unanticipated consequences of probation-police partnerships that detract from their utility for the criminal justice system. Modest recommendations will, of course, be included in an effort to initiate a much-needed dialogue focused on helping partnering agencies manage these consequences in the future.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Community Corrections: A Brief History By 2003, American prisons and jails housed a total population of 2,078,570 prisoners, creating an incarceration rate of 715 per 100,000 residents (Harrison and Karberg, 2004). As a result of the combined effects of prison overcrowding (for a review, see Clear, 1994) and increasing dissatisfaction among citizens and policy makers with traditional, institution-based treatment approaches to corrections (especially in terms of recidivism--see Martinson, 1974), community corrections (1) is experiencing renewed utilization and acceptance. Community corrections programs are intended to fulfill one or more of the following public policy objectives: 1) to more effectively rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders back into their communities (measured by recidivism rates); 2) to reduce (non-violent) prison populations; 3) to be less expensive than prison confinement; 4) to be more humane than prison; and 5) to build political constituencies (see Duffee and McGarrell, 1990; Greenberg, 1975; Musheno, Palumbo, Maynard-Moody and Levine, 1990; O’Leary and Duffee, 1971; Scull, 1983). While effectiveness has been demonstrated (Andrews and Bonta, 1998; Cullen and Gendreau, 2000; Petersilia, 1997), Duffee (1990) warns that claims of the ability of community corrections programs to reduce the use of incarceration should be made with great caution. There are two reasons for this need for caution: 1) community corrections programs are often used in conjunction with incarceration; and 2) many programs (e.g., probation) may merely result in net-

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Call for Police-Probation Partnerships

3

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

widening. These criminal justice system dynamics are discussed in considerable detail below. The Weaknesses of Institutional Corrections The problems associated with institutional corrections have been widely recognized. For instance, Toch (1977) has discussed the difficulties inmates experience coping with the stress and insecurity that often accompany institutional life. Further, Sykes (1958) identifies the several “pains of imprisonment”--including the deprivation of liberty, goods and services, heterosexual relationships, and personal security--which can lead to an exaggerated sense of vulnerability and extreme anxiety for many persons caught up in the nation’s institutional corrections system. The most significant weaknesses of institutional corrections relate to its failure to provide adequate protection to society. First, correctional institutions have been sharply criticized for their inability to reduce recidivism (Martinson, 1974; Scull, 1983). This has been, in part, blamed on the failure of the institutions-based medical treatment model to reintegrate the offender back into the community effectively (President’s Commission, 1967; Scull, 1983). In addition, prisons have been criticized for failing to serve as a deterrent (general to specific) to crime. For instance, Clear (1994) argues that in the United States the great expansion of institutional corrections has not caused a reduction in crime (2). It is important to note that institution-based efforts to rehabilitate offenders have demonstrated a potential for success under some circumstances. However, effective programs tend to go underfunded and are generally underutilized in the modern prison setting, limiting their benefits for male and female offenders alike (Johnson, 1996). Rather, the modern prison setting tends to subject offenders to negative social effects, including being exposed to violence, outright boredom, and few opportunities for successful adjustment and prosocial change (Irwin and Austin, 1994). The weaknesses of institutional corrections are particularly noticeable when considering female inmates and their particular needs (for reviews, see Allen and Simonsen, 1995; Belknap, 1996; HannahMoffat, 1999; Pollock-Byrne, 1990; Wilson, 1968). Females compose only a small fraction of the total inmate population in any state, making all-female institutions relatively few in number and small in size

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

4

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

compared to all-male institutions. Given the limited rehabilitation services present in the all-female institutional setting, the availability of individualized programming for female offenders is extremely limited; such programming has been shown to predict success upon release in many circumstances (Koons, Burrow, Morash, and Bynum, 1997). These issues highlight the potential of well-designed and effectively implemented community corrections programs which enable female offenders to take advantage of treatment services that are broadly available in communities (Pearl, 1998). The use of institutional confinement becomes even less attractive when considering the problems associated with basic prison administration--especially with overcrowding. Indeed, it was the recognition of such problems that enhanced the popularity of community corrections during the 1960s and 1970s--an era characterized by frequent reports of prison violence and racial polarization in state penal institutions, and a subsequent expansion in prisoner rights (Stastny and Tyrnauer, 1982). These conditions made incarceration both more difficult to endure for the offenders and more costly to administer for state governments (Lilly and Ball, 1990). In a similar fashion, the contemporary crisis of prison overcrowding (which continues to increase in seriousness) has served to renew reliance on community corrections programs. Although Dilulio (1987) argues that overcrowding is not necessarily an obstacle to humane and safe incarceration, the preponderance of literature in corrections identifies prison overcrowding as a very serious problem for population management and the effective rehabilitation of offenders (for a review, see Irwin and Austin, 1996). The Goals of Traditional Community Corrections Defining the concept of community corrections is a somewhat complex task, partly due to the diverse roles that it has been expected to play in the criminal justice system (Clear, 1979). Further, heeding warnings of the futility of advancing a definitive definition (see Duffee, 1990), this discussion merely outlines the most basic central components of community corrections as the term is used in contemporary practice. As with institutional approaches, the main purpose of community corrections is the protection of society (see Clear and O’Leary, 1983). This element of its mission implies that effective supervision is a central component of any community-based approach. However,

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Call for Police-Probation Partnerships

5

community corrections (at least in the contemporary sense) departs from institutional corrections in at least two fundamental ways: 1) it represents a philosophical shift to more humane and effective treatment for offenders, particularly those that are non-violent (Smykla, 1984); and, 2) it attempts to facilitate a constructive relationship between offenders and their respective communities (Duffee, 1990). Community corrections first came into widespread use during the late 1960s when the focus of treatment turned from changing individual inmates into more fully socialized citizens to modifying their situations and networks of association in the communities in which they resided (Duffee, 1990). Specifically, in 1967 the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice outlined recommendations which emphasized the need to assist inmates in finding employment and other opportunities for civic and social engagement within the community. Today, nearly 5 million adults are on either probation or parole in the United States (Glaze and Palla, 2004). At the core of community corrections is the commitment to develop and maintain meaningful ties between offenders and their respective community environments (e.g., through education, employment, counseling support, access to healthcare, etc.). This orientation toward offender treatment requires that community-based corrections entails a substantial degree of social work. Contrary to popular opinion, this does not mean that community-based corrections programs are inherently characterized by a lack of sufficient control over offenders, only that supervision entails both monitoring of conduct and facilitating access to treatment and reintegrative services for offenders. The dual goals of providing supervision to assure public safety and social work services to offenders to promote community reintegration has resulted in some degree of confusion in community corrections. This duality of purposes continues to pose an obstacle for the achievement of public, practitioner, and policymaker agreement over the appropriateness of specific community corrections programs (Harris, Clear, and Baird, 1996). This problem is exacerbated by the public’s fear of crime and by political incentives that cause politicians to respond to crime events with harsher criminal sanctions. As a result, community corrections programs on the whole have recently evolved in ways that increasingly emphasize closer supervision and enhanced controls over offenders, while attempting to maintain rehabilitation as a

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

6

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

priority as well--a balance that has proven difficult to achieve (see Petersilia, 1990). Common examples of community corrections programs include probation, parole, community-based residential centers, half-way houses, payments of restitution and fines in lieu of confinement, community service, electronic monitoring, periodic drug testing, and counseling treatment (Clear, Clear, and Braga, 1993; for a review of electronic monitoring and home incarceration, see Ball and Lilly, 1986). The most common of these community corrections modalities are, of course, probation (referred to here as a status rather than a process) and parole--both of which have been used in the United States throughout the 20th century. Probation Initially developed for use in the juvenile justice system and in reflection of the legal doctrine of parens patriae, probation is a courtimposed sentence that, in terms of severity, falls between incarceration and release from the court’s authority. Although its application has been expanded to include adult offenders, contemporary probation is typically reserved for young, first-time, non-violent offenders (i.e., those considered safe risks), serving as a tool to divert offenders from correctional institutions and the pains found therein (see Allen, Latessa, Eskride, and Vito, 1985). Probation is intended to serve the correctional goals of rehabilitation and reintegration by reducing the impact of labeling (Becker, 1963) (3) and allowing the offender to maintain constructive contact with the community. Such a sentence is conditional, typically requiring the probationer to lead a law-abiding lifestyle under the temporary supervision of the court. Many proponents of probation argue that it also benefits the general public by reducing recidivism and alleviating prison overcrowding. Critics suggest, however, that probation only results in “net-widening” by criminal justice agencies. Programs designed to divert offenders from institutional confinement are only successful at diverting offenders if they would have otherwise been sentenced to incarceration. In many cases, diversion programs “widen the net” to include offenders that would not have otherwise been sentenced to any type of supervision (Duffee, 1990). This tendency to assign marginal cases to community corrections poses the potential risk of labeling those offenders that, had it not been for being sentenced to probation

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Call for Police-Probation Partnerships

7

(or other diversion programs), would have escaped exposure to the system entirely. To be sure, the evidence reported in the corrections literature regarding the effectiveness of probation is mixed (see Morgan, 1993 for a review). At best, probation appears limited in its ability to affect recidivism (Petersilia, 1996). Nevertheless, there is some evidence that probation can be at least as effective as incarceration in preventing recidivism, even when controlling for the number of previous convictions (see Allen, et al., 1985). For instance, studies have indicated that probation, despite being under funded in most communities, has been shown to be successful in reducing drug use to a substantial extent (Petersilia, 1997). As long as community corrections professionals are unable to define clearly a mission (e.g., supervision and punishment versus treatment and rehabilitation), it will be difficult to demonstrate noteworthy success in achieving outcomes that everyone would agree are most relevant to the field of corrections (Petersilia, 1996). Nevertheless, community corrections programs are generally viewed as simply providing more “bang for the buck.” They tend to be seen as offering an acceptable alternative form of punishment for offending considering the high cost of traditional incarceration. Given these considerations and the basic inability of American penal institutions to accommodate all convicted offenders, especially drug offenders, probation remains in widespread use across the country. Recent innovations that have contributed to its sophistication and applicability have resulted in the increased utilization and support of probation as an alternative to incarceration (Lehman, 2001; Gendreau, Cullen and Bonta, 1994). Since 1995, the probation population in the United States has grown at an average rate of 2.9% (Glaze and Palla, 2004). By 2003, nearly half of all probationers had been convicted of a felony (Glaze and Palla, 2004), illustrating the fact that probation is no longer reserved for petty offenders. As the national population of probationers has increased, probation programs have been accused by the public and some legislators as being too lenient. As a result of this scrutiny, many probation programs have resorted to becoming more punitive towards offenders who violate conditions of their release. In many cases, this toughening of penalties for status violations represents an attempt to create a sanction that, in terms of severity, falls somewhere between imprisonment and traditional probation (Jones, 1991; Petersilia, 1990;

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

8

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Lichtman and Smock, 1981; Petersilia and Turner, 1993). Evidence of the ability of intensive probation to reduce recidivism, however, has been mixed at best (see Byrne and Pattavina, 1992; Pearson and Harper, 1990; Gendreau and Ross, 1987; for reviews, also see Byrne, 1996; Lichtman and Smock, 1981). Parole Although parole first emerged in the United States during the 1870s (e.g., Elmira, 1876), it was used only sporadically until the mid-1940s (see Duffee and Wright, 1990; Pisciotta, 1994). The rehabilitative ideal gave new legitimacy to parole, however, resulting in its being used throughout much of the country, (see Allen, et al., 1985) to the point where it became the normal mode of release from prison by the mid 1960s (Duffee and Wright, 1990). Since 1995, the parolee population has grown at an annual rate of 1.7%, a relatively modest rate compared to probation. Today, over three-quarters of a million convicted offenders are serving out the remainders of their sentences on parole (Glaze and Palla, 2004). The intermediate sentences of the rehabilitative model are based on a grading system whereby compliant inmates earn parole (i.e., early conditional release). On parole, inmates must follow a set of rules which, if broken, can result in parole being revoked and the offender being returned to prison confinement (see Smykla, 1984). This process of early release upon “good conduct” is designed to make individual offenders gain a sense of responsibility for determining their own release based both on their conduct while in confinement and their efforts to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society upon their release. The effectiveness of parole, however, came under intense criticism during the late 1970s and 1980s, as did indeterminate sentencing schemes (see Petersilia, 1999). Some of this criticism is based on a plethora of research that raised doubts about the effects of parole on recidivism, as well as the questionable use of the broad discretion exercised by parole boards (see below). For instance, the inability of parole (and probation) officers to provide services as a result of excessive caseloads has been widely acknowledged (e.g., Guynes, 1996; Stanley, 1976). Although discretionary parole has been abandoned in a number of states (Hughes, Wilson and Beck, 2001)(4), the use of parole continues to increase nationally. Today, however, half of all parolees are

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Call for Police-Probation Partnerships

9

released on a mandatory basis, resulting either from sentencing statutes or good-time provisions as opposed to discretionary parole board decisions (Glaze and Palla, 2004). Importantly, some of the major weaknesses of parole have been attributed to problems with parole board discretion rather than the inherent ability of the practice of parole to provide adequate supervision and an opportunity for parolees to demonstrate the ability to assume a law abiding lifestyle (Martinson and Wilks, 1977). For example, parole boards have been accused of making decisions based more on concerns about overcrowding than on the basis of each individual inmate’s suitability for release or the quality of supervision available to them (Allen, et al., 1985). As a result of these criticisms, the use of parole has been severely limited in several states, which in practice often means the abolition of parole boards (or at least their use of discretion), but the continuance of at least some type of supervision after a determined period of incarceration (Allen, et al., 1985). In addition, new strategies designed to devote more attention to offender supervision have been attempted in an effort to restore confidence in probation as a correction system option for some offenders (see Petersilia and Turner, 1993; Jernigan and Kronick, 1992). It is important to consider the fact that one of the traditional weaknesses associated with probation is a high rate of offender failure, the majority of which is a result of the technical violations of conditions of release rather than because of new offenses--two very different matters (see Allen, et al., 1985). An increased emphasis on traditional supervision strategies may merely result in an increase in these types of status offense failures (Jernigan and Kronick, 1992; McGinnis, 1998) without having a significant impact on recidivism rates. This is a trend that may contribute to prison overcrowding (Simon, 1998) without offering any real advantages in terms of enhanced public safety. Additional Community Corrections Programs In addition to probation and parole, there are a variety of programs designed to divert offenders from prison. As an alternative to traditional incarceration, offenders may be sentenced to terms in a community-based residential center, a half-way house, or to home confinement. In addition, community-based correctional programs can be designed to impose sanctions on a graduated—or incremental-basis. In other words, the severity of sanctions can be adjusted based

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

10

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

on each individual offender’s record of compliance. This process of customizing sanctions provides offenders with incentives to comply with the imposed conditions of supervision while allowing corrections officials the flexibility to respond to an offender’s risk level as it fluctuates over time. One reason for the popularity of community sanctions alternatives is that they can be used either independently or in virtually any combination. For instance, electronically monitored home confinement can be used in conjunction with restitution payments, fines, and community service. Further, any of these community corrections alternatives may also incorporate various supplemental monitoring strategies (e.g., periodic drug testing) and/or rehabilitation initiatives (e.g., counseling treatment). Community-based residential centers and half-way houses offer numerous potential benefits when compared to traditional incarceration. Offenders may be placed in these facilities for a portion of, or for the entirety of, their overall sentence. An offender sentenced to a term in one of these facilities continues to be subject to close monitoring and is restricted in terms of activities and behavior, yet they are typically able to work, go to school, and complete community service components of their sentences. Offenders are typically assigned to these facilities toward the end of a prison sentence in an effort to allow them to secure employment before release, thereby facilitating the reintegration process (Donnelly and Forschner, 1987). Electronically monitored home confinement, a sentence that requires offenders to be confined in their homes during specific times, is seen by some observers as a particularly valuable alternative to traditional sanctions (Anderson, 1999). Offenders sentenced to a period of electronically monitored home confinement generally wear an anklet or bracelet that monitors the offender’s location at specific times (Schmidt, 1991). The benefits associated with electronic monitoring are many, including that these programs have the potential to help alleviate the high costs associated with the imprisonment of offenders. In addition, offenders sentenced to a period of electronic monitoring are often able to make a complete or partial financial contribution to offset the costs of the program (Anderson, 1999). Further, electronic monitoring can be used without separating the offender from his/her family. Because offenders are often able to retain their jobs, electronic monitoring also prevents subjecting the family to the associated financial hardships of losing a contributor to

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Call for Police-Probation Partnerships

11

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

the family’s financial, parental, and/or emotional needs. Despite these potential benefits, critics suggest that it is necessary to examine the feasibility of electronic monitoring for the poor who cannot afford the fees typically involved, and the appropriateness of using electronically monitored home confinement for offenders who have committed offenses against children and/or family members (for a discussion, see Wells, 1999). Although recent research suggests that electronic monitoring has no independent effect on recidivism rates (Finn and Muirhead-Steves, 2002), it continues to be popular as an alternative to incarceration (Vollum and Hale, 2002). The Future of Community Corrections Despite being characterized by limited effectiveness and being subject to intense public and political pressure, community corrections programs play a crucial role in the criminal justice system, and they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. As of 2003, there were over 4 million adults on probation in the United States, with this number of probationers representing nearly 60% of all offenders under correctional supervision (Glaze and Palla, 2004). The success of such programs, however, will depend largely on their ability to engage their respective communities and to appeal to elements of the public across the political spectrum. Considering that community corrections programs are dependent on the communities in which they exist, it is important to encourage citizens to identify themselves as stakeholders. Effective community corrections may, in fact, be most effective when it is part of a broader societal process designed to reinforce the efforts of criminal justice officials (Braithwaite, 1996). This broadening of community corrections, however, will be quite difficult to accomplish in most communities. Unfortunately, popular conceptions of a community’s responsibilities seldom include corrections-related goals. However, efforts need to be directed toward instilling such responsibilities in American communities over time. Ultimately, for community corrections to realize its full potential, corrections needs to be an active component of any definition of community. Indeed, corrections must be viewed as an important function of the community. In other words, community should be about corrections as well being about business or education or sense of belonging in a safe and healthy environment (Duffee, 1990).

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

12

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

The first step in forging a more constructive relationship between corrections and local communities will require an enhanced public awareness regarding the purposes and functions of community corrections programs. In short, community corrections programs need to become more visible, and their purpose needs to be more broadly understood (Clear, 1979; Wittenberg, 1996). Critical to any public awareness campaign is clarification of what community corrections needs in order to be effective, and the identification of a community’s responsibilities in helping to fulfill those needs. In addition, it is imperative to convey to the public that community corrections efforts are mutually beneficial to the corrections agency and the community alike. Community support requires that community corrections programs have some degree of political appeal. Unfortunately for community corrections, many Americans have grown to equate prison with the just dispensation of punishment (Sherman and Hawkins, 1981) and view community corrections as merely providing offender services and, therefore, representing an approach to criminal justice which is inherently soft on crime (Wittenberg, 1996). Community corrections must defend itself against these criticisms by making the case that community corrections programs are about retribution, public safety and the provision of offender services (for a discussion of the public’s increasingly punitive attitudes, see Flanagan, 1996). The public marketing of this message can be done by emphasizing the role of supervision and punishment in such programs--a trend that is already quite observable (e.g., intensive supervision programs, home confinement, electronic monitoring, etc.). In addition, professional community corrections officers (CCOs, also known as Probation/Parole Officers) need to work in specific communities in order to be fully aware of the services and resources available there to offenders under their supervision (Lurigio and Martin, 1997). Further, the community corrections program must become important to and supported by the community--as evidenced by providing services, providing access to employment, and making active efforts at social inclusion. This is critical if the program is going to provide adequate services to offenders. While in many cases prisons may be in a better political position to accomplish inmate rehabilitation, prison overcrowding forces community corrections to assume, or at least share, this treatment and skill-building role for offenders.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Call for Police-Probation Partnerships

13

In the end, however, the political clout of community corrections depends (at least in part) on its ability to reduce prison overcrowding without endangering public safety. Overcrowding has truly reached crisis proportions, and it is imperative that community corrections effectively manage offenders in order to preserve prison space for those offenders that pose the gravest danger to society. This has proven to be a troublesome task for parole, hence the actions taken by many states to either eliminate it or restrict its use greatly (see Hughes, et al., 2001; Petersilia, 1999). One possible solution proposed entails restricting revocations for use only when the offender commits a new criminal offense. In other words, alternative sanctions to revocation are developed for those offenders who violate the technical conditions of their probation or parole. This does not necessarily contradict the goals of community corrections since such programs could still be used to supervise offenders to increase the certainty of detection and punishment for both new offenses and technical violations. It just means that offenses relating to conditions of release be dealt with through means other than incarceration (e.g., more restrictive conditions, more intensive treatment, increased community service, extension of supervision period, etc.). For probation and other diversion programs, the net-widening phenomenon poses a serious obstacle to their ability to reduce prison overcrowding (Austin and Krisberg, 1981; Duffee, 1990). While this is actually a problem that must be addressed through sentencing reform, it threatens to undermine the benefits of these alternatives to incarceration. Criticism of community corrections may be misdirected, but the concern itself is well-founded as the growth in such programs has been accompanied by even larger increases in prison populations. Addressing this problem is urgent since it not only raises concerns about the future of community corrections programs, but it places into serious question the ultimate scope of the corrections system as well (Duffee and McGarrell, 1990). The ability of community corrections programs to remedy overcrowding is clearly doubted among many policy makers. After all, the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 provided for, among other things, major increases in federal funding for the construction of new prisons. Most experienced observers, however, acknowledge that this is only a temporary remedy at best. This public policy enactment only underscores how far community corrections yet has to go before it establishes itself as a credible alternative to

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

14

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

incarceration rather than simply representing a poor alternative to doing nothing. Only when this goal is more fully accomplished will community corrections be capable of fulfilling its other worthy goals, such as being a relatively humane and economical means by which to divert and reintegrate offenders back into constructive roles in their respective communities. Community Policing: A Brief History

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Community-Oriented Policing (COP) has virtually swept the nation over the course of the past two decades. Much of the popularity COP has enjoyed can be attributed to its ability to occupy many roles, thus making it applicable to a wide variety of public needs (some of which may not even be within the scope of policing). Indeed, the COP label has been applied to many different public service programs and law enforcement strategies. The Weaknesses of the Professional Model Community-Oriented Policing (COP), also known simply as Community Policing, emerged in the 1970s in response to evidence of the serious limitations of the professional model (Alpert and Moore, 1998; Moore and Braga, 2003). The professional model’s emphasis on technology (e.g., radio-equipped cars, reducing response time, etc.) resulted in the police directing their efforts toward providing a reactive approach to crime (Reiss, 1992). As a result, the police became increasingly legalistic in their work (Wilson, 1968), thereby reducing their ability (and desire) to be directly involved with the community. The consequences of technology added to the effects of the popular (O.W. Wilson’s) management strategies used during the professional era. These strategies included attempts to encourage an equitable rendering of police services through the establishment of rotating beat assignments. This was designed to insulate officers from the potentially corruptive effects of close relationships with the community. The problems of police-community relations during this era was highlighted by Westley’s (1970) findings that nearly 3 of 4 officers believed that the public harbored very negative perceptions of the police while only 12% of officers felt that the public actually liked the police. It appeared that the public perceived the police as an force of

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Call for Police-Probation Partnerships

15

occupation rather than as public servants protecting their neighborhoods. In addition, the experiences of the 1960s placed increased pressure on the police to expand their efforts to include an emphasis on maintaining community order and providing desired public services (Kelling, 1995). Evidence from diverse sources suggests, however, that the professional model was not well suited to providing solutions to the growing and increasingly complex crime problem (Moore and Kelling, 1983; Rosenbaum and Lurigio, 1994; Wilson and Kelling, 1982). Moore and Kelling (1983) point out that the isolated nature of the police brought on by the Professional Era was acceptable for purposes of fighting serious, particularly violent, crime. For such crime problems, police effectiveness and efficiency were a high priority, providing justification for diverting attention from police-community interaction. During the unrest of the 1960s (e.g., the civil rights and anti-war movements), however, the police were forced to emphasize efforts directed at providing order maintenance. The weak relationships between the police and many communities, however, created formidable obstacles for the police in fulfilling such a role (Moore and Braga, 2003). The many problems associated with the professional model created an intense demand for significant change to the nation’s law enforcement practices. Although specific policing developments since the 1970s have assumed a variety of forms, the lessons learned during the 1960s ensured that any innovations would necessarily have some common themes. In particular, policing experts (practitioners and researchers alike) recognized the importance of emphasizing crime prevention and the development of a constructive working relationship with the broader community. Consequently, law enforcement in the United States entered into the Community Policing Era, to which this discussion now turns. The Components of Community-Oriented Policing A philosophy rather than a merely series of strategies, COP is based on the logic that the most effective form of crime control can be accomplished through the use of a proactive approach rather than a reactive one (Trojanowicz and Bucquerox, 1990). This goal can be achieved by working hand-in-hand with the community to identify and attempt to address the factors that cause crime such as disorder, decay,

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

16

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

and decline (Skogan, 1990; Trojanowicz and Bucquerox, 1990) through the utilization of compatible strategies such as Problem Oriented Policing (POP) (Goldstein, 1990; Eck and Spelman, 1987; Reiss, 1992). Furthermore, a renewed priority is placed on improving the quality of citizens’ lives, particularly reducing the fear of crime (Cordner, 1986) and improving public perceptions of the police (Wycoff, 1985). This set of goals suggests the use of specific tactics, such as foot patrols, citizen surveys, and organizing volunteers and citizen groups (Kelling, 1996; Greene and Taylor, 1988; Trojanowicz, 1983). Finally, the community policing philosophy typically requires changes to traditional organizational arrangements (Angell, 1971). At its core, this involves decentralization, and thus increased responsibility and discretion for “general” officers in an effort to enhance morale, communications, and accountability (Angell, 1971; Greene, 1989; Bayley, 1994). The Weaknesses of Community Policing Despite its potential, community policing has been the subject of considerable doubt and, at times, outright criticism. Perhaps most importantly, the effectiveness of community policing has yet to be clearly demonstrated through its direct ability to reduce crime rates. This, however, may have less to do with COP than the complex nature of crime and the variables associated with crime rates (Trojanowicz and Bucquerox, 1990; Wycoff, 1985). In addition, it has been suggested that community policing is nothing new, but rather a return to the original intended purpose of the police as proposed by Sir Robert Peel in the 1820s. Moreover, critics have suggested that community policing is overly simplistic (Mastrofski, 1988), more “rhetoric” than “reality” (Bayley, 1988; Klockars, 1988), and merely a symbolic “drama of control” (Manning, 1988). Specific concerns have been directed at the impact of community policing on police effectiveness, discretion, corruption, and abuse of authority (Bayley, 1988; Goldstein, 1977; Sykes, 1986; Walker, 1995). Others suggest that some communities may not want closer relationships with the police (Grinc, 1994). Manning (1988) suggests that the goals of Community Policing may be contradictory, citing the potential difficulty of simultaneously reducing the a) fear of crime; b) actual crime rate; and c) costs of policing. Further, citizens (e.g., landlords, shop owners) have other interests (e.g., financial) that may

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Call for Police-Probation Partnerships

17

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

not be compatible with community policing efforts (e.g., citizen cooperation in crime fighting) (Buerger, 1994). The Future of Community Policing It seems that in many ways the Community Policing Era symbolizes a return to the fundamental ideals of policing in a democratic society. This is appropriate because many questions on policing have yet to be answered, such as the definition of the police role and the way to control police discretion effectively (Mastrofski, 1988). America’s experience with the professional model served to highlight the importance of encouraging the police to enlist the assistance of other agencies and the public in the pursuit of the answers to public safety questions. For these and other reasons, it appears that COP is here to stay-after all, it is already happening (Skolnick and Bayley, 1988b) with perceived positive results. First of all, there is evidence that officers engaged in COP have had positive experiences and attitudinal changes-areas that were particular weaknesses of the professional model (see Greene, 1989; Skolnick and Bayley, 1988a; Westley, 1970). Greene (1989) points out that while citizen involvement alone will not solve community crime and disorder problems, such involvement is essential to maintaining the democratic values of American society. Some have downplayed concerns about the potential for Community Policing to have negative political influences on the police, arguing that the promise of safer communities make such influences a risk well worth taking.

Probation-Police Partnerships: A New Hope? One relatively recent, particularly innovative strategy developed to increase the effectiveness and appeal of community corrections and community policing has involved the development of partnerships between community corrections officers and the police (Cochran and McDevitt, 1998). In some respects the working partnerships developed between community corrections and the police are inevitable, a logical outgrowth of the community oriented policing perspective assumed by law enforcement. In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

18

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

the level of attention these partnerships have received from researchers, policymakers, and criminal justice practitioners alike. For example, Lutze, Smith, and Lovrich (2004) conducted an evaluation of Neighborhood Based Supervision, an innovative community corrections program underway in Spokane, WA. The Neighborhood Based Supervision (NBS) program involves the geographically-based deployment of community corrections officers in the field in order (among other things) to enhance their ability to forge working relationships with local law enforcement officers and members of the community. Lutze, Smith and Lovrich (2004) confirmed that officers participating in the NBS program had closer working relationships with the police than did their traditionally assigned counterparts. Moreover, it was concluded that offenders being supervised under the NBS program had more positive relationships with their probation officers compared to other offenders under supervision in the community. Interestingly, this study also revealed that offenders supervised under the NBS program were monitored more closely than were offenders who were supervised by traditionally assigned probation officers (Lutze, Smith, and Lovrich, 2004). Although the reasons for these observed differences in offender experiences are not entirely clear, it is possible that these outcomes may be related to the ability of the NBS program to enhance relationships between probation officers and police officers. Specifically, the partnerships facilitated by the NBS program may contribute to increasing the willingness and ability of the police to effectively cooperate with probation officers for purposes of monitoring offenders. While police-probation partnerships are relatively new and have yet to have their potential utility fully proven, they offer much promise. For instance, police-probation partnerships have the potential to contribute simultaneously to the efforts of both law enforcement and community corrections agencies. On one hand, these partnerships may enhance the ability of police officers to provide public safety through more effective law enforcement. Likewise, collaborative efforts may increase the effectiveness of community corrections officers as they supervise and provide services for the clients on their caseloads. These partnerships, however hopeful in their promise, are not immune to problems. As a result, it is critical to identify potential problems associated with these partnerships--such as new emerging sources of stress, role conflict, and role ambiguity--and develop

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Call for Police-Probation Partnerships

19

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

effective means of dealing with these problems. Specific concerns focus on the potential problems of mission creep, mission distortion, and organizational lag (see Corbett, 1998). The first step toward proper management of interagency partnerships may simply entail recognizing their inevitability (whether sanctioned or otherwise), and developing a strategic plan for reducing the risk of problems and mistakes. Such a plan, however, requires the systematic identification and evaluation of the potential unanticipated consequences that threaten police and community corrections partnerships.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

CHAPTER 2

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Theoretical Framework: the Unanticipated Consequences of Social Action

It is often assumed that the consequences of purposive social actioni are recognized by the actor(s). There is also the general assumption that these recognized consequences serve to motivate the actor(s) (or justify their actions) in the first place. These assumptions concerning unexpected consequences, however, quite commonly oversimplify otherwise complex phenomena and patterns of behavior. Robert K. Merton (1936) suggests that social action not only results in recognized consequences (what Merton calls manifest functions), but also in unrecognized consequences (or latent functions) as well (1). Typically, recognized consequences are those which are anticipated, while those that are unanticipated generally constitute those which go unrecognized. After all, it is difficult to recognize phenomena that are not being looked for, especially if the observer lacks the inclination to look beyond the expected consequences of a particular action or set of actions. In this sense, anticipation often precedes recognition, although it may not necessarily be a prerequisite. Once the possibility of unintended and unrecognized consequences has been accepted, it becomes clear that the pursuit of successful social action (e.g., through appropriate policy decisions) calls for their timely and systematic identification (Elster, 1990). This is particularly true for those consequences that have potentially negative effects vis-a-vis the intended outcomes of purposeful action (Dorner, 1996). In some instances, negative consequences might even outweigh the positive consequences that serve as justification (and motivation) for the action. 21

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

22

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

In other words, policy decisions designed to reduce or resolve a problem (or set of problems) may in fact create new problems and/or exacerbate pre-existing problem(s) (Gooberman, 1974; Worrall, 2002). For instance, automotive airbags, despite obvious intentions to the contrary, have been blamed for the deaths and serious injuries of numerous children since they have been required in passenger vehicles sold in the United States (Norton, 1996). The recognition of these serious negative unanticipated consequences has resulted in the development of some alternative safety measures for child passengers. In this case, parents have been encouraged to place children in back seats or rear-facing car seats, and automakers have been forced to provide deactivation devices for passenger-side airbags in some vehicles. Although certainly not the case with airbags, in extreme cases it is possible that the unanticipated consequences of a policy could make that policy counter-productive even when the stated goals of the policy in question are substantively achieved. For instance, zero-tolerance policies for the enforcement of minor infractions such as jaywalking may be designed to reduce traffic congestion and enhance pedestrian safety. While such zero-tolerance policies may accomplish these stated goals, they may come at an extremely high cost in terms of the intensive level of human resources they require for their enforcement, keeping other--perhaps more important--problems from receiving the due attention of patrol officers. Moreover, such zero-tolerance policies may diminish the quality of police-public relations, and even lead to overall public dissatisfaction with city government. It is clear that unanticipated consequences complicate the task of conducting accurate costs-benefits analysis considerably. Exploration of these consequences is imperative in order to ascertain the true value of any given societal action or public policy. Merton’s work distinguishing between the manifest (anticipated) and the latent (unanticipated) consequences of social actions provides a useful theoretical framework for the critical analysis of virtually any type of social phenomena. Specifically, this framework allows for the researcher to move far beyond conventional evaluations of whether a particular policy decision arrives at specified goals. Evaluations of the achievement (or lack thereof) of formally stated policy goals may not reveal the actual implications of the policy in question. Furthermore, these formal policy goals may not be clearly stated, making such an outcome evaluation problematic. At best, evaluations of formal goal

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Unanticipated Consequences of Social Action

23

achievement--even when productive in most respects--often must be supplemented with evaluations of unanticipated consequences in order to demonstrate the true nature and full scope of the policy’s effects upon society. This far more substantial level of understanding allows policymakers and program managers alike to weigh the actual costs of an initiative against the realized, perceived or even potential benefits when drawing conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of the program or policy under study.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Unanticipated Consequences and Police-Probation Partnerships While the anticipated (and, in some cases, realized) benefits associated with police-probation partnerships are widely cited (Allender, 2004; Chermak and McGarrell, 2004; Corbett, 1998; McKay and Paris, 1998; Mawby and Worrall, 2004; Minetti and Malcan, 1997; also see Parent and Snyder, 1999, for a review), there has been little rigorous exploration of the unanticipated consequences of these initiatives. Worrall (2001) asserts that innovative law enforcement strategies have the potential to open up police organizations to certain unanticipated consequences including increases in civil liability lawsuits and citizen complaints. Although Worrall addresses the unanticipated consequences of community policing initiatives in general, policeprobation partnerships are not specifically included in his analysis. Little is known regarding the implications these partnerships may have for the professional identities of the participants involved. Further, the demands these partnerships will place on the larger organizations (e.g., to develop new policies to accommodate changes in job duties, etc.) are rather difficult to predict. Given the nonobvious nature of unanticipated consequences (inherently unforeseen and perhaps unforeseeable for the actors), understanding their scope and nature as they pertain to police-probation partnerships requires rigorous analysis of an active, ongoing program where these adverse consequences have been experienced by people who can articulate them and place them into proper context. The purpose of this study is to examine the unanticipated consequences of a police-probation partnership program in operation in Spokane, Washington. This will be achieved through a systematic investigation of these consequences using personal interviews and field observations to obtain an understanding of the experiences of actively

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

24

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

involved participants. This analysis begins with a discussion of purposive social action and unanticipated consequences seen as analytical concepts. In addition, some reasons for the advent of unanticipated consequences will be considered, and some pertinent examples will be given. The discussion then turns to the importance of research directed toward identifying such consequences for the purposes of reducing the threats of negative unanticipated consequences to successful (e.g., effective, ethical, etc.) purposive social action. Definitions of Concepts The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action, as explicated by Merton (1936), are essentially the unforeseen consequences of an act that result from a variety of sources or circumstances. In general, unanticipated consequences result from the actor’s limited ability to predict and/or control the outcome of an act. While predicting and controlling the outcome of any social action with complete success is unrealistic, there are certain factors that, if controlled, can reduce the element of the unknown. Minimizing the potential of negative unanticipated consequences requires full consideration of these factors, and proper appreciation for the threats they pose. It is important to note that simply because a consequence is unforeseen does not necessarily mean that it is undesirable; in fact, both anticipated and unanticipated consequences may either be positive or negative (2). The four types of consequences of social action are as follows: A. B. C. D.

Anticipated Consequences with Positive Effects Anticipated Consequences with Negative Effects Unanticipated Consequences with Positive Effects Unanticipated Consequences with Negative Effects

In other words, consequences can be either functional (perhaps even essential) or dysfunctional. Merton (1949) explains: The relations between “unanticipated consequences” of action and “latent functions” can be clearly defined...The unintended consequences of action are of three types:

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Unanticipated Consequences of Social Action

25

(1) those which are functional for a designated system, and these comprise the latent functions; (2) those which are dysfunctional for a designated system, and these comprise the latent dysfunctions; and

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

(3) those which are irrelevant to the system which they affect neither functionally or dysfunctionally, i.e., the pragmatically unimportant class of nonfunctional consequences. (reprinted in Sztompka, 1996:83). Of course, negative unanticipated consequences tend to be of greatest concern due to the threats that they pose to the success of the action being evaluated. Negative unanticipated consequences may take a variety of forms; those pertinent to this study are discussed below. First, some consideration of the definition of purposive social action is warranted at this point in the discussion. To say that social action is “purposive” does not require that it be characterized by clear or well-articulated goals. Merton (1936) limited his meaning of purposive only to action “which involves motives and consequently a choice between various alternatives” (Merton, 1936:894). For purposes of this study, the purposive social action under evaluation is the composite of activities involved in policeprobation partnerships. Action, Merton asserts, may either be formally organized or unorganized. Unanticipated consequences may result from either type of action, but Merton argues that the class of behavior involving organized action permits greater potential for analysis “since the very process of the formal organization ordinarily involves an explicit statement of purpose and procedure.[...]” (see Merton, 1936 reprinted in Sztompka, 1996:175). But Merton acknowledged that such an explicit statement of purpose and procedure is sometimes absent, however, and that in such cases “the aim of action is...nebulous and hazy” (Merton, 1936:895). This lack of expressed purpose is evident when examining new, loosely organized social policy initiatives such as the Internet and cloning (see Healy, 1997 for a discussion). To be sure, the concept of unanticipated consequences is relevant regardless of the clarity of the goals set forth for the action or set of actions under study. The goals of the actions under review in this study (however vague) were outlined and analyzed in Chapter 2.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

26

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Reasons for Unintended Consequences There are multiple potential sources of unanticipated consequences. Merton identifies and discusses five, three of which are directly relevant to the research questions at hand (see Chapter 4). Perhaps the most obvious of these sources is the absence of adequate knowledge, a condition Merton plainly labels as ignorance, necessary for complete anticipation of all consequences. Of course, total knowledge is practically impossible, and the quest for total anticipation of consequences prohibits, or at least inhibits, any action from taking place at all (although taking no action is to act in a purposive way). To put it simply, unanticipated consequences are virtually unavoidable. However, effective action requires that unanticipated consequences be limited to the point where the balance of favorable consequences minus unfavorable consequences results in acceptable levels of intended goal achievement. A second source of unanticipated consequences is error. Error may result from a variety of causes, but errors are all generally related to the level of understanding that is possessed during the planning and/or application process of an action or set of actions (e.g., a program). This could occur if, for instance, program managers failed to foresee and cope with existing barriers to effective police-probation partnerships. An example might be that police and probation officers are too busy to make the necessary time investments to make partnering a realistic possibility in the first place. Clearly, program planners and managers could underestimate the range and scale of obstacles such as these that either complicate or compromise program implementation. A third source of unanticipated consequences is the failure to consider other consequences of a particular action because of a preoccupation with the desired outcome. Merton (1936) refers to this as “imperious immediacy of interest” and notes that intense interest with a particular outcome may preclude objective analysis. In other words, this occurs during instances when the desire for the intended consequences of an action is so intense that the unintended negative consequences are either downplayed or entirely ignored. Merton points out that this source of unanticipated consequences, although a form of ignorance, is intentional and therefore distinguishable from “conventional” ignorance. While the success of a rational action often depends heavily on the accurate calculation of all likely outcomes, “immediacy of interest” may make such calculation impractical or even

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Unanticipated Consequences of Social Action

27

undesirable (Merton, 1936:900). For instance, the designers and managers of an innovative program may be so optimistic that they become reluctant or unwilling to consider anything but those results or outcomes that cast a positive glow on the program and their efforts. This is perfectly understandable when recognizing that the success of a program often has a notable impact on the designers’ and managers’ short- and long-term professional status. In short, program designers and managers are generally rewarded for “what works,” thus creating an incentive to either downplay or wholly ignore evidence that the program in question has undesirable side-effects. Drawing from Merton’s propositions, but focusing specifically on systems-level analyses, Dorner (1989) outlines four commonplace situational characteristics that inhibit a complete understanding of system dynamics, thus making unanticipated consequences nearly inevitable. These features are as follows:

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

--Complexity --Dynamics --Intransparence --Ignorance (mistaken hypotheses) Dorner (1996), as does Merton (1936), points out that ignorance and error (or mistaken hypotheses) are features of system activity that often result in unanticipated consequences. Dorner describes these phenomena in terms much like those used by Merton. However, by addressing the concepts of Complexity, Dynamics, and Intransparence, Dorner offers noteworthy contributions beyond those present in Merton’s earlier discussion (also see Healy, 1997). Complexity refers to the fact that many social systems are made up of numerous interrelated and interconnected components. Even the best efforts to model (or map) these many components and their relationships to one another constitute gross oversimplifications of the reality of system operations. This is particularly true, says Dorner, when recognizing the extremely complex nature of the interrelations of system components. For instance, a police-probation partnership is a complex system in which many players are involved. The specific nature of the interrelations among these players is rather difficult to identify--and especially difficult to predict. Consequently, unanticipated consequences associated with these interrelations--as a product of their complexity--are largely unavoidable.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

28

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

In addition to complexity, many systems are characterized by ongoing dynamics. In other words, the components of a system--and thus their relationships to one another--tend to change over time. This is common in any type of complex system, but particularly noticeable in instances when the specific actors (or players) in the system are vested with the power to act semi-autonomously--that is, without the direct authorization of a central leader. This is not to say that the system is without structure, only that that there are numerous factors that contribute to outcomes stemming from our actions. Policeprobation partnerships serve as an excellent example of a systems-level activity that is loosely structured, with specific officer interrelations being partly determined by each officers’ style of work, individual goals, current workload, awareness of benefits associated with collaboration, and so on. While the Neighborhood Resource Officer and Neighborhood Based Supervision programs structure this system of interaction to a certain degree, there are many additional factors that determine actual outcomes of the partnership between any groups of officers on any given day. Intransparence refers to the presence of certain factors that influence the operation of a system that go unnoticed to the observer. There are, of course, phenomena that can undermine the likelihood of goal-achievement but that are invisible to the casual observer. With police-probation partnerships there are many examples of such subtleties. For instance, police-probation collaboration may be desirable to enhance the ability of Community Corrections Officers (CCOs) to enforce the conditions of supervision against probationers. But this may come at a high price, such as cases in which CCOs predict recidivism on the part of specific offenders and share this prediction with police officers. A CCO might be inclined to engage in this sort of behavior if he/she feels compelled to overcome the stereotype (held by some police officers) of being “soft” on offenders. It is possible that under some circumstances, offenders return to the community but are not given a “fair” chance at successful reintegration. The goal of enhancing the enforcement of conditions of supervision may, in such instances, inadvertently eclipse other important community corrections objectives. These threats are not entirely uncommon in cases where goal achievement requires the actors to strike such a delicate balance among a series of (often competing) objectives, especially when training does not adequately prepare officers for these challenges.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Unanticipated Consequences of Social Action

29

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Specific Unanticipated Consequences of Police-Probation Partnerships The notion that virtually all activity produces unanticipated consequences, and that these consequences have potentially negative effects, is a widely accepted proposition in the social sciences. Nevertheless, few research efforts have been made to identify specific dangers associated with police-probation partnerships. Corbett (1998) points out that these problems have “at least the following three manifestations: mission creep, mission distortion, and organizational lag” (37). Mission creep refers to the expansion of the defined roles of officers as they become involved in partnerships. Corbett (1998) points out that since many police-probation partnerships are associated with community policing initiatives, the roles of probation officers expand in accordance with increased demands on their time and available resources. Police-probation partnerships require participants to engage in a plethora of new activities that generally are not part of traditional job descriptions. In Spokane, this was most obvious when observing NBSOs manage the new responsibilities associated with working out of COPS-Shops. For example, many NBSOs faced challenges associated with what are the routine obligations of traditionally deployed probation officers. Specifically, working in COPS-Shops isolated NBSOs from support and custodial personnel. This often made it difficult for NBSOs to process paperwork and efficiently obtain information from Department leaders (such as clarification on policy changes, etc.). In additional, this deployment arrangement resulted in many NBSOs being directly responsible for providing routine workspace maintenance, creating yet another strain on each officer’s time. Further, working in COPS-Shops made it necessary for NBSOs to field citizen inquiries and complaints, a duty that was taxing on officers in more ways than one. Traditional probation officers, on the other hand, typically work in centralized office buildings and are therefore more insulated from the immediate, face-to-face demands of individual citizens. The possibility exists that the new burdens placed on the officers participating in police-probation partnerships may compromise their overall effectiveness (Corbett, 1998). Clearly, the potential for such consequences must be addressed in order for these challenges to be properly managed.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

30

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Mission distortion refers to the potential of police-probation partnerships to threaten the mission orientation of participating law enforcement and corrections officers. For instance, Corbett (1998) points out that these partnerships may result in probation officers emphasizing law enforcement at the expense of their treatment mission. Corbett explains:

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Probation has always been seen as a philosophical battleground, where the “cop” and the “social worker” types fight it out for ascendancy. A move to work collaboratively with the police will almost inevitably be seen as a victory for the cops within probation ranks, and this victory has implications for agency morale and the relative emphasis given to functions based on the perceived reward ratios. In other words, the treatment types may wonder what has become of the agency they loved (38). Such a situation might encourage probation officers to embrace enforcement objectives and to de-emphasize rehabilitation-oriented objectives. The traditional approach to probation has required probation officers to strike a delicate balance between these objectives, and partnerships with the police threaten to tip the scales. For example, being located in neighborhood COPS-Shops where police officers and citizens gather resulted in NBSOs spending more time relating to police officers and community members on both a professional and personal basis. As police officers and citizens vocalize their displeasure with the presence of offenders in their communities, the potential exists for NBSOs to feel pressure to increase their emphasis on law enforcement objectives at the expense of the needs of their clients. Preserving the established DOC mission and equipping NBSOs with the ability to encourage police officers and citizens to support the legitimate needs of probationers will require managers to acknowledge these pressures and to develop countermeasures to overcome them. Organizational lag refers to the potential for agency administrators and managers to fail to provide police-probation partnerships the support necessary for their success. In some respects, DOC and SPD managers have done much to accommodate police-probation partnerships, such as placing officers in COPS-Shops and assigning NBSOs geographically-based caseloads. Nevertheless, it is prudent to

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Unanticipated Consequences of Social Action

31

examine more fully the actual consequences of these partnerships in order to assess areas where further adjustment of management practices and arrangements may be necessary. For instance, what are practical caseload sizes for NBSOs considering the pressures associated with mission creep? Should NBSOs in partnerships with the police be required to provide more intensive (or simply a different type of) supervision compared to their traditional counterparts? DOC managers must consider these and many related questions in order to provide the leadership, training and administrative support necessary for policeprobation partnerships to achieve maximum effectiveness. Focusing on mission creep, mission distortion, and organizational lag is particularly appropriate when examining police-probation partnerships given the present stage of their development. In particular, Spokane’s police-probation partnership (in its formal sense) dates back only to the assignment of NROs and NBSOs to shared field offices, a gradual and ongoing process that was initiated on a trial basis less than a decade ago (for a discussion, see Chapter 4). Consequently, it is certainly premature to attempt to examine the impact of this innovation on the quality of community supervision of offenders and community safety at this point in time. Rather, this study represents a process evaluation of the organizational-level implications of Spokane’s police-probation partnership. As such, the phenomena of mission creep, mission distortion, and organizational lag are fitting dimensions of study of what police-probation partnerships mean for the agencies involved in these collaborative, multi-agency efforts. The Role of Research As noted, virtually all social organizational change in social systems involves unanticipated consequences, some of which may have a negative effect on goal achievement. To be sure, even non-action is a type of purposeful action, thereby resulting in certain consequences, highlighting the important role of information and knowledge obtained through systematic research in maximizing accurate anticipation of the consequences of purposive social change. Research can help to identify, and perhaps reduce, the negative consequences--especially those associated with ignorance, mistaken hypotheses, and intransparance (see above). Research may also make it more difficult for negative consequences of action to go unanticipated due to

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

32

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

imperious immediacy of interest by bringing these otherwise overlooked outcomes into plain view. Finally, research has the potential to identify the underlying sources of negative consequences, and then offer an explanation for these troublesome phenomena (see Knight, 1921 for a discussion). It is not sufficient to ask the designers of innovative programs about the likely consequences of the implementation of their work. After all, the sources of unanticipated consequences are inherently linked to the limited insight of these very same actors. This is what makes third party observation and analysis necessary. In other words, objective research can reveal the scope and nature (and, perhaps, the sources) of consequences that have been unanticipated by the designers of public policy innovations. Through this process, the gap between uncertainty and risk (distinguishable in terms of the measurability of the outcome) can be closed to some extent. The goal of this study, then, is not so ambitious as to seek to eliminate risk from police-probation partnerships. Rather, it is to inform the program designers and the practitioners seeking to make the innovation work in practice in ways that allow them to understand more fully and recognize the nonobvious consequences of their actions--even if it merely means being better able to measure uncertainty accurately--that is, to take calculated risks as opposed to undertaking blind action. Minimizing uncertainties through the identification and exploration of unanticipated consequences enhances the actors’ ability to act in a prudent fashion, but it certainly does not guarantee perfection in any way. While confidence in luck may be sufficient motivation and justification for certain types of action such as gambling, police-probation partnerships necessitate that administrative judgments be based on much more solid ground. Ignorance often forces us, however, to overly rely on luck, even when we recognize it to be inappropriate. The nature of the demands placed on the American criminal justice system force constant change and a high reliance on luck. Police-probation partnerships are just one example of how these demands have created the impetus for change under conditions of severely limited knowledge. In recognition of this, the study at hand is designed to contribute to the base of knowledge upon which better judgments regarding police-probation partnerships can be based.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

CHAPTER 3

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Method

This study constitutes a case study that utilizes personal interviews and participant observation to explore the dynamics of Spokane’s policeprobation partnership. Due to the nature of this partnership, especially the small number of participants involved, a qualitative research design is necessary. Further, due to the fact that this partnership is yet in its infancy, this study is a process rather than an outcome assessment. Participants are questioned regarding their experiences working in this new, innovative community corrections capacity to determine the partnership’s effects on the their working relationships, the scope of their responsibilities (mission creep), the philosophical nature of their mission (mission distortion), and the support that they receive from their respective agencies to fulfill the (implicit and explicit) goals of the partnership (organizational lag). Their responses are evaluated in conjunction with the observations of the researcher to generate an analysis of the aspects of the partnership that raise the greatest concerns. The (real and potential) problem areas that may inhibit the full realization of the program’s goals are discussed in depth. Recommendations for enhancing partnership management are offered. This chapter describes the research setting, and sets forth the research strategy employed in the pursuit of this information.

The Research Setting The Community Spokane, Washington is located in Eastern Washington and has a population of approximately two hundred thousand people. It is the second largest city in the state, following Seattle. Despite the city’s modest size, its location in the center of the sparsely populated “inland Northwest” gives it a significant regional presence. Spokane has not 33

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

34

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

been exempt from the economic challenges that have faced the inland Northwest and adjacent regions in recent decades. The city is faced with considerable levels of poverty and drug use, and is perceived by many local residents as a “dumping grounds” for the state Department of Corrections because of the presence of numerous state correctional facilities (1). Overall, Spokane has a reputation for being a conservative, ethnically homogenous blue-collar community. Over the course of the past decade, however, efforts to revitalize the downtown core (e.g., establishment of a large mid-to-upper-scale shopping center, convenient parking, etc.) have changed the appearance of this area of the city to the casual observer. Perhaps the most significant changes (from a criminal justice perspective) have resulted from the emergence of a Community Policing program known as Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) that has brought satellite police stations (COPS-Shops) to many of the city’s numerous neighborhoods. Since its inception in 1992, this program has brought Neighborhood Resource Officers (NROs) from the ranks of patrol and placed them in these COPS-Shops to allow them to engage in community policing initiatives. In 2000, the Department of Corrections began a program known as Neighborhood Based Supervision (NBS). Through NBS, Community Corrections (probation) Officers are placed in some of these COPS-Shops in an effort to foster a community orientation for the provision of DOC services and to facilitate a partnership with local municipal law enforcement officers. The Agencies Involved At the time of the study, the Washington State Department of Corrections had approximately fifty-five Community Corrections Officers based in the Spokane area. This number includes NBSOs, but does not include supervisors, administrators, or assistants. The Spokane Police Department was composed of 292 commissioned officers, including the Chief, Captains, Lieutenants, Sergeants, Corporals, and Detectives, but not counting civilian employees or volunteers. Of these commissioned officers, about 175 were classified as police officers, senior police officers, or privates first class (SPD 1999 Annual Report). NROs are drawn from the patrol division and are included in these numbers.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Methodology

35

Diversity Concerns Although neither the SPD nor the DOC publishes detailed statistics on their respective demographic composition, observations clearly reveal that neither agency has achieved notable levels of diversity within their ranks. This, however, is not entirely inconsistent with the overall demographic makeup of Spokane’s (and Eastern Washington’s) general population. Despite the relatively small size of Spokane’s minority population, a number of COPS-Shops do serve specific neighborhoods that have significant minority populations. While the demographic makeup of the SPD and DOC may reflect the community being served in a general sense, this is decreasingly the case at the individual neighborhood level. Interestingly, there were no racial minorities in either NRO or NBSO ranks. The following statement by an NBSO highlights this issue:

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

...when I first went out to [a COPS-Shop] there were some real challenges...we had two white boys and a white NRO going into a neighborhood that was African-American and it was a challenge to get them to accept us and get them to become part of our team (114:C1). Despite this NBSO’s comments, the lack of diversity among NBSOs and NROs raised few eyebrows from within either organization. Officers did not voice concerns about the racial or gender makeup of their agency, nor their partner’s agency. The comment cited above, however, suggests that this issue may warrant further examination. It would be particularly appropriate to investigate whether the citizens in minority neighborhoods are as complacent on this issue as the officers themselves are. The Participating Officers At the time of the research project, there were seven current and three former Neighborhood Resource Officers (NROs) that were still employed by the Spokane Police Department (2). Of these, three NROs were women and seven were men. Of the seven active NROs at the time of the interviews, two were women and five were men. Due to the extremely small number of women working as NROs, the gender of

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

36

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

each individual participant will not be disclosed in order to maintain confidentiality. There were twelve current and one former Neighborhood Based Supervision Officers (NBSOs) still employed locally with the Department of Corrections (3). These included two women (both current NROs at the time of this study) and eleven men. As with their counterparts with the Spokane Police Department, these officers will not be identified individually by gender for the same reasons previously mentioned. There were no racial minorities in either NRO or NBSO ranks.

Research Design: A Case Study Evaluation of Police-Probation Partnerships

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Research Procedure The primary source of field data for this project was a set of in-depth, semi-structured interviews and numerous participant observations. Interviews were composed of open-ended questions and were conducted on location at the study participants’ offices (or equivalent settings) in the COPS-Shops. All interviews were scheduled in advance, generally by phone, and conducted in private to encourage candid responses. Participants were provided guarantees of confidentiality, and each participant signed an informed consent form (see Appendix). Each interview was recorded on audiotape (4) and the interview recordings were transcribed in their entirety (5). Interview sessions ranged in length from about 1.5 hours to well over 3 hours, with the average length of interviews being about two hours. Transcripts ranged in length from 8 pages to 29 pages, using 10-point font and single-spacing. Interview data were supplemented with field notes that were compiled based on observations made before, during and after interviews, as well as during scheduled “ride alongs” with the informants as they engaged in their “routine” duties. Generally, these notes took the form of simple jottings or scratch notes (see Sanjek, 1990), and these hurried notes were elaborated upon at a later point in time soon after the field observations. Specifically, methodological notes were taken at virtually every interview in order to record the tone

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Methodology

37

of the overall interview and the researcher’s general feelings about the informant’s demeanor, etc. Additionally, descriptive notes were taken regarding the goings on at the COPS-Shop, including the participant’s activities. Descriptive notes were also taken during scheduled ride alongs. These various notes served as the basis for more extensive write-ups following each observation period. Overall, these supplemental sources of data were used to place the interviews in their larger context, and to serve as resources for the researcher during the interpretation and analysis phase of the project.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Interview Schedules Refer to Appendix Managing the Interviews As Gorden (1992) points out, the ability of a researcher to control the field interview setting is limited by a variety of factors. There were many such factors that made it necessary for this researcher to adapt to the characteristics of the different facilities where interviews were conducted. Some COPS-Shops are quite crowded, bustling with volunteers, patrol officers, and members of the public. Others, however, are extremely quiet and rarely (if ever) are visited by anyone but the officers working in them. Consequently, it was necessary to conduct some interviews in the private confines of a small office space with the door closed for privacy. In other cases, interviews were conducted in the more comfortable setting of a conference room at a table designed for general meetings. Likewise, some of the interviews went completely uninterrupted while others were hampered by ringing phones and other minor distractions. These differences depended as much on the participant’s ability to successfully manage other demands as the actual volume of those demands. For instance, some of the officers had the luxury of selfsufficient volunteers who assisted them in obtaining enough uninterrupted time to conduct the interview without interruption. Other officers, however, receive little if any assistance from volunteers (or have “needy” volunteers--an even greater problem), and they must answer all incoming calls and greet visitors to the COPS-Shop personally. In general, the participants and the researcher successfully

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

38

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

cooperated in balancing each other’s responsibilities to make for highly informative and quite comprehensive interviews. The researcher took several measures to create a maximally communicative atmosphere (see Gorden, 1992) by doing such things as arranging chairs in a way to avoid the problems created by physical symbols (e.g., desks) and other etiquette barriers. Due to the nature of the various interview locations (COPS-Shops designed to be used as both private office and meeting spaces), the interviewer and interviewee enjoyed the availability of quality lighting, privacy, quiet, and other amenities (convenient access to toilets, drinks, parking, etc.-see Gorden, 1992 for an overview). In an effort to create what Gorden (1992) calls the “verbal setting,” the researcher made a brief introductory statement to the respondent at the beginning of each interview. At this point, the scope and general purpose of the interview was outlined. General comments included variations on the following statement: Thank you for agreeing to meet with me and taking the time to respond to our questions about your work. We are interested in learning more about your professional role and your opinions about it. This will help us understand not only what you do, but how you feel about your work. The interview takes about 2 hours, so let me know if you need to take a break. Keep in mind that all questions are voluntary, and you can choose not to answer any questions or to end the interview at any time. Everything you say is confidential, and your identity will not be included in any of our reports. Now, unless you have any questions, I will begin by asking [question 1--How long have you worked for ___].... Data Coding and Analysis The study participants were randomly assigned a number for tracking information about research subjects, and interview transcripts were assigned the corresponding number. Study participants were also referred to by these numbers in the field observation notes. Neighborhood Based Supervision Officers were assigned three-digit numbers starting with 1 (e.g., 101), while Neighborhood Resource Officers were assigned numbers starting with 5 (e.g., 501). In the text of this dissertation, select quotes are noted with the participant’s number to allow the reader to easily determine each participant’s

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Methodology

39

specific profession and to identify multiple quotes from single participants. Moreover, the participant’s number is followed by the question number that generated the response referred to in the text. For instance, a quotation followed by 101:A1 refers to participant number 101, and the response followed question A1 on the interview schedule. Mnemonic codes were developed for organizing the interview transcriptions (text) and field observation notes. This strategy was used to organize the lengthy transcripts into a manageable data set and to make it possible to compare interview data with field observation notes (see Bernard, 1994 for a discussion). Hard copies of typed interview transcripts and observation notes were edge-coded. This technique used in conjunction with semi-structured interview schedules with numbered questions made consistent in-depth data analysis and comparison possible. The following is a list of selected mnemonic codes and their descriptions.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Mission Creep MC:TIM MC:SUC MC:DUT MC:ROL MC:INF MC:PER

additional demands on participant’s time difficulties measuring success and productivity increased number of duties burden of clarifying professional role information dissemination responsibilities burden of closer relationship with public

Mission Distortion MD:ROL role confusion MD:PH ambiguous nature of job (e.g., dealing with “problem houses”) MD:SUC unclear definition of “success” MD:EXT use of unconventional rather than traditional methods MD:FAV pressure to play favorites (unequal service delivery) MD:NOT lack of mission distortion MD:GEN general mission distortion issues

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

40

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Organizational Lag OL:PS lack of peer support OL:MAN no manual to guide officers/unclear, inconsistent vision OL:GEO lack of geographically based caseload assignments (NBSO only) OL:GUN firearm controversy OL:TRN lack of adequate training OL:1CS failure to assign each officer to just one COPS-Shop (NRO only) OL:CL caseload too large (NBSO only) OL:GEN general organizational lag OL:REW failure of org. to reward non-traditional work OL:NOT lack of organizational lag OL:INF information distribution problems OL:CS failure of org. to generate community support/educate community

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Nature of DOC/SPD Partnership PRT:LEV PRT:PRO PRT:CON PRT:QUA PRT:SH CS:PAT INE:BUR INE:LEAD SI:BU

level of contact with partnering officers positives of partnership negatives of partnership quality of partnership stalking horse issues extent of patrol presence at COPS-Shops inequality carrying the burden of the partnership inequality: one org. “leading the way” for the other safety issue: backup

Officer Background OB:Q qualifications for special assignment OB:INT reason for interest in special assignment OB:DED demonstrated dedication to project ideals OB:MAT maturity as a qualifying characteristic OB:INT integrity OB:REQ informant’s suggested requirements for NRO/NBSO assignment

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Methodology

41

Goals of Program as Understood by Participants G:NPS G:INF G:ROL G:PUB G:EDU G:EDO G:COWN

neighborhood problem solving information distribution allows participants to understand each other’s roles building relationships with the public general education of the community educate the org. re: the “pulse” of the neighborhood fosters a sense of community ownership

Rewards of Participation in Program

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

RE:LG RE:FLX RE:MIC RE:EFF RE:DW RE:FUN

makes officer look good flexible schedule freedom from micromanagement perceived success/effectiveness get out of “dirty work” viewed as opportunity to do “fun stuff”

Coding/Observer Reliability In order to offer any convincing measure of a social phenomenon, the researcher must demonstrate that such measurement can be done reliably. Recognizing that there is always some degree of error when conducting observational coding (and, indeed, when measuring anything), it is necessary to assess the reliability of the utilized coding scheme. In order to assume that the findings generated by this study are reproducible, there must be evidence that the coders are able to consistently code the data in question. There are two types of reliability when referring to the analysis of qualitative data. Both types are specific to the number of coders that participate in the data analysis. Intercoder reliability refers to the extent to which the same coding results are achieved when the same data (e.g., text) are coded by more than one coder. Intracoder reliability, on the other hand, is the extent to which the same coder is able to produce the same results when coding the same data more than once (for a discussion of coding reliability tests, see Bakeman and Gottman, 1986). For purposes of this study, concerns with reliability focus on intracoder reliability since only one coder, the principal investigator,

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

42

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

coded the interview data. In order to ensure coding reliability, the first 10 pages of a random selection of six interviews (three NBSOs and three NROs) were recoded to determine the level of consistency provided by the technique implemented. These randomly selected interviews were recoded approximately six months after the interviews were originally coded. Once the recoding was complete, interviews were matched and compared on a side-by-side basis. The reliability score, as a percentage, was calculated using a formula developed by Miles and Huberman (1994).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

number of agreements reliability = -------------------------------------------------------total number of agreements + disagreements This formula requires the coder to simply compute and record the number of instances of code agreement (matches) and instances of code disagreement. Specifically, in order to generate a basic reliability score, first and second coded data were simply compared on a side-byside basis, with codes matched on a sequential basis--this provided a simple percentage of agreement (a.k.a. percent agreement). Using the first ten pages of the six randomly selected interviews for the comparisons, the following calculation was made: 338 reliability = ----------------------= .92098 338 + 29 According to Miles and Huberman (1994), intracoder (and intercoder) “agreement should be up in the 90% range, depending on the size and range of the coding scheme. The large size and relative complexity of the coding scheme used for this study may explain why the percentage of agreement falls toward the low end of this standard. Nevertheless, 92% agreement indicates that the coding system employed in this study has generated satisfactorily reliable results. Conclusions This case study is designed to generate information regarding the reality of implementing police-probation partnerships for the officers involved and the agencies that sponsor them. Special attention is devoted to how police-probation partnerships change the daily

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Methodology

43

activities of Neighborhood Resource Officers and Neighborhood Based Supervision Officers. In particular, this study will consider whether the partnership expands the scope of the individual NRO’s and NBSO’s responsibilities (mission creep). More importantly, the implications of these changes--according to the officers themselves-will be revealed. This information will allow agency administrators to more effectively assist officers in handling the challenges associated with participating in the police-probation partnership. In addition, this study will examine the effects of the partnership on the abilities of co-located officers to preserve the integrity of their mandated roles as police officers and community corrections officers, respectively. This study will offer insight into how the nature of enforcing the law and supervising offenders will be altered as a result of police officers and community corrections officers actively working together. This information will prove essential as agency administrators work to prevent episodes where officers overstep the procedural guidelines that dictate the limitations on their authority. Finally, this study will address some examples of how the Spokane Police Department and the Washington State Department of Corrections can more effectively accommodate the process of forging working partnerships. These partnerships will require both agencies to consider needed policy changes, to make alterations in traditional officer evaluation mechanisms, to make modifications to conventional approaches to intra-agency communications, and to fortify and redirect supervision networks. It is important to note, however, that conclusions regarding the overall effectiveness of police-probation partnerships fall far beyond the intended scope of this research design. While a degree of optimism can be detected when reviewing the comments of the police officers and community corrections officers that were interviewed for this study, reference to such favorable comments does not constitute compelling evidence regarding the effects of this partnership on public safety or the quality of offender supervision in Spokane’s neighborhood communities. Examining the impact of this partnership on crime rates, clearance rates, recidivism rates, or the public’s overall sense of safety has been reserved for future studies.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

CHAPTER 4

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Spokane’s Police-Probation Partnership: an Examination of the Anticipated Consequences

Broadly speaking, street-level partnerships between police officers and probation officers are nothing new. After all, a traditional job of police officers is that of serving warrants against probation and parole violators--an enforcement role that supports probation officers as they monitor their clients. Police officers and community corrections officers also have worked together informally on numerous occasions in more direct ways. These collaborations have generally occurred on an isolated, as-needed basis--such as when patrol officers provide backup for probation officers when they are involved in making an arrest of an offender who has violated his or her conditions of release. These partnerships, however, rarely entailed sustained and extensive communication or regular interaction between the officers of the two criminal justice agencies. In other words, working relationships between police officers and probation officers have not been unusual when dictated by practical--and usually immediate--necessity, but the benefits enjoyed by those involved have been rather limited, both in scope and duration. In recent years, efforts have been made in Spokane to expand and formalize these working relationships, and to officially sanction them at the organizational level. Various local and statewide programs have contributed to collaboration between the Spokane Police Department (SPD) and the State of Washington Department of Corrections (DOC). For instance, since 1990 the DOC has participated in a program to notify local law enforcement officials before releasing sex offenders from prison and placing them into a specific community. In another program known as Smart Partners, law enforcement officials notify 45

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

46

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

DOC officers when contact (stop and interrogate) is made with a person on state supervision (see Parent and Snyder, 1999). For all practical purposes, however, these earlier episodic partnerships were limited to periodic information sharing. By comparison, the Neighborhood Based Supervision (NBS) program, operated in close conjunction with the Spokane COPS program, entails a commitment on behalf of both the SPD and the DOC to engage in a more formal, sophisticated set of neighborhood-based partnerships.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Overview of the COPS and Neighborhood Resource Officer (NRO) Programs COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) is a not-for-profit (1) umbrella organization that is supported by the SPD, but which is not under the direct administrative control of the SPD. The core element of the COPS program involves placing specialized patrol officers, known as Neighborhood Resource Officers (NROs), in various neighborhoods across the city. These neighborhoods host citizenoperated substations, or COPS-Shops, which serve as the communitybased vehicle for community policing and, in fact, have come to symbolize the COPS program. The SPD “donates” NROs, limited support staff, administrative assistance, and office space in the public safety building and, at least sometimes, provides financial support for the COPS-Shop substations. The following is the formal COPS mission statement: To provide an umbrella non-profit organization for all Spokane Police Department Community Policing Programs which provide services to Neighborhoods for the betterment of the entire community. (Source: COPS 1999 Annual Report) The COPS-Shops The history of COPS-Shops in Spokane can be traced back to a critical incident that devastated one of Spokane’s most troubled neighborhoods, commonly known as West Central. On October 16, 1991, two young girls disappeared--one was discovered dead later that day, and the body of the other has never been found. That sad tragedy set off a chain of events that brought the community together to grieve-

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Anticipated Consequences of the Partnership

47

-and to change with regard to its collective effort to promote public safety. Citizens participated in forums to address various citizen concerns and the public safety needs of the neighborhood. Two local business owners and community activists proposed the idea of creating a COPS-Shop facility in the neighborhood, a place where the police could establish an ongoing local presence. In addition to being a police substation, the plan for the COPS-Shop included making it a community center where citizen volunteers could organize and neighbors could visit when they need help or have questions about issues pertaining to crime and the overall quality of life in the West Central neighborhood. The same two community members who proposed the COPS-Shop located a building in the neighborhood which was at that time up for sale. They promptly purchased the building and made it available for the project. This bold action further contributed to the community’s momentum toward coming together and turning the entire neighborhood around from a troubled to a supportive and inclusive community. The West Central facility became the first of 10 COPSShops scattered across the city that would be open for business by November of 1998. In addition, the Spokane County Sheriff’s Department replicated this program by opening similar facilities, known as SCOPE (Sheriff’s Community Oriented Policing Effort) stations throughout the vast area of Spokane County. As previously mentioned, Spokane’s COPS-Shops are much more than auxiliary police stations--a fact with far-reaching implications. For instance, the COPS-Shops are created by the neighborhood community, not by the Spokane Police Department. The Department does not determine which neighborhoods get COPS-Shops, nor does it decide when they will get one. The establishment of each COPS-Shop reflects the concrete preferences of each individual neighborhood where they have come about. A particular neighborhood will only get a COPS-Shop when and if the citizens living there decide that they want one badly enough to put in the work required. A core group of volunteers must first form at the neighborhood level, and they must demonstrate a strong base of community support. This grassroots approach is considered to be one of the keys to the success of each COPS-Shop, as well as that of the Spokane COPS program overall. Furthermore, each COPS-Shop facility is made available by citizens in each community. The SPD does not own these facilities, but

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

48

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

rather pays some portion of rent (although this is often a nominal amount) and otherwise provides limited administrative support through the Spokane COPS program. The buildings that house each COPSShop are typically made available by a local business or by a property owner. In one exceptional case (COPS Neva-Wood), community members agreed to purchase two adjacent buildings collectively, attach them, and actually “build” a COPS-Shop through an extensive restoration process. Otherwise, the terms of the rental or lease agreements vary from COPS-Shop to COPS-Shop, depending on the preferences of the actual owner of the building. Finally, the human resources that are necessary for the successful day-to-day operation and management of the COPS-Shops are made possible through the sheer dedication of the community volunteers. With the exception of one shop which has no volunteers, Spokane COPS-Shops had between 19 and 75 volunteers each in 2000 (average of 34). These volunteers logged between 2,589 and 9,089 work hours per shop (average of 5,024).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Substation Statistics for 2000 COPS West COPS Northeast COPS Southeast COPS East Central COPS Northwest TOP COPS COPS Logan COPS North Central COPS Southwest COPS Neva-Wood

19 volunteers 24 56 20 38 none reported 24 20 34 75

4654 hours logged 5677 5397 2589 9089 none reported (2) 2634 3493 2905 8777

Source: COPS 2001 Annual Report The volunteer staff members at each COPS-Shop are responsible for receiving calls, making referrals, recording and filing complaints, and otherwise reducing the burden on local emergency dispatch services and uniformed patrol officers, reserving them for more critical responsibilities (Source: Washington State Department of Corrections video “Neighborhood Based Supervision: Joining Hands with the

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Anticipated Consequences of the Partnership

49

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Community” [State of Washington Department of Corrections video, 1998]). Volunteers can refer non-emergency complaints to the appropriate people within the Police Department, a plan designed to contribute to greater public satisfaction with the services people ultimately receive. Moreover, the volunteers serve as a “filter,” redirecting those “non-policing” issues that can and should be dealt with by other public and nonprofit agencies within the community. Such a system also frees up the NROs to focus on proactive efforts to provide long-term solutions to neighborhood problems (State of Washington Department of Corrections, 1998). Since the Spokane Police Department and the Washington State Department of Corrections only pay for the salaries of full-time employees, building rent (or lease), and utility bills, the volunteers also conduct fund-raisers for the additional financial support required for the maintenance of each COPS-Shop. Goals of the Neighborhood Resource Officer Program The SPD’s day-to-day presence in neighborhood COPS-Shops is maintained via the department’s high profile Neighborhood Resource Officer program. NROs are essentially liaisons between the local community (3) and the police department. NROs are sworn officers, typically from the SPD’s Patrol Division. According to the SPD, the program’s formal goals are to: Work with neighborhood volunteers, residents, school officials, and merchants to address the problems that concern them in their respective neighborhoods. Strengthen the bonds between police and community, community and family, and define a more positive and interactive role for individuals in their neighborhoods. (Source: SPD produced NRO program flyer) The program description provided by the SPD further outlines the NRO’s general role: Neighborhood Resource Officers (NROs) help residents identify and solve problems that affect the viability of their neighborhoods. NROs are based in each COPS substation, and use that base to expand out into the community to help

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

50

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work citizens solve their own problems. NROs interact regularly with COPS substations in their area of responsibility, providing direction and presence when necessary. NROs provide a positive police presence. (Source: SPD produced NRO program flyer)

Perhaps a more accurate indication of the realities of the NRO position comes from the NROs themselves. Not only does this contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how the program really works, but it also highlights the extent to which the SPD has conveyed the aforementioned program goals to the officers assigned to carry out these responsibilities. Here’s how the NROs put it:

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Well, I’m a liaison between the community and the police department...[the Chief] doesn’t have a clue what’s going on out here unless somebody tells him (501:C2). I think that the main role that the NROs work under now is that of problem solvers. Again, we have NROs that work very well with the community groups at solving problems and we have NROs who work very well with other officers in solving problems by arrest. Depending on the neighborhood and what’s going on in that neighborhood will dictate how they solve that problem. But that’s basically their role--is that of problem solvers--and using anybody and anyone they can to solve those problems (503:C2). My job, primarily...is to help the neighborhoods overcome conflicts...we all try to emphasize that we’re a resource (504:C2). I think just teaching them how to handle some of their problems--I think is the best thing for the community that we could do (505:C2). Our primary role is--not really making sure they all get along-solving or giving them ways to resolve their own conflicts. “I don’t live there 24/7. You do. How I can help you is to give you the tools available to resolve the conflict. You live

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Anticipated Consequences of the Partnership

51

next door to these people. You’re going to live next door to them for 30 years. I get to go home to a different part of the city every night. So, here’s the tools you have available to you.” So, teaching them how to live together and each get what they want (506:C2). I try to develop a sense of community within the areas I work-to try to make, you know, the area think as one (507:C2).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

NROs are accessible; the other [patrol division] officers aren’t [nearly as] accessible (509:C2). As can be ascertained from these comments made by NROs, there are certainly some similarities in their understanding of their responsibilities and duties. For instance, some common themes include the idea that NROs should be accessible to the members of the community (e.g., the positive police presence role comment), and that NROs should communicate the community’s needs to the police department (i.e., the liaison function). In addition, most NROs refer to their core role as a problem solver; they spend a good deal of their time seeking solutions to public safety problems that have eluded officers working in traditional patrol. This problem-solving role is emphasized by the SPD in the program description, and it has clearly been internalized by these NROs. Some NROs also discuss the importance of their duties as resources to the community and teachers to citizens experiencing public safety problems, and they highlight the importance of these functions with respect to their ability to become involved in community development. While there are obviously some common themes in the broad nature of the NRO role, the program also accommodates the needs of NROs to emphasize specific duties that they deem most pertinent to their specific community’s needs. While NROs seem to see their role in a way that is consistent with that which is outlined in the SPD program description, the specific strategies and tactics employed in the process of fulfilling this role are more open to exploration than to the following of a set of standard operating procedures. This, perhaps, reflects an appreciation on the part of the SPD for the need to allow NROs to customize their specific policing style to the unique needs of the particular neighborhood to which they are assigned.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

52

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Overview of Neighborhood Based Supervision

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

In the 90s [we started saying], “okay, if Community Oriented Policing works, why don’t we use that with Corrections?” (115:A6) Like their counterpart agencies across the country, the Washington State Department of Corrections was faced with intense public criticism throughout the 1980s and 1990s. A series of widely publicized incidents of DOC failures served as a wake up call to Washington State DOC officials that it was time to explore sweeping changes to the traditional approach taken to community supervision. In failing to provide for the comprehensive and frequent monitoring of offenders, the agency’s public image was that the department could not be counted upon to protect public safety. The DOC began the long process of rebuilding confidence in its programs and personnel by admitting that they were hampered by limited information about the offenders under their supervision. DOC administrators agreed that it was time to generate some new, unconventional ideas to curb public criticism and to enhance both the quality and quantity of supervision of offenders in community corrections status. Recognizing that the community’s role in corrections could be made similar to what it had become in law enforcement in Spokane, in 1993 DOC officials began the development of a program that would provide an alternative to traditional community supervision practices. This program, formally known within the agency as Neighborhood Based Supervision (NBS), placed a number of DOC officers, commonly known as Community Corrections Officers or CCOs, in neighborhood offices where they would be in closer geographic proximity to the clients on their caseload. Furthermore, placing CCOs in specific neighborhoods was designed to allow them to establish relationships with other criminal justice and social service agencies, as well as citizens, in the community in question. These new CCOs were assigned the title of Neighborhood Based Supervision Officers (referred to as NBSOs for the purpose of this study). In addition to placing officers in the community setting, Neighborhood Based Supervision incorporates operational partnerships with other criminal justice agencies--especially local law enforcement and various social service agencies. Spokane’s COPS-Shops emerged as the most appropriate home base for these officers. In these

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Anticipated Consequences of the Partnership

53

locations, NBSOs would have the opportunity to develop and maintain close working relationships with the Spokane Neighborhood Resource Officers stationed there, as well as develop closer relationships with patrol officers that frequent these facilities. At the time of this study, 6 of the 10 COPS-Shops housed a total of twelve (12) Neighborhood Based Supervision Officers (2 each).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Goals of the Neighborhood Based Supervision Program Neighborhood Based Supervision represents a notable departure from traditional community corrections practices. In an effort to enhance both offender control and successful reintegration into the community simultaneously, Neighborhood Based Supervision represents ...a new way of doing business for the Department of Corrections (DOC). NBS involves DOC becoming a partner with the community in crime prevention efforts. NBS places Community Corrections Officers (CCOs) within Community Oriented Policing Substations (s), where they work cooperatively with community members. Since each COPSShop neighborhood is different, NBS CCOs tailor their interventions to the unique needs of the communities they serve. (NBS brochure issued by DOC) The NBS program vision/mission statement further elaborates on these objectives thusly: The Neighborhood Based Supervision Program is committed to work in partnership with the community, law enforcement, and other shareholders to help promote safety and improve the community’s overall quality of life. (NBS brochure) (4) More specifically, Neighborhood Based Supervision has three particular goals: 1) redefining the client; 2) broadening the professional working roles of Community Corrections Officers; and, 3) establishing and/or strengthening working partnerships with other criminal justice agencies. These goals are based on the recognition that the community

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

54

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

is a major stakeholder in community corrections and, like offenders, deserves consideration as a client (hence, redefining the client). Further, these efforts are directed at designing offender supervision programs that recognize individual offender attributes, special needs, and unique circumstances. It is believed that such an approach will reduce recidivism and otherwise contribute to offender success and to the enhancement of community safety. For purposes of this study, primary emphasis will be placed on exploring the third goal mentioned above: establishing and/or strengthening working partnerships with other criminal justice agencies. Primary emphasis is placed on the partnership between these NBSOs and NROs, specifically. The goals of redefining the client (goal #1) and broadening the professional working roles of Community Corrections Officers (goal #2) are incorporated into the scope of this study, but only to the extent to which these goals influence (or are influenced by) this partnership. As with NROs, it seems necessary to consider the perspectives of the NBSOs themselves on their professional roles and on the goals of the Neighborhood Based Supervision (NBS) program. This listing of commentaries on Neighborhood Based Supervision program goals offers insight into more than just the practitioners’ views of their professional role(s), but also reveals the extent to which the DOC has been successful at implementing the formal goals of the program into practice at the street level. Here’s how the officers view the program: Well, it’s working with offenders in the community, working with the community, the people in the community, the providers--kind of knowing your area. It’s like, “gee, I’ve heard that address before. Yeah, that’s a drug house, we know that.” Okay, so then that gives us a lot more information than if we didn’t know the area. Also the people in the community know us. They don’t hesitate to stop and say “hey, I need to talk to you,” you know, and give us information on offenders or people...so that’s how I define it (102:B30). Well, I don’t know how to define it. I guess it’s working with the community and the different agencies which include the police and CPS and with those offenders that live in the area. The coordination between everyone--it’s closer, it’s quicker,

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Anticipated Consequences of the Partnership

55

it’s smoother, it educates them, it educates us, it educates the community. I don’t know what exactly, an exact definition for NBS other than it’s--literally--you’re out there (105:B30). It’s a whole bunch of people all working together to try to improve their neighborhood (104:B30).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

I define NBS as the Department of Corrections entering into a partnership with law enforcement and other agencies, including citizens to address the neighborhood’s problems. Not only crime prevention. We did a lot of things...that weren’t really criminal in nature, but they were issues that were problems that were affecting the neighborhood. Whether it be garbage, whether it be junk cars, whether it be neighborhood disputes, whether it be problems in the park with something. You’ve kind of got to go outside--if you are going to be a Neighborhood Based Supervision Officer-you’ve got to be willing to go outside the scope of the traditional CCO duties and responsibilities and be willing to take on some other things (114:B30). [W]e’re physically located in the neighborhood where we supervise offenders. The theory is that we’re in a partnership with the police and the volunteers in the community and other stakeholders, you know, service providers, churches, and business people, whatever that might be, you know (111:B30). These officers emphasize the idea that, with NBS, they aren’t working alone. A central part of the program is working with other stakeholders in the process of supervising offenders. Further, despite the fact that it is not an explicit component of the formal goals of the NBS program, some NBSOs emphasize the importance of geographical caseload assignment in their definition of the program. After all, the traditional organization of community corrections involves placing CCOs in centrally located state office buildings and assigning them caseloads composed of clients who reside in a variety of locations. In other words, the clients on any specific traditional CCO’s caseload are often scattered across the landscape of Spokane, and often in surrounding rural areas as well. (5) These factors

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

56

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

have placed considerable obstacles in the paths of traditionally oriented CCOs in terms of their ability to develop ties with citizens as well as open working relationships with other criminal justice and social service agency personnel. NBSOs discuss the implications of this: You can get closer to them [clients]. The old mind-set was it was all based in one big building and you just all went in different directions out of the one big, centralized building. We might have people on the north end of town, south end of town, west, all over the city. Whereas then, it took us a lot of time to get to each one. Whereas [with NBS], we are given one small area. So, in that area you are able to know all the businesses, people, the offenders better because you weren’t working out of the main office, you are working out of the community (110:A5).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

It doesn’t take being about six months in an area [this] size to get to know every street and everything because you are going up and down and you see what is going on and you begin to see the interplay of what goes on (112:A5). ...that was one good thing about NBS, is that you really get to learn the dynamics of the neighborhood. We knew who was running with whom, who was doing what...you’re right there in the neighborhood every day, you kind of feel like you get a very good sense of exactly what’s going on. You can predict things! (114:B26). Some NBSOs have an idea of what NBS is supposed to be, but don’t necessarily feel that the goals of the program apply to them. I would define it as us, Department of Corrections employees, being more involved and knowledgeable about what’s going on in the neighborhood of the people that you supervise--but that doesn’t apply here. But, I think it does work decently in some of the other [COPS-Shops] (106:B30).

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Anticipated Consequences of the Partnership

57

Well, of course, like I’ve already said, my position is unique since I don’t supervise offenders that live in the community-located, you know, where the COPS-Shop’s located. This is just kind of a base station. So that’s kind of difficult to answer (104:B30). (More on this phenomenon in chapter on Organizational Lag) Clearly, articulating the goals and objectives of NBS is a rather difficult task for some NBS officers. In fact, the NBS program works quite differently for some NBSOs than for others. There are a variety of reasons for this, and some undesirable differences are more easily remedied than others. These issues are addressed throughout this study.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Participants: How They Got Involved The Participants An important factor to consider when examining any criminal justice program is the set of criteria used to determine who is allowed to participate in the program. Ideally, of course, participants would be chosen based on their qualifications (e.g., experience) and their demonstrated commitment to program goals--in this case, the broad goals being a community-focused orientation to policing and to offender supervision. Indeed, the NROs and NBSOs interviewed for this study were generally selected through a rather formal procedure that required them to engage in an extensive interview process where they were screened by a panel that typically included senior police and corrections officials (6) and some citizens from the neighborhood (7) wherein they are to be placed. After the interview panel makes a decision--usually that of reducing a list of candidates to three finalists-upper-level administrators in the Department of Corrections or the Spokane Police Department ultimately must make a final selection (8) (112:E15). Officers’ Levels of Experience The extent to which an officer’s level of experience determined the decisions of the selection panels can only be determined accurately through an extensive evaluation of the process itself--an endeavor which falls far beyond the scope of this particular study. Nevertheless, much can be learned by examining the ultimate outcomes of their

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

58

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

decisions. For instance, the amount of prior experience each officer possessed at the time of this study is listed as follows. NBSOs Participant number

Years of experience in Community Corrections

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

101 4 103 10 105 16 107 3 110 15 112 5 115 3 Average--8.7 years NROs Participant number

Years of experience in policing

501 28 503 27 505 8 507 29 510 17 Average--19.6 years

Participant Number

Years of experience in Community Corrections

102 104 106 108 111 114

6 20 7 5 6 13

Participant number

Years of experience in policing

502 504 506 509 511

20 15 10 29 13

The difference between the respective levels of experience of NBSOs and NROs is rather dramatic. NROs, on average, had over double the experience (in years) of their NBSO counterparts. This is an especially sharp contrast when considering that police officers are eligible for retirement after 25 years on the job while NBSOs are not eligible for retirement until the age of 59.5 years. The point to be made here is that the average NRO is nearing the latter stages of his/her career while NBSOs tend to be less experienced officers with many years of duty

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Anticipated Consequences of the Partnership

59

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

lying ahead of them. This may have influenced how the NROs and NBSOs who participated in this study perceived their respective jobs. For instance, several NBSOs pointed out that their interest in the NBS position was related to the fact that it constituted a promotional opportunity (see comments below). These findings are consistent with those of Miller (1999). In contrast, the Spokane Police Department NROs had a strong tendency to state that they were attracted to the job for very different reasons. A desire to overcome the limitations of working on patrol and to embark on new challenges were a pair of common themes expressed among the NROs interviewed (more on this below). Reason for Interest in the Job In order to understand the participants in this study, it is important to analyze the factors that influenced their decisions to become involved in the NRO and NBS programs, respectively. This analysis will provide insight into the nature of the circumstances that brought the actors involved in these police-probation partnerships together. This element of the study affords an important opportunity to understand the investments, or lack thereof, that the police-probation partnership participants put forth in order to make this initiative possible. In addition, it sheds considerable light on the extent to which the participants can be expected to devote themselves to the broad goals of the agency programs under which they operate. NBSOs Several NBSOs pointed out that a primary factor influencing their initial interest in the NBS program was the freedom associated with working out of a COPS-Shop. Most NBSOs described themselves and their fellow NBSOs as self-starters, and they enjoyed having the ability to exercise discretion when it comes to things such as their daily work schedules. In addition, being in a COPS-Shop helped some officers to feel a little more insulated from the internal politics that are typically a dreaded burden in the large state office buildings. Each officer was asked, “what initiated your desire to become an NBS officer?” One NBSO put the source of interest in very simple terms: ...the opportunity to work without a supervisor standing over my shoulder (102:A4). Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

60

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Other NBSOs explain their motivations thusly: [To] work in a specific neighborhood versus working all over the city (103:A4). To work closer with the community (110:A4). It sounded like something kind of cutting edge...so when this opened up, and not only was it something that I was interested in because I was interested in the field, but it was [also] a promotional opportunity for me (105:A4). Some NBSOs, however, became involved in the program pretty much by accident. A couple of officers put it this way:

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

...I did go into it rather blindly and it was something new, which I sort of wanted to get my feet in. In case, you know, this turned out to be the greatest thing ever, I wanted to say that I was there (106:A4). ...I wanted to come back to Spokane...so this was the only position open, so I applied for it [laughing]. I was in the interview process, so I was just applying for things that were open and they happened to pick me, so I said, “all right.” (107:A4). Another officer suggests very different reasons for his/her assignment to a COPS-Shop. Not surprisingly, this officer was one of the NBSOs whose COPS-Shop had no geographical relationship to his/her particular caseload. The NBSO explains: I was asked if I wanted to work out of a COPS-Shop and really it was about space available. The office I had in [one of the main DOC office buildings] had to be used for the business office or something else--lack of space. The neighborhood was willing to accept me here without any local caseload--understanding that my primary assignment would be [another] county (104:A4).

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Anticipated Consequences of the Partnership

61

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

While these comments reflect a wide range of reasons for being interested in becoming involved in the NBS program, they do not necessarily indicate a particularly strong philosophical commitment to program goals. Obviously, the notion of working more closely with the community was attractive to some, but beyond such vague rhetoric few NBSOs make reference to any perceived virtues of NBS such as the program’s ability to accommodate more comprehensive and effective supervision strategies. Moreover, there is little in these comments that reflects the NBS program’s formal goals as outlined by the DOC. This is not to say that NBSOs don’t see NBS as a better way to “do” community corrections--there is much to indicate that they do; however, NBSOs said little to indicate that NBS goals provided the initial impetus to participate in the agency’s NBS program. NROs While NROs pointed out a variety of benefits associated with being NROs, (9) many mentioned that the NRO position was attractive because at some point working patrol tends to make officers feel somewhat helpless, feeling that they need something more to achieve a sense of accomplishment in their work. In other words, the officers gravitated toward their positions as NROs because the job offered them challenges, career opportunities, and challenging but achievable goals they couldn’t experience in patrol. These findings are consistent with Miller’s (1999) research on officers involved in community policing initiatives. For instance, patrol officers have very little freedom in the amount of time they devote to any particular problem. The constant stream of calls keeps them moving from one problem to another, and forces them into a predominantly reactive stance. As a result, patrol officers rarely get to see the ultimate results of their work, making a sense of accomplishment rather elusive. One NRO simply pointed out that patrol was “too empty.” In one way or another, every NRO referred to the drawbacks of patrol work as a major factor influencing their initial interest in working as NROs. They all voiced an interest in doing something different than running from call to call and putting Band-Aids on recurring problems. In their words: With police work, you kind of don’t get to see the end results of some of the things that you work on...so, what’s nice about [being a] Neighborhood Resource Officer is you almost feel a little bit attached because you’ve taken a community and

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

62

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work people and faces and a neighborhood and you become invested more so in what’s going in on that area and you kind of own it (506:A4). I saw that patrol wasn’t working. It wasn’t working for the community, it wasn’t working for the police department, it wasn’t working for the citizens. And a lot of us feel that there’s a better way of doing business than reactively on patrol calls. NRO-ing is the vehicle (507:A4). Patrol seemed like it was going nowhere...(509:A4).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

...I was just used to driving around in a police car and taking calls for service and taking people to jail and writing tickets and having coffee and having lunch and then going home. So I needed something more--something that was challenging (510:A4). When the COPS-Shops started opening, I thought, “God, this is right up my alley. This is what I know how to do.” ...why I wanted this is because I believe in it. It works (501:A4). I wanted to do something a little different. It turned out to be a LOT different (503:A4). In explaining the factors that motivated them to apply for COPS-Shop positions, NROs effectively project the image that they have embraced the basic goals of the NRO program specifically, and community policing more generally. As a group, NROs had considerable insight into the limitations of patrol work in solving problems on the neighborhood level. NROs, like NBSOs, frequently pointed out that one of the nice things about working in a COPS-Shop was the freedom that came with working away from the direct scrutiny of a supervisor. But while many NBSOs frequently referred to such freedom as a factor influencing their initial interest in working in a COPS-Shop, NROs emphasized far more substantive themes such as a philosophical commitment to change and, specifically, the goals of the NRO program. Each envisioned the NRO job as being innovative, necessary, unique, and many simply believed that community policing worked. The

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Anticipated Consequences of the Partnership

63

differences between NROs and NBSOs may seem subtle on the surface, but there seems to be a significant distinction between the organizational cultures of the SPD and the DOC coming through in the comments of NROs and NBSOs. It appears that the SPD may be more effective in providing officers with support and a sense of the organization’s commitment to innovation than is the case with the DOC. Perhaps more importantly, it appears that the SPD has been more effective in providing its officers with real opportunities to actively engage in activities that represent a noticeable departure from traditional policing.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Partnership Working out of COPS-Shops makes it possible for NBSOs and NROs to work together in ways that they never have before. In general terms, NBSOs and NROs are encouraged to communicate, share information, and engage in a range of mutual problem solving activities. Despite a lack of clear guidelines pertaining to precisely what officers should and shouldn’t be doing together, the NBSOs and NROs had similar positive feelings regarding the benefits of this type of working relationship. There is the belief that the partnership allows NROs to address neighborhood problems more effectively--especially when a probationer is involved--by allowing them to add DOC resources to the range of available solutions. In addition, NBSOs gain assistance in the monitoring of offenders because NROs (as well as patrol officers) can better serve as additional “eyes and ears,” reporting information back to the NBSO. These benefits, in theory, will contribute to the effectiveness of both NBSOs and NROs--a welcome development for both groups. But the NBS and NRO programs are both about more than just doing more of the same. Both programs emphasize changes to the professional roles and responsibilities of the officers involved. The goals of each program implicitly and explicitly refer to various innovations that would change the very nature of the way policing and community corrections, respectively, are done. Although much has been accomplished and many changes are noticeable, these programs are still in the process of achieving these goals. Consequently, much has been accomplished through the partnership, yet the program is best characterized as a work in progress.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

64

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

While both groups of officers praised the benefits of the partnership, neither saw it as a panacea in their respective lines of work. NROs and NBSOs had a tendency to look at each other realistically as one tool among many that either party can use to solve specific community public safety problems. While both NROs and NBSOs were highly supportive of working with one another, they tended to see the partnership in rather narrow terms--corresponding closely with their respective traditional roles. This was most evident when observing the extent to which NROs and NBSOs collaborated in the field. Even more telling is the nature of their joint field operations, which were typically limited to rather traditional activities. Although both NBS and NRO program goals emphasize the notion of expanding the roles of officers, it appears that moving beyond traditional role classifications will be an ongoing challenge. Getting NROs and NBSOs to see themselves differently is just the first step. These partnerships will bring about only the most limited changes until NROs and NBSOs start seeing each other differently, too. On the other hand, noteworthy innovations were far more apparent when observing the less formal processes of bond-building and information sharing-practices that often occurred spontaneously as officers traveled along similar paths during their daily routines in the COPS-Shops. Collaboration The extent to which different NBSOs work directly in the field with police officers varies, but not dramatically. The most noteworthy aspect of the level of police-probation collaboration in the field is how little actually occurred, especially joint NBSO-NRO fieldwork. Some NBSOs take a police officer--perhaps an NRO, but not necessarily-with them in an arrest situation and occasionally on routine field visits of probationers as well. But even the NBSOs that work the most closely with police officers tend to limit their joint field operations to instances where an arrest or search for contraband (e.g., drugs, stolen property, guns, etc.) is likely to take place. This limited degree of collaboration in the field suggests that the officers may pigeonhole one another and only identify a mutual interest in field work when an arrest or search is necessary (this phenomenon is more fully discussed below). Overall, most NROs only accompanied a CCO (NBSO or otherwise) in the field a couple of times per month. Some individual NBSOs, however, request backup quite regularly--but regular patrol

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Anticipated Consequences of the Partnership

65

officers rather than NROs frequently meet these requests specifically. These NBSOs explain: If I feel that somebody is unstable, then yeah, a lot of the time I take [police officers] them with me. [The NRO] has been in the field with us a couple of times, just looking around when there haven’t been arrests. But mostly just arrest situations (108:B28b). [Police officers] normally only go if we’re doing an arrest or a search or unusual kind of circumstances, you know. ...We try to [take an NRO], but if he’s not available, we get somebody else (111:B28b).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

We [take police officers] in arrest situations, search situations, or a situation where we are dealing with someone known...we suspect that something’s going on and so we just don’t want to walk into something, we want to come in with a larger presence. That’s when we bring in the police department (112:B28b). Whenever I am going out on an arrest situation, we always have law enforcement. Routine home visits--ten percent of the time, maybe. If there’s other issues that, say, law enforcement has with my offender, then we’ll go out together...(114:B28b). NROs were asked how often they accompany a CCO on field visits of offenders. They suggest a level of collaboration consistent with that described by the NBSOs: [I] usually only [accompany a CCO in the field] when they’re anticipating a problem. If they’re going to make an arrest or if they’ve got a guy that’s really acting out or is wired or, you know, stoned or something. Then they’ll get a hold of me and I’ll either go with them or I’ll arrange to have somebody go with them. [How often does this occur, say, in a month?] Three times, four times a month, maybe. That may be optimistic (507:B9).

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

66

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work Not as often as I’d like to. They have two of them here, and their car now has a shield [separating the forward and rear cabin compartments for officer safety when an arrestee is seated in the rear seats]. When they didn’t have a shield, I went probably more often. But a lot of times they’ll have to go when I’m not here or I’ll be in the middle of something...[how often specifically?]. I’d say, maybe, once a month that I actually, you know, the timing is right and I get to go (504:B9).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Maybe once a week--maybe (505:B9). That depends. [It’s been] more of a--lately--more of a monthly thing. It depends on how the CCO wants to do their caseload. I think, back in the earlier days, when I had those two other DOC officers that were here so long, they would request our help more often because they knew what the benefits of it were. The younger ones don’t know that, so they don’t request our help as much. They haven’t reached the point where they’re seeing the benefits of it as much as the older ones were that were more established (509:B9). The interesting aspect of police-probation collaboration in the field is not necessarily the level of collaboration, but the nature of the collaboration taking place. Specifically, the police-probation collaborations in the field were surprisingly traditional in nature. Little innovation seemed to occur, but rather NBSOs still overwhelmingly relied on the police for help in making arrests and providing backup. Likewise, NROs had a strong tendency to rely on NBSOs only to the extent to which the NBSO could contribute to ridding the neighborhood of “problem” probationers--usually by making an arrest. The narrow terms within which NBSOs and NROs understood the mutual benefits of their relationship raise concerns about the potential of the partnership to truly change policing and community corrections in meaningful ways. While the goal of enhancing public safety is being served in the NBS program, the goal of enhancing effective offender reintegration seems to have a far lower priority for both NROs and NBSOs.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Anticipated Consequences of the Partnership

67

Facilitating Arrests One example of how NROs typically understood the benefits of the partnership in relatively narrow terms is that some NROs point out that working with the NBSOs enhances their ability to keep “problem people” off the streets. The extent to which NROs see different benefits associated with this relationship compared to NBSOs must be evaluated with the different goals of the NRO in mind. NROs as a group were clearly primarily interested in how the partnership would help them make arrests and conduct investigations on troublesome residents in “their” neighborhood. In this sense, the NROs seemed to have a slightly different set of objectives when approaching the working relationship.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

...I think [working together] just gives us another way to deal with [offenders]. We’re always--us as police officers--we want to arrest them. And so sometimes we don’t have enough to arrest them on a new charge, but with the DOC, they possibly can arrest them (505:B11b). [NBSOs] really, truly know everything about the people who are on their caseload. So, when I get one of them up in my area, it makes me eager to bring them back this information-because if I can violate them, what it means is, they have to move (506:B6). NROs had a tendency to be open to accepting assistance from any source that could contribute to solving a particular problem, but they didn’t necessarily see NBSOs (or CCOs in general) much differently than any other such resource. Many, however, emphasized the importance of making an arrest (as part of the “problem solving” process)--and when this was the case, they often looked at NBSOs merely as tools that could assist them in that process. While the NROs talked a great deal about “problem solving” through the use of innovative strategies, they still prioritized the removal of problem people--through arrests or simply chasing them out of their neighborhoods--as part of their solution. As a result, many NBSOs were “pigeonholed” by NROs as simply a resource to facilitate an arrest. It seemed as though many NROs just didn’t know what else the NBSOs could do for them. But some NROs have started to see arrest

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

68

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

as just an option rather than the default solution to problems--a change that appears to be at least partially attributed to the partnership. Now that I am working with DOC, we can say “hey, you need to straighten up, or--.” You have more avenues to go out there and fix problems instead of just “well, I can book them or I can’t” (503:B12). Statements such as these indicate that the police-probation partnership appears to be changing things, but rather slowly. While NBSOs can lend much more to the neighborhood problem solving process than merely offering another way to make an arrest, perhaps the best way to demonstrate this to NROs is through this partnership. Such changes, however, cannot be expected to be generated overnight.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Providing Backup ...they [police officers] have saved my ass more than once and I don’t have anything bad to say about them (106:C4c). While NBSOs were often pigeonholed by NROs and often are seen primarily as resources to facilitate arrests and/or removing “troublemakers” from the neighborhood, the stereotyping of counterpart officers went both ways. NBSOs had a strong tendency to emphasize the ability of NROs (and patrol officers) to provide backup for them in the field. In fairness, the increased availability of police backup for NBSOs is just another notable positive by-product of police-probation partnerships in Spokane. NBSOs perceived a much higher level of safety while working in the field than was the case before being assigned to the NBS program, and they universally attributed this to being stationed out of COPS-Shops. Unfortunately, however, the emphasis NBSOs placed on the importance of police backup actually resulted in NROs being pigeonholed into this rather narrow role. CCOs--NBSOs and otherwise--often prefer, for instance, to have police officers back them up when doing searches and making arrests. This makes perfect sense given the fact that, historically, CCOs have been restricted from carrying firearms. Although these firearm restrictions have been eased significantly in recent years, carrying a gun is still optional and many CCOs, including some NBSOs, remain

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Anticipated Consequences of the Partnership

69

unarmed. As a result, police officer backup continues to be seen by most, if not all, CCOs as extremely important to their effectiveness and personal safety. Consider these statements:

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

You know, if we’re going to go search a house and I need law enforcement backup and three law enforcement officers show up and I know all three of them and they know me, they know how I work and I know how they work, it gets to the point where--nobody ever enjoys going out, hauling, arresting people, you know--but it makes it a much more pleasant experience because you know who you are working with. Again, when you are working in a main office, you are working with officers from all different sectors, nobody really knows who you are or what it is you do...so in that sense, [working in a COPS-Shop] has really improved everything (103:C5). Because they were in the COPS-Shop...I would see [NBSOs] every day. I would talk to them every day. I would know if they were going to be going out and talking to somebody--if they wanted me to come with them...[but] they wouldn’t really call me out all the time to go with them as opposed to [some other COPS-Shops]...At [my COPS-Shop], they just kind of went out--if they had somebody that they wanted to arrest, I would go with them and help them...if they just had some reason that they wanted me to go out, I would just go out with them (505:B1). These comments are particularly interesting and suggest that this partnership is generating some real changes in the area of how these officers see each other. There appears to be a developing camaraderie among these officers that goes beyond the basic feeling that they contribute to each other’s effectiveness and personal sense of safety. There is a real indication here that these police and community corrections officers see their work as integrated. Moreover, these comments reflect a feeling among officers that they have a common culture. These types of collaboration typically occur on an ad-hoc basis, at the request of the CCO (or NBSO), and is frequently an informal

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

70

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

activity. The CCO generally makes a radio call to request officer assistance and then an available officer responds to the call. Some NROs explain the circumstances under which this might occur: ...they usually bring us along when they’re going--especially if a guy’s a little squirrelly, you know. They may be thinking he may run, or fight, or do something. It’s always nice to have that uniform there in the background (505:B14).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

...they (CCOs) call us or they call me and I’d go and I’d meet them and I’d get them in the front door and see that they safely get in and deal with an offender and get out (507:B7). Even though police officers have traditionally been somewhat available to probation officers on an as-needed basis, officers agree that the quality of this type of collaboration has improved dramatically for NBSOs working out of COPS-Shops. There are several reasons for these favorable changes. Perhaps most importantly, officers working out of the common, shared workspace provided by the COPS-Shops develop a rapport with one another that has been invaluable. The COPS-Shop enables officers from both agencies to know each other on a first-name basis, and to more fully understand the dynamics of one another’s respective jobs. Active collaboration tends to increase in both quantity and quality under these circumstances. In a big [main, state] office I might have a guy [living outside of town], and by the time I can get an arrest team together or a search team, or whatever, it might be an hour and a half before I can ever get up there. Call radio for law enforcement backup, it could be two hours. And then, you know, the guy’s gone or, you know, you have a cold trail. Whereas here [in the COPS-Shop], with an NRO, I can get backup in 10 minutes and in three more minutes we can be at the residence (103:B30). Well, it’s benefited, I guess, in response time...like when we ask, you know, when we call city radio and ask for backup...If Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Anticipated Consequences of the Partnership

71

they just recognize your name, they’re more likely to show up a little faster (108:C6). [Before] just getting backup might have taken a half-hour, whereas now I’m on a first name basis [with police officers] and often times I’m going out banging on the doors with them. So it’s great, it’s really brought us a long way in our ties with law enforcement and I think that’s really paramount as far as safety. I feel way safer when I have police backup (106:B30).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Oh, I know how to get backup quick, I know whom to call. And I think that they respond more quickly because they know who I am. And now it’s sort of personal--just like one police officer being backup for a coworker or a friend (106:C5). NBSOs clearly have strong feelings about the importance of police backup and there is widespread agreement among these officers that working out of a COPS-Shop has made such backup much more reliable and efficient. It seems that the COPS-Shops, and the partnerships they facilitate, have helped officers establish a bond that was previously nonexistent or, at least could be characterized as underdeveloped. While it is too early to assess the extent to which these changes have actually enhanced officer safety, the sentiments of the participants in this study indicate that future investigations devoted to such questions are indeed warranted. Regardless of the potential benefits, it may be inappropriate for NBSOs to overemphasize the role of NROs as merely (or even primarily) as a resource to assist during arrests and searches. It must be recognized that such trends make it possible for NBSOs to take advantage of the greater availability and convenience of police back up without capitalizing on the other potential benefits of the partnership. The thoughts of one NBSO put this all in proper perspective, and demonstrate how easy it is to justify some of these potential abuses: The positive things [about working with police officers] are that you have other people there, you have protection...you can, if you want to, have them do all the dirty work and fight with the offenders and get their uniforms ripped up instead of

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

72

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

your clothing and they have to roll in the dirt with the offender to subdue them...In fact, I think they prefer to do it and I think they enjoy doing it, so who am I to deprive them of that? (104:C4b). The NBSO who made this comment wasn’t joking about this, either. But, in their larger context, such sentiments are not all that surprising. Perhaps such pigeonholing is attributable, at least in part, to the belief held by many NBSOs that making an arrest is a priority for NROs. After all, police officers, including several of the NROs interviewed for this study, often refer to working out in the field (or on the street) as “playing” or as “fun.” Furthermore, many police officers liken the process of serving warrants for CCOs as “hunting,” and they make other analogies to their work that could lead CCOs to the conclusion that they are doing police officers a sort of “favor” when they defer potentially dangerous duties to them. Clearly, these perceptions--whether accurate or not--must be addressed in order to ensure that police back-up is used appropriately by CCOs. All of these misperceptions may prevent NBSOs from being more active in seeking NRO assistance in other capacities. If so, this may change over time as NBSOs begin to understand the principles of community policing and how these--at least in theory--should broaden the NRO role to include problem solving directed toward offender reintegration. Despite the widespread preference to work with the police, especially for purposes of additional backup, there are other factors that have limited the development of the police-probation partnership in this respect. For instance, DOC firearm policies make it difficult for NBSOs to reciprocate in the provision of backup, which is problematic for some police officers. See the chapter on Organizational Lag for a thorough discussion of this particular issue. Building an Understanding and a Bond Despite the fact that some NBSOs have very limited contact with police officers, most have a far more extensive relationship with the police than they did before being assigned to NBS. The benefits show that the partnership has the potential to help both NBSOs and NROs to overcome being confined to a specific role. This may be the key to the future success of these police-corrections partnerships. Some NBSOs

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Anticipated Consequences of the Partnership

73

explain how the relationship has allowed for a better understanding of each participant’s role in the partnership: If you see it both ways, I guess, you understand each other (108:C5). ...we educate the cops too just like they educate us on their rules and regulations and stuff like that (101:C8). I think it’s been a real educational process for both of us. I understand more of the operational-functional system of the police department--how it works and stuff (105:C1).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The COPS-Shops have played a significant role in these changes--this point is very important to emphasize. Many of the officers involved in the partnership scarcely had contact with members of the other agency and, naturally, they often possessed only the most limited understanding of how the other agency worked: [Before I worked in a COPS-Shop] I never knew [CCOs/NBSOs]. And if they weren’t out in the COPS-Shop, I probably wouldn’t know them right now. Like I said, I can recall--as I remember--I maybe had 4 or 5 contacts with parole officers in 30 years [before sharing a COPS-Shop with them] (507:B7). ...in the old--what I call the old days, when I came on the job-we didn’t work directly with the Department of Corrections like we have here...this is a lot different now where you have COPS-Shops where you’re actually working physically inside the COPS-Shop with those people in the Department of Corrections. They’re in the building with you. That’s a lot different. That’s a whole new ballgame from what it used to be (509:B5). [Working in a COPS-Shop has improved my relationship with the police] a million percent. A lot of officers stop by, getting to know the NRO, getting a better feel for where they’re at, head-wise...[it] gives them a better understanding about what it is that we do and why we do what we do...when you are

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

74

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work working in a main office, you are working with officers from all different sectors. Nobody really knows who you are or what it is you do...so in that sense, it’s really improved everything (103:C5).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

It is important to recognize, however, that the benefits of working together out of COPS-Shops are far more substantive than simply gaining a better understanding of each other’s professional duties. Of course, this helps each officer better understand how the other can contribute to a particular problem in the community, but fully successful collaboration requires much more. After all, no working relationship can be expected to be maintenance-free once it is established. Keeping these partnerships vibrant and the outcomes innovative demands that a certain esprit de corps comes into being. The officers themselves discuss the significance of such a bond thusly: [Working in a COPS-Shop] has got us in a closer relationship [with the police]. Where before we didn’t--you know, we might work with a bunch of police officers because you’re working with the whole of Spokane. Working out of a COPSShop, you’re working with a few. You get more intimate relationships. You get to know each other better (110:C5). I talk to them more--the ones around here [the COPS-Shop] and the ones up at SCOPE--you get to know them as a friend, get to know their jobs, you know, the stresses and difficulties of their job and they get to know the stresses and difficulties of our job and it kind of builds a bond. And so we ARE working together more. Before, you know, it was more of a separation--just by geography--you know, we were in our office and they’re somewhere else...and here you get [to where] they’re working with us and we’re working with them. It seems to be working pretty good. (107:C5). Despite the fact that, so far, relatively little has changed regarding the nature of police-probation collaborations in the field, it seems that significant changes are occurring elsewhere. There are signs of such change, for instance, as both NROs and NBSOs attest that working together continues to change their understandings of each other’s roles in the criminal justice system and even helps to create the basis for

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Anticipated Consequences of the Partnership

75

friendship. These changes are allowing officers to build a bond that may be the first stone in a foundation for change in the partnership overall. The first substantive indications of these changes can be seen in the area of information (or intelligence) sharing. Although extensive collaboration hasn’t spilled out into the streets in terms of a great deal of joint fieldwork, SPD NROs and DOC NBSOs do spend considerable time together in the office setting. With the COPS-Shops serving as the venues, both NROs and NBSOs are now assuming the new responsibilities of being integral parts of a new and enhanced system of communication that has started to develop among the officers.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Information Sharing ...by putting the whole story together, then you get to figure out the whole big picture (506:B8b). Although the extent to which NBSOs and NROs (and patrol officers) physically work together in the field is typically rather limited, sharing a COPS-Shop (and a certain level of understanding, as discussed above) opens the door for other types of workplace collaborations. By far the most remarkable innovations that have been spawned by Spokane’s new, more comprehensive partnerships between police and probation officers are found in the area of information sharing. To put it simply, the shared working environment provided by the COPS-Shops has literally opened the door for enhanced communication between DOC and SPD officers. Not only has the COPS-Shop setting removed the obstacles to such communicative interaction, but it has created direct incentives for officers to seek out each other’s professional knowledge. After all, the officers in any given COPS-Shop share responsibility for ensuring public safety in one specific neighborhood. This means that the NROs and NBSOs in any given COPS-Shop often face related problems, common concerns, and shared workplace challenges. Consequently, the knowledge each officer possesses is often pertinent to the other. In a way, working out of a common COPS-Shop results in NROs and NBSOs developing a common area of expertise. Never before has the incentive to communicate been so great, nor the lines of communication been so open. In many respects, such information sharing is the richest aspect of the NBS partnership.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

76

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work You know, they say information is power--that’s very true here. If you don’t know what’s going on, if you don’t have the information on who’s involved, or who you can use to solve this problem, then you’re fighting a losing battle (503:B4). ...working with [a police] officer in the office next door gives us a lot more intel[ligence] about the guys who are doing dumb things (103:C6b).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The sharing of...information is probably the biggest benefit to both agencies. Because the police officer, you know, probably doesn’t have a lot of the information that I have on my offender. I can share that with them, you know, and they may have some information regarding my offender that I may not have and we share that information until everybody kind of has all of the information that we really need to be effective in supervising that offender and preventing them from victimizing that innocent person (114:C4b). The coordination between everyone--it’s closer, it’s quicker, it’s smoother, it educates them, it educates us, it educates the community (105:B30). The COPS-Shop does much more than just enable NBSOs and NROs (and patrol officers) to communicate more efficiently because of their close physical proximity to one another. Sharing a common workspace has enhanced the effectiveness of the communication as well because the location of the COPS-Shop in the community places each officer in the center of a community-based exchange of information. In other words, being located in the community gives the NROs and NBSOs a much better perspective (a real “bird’s eye view”) on the problems facing their shared community. Furthermore, this information exchange often includes citizens--indeed, the NBS program often places the neighborhood’s citizens at the center of the discussion regarding offender supervision. Working out of a common office space does more than allow the officers to get to know each other better on a personal level. Specifically, officers can educate each other about the nature of their respective jobs, including their range of normal duties and their service

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Anticipated Consequences of the Partnership

77

objectives. Further, working out of the same COPS-Shop enables partnership participants to express their expectations of each other--a highly critical component of successful collaboration. This gives officers the opportunity to appreciate how much they have in common, building a certain esprit de corps that is seldom in evidence among either police officers or community corrections officers working in traditional capacities. Perhaps more importantly, officers can educate each other regarding the limits of their roles; that is, they can instruct their counterparts on the professional boundaries attending to their profession’s work. This allows officers to understand how both law enforcement and corrections officers fit into the larger criminal justice system and how they can work to complement each other. As an interesting example, the overwhelming majority of NBSOs interviewed for this study felt that the police (in general) did not respect their role in the system. There was the feeling among NBSOs that police officers viewed probation officers as powerless and ineffective agents of the justice system. Specifically, NBSOs believed that they were viewed by police officers as social workers, “baby-sitters,” “enablers” or “hug-athug” types. Nevertheless, nearly every NBSO was confident that the NROs--as opposed to patrol officers--did respect their role in the criminal justice system. Better communication in this case does seem to reduce misunderstandings--and even outright animosity--between the parties engaged in the partnership between corrections and law enforcement. Information flows relatively efficiently between the parties that frequent the COPS-Shops. For instance, patrol officers and NROs attend roll call at the police station, bringing back information that they often share with the NBSOs. If there is a particular person or house in a given neighborhood that has been a problem for police officers, they can ask the NBSO to run the name or the address through DOC computer records. This allows them to determine if there may be an opportunity for NBSOs to help address an issue of public safety. Here’s how it works: [We get] roll call information from law enforcement saying “okay, we’ve got a trouble house here, have you guys got anybody here?” We say, “you know, offender “A” that’s been hanging out there all the time, but he doesn’t live there, so maybe we had better check that out” (103:B30).

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

78

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work They [the police] have—it’s called a “creep sheet” that comes out every week with different people on it that are wanted for one thing or another or just for information. Well, we get that, we look at it, we call down, “hey we know about this guy and here’s what we’ll do. Let’s work together on it” (110:C4b). ...the information that they [the police] provide is just great. You know, a lot of times, they have contact with people--even if it’s not one of our people--numerous times they’ll come in “you know so and so?” Or “can you look them up and see if he’s DOC active?” We’ll look him up and he’s on some other CCO’s caseload. Then we let them know. “This is what your guy’s doing.” So it just filters out all over. Yeah, it’s really cool (101:C6).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Why doesn’t this degree of information sharing occur between all police officers and probation officers? The officers involved in the partnership agree that sharing a common workspace is a major factor in making these communication changes possible. According to three NBSOs: ...they see you instead of talking to you by phone saying “hey, we’ve got this guy with a warrant...” They can see you, identify you, and they run names by you. They say “this guy’s DOC active--does he have any conditions?” I’ve gotten calls from the radio, on the phone, through [the NRO]...(108:C5). Law enforcement, they come off the street and they say, “hey, I’ve got a tip on this address! Do you have anybody living there?” (102:C1). ...we get a lot of information here [at the COPS-Shop]...the city cops...get information and they come in here and we start comparing notes. These people aren’t even on my caseload-most of my people stay [around where they live], but...they come in here and they say “hey, do you know so and so?” You know, I usually don't, but I’ll look them up and then one of my coworkers has them and it just turns out that they’re looking for them and the cops didn’t know that. The cops

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Anticipated Consequences of the Partnership

79

have information or we have information and so they’ll get together and help one another out. The information we receive in here is great...(106:C4b). NROs concur, and add that this level of communication is a valuable asset in their efforts to address community problems.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

...their [the DOC] database contains some information, ours [the SPD] contains some. And it’s been great when I have a problem house. You know, I can go in and ask [the two NBS officers] “do you have someone living there?” And, you know, if they do, then they say “what’s the problem?” So if this person comes in for their next interview [office visit], they nail them for it. Or they say “oh, we need to go talk to him” (504:B5). ...if [the NBSOs] come in and they say “hey, we got this guy, he was supposed to come in, and we’re going to try to get a warrant or we have a warrant on him.” And I’ll put out--or I try everyday--to put out a flyer for the [patrol] officers that work in the area that says “[the NBSO] is looking for this guy...” And a lot of the [patrol] officers would rather--if they know there’s someone out there with a warrant that they want to go hunt--they would rather do that than just drive around aimlessly. So, I think working in the COPS-Shop...and the communications with them has helped a lot (504:B7). Another NBSO points out that keeping the lines of communication open--as the officers do in the COPS-Shops--allows NBSOs to relay valuable information to the NRO: The positive things are that...you have more communication devices and means of communicating...you can use them as more eyes and ears in the community and they utilize me in the same way, because I am in and out of these homes and I see things and I hear things--but because I’m not wearing a uniform, criminals are more likely to say something in my presence not realizing who I am or not thinking I’m actually law enforcement (NBSO104:C4b).

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

80

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

But statements such as these raise concerns over the potential impact that closer working relationships between police and probation officers may have on the ability of officers to preserve their mission orientation. After all, this NBSO’s comments indicate that he sees himself as an agent of law enforcement despite being an employee of the Department of Corrections. The challenges NRO officers and community corrections officers face in terms of mission/role preservation are explored in considerable depth in the chapter on Mission Distortion to follow. In addition to helping NROs be better problem solvers, the enhanced information flow also helps NBSOs in their efforts to monitor offenders living in the neighborhood effectively. The expanded accessibility of the NBSO allows the NRO and other patrol officers to bring in information from the street: I mean, there’s information you wouldn’t believe, you know. They’ll have contact with somebody, they come in and they’ll say, “hey, I had contact with so and so.” [I’ll say] “Really? That’s my guy! What’s he doing?” You know, and then when he comes in, we say, “have you had any contact with law enforcement?” [he’ll say] “No.” [we’ll say] “Well, then what’s this?” [he’ll say] “Oh, oh, oh. Oh, god, you guys are all after me.” But yeah, I mean, it’s incredible. It’s just incredible. Because officers work [in my area], you know, so they deal with our people all the time. And they’ll come in, you know, “hey, you want so and so? You got a warrant for him?” Well, if we do have a warrant out, we’ll put the warrant out and these guys will go get ‘em (101:C4) [T]here’s two things going on. One, patrol guys are actually eye-to-eye seeing them and making a phone call to me or to [one of the NBSOs]. Also, there’s some computer stuff going on. When you run the name...of an offender, it automatically kicks an e-mail out to the supervising CCO. So, within-hopefully--within a couple of hours the CCO gets an e-mail saying “Officer Smith dealt with John Offender.” So, they know that there’s something going on. So, yeah, that’s a benefit so that we [police officers] can assist the DOC in the supervision of their offenders in the community (507:B11b).

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Anticipated Consequences of the Partnership

81

You know, they [police officers] have tips on people who may be in violation and they can tell us. And that increases our eyes and ears (107:C4b). You know, you can run [an offender’s] name and address by them [patrol officers]...they can say “yeah, we had a response there last night” or “no, we haven’t had any problems with it.” So, it can be quick communication...they pass things through to us and we pass things through to them (108:A4).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

...it’s probably enhanced the eyes and ears and the supervision techniques...they know right away who we’re trying to get so they can pick them up even if we’re not able to, and then we’re able to get that person in treatment and into another program, into mental health, or into jail. They can help us get to our offender quicker because they’re out there in the community 24/7 and you know, we’re doing 40 hours a week and then we’re going home (107:C6b). Clearly, there are some fundamental changes that are resulting from Spokane’s police-probation partnership, and it is in the area of information sharing where these changes are the most noticeable. The COPS-Shops are serving as a set of fruitful forums within which police officers and NBSOs can establish an ongoing dialogue of mutual benefit. The participants in this dialogue are obviously convinced that the benefits associated with these changes are many and of substantial worth to the promotion of public safety. The vastly improved level of communication that this partnership has produced constitutes good reason for optimism. It is from this base of communication that other innovations and partnership growth become possible. As NBSOs communicate their capabilities to NROs and vice-versa, it is likely that each partner in the police-corrections collaboration will look to the other in new ways. If pigeonholing is an obstacle to the full realization of the partnership’s goals, the best remedy is already at the disposal of the law enforcement and community corrections officers involved. Communication will continue to enhance familiarity and understanding, and these in turn will contribute to the partnership’s long-term success.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

82

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conclusions There is little doubt in the minds of the DOC’s NBSOs and the SPD’s NROs that Neighborhood Based Supervision and Community Policing, when truly applied in conjunction, have enhanced the working relationships between police officers and probation officers. And these working relationships, in turn, contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of the participants in the partnership. According to the participants interviewed for this study, the benefits of this partnership include greater information sharing, more frequent joint problem solving efforts, and enhanced officer protection (to name a few). Many NBSOs and NROs, however, rarely if ever actually collaborate in the field. Thus, the most consistent type of interaction between officers is often limited to information sharing--sometimes even this type of interaction is kept to a minimum. The actual level of collaboration that occurs between NBSOs and NROs depends on the specific dynamic that exists at a particular COPS-Shop, and each location has somewhat unique characteristics in this regard. Even where collaboration was highest, there was an unmistakable tendency for officers from both agencies to pigeonhole one another. Officers were frequently seen by their counterparts as having only a very limited range of contributions to offer to the partnership. It seems important that NROs and NBSOs look beyond each other’s traditional narrow roles in order for the full potential of the partnership to be realized. If the trend continues for NROs to see NBSOs as simply a tool to remove problem people from the street, and for NBSOs to see NROs merely as resources to ensure safety during arrests, their partnership will fall short of its full potential. In other words, what these partnerships have offered--at least in the field--is just more of the same (not that more isn’t a good thing). Real innovation, it appears, will require more time and considerable patience in the years ahead. There are a couple of bright stars, however, on the horizon for Spokane’s police-probation partnership. The participants in this study testify to significant changes in their understanding of each other--and some even have forged strong bonds with one another. NROs and NBSOs appear to see one another in a new light and, as a result, pigeonholing (or role classification) may in time become a thing of the past. The strongest indication of these changes are evident when examining the process of information-sharing that has been established between NBSOs and NROs. Not only have the COPS-Shops provided

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

The Anticipated Consequences of the Partnership

83

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

the venue for such communication, but these facilities have highlighted just how valuable such information sharing can be to both groups. Although the partnership may still be in its formative stages--and this is apparent on many levels--the changes are unquestionably in progress.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

CHAPTER 5

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Mission Creep

Recommendations for interagency partnerships as a means by which to encourage effective problem solving have been widespread (Sadd and Grinc, 1996; Glensor and Peak, 1998). Police-probation partnerships are particularly appealing because of the potential of such programs to contribute to public safety. Any potential benefits associated with police-probation partnerships, however, should not divert attention from the potential for unwelcome consequences. As Sadd and Grinc (1996) point out, police officers typically do not have extensive prior experience working with other agencies. This is also true for community corrections officers, meaning that interagency partnerships take police and probation agencies into uncharted waters. Specifically, many police departments and community corrections agencies lack the operational guidelines for police-probation partnerships to be developed and maintained in ways that maximize the likelihood of success. One of the ways police-probation partnerships have the potential to produce unwelcome consequences is by saddling participating officers with more responsibilities than they can realistically handle. The process through which the scope of one’s duties significantly expands is known as mission creep (Corbett, 1998). The thoughts of two participants (one former NRO and one current NBSO) illustrate the implications of this phenomenon. ...for it [the partnership] to work like it’s supposed to on paper, the resource officer better not have a life at home. Because it is encompassing--totally encompassing of your life (511:C27b--former NRO). What happens is the community will bring their problems down here. Whether it be domestic violence, arguments, road 85

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

86

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

rage...emergencies, all kinds of things. Typically the volunteers will divert them to us and say “hey, would you come out and talk to this person?” (111:B23) We’re spending hours doing that. [It] could be a lot of things. It could be a runaway, a car is trashed up there, a suspect drug house...It could be a million things (111:C9). In specific terms, mission creep refers to the expansion of the roles of officers as they become involved in partnerships (Corbett, 1998). As Manning (1978) points out, “[t]he mandate of the police is fraught with This is particularly difficulties, many of them...self-created.” noticeable when examining community-policing initiatives such as the Spokane Police Department’s Neighborhood Resource Officer program. This is also true, it seems, for community corrections as well, and for Spokane’s Neighborhood Based Supervision (NBS) officers in particular. In fact, the nature of Spokane’s police-probation partnership has the potential to make it extraordinarily difficult for NROs and NBSOs to successfully fulfill their respective mandates. By too broadly defining (if at all) the tasks of NROs and NBSOs, the SPD and DOC threaten to undermine the ability of officers to have a realistic hope for success. This considered, certain aspects of Spokane’s police-probation partnership are designed to help narrow the gap between the public’s (often rather unrealistic) expectations and the actual ability of the SPD and DOC to serve the public’s public safety needs. This requires NROs and NBSOs to establish and maintain a very delicate balance as they carry out their duties on a daily basis. The contradictions that a community-based partnership causes for the mandates of both NROs and NBSOs may be unavoidable, but effectively managing them is possible if they are carefully examined and understood. This chapter examines the experiences of NBSOs and NROs as their mandates (or defined roles) expand in accordance with increased demands on their time and available resources. The responsibilities of NBSO and NRO officers are discussed, with special attention being devoted to how these responsibilities differ from those expected of traditional Community Corrections Officers and patrol officers. The potential impact (or costs) of mission creep on the effectiveness of NBSOs and NROs will also be considered. Recommendations are offered for managing the challenges associated with these phenomena effectively.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Mission Creep

87

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Manifestations of Mission Creep Learning the Ropes From the outset, the process of establishing an active working policeprobation partnership requires the participants to gain an understanding of one another. Of course, officers must learn each other’s professional roles and responsibilities in order to work together in meaningful and appropriate ways. While this may seem rather simple and straightforward, it can be a complex process that takes considerable time and effort. If this prerequisite is not met, officers are unable to envision the potential benefits associated with the partnership and are therefore unable to rationalize devoting the time and effort necessary to make collaboration possible. Moreover, unless officers are familiar with one another’s professional roles, they are unable to know how to work together in ways that are mutually beneficial. In other words, officers must understand each other professionally in order to realize what they can do for each other--this, in essence, is what constitutes the foundation of the partnership. Like any foundation, it must be built with great care. Highlighting the degree of specialization that exists among practitioners in the criminal justice system, the participants in this study frequently pointed out that they knew little about their counterparts prior to formally working together in the COPS-Shops. For instance, NROs often admitted that they knew little about the day-to-day activities of community corrections officers (NBSOs or otherwise). Consequently, these NROs often didn’t initially realize the potential benefits of building a working partnership with NBSOs. In short, officers initially didn’t really know why they should want to work together in the first place. At first, NROs and NBSOs had to observe one another before understanding how they could help one another. Fortunately, being placed in a COPS-Shop together affords NROs and NBSOs the opportunity to understand each other’s respective roles, but gaining such a familiarity was just the beginning of a much longer process. Actually learning how to work together (practically speaking) is a much more complicated and time-consuming endeavor. For instance, learning the limits on one another’s power is essential, but extraordinarily challenging. In the words of one experienced NRO,

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

88

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work Knowing where their lines [in terms of authority] are and what their guidelines are is hard for us to understand (504:B2b).

Since NROs and NBSOs generally didn’t have a preexisting knowledge of one another’s professional roles and responsibilities, they had to become acquainted through first-hand observation and practical experience. The following statements emphasize this point:

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

...[as a result of working with the DOC] they’ve taught me what’s available in each specific agency and where to go look for things that they can’t do, so it’s taught me about funding, what their agency can’t do--they’ve drawn those lines for me because I’ve been willing to talk to them. And just catching them--you know, is hard enough, because they’re as busy as I am. So, [working in a COPS-Shop] was a huge eye-opener education-wise (506:B5). You can learn to know each other to make [the partnership] work. Otherwise, you’re butting heads with each other trying to figure out “well, I can’t do this and you can’t do this, and where can we meet in the middle out here?” (509:C10b). In addition to the need to know what one another can offer in the partnership, there must be a shared feeling of solidarity--a belief that the partners have some common goals. In other words, mutual respect and a sense of being part of the same “team” are pieces of the larger equation as well. We’re slowly but surely figuring it out...yeah, it’s a trust issue that we’re all on the same team (506:B16). By all accounts, an understanding of what one’s counterpart can and can’t do and a general sense of camaraderie are considered to be prerequisites to getting the most out of the police-probation partnership. This type of familiarity must go far beyond merely knowing one another by name, and thus it takes time. Some officers suggested that their heavy workloads (discussed below) interfered with their ability to develop this rapport. For instance, one NBSO described

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Mission Creep

89

his ability to develop a working relationship with the police in his COPS-Shop in the following way: I wish they had more time to help us out and we had more time to help them out. That’s the only thing that I see a problem with (108:E8b).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Realistic expectations are built on a foundation of familiarity, and this requires a considerable commitment in terms of time and personal effort. Consequently, successful partnerships must be designed and managed in a fashion that gives participants the freedom to make this initial investment. Unfortunately, the many demands placed on NROs and NBSOs severely limit their ability to devote themselves (in any meaningful sense) to these ends. This issue is addressed more thoroughly in the chapter on organizational lag. It is important to realize that the potential benefits of police-probation partnerships may be modest and, perhaps, difficult to identify (especially if success is measured in conventional terms) during these early stages of development and investment. Expanded Duties and Responsibilities Perhaps the most common theme running through the interviews and observations with the NBSOs and NROs in this study was the feeling that they had more duties and responsibilities than their traditional counterparts. Both the NBSOs and NROs articulated this sentiment repeatedly during the interviews, and field observations confirmed the rather hectic nature of their daily activities. The extent to which NROs and NBSOs feel that their workloads are heavier than those of traditionally assigned colleagues can be attributed in large part to their being stationed in a COPS-Shop. As a more visible, and therefore more accountable, presence in the community, NROs and NBSOs found themselves dealing with a variety of neighborhood problems. In many instances, these problems fell far outside the traditional scope of policing and community corrections, such as simply dealing with minor neighborhood annoyances. Many of these issues would, presumably, have not come to the attention of traditional patrol officers or community corrections officers working out of centralized police stations or state DOC office buildings.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

90

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work I define NBS as the Department of Corrections entering into a partnership with law enforcement and other agencies, including the citizens to address the neighborhood problems. Not only crime prevention. We did a lot of things out at [such and such a COPS-Shop] that weren’t really criminal in nature, but they were issues that were problems that were affecting the neighborhood. Whether it be garbage, whether it be junk cars, whether it be neighborhood disputes, whether it be problems in the park with something. You kind of got to go outside--if you are going to be a neighborhood based supervision officer--you’ve got to be willing to go outside the scope of the traditional CCO duties and responsibilities and be willing to take on some other things (114:B30).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Our job is to assist them [the public] in solving problems, basically. Whatever that might be. If it’s cleaning up the alley with garbage, if it’s, you know, helping some elderly person change a filter in their furnace, whatever it is. Whatever it might be (111:D2). Perhaps more importantly, the nature of these demands can be fundamentally different compared to traditional demands placed on CCOs and patrol officers. For instance, NROs and NBSOs often deal with ongoing problems that resurface time after time. The following statements illustrate this point. A patrol guy puts in his 8 hours or his 10 hours and he goes to the station, he hangs up his gun belt, and everything stops right there. When he comes back, the very next day, it’s a whole new set of challenges...When an NRO--first of all, he doesn’t take his gun belt off. He takes his car home with him. He drives home, he drives into his own driveway with his car, and when he comes back the next day, those same things that he wasn’t successful solving the day before are waiting there...You can’t just turn it off like you can on patrol. It stays with you and it comes back to haunt you. So it’s tough. It’s just hard to take a day off (507:D1). In most cases, NROs and NBSOs saw these added duties as just “part of the job.” In some instances, however, the expanded role became a Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Mission Creep

91

noticeable burden, creating ongoing challenges for the officers. Many NBSOs and NROs point out that they are responsible for a wide variety of tasks in addition to those outlined in their specific job descriptions. These workplace tasks ranged from administrative duties to general office maintenance.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

...[i]n the COPS-Shops, like right down here, we have no volunteers. So, look at the floor, you know, look at the walls. Because we do the trash, we clean the toilets, you know, we do this, we do that. We try to clean the windows--but it’s us doing it. You know what I mean? It would be nice to, you know, have somebody come down here and go “God, I guess you need some help down here.” You know? It would just be nice (101:B8). We do a lot of things that aren’t in my CQs [“classification questionnaire”], you know, under my job description. I make the coffee every day. On Tuesdays I roll out the garbage, you know. I am very good about that, you know, and somebody’s got to do it. Just those kinds of things that are just so different from what we grew up with (105:B30). I mean, we just have to scavenge for supplies and stuff like that. And, you know, we can only steal so much paper [laughing] from the main field offices and stuff. We do--I’m serious. Toilet paper [laughing].... I mean, God, look at this place, you know? Have you ever run out of toilet paper? Then you know what I’m talking about [laughing] (101:C9) It’s just--whew--it is a hell of a job to do it correctly. It is a magnificent job to do it correctly. And you need all the resources and you need all the support of the volunteers to keep you going as the officer because you’re going to get burned out and that is the answer why I am no longer a resource officer (511:B12--former NRO).

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

92

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Not surprisingly, numerous NROs and NBSOs alike believe that they had to work harder than their traditional (CCO) counterparts. For instance, when asked, “how do you perceive the work of those who are not NBS officers?” one NBSO replied:

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Well, I mean, I’ve been there, so I kind of know. The workload is less because they’re not in a COPS-Shop. They’re not taking garbage out every Friday and stocking the bathroom with toilet paper because you ran out of it. You know, you’ve got some kind of meeting with other agencies here, you know, because you have it available, which is really nice, but then, geez, look at this floor. It’s filthy and then we’re sweeping and mopping. You’re doing it yourself because there is nobody to do it, you know. And so you’re doing that yourself. Those officers don’t have to worry about that. They want to have a meeting with other agencies there, they just schedule it, the room’s clean, it’s all set up, you know. We’re setting up tables and chairs and sweeping and mopping (102:E18). These added responsibilities take a heavy toll on some officers. Most of the NROs and NBSOs in this study reported that they had to work extra hours in order to get everything done that needed their urgent attention. I have a 40-hour workweek--which, you can’t do this in 40 hours. I mean, a lot of it is overtime. I average, in one month, just for staff meetings up here and general meetings, etc., etc., that’s 12 hours minimum right there...we average 2-3 of those...that’s an additional 4 hours for each one of those. You can’t do it under four hours. So, you figure 40 hours a week and probably anywhere from 12-16 of overtime each week...[and] I would say it’s probably 2 to 4 hours a week that I’m here because I’m getting held over and I don’t consider it overtime (501:D1). It is not just an 8-hour job. You’re doing things in the evenings, you’re doing things on the weekends, and you’re doing things at all different times. And if that isn’t your priority--the COPS-Shop--then you’re going--my priority was Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Mission Creep

93

my family still, so I didn’t you know, I’d put in my 40 hours. Maybe I would put in 45, maybe 50 sometimes. But some people are putting 60-80 hours a week in, you know. And I wasn’t going to do that (505:A5--former NRO). Others, however, (especially NROs) pointed out that the scope of their professional responsibilities had more serious, often troubling, implications. I think--and this sounds bad--but I think if you have a family, it almost gets in the way of being an NRO (505:A5--former NRO).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The way this department is built, [the NRO job] is 24/7. And that is going to burn us out. (511:B12--former NRO). We put in MORE hours. Yeah, your whole life becomes--you know--there’s so many night meetings and the community wanting to get together. It’s really hard to have a relationship or a family with this job. It really is. And that wasn’t anticipated in the beginning. In the beginning, it was, “oh, I’ll work 9 to 5, have weekends off, and I CAN HAVE a family life consistently. And that was not the case at all (506:C4). Other officers, however, were better able to take these pressures in stride. You know, but for me, [the stress] is not huge. I have two dogs, you know, so I don’t have family obligations to go home and have dinner on the table for somebody or put somebody to bed or get someone to school (504:C20b). Despite this, few NBSOs seemed to resent those officers that worked in more traditional capacities. They recognized and appreciated the advantages of working out of COPS-Shops, and most felt that the benefits outweighed any of the disadvantages. ...again, I don’t have to, but I am the first one here, I get here at seven. I make the coffee, put out the garbage, you know. They have a [neighborhood] parade day and last year [my Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

94

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work partner] and I dollied up his truck and put it in the parade. It’s just one of those kinds of things. I enjoy it, but some CCOs say “hey, that’s not part of my job, I’m not going to do it. That’s your business.” For me, it’s nothing but a benefit (105:D4).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

I think it’s done great because you’re almost like a public spokesman for the DOC now [as a result of being stationed in a COPS-Shop]. So, you do watch what you say a little more, but you’re trying to sell DOC and I think they see that, too. So they acknowledge what you’re able to do there--you’re selling DOC. So, you’re like a salesman. A salesman without commission (107:E11). Nevertheless, there was widespread sentiment among NROs and NBSOs alike that conditions could be improved to make them generally more effective and, specifically, to make the partnership more fruitful. Specifically, many NBSOs and NROs felt that their heavy workloads interfered with their ability to achieve their professional objectives. The fact that some officers felt so overwhelmed with their workloads has important implications for Spokane’s police-probation partnership, but these changes do not necessarily constitute mission creep in the professional sense. Instead, the additional duties that many officers NROs and NBSOs find themselves undertaking (primarily as a result of being stationed in a COPS-Shop) simply contribute to increasing their levels of occupational stress. Of additional importance, there were clear indications from the officers in these programs that heavy workloads inhibited their effectiveness. Rather than contributing to mission creep as defined by Corbett (1998), these demands have inhibited the ability of many officers (particularly NBSOs) to change the ways they traditionally do their work. In particular, NBSOs and NROs continuously struggled with balancing their new responsibilities with the demands of demonstrating success according to traditional accountability measures. The sentiments voiced by these officers suggest that their agencies had implemented these new programs without sufficiently altering the measures for assessing officer effectiveness. These issues are revisited in the chapter on organizational lag.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Mission Creep

95

Striking a Balance: The Challenges of Mission Creep

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Burdens of a Closer Working Relationship With the Public One particularly dynamic dimension of Spokane’s police-probation partnership is its community orientation. In many respects, it was the shared desire to work more closely with the public that brought the DOC and the SPD together in the first place. Nevertheless, the realities of working in the neighborhood setting create a new set of challenges for the participating officers. For instance, popular misconceptions about the work of police officers and community corrections officers can make it frustrating for officers to work in this setting (for a discussion related to public perceptions of the police function, see Bittner, 1967). These challenges regularly confront NROs and NBSOs since they are stationed in a neighborhood COPS-Shop. The nature of the COPS-Shop setting requires the officers to work more closely with the community, a requirement that expands their roles considerably compared to their traditionally assigned counterparts. When anticipated and effectively managed this aspect of the COPS-Shop setting has a number of potential benefits, and thus can be a welcome change. We feel like we are a part of the community because we are here, we get emotionally involved with a lot of the volunteers. They see us as their friends, we feel the same way. We hear about problems. We had a guy that was vice-president, he died, we went to his funeral, and other people have things happen in their lives...so there are a lot of examples where you just feel like you are more a partner (111:D3). ...They drive me to work sometimes, or they make you work more than you need to, but that’s fine. It gets you involved more (108:D5). [NROs] know the neighborhood, the neighborhood knows them, they trust them, and there’s a relationship with the neighborhood. When you become an NRO, the neighborhood will embrace you 100%. You become THEIR cop. You become--I mean, if you’re not there, they want to know why. I’ve had flowers sent to my house on my birthday, I had a whole bunch, you know--you take part, you become part of

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

96

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

that neighborhood. You may not live there, but you are part of that neighborhood. They may not want to talk to anybody else in the department but you--because you are their cop. That is, you are that neighborhood’s cop (503:B2b). These benefits, however, don’t come cheaply. The disparity between the general public’s expectations and the actual mission of the officers is a constant source of stress. This is exacerbated by the failure of the SPD and DOC to define the respective NRO and NBSO mandates adequately. For instance, these relationships require the participating officers (NBSOs and NROs alike) to engage in a range of activities that are not expected of their counterparts working in more traditional capacities. Of course, a community orientation allows NROs and NBSOs to address issues pertaining to the general quality of community life (for police-specific discussions, see Wilson and Kelling, 1982; Goldstein, 1977). But without a clearly defined role, drawing the “line” can be difficult for the NROs and NBSOs. If the officers are unable to set effective boundaries, the public assumes the responsibility of defining the officers’ roles. Allowing the public to play too great a role in defining the roles of NROs and NBSOs, however, can create some noteworthy challenges for the officers. ...I’m considered part of the COPS-Shop, so anybody that comes in off the street, I go greet, meet, and talk to (102:B22). ...I get paid by the state to be a community corrections officer. I mean, I am in the community and I am taking input in from the community in how I can best adjust my job to reflect some of what the community needs and also supervise people and also do my job. But then I also have to be cognizant the state’s paying me to supervise these people, so a lot of my community activity I just have to limit in order to get the job done. But I do get that back to the community--this is my job, but I can’t be here to go to everybody’s meeting. I don’t have enough time. I’m not--there’s not enough time available to go to everybody’s meeting (112:D9). Well, you know, I enjoy the people that I work with down here. I mean, the volunteers and the community. They’re Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Mission Creep

97

supportive. [One of the volunteers] was telling me “you’re a member of the family” kind of thing, you know, and you kind of feel that way. But, there are things that come up that are added duties beyond your caseload that you go, “man, I feel like I should do this to continue in this partnership. You know, you feel like it’s part of it, but it does add an extra duty. It creates stress, but you know, you don’t feel like you are really getting compensated for it real well in terms of the time or the caseload (111:B22).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

You know, the community asks a lot of us, and it’s [about] being able to tell them yes or no. That’s the one training we get--is to learn how to say no or you’ll be living here (504:C24). Establishing and maintaining boundaries has proven to be difficult for many officers. As NROs and NBSOs experienced an expansion of their professional roles, it was often challenging for officers to keep the scope of their activities within manageable parameters. In some cases, the source of these challenges was simply dealing with the dilemma of knowing when to say “no” to requests for time. In other cases, officers were sometimes reluctant to develop close ties with the community because of the perception that getting attached to the community would leave them vulnerable. I didn’t want people knowing who I was. But that changes when you become the neighborhood cop. They know you and they get close. I attended birthday parties at the COPS-Shop, I attended funerals, weddings--I was part of the community. Working the street [patrol], working an 8-hour shift was easy because you put your uniform on, go out to work your shift, and go home. You don’t do that with this. You are always “what can I do? How can I solve this? I need to get this taken care of.” You never, ever let it go--and it takes a toll on you that’s not out there [on patrol]. Because there is that physical and emotional closeness that you have that you don’t have working the streets...This is not a job, I think, that you want to retire from. Because after a while, you’re not seeing--you’re getting too close to the situation to really understand what’s going on or to look at it with a clear perspective. I mean, I

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

98

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work think it got to the point where I was more on the side of the neighborhood than the department--because you are just part of that neighborhood. (503:C5).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

...These people can pull you in hook, line, and sinker and you can lose yourself in it. So you’ve got to be able to stay objective but still have enough emotion. It’s a balance in there that’s just, it’s real hard, it’s real hard to get that down. You’re either going to get sucked in all the way or you’re going to be just totally inadequate because you don’t know where to start (511:B12--former NRO). ...As a police officer, at the end of your day, your day is done. With this job, because you know these people, you now take the job home with you every night...it’s been a problem because it’s packed more of me than what I really needed to give on this job in order to survive. Because it’s a stressful job, so you have to draw a line, and that line got all fuzzy when I took this job. So, some of it goes home with me. Far more of it than I wanted to...there’s more of an investment as an NRO, and in some ways, I think it is--at least for me personally it’s more taxing to me than it has been being just a regular street cop (506:C4). For me, part of why I don’t want to stay [working as an NRO] is I’m watching, just in the 70 active volunteers I have right now, in the 2 1/2 years, I’m watching several of them with declining health. I don’t want to go to 70 funerals. I’m not going to do it. Do you know what I’m saying? ...And so the cost for me--as a policeman who’s always been able to keep up and watch this--it’s too high. It’s much easier for me to go back to the streets, put up the wall, go home every single day...[but as an NRO], when I go to a call...[I] get to hear their whole life story. So, you don’t get out of there alive. These people have saturated you with their whole life story...part of your job is to listen to all that. Well, it’s really, really hard to go home at night and not carry part of that with you (506:C5).

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Mission Creep

99

In extreme cases, the demands associated with working closely with the public can be overwhelming. When left unchecked, these additional expectations can be more than officers can handle. This was a particularly noticeable sentiment among NROs--perhaps because the NRO program has been in operation for a longer period of time than the NBS program. As a result, the average NRO has had more time to experience these effects. Well, the burnout rate is extremely high, I think. For example, I’ve put in 2 1/2 years and I’m ready to go...I mean, I am exhausted. I’ve invested more of my person than I’ve invested in all the other 8 years on the job...I’m absolutely burnt (506:C4).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

It can get overwhelming. They really suck you in. Because they want their own personal policeman. And so they can really suck you in (505:C5--former NRO). Not many people understand how slam-dunked you can get up here. I mean, today is a good day. I mean, it [this interview] worked out for me, it’s pretty lax, but I have them coming in both doors sometimes and I kind of feel like I’m getting buried alive (501:B5). ...they’re like little octopuses with tentacles and they just suck the life out of you [laughing]. They do, they just latch on to you... (506:C20b). As with any innovative program such as NBS and the NRO program, it is necessary to educate the public on the general goals of the program and the roles of the officers involved. Establishing a meaningful level of public awareness takes considerable time and effort. In the meantime, the officers will have to deal with a number of challenges, including the public’s often-unrealistic expectations of them. Although virtually every NBSO and NRO confirmed that they enjoyed working with the community, some have mixed feelings about the relationship because they feel as though more is expected of them than they can possibly deliver.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

100

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work Responding to an individual’s problems gives them the opportunity to feel like they can come to you if there’s an issue. You know, it might be “we’ve got this guy living in this house and he’s a slob.” Well, being a slob is not a condition of supervision, but come down to the COPS-Shop, lets fill out a complaint...(103:C6c). ...the biggest thing that you have to learn how to do when you get this job is how to say “no.” There is such a drain on your-there’s only so many hours in a day and people want so many things (503:D1).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

...They expect us to do miracles sometimes (108:D14). I mean, you get whiners that come in that you can’t do anything for. They just want to yell at you and they don’t want to listen to what you have to say. Then you have other people that don’t know how to ask a question, then you’ve got to help them get the point where you even know what they are talking about and they have reasonable and legitimate concerns. So it’s been just a real learning experience--how to talk to folks, getting to know who you are dealing with (103:D5). In some cases, the public’s unrealistic expectations of officers have implications for the ability of officers to maintain the integrity of their professional role (an issue revisited later in the chapter on mission distortion). You are constantly handling stuff that comes up here. I mean, a lot of times somebody just comes in off the street and they are a little grouchy and they want to talk to an officer. Of course, we are not police officers, but they view this, maybe, as police officer kind of stuff, so we go out and try to help them (105:B30). You need that strong police background to remember who you are. “I am a policeman. I need to do police work.” And it’s easy to get caught up in [the idea] that I am part of this COPSShop and part of this community and be more of a community Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Mission Creep

101

person and forgetting that you are a policeman. To be honest with you, I probably was more of a community person with a police uniform on than a policeman (505:A5--former NRO). It is important to note that identifying the public’s unrealistic expectations as a problem for police-probation partnerships is only the first step. At the organizational level, the SPD and DOC may need to assume a greater level of responsibility for educating the public on the partnership. Most officers felt that too little had been done in this regard. I’d say by far the majority [of the public], maybe 75% don’t even know what a community corrections officer is. They think the Department of Corrections is prison (103:D13).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Some even noted that their agency had failed to provide this sort of education internally, much less to the public at-large. With my peers--within the agency--if they don’t know what I do, how can the public know what I do? (507:C10). Of course, one of the benefits of placing officers in COPS-Shops is that it allows them to educate the public. NROs and NBSOs educate members of the public (especially volunteers), and then these people are able to educate other members of the community. Importantly, the education process allows the public to develop an understanding of what NROs and NBSOs can and can’t do. But it may be unrealistic to expect the officers to accomplish this objective alone, especially considering the other demands placed on their time (discussed above). It may be prudent for the SPD and DOC to engage in more extensive community education efforts at the organizational level, thereby alleviating some of the pressures experienced by individual officers in this regard. If educating the public continues to primarily be responsibility of the individual officers, the SPD and DOC may need to limit the responsibilities that officers are expected to fulfill. For instance, NBSOs may need smaller caseloads compared to traditional CCOs.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

102

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work If I had the time, oh yeah, oh God, there are numerous things we could do. Oh God, we could have neighborhood meetings all the time and there’s so much stuff we can educate them on. God, it’s amazing how much--but we don’t have the time (101:D9).

Until efforts are made to better accommodate the added duties of NROs and NBSOs, it seems that the officers in the NBS partnership program will be held to unrealistic expectations by not only the public, but by the management within their agencies as well. It is imperative for the SPD and the DOC to determine what is expected of officers and to provide them with the resources to be successful based on those expectations. To do anything less risks setting officers up for failure.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conclusions Police-probation partnerships require an expansion of the roles of police and probation officers--a phenomenon known as mission creep (Corbett, 1998). Interviews and observations of NROs and NBSOs in Spokane revealed that mission creep assumes a variety of forms and effects individual officers in different ways. Simply finding ways of working together (and reasons for doing so), for instance requires an initial investment on the part of each officer participating in such a partnership. Furthermore, working in a decentralized setting such as COPS-Shops requires NROs and NBSOs to engage in a plethora of activities that are not expected of their traditional counterparts, ranging from office maintenance to the multiple duties associated with working more directly with the public in the community setting. In many respects, expanding the traditional roles of police officers and community corrections officers is what police-probation partnerships are all about. Unfortunately, however, the ways in which the roles of Spokane’s NROs and NBSOs have changed have actually inhibited some of the kinds of changes that the partnership is designed to facilitate. The NROs and NBSOs interviewed and observed for this study revealed that they were often overwhelmed with the added responsibilities associated with learning the basics of each other’s jobs, maintaining the COPS-Shops, and working with the public. While these job workplace dynamics constitute a kind of job creep, with respect to NBS, they serve to stifle the ability of NROs and NBSOs to seek more effective policing and offender supervision strategies.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Mission Creep

103

Effective police-probation partnerships, then, require considerable attention to management issues. It is the responsibility of the agencies themselves (in this case the SPD and DOC) to define the missions of NROs and NBSOs more fully. For instance, the agencies should consider placing greater restrictions on the number of hours each officer is permitted to work. More importantly, the organizations must place clear parameters on the types of responsibilities officers will be expected to fulfill. Officers all too often don’t know what they should be doing, so they attempt to do everything asked of them. When the organizations fail to precisely define the roles of officers, the residents of the community impose their (often unrealistic) expectations on officers. While it is important for residents to have a say in what each officer’s role should be, the agencies themselves must establish clear boundaries on these roles. This will enable officers to better resist the pressures created for them by community members. Specifically, the agencies should develop a basic manual that outlines the formal expectations of officers. Such a manual should provide officers with information on the official goals of the partnership as well as information on the criteria on which officer performance is evaluated. Expecting the officers themselves to define, establish, and ultimately maintain professional boundaries appears to be an unrealistic expectation. Until the SPD and DOC make strides toward controlling and directing mission creep for NRO and NBSOs, these officers will continue to feel overwhelmed. As a result, until such steps are taken at the organizational level, it is likely that the full potential of the partnership will go unfulfilled.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

CHAPTER 6

Mission Distortion

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Another manifestation of undesirable consequences potentially associated with police-probation partnerships relates to the ability of participating officers to stay “true” to the mission orientations of their respective organizations. Of course, police organizations and community corrections organizations serve unique, albeit not mutually exclusive, purposes for society. Police-probation partnerships, however, threaten to compromise this traditional distinction. Consider the following point made by one Neighborhood Based Supervision Officer: I think the CCOs can--they tend to get too law enforcement oriented in their thinking. That’s my personal opinion, and I’ve seen that happen. Because we’re not cops. We can play a cop role when we need to, but that’s not our main role at all, and I can see that as being a negative. There are some boundary issues that have a tendency to get crossed if, you know, you are constantly working with the police... Just little things like that--you become too much of a cop if you are with a cop all day [laughing] (114:C4c). Comments like this one lend credibility to existing concerns that police-probation partnerships may create conditions under which both police officers and probation officers experience a phenomenon known as mission distortion (Corbett, 1998). For purposes of this study, mission distortion refers to situations where distinctions in the respective missions (or roles) of police and probation officers become blurred. Mission distortion has been a rather prominent subject of concern among critics of police-military partnerships in America (see Weber, 1999), but the application of this concept to police-probation partnerships has been far less common. 105 Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

106

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Despite the paucity of discussion on the matter, mission distortion may have the potential to be the most dangerous unintended consequence associated with police-probation partnerships. First of all, the traditional mission (a.k.a., mandate, function or role) of the police has been a relatively clear one: to maintain order, enforce laws, investigate crimes. There are generally well-developed guidelines that shape the boundaries within which police officers must work in fulfilling this mission. Community policing practices, however, have resulted in these guidelines becoming much less clear. Working with Community Corrections Officers (such as NBSOs) in an active partnership has the potential to exacerbate this trend. For instance, when working with probation officers, the applicability of guidelines may be the source of confusion. The application of probable cause standards for searches, for example, may be contingent on whether the police-probation tandem is conducting a police activity or a probation activity. In addition, it is anticipated that the ability of the police to maintain order effectively may be enhanced through the development of partnerships with probation officers. Nevertheless, there is the potential for the partnership to also make it easier for police to abuse their authority and engage in activities such as harassing probationers in an effort to drive them out of particular neighborhoods. It seems that probation officers are in an especially precarious situation when it comes to partnering with the police. Historically, the probation officer has been saddled with the challenge of balancing law enforcement and social work responsibilities. Some historical accounts cite instances where law enforcement officers actually assumed probation duties. These officers were often known as police probation officers (Lindner, 1994). Although a primarily social service orientation characterized probation services throughout much of the 20th century, this early connection between probation and law enforcement in some local jurisdiction is an interesting one. In recent decades, as the role of the probation officer has started to shift from an emphasis on rehabilitation to a focus on supervision and the dispensation of sanctions, striking a meaningful balance between these dual responsibilities has become particularly challenging (see Nidorf, 1990). In this regard, one NBSO observes the following: ...we wear so many different hats. We wear a social worker hat, we wear a law enforcement hat. I think you’ve got to be

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Mission Distortion

107

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

right in the middle. You’ve got to be able to be a social worker. You’ve got to be able to be the cop (114:B9). The problems that stem from trying to maintain rehabilitation and treatment responsibilities under these circumstances are well documented, and include negative effects on job performance and motivation (see Mills, 1990). For instance, when asked Why should the DOC be pursuing partnerships with other criminal justice agencies?, one NBSO responded “...maybe they can put them away so we don’t have to deal with them” [laughing] (107:C3c). If this sentiment inhibits the ability of NBSOs to maintain an emphasis on rehabilitation and social service responsibilities, this is obviously a problem for overall program effectiveness. It is important to consider whether (and if so, how) police-probation partnerships contribute to these (and other related) problems. With these particular issues in mind, participants in this study were asked a variety of questions designed to determine what types of problems officers face (as a consequence of the partnership), and what the Washington State Department of Corrections and the Spokane Police Department have done to prepare their respective officers for dealing with such challenges. Obviously, it is desirable and necessary for the officers of both agencies to preserve their professional identities. Active police-probation partnerships may make this maintenance of professional role identity difficult for some officers. Responses to the numerous questions posed in this area of workplace dynamics indicate that substantial confusion among exists officers regarding the boundaries within which each agency must work. The very boundaries on each agency’s legal authority (i.e., each agency’s respective legal or statutory limitations) and professional goals serve to make partnerships useful, but these boundaries must be maintained in order to prevent serious problems from occurring. In addition, punishing offenders for illegal behavior is specifically not a component of the police mandate; however, such activities are central to the function of the community corrections officer. While the latter example addresses the broad differences in the professional goals and priorities of police officers and community corrections officers, the former example relates to the fundamental importance of insuring that police and corrections officers recognize the legal parameters on their authority. One central concern of this study is whether or not, in practice, there are instances of police officers and corrections officers

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

108

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

overstepping their boundaries in this regard. If so, what types of problems in this area seem to be the most commonly noted? This concern frames the analysis that follows.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Obstacles to Mission Preservation Sharing responsibility for community problems may be a potentially effective problem-solving strategy generally, but it may create confusion for community corrections officers and police officers as they attempt to preserve their functional distinctions. As Spelman and Eck (2000:134) observed, “[p]roblem-oriented police agencies have found that line personnel in other agencies can be hidden allies, bending procedures to get the job done.” Other researchers have made note of such occurrences, referring to some of them as examples of “noble cause corruption” (see Crank and Caldero, 2000; Harrison, 1999). “Such a [c]ommitment to a noble cause can lead [officers] to believe that some ends are so important that any means to achieve them is acceptable” (Crank, 2003:339). Police-probation partnerships place an unprecedented variety of means at the disposal of officers for purposes of achieving the ends they deem appropriate. Clearly, this danger of noble cause corruption is proper grounds for alarm among those that recognize the importance of these functional distinctions and the potentially devastating problems that could emerge if these distinctions are too greatly blurred in the course of professional practice. Based on the evidence collected in this study, it is somewhat questionable whether the actual participants in these partnerships recognize and understand the significant need to prevent their mission orientation from becoming seriously distorted. The challenges officers faced in this regard were obvious, especially among NBSOs. Some NBSOs, it seems, just don’t have a very clear understanding that they are corrections officers rather than police officers. Consider the following statements: I would like nothing more than to spend 40 hours a week knocking on doors and playing cop. That would be fine. It’s not happening [complaining about a lack of time] (106:B21). We don’t really have very many police officers out there. As a whole, the United States--with the population and everything else--does reasonably well with the very thin blue Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Mission Distortion

109

line. And so we try to help out and make that line a little thicker (112:C5).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The bottom line is, like many other states--Utah, I think, Arizona, several other states--have gone to where the CCOs or probation/parole officers have full law enforcement authority. Now that they’ve gone away from the social work aspect to law enforcement. And I believe in that...we should have full commissions, we should be removed from other aspects of the Department of Corrections, such as the prisons and the social worker aspects and become part of the state police and the only difference in our training would be instead of training for traffic investigations or chasing taillights, we go into more of what’s appropriate for probation and parole. But as far as the rest of the training, arrest, search and seizure, there’s no difference (104:C2). Clearly, these statements reflect major flaws in the DOC’s training regimen. There are profound differences in the procedural guidelines that community corrections officers ought to follow compared to their police officer counterparts. For example, police officers must have probable cause in order for a search to be constitutional while community corrections officers (at least typically) are not subject to such restraints. Meanwhile, the fruits of a CCO’s search constitute legal evidence of suspected probation violations, while a police search is generally designed to provide evidence of a new crime being investigated on the basis of demonstrable probable cause. These distinctions form the very basis of the limited rights guaranteed to probationers. Officers who are not trained to observe these rights are a liability to the agency and represent a threat to the proper observance of civil liberties. Further, these officers are being diverted from the fulfillment of their professional obligations to carry out their duties to the best of their ability--a weak managerial practice at best. Other NBSOs put it this way: ...actually, we do the same job. We don’t write tickets, we write violations. We carry guns, we carry badges. We go out in a car, we go into houses. They go into houses. The positions are very much parallel (114:C4b).

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

110

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work ...there’s very little difference in our job descriptions even though many in the department try to make our positions more social work oriented or a lot more of them don’t want to be a part of law enforcement. By statute, we are, and unless that’s changed, I think the upper management should get in line, get more in tune with what statute and our duties actually are--like I told you, probably off the record--about how things are really done (104:C4).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

This statement was consistent with the overall frame of mind of several other NBSOs interviewed for this study. There is a decided lessened emphasis (among some NBSOs) on rehabilitation and service responsibilities reflected in such comments. These attitudes were even noticed by some NROs as well. They [NBSOs] almost become--working around the police-they almost become more--and again, possibly maybe that’s why they put in for it [to work in the COPS-Shops], to work with the police--because they have more of that philosophy. They want to--if the offenders mess up--the ones in the COPSShops [NBSOs] want to put them back in jail, prison, whatever. The ones I’ve seen don’t tend to be as lenient--“oh, let’s give him another chance...” They don’t seem to be as lenient. But that could be why they decided to put in for this [to work in a COPS-Shop]--because they wanted to work with the police more and have more of that, kind of, similar philosophy (505:B13). The DOC’s failure to establish clear guidelines for their community corrections officers has clearly led to some identifiable confusion. This confusion, it seems, has the potential to be the source of significant tension among the DOC’s NBSOs. While it is evident that some NROs and NBSOs are confused about the specific nature of their respective missions, other police and correctional officers engaged in the interagency partnership program suggest that they do recognize some important boundaries: ...I think it’s very effective to have police being a part of your team. Now, I do agree that the police need to go out with me on every home visit? No. That can--that changes the whole Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Mission Distortion

111

dynamics of my interaction with the offender. Partnering with the police, when it has to do with offender contacts, needs to be fairly selective. There needs to be a reason for having that police presence (114:C4). We have different rules--and so when we go out and do things together, we can do different things and our administration has come down with different rules and regulations...we’re usually pretty good about working together, but maybe that could be a possible [negative outcome of the partnership]--where we get too comfortable (505:B8c).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Collectively, these comments demonstrate how complicated mission preservation can be when engaging in police-probation partnerships. Some NROs and NBSOs acknowledge important distinctions between the police mission and the probation mission. Nevertheless, maintaining clear role distinctions is a very delicate process for NROs and NBSOs alike. Even to police and corrections officers who are cognizant of agency role differences, confusion is still evident in their observations: My job isn’t to rehabilitate offenders. My community--I work for my community. And [the NBSOs’] jobs are to protect the community, but also to try to rehabilitate offenders. Our relationship together is that we protect the community. I don’t know... (507:B11b). We [the NROs and NBSOs] were hand-in-hand. We had the same agenda. The same agenda is, you know, being a resource officer, you’re multi-hat. You’re a teacher, you’re a social worker, you’re a facilitator, you’re a police officer--first and foremost. You’re an enforcer. So, you wear all these hats. A corrections officer is an educator, a teacher, an enforcer--same thing. We have the same agenda. We have a different conclusion to that agenda, but we have the same agenda (511:B6). ...If someone asked me that, I’d say I’d lean more towards the law enforcement side [motioning], sure, than maybe on this [corrections and social service] side [motioning again]...But I Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

112

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work wish that we--as a whole--worked a little closer with [the police], you know, and I educate them on what we can and can’t do. And I think they realize that, you know, I’m not going to and I CAN’T act as their agent. And I don’t want to act as their agent. If I can assist them by throwing a name at them or giving them a lead, you bet, but the closer we work with them, the better off we are in the long run (105:C4).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

In fact, it is not uncommon for CCOs to have some law enforcement background. Three of the NBSOs who participated in this study pointed out that they had such experience. But not all NBSOs viewed their mission orientation the same way. The tendency of some NBSOs to see themselves as proxy police officers was viewed as a problem by other NBSOs. Specifically, some NBSOs point out that mission distortion can make it difficult to achieve the basic goals of community corrections, especially pertaining to providing effective support services for offenders. We’ve got officers [NBSOs] that love to play cops and robbers...we need to have more consistency among the officers (103:B10). Well, as management would say, “look, we’re not law enforcement.” To a certain extent, we are--I guess we would be viewed as more of a policing agency, just arresting people-and you can kind of get that way if you are dealing with the police department. “That guy’s a dirt bag!” You know. “He doesn’t deserve any breaks--I’ve contacted him five times in the last month--arrest him!” Sometimes it does turn to that. So, I think you still need to deal with these people when they get back out again, so we can’t be the asshole every time we show up to their doorstep. We have to try and attempt to work with the offender--so that would be the only downfall [about the partnership] (108:C4c). You’ll find some staff, some CCOs, that are strictly law enforcement. Every time the offender violates, or does something wrong, then all the CCO wants to do is throw him in jail. Well, that’s going to cause some conflict because the offender is looking toward that CCO for some assistance,

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Mission Distortion

113

some help, or some guidance, and if you’re not providing that, then it’s going to cause some conflict (114:B16). I’d say [that conflict arises between CCOs and offenders from] just the hard-nosed law enforcement...kind of the Gestapo tactics where [NBS] officers don’t do anything but roust guys, always shaking guys down (103:B16).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Some of the officers interviewed for this study went so far as to point out perceived problems with the partnership stemming from differences in the professional roles of participants. [We have] two different processes, two different ways of a-two different goals. Like [one NRO] for example, our NRO here, is a “kill them all, let God sort them out” kind of guy-”arrest that son of a bitch.” Well, I can’t just arrest him for being an idiot. You know, I don’t have anything to arrest the guy for. Crooks and law enforcement officers obviously have a different kind of relationship than community corrections officers should have with an offender. So, no, I don’t think [community corrections officers and police officers] should [work together] (103:C4). ...I am not here to play Joe Police Officer...if you need assistance along the way--like in, maybe, some help with referring you to child care or referring you to employment resources, or sending you to alcohol or drug treatment, or, you know, money management type of classes, or domestic violence type of classes. You know, I’ll help you along the way. I want their trust in that I am not here to, you know, to wait for the hammer up here and I can’t wait and choose my next victim kind of thing...I guess it’s important for them to feel a sense of trust and a sense of respectability. I expect them to respect me because I am going to respect them. I will respect them even if it comes down to the point where I have to arrest them. I mean, you know, I don’t take pride in it, I don’t put a little slash on my door--“I’ve arrested another one.” (105:B9).

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

114

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

I work closely with the police and I enjoy that, and my answer to that would be “you bet, the closer we work with them the better off we all are.” But I think some CCOs will say, “well, no, we have our job to do and we are not police officers.” ...some CCOs may view me as working too closely with the police...some people are going to view that as “okay, let’s march down, do our fieldwork with that officer, we’ll have our van right here and, you know, we’ll play cops and robbers.” Of course that’s not what we’re doing and what we’re all about, but there are some [traditional] CCOs that have that attitude that--some of us out in the field [NBSOs] have that cops and robbers kind of attitude, which we don’t...(105:C4). Comments of this nature, while indicative of the potential problems associated with mission distortion, demonstrate that some NBSOs are acutely aware of their specific mission orientation. Perhaps more importantly, these comments suggest that these officers appreciate the importance of mission preservation. This should be good news to DOC management because it may mean that mission distortion is not an inevitable consequence of police-probation partnerships, but rather that some subtle modifications in training strategies may be the key to mission preservation. Stalking Horse Incidents One especially alarming potential form of mission distortion associated with police-probation partnerships is when probation officers serve to gain police access to the homes of probationers. In these instances, there is the potential for probation officers to play a role known as a “stalking horse” for police officers. In these cases, it is possible for the latter to harass probationers and lead to illegal searches of their homes (extending beyond their person and immediate surroundings). Sometimes I think, what they call it in the past, and the case law refers to it as the Stalking Horse Case, and that is, basically, that on occasion--the theory on that was that overzealous police officers could use a PO to get into a residence, for example, to do a search. And a lot of those

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Mission Distortion

115

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

cases have been thrown out in the past because, I mean, they are using the authority of the PO [probation officer] with the waiver of Fourth Amendment, search and seizure, to get into a dwelling and observe, you know, what’s going on there (111:C4c). In other instances, it may be possible for police officers to simply direct the probation officers in the performance of their duties. While the means may be different, the ends are the same--probation officer mission distortion, the abuse of power, and the violation of offender rights. Such abuses were alleged, for example, in a review of a joint police-probation program in New York City between New York State parole officers and NYPD officers (for a discussion, see Burrell, 1999). It is important to note that not all police-probation collaborations pose problems such as those mentioned above. There are ranges of circumstances under which police officers may legitimately accompany and assist probation officers in the field. The general rule for policeprobation collaborations on searches and home visits is that police officers must work as agents of the probation officers, but not the other way around. For example, police officers may provide backup to probation officers in order to enhance officer safety. Due to the potential complications associated with making these field operations distinctions, however, the establishment of clear rules of collaboration and standard operating procedures is necessary. In order to get a sense of how complicated the nature of these field collaborations actually is in practice, it is necessary to get a sense of what encourages police officers and probation officers to engage in these joint activities in the first place. There are a number of reasons why collaborating on searches and other home visits is seen as desirable for law enforcement and corrections officers alike. Some NROs and NBSOs explain: They like working with us. They--we can go into an offender’s home without a search warrant. They can’t. And if they get tips and information, they come to us and share it, and if we feel like we better go check that out, we can take one of them with us and “oh my god, look! There’s a lab! Oh, there’s drugs! Oh, new charges!” You know, so then it

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

116

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work helps--they like working with us because we can get them into these places and, you know, they’re assisting us, but boy, if there’s enough drugs there for me to charge them, boy, then we back off, they get the warrant, they take over, you know, and they can do their job. So they like working with us (102:C11).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

[w]e had something going on in a garage and so we got a hold of this one [police] officer and he said, “yeah, I’ll go out with you.” And we ended up finding a meth. lab and finding the drugs and we had to clear out and the guy got new charges. I mean, that’s life when you have an officer going along with you. You have that kind of outcome...we could have violated him, but I mean, it’s like we’re making the community safer because we’re...taking him off the street... (102:C4b & C6c). I mean, they’re [NBSOs] great for going into a house and doing a search of a person who’s on probation to make sure that there’s not drugs going on or there’s not some other crime that might be happening. And we [alone] can’t do that (503:B6). Just about once a month, I’ll come in contact with them or they’ll say “hey, so and so’s up in your area and I actually want to go make sure that he’s abiding by all the rules. Will you go up with me and make contact? And I go, “oh absolutely,” because he lives in my area so I want to know. I want inside the house if I can gain access to it...I want to know everything I can get (506:B9). The desirability of such collaborations, however, must not divert attention from the importance of mission preservation. It is essential that both law enforcement and corrections officers understand the limits of their authority, and that they act accordingly. This task is complicated by the fact that, for many community corrections and law enforcement officers, there is a rather fine line between legitimate and illegitimate joint activities. There are clear signs in the interview data collected that there is some degree of recognition of these role-based rules among NROs and NBSOs.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Mission Distortion

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

There are some things that we can do that the police can’t do and I think sometimes some of those boundaries can get crossed if you rule out, if you have that constant police presence--it’s kind of hard to explain, but, there’s--police--we don’t need warrants to search our offenders. We don’t need warrants to search the offender’s residence. The police do. Okay? The police act--if they go with us--they act as our agent of protection basically. But they are not allowed to do any actual searching, per se. There’s a possibility, if that education piece isn’t done--and even if it is--there could be some boundaries they could cross there--the police doing some things that they shouldn’t be doing (114:C4c). ...if you’re not careful about, you know, where your duties begin and end, you can get caught up in that kind of a, you know, scenario. ...I mean, really, they are assisting us, so they become kind of our agents, so if we are going to go on a search, that’s based on our own reasonable suspicion, our own probable cause, and they are just simply assisting us and they’ll participate in the search at our direction. They don’t take over--we do it ourselves (111:C4c). I just try to stay within the parameters of what I know the laws are and what my authority--granted by the powers I have exists--how far I can go with that. And their [the NBSOs’] powers are different than mine. They can do things that I can’t do as a policeman within search and seizure laws and things like that. They have different powers than I do, so you kind of have to blend it together, but stay within the realm of what police officers’ powers are versus what Department of Corrections Officer’s powers are. You kind of let them--when you get up to the point where you’re at that fine line, you have to let them take over and let them do what they need to do and to step over that line and say “now I’m a Department of Corrections Officer even if I’m using a police uniform.” You can’t do that. You have to let them do theirs--their end of the partnership. You can learn to know each other to make it work. Otherwise you’re butting heads with each other trying to figure out “well, I can’t do this and you can’t do this and

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

117

118

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work where can we meet in the middle out here?” So, you have to be careful on that (509:C10b).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

These statements illustrate that officers are aware that there are limits on the scope of their respective powers, but there is obvious confusion evident in the statements recorded in the interviews with officers. Concern over preserving the integrity of the parameters of NRO and NBSO power is warranted. It is unreasonable for the partnering agencies to expect officers to identify, understand, and adhere to these complex legal parameters on their own without appropriate training and reflection upon that training. In this case, the SPD and DOC would be wise to offer specific, formal training and professional development to the officers. Failure to formulate clear guidelines is extremely dangerous. The practical benefits of collaborative home visits, searches, etc. are easily identified, so it is reasonable to expect insufficiently trained officers to take full advantage of whatever discretion they are permitted by policy. Consider the following statements. ...they like the advantage of using us because they may have somebody in a house that they want and they can’t go in, but we have somebody in that house on supervision. And guess what? We CAN go in. We just knock and walk (115:C4b). A couple of times I went with [NBSOs] when they went and [made home visits]. They said “well, once in a while, we’d like to just bring you along just to let them know that I have a relationship with you and that I can bring them along and that you can write up new charges on them if we find something.” Because DOC--they can go and search everything. These guys have no rights with DOC. With us, we still have all the Amendments we’ve got to--they have rights. But when they [NBSOs] go in, they don’t really have any rights, so they can go in and search anywhere. And if they find something, just to remind them, they like for us to come once in a while just because “hey, we have a relationship with the police, so don’t be thinking that we don’t and that we won’t re-arrest you if you do criminal activity.” [If a CCO finds evidence for a new

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Mission Distortion

119

charge and you are there, you can write them up on that charge, correct?] Yes (505:B9 emphasis added). ...the tremendous power those folks (DOC officers) have to walk into somebody’s house and say “what’s going on?” I can be their “buddy” so to speak and there’s a term that we use, there’s an acronym--I can’t think of it now--we’re partnering up with them now and going through this stuff. You know, if we see something, of course, they can latch on to their person and take them away or do whatever they have to do. But we can back off and then put on our police hat and say “now, okay, it’s time to shift gears and get the search warrants and do all this stuff.” And so they’re a tremendous tool (501:B2b).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

[The benefits of partnering with DOC officers are], I think, just being able to access who their offenders are and what their restrictions are. And then having them as a tool to get into houses that we wouldn’t otherwise be able to access for people (504:B11a). Preventing stalking horse incidents isn’t as simple as merely instructing officers on when to lead and when to follow. The potential for NBSOs to serve as stalking horses for the police, for instance, seems to be linked to safety concerns--particularly as they pertain to firearms. NBSOs are required to take the “lead” position when conducting a warrantless search with police serving as backup. Police-led searches, on the other hand, require probable cause and a warrant. This, however, is not seen by all officers as practical when CCOs are limited by strict firearms policies or are unarmed altogether (sometimes because of these strict policies). In these cases, some NROs point out that they need to take the lead position for safety reasons (for an indepth discussion, see the section on firearms in the chapter on Organizational Lag). [when we’re entering a house and the NBSO is] standing in the doorway, we’re pushing them out of the way saying “if I’m going with you, you’re following my lead because you are going to get me hurt” (506:B:10).

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

120

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

In part, the stalking horse problem stems from confusion about the respective formal roles (or missions) of NROs and NBSOs; formalizing relations (as the partnership does), however, may contribute to solving the problem. After all, mistakes are more likely when participants don’t know what they are supposed to be doing. Working together frequently helps NROs and NBSOs learn the rules, and thus be more likely to observe them in carrying out their respective duties. Importantly, probation officers may engage in warrantless searches and the fruit of their searches are admissible in revocation hearings (and other “nonadversarial” proceedings) despite the fact that they would not be allowed in a new criminal trial. This fact raises a plethora of questions regarding the liability issues faced when police officers accompany CCOs on home visits. The interviews and observations conducted for this study revealed that it is not uncommon for police officers to accompany a CCO on a warrantless search, with the police officer working as an agent of the CCO to provide officer safety support in potentially dangerous settings. Several interviewees, however, reported that probationary investigation searches were sometimes turned over to the police if they revealed evidence of the commission of a new crime. Clearly, operating policies and procedures must address these issues, and appropriate management and oversight practices must be developed with these potential abuses in mind. ...no one ever told me that I couldn’t do anything with [CCOs] ever. I had total freedom to do whatever we wanted to do with that [working together] (505:C10b). Moreover, if participants from each agency know the responsibilities and limits of their counterparts then officers can begin to hold each other accountable. This would be most feasible when multi-agency approaches are taken to solve specific problems. In such an event, the responsibilities of each should be clearly outlined--and the success of the team depends on each participant being both accountable to their own respective missions AND supportive of the mission of their counterpart.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Mission Distortion

121

Just Taking it All Too Far One especially worrisome aspect of Spokane’s police-probation partnership in relation to mission distortion is the potential for officers to abuse their authority. Since officers in this interagency partnership are placed in the neighborhood community setting, they are generally less visible to their respective agency supervisors and somewhat less subject to existing organizational controls.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

...I kind of subscribe to a rule that I heard a while back: “Rules is for fools.” I supervise people the way I think they need to be supervised, and if policy says something different-oh well. Until somebody tells me to cut it out, or do something, management says “do it a different way,” well, I just keep cruising along any way I can (103:B15). I couldn’t ever ask for more discretion. I mean, nobody questions me on how I do my job. I don’t ask for permission. Very seldom do I have to ask for forgiveness. And if I do my job effectively, it makes everybody above me look good. I’ve never had to apologize for what I’ve done. I very seldom ask for permission--I just do it (507:C11). In this setting, officers are in positions where there are few organizationally defined objectives. Consequently, these objectives are often defined based in part on the demands of the community and in part on each officer’s discretion. Staying insulated from the whimsical nature of community pressures can be challenging. Like I said, that vigilante line isn’t far away when you get yourself so in-depth that you can’t stay objective (511:C18). This dynamic is particularly threatening because the officers in the partnership have additional means (that stem from the collaboration itself) at their disposal by which to achieve these objectives (see discussion above). Keeping officers from straying too far from their appropriate roles may be the greatest challenge facing the SPD and DOC in the Neighborhood Based Supervision program.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

122

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work Basically, in the COPS-Shops, you’re on your own (108:E5). Where are your boundaries? As an NRO and as a law enforcement officer--how far you can make the rubber-band on the law bend to come around without putting yourself into a civil liability (511:B12)?

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

But again, like my boss says “do your 40 hours, make your neighborhood happy, and you won’t hear from me.” That’s a tremendous amount of freedom in a job so available to misguided rogues. It would be easy to do all sorts of bad stuff up here and nobody would ever know until one little thing goes wrong and the whole world comes crashing down on you...like I said, the two guys that got fired were not necessarily bad guys. They were young puppies. I was there once myself (501:D9). I think I’ve been an NRO long enough, I know how to manage my time and I know what my focus is. My focus--to me--is important and I know what that focus is--I focus on those things that are important to me (509:D2). Even though it’s [the partnership] in its [infancy], the Department’s adapted real well. There’s a lot of anonymity in the COPS-Shops. We can basically do whatever we want (115:E12). But, as an NRO, you’re out here on your own, on the end of your string out here--and you kind of just have to think outside of the box once in a while (509:C18). ...you have so much flexibility and so much discretion. If you didn’t have integrity, there are so many ways to abuse the system (507:C23). Mission distortion, as observed by this researcher, assumed its most alarming form when officers used their power to cleanse their neighborhoods of “undesirables” or “nuisances.” In some cases, NROs and NBSOs simply act in response to pressure from citizens to preserve the “quality of life” in the neighborhood. Sometimes this results in

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Mission Distortion

123

NROs and NBSOs using their authority to apply pressure to particular members of the neighborhood to either comply with specific norms or move out. Consider the following, rather disturbing, example of how such pressure--with questionable legal basis--was applied:

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

This girl and her gang friends and everything are terrorizing this upper class neighborhood. Okay? I have neighbors that were shut down because of fear...I threw UAs [urine-analysis drug tests] at her, I threw CPS [Child Protective Services] at her, I threw Animal Control at her. I threw Department of Code Enforcement at her. All these things were pieces I just kept hammering at her. We even got to a point where the community got together and offered to buy her house at 10% more than its value just to get her out of the neighborhood. This was after they tried to fix her and she wouldn’t be fixable...[now] she’s back in Iowa where she belongs...Now, what she’s doing over there, I don’t know. But is my problem fixed over here? Yes. That community threw me the biggest party you could ever see (511:B8b). We always call it playing ping-pong. Between the [Neighborhood] Resource Officers, we call it playing pingpong. “They’re in your neighborhood.” “Get out of my neighborhood.” “They’re over in your neighborhood.” We just play ping-pong with them. Finally, they say, “well, where am I supposed to live?” “Deer Park [way up North] would be good!” I mean [laughing], this is kind of the comedy behind the resource officers. We had this one family we evicted 8 times and every one of us knows them because they’ve lived in each one of our neighborhoods. And they are now living in my neighborhood again...you know? And we just play pingpong (511:C7).

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

124

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

The tendency to enforce community norms rather than laws and terms of supervision was shared by some NBSOs as well. When one NBSO was asked What is the most important thing the community can provide offenders to help them be successful?, the reply was as follows: To say “you are living in my neighborhood, you are living down the street from me. Loud parties every single night of the week and tons of short-stay traffic is [sic] not acceptable in my neighborhood. You want to live here? Great! You know, live like the rest of us (103:B11).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Another NBSO even went so far as to suggest that pressure from citizens in the neighborhood influenced how he/she would supervise an offender. The officer was asked, “[a]t what point do you decide that an offender’s supervision should be revoked?” This was the reply: It’s when they, it’s two things--when they become, they’re really causing trouble in the community and they’re not living to what the community wants, and they’re really, to put it simply, extremely bad neighbors (112:B19) The reason that these problems are addressed in an analysis of policeprobation partnerships is because there are clear indications in the interview data that the partnership was seen by some officers as a means by which to expand their options to use their power to achieve these ends. [CCOs] really, truly know everything about the people who are on their caseload. So, when I get one of them up in my area, it makes me eager to bring them back this information-because if I can violate them, what it means is, they have to move. So not only have I solved my problem, but the Community Corrections Officer knows that he has a police officer right up there watching 24/7...I mean, some of these people actually get out of prison and aren’t going to come and revisit the system, but while they’re on supervision, if they’re living in my area, I want to know about them. Especially if I have crime committed that match their MO. So, the corrections guys will tell me about him—“yeah, he’s not

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

.

Mission Distortion

125

going to make it very long. He’s going to reoffend.” Because they know (506:B6).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

You know, you can be a butt and I’ll be on the verge of taking you to jail, but it would probably be more trouble than it’s worth--but if I say, “okay, if you don’t get your shit straight, I’m going to talk to your [NBSO] and we’ll put the screws to you. You’ve got two choices”...Well, I don’t want to take you to jail, so that saves me time for something that probably-what they’re doing is a minor annoyance to me and probably wouldn’t amount to anything--but if I can use the threat of them to make you behave, then we’re both winners. You don’t go to jail and I don’t have to do a bunch of stuff that takes more time and so--(501:B11b). It seems that police-probation partnerships simply give officers greater levels of authority and more freedom to use that authority in ways that fall outside the scope of commonly accepted police and probation mission orientations, respectively. Spokane’s police-probation partnership is designed to broaden the mission orientations of police officers and probation officers. In the process of implementing these partnerships, however, neither the SPD nor the DOC have not done nearly enough to insure that these mission orientations would remain distinct and manageable. In short, the respective mission orientations of both NROs and NBSOs seem to have expanded to the point that they are a threat to civil liberties. Because we have no objective way to evaluate our work product, we’re not disciplined for poor performance...So, we’re not disciplined. There’s no expectations, so you can’t be disciplined for not meeting them. But, a supervisor has to know--there’s an understanding that we’re effective. That doesn’t sound right, but it is (507:C25). Enforcing the status quo in a neighborhood may be a relatively subtle form of the abuse of power, but this practice is problematic nonetheless. That said, this problem is not necessarily an inherent byproduct of police-probation partnerships. Without clearly defined mission orientations for the participating officers, however, these

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

126

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

partnerships have the potential to expand the capacity of officers to use their power to achieve questionable goals by suspect means. This distortion in missions is a threat that has the potential to taint the credibility of police-probation partnerships, and it represents a problem that must be taken seriously by the managers and administrators overseeing these programs. It simply isn’t sufficient to expect officers to provide effective checks on their own authority. As mentioned above in the discussion on noble cause corruption (Crank, 2003), officers have a tendency to believe that they are doing the right thing if the overall end is a good one. As one officer noted: I know what I do is right. I know that I haven’t screwed up, so I don’t have [those] kinds of stresses (507:C20).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

What is necessary is for the agencies to define success more clearly and to more fully define the parameters of each officer’s authority? Answering this question will prove a major challenge for agencies as they seek to broaden the roles of police and corrections officers while preserving the integrity of their respective mission orientations. Discussion Mission distortion refers to situations where the definition of one’s professional mission (or role) orientation becomes blurred. This chapter reveals that police-probation partnerships have the potential to lead NBSOs down such a path. For instance, actively working with the police makes it convenient for some NBSOs to gravitate toward a greater emphasis on law enforcement priorities at the expense of their responsibilities to provide services to their clients. Moreover, policeprobation partnerships threaten to increase the likelihood of NBSOs serving as Stalking Horses for NROs and other police officers. What is worrisome about mission distortion is the potential it has to dramatically alter the relationship between probation officers and offenders living in the community. Probation officers serve a special function in the lives of their clients while promoting long and short term public safety. Probation officers have a responsibility to help officers reintegrate into their communities as law-abiding citizens. If probation officers shift their focus to an overemphasis on strictly enforcing conditions of supervision, this will surely come at a cost to their ability to serve as mentors, liaisons, and advocates for their

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Mission Distortion

127

clients. If nothing else, probationers may very well begin to see their CCOs as “just another fucking cop.” In the worst case scenario, this has the potential to result in the probationer’s reluctance to seek out the probation officer for help with finding a job, obtaining necessary training, getting into rehabilitation and treatment, and acquiring an education. Furthermore, this may result in the probationer’s added reluctance to share important community information (about drug houses, etc.) with probation officers, which is counterproductive from a crime-control perspective. Finally, police officers must respect the social service component of the probation officer’s job. For example, police officers must not pressure probation officers to prioritize law enforcement goals over social service goals. In addition, police officers must take an active role in facilitating the efforts of probationers to successfully reintegrate into the community. In other words, police officers must recognize that they have an opportunity to directly contribute to a probationer’s ability to avoid falling into a pattern of recidivism. For example, a police officer would be wise to rely more heavily on probation officers for help when trying to solve community problems. The traditional law enforcement approach to problem solving has emphasized making arrests. As a result, police officers in this partnership still have a tendency to seek out the help of probation officers because probation officers often possess information that can lead to an arrest. It is also important for police officers to emphasize the ability of probation officers to help identify alternatives to making an arrest. This will make it easier to strike a balance between law enforcement and community corrections objectives as they relate to proactive community problem solving. To do anything less will only continue to undermine ability of the partnership to serve law enforcement and community corrections goals simultaneously and equally. The potential for police-probation partnerships to distort the missions of NBSOs is, however, just part of the equation. These partnerships make it possible for both NROs and NBSOs to lose sight of some important organizational objectives. Specifically, because the venue for Spokane’s police-probation partnership is the neighborhood community setting, NROs and NBSOs alike are subject to the pressures of the citizens of the neighborhood. What distinguishes this problem from those faced by all officers working in the community setting is that the partnership itself provides officers with greater opportunities to

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

128

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

find creative ways to please the neighborhood public they serve. While it is possible for any community-oriented police or probation officer to lose sight of organizational objectives in favor of public demands, police-probation partnerships make such situations more dangerous (at least in theory). For instance, Spokane’s NROs and NBSOs are “better” able to enforce community standards (whatever they may be) when they are able to develop cooperative strategies to achieve such objectives. When these strategies are used responsibly, they are a benefit to the promotion of public safety and the quality of life. The potential for these enhanced powers to be abused, however, demands consideration. This chapter underlines the importance of appropriate organizational oversight of police-probation partnerships. More importantly, there is a identifiable lack of guidelines for officers to follow when carrying out the duties that are expected of them as part of this interagency partnership. It is clear that there is a degree of confusion among NROs and NBSOs regarding where their respective legal authority begins and ends. It is critical that the SPD and DOC enhance the scope and depth of existing training and professional development programs to prepare officers more fully for the pressures that contribute to mission distortion. Increased attention in these areas seems essential to the ability of officers to collaborate in ways that, at once, maximize the utility of the partnership without calling into question the professional integrity of the community corrections officers and law enforcement officers engaged in neighborhood-based partnership.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

CHAPTER 7

Organizational Lag

Complaints of incompetence and complacency are commonly directed by line-staff personnel toward management and leadership personnel in many large organizations. In criminal justice agencies, line-staff personnel frequently accuse organizational leaders of being out of touch with the day-to-day realities of work at the street level. Consider the following comment made by Neighborhood Resource Officers.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

There have been occasions where, I think...I don’t really believe that at some level, the upper echelons of the police department--the chief and them--understand what we do down here...(111:C9). Middle management and upper management--there is absolutely no collaboration going on--or very little--I’ll put it that way--very little. Not as much as there is at the grass roots [level], and maybe it’s better that way, I don’t know. But I feel that at the middle management level there needs to be a little more coordination (112:C2). These sentiments were found to be widespread among the officers participating in Spokane’s police-probation partnership. Further, these sentiments appeared to be linked to officer morale and overall confidence in the partnership itself. Specifically, the extent to which officers harbored doubts about the partnership were linked to their perceptions of the level of support they could count on from organizational leaders. As a result, it sees that the greatest threat to the success of policeprobation partnerships may very well come from within the partnering agencies themselves. While it is appropriate to analyze the conduct of the individual officers that are engaged in the partnership at the street 129 Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

130

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

level, it is also necessary to consider the roles of the agencies in providing officers with the organizational support necessary for success. The interviews and observations conducted for this study revealed that there are numerous ways in which the SPD and DOC have been slow to provide an adequate level of support in this regard. This phenomenon, known as Organizational Lag, is not necessarily an inherent problem of police-probation partnerships. Rather, these problems, once identified, can be eradicated (or at least minimized) through effective management strategies. This chapter outlines various examples of organizational lag as observed in the management of neighborhood-based partnerships in the SPD and the DOC. The implications of these examples of organizational lag are analyzed and discussed, with special attention given to the observations and recommendations of the participating NBSOs and NROs themselves. Additional suggestions for minimizing the effects of organizational lag are offered as well.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Organizational Lag and the Department of Corrections Caseload Size To the overwhelming majority of (if not all) Neighborhood Based Supervision Officers, large caseload sizes are considered to be the most significant obstacle to their ability to do their jobs effectively. This, of course, includes their ability to forge sustained working relationships with the police. In fact, caseload size was typically cited as a more significant stressor than the actual physical dangers of the job. At the time of the study, the average caseload maintained by an NBS officer was more than 65 offenders, with individual totals ranging from around 45 (and this was a temporary reduction from 70) to around 90. This was such a problem that several officers noted that that it was either extremely difficult or impossible to make all required field contacts: We’re extremely overloaded. Most of us have over 70 people. It’s extremely difficult to see all of them. Most of us are not getting our field requirements in…I can complain here for three hours, believe me. But, I think the way that they should be supervised is that we should have enough time to actually see what they’re doing and go to their work, meet their family, be at their home. We’re just putting out fires right now.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Organizational Lag

131

Literally. It is just chaos…with the caseloads that we have, I think they are setting us up for failure (106:A5/E13).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Yet another asserted, There’s too much, you’ll never get it done. I mean, there’s too many offenders, there’s too many things going on to feel like you’re actively on top of it all the time (111:B21). Clearly, the inability of NBS Officers—or for any CCO for that matter-to make all of their field contacts has serious implications for community safety. Nevertheless, interviews conducted with the traditional counterparts of NBS Officers suggest that virtually all of the department’s CCOs find it exceedingly difficult to meet all of their fieldwork requirements. Large caseloads have been identified by numerous researchers as an impediment to effectiveness for Community Corrections in general (for a discussion, see Immarigeon, 1986; Petersilia, 2001). Excessive caseloads may exact a higher price for NBS officers than other CCOs as they attempt to enhance the quality of supervision and develop meaningful working relationships with law enforcement and other entities in their respective communities. Some NBS officers point out that high caseloads make it difficult to keep track of information to share with the police, making the partnership stressful in itself. For instance, one NBS officer notes that the inability to keep up on field contacts has caused CCOs some embarrassment when the police assisted on a call to an offender’s home: This [CCO] had this individual on their caseload [for over a year]. This person has been with the DOC for a long time— very violent, you know—big time. The CCO had never been to the house! So, we had a team of like 8 officers, I mean the police have got the big guns out. And there were a bunch of CCOs and some CCOs were armed. You know, for this person to say “I’ve never been to his house; I don’t know where he lives.” I mean, what kind of position does that put everybody in? What about the cops? You know, they’re looking at us like, “oh.” …But that wasn’t in our unit, the NBS unit, because we’re squared away [laughing sarcastically] (101:B23).

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

132

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Another community corrections officer commented that the Neighborhood Resource Officer sometimes politely ribbed the NBS Officers about their inability to spend much time in the field, He knows the job does require a lot of paperwork, and so we’ll joke back and forth about that because we’re in the office most of the time working on paperwork (107:C10). Moreover, excessively high caseloads limited the ability of some NBS Officers to serve the public to the extent that, according to them, working out of a COPS-Shop required. As one NBS Officer points out:

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

I wish we had more time—because we are community based—I wish we had more time to interact with the community. You know, we try to be there as much as we can, but because of the high caseloads we can’t. (101:B6) If I had more time, if I had fewer offenders, I wouldn’t mind being more involved in the community or in this neighborhood and area in making it better (102:D9). I don’t spend any more time out in the field here than I did in the state office. I think I spend less time out in the field (106:B6). ...if the job was more about what they stated--which is us being out in the community, us banging on doors, us having more exposure to the offenders--which is absolutely false-that would be great...that would be fine. It’s not happening (106:B21). Over the long term, excessive caseloads may cause serious problems for NBS officers if they are expected to serve a role at the COPS-Shop that is complimentary to that of the NRO in terms of serving the needs of the neighborhood. When asked about an optimal caseload size, NBS Officers suggested that it was necessary to reduce caseloads significantly in order to provide the time for them to complete all of their responsibilities. Officers recommended caseloads ranging from 20 to

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Organizational Lag

133

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

40—with most of them agreeing that these could all be medium and maximum risk cases. As a group, their recommended caseload size averaged just over 30 offenders—less than half of the average actual caseload size currently being maintained by CCOs. In summary, large caseloads create a great deal of stress for many CCOs, and this stress is particularly great for NBS officers considering their expanded duties. Moving CCOs out into the community without reducing caseloads often leaves the officer feeling overwhelmed and may inhibit the realization of some of the long-term goals of the Neighborhood Based Supervision program. While these potential negative consequences may take a variety of forms, problems in this regard will pose a particular challenge for successful partnerships between corrections and the police. It is unreasonable to expect NBS officers to be valuable resources to NROs and neighborhood communities if they cannot keep track of the offenders (including their needs and the risks they pose) on their individual caseloads. Caseload Location While geographic caseload assignment is attractive in theory, it has not been fully realized by all Neighborhood Based Supervision Officers. In some special cases, such as with gang members, offenders are assigned to a specialized CCO regardless of the offender’s geographical residence (1). More importantly, however, NBS officers are assigned to geographic areas that are, quite simply, home to more offenders than they can realistically accommodate on their caseloads. As one NBS Officer pointed out, each officer has a limit to how many offenders they can have on their caseload (based on workload points): But if you top out, [additional offenders] will go to officers that will handle other offenders in your same area. If [my partner] and I had everybody assigned that lived in our area, you know, we’d probably have several hundred each! You know? [Laughing] So, there’s no way we can handle everybody (102:B1). As a result, many NBS officers get assistance from traditional CCOs (based out of the main state offices) in supervising offenders in any given geographic area. Although this can be a complex arrangement, it does not necessarily conflict with goals of NBS as the actual NBS

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

134

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

officer’s caseload is still confined to the immediate area to which the officer is stationed. In other cases, however, NBS officers have been assigned offenders—and sometimes entire caseloads—that reside outside of the neighborhood where the officer is stationed. Of 12 active NBS Officers, 4 had caseloads with these characteristics at the time of the study. Two of the officers had caseloads that were (roughly) split in half—with one half residing in the officers’ neighborhood and the other living outside of the city in a outlying portion of the county. The other two officers, despite being stationed to a neighborhood COPSShop, supervised caseloads that resided exclusively in an adjacent county. While deviating from true geographic caseload assignment may be a matter of necessity in some cases, these latter examples are wholly inconsistent with the objectives of the Neighborhood Based Supervision program. Moreover, non-geographic caseload assignment may defeat the purpose of stationing CCOs in COPS-Shops altogether and be viewed unfavorably by other agencies and the public. Some police officers, for example, pointed out that they thought these cases were examples of the DOC taking advantage of the COPS-Shop for cheap office space and for access to volunteer assistance (and the public exposure). Finally, failure to assign caseloads geographically appears to place additional burdens on these so-called Neighborhood Supervision Officers. As one NBS Officer with a geographically based caseload observed of those community corrections officers without geographically based caseloads: …these guys travel to outlying counties. And their travel time is like 2 hours, 3 hours, 4 hours, I mean, to get there and stuff. When we go on home visits and they’re not home, then it doesn’t count. So, these guys are going miles and miles and they’re not getting credit for it. It’s crap…they’re not being compensated (101:E25). In fact, of the NBS officers interviewed, caseloads were, in some cases confined to 3 square miles. For some, however, caseloads were spread out over many square miles of countryside. For some NBS officers, the small size of their territory is viewed as the key to the potential of the program, allowing them to become familiar with the needs of their

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Organizational Lag

135

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

offenders and the resources available to them there. In rural areas, the situation is entirely different, however. In addition to the different travel distances involved, some of the NBS Officers who have to travel extensively (that is, those who exceed 1000 miles per month), must work with an entirely different set of law enforcement agencies and different citizen groups than those that exist where their offices are located. It just doesn’t make much sense to place NBS Officers in a COPS-Shop if the location of their caseload precludes the development of relationships with the police officers that actually utilize that facility—particularly if it doesn’t enhance the officer’s relationship with his or her caseload. As one NBS officer noted, “It would be a lot better, I feel, to have an actual office in [the] respective counties [where I work]” (104:A3). One such officer admitted he couldn’t explain how or why he had been placed in a COPS-Shop. Initially, the officer had requested assistance in developing a closer working relationship with the sheriff’s deputies in the county where most of his caseload resided—because of the dangers associated with supervising offenders in the area. He readily admitted that he didn’t know how being assigned to a city COPS-Shop was supposed to achieve that particular goal. I think in some places…that tie [between law enforcement and NBS officers] is real close. It’s not that way here because of the—we work with the deputies and we only see the deputies when we go there (106:B9). The absence of a close working relationship between NBS Officers in this particular COPS-Shop and the local police may also be attributed to the fact that the local NRO is assigned to two neighborhoods. Incidentally, the NRO spends less time at this particular location than the other—which may be, at least in part, because the NRO may believe the NBS Officers there have little to offer considering the location of their caseloads. In fact, one of the officers shed light on the poor quality of their relationship, admitting, “to be honest with you, I didn’t even know what [an NRO] was until about the fourth month I was here [stationed at a COPS-Shop]” (107:D18). This type of assignment not only limits the NBS officer in the community where he or she is stationed, but also in the community where their caseload actually resides. In the case of one officer with a

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

136

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

caseload split between two communities, there are problems keeping everyone satisfied. My partner and I do half [of our caseload] there and half here. [The] office in that community wants to know why we’re not up there more. We always say, “hey…we’re doing the best we can…,” but then there’s some people in Spokane that say “well, why aren’t you full time here?” We’re kind of split in two and it’s hard to please everyone because you’re giving half your time to the other community (107:D8).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Some NBS officers even suggest that the DOC is taking advantage of the availability of COPS-Shops while failing to use them for their intended purpose. I view this as the Department of Corrections here locally looking for free rent and I think that’s totally inappropriate. It isn’t doing the community any good because these two community corrections officers don’t have time and can’t do anything for that community and it is a disservice for the two officers to be putting them into that type of situation…that just flies in the face of Neighborhood Based Supervision and the philosophy of what the COPS-Shops are all about (112:E12). NROs even voiced concern over the failure of the DOC to adhere to geographic caseload assignments. One NRO referred to the caseloads of two NROs working out of a COPS-Shop across town: ...they’re down there doing their thing and a lot of them, like say down at [another NRO’s shop]--a lot of their clients are like up [in an area completely outside of the city limits], which to me makes no sense. That I disagree with. If you’re going to be in a COPS-Shop, have your clients within the COPSShop area. (501:B9) Geographically based caseloads are a central component of NBS, and its importance is difficult to deny considering the objectives of the program. So far, the DOC has only been willing to put a maximum of two officers in each COPS-Shop. This may need reevaluation as it is Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Organizational Lag

137

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

obvious that some neighborhoods are home to more offenders than any two NBS officers can supervise. Further, the application of NBS to rural areas needs to be reconsidered as well—at least when the NBS officer is stationed in a COPS-Shop in the city. Firearms Requirements The use of firearms by community corrections officers is a controversial issue. While some CCOs argue that the right is essential, some are concerned about the impact that carrying firearms will have upon CCO-offender relationships (for discussions, see Sluder, Shearer and Potts, 1991; Small and Torres, 2001). Historically, the Washington State Department of Corrections has not permitted its officers to carry weapons in the line of duty. After what officers describe as a prolonged campaign to gain the right to carry firearms, however, the DOC has extended this privilege to community corrections officers on a voluntary basis. Nevertheless, these policy changes have been limited, placing narrow restrictions on how and when CCOs are permitted to carry and, ultimately, use their firearms. As could be expected, the DOC’s strict firearms regulations have met with a rather mixed response. CCOs on both sides of the issue recognize that the DOC’s firearms policies have the potential to put CCOs in awkward positions when working with the police. For instance, one NBSO complained that the DOC’s firearms policy severely undermined his ability to work effectively the police. …everyone works together except for me—and the reason is very obvious: the department’s policy on carrying firearms…since I can’t pull the gun unless my life is threatened…And that makes the police and the sheriff’s officers real uncomfortable because now all of a sudden they have to watch me and feel they have to protect me at the same time as themselves…and it puts me in a very awkward position (104:B4). This NBS officer went further to argue that this problem was serious enough to pose an obstacle to his ability to obtain the proper respect of the police. We appear to them that we really are powerless…not being able to back-up the police, there’s still a lot of police Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

138

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work officers…that would rather not provide anything, any services for us or back-up and just stay away from us (104:C11).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The conditions are certainly present for NBSOs to feel some peerpressure to carry firearms. During the interviews, NROs were asked if they believed NBSOs should carry firearms, and an overwhelming majority (all but one) responded positively--although some noted that they felt strongly about the need for a high level of training. In fact, the only NRO that didn’t believe NBSO’s should carry firearms cited a lack of adequate training as his primary concern--pointing out that without such training, armed CCOs are “a liability to themselves and a liability to us...I’ve gone on some things with CCOs that scared the shit out of me...they need to get their training and their qualification process in place before they issue guns” (507:B10). One NRO put it simply: ...I think if [Community] Corrections Officers are properly trained and properly schooled in the use of firearms, I see no problem with it whatsoever. To me, it’s a safety issue. Plus, if I need help and they’re there and they’re armed, I mean, they can help me out too. I mean, if I go out with the Department of Corrections and something happens and we start taking fire, and I’m the only one there with a gun, I don’t--you know--. So, again, it’s the selfish issue of “I’ve got more help there now” (503:B10). I think they should carry weapons, but I am also a little concerned. I mean, we have thousands of hours of training-thousands--and about every situation...they are just being trained to shoot a gun and they have very little [training] when it comes to “why am I not standing in this doorway?” Because they are--they are--they are standing in the middle of the doorway and we’re pushing them out of the way saying “if I’m going with you, you’re following my lead because you are going to get hurt” (506:B10). Other NROs are simply surprised that NBSOs don’t carry firearms. I can’t believe that they don’t [carry firearms]. Some of them do; they can. But, yeah, I do [believe they should]. They’re Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Organizational Lag

139

dealing with the baddest of the bad...I can’t believe that they don’t...So, with a [Community] Corrections Officer, when they’re dealing with these people, they don’t know what’s going to happen. And so I’m pretty hard core when it comes to that. As police officers--and they’re too, of sorts--we have a responsibility, #1 to themselves, and #2 to the public. (501:B10) Absolutely, firearms, yes. But training, tons of it. Yeah, I think they are being ripped off. I think we are making them our bulletproof vests--I mean, I think society is because one of them is going to be used as one. It’s just a matter of time. They’ve been very fortunate, I think (506:B10).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

While some observers have suggested that police-probation partnerships may make it unnecessary for probation officers to carry firearms (Cohn, 1997), some of the NBSOs interviewed for this study reported feeling pressure to carry firearms and fear that working with the police may lead some NBSOs to violate DOC departmental firearms policies in order to “fit in.” ...say I’m an armed officer and I am out with the police officer and we are going to a residence and we are going to affect an arrest. Well, 9 times out of 10, the police officers have their guns drawn. It’s their protocol--it’s the way they are trained. Our CCOs are prohibited from drawing their weapons, okay, unless they have that threat of imminent bodily harm or death in front of them. So, I don’t know, I don’t think it’s happened, but it could very well happen that, you know, I’ve got armed offi--I’ve got police officers out with me, I’m armed, they’ve got their weapons drawn, I had better draw my weapon, you know. Just because of that relationship thing. Just little things like that--you become too much of a cop if you are with a cop all day [laughing] (114:C4). ..when we go out with the police department, um, if we’re gonna do a search or an arrest or, we don’t know who is beyond the door--police officers always have their weapons out and in the ready position. You know, by policy, we aren’t

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

140

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

allowed to do that. So, I just find it easier if I don't have a weapon, I’m not in that position. I think our firearms issues have to be refined a little bit more to come into play a little bit more with law enforcement (112:B27). At the very least, partnerships with law enforcement must be considered when firearms policy revisions are made in the future. In addition, NBS officers are in a precarious situation because DOC policy requires those officers who choose to carry firearms to carry them (and wear a ballistics vest) every time they leave their offices and go out into the field. Further, “carrying” officers (as they are called) are required to store their weapons in locked security boxes when they are in their offices. Keep in mind, however, that NBSOs work in decentralized offices without much formal security. What’s more, these officers—unlike their state office-bound colleagues—are typically in and out of their offices several times per day (not only to meet with offenders, but by virtue of the decentralized nature of their office). Many NBS officers agree that it is not necessary to carry a weapon every time they leave their COPS-Shops and go into the field. One officer notes, “I think that most field officers, or a lot of field officers, feel that they don’t always need it—kind of like the way I feel. I mean, I have to, when I go out in the field—no matter who I am going to see, I have to pack” (105:B27). Some NBS officers argue that it is also inappropriate to disarm every time they return to the COPS-Shop office, pointing out that they are in a situation where individual officer safety is of greater concern than it is when working out of a state office building. …we can’t defend ourselves here. A person would come in here and blow me away ‘cause I can’t wear my gun here, which is ridiculous…Anybody can come in here and do what they want. As you can see, we have, usually, you know, a few volunteers, no support staff, and no barrier, and no safety precautions at all. And so that door—when they bang on it—I open it and somebody could just blast me right there (106:E9).

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Organizational Lag

141

Another officer notes,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

…our office is way in the back. If I’m by myself, someone comes in, if they were wanting to…do me in, you know, my gun’s locked up, I have no body armor on. If they have a gun, I would be dead. In the DOC offices it’s different because they have locked doors and windows and you feel a lot safer there than you do here (102:B24). ...as soon as you get in the office, you have to remove the firearm, and you have to store it, and take your vests off. Whereas when police officers come in here, they leave it on-for the whole term of duty, they are on duty, they are carrying a firearm. And we go in and out of the front door all the time, so go out the front door, put the vest on, put on the firearm, go out the front door. Come back five minutes later, take your vest off, put the firearm down there. And so this is the current policy. When you work in a larger DOC office, when [CCOs] are going outside the office, that tends to be a bigger event...but we have issues that come up all the time because we have 30 offenders living on the next block. Something comes up, we are out the door...this goes on all the time (112:B27). Clearly, if the DOC is going to permit officers to carry firearms, it is prudent to develop policies that are consistent with the needs of the officers on the street. Requiring all officers to carry firearms may not be appropriate considering the diversity of work assignments and officer styles. Nevertheless, if the DOC recognizes the need for some officers to carry firearms, it must develop policy in ways that are consistent with the practical needs of officers that choose to take advantage of that opportunity. As opposed to choosing whether to carry a firearm based on need, however, some officers opt not to carry because of the restrictive and impractical nature of the policies. For example, one officer noted: The way that current policies are written, it’s a royal pain in the ass to carry a firearm which is why I am not a carrying officer at this point. But, I think it’s fair and just an added level of safety…(103:B27).

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

142

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

In short, if the DOC recognizes the need for some DOC officers to carry firearms--and quite apparently it does--then it is obligated to develop policies that meet the practical needs of those variously deployed community corrections officers. Otherwise, there is little reason to expect such policies to be effective in enhancing officer safety and promoting their professional effectiveness. The absence of reasonable policies may even “set up” individual officers for, at best, confusion and at worst, embarrassment, failure, and danger.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Organizational Lag and the Spokane Police Department COPS-Shop Assignments One factor that further undermines the ability of NBSOs to develop close working relationships with NROs is the fact that several NROs are assigned to more than just one COPS-Shop (in some cases, as many as three). This, added to the fact that some “neighborhoods” were extraordinarily large suggests that a significant proportion of the NROs have their hands full. Failure to assign officers to permanent community areas undermines the basic tenets of community policing as a law enforcement philosophy and an organizational strategy (Trojanowicz, 1992). For instance, lack of geographic assignment inhibits the ability of officers to establish trusting relationships with community members (Mittleman, 2000). There are, however, additional implications for NROs working in active partnerships with their community corrections counterparts. Both NROs and NBSOs voiced concerns over this trend. Some NROs pointed out that the SPD had limited the total number of NROs assigned to the program because of budget concerns and an unwillingness to move additional officers out of patrol ranks to work in NRO assignments. ...it would be nice--because right now we have 10 COPSShops and 7 NROs. [So and so] has two shops, [so and so] has two shops, [so and so] has a huge area although it all works out of one shop, and [so and so] has two shops, although I have half of [that NRO’s] area from the second shop. So, but it would be nice to have officers in those other shops so we wouldn’t have to double up. Because one, the shops, the volunteers feel slighted because they don’t have their own NRO. And two, it would just take a huge workload

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Organizational Lag

143

off of us and allow us to get more out in the field and make more contacts where we’re working (504:C27). It’s really tough to think [in terms of] proactive partnerships when you’re up to your ass in alligators--for patrol guys. And slowly I’m able--me and DOC--are able to get patrol input. Patrol relationships--between DOC and patrol officers--it’s happening. It’s happening more in some Shops and less than others--but it’s happening. There’s only 7 NROs. We’re spread out between 9, 10, 11--11 COPS-Shops. I have four CCOs that I could be working with. And if DOC wants to continue to diversify or get out of the office, it’s going to get spread even more to us. There’s some plans now for DOC to get into some places that don’t make any sense to me whatsoever. None whatsoever (507:B8c).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

NBSOs have voiced how problematic this can be for them. There have been occasions where, I think...I don’t really believe that at some level, the upper echelons of the police department--the chief and them--understand what we do down here...that we deal with, in my opinion, a lot of their job quite a bit of the time. What I mean--because they’re gone frequently. [The officer that was in here earlier] is not the NRO...[The NRO’s] got two COPS-Shops and frequently not here. So, we get the people in the community that’ll walk in and they think they’re here and they’re not and [the volunteers will] say “can you talk to this person?” We’re spending hours doing that. Could be a lot of things. It could be a runaway, a car is trashed up there, a drug house, it could be a million things. Now the easy thing for us to do would be to say, “you know what? Let law enforcement fill out a complaint form or you can go down here to the public safety building.” But instead, we’re kind of doing referrals, assistance, that kind of thing, and I just had one like that that went on for weeks--still goes on--guy comes down---and [it has] nothing to do with anything we’ve got. He was pissed, retired businessman, you know, and he wants to know if he can talk to somebody and he was getting jerked around. So I don’t think they really

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

144

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work know...the extent of what we do in that way, which is, quite honestly, I kind of wonder if we were not here, and it was just them, and the police weren’t in here as often--well, you know, it’s still the same--if they were in here as often as they have been--then what? They just have people out here going “hey, I’ve got a problem, you know, can’t you help me out? There’s nobody [NROs] here. There’s never anybody [NROs] here. What good is it?” (111:C9)

Perhaps more importantly, it is clear that many of the NROs that are responsible for more than one COPS-Shop tend to prioritize one over the other. I really consider this [COPS-Shop] to be my home shop. I’ve worked here--to me, this is home--the other shop isn’t home yet. I’ve only been there six months (507:C6).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

This situation clearly creates stress for the NRO, and it carries the potential to build tension in the community. The competition is absolutely fierce. They don’t understand-well, they do understand, that’s poorly put--they don’t care that, you know, the fact is, 90% of my work is generated up here, so I spend 10% of my time down there...They want as much of your attention as everybody else gets and I understand that, too (501:A3). One NRO split his time based on the number of calls generated from each neighborhood. [My other COPS-Shop] services a neighborhood of about 7,000 people. And [this one] services about 30,000, so I probably spend about 80% of my time up here because that’s where most of my calls are (510:D3). Stretching NROs too thin makes it difficult for the participants to establish and maintain the rapport with NBSOs that is necessary for partnerships to achieve their full benefits. As mentioned in the chapter on Mission Creep, the relationships that are necessary for effective partnerships take a long time to build even under optimal conditions. For these reasons, it is in the best interests of everyone involved for the

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Organizational Lag

145

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

SPD to make a greater effort to assign separate NROs to each COPSShop whenever possible. Staying in the Loop: Roll Call Like officers working in community policing elsewhere (see Mastrofski, 1992), several NROs voiced a degree of frustration with having to balance the demands of community policing and traditional expectations. One of the major responsibilities NROs faced was communicating information from NBSOs and the community back to patrol. While, in many respects, Spokane’s police-probation partnership is confined to the collaboration between NBSOs and NROs specifically, the NRO is in a position to solicit the direct involvement of patrol officers as well. NROs often communicated weekly with patrol officers via written memos entitled POWs or “Problems of the Week.” This is an opportunity for the NBSOs (via the NRO) to share information with and request the assistance of patrol officers in neighborhood problem solving. In addition, if patrol officers are aware of a probationer that is causing problems in the neighborhood, this information can be relayed to the NBSO by way of the NRO. Because of the lack of convenient and practical communications mechanisms, however, the ability of NROs (and, therefore, the NBSOs) to enlist patrol officers in the partnership is often severely limited. This was a particular problem when it came to attending roll call; this is a duty that was expected of NROs, but one which was perceived by many NROs as an interference. One NRO (502) complained that attending roll calls could tie him up almost all day. After all, there are separate roll calls for officers from different sides of town (North & South). Consequently, any NRO assigned to separate COPS-Shops in each area had twice the number of roll calls to attend. As a result, he-like many NROs--frequently skips roll call in an effort to devote their time to “more important” initiatives. Whether their absences were voluntary or involuntary largely depended on the NRO. These NROs, however, often mentioned that missing roll calls made them feel left out of “the loop” and widened the division between themselves and patrol. One officer pointed out the benefits associated with attending: The benefits are just getting the discussion of what people [patrol officers] come across. A lot of times we get missed Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

146

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work on, you know, “you were supposed to do this” or “we’re changing codes” and just the interaction (504:D1). If I attend roll calls and relay that information to patrol officers every day and keep the communication with them and the detectives or anybody else, all this information is flowing like a little river all the time (509:B8c).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

One NRO felt so strongly about attending roll calls that he believed it was a major factor in his professional success. I’ve been there [roll call] for over six years every day. And I’ve developed relationships with the patrolmen and they respect me. I’ve never had any of them badmouth me or tell me that I don’t do it right. They pat me on the back. In fact, they say “why don’t the other guys do it the way you do it? You’re here talking to us. We never see some of them. Why aren’t they here?” ...You know, my biggest thing is, as long as the patrol officers that I work with say that I’m doing a good job, then I think I’m doing a good job. Not the captains or sergeants or lieutenants or anybody. The patrolmen themselves. Because they are the ones who are out there--first line of defense officers--who are out here everyday and they are the ones whose opinions matter to me. Because they are where I came from. I was one of them too. And I didn’t have any respect--or very little respect--for NROs when I started. And I thought I could change that. And I have changed it...so I feel proud of that (509:C14). I think the roll calls are pretty (important)--the personal touch seems to get more response from patrol than a memo or POW [“problem of the week” memorandum] (510:B8b). A couple of NROs pointed out that earning the respect of patrol officers required regular attendance at roll calls (see 509:C14 above in particular). Maintaining that level of respect from patrol seems very important to a couple of the more traditionally oriented NROs--and it appears to get rewarded by first line supervisors. But some NROs didn’t seem to mind the fact that they were “misunderstood” officers.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Organizational Lag

147

Rather, they often saw themselves as progressive officers and they saw “fitting in” as a luxury they didn’t have time for. ...[working in a COPS-Shop has] maybe hurt my relationship internally with the [police department]. I’m not with the guys. I’m not out there day in and day out slugging my guts out. I’m not working the shift work they do. I can’t--you know, they go to roll calls every day. I just can’t do it. I can’t go to every one of the roll calls. Theoretically, I could be going to 8 roll calls a day in order to keep my relationship with patrol guys good. I can’t do that...So, my connection with the police department--with the patrol side of the police department--is not as good as it has been or as it could be (507:B5).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Other NROs, however, simply saw roll calls as another unnecessary demand on their precious time. Our boss says “okay, you go to roll call at least twice a week.” And I don’t like that--but I understand it. To me, it’s like okay, you’re here because you have to be here, not because you want to be here. You know, it’s kind of true (501:b5). I wish that the communication flow would come back, but I don’t get to as many roll calls as I would like to just because of logistics. I generally come on about 9:00. The roll calls for this area are at 7:00, 11:00, 5:00 and 9:00 (504:D1). Some NROs, however, benefit more than others from the flow of patrol officers through their COPS-Shop. The regular contact with patrol officers that results can mitigate the impact of missing out on roll calls. Some COPS-Shops receive a regular stream of patrol officers throughout the day which allows the NRO to communicate with the officers. Other COPS-Shops, however, are rarely--if ever--visited by patrol officers during the course of the day, leaving the NROs stationed there either at a disadvantage or at a greater obligation to regularly attend roll calls in order to stay in touch. [My COPS-Shop is] not as popular and busy as a lot of the others. A lot of the others provide snacks and they have a Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

148

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work change jar and that kind of deal. Computers, if you’ve really got a really good computer, it’s a place they can go where they’re not bothered by [the public]...there’s TV, there’s food, all the things that cops like [laughing] (506:B4).

In order for NROs to have the opportunity to contribute more fully to the partnership, the SPD would be wise to work to make the NRO’s role a manageable one. The partnership has tremendous potential, especially if NROs and NBSOs are able to enlist the active support of patrol officers. Expecting NROs to serve as the liaison between NBSOs and patrol officers (via roll calls) may be unrealistic, especially if the SPD is unable or unwilling to assign one NRO to each COPSShop. Innovative strategies, such as encouraging patrol officers to regularly visit the COPS-Shops, may be one partial answer to this problem.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conclusions The full potential for police-probation partnerships is tremendous. Nevertheless, this is an extremely complicated and sensitive endeavor and must be pursued with care. There are many accommodations that participating agencies would be wise to make in order to ensure the ability of officers to participate effectively in ways that are mutually constructive to each entity—and any others that may be involved, including the public in the neighborhoods where NBS programs are in place. In regards to the Department of Corrections, perhaps the most obvious obstacle to the ability to community corrections officers to participate effectively in partnerships with the police is excessively high caseloads. In Spokane, these large caseloads limit the time CCOs have to work with the police and may even place them in a position to embarrass or endanger themselves and the larger work group. For example, this researcher observed a DOC-initiated home visit of a probationer that involved approximately 6 officers; 4 from the SPD and two from the DOC. In this particular case, the probationer was a known gang leader who was considered to be potentially dangerous. Due, in part, to the lead probation officer’s large caseload, this occasion marked the first visit this particular offender’s residence despite the fact that he had been on probation for three months. The team of officers intended to surprise the probationer by showing up

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Organizational Lag

149

unannounced at around 9:30 p.m. The leading probation officer, however, initially directed the team to the wrong apartment in the complex. The team walked in a circle around the complex before finding the actual location of the probationer’s unit. By the time the team found the correct apartment, the probationer (along with several of his friends) joked with the officers about the fact that their arrival had been so conspicuous. In the worst-case scenario, it would have been possible for the probationer to destroy incriminating evidence (which may, in fact, have occurred), run away, or to prepare for a violent confrontation with the officers. Had the probation officer had a smaller caseload and, therefore, an opportunity to visit with this probationer on a previous occasion, such a problem would likely have been prevented. In addition, caseload assignments have implications that can affect In Spokane, the ability of CCOs to develop partnerships. Neighborhood Based CCOs are assigned to COPS-Shops in a fashion similar to the Spokane Police Department’s assignment of Neighborhood Resource Officers. In most cases, these CCOs are assigned to caseloads that live in the corresponding neighborhood. For a considerable portion of these CCOs, however, caseload assignments violate these geographic guidelines. Not only is this inconsistent with the goals of the program, but it severely limits the quality of the partnerships that emerge under such conditions. Obviously, decreasing the size of caseloads and/or committing to true geographically based officer deployment strategies requires hiring additional probation officers. In the current economic climate, this is a significant obstacle to overcome. Yet, these changes may be necessary to ensure the longterm success of the partnership. Police-probation partnerships raise serious questions about Department of Corrections firearms policies—which are relatively restrictive compared to those that apply to the police. In Spokane, current DOC firearms policies create challenges for some Neighborhood Based Community Corrections Officers as they move out of state offices into the small, decentralized COPS-Shops and as the nature of their work changes (increased involvement with the public, collaborations with the police in the field, etc.). Moreover, these firearms policies are criticized by some officers as putting unnecessary boundaries on them—boundaries complicating efforts to develop and maintain mutual partnerships with the police. It should be noted that a

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

150

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

policy requiring CCOs to carry firearms (or a policy that expands officer discretion in this area) may not necessarily be an appropriate solution to this problem. For example, requiring or encouraging CCOs to carry firearms may contradict the philosophical orientation of some officers. In addition, firearms may contribute to the phenomenon of mission distortion (see Chapter 6) by altering the perceptions CCOs have of their work. In regards to the Spokane Police Department, the ability of NBSOs and NROs to foster strong working relationships is further undermined by the failure of the SPD to assign each NRO to just one COPS-Shop. In theory, community policing builds the police officer’s relationship with the community in which he or she works (for a discussion, see Sadd and Grinc, 2000--in Glensor, Correia, and Peak). Long-term assignment to a particular neighborhood or area within a community also contributes to the ability of the officer to develop relationships with the NBSOs working in that area. In order to reap the full benefit of these professional interagency relationships, the practices of assigning NROs to COPS-Shops must accommodate the ability of officers to do “real” community policing. Once an NRO is placed in the field, there are a number of things that the SPD can do to make it possible for NROs to maximize their contributions to the partnership with the DOC. In particular, the SPD could provide NROs with a realistic opportunity to serve as a liaison between NBSOs and patrol officers. At the time this study was being conducted, the SPD relied heavily on roll calls as the principal venue for information-sharing between NROs (and, therefore, NBSOs) and patrol officers. Regularly attending roll calls is not feasible for all NROs due to time constraints, travel constraints, and other pressures. This is especially true for NROs who are assigned to more than one COPS-Shop. Alternatively, deploying each NRO to just one COPSShop would alleviate help to alleviate this problem. Perhaps more importantly, such a deployment strategy would demonstrate a true commitment to the partnership (and community policing) on the part of the SPD. Although this will result in increased NRO-unit budgetary expenditures, the benefits to the long-term viability of the COPS-Shops and the partnership would easily outweigh such costs. One solution that may prove particularly effective is for the SPD to encourage patrol officers to visit the COPS-Shops in their deployment area more regularly. This recommendation can be reinforced by providing patrol officers with a place to unwind, eat lunch, write

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Organizational Lag

151

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

reports, etc. Attracting patrol officers to the COPS-Shops can facilitate direct relationships between these officers and NBSOs, thereby reducing some of the burdens on NROs and freeing them up for other duties.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

CHAPTER 8

Conclusions

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Police-Probation Partnerships The advent of formal police-probation partnerships represents a relatively recent, but particularly innovative, strategy developed to increase the effectiveness and appeal of community corrections and community policing (Cochran and McDevitt, 1998). In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the level of attention these partnerships have received from researchers, policymakers, and criminal justice practitioners alike. Despite this attention, relatively little is known about the dynamics of these interagency partnerships, especially in terms of the impact that they have on the officers and the agencies involved. Although to date police-probation partnerships have been subject to only limited study, there are reasons to have optimistic expectations regarding their ultimate utility. For example, there is the potential for these partnerships to enhance the effectiveness of both law enforcement and community corrections agencies in the accomplishment of their public safety and rehabilitative goals. Specifically, these collaborations have the capacity to contribute to the effectiveness of police law enforcement citizen protection efforts, thereby improving public safety and the quality of community life. Moreover, police-probation partnerships may enable community corrections officers to better supervise and more effectively provide services for the clients on their caseloads. Despite the impressive array of potential benefits associated with police-probation collaborations, it is essential to recognize that such interagency partnerships also have the potential for encountering serious problems. Agencies should only expect to realize the full benefits of such partnerships when the possibility for these problems is assessed and efforts are made to minimize their likelihood of 153 Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

154

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

occurrence. Consequently, it is important to explore the specific types of problems that may be associated with police-probation partnerships. For instance, officers involved in police-probation collaborations may experience new stresses because of the changing nature of their work. In addition, police and probation officers, when engaged in collaborative activities, may experience role conflict and role ambiguity. Successfully dealing with these potential problems requires more than just their timely identification, but also necessitates an assessment of their principal sources and implications for street-level and administrative practices alike. This study addresses some of these concerns, with specific attention being directed toward an analysis of the potential problems of mission creep, mission distortion, and organizational lag (see Corbett, 1998). The objective of this case study is to generate information regarding the impact of implementing police-probation partnerships for the officers involved and the agencies that sponsor them. Of specific interest is how police-probation partnerships change the daily activities of Neighborhood Resource Officers (NROs) and Neighborhood Based Supervision Officers (NBSOs). As such, this study examines whether the partnership expands the scope of the responsibilities of the individual NRO’s and NBSO’s (mission creep). The police and probation officers themselves were interviewed and observed in an effort to reveal how they were affected by the changes associated with the interagency partnership. The goal of the study is to provide information that agency administrators can utilize to assist officers and agency managers in more effectively handling the challenges associated with participating in the innovative partnership. In addition, this study examines the effects of the partnership on the abilities of officers to preserve the integrity of their mandated roles (i.e., to prevent mission distortion) as police officers and community corrections officers, respectively. This study offers insight into how police-probation partnerships alter the nature of participating officers’ efforts to enforce the law and supervise offenders assigned to community supervision. It is important that agency administrators take these findings into consideration as they work to manage officers who are attempting to balance the pressures of exploring unique roles while recognizing the preexisting procedural guidelines that dictate the limitations on their authority. Further, this study addresses some examples of how the SPD and DOC as local and state agencies, respectively, can more effectively

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conclusions

155

facilitate the process of forging working partnerships (that is, avoid organizational lag). In order to get the most benefit out of these partnerships, both agencies must consider modifying some policies, altering some traditional officer evaluation mechanisms, adapting some of their supervision networks, and rethinking a number of conventional and established approaches to fostering internal communications and information exchange. Finally, this study contributes to theoretical understandings of interagency partnerships. Specifically, this study utilizes Merton’s (1936) propositions regarding unintended consequences and applies them to the purposive actions of criminal justice agencies engaged in a partnership. Moreover, by building off of Corbett’s (1998) concepts of mission creep, mission distortion, and organizational lag, this study illustrates how these concepts are useful for framing an analysis of the implications of police-probation partnerships. It is important to note, however, that conclusions regarding whether police-probation partnerships are “successful,” in terms of enhancing public safety and the quality of offender supervision, fall far beyond the specific goals of this study. Although the comments of the officers that are cited throughout this study often have an optimistic tone regarding the benefits of police-probation partnerships, these comments should not be taken as anything more than anecdotal evidence of the effects of this partnership on public safety and the quality of offender supervision in Spokane’s communities. The impacts of this partnership on crime rates, clearance rates, recidivism rates, or the public’s overall sense of safety are valid concerns, but can only be revealed through additional study conducted over the course of an adequate length of time. The Reasons for this Study Virtually every change to the organization of social systems bears with it unanticipated consequences, some of which have the potential to undermine the ultimate achievement of desired goals. Of course, even the decision not to take action is a form of purposeful action. Consequently, every action and many non-actions result in noteworthy consequences. This is a reminder of the important role that systematic research plays in the pursuit of information and knowledge assembled and reflected upon in order to allow actors to anticipate more fully the

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

156

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

consequences of purposive social change. Research can help to identify, and perhaps reduce, the negative consequences of such planned change (Bennis, Benne, and Chin, 1976). Moreover, research may make it possible to reduce the likelihood of negative consequences going unanticipated by bringing otherwise overlooked outcomes into plain view. Research of the type reported here has the potential to reveal the causes of negative consequences, and then offer explanations and potential countermeasures for them (Golembiowski, 1993). Finally, research of this type contributes to theoretical understandings of police-probation partnerships and the implications such partnerships have on the administration of justice. Independent research is necessary because it is not reasonable to expect the designers of innovative programs to make fully objective observations of their own work. Since the sources of unanticipated consequences are inherently linked to the limited insight of the actors themselves, third party analysis is especially necessary for a study of this kind. In sum, objective research can expose the scope and nature (and, sometimes, the sources) of consequences that have not been anticipated by the program’s designers. This process has the potential to reduce the level of uncertainty associated with taking a particular set of actions. As a result, actors are empowered because they can begin to calculate the risks associated with their actions more accurately and make decisions accordingly. The principal goal of this study, then, is not so ambitious as to seek to eliminate risk from police-probation partnerships. The much more modest goal it pursues is to inform the program designers and the practitioners of the unavoidable risks involved in their innovative actions. The gap between uncertainty and risk can be (at least partially) closed by identifying and analyzing the nonobvious consequences of the actions under review. This systematic observation and reflection upon what is observed enables the actors to measure uncertainty more accurately--that is, to take calculated risks as opposed to taking uninformed (or blind) action. Minimizing uncertainties through the identification and exploration of unanticipated consequences enhances the actors’ ability to act in a prudent fashion, but it certainly does not guarantee perfection in any way. While the nature of the demands placed on the American criminal justice system force constant change, trial and error experimentation, and a high reliance on luck, criminal justice officials are nonetheless obligated to minimize the role “luck” plays in determining policy decisions.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Conclusions

157

Investigation and analysis of developing programs are the keys to reducing reliance on hunches and lucky guesses as the basis upon which decisions are made. Police-probation partnerships are just one example of how the demands for new approaches and innovative programs have created the impetus for change under conditions of severely limited knowledge. Recognizing this, the study at hand is designed to contribute to the base of knowledge upon which better field practices and administrative oversight activities regarding policeprobation partnerships can be developed (Kilmann, 1984).

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Findings and Recommendations for Managing Police-Probation Partnerships The first step toward the proper management of police-probation partnerships may simply entail recognizing that these partnerships, whether sanctioned or otherwise, are likely (if not inevitable) extensions of community policing and community corrections initiatives. As community policing and community corrections innovations continue to develop nationwide, the decentralization of command structures will continue to increase the level of discretion placed at the disposal of police officers and probation officers. As a result, police officers and probation officers will continue to develop formal and informal networks designed to improve their ability to accomplish their respective, although often related, goals. As police officers and community corrections officers continue to experiment with various innovations in the community setting, they will increasingly turn to one another for assistance. It is inevitably the case that community policing and community corrections will intersect at certain key points in their development. In Spokane, efforts have been made to formalize, and even expedite, how and when these intersections will occur within the local neighborhood setting. For purposes of maximizing the utility of police-probation partnerships and reducing the potential for negative consequences, this is surely a wise choice. Regardless of whether or not plans exist to develop a formal police-probation partnership “program,” police departments and community corrections agencies may find it generally desirable to develop a strategic plan for reducing the potential risks associated with episodic and unstructured interagency collaboration.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

158

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Such a plan, of course, requires the systematic identification and evaluation of the potential unanticipated consequences that threaten the occurrence of negative consequences associated with these partnerships. The following listing of study findings serves to outline some of the documented consequences associated with Spokane’s police-probation interagency partnership. Recommendations for managing these consequences are included for the benefit of the officers involved in the program and their respective agency administrators responsible for program oversight.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Mission Creep Police-probation partnerships result in an expansion in the roles of police officers and probation officers--a phenomenon known in the organizational studies literature as mission creep (Corbett, 1998). This study revealed that mission creep assumes a variety of forms and affects individual officers in different ways. For example, merely finding ways of working together (and reasons for doing so) required NROs and NBSOs to make a noteworthy initial investment in terms of energy and time. Further, working in a decentralized, community setting such as a neighborhood COPS-Shop required NROs and NBSOs to become involved in an array of activities that are not expected of their traditional counterparts, ranging from the many responsibilities associated with working more directly with the public in the community setting to tasks such as routine office maintenance and janitorial duties. Expanding the traditional roles of police officers and probation officers is what police-probation partnerships are all about. Maximizing the utility of these partnerships, however, requires that the roles of police officers and probation officers be expanded in ways that are conducive to increasing their effectiveness. In reality, many of the changes required of NROs and NBSOs actually restricted their ability to make the kinds of changes in offender supervision that the partnership is designed to encourage. The NROs and NBSOs interviewed and observed for this study frequently pointed out that they were constantly overwhelmed with their unconventional responsibilities. More importantly, these NROs and NBSOs often pointed out that such responsibilities were largely unrelated to their ability to accomplish their respective law enforcement and offender supervision objectives. On the contrary, these unconventional duties

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conclusions

159

were frequently seen as distractions and nuisances. While these changes constitute a kind of job creep, many aspects of working with the public, maintaining the COPS-Shops, and learning the basics of each other’s jobs (what might be called “bad” mission creep) actually interfere with the efforts of NROs and NBSOs to engage in more effective and innovative policing and offender supervision strategies (what might be called “good” mission creep). Police-probation partnerships require that considerable attention be given to the management of factors that influence mission creep. First and foremost, it is important to recognize that there are productive forms of mission creep and counterproductive forms of mission creep. Specifically, one of the implied goals associated with police-probation partnerships is to allow police and probation officers the opportunity to expand their roles in ways that contribute to the effectiveness of the two agencies in providing both public safety and offender reintegration into their community. Allowing for and even encouraging this form of mission creep has the potential of producing important benefits to local communities. On the other hand, if interagency partnerships require officers to assume many added duties that are largely unrelated to their effectiveness, this development can be counterproductive. In other words, mission creep has the potential to be either a productive or counterproductive force, and field practice and management decisions should be made with this consideration in mind. To put it simply, it isn’t enough to merely place police officers and probation officers out in the community and “hope for the best.” In order to maximize the productivity of mission creep as it is experienced by officers, it is the responsibility of the agencies themselves (in this case the SPD and DOC) to define the respective missions and duties of NROs and NBSOs in greater detail. Based on the interviews and observations conducted for this study, expecting the officers themselves to define, establish, and ultimately maintain professional boundaries appears to be an unrealistic expectation. Until the SPD and DOC make strides toward controlling and directing mission creep for NROs and NBSOs, these officers likely will continue to feel overwhelmed in their work and fail to achieve the full potential of the interagency partnership.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

160

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Mission Distortion Police-probation partnerships have the potential to place NBSOs in a position where their professional mission (or role) orientation becomes blurred. In other words, the NBSOs interviewed and observed for this study experienced a phenomenon known as mission distortion in the organizational studies literature. Actively working with the police, for example, makes it possible for some NBSOs to gravitate away from their responsibilities to provide services to their clients and toward a greater emphasis on the pursuit of law enforcement public safety priorities. Of particular concern is the potential for police-probation partnerships to increase the possibility for NBSOs to serve as “Stalking Horses” for NROs and other police officers. This is a type of noble cause corruption which is particularly troublesome for the American criminal justice system The achievement of community corrections goals requires officers to strike a very delicate balance between the often competing goals of offender supervision and offender reintegration into the community. Striking this difficult balance has always been challenging in community corrections. With the advent of police-probation partnerships, however, there is a very real threat that this balance will become even more difficult to maintain. Program managers must be diligent in monitoring this phenomenon in order to prevent policeprobation partnerships from becoming a source of incentives for NBSOs to deprioritize the goal of offender reintegration in an effort to gain acceptance from their police partners through an emphasis on inflexible enforcement of supervision conditions. Offenders must be given a chance at successful reintegration (otherwise, what’s the point to community supervision as an alternative to imprisonment?) and police-probation partnerships have the potential to distract officers from this all-important objective. That police-probation partnerships have the potential to subject NBSOs to mission distortion, however, creates just one set of noteworthy concerns in the area of mission orientation. These partnerships also make it possible for both NROs and NBSOs to lose sight of their respective organizational objectives. Specifically, as NROs and NBSOs work out of COPS-Shops in the neighborhood community setting, NROs and NBSOs feel pressures from the specific public they serve in their neighborhoods. These pressures are unique from those faced by all officers working in the broader community

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conclusions

161

setting because the partnership itself provides officers with new opportunities to appease their local public constituency. Of course, any community-oriented police or probation officer can lose sight of organizational objectives in favor of more narrowly construed public demands, but police-probation partnerships make such situations potentially more dangerous. Spokane’s police-probation partnership makes it increasingly possible for NROs and NBSOs to enforce prevailing community standards (whatever they may be) because the partnership enables them to cooperate as they develop strategies to achieve such objectives. When these strategies (e.g., pooling resources, etc.) are used responsibly, they are a benefit to the promotion of public safety and the quality of life for citizens. It should be noted that there is, however, the potential for these enhanced powers to be abused by unduly intruding on the constitutionally protected rights of citizens to protections from unreasonable searches and to privacy and equitable treatment under the law. The mere potential for such abuses highlights how important is to develop appropriate organizational oversight mechanisms to minimize the occurrence of such problems. In Spokane, there is a noticeable absence of comprehensive guidelines for officers to follow when carrying out the duties that are expected of them as part of this interagency partnership. A degree of confusion exists among NROs and NBSOs regarding where their respective legal authority begins and ends; it is apparent in the interviews referenced throughout this study that greater effort by program administrators is needed in this area. It is critical that the SPD and DOC (and any agencies involved in similar partnerships) enhance the scope and depth of existing training programs to prepare officers more fully for the pressures that contribute to mission distortion. The ability of officers to collaborate in ways that, at once, maximize the utility of the partnership without calling into question its integrity depends on increased organizational attention to these issues. Organizational Lag Maximizing the potential of police-probation partnerships is an extremely complicated and sensitive process that must be managed carefully. Several actions can be taken to improve the chances of success by working to better accommodate the unique demands that the partnership places on the agencies and their respective officers. In

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

162

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

other words, efforts can be made to avoid organizational lag--a phenomenon that reduces the ability of police officers and probation officers to collaborate effectively in ways that are mutually beneficial and consistent with agency objective. In regards to the Department of Corrections, the size of offender caseloads was the most widely cited obstacle to the ability of NBSOs to participate effectively in their partnership with the police. NBSOs are uniformly of the belief that their caseloads are excessively high, and they report feeling that this caseload burden prevents them from seeking out and perfecting more creative approaches to their work. Specifically, large caseloads limit the time NBSOs have to work with the police, and they may even place officers in a position to embarrass or endanger themselves and the larger work group of which they are a major part. In addition, the location of caseload assignments has implications that can affect the ability of NBSOs to develop effective partnerships with the police. In Spokane, NBSOs are assigned to COPS-Shops in a way that corresponds with agency NRO deployment. Specifically, both NBSOs and NROs are generally assigned to specific neighborhoods and their shared office space is located in that geographic area. In most cases, these CCOs are assigned to caseloads containing offenders who reside in these same neighborhoods. For a noteworthy portion of NBSOs, however, caseload assignments failed to correspond with these geographic guidelines. This practice contradicts the goals of the Neighborhood Based Supervision program and severely limits the ability of NBSOs and NROs to forge productive partnerships at the street level. In addition, police-probation partnerships bring to the surface serious concerns about DOC firearms policies. Simply stated, DOC firearms policies are considerably more restrictive than SPD firearms policies, a situation which creates clear distinctions between NBSOs and NROs in terms of what are acceptable practices during field operations. While there are well-considered reasons for the differences in firearms policies, this difference in rules of engagement for NROs and NBSOs creates a sense of inequality between some officers as they increase the extent to which they engage in joint field operations. These firearms policies are, as a consequence, criticized by some NBSOs as putting unnecessary boundaries on them and thereby complicating their efforts to develop and maintain effective partnerships with the police. Moreover, current DOC firearms policies

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conclusions

163

create challenges for some NBSOs as they move out of state offices into the small, decentralized COPS-Shops, and as the nature of their work (increased involvement with the public, interacting with drop in office visitors, collaborations with the police in the field, etc.) changes in variety, scope and predictability. There are also concrete measures that the Spokane Police Department can take to avoid the consequences of organizational lag. One of the benefits of community policing is the opportunity it offers police officers to build productive relationships with the public (for a discussion, see Sadd and Grinc, 2000). The SPD attempts to facilitate the development of these relationships by placing NROs in COPSShops that are located in specific neighborhoods. This method of officer deployment contributes to the ability of the individual NROs to develop strong working relationships with the NBSOs working in their respective areas. The SPD, however, has failed to fully commit to promoting these relationships by assigning some NROs to more than one COPS-Shop. This has severely limited the ability of some NBSOs and NROs to foster strong working relationships with one another. In order to reap the full benefit of the Neighborhood Based Supervision program the practice of assigning NROs to COPS-Shops must permit NROs to do “real” community policing—that is, focus upon building a strong connection between local citizens and their public so that both law enforcement and community corrections authorities can more effectively pursue their goals of public safety and offender reintegration into the local community. Furthermore, there is an array of additional measures that the SPD can take to make it possible for NROs to maximize their contributions to the partnership with the DOC. Specifically, it would be prudent for the SPD to seek creative ways to provide NROs in the field with an opportunity to better serve as liaisons between NBSOs and patrol officers. At present, the SPD relies too heavily on roll calls to provide an opportunity for NROs (and, therefore, NBSOs) and patrol officers to share information of common interest. Consistent attendance at roll calls is unrealistic for some NROs due to the nature of their work. This is especially true for NROs that are assigned to more than one COPSShop. One rather obvious solution is for the SPD to encourage patrol officers to visit the COPS-Shops located in their beat area more regularly. This practice has the potential to be very effective, and it can be achieved by simply providing patrol officers with a suitable place to unwind, eat lunch, and write their reports. While some COPS-

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

164

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work

Shops are already being more extensively used by patrol officers than others, each facility can be operated in a fashion that maximizes its potential in this particular regard. (1) Attracting patrol officers to the COPS-Shops can facilitate the building of direct relationships (e.g., information exchange, etc.) between these officers and NBSOs, thereby reducing some of the burdens on NROs, freeing them up for other community-police bridge building duties.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Discussion The importance of this evaluation of police-probation partnerships as they develop under Neighborhood Based Supervision is highlighted by the fact that the Washington state DOC is considering the program for statewide implementation, and similar programs are emerging nationwide. Even without formal programs, however, it seems that police-probation partnerships are, in one form or another, virtually inevitable. As both law enforcement and community corrections move toward an enhanced community orientation, this development will only encourage and facilitate closer working relationships between individual police officers and probation officers. There are too many benefits associated with police-probation partnerships to expect community-based police officers and community-based corrections officers to do anything but seek out greater opportunities to work together. The potential for officer efficiency, agency effectiveness, and public safety enhancements is simply too great to be kept secret. Recognizing this, it is in the best interests of both corrections agencies and local police departments to recognize the factors that can pose as obstacles to the success of these interagency partnerships. Formalizing these relationships is, in fact, rather important in order to reduce the potential for unanticipated problems. These findings, although preliminary and offered with the usual cautions and caveats, are intended to inform the decisions of line officers and policy-makers alike as they attempt to manage the challenges associated with the development of productive and professionally responsible working relationships between the police and probation officers. The unintended consequences of police-probation partnerships can be addressed effectively with careful study and reflection on practice; the fine officers attracted to NRO and NBSO positions have the ability to produce intended effects for the public and for offenders on community supervision if their program is managed with greater attention to the

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Conclusions

165

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

dangers of mission creep, mission distortion, and organizational lag. It is hoped that this study has helped to identify the nature of these problems, and has suggested some practical means of addressing those problems.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

CHAPTER NOTES

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

CHAPTER ONE NOTES 1. With the possible exception of parole 2. It should be noted, however, that the reduction in crime that can be observed during the late 1990s certainly suggests that this controversy is far from over. 3. To be sure, all offenders that are sentenced by the Criminal Justice system are subject to a form of labeling. In this case, the label of probationer is considered less severe than the label of prison inmate. 4. By the end of 2000, 16 states (AZ, CA, DE, FL, IL, IN, KS, ME, MN, MI, NC, OH, OR, VA, WA, WI) had abandoned programs with offender release based on parole board discretion. Four more states (AK, LA, NY, TN) had abolished this type of release program (discretionary parole) for certain violent offenders. CHAPTER TWO NOTES 1. Purposive social action refers to action that involves human actors choosing specific behaviors from a set of alternatives. Likewise, purposive action and its consequences are the focus here—distinguishable from natural or accidental change. 2. Merton points out that the problem of unintended consequences of purposive social action has also been addressed by many observers of social processes, including Marx, Engels, Adam Smith, Machiavelli, Weber, and Wundt (see Merton, 1936:894.) CHAPTER THREE NOTES 1. Local DOC facilities include Airway Heights Correctional Center, Pine Lodge Pre-Release center, Brownstone Work Training Release facility, and the Eleanor Chase House. 2. Three additional former NROs were no longer employed by the SPD at the time of this study, and none of these individuals were unavailable for interviews. 3. Former temporary NBSOs were not included in this study. 4. Interviews were tape-recorded on 2 battery-operated audio tape recorders (one for backup in the event of a malfunction or other problem--which is inevitable over the course of numerous interviews). No attempt was made to conceal the tape recorders, but they were placed out of direct lines of sight for both the interviewer and respondent. The tape recorders were mentioned in the researcher’s introductory remarks and participant questions were addressed at that time.

167 Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

168

Chapter Notes

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

5. One of the officers refused to permit the audio recording of the interview. As a result, extensive written notes were made during the interview itself, followed by a rigorous effort to document specific details of the interview proceedings. CHAPTER FOUR NOTES 1. Also referred to as a 501-C3 corporation. 2. A clear explanation was never made available to this researcher as to why TOP COPS did not have any citizen volunteers. Communication with one of the NBSOs from that facility mentioned that they had tried to work with volunteers from the neighborhood, but that it had been difficult to recruit volunteers that were reliable, cognitively proficient, and capable of passing the required background check. The researcher initially thought the NBSO was joking or exaggerating, but upon further inquiry, it became clear that the NBSO indeed did not believe that the community offered qualified volunteers. Specifically, when asked about the residents in the immediate neighborhood, this TOP COPS NBSO believed that most had felony records (101:D12). 3. Via the COPS-Shop 4. Note that these are process goals, specifically. At the time of this study, the Department of Corrections formally outlined no specific outcome goals for the Neighborhood Based Supervision Program. 5. Some of these clients even resided in outlying counties adjacent to Spokane County. 6. These are often the other officers already assigned to the COPS-Shop. 7. These were usually people involved in the COPS-Shop as volunteers. 8. Note: In one particular case, this “bottom up” protocol was not followed by the Department of Corrections. Instead an officer was placed in the community without prior approval from any representatives of the community. Several NBSOs mentioned that this particular case worked out, but it undermined the principles upon which the selections process--and, in fact, the program as a whole--was based. 9. For instance the ability to devote one’s attention to one neighborhood, more flexible schedules, etc. CHAPTER SEVEN NOTES 1. As a result, if a known gang member is on probation in a given geographical area, he/she may be assigned to a CCO in the gang unit rather than to the NBSO

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Chapter Notes

169

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

CHAPTER EIGHT NOTES 1. It is, however, important to note that the presence of uniformed patrol officers on a regular basis may, in and of itself, be subject to unintended consequences. It is possible that such a presence could undermine some of the aspects of the COPS-Shop setting that is attractive to ordinary citizens. If the presence of uniformed patrol officers prevents people from feeling comfortable with simply walking into a COPS-Shop and talking to NROs and NBSOs, increasing their presence would be counterproductive.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

REFERENCES Allen, H., E. Latessa, C. Eskridge, and G. Vito. 1985. Probation and Parole in America. New York: Free Press. Allen, H. and C. Simonsen. 1995. Corrections in America: An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Allender, D. 2004. Community Policing: Exploring the Philosophy. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 73(3):18-22. Alpert, G. and M. Moore. 1998. Measuring Police Performance in the New Paradigm of Policing. In Community Policing: Contemporary Readings. Edited by G. Alpert and A. Piquero, 215-232. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Anderson, J. 1999. Is Electronic Monitoring a Successful Community Supervision Method? In Controversial Issues in Corrections. Edited by C. Fields, 39-46. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Andrews, D. and J. Bonta. 1998. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Angell, J. 1971. Toward an Alternative to the Classic Police Organizational Arrangements: A Democratic Model. Criminology, 9 (August/November): 185-206. Austin, J. and B. Krisberg. 1981. Wider, Stronger, and Different Nets: The Dialectics of Criminal Justice Reform. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 18(1): 165-196. Bakeman, R. and J. Gottman. 1986. Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis. Cambridge University Press: New York. Ball, R. and J. Lilly. 1986. Theoretical Examination of Home Incarceration. Federal Probation, 50(1): 17-24. Bayley, D. 1994. Police for the Future. London: Oxford Press. Bayley, D. 1988. Community Policing: A Report From the Devil’s Advocate. In Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality? Edited by J. Greene and S. Mastrofski, 225-238. Westport, CT: Praeger Press.

171 Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

172

References

Becker, H. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press. Belknap, J. 1996. Invisible Woman: Gender, Crime, and Justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bennis, W., K. Benne, and R. Chin. 1976. The Planning of Change, fourth edition. Philadelphia: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Bernard, H. 1994. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. Bittner, E. 1967. The Functions of Police in Modern Society. Washington, DC: National Institute of Mental Health. Braithwaite, J. 1996. Reintegrative Shaming. In Criminological Perspectives: A Reader. Edited by J. Muncie, E. McLaughlin, and M. Langan, 432-441. London: Sage.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Buerger, M. 1994. The Tale of Two Targets: Limitations of Community Anticrime Actions. Crime and Delinquency, 40(3): 411-436. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2001. National Correctional Population Reaches New High. Press Release, August 28, 2001. Burrell, W. 1999. Getting the Most Out of Probation/Parole-Police Partnerships. Community Corrections Report, 7(1): 1-12. Byrne, J. 1996. The Control Controversy: A Preliminary Examination of Intensive Probation Supervision Programs in the United States. In Contemporary Community Corrections, second edition. Edited by T. Ellsworth, 160-184. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Byrne, J. and Pattavina, A. 1992. The Effectiveness Issue: Assessing What Works in the Adult Community Corrections System. In Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions. Edited by J. Byrne, A. Lurigio and J. Petersilia, 281-306. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Chermak, S. and E. McGarrell. 2004. Problem Solving Approaches to Homicide: An Evaluation of the Indianapolis Violence Reduction Partnership. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 15(2):161-192.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

References

173

Clear, T. 1994. Harm in American Penology: Offenders, Victims, and Their Communities. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Clear, T. 1979. Three Dilemmas in Community Supervision of Offenders. Prison Journal, 59(2): 2-16. Clear, T. and V. O’Leary. 1983. Controlling the Offender in the Community: Reforming the Community Supervision Function. New York: Lexington Books. Clear, T., V. Clear, and A. Braga. 1993. Correctional Alternatives for Drug Offenders in and Era of Overcrowding. Prison Journal, 73(2): 178-198. Cochran, D. and J. McDevitt. 1998. Probation: The Times are Changing. Perspectives, 22(1): 20-25. Cohn, A. 1997. Arming of Probation and Parole Officers may not be Necessary: Options may be Available. Corrections Management Quarterly, 1(4): 44-54.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Corbett, R. 1998. Probation Blue: The Promise (and Perils) of Probation-Police Partnerships. Correctional Management Quarterly, 2(3): 31-39. Cordner, G. 1986. Fear of Crime and the Police: An Evaluation of a Fear Reduction Strategy. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 14(3): 223-233. Crank, J. 2003. Imagining Justice. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Crank, J. and M. Caldero. 2000. Police Ethics: The Corruption of Noble Cause. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Cullen, F. and P. Gendreau. 2000. Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and Prospects. In Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System. Edited by J. Horney, 109-175. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Justice. Dilulio, J. 1987. Governing Prisons: A Comparative Study of Correctional Management. New York: The Free Press. Donnelly, P. and B. Forschner. 1987. Predictors of Success in a CoCorrectional Halfway House: A Discriminate Analysis. Journal of Crime and Justice, 10(2): 1-22.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

174

References

Dorner, D. 1996. The Logic of Failure: Why Things go wrong and what we Can Do to Make them Right. Metropolitan Books: New York. Duffee, D. 1990. Community Corrections: Its Presumed Characteristics and an Argument for a New Approach. In Community Corrections: A Community Field Approach. Edited by D. Duffee and E. McGarrell, 43-72. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. Duffee, D. and E. McGarrell, 1990. Community Field and the Future of Community Corrections. In Community Corrections: A Community Field Approach. Edited by D. Duffee and E. McGarrell, 299-311.

Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. Duffee, D. and K. Wright. 1990. Reintegration Policy in Practice: Transition Programs in the 1970s. In Community Corrections: A Community Field Approach. Edited by D. Duffee and E. McGarrell, 185-216. Cincinnatti, OH: Anderson Publishing.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Eck, J. and W. Spelman. 1987. Problem Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport News. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. Elster, J. 1990. Merton’s Functionalism in the Unintended Consequences of Action. In Robert Merton: Consensus and Controversy. Edited by J. Clark, C. Modgil, and S. Modgil, 129-135. Falmer Press: New York. Finn, M. and S. Muirhead-Steves. 2002. Effectiveness of Electronic Monitoring With Violent Male Parolees. Justice Quarterly, 19(2): 293312. Flanagan, T. 1996. Community Corrections in the Public Mind. Federal Probation, 60(3): 3-9. Gendreau, P., F. Cullen, and J. Bonta. 1994. Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision: The Next Generation in Community Corrections? Federal Probation, 58(1):72-78. Gendreau, P. and Ross, R. 1987. Revivication of Rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s. Justice Quarterly, 4(4): 349-407. Glaze, L. and S. Palla. 2004. Probation and Parole in the United States. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. U.S. Department of Justice. Glensor, R. and K. Peak. 1998. Lasting Impact: Maintaining Neighborhood Order. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, (3:1-7). Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

References

175

Goldstein, H. 1990. Problem-Oriented Policing. New York: McGraw-Hill. Goldstein, H. 1977. Policing a Free Society. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing. Gooberman, L. 1974. Operation Intercept: The Multiple Consequences of Public Policy. Pergamon Press, Inc: New York. Gorden, R. 1992. Basic Interviewing Skills. Itasca, Ill: Peacock Publishers. Greene, J. 1989. Police Officer Job Satisfaction and Community Perceptions: Implications for Community-Oriented Policing. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26(2): 168-183. Greene, J. and R. Taylor. 1988. Community-Based Policing and Foot Patrol: Issues of Theory and Evaluation. In Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality? Edited by J. Greene and Mastrofski, 195-225.Westport, CT: Praeger.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Greenberg, 1975. Problems in Community Corrections. Issues in Criminology, 10(1): 1-33. Grinc, R. 1994. Angels in Marble: Problems in Stimulating Community Involvement in Community Policing. Crime and Delinquency, 40(3): 437468. Guynes, R. 1996. Difficult Clients, Large Caseloads Plague Probation, Parole Agencies. In Contemporary Community Corrections, second edition. Edited by T. Ellsworth, 160-184. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Hannah-Moffat, K. 1999. Moral Agent or Actuarial Subject: Risk and Canadian Women’s Imprisonment. Theoretical Criminology, 3(1): 71-94. Harris, P., T. Clear, and S. Baird. 1996. Have Community Supervision Officers Changed Their Attitudes Toward Their Work? In Contemporary Community Corrections. Edited by T. Ellsworth, 77-90. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Harrison, B. 1999. Noble Cause Corruption and Police Ethics. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 68(8): 1-10. Harrison, P. and J. Karberg. 2004. Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2003. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. U.S. Department of Justice.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

176

References

Healy, T. 1997. The Unanticipated Consequences of Technology. Conference Paper: 2nd Annual Ethics and Technology Conference, Chicago IL, June 6-7, 1997. Hughes, T., D. Wilson, and A. Beck. 2001. Trends in State Parole, 1990-2000. Bureau of Justice Special Report, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Immarigeon, R. 1986. Probation’s Uncertain Future. Corrections Compendium, 10(9): 6-9. Irwin, J. and J. Austin, 1996. It’s About Time: Solving America’s Prison Crowding Crisis. In Criminal Justice in America: Theory, Practice, and Policy. Edited by B. Hancock and P. Sharp, Pp. 275-288. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Irwin, J. and J. Austin. 1994. It’s about Time: America’s Imprisonment Binge. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Jernigan, D. and R. Kronick. 1992. Intensive Parole: The More You Watch, the More You Catch. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 17(3/4): 65-76. Johnson, R. 1996. Hard Time: Understanding and Reforming the Prison. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Jones, M. 1991. Intensive Probation Supervision in Georgia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Criminal Justice Research Bulletin, 6(1): complete issue. Kelling, G. 1996. Police and Communities: The Quiet Revolution. In Criminal Justice in America: Theory, Practice, and Policy. Edited by B. Hancock and P. Sharp, 134-144. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kelling, G. 1995. Acquiring a Taste for Order: The Community and Police. In Police and Society: Touchstone Readings. Edited by V. Kappeler, 159170. Prospect Heights: Waveland. Kilmann, R. 1984. Beyond the Quick Fix: Managing Five Tracks to Organizational Success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

References

177

Klockars, C. 1988. The Rhetoric of Community Policing. In Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality? Edited by J. Greene and S. Mastrofski, 239-258. Westport, CT: Praeger. Knight, F. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Koons, B., J. Burrow, M. Morash, T. Bynum. 1997. Expert and Offender Perceptions of Program Elements Linked to Successful Outcomes for Incarcerated Women. Crime and Delinquency, 43(4): 512-532. Lehman, J. 2001. Reinventing Community Corrections in Washington State. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(3): 41-45. Lichtman, C. and S. Smock. 1981. Effects of Social Services on Probationer Recidivism: A Field Experiment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18(1): 18-100.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Lilly, J. and R. Ball. 1990. Home Confinement and Electronic Monitoring in the United States. In Community Corrections: A Community Field Approach. Edited by D. Duffee and E. McGarrell, 73-92. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. Lindner, C. 1994. Police Contribution to the Development of Probation: An Historical Account. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 20(3-4): 61-84. Lurigio, A. and N. Martin. 1997. Making ‘Community’ the Operative Word in Community Corrections. Corrections Today, 59(4): 104-107. Lutze, F., R. Smith, and N. Lovrich. 2004. A Practitioner-Initiated Research Partnership: An Evaluation of Neighborhood Based Supervision in Spokane, Washington. Unpublished National Institute of Justice Report. Manning, P. 1988. Community Policing as a Drama of Control. In Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality? Edited by J. Greene and S. Mastrofski, 2746. Westport, CT: Praeger. Manning, P. 1978. The Police: Mandate, Strategies, and Appearances. In Policing: A View from the Street. Edited by P. Manning and J. Van Maanen, 7-31. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear. Martinson, R. 1974. What Works? Questions and Answers about Prison Reform. The Public Interest, 24 (Spring): 22-54.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

178

References

Martinson, R. and J. Wilks, 1977. Save Parole Supervision. Federal Probation, 41(3): 23-27. Mastrofski, S. 1988. Community Policing as Reform: A Cautionary Tale. In Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality? Edited by J. Greene and S. Mastrofski, 47-69. Westport, CT: Praeger. Mastrofski, S. 1992. What Does Community Policing Mean for Daily Police Work? National Institute of Justice Journal, 225:23-27. Mawby, R. and A. Worrall. 2004. Polibation Revisited: Policing, Probation and Prolific Offender Projects. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 6(2):63-73. McKay, B. and B. Paris. 1998. Forging a Police-Probation Alliance. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 67(11): 27-32. McGinnis, K. 1998. Impact of ‘Get Tough’ Policies on Community Corrections. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2(3): 70-78. Merton, R. 1949. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Free Press. Merton, R. 1936. The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action. American Sociology Review, 1(4): 894-904. Miles, M. and A. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Miller, S. 1999. Gender and Community Policing: Walking the Talk. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Mills, D. 1990. Career Issues for Probation Officers. Federal Probation, 54(3): 3-7. Minetti, P. and D. Malcan. 1997. Hampton Police Collaborate with Probation and Parole for Safer Communities. Perspectives: The Journal of the American Probation and Parole Association, 4(21): 20-21. Mittleman, P. 2000. Community Policing: Building Community Trust, Thinking Outside of the Box. Police Chief, 67:3:50-55. Morgan, K. 1993. Factors Influencing Probation Outcome. Federal Probation, 57(2): 23-29. Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

References

179

Moore, M. and A. Braga. 2003. Measuring and Improving Police Performance: The Lessons of Compstat and Its Progeny. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 26(3):439-453. Moore, M. and G. Kelling. 1983. To Serve and Protect: Learning From Police History. The Public Interest, 70(Winter): 49-65. Musheno, M., D. Palumbo, S. Maynard-Moody, and J. Levine. 1990. Evaluating the Implementation of Community Corrections. In Community Corrections: A Community Field Approach. Edited by D. Duffee and E. McGarrell, 251-268. Cincinnatti, OH: Anderson Publishing. Nidorf, B. 1990. Probation and Parole Officers: Police Officers or Social Workers? In State of Corrections: Proceedings of ACA Annual Conferences, 1989. Edited by A. Durgis, 67-73. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association. Norton, R. 1996. Why Airbags are Killing Kids. Fortune, August 19, 1996. From www.fortune.com.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

O’Leary, V. and D. Duffee, 1971 Correctional Policy: A Classification of Goals Designed for Change. Crime and Delinquency, 17(4): 373-386. Parent, D. and B. Snyder. 1999. Police-Corrections Partnerships. National Institute of Justice: Issues and Practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Pearl, N. 1998. Use of Community-Based Social Services by Women Offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 26(3/4): 91-110. Pearson, F. and Harper, A. 1990. Contingent Intermediate Sentences: New Jersey’s Intensive Supervision Program. Crime and Delinquency, 36(1): 75-86. Petersilia, J. 2001. When Prisoners Return to Communities: Political, Economic, and Social Consequences. Federal Probation, 65(1): 3-8. Petersilia, J. 1999. Parole and Prisoner Reentry in the United States. In Prisons. Edited by M. Tonry and J. Petersilia, 479-529. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

180

References

Petersilia, J. 1997. Probation in the United States. In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. Edited by M. Tonry, 149-200. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Petersilia, J. 1996. Measuring the Performance of Community Corrections. In Contemporary Community Corrections, second edition. Edited by T. Ellsworth, 312-326. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Petersilia, J. 1990. When Probation Becomes More Dreaded Than Prison. Federal Probation, 54(1) 23-27. Petersilia, J. and S. Turner. 1993. Intensive Probation and Parole. In Crime and Justice: A Review of the Research. Edited by M. Tonry, 281-335. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pisciotta, A. 1994. Benevolent Repression: Social Control and the American Reformatory Prison Movement. New York: NYU Press. Pollock-Byrne, J. 1990. Women, Prison, and Crime. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. 1967. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Reiss, A. 1992. Police Organization in the Twentieth Century. In Modern Policing. Edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris, 51-97. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Rosenbaum, D. and A. Lurigio. 1994. Inside Look at Community Policing Reform: Definitions, Organizational Changes, and Evaluation Findings. Crime and Delinquency, 40(3): 299-314. Sadd, S. and R. Grinc. 1996. Implementation Challenges in Community Policing: Innovative Neighborhood-Oriented Policing in Eight Cities. National Institute of Justice. Research in Brief (February). Sadd, S. and R. Grinc. 2000. Implementation Challenges in Community Policing: Innovative Neighborhood-Oriented Policing in Eight Cities. In Policing Communities: Understanding Crime and Solving Problems. Edited by R. Glensor, M. Correia, and K. Peak, 97-116. Los Angeles: Roxbury. Sanjek, R. 1990. Fieldnotes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

References

181

Schmidt, A. 1991. Electronic Monitors: Realistically, What Can Be Expected? Federal Probation, 55(2): 47-53. Scull, A. 1983. Community Corrections: Panacea, Progress, or Pretence? In Power to Punish. Edited by in D. Garland and P. Young, 146-165. London: Heinemann Press. Sherman, M. and G. Hawkins. 1981. Imprisonment in America: Choosing the Future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Simon, J. 1998. Between Prison and a Hard Place: Public Confidence in Community Supervision and the Future of the Prison Crisis. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2(3): 1-11. Skogan, W. 1990. Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Neighborhoods. New York: Free Press. Skolnick, J. and D. Bayley. 1988a. The New Blue Line: Police Innovations in Six American Cities. New York: Free Press.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Skolnick, J. and D. Bayley. 1988b. Community Policing: Issues and Practices around the World. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Sluder, R., R. Shearer, and D. Potts. 1991. Probation Officer’s Role Perceptions and Attitudes toward Firearms. Federal Probation, 55(3): 311. Small, S. and D. Torres. 2001. Arming Probation Officers: Enhancing Public Confidence and Officer Safety. Federal Probation, 65(3): 24-28. Smykla, J. 1984. Probation and Parole: Crime Control in the Community. Riverside, NJ: MacMillan. Spelman, W. and J. Eck. 2000. Sitting Ducks, Ravenous Wolves, and Helping Hands: New Approaches to Urban Policing. In Policing Communities: Understanding Crime and Solving Problems. Edited by R. Glensor, M. Correia, and K. Peak, 125-137. Los Angeles: Roxbury. Spokane C.O.P.S. 2000. Spokane C.O.P.S. 1999 Annual Report. Spokane C.O.P.S. 2001. Spokane C.O.P.S. 2000 Annual Report. Spokane C.O.P.S. 2002. Spokane C.O.P.S. 2001 Annual Report.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

182

References

Spokane Police Department. Neighborhood Resource Officers. SPD Manual. Spokane, WA: Spokane Police Department. Stanley, D. 1976. Prisoners Among Us: The Problem of Parole. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Stastny, C. and G. Tyrnauer. 1982. Who Rules the Joint? The Changing Political Culture of Maximum-Security Prisons in America. Lexington, MA: Lexington. State of Washington Department of Corrections. 1997. (Brochure) Neighborhood Based Supervision: A Partnership Between the Department of Corrections and the Local Community. Spokane, WA: State of Washington Department of Corrections. State of Washington Department of Corrections. 1998. (Video production) Neighborhood Based Supervision: Joining Hands with the Community. Spokane, WA: Washington State Department of Corrections.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Sykes, G. 1986. Street Justice: A Moral Defense of Order Maintenance Policing. Justice Quarterly, 3(4): 497-516. Sykes, G. 1958. The Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum Security Prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Sztompka, P. (Ed.). 1996. Robert K. Merton: On Social Structure and Science. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Toch, H. 1977. Living in Prison: The Ecology of Survival. New York: Free Press. Trojanowicz, R. 1992. Building Support for Community Policing: An Effective Strategy. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 61:5:7-12. Trojanowicz, R. 1983. Evaluation of a Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 11(4): 410-419. Community Policing: A Trojanowicz, R. and B. Bucquerox. 1990. Contemporary Perspective. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Vollum, S. and C. Hale. 2002. Electronic Monitoring: A Research Review. Corrections Compendium, 27(7): 1-4, 23-27.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

References

183

Walker, S. 1995. Broken Windows and Fractured History: The Use and Misuse of History in Recent Police Patrol Analysis. In Police and Society: Touchstone Readings. Edited by V. Kappeler, 53-68. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Weber, D. 1999. Warrior Cops: The Ominous Growth of Paramilitarism in American Police Departments. Cato Briefing Paper. August, 1999. Cato Institute: Washington, D.C. Wells, T. 1999. Is Electronic Monitoring a Successful Community Supervision Method? In Controversial Issues in Corrections. Edited by C. Fields, 4756. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Westley, W. 1970. Violence and the Police - A Sociological Study of Law, Custom, and Morality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wilson, J. 1968. Varieties of Police Behavior. New York: Atheneum. Wilson, J. and G. Kelling. 1982. The Police and Neighborhood Safety: Broken Windows. Atlantic Monthly, 12(7): 29-38.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Wittenberg, P. 1996. Power, Influence, and the Development of Correctional Policy. Federal Probation, 60(2): 43-48. Worrall, J. 2002. If You Build It, They Will Come: Consequences of Improved Citizen Complaint Review Procedures. Crime and Delinquency, 48(3):355-379. Worrall, J. 2001. Civil Lawsuits, Citizen Complaints, and Policing Innovations. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing. Wycoff, M. 1985. Citizen Contact Patrol: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

APPENDIX DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY Title: An Evaluation of a Law Enforcement-Community Corrections Partnership in Spokane, Washington Researcher David W. Murphy—Doctoral Candidate, Criminal Justice Program, Political Science Department, Washington State University, Pullman. Objective of the Study The purpose of this study is to develop a better understanding of how the professional roles of law enforcement officers and community corrections officers may be affected by a close working partnership carried out in the context of community-based, volunteer operated COPS-Shops.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Research Procedure A taped interview containing questions about your experiences working as a law enforcement officer or community corrections officer, about working with members of partnership agencies, and about working with the community will be administered by the above mentioned researcher. Use of the Results The results obtained in this study will be used for research purposes only. The results will form the basis of the researcher’s dissertation and will be published in reports in academic research journals. ALL RESEARCH INFORMATION WILL BE HANDLED IN THE STRICTEST CONFIDENCE AND YOUR PARTICIPATION WILL NOT BE INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIABLE IN ANY REPORTS. Your individual responses to the questions of this survey will not be shared with either your supervisor or with the Department of Corrections. Voluntary Participation YOUR PARTICPATION IS COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY AND YOU MAY REFUSE PARTICIPATION AT ANY TIME WITHOUT PENALTY OR PREJUDICE. Your participation or nonparticipation in this research project will not affect the conditions of your employment.

185 Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

186

Appendix

CONSENT FORM I, ________________________________________, understand the study entitled An Evaluation of a Law Enforcement-Community Corrections Partnership in Spokane, Washington as explained on page one and I consent to participate in the study. My participation is completely voluntary.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

I understand that all research information will be kept in the strictest confidence and that my participation will not be individually identifiable in any reports. I understand that participation or non-participation in this research project will not affect my employment. I further understand that there is no penalty or prejudice of any kind for withdrawing from or not participating in the study. ______________________________ Participant’s signature

________________ Date

______________________________ Witness’s Signature

________________ Date

Cc: Research Project File Subject If you have any questions about this research project you may contact the following parties: David W. Murphy Washington State University Criminal Justice Program Johnson Tower 719 Pullman, WA 99164-4880 Phone: (509) 335-2544

Institutional Review Board Washington State University P.O. Box 643140 Pullman, WA 99164-3140 Phone: (509) 335-9661

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Appendix

187

NRO Interview Schedule This interview will include a series of questions related to your job as a Police Officer. It will cover topics such as your law enforcement philosophy and what your experiences are in working with the community, community corrections officers, and offenders. Introduction: How long have you worked as a police officer? How long have you worked for the Spokane Police Department? How long have you been a Neighborhood Resource Officer? What initiated your desire to become an NRO? Law Enforcement Philosophy: The Following questions relate to your ideas about the role you think law enforcement should serve in the community.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

What is your general philosophy in working as a law enforcement officer? In what direction do you believe the Spokane Police Department is moving in the provision of law enforcement? Working with Community Corrections and Other Agencies: The following questions relate to what it is like to work with other agencies. What other agencies do you have the most contact with? Should the SPD be pursuing partnerships with other social service agencies? If yes, which ones? Why or why not? How has working at a influenced your working relationship with social service agencies? Should the SPD be pursuing partnerships with other criminal justice agencies? If yes, which ones? Why or why not?

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

188

Appendix

How has working at a COPS-Shop influenced your working relationship with criminal justice agencies? How would you describe your working relationship with Community Corrections Officers? How has working at a COPS-Shop influenced your working relationship with the community corrections officers? Should law enforcement officers work with community corrections officers? What do you see as the positive outcomes of such a relationship? What do you see as the negative outcomes of such a relationship? How often do you accompany a CCO on field visits of offenders? In your view, should Community Corrections officers carry firearms?

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

What benefits has your partnership with community corrections brought to the SPD? Any resources? Any new ideas on how to treat offenders or to resolve offender problems? Any new ways of how to interact with the community or solve community level problems? Has your overall philosophy of how to deal with offenders changed due to this partnership? Does the philosophy of the DOC on how offenders should be dealt with in the community conflict with the mission of the SPD? Is there ever a time in which you feel as if the partnership between the SPD and the DOC is not mutual? Any examples? Do you believe that NBS officers respect your role as an NRO? Do you believe that CCOs in general respect your role as an NRO? What sorts of conflict do you see between CCOs and offenders? What sorts of conflict do you seen between police officers and offenders?

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Appendix

189

Working with the Community: The following questions relate to what it is like to work with the community and their perceptions of community policing. How do you define community? What is the primary role of a police officer in dealing with the community? Would you describe your work as more community based or community driven? How has working at a COPS-Shop influenced your working relationship with the community? Do you enjoy working with the community? What do you consider to be the most significant problems of the community in which you work? Is there anything you can accomplish through your position as an NRO to address these problems? What do you think are the most significant obstacles to these efforts?

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

How can you help the community to alleviate the challenges that offenders pose to it? Do you believe that the average citizen respects what you do for a living? Do you believe that citizens have a good understanding of what you do? Is what you do as an NRO consistent with what the public wants? If not, what does the public want improved or changed? What do you believe the community’s responsibility is in community policing? Is the community fulfilling these responsibilities? Why or why not? What do you see as the community’s responsibility regarding community corrections? Is the community fulfilling these responsibilities? Why or why not? Does the public accept community sanctions as appropriate? Does the community respond equally as well to community oriented policing events as they do to community correction’s events? Does the public have an accurate perception of what NBS officers do?

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

190

Appendix

In your opinion, is what NBS officers do consistent with what the public wants? If not, what does the public want improved or changed? What influence does the SPD’s partnership with the DOC have on the SPD’s image in the community? What influence does this partnership have on the DOC’s image in the community? Have you found that the community is sometimes overwhelmed with the combination of COP and CCO initiatives? Any examples? Working with the SPD: The following questions relate to what it is like to work for the Spokane Police Department. How many hours/week do you spend on your job?

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

In an average week, what percent of your time is spent on the following tasks (develop and then graph this)? working/meeting with community members working/meeting with community corrections officers working/meeting with other service providers completing “paper work” other______ How would you adjust your time to spend more of it on the items you feel contribute most to you doing an effective job? What role could your first line supervisor serve in achieving such an adjustment? What role could your field administrator play in achieving such an adjustment? Of the training that you have received, what has been most helpful to you? What has been least helpful to you? Is there any additional training that should be provided? Is there any additional training that should be provided to be an NRO?

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Appendix

191

What type of guidance do you receive “on the job?” Is that guidance sufficient for you to do your job successfully? If not, what additional guidance would you desire? Do you have enough discretion to do your job effectively when working with: the community? community corrections officers? other agencies? offenders? With the exception of time, do you have the resources needed to do your job well? If not, what resources would you add? How has working at a COPS-Shop influenced your working relationship with the SPD? How has the SPD adapted to accommodate NBS?

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

How would you describe the working relationship between you and other NROs? How would you describe the working relationship between you and other police officers outside your field office? How do you perceive the work of those officers who are not NROs? How would you describe the working relationship between you and your firstline supervisor? How would you describe the working relationship between you and your field administrator? Do you feel stress related to your job? What parts of your job are the most stressful? Does working with the community affect your level of stress? In what ways?

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

192 Do you feel safe doing your job? Do you ever feel threatened? When are you most likely to feel threatened? What do you do to reduce threats to your personal safety? Do most NROs possess personal integrity? Are NROs likely to abuse their power? How are NROs disciplined for poor performance? How are NROs rewarded for a job well done?

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Are you satisfied with your job? What would you change, to make you more satisfied?

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Appendix

Appendix

193

NBSO Interview Schedule This interview will include a series of questions related to your job as a Police Officer. It will cover topics such as your law enforcement philosophy and what your experiences are in working with the community, community corrections officers, and offenders. Introduction How long have you worked for the Department of Corrections? How long have you been a Community Corrections Officer? How long have you been a Neighborhood Based Supervision Officer? What initiated your desire to become an NBS officer? Supervision Philosophy: The Following questions relate to your ideas of how offenders should be dealt with while being supervised in the community.

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

What is your general philosophy in working with offenders in the community? In what direction do you believe the Department of Corrections is moving in the management of offenders in the community? Working With Offenders: The following questions relate to what it is like to work as a Neighborhood Based Supervision Officer, and what type of work you do with offenders in the community. How are offenders assigned to you caseload? How many offenders do you currently actively supervise? Is that about typical for the number you typically supervise? Given your current position, what would be the optimal caseload? In an average week, how many hours do you work?

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

194

Appendix

How would you adjust your time to spend more of it on the items you feel contribute most to you doing an effective job? What role could your first line supervisor play in achieving such an adjustment? What role could your first line supervisor play in achieving such an adjustment? In your view, what is the most important thing offenders need from you while they are being supervised in the community? What is the most important thing the DOC can provide to offenders to help them be successful? What is the most important thing the community can provide to offenders to help them be successful?

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Is the LSI-R a useful tool for assessing offenders? Is the LSI-R helpful to you for determining how to supervise offenders? How often do you deviate from it? Do you ever feel conflicted about what you are expected to do when working with offenders and what you believe should be done? Examples? What kinds of conflict do you most commonly see arising between CCOs and offenders? How often do you consult with others on how to deal with an offenders? Are there interim sanctions or stipulated agreements that you can use can use to contend with offenders who are violating the conditions of their supervision? At what point do you decide that an offender’s community supervision should be revoked? Do you feel stress related to your job? What parts of your job are the most stressful? Does working with the community affect your level of stress? In what ways? Do you feel safe doing your job? Do you ever feel threatened? When are you most likely to feel threatened?

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Appendix

195

What do you do to reduce threats to your personal safety? In your view, should Community Corrections Officers carry firearms? How often do you go on field visits accompanied by another: CCO? A police officer? Service provider? Other? How has working at a COPS-Shop influenced your working relationship with offenders? Neighborhood Based Supervision How do you define NBS? Do you believe NBS addresses the goals of community corrections How?

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Do you see Neighborhood Based Supervision as an innovation in corrections? Do you think the Offender Accountability Act is likely to change your role as a CCO? If so, how? Are there any other initiatives being implemented by the DOC that you believe are valuable to supervising offenders in the community? Are there any that you think are of little value? Working with Law Enforcement and Other Agencies: questions relate to what it is like to work with other agencies.

The following

What other agencies do you have the most contact with? Should the DOC be pursing partnerships with other social service agencies? If yes, which ones? Why or why not? How has working at a COPS-Shop influenced your working relationship with social service agencies?

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

196

Appendix

Should the DOC be pursuing partnerships with other criminal justice agencies? Why? Why not? Should Community Corrections Officers work with police officers? What do you see as the positive outcomes of such a relationship? What do you see as the negative outcomes of such a relationship? How has working at a COPS-Shop influenced your working relationship with the police? What benefits has your partnership with the police brought to the DOC? Any resources? Any new ideas on how to treat offenders or to resolve offender problems? Any new ways of how to interact with the community or solve community level problems? Has your philosophy of how to deal with offenders changed due to this partnership with the police?

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Does the philosophy of the NROs conflict with the mission of the DOC in how offenders should be supervised in the community? Is there ever a time in which you feel as if the partnership between the DOC and the police is not mutual? Do you believe that NROs respect your role as a CCO? Do you believe that the police in general respect your role as a CCO? What sort of conflict do you see between NROs and offenders? Working with the Community: The following questions relate to what it is like to work with the community and their perceptions of community corrections. How do you define community? What is the primary role of a Community Corrections Officer in dealing with the community? Would you describe your work as more community based or community driven?

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Appendix

197

How has working at a COPS-Shop influenced your working relationship with the community? Do you enjoy working with the community? Should everyday citizens have a say in how offenders are treated? Should citizens be included in the process of developing policies related to community corrections? What do you consider to be the most significant problems of the community in which you work? Is there anything that you can accomplish through your position as a CCO to address these problems? What do you think are the most significant obstacles to these efforts? How can you help the community to alleviate the challenges that offenders pose to it? Do you believe that the average citizen respects what you do for a living?

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Do you believe that citizens have a good understanding of what you do when supervising offenders? Is what you do as a CCO consistent with what the public wants? If not, what does the public want improved or changed? What do you see as the community's responsibility regarding community corrections? Is the community fulfilling these responsibilities? Why or why not? Does the public accept community sanctions as appropriate? Does the public have an accurate perception of what the NROs do? In your opinion, is what NROs do consistent with what the public wants? If not, what does the public want improved or changed? What influence does the DOC's partnership with the police have on the DOC’s image in the community? What influence does the police's partnership with the DOC have on the police's image in the community?

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

198

Appendix

What do you believe the community's responsibility is in community policing? Is the community fulfilling their responsibilities? Why or why not? Does the community respond equally as well to community oriented policing events as they do to community corrections events? Have you found that the community is sometimes overwhelmed with the combination of COP and CCO initiatives? Any examples? Any other thoughts about community involvement in community corrections? Working with the DOC: The following questions relate to what it is like to work with the Department of Corrections. Of the training that you have received, what has been the most helpful to you? What has been the least helpful to you?

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Is there any additional training that should be provided? Is there any additional training that should be provided to be an NBS officer? What type of guidance do you receive on the job? Is that guidance sufficient for you to do your job successfully? If not, what additional guidance would you desire? Do you have enough discretion do your job effectively when working with: the community? the police? other agencies? offenders? With the exception of time, do you have the resources to do your job well? If not, what resources would you add? How has working at a COPS-Shop influenced your working relationship with the DOC? How has the DOC adapted to accommodate NBS? Do you fear being sued? If so, do you believe that the DOC would support you in a lawsuit?

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Appendix

199

How would you describe the working relationship between you and your first line supervisor? How would you describe the working relationship between you and your field administrator? How would you describe the working relationship between you and other NBS officers? How would you describe the working relationship between you and other CCOs outside your field office? How do you perceive the work of those who are not NBS officers? Do most CCOs possess personal integrity in how they do their job? Are CCOs likely to abuse their power? How are officers disciplined for poor performance? How are officers rewarded for a job well done?

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Are you satisfied with your job? What would you change, to help make you more satisfied, or make it even better? Anything else you would like to add?

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

INDEX Community Corrections, overview, 2-6 history, 2-3 goals of, 4-6 future of, 11-14 see also Probation, Parole Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), see NRO program COPS-Shops, 46-49 history, 46-48 statistics, 48 volunteers, 48 Community Oriented Policing, see Community Policing Community Policing, components of, 15-16 future of, 17 history, 14-15 overview, 14-17 weaknesses of, 16-17 Corbett, R., 19, 23, 29-30, 85, 94, 102, 105, 154-155, 158

overcrowding, 2 pains of imprisonment,3 weaknesses of, 3-4 Merton, R., 21-22, 24-27 Methodology See Research Procedure Mission Creep, overview, 85-86 challenges of, 94-102 expanded responsibilities of officers, 87-94 working with public, burden of, 94-102 Mission Distortion, overview, 105-108 abuse of authority, potential for, 121-126 obstacles to mission preservation, 108-114 stalking horse incidents, 114-120 Neighborhood Based Supervision program, overview and goals, 52-57 officers involved in, 57-61 Neighborhood Resource Officer Program, see also COPS-Shops Community Oriented Policing Services program, 46 overview and goals, 49-51 officers involved in, 57-59, 61-62

Department of Corrections, Washington State, 34-35 Dorner, D., 21, 27-28 Electronic monitoring, 10-11 Findings and recommendations of study, 157-165 Institutional Corrections incarceration rates, 2 201

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,

202

Copyright © 2005. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Organizational Lag, overview, 129-130 caseload location, 133-137 caseload size, 130-133 COPS-Shop assignments, 142-145 firearms requirements, 137142 staying informed, 145-148 Parent, D. 23, 46 Parole, overview, 8-9 effectiveness, 8-9 history of, 8 Policing, weaknesses of professional model, 14-15 Police-Probation partnerships, anticipated consequences of, 45-46, 49-57, 63-81 benefits associated with, 63-81 overview, 17-19, unanticipated consequences of, see Unanticipated Consequences of Social Action Police Substations, See COPS-Shops Probation, overview, 6-8 effectiveness, 7 goals, 6 history of, 6

Index the agencies, 34-35 the community, 33-34 the officers, 35-36 Snyder, B., 23, 46 Spokane Police Department, 34-35 Spokane, Washington, see Research Setting, community Stalking Horse incidents, see Mission Distortion Unanticipated Consequences of Social Action, 21-31 and police-probation partnerships, 23-24 causes, 26-28 latent consequences, 22-23 manifest consequences, 22-23

Research procedure, 36-43 data analysis, 38-42 data coding, 38-42 interview schedule, see appendix Research setting, 33-36

Making Police-Probation Partnerships Work, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central,