Barriers to formal police–community corrections partnerships
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461355717695323 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
International Journal of
Police Science & Management
Barriers to formal police–community
2017, Vol. 19(2) 89–100
ª The Author(s) 2017
corrections partnerships: A comparison
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
of police chiefs and chief probation/parole
DOI: 10.1177/1461355717695323
journals.sagepub.com/home/psm
officers’ perceptions
Bitna Kim
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA
Adam K Matz
Department of Criminal Justice, University of North Dakota, USA
Jurg Gerber
College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University, USA
Abstract
Although there has been continuing and increasingly intensive interest in police–community corrections partnerships over
the past two decades, recent studies have found that the majority of partnerships remain informal endeavors. Little is
known about the reasons why police and community corrections agencies do not formalize partnerships. To address this
gap in knowledge, we collected state-wide survey data from police chiefs and chief probation/parole officers in
Pennsylvania regarding barriers to partnerships as well as interest in new partnership opportunities. The results
revealed that for both police and probation/parole agencies, the most common reason for nonparticipation was that
they have not been approached by the respective agencies. A lack of funding resources was the second most common
barrier for both agencies. The so-called stalking horse concern was another significant barrier for probation/parole
agencies, but it was not significant for police agencies. Regarding favorability to future partnerships, most respondents
were interested in formal partnerships, but only a few agency representatives noted that they were actively seeking out
opportunities to partner. The implications for policies, training, and future research are discussed.
Keywords
Police–probation/parole partnership, community policing, barriers, leadership, formal partnership
Submitted 13 Nov 2016, Revise received 23 Dec 2016, accepted 31 Jan 2017
Introduction
consequence of the perceived success of Boston’s Opera-
tion Night Light (Beto, 2005; Matz and Kim, 2016). How-
Police often come into contact with individuals under com-
ever, recent studies have shown that the overwhelming
munity supervision (Council of State Governments Justice
majority of partnerships were based on individual relation-
Center, 2013). Both community policing and community
ships and were informal in nature, limited largely to
corrections have encouraged and facilitated the forging of
police–probation/parole partnerships to prevent the recidi-
vism of probationers and parolees and increase their rate of
Corresponding author:
community reintegration (Beto, 2005; Corbett, 1998; Kim
Bitna Kim, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Indiana
et al., 2010). Formalized police–probation/parole partner-
University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA 15705, USA.
ships reached prominence in the mid-to-late 1990s as a
Email: bitna.kim@iup.edu
90
International Journal of Police Science & Management 19(2)
periodic information sharing (Kim et al., 2017). The per-
Literature review
sistence of informal partnerships, or no partnerships at all,
In the early 1990s when the public protection agenda was
as opposed to formal partnerships, was consistent for both
rapidly growing in political importance (Nash, 2008),
law enforcement studies (Kim et al., 2010; Kim, Gerber
observers of criminal justice practices began to witness the
et al., 2013; Kim, Matz et al., 2013) and the study of proba-
rise of police–probation/parole partnerships in a number of
tion and parole agencies (Beto, 2005; Matz, 2016a).
sites throughout the United States (Beto, 2005; Kim et al.,
Even without formal programs, it seems police–proba-
2010). Parent and Snyder (1999) provided a useful frame-
tion/parole partnerships are, in one form or another, practi-
work for understanding these partnerships. Their work clas-
cally inevitable (International Association for Chiefs of
sified partnerships in terms of five primary functions or
Police [IACP], 2012; Kim et al., 2010; Murphy, 2005).
themes: enhanced supervision, information sharing, fugi-
However, the lack of formalization has impaired any form
tive apprehension, specialized enforcement, and intera-
of succession or long-term continuity (Jannetta and Lach-
gency problem-solving. While Parent and Snyder (1999)
man, 2011; Matz, 2016a). Informal partnerships are often
identified five distinct partnership orientations, Kim and
terminated when key actors retire, get transferred, or pro-
colleagues (2010) further distinguished partnerships as
moted (Beto, 2005; Murphy, 2005; Parent and Snyder,
either formal or informal endeavors. Formal partnerships
1999). What made Operation Night Light unique was that
consist of written agreements (e.g., memoranda of under-
it went beyond personal relationships and became a colla-
standing), which clearly delineate the roles and responsi-
borative model embraced by a number of agencies and
bilities of the respective organizations, whereas informal
stakeholder organizations (Beto, 2005; Fitzgerald, 2006).
partnerships are those that develop between individual staff
Formalizing such informal working relationships between
members of different agencies.
police and community corrections officers, officially sanc-
Mostly in an anecdotal manner, practitioners and advo-
tioning them at the organizational level, and engendering a
cates of police–probation/parole partnerships have voiced
commitment on behalf of both agencies in a more formal
several potential benefits associated with interagency col-
sophisticated set of partnerships, has proven to be impor-
laboration, including increased officer safety and security;
tant in reducing the potential for unintended negative con-
improved officer legitimacy in the eyes of the officers
sequences (Jannetta and Lachman, 2011; Kim et al., 2010,
themselves, probationers/parolees, and the general public;
2017; Murphy, 2005).
enhanced street presence; greater intelligence gathering;
There have been several state-level studies on the pre-
and reductions in criminal behavior by probationers/paro-
valence of police–probation/parole partnerships (Kim
lees (Corbett, 1998; Matz and Kim, 2013). Community
et al. 2015; Kim, Gerber et al., 2013; Kim, Matz et al.,
supervision agencies have lamented that their caseloads
2013) and recently a national-level study (Matz, 2016a;
continue to grow and increasingly consist of more high-
Matz and Kim, 2016), all of which found a pronounced
risk individuals (DeMichele and Payne, 2007, 2012). The
lack of formal partnerships. Additionally, previous studies
presence of law enforcement, particularly in cases in which
provided the characteristics of law enforcement agencies
unarmed probation or parole officers are entering the
in Texas stratified by status of partnership, no partnership
homes of high-risk individuals, is a welcomed benefit to
versus having formal or informal partnerships with proba-
partnerships for many community corrections agencies
tion (Kim et al., 2010) and with parole (Kim, Gerber et al.,
(Ahlin et al., 2013; Alarid, 2015).
2013). Because very few agencies reported formal part-
Chui et al., (2003) study is unique in that it focused on
nerships, formal and informal partnerships were com-
the probationer participants’ self-assessment of the police–
bined in both studies. No significant differences in
probation partnership in the southwest of England. The
primary area served, number of square miles served, pop-
interview data revealed that participants recognized that
ulation in jurisdiction, or the number of full-time sworn
working closely and intensively with police and probation
officers were observed. To date, however, there has been
staff enabled them to move away from offending behavior.
no empirical evaluation into the likely reasons behind why
Although not generally supported by recent research on
agencies do not participate in police–community correc-
perceptions of police chiefs or community corrections
tions partnerships. The present study addressed this void
chiefs/officers in the United States (Kim et al., 2017; Matz,
by examining the perceptions of police chiefs and proba-
2016a), some have noted that the presence of police may
tion/parole chiefs in Pennsylvania. Specifically, this
encourage greater compliance from probationers/parolees
exploratory study sought to understand, in addition to the
and encourage them to take their supervision more seri-
prevalence of partnerships, what were the most common
ously (Corbett, 1998).
barriers agency leaders faced in forming formal partner-
Police are also able to act as additional eyes on the street
ships, and to what extent they are interested in pursuing
for probation and parole. Given that home visits can occur
such partnerships.
Kim et al.
91
months apart (Alarid, 2015), police awareness of proba-
an individual’s residence without a warrant or probable
tioners and parolees can play a pivotal role in proactively
cause (Matz, 2016b; Turner et al., 2016). Matz (2016a)
monitoring offenders in the community. Further, police can
found this issue was a significant concern that influenced
often act more expeditiously when they are aware of high-
the extent to which probation and parole officers were sup-
risk probationers and parolees in their communities (Matz
portive of engaging in partnerships with...
To continue reading
Request your trial