62 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 68 Number 2

Redefining Roles andRelationshipsThe development of partnerships in lawenforcement is not a new idea, but it does

appear that today's police are much morelikely to enter into partnerships than theirpredecessors,especiallyat the local level.Onereasonfor this new collaborativemindset on

the part of the nation's21,143police agencies(Maguire,et al., 1998)is the adoption of com-munity policing in manyof thesejurisdictions.While a reviewof the researchon the imple-mentation and impact of community policereforms is beyond the scope of this article (forsuch review see, e.g., National Research Coun-cil, 2004), it is worth noting that communitypolicing programs do represent a fundamentalshift in strategy: rather than working alone (orin teams with other officers) patrol officersare encouraged to meet and work with com-munity groups, personnel from social services,public health, and other criminal justice agen-cies to address the community's crime/ordermaintenance problems.

As part of this new collaborative orienta-tion, partnerships between police and a widevariety of agencies and community groups,including state and local corrections, areencouraged as an appropriate problem-solv-ing strategy. Critics of community policinghave pointed out that one consequence ofsuch collaboration is to increase the spanof control of police agencies, particularly indisadvantaged areas. With the help of thesenew "partners:' local police can collect betterand more detailed intelligence on residents,expand the scope of searches, and targetboth individuals (e.g. gang members, sex

offenders) and "hot spot" areas (e.g. crackhouses) for removal from the community. AsManning (2003) has pointed out, short-termgains in order-maintenance in low income,inner-city areas may be followed by long-term losses (moral, social, political) in thesesame communities, due to the negative con-sequences of incarceration on offenders, theirfamilies, and the communities in which theyreside (and to which they will return). Thepotential for such unintended consequencesmust certainly be considered in the types ofpolice-corrections partnerships highlightedin this article.

In addition to community policingreforms, sentencing reform can certainly beconsidered as another compelling impetusfor police-corrections partnerships. Due toour reliance on incarceration as the "sanction

of choice" for many crime categories (par-ticularly drug offenders), we now have over2 million inmates in custody in the UnitedStates. Last year, 600,000 of these inmateswere released from federal, state and local

facilities, a three-fold increase from just 20yearsago (RANDResearchBrief,2003).Dueto changes in "good time" provisions, tougherparole eligibility, and the establishment ofmandatory minimum sentences, one in fiveof these new prison releasees were max-outs,which effectively means that they returnedto the community without the supervision,services, and control provided by communitycorrections agencies (e.g. probation, parole).

Who (if anyone) should fill this super-vision, service, and control void? In manyjurisdictions, the surveillance and controlresponsibility appears to be moving to thelocal police, who are likely to view prison

JamesM. ByrneDon Hummer

The University of Massachusetts, Lowell

releasees as a logical target population, espe-cially given the "fact" that, in all likelihood,two-thirds of these offenders will be rear-

rested (and half will be reincarcerated) fornew crimes within three years (Langan andLevin, 2002). The provision of (voluntary)services for prisoners released without parolesupervision is more problematic, but it doesappear that both institutional and commu-nity corrections agencies are now beginning torecognize that they also need to expand theirrole and responsibility vis-a-vis this groupof releasees. However, it is still unclear where

the money will come from to fund servicesfor these releasees, who appear to be fallingthrough the cracks of the current service pro-vision network. Whatever the source, adequatefunding for the mental health, housing, sub-stance abuse, and public health problems ofthis subgroup of releasees appears to be a keyto the success of the partnership. For reentryprograms developed through federal grantand/or funds from private foundations, itwill be interesting to "follow the money" as itflows to various partnership agencies, becausecontrol of the funding for reentry will affectthe nature, duration, and orientation (surveil-

lance, treatment, control) of the partnership.

1. An Overview of Police-Corrections

Partnership Development in the UnitedStates

Parentand Snyder(1999)conducteda nation-wide review of the utilization of police-cor-rections partnerships; in conjunction withthis review, they completed site visits at 19separate partnerships located across fivestates (Minnesota, Washington, Connecti-cut, Arizona, California). According to the

rI September 2004 POLICEIN REENTRYPARTNERSHIPS63

profiles included in the report, five differentmodels of police-corrections partnershipscan be identified:

(1) Enhancedsupervisionpartnerships,in which police and probation orparole officers perform joint supervi-sion or other joint functions related tooffenders in the community....(2) Fugitive apprehension units, inwhich police and correctional agenciescollaborate to locate and apprehendpersons who have absconded fromprobation or parole supervision....(3) Information sharing partnerships,in which correctionsand law enforce-ment agencies institute proceduresto exchange information related tooffenders...

(4) Specializedenforcementpartner-ships,in which police and correctionalagencies, as well as community organi-zations, collaborate to rid communities

of particular problems, and(5) Interagencyproblem-solvingpart-nerships,in whichlawenforcementandcorrectional agencies confer to identifyproblems of mutual concern and toidentify and implement solutions tothem (Parent and Snyder, 1999:7)

These five models offer different strategiesand problem contexts for the application ofpolice-corrections partnerships to the myriadof issues associated with offender reentryinitiatives. Unfortunately, the authors of thisreport were unable to provide an estimate ofthe number of police-corrections partner-ships currently in place in the United Statesthat utilize at least one of these models.

2. Police-Corrections Partnerships andOffender Reentry

Partnerships between law enforcement andcorrections agencies appear to be an emerg-ing strategy adopted by several federal agen-cies (NIJ, NIC, OJJDP) that provide fundingfor a wide range of offender reentry initiativesat the federal, state, and local level. In several

jurisdictions, partnership development is aprerequisite for federal funding of the ini-tiative (Taxman, Young, and Byrne, 2003a).But from where did this new-found "faith"

in partnership emerge? In the absence ofempirical research, it appears that programdevelopers have turned to another source:the experience of public sector managersinvolved in a wide range of problem-solv-ing scenarios. A number of recent reviews of

organizational effectiveness in the public sec-tor (see, e.g., U.S. General Accounting Office,2004 for an overview) have emphasized theimportance of the strategic use of partnershipsto address issues involving multiple agenciesand systems. According to the participantsat a recent GAO forum on this issue, "to be

a high-performing organization,... Agenciesmust effectively manage and influence rela-tionships with organizations outside of theirdirect control" (GAO:2004:9).When viewed in

this light, police-corrections partnerships rep-resent an attempt by two independent agenciesto work together to solve a common problem.In the process, the question can certainly beraised: Who is influencing whom? At theircore, police-corrections partnerships can bedefined by the types of roles and relationshipsthat emerge between/among participatingorganizations and agencies. Below,we examine"roles and relationships" across eight "model"reentry partnership initiatives identified byThe Office of Justice Programs. 1These eightprogram models certainly do not represent thefull range of reentry programs currently avail-able across the country, 2but they do providea solid analytic foundation from which we canexamine the problems and potential inherentin police-corrections partnerships.

Despite fundamental differences in phi-losophy, background, and orientation towardoffenders, police-corrections partnerships havethe potential to enhance public safety, stream-line service provision, and achieve commongoals, such as crime reduction (Parent & Sny-der, 1999).They also may have unintended lon-ger-term consequences for both offenders andcommunities that must be examined before wemove further in this area. As described below,

the Reentry Partnership Initiative (RPI) is anexample of a cooperative effort to maximizelaw enforcement and correctional resources

in a meaningful way to address a specifictarget issue (offender reentry). Developed bythe Office of Justice Programs of the FederalDepartment of Justice, RPI programs form apartnership of criminal justice, social service,and community groups to develop and imple-ment a reentry process. A key component for asuccessful RPI is linking local law enforcementwith other agencies and actors responsible foroffender reintegration. Byworking in conjunc-tion with corrections personnel, and extendingpartnerships to include other agencies, policecan enhance their presence in target neighbor-hoods and in the process generate support forcollaborative efforts from policymakers andthe general public (Parent & Snyder, 1999).

In the following section we describe thespecific role oflaw enforcement in collaborat-ing with representatives of corrections agen-cies, as well as with other key actors withinthe Reentry Partnership Initiative (communi-ty, treatment providers, victim, and offender).In doing so we demonstrate the pivotal rolethat police have in implementing a success-ful "shared decision-making" partnership foroffender reintegration, while also highlightingpotential problems inherent in this strategy.

3. Identifying the Role of Police at EachKey Phase in the Reentry Process

Local police departments have played a criti-cal role in the development of the RPI modelin several sites across the country. In anearlier review of eight "model" reentry pro-grams completed by Taxman, Young, andByrne (2003a), three key phases of the RPImodel are described in detail: the institu-

tional phase, the structured reentry phase,and the community reintegration phase (seefigure 1). Based on their detailed reviews ofreentry initiatives in eight separate jurisdic-tions (Maryland, Vermont, South Carolina,Missouri, Florida, Nevada, Massachusetts and. ,

Washington), we can describe and discuss therole of the police at each of these phases ofreentry.3 We have examined similarities anddifferences across these eight jurisdictionsin the nature, type, duration, and intensityof police involvement in each phase of theoffender reentry process. It is our hope thatsuch a review will provide critical informa-tion to program developers interested in the

applicability of police-corrections partner-ships to the complex problems associatedwith offender reentry.

The Role of Policing during theInstitutional Phase of ReentryDuring the institutionalphaseof an offenderreentry program, a number of decisions haveto be made about offenders that involve local

law enforcement, both directly and indirectly.Consider, for example, the selection of thetarget population for a new reentry program.Although the timing of the decision variedfrom jurisdiction to jurisdiction, local policedepartments have been involved in the selec-tion of the RPI target population at severalsites. The rationale underlying this strategy isfairly straightforward: The decision regardingwhom to include and exclude from a particularreentry program should be made by the entirepartnership, rather than one specific agency.Bysharing decision-making vis-a.-visthe targeting

64 FEDERALPROBATION Volume 68 Number 2

Figure 1:Reentry PartnershipContinuum

6 months

Institution

Classificationfor Risk,

Treatment, andControl

Move TargetPopulation

to SelectFacility

issue, program developers have increased thelikelihood of police support for-and partialownership of-the reentry initiative.

The dangers inherent in allowing a singleagency (e.g. institutional corrections) to deter-mine program eligibilitywere highlighted in thereview of LasVegas,Nevada's reentry program,in which only offenders from sp~cific "weedand seed" areas were targeted. The .policechiefrefused to participate in the program becauseof the fear that the program was tantamount toracial profiling; only high minority concentra-tion neighborhoods were being targeted for thepartnership reentry effort.

The police chief's fear was based on thepossibility/likelihood that offenders reen-tering these targeted neighborhoods willface much closer police scrutiny (i.e. stops,surveillance, etc.) than offenders released

to other areas of the city. If such "scrutiny"leads to higher rearrest, reconviction, and/orreturn-to-prison rates for offenders releasedto high minority concentration areas, thenthe negative consequences of this "place-based" targeting decision would be sub-stantiated. However, no such research was

conducted at this site, since the RPI programwas only in its initial development stage.Rather than implement the reentry programand then monitor the comparative rearrest,reconviction, and return to prison rates ofreleasees citywide, the chief made a simplesuggestion: expand the program beyond theinitial "weed and seed" target sites, in orderto "broaden" the population targeted for"potential" police profiling.

Change

Education

Job

Family

Drug! Alcohol

Regardless of the specific targeting deci-sions made across the eight reentry programswe reviewed (Taxman, Byrne, and Young,2002), it does seem reasonable to raise the

racial profiling issue and consider the impli-cations for police-corrections partnerships.As Manning (2003:54) recently observed,

Racial profiling is the use of expertsystems and documents that advise orencourage stopping people of a given"profile"-e.g. black teenagers; a blackman in an expensive foreign car; long-haired drivers of beat-up vans; a blackdriver in a "white" suburban area of acity. It goes to the explicit policy-drivenattempt of agencies to direct discretionand increase, for example, arrests ondrug charges (Manning, 2001). Promingof a less systematic sort is the heart of allpolicing -stops based on distrust, suspi-cion, awareness of people "out of place"in time or space, past experience, stereo-typing, and other common typifications(2003:54-55).

By targeting specific subgroups of allreleased offenders for inclusion in reentryprograms, developers certainly increase theawareness of local police vis-a-vis this sub-group of returning offenders, while alsochanging the way police respond to theseoffenders in the community. Police in the RPIprograms we visited were expected to monitoroffenders' progress in the community, eitherby direct observations (e.g. home visits, fieldstops) or by utilizing any combination ofcommunity infotmation sources (e.g. victims,volunteer guardians, treatment providers,

community corrections personnel, employ-ers). They were also expected to respond pro-actively to this information (e.g. increasedface-to-face personal contacts, focusing onspecific issues related to the victim, progress intreatment, employment, housing, etc.), basedon the notion that this type of police-initi-ated response might be effective, especiallywhen it focused on an individual offender's

progress addressing the problems that result-ed in his/her most recent incarceration (i.e.,substance abuse, mental illness, employment,family problems). But despite such benevolentintentions, it is certainly possible that offendertargeting represents yet another manifestationof the profiling problem. Once again it is PeterManning (2003) who offers the most succinctsummary of the research on police profiling:

The data are overwhelming-peopleof color, no matter what their presenceon the roads, work, or past record, aredisproportionately stopped, searched,arrested, charged, and imprisoned (Mee-han and Ponder, 2002a,b;Walker,Spohn,and DeLone, 1996) (55).

In addition to their role in offender tar-

geting decisions, police may also be able toassist in other decisions made during theinstitutional phase of RPI, such as offenderclassification, institutional location, and insti-tutional treatment. Local police have infor-mation about offenders that may be sharedwith institutional staff involved in offender

classification and placement, such as peer/gangassociations, family history and the nature ofthe commitment offense. In addition, police atone site (Vermont) serve on local community"restorative justice" boards that review andapprove the offender's institutional treatmentplan within 45 days of incarceration. Whileonly one of the eight sites we visited includesthe police in decisions regarding institutionaltreatment (for substance abuse, anger manage-ment, and/or other behavioral issues), it can

certainly be argued that the police have a stakein offender treatment decisions. By includ-ing police in the treatment decision-makingprocess, Vermont's RPI program developershave given police officers an opportunity tosee, first-hand, how offenders change and thevalue of treatment interventions throughoutthe system.

The Role of Policing during theStructured Reentry Phase

The secondphase of the RPI model involvesstructuredreentryto the community. Policehave an important role in decisionsduring

September 2004 POLICE IN REENTRYPARTNERSHIPS 65

this second phase of reentry. Typically, thestructured reentry phase of RPI programsfocuses on the last few months before release

and the first month after release. It is duringthis period that an offender reintegrationplan is developed and a number of basic deci-sions are made about when the offender will

be released, whether specific release condi-tions will be established, where the offenderwill live and work, and how the offender willaddress his/her ongoing treatment needs.Depending on the jurisdiction we visited,police were involved in one or more of thesestructured reentry decision points.

Perhaps the most controversial and inno-vative structured reentry strategy that involvespolice is the use of community boards (inVermont) to review the offender's progressin treatment and to make release recommen-

dations. Since local police departments arerepresented on these boards, they will haveinput on release decisions and in some cases,

the conditions of release. It will be interestingto track the impact of community boards onrelease decisions in this jurisdiction and toobserve the court's response to the inevitablechallenges to the authority of these commu-nity boards to essentially make early release(i.e. parole) decisions.

In several jurisdictions, the police will meetwith the offender in prison to discuss his/herpending release.The purpose of this meeting istwofold: first, to explain to offenders how localpolicing has changed since they were initiallyincarcerated, due to the current emphasis oncommunity policing (and crime prevention);and secondly, to let offenders know that the

police will be watching them upon release,monitoring their progress in treatment, andthat they will not be anonymous. Will onemeeting between the offender and a neighbor-hood police officer deter the offender fromcriminal behavior upon release? We doubt it,but there is more involved here than an attemptto "scare" an offender straight. In Lowell,Mas-sachusetts, for example, the police meet with theoffender in conjunction with the local treatmentprovider, who describes the types of treatmentprograms available for offenders returning tothis community. It is the dual message-treat-ment and control-that the offender hears at

this meeting. Equally important, the meetingestablishes an essential partnership betweenlocal police and treatment providers that willcontinue for the remainder of the offender's

stay in the reentry program.Another facet of the police role during

the structured reentry process is the contact-

between the police and the offender duringthe first few days after the offender has beenreleased from prison. For offenders releasedconditionally, police surveillance and contactserves as a supplement to probation andparole supervision. For offenders releasedunconditionally, police surveillance and con-tact represents the only formal offender con-trol mechanism. As we noted earlier, since

over 20 percent of offenders nationwide leaveprison without probation or parole supervi-sion, there does appear to be an immediateneed for an expanded police role for theseoffenders. We anticipate that in some juris-dictions-such as the Lowell, Massachusetts,RPI (in this state, over half of prison releaseeshave maxed-out)-police will be in contactwith local treatment providers and thus willknow who is-and who is not-participat-ing in treatment, which may affect the natureand timing of police-offender interactions. Inother jurisdictions (e.g. Spokane, Washing-ton) police will meet regularly with volunteer,community "guardians," who will provideassistance to offenders immediately uponrelease from prison (helping with housing,transportation, etc.), placing them in a uniqueposition to assess offender progress duringreentry. In these jurisdictions, it appears thatpolice departments have begun to fill the voidcreated by sentencing reform generally andmandatory sentencing in particular.

Finally,one jurisdiction developed a uniquestrategy for improving the community sur-veillance and control capacity of local police.In conjunction with the State Department of

Figure 2:Overviewof StructuredReentryPhase

Corrections, the crime analysis unit of theLowell police department develops "profiles"of each offender released from prison andreturning to the Lowell community eachmonth, which are displayed at roll call. Theseprofiles include the offender's most recentpicture, criminal record, gang affiliations (ifany), and nature of his/her last offense. Thisis certainly one possible strategy for reducingthe anonymity of offenders returning to thecommunity by increasing police awareness ofthe reentering offender population.

The Role of the Police Duringthe Community ReintegrationPhase

The third phase of the RPI model is the com-

munity reintegrationphase, which emphasizeslong-term offender change, an elusive goalfor the corrections system. The underlyingassumption ofRPI program developers is thatduring this final phase of reentry, there willbe a transition from formal to informal socialcontrol mechanisms, such as the offender's

family, peer group, faith-based communitygroups, employers, guardians, and other com-munity members. The response of the policeto reentry offenders during this final phaseis likely to vary according to the behaviorof the offender. For example, if the offenderis employed and participating in treatment,then the police department's interaction withthe offender will likely be minimal. However,offenders who have difficulty with the initialtransition from prison to home will likelyface much more intensive police interven-

30Days

1Week

Formal SocialControls*

, Employment-

.._~~ily'-

-Formal Social Controls indude police.court. and correclions

Date ofRelease

1Week

30

Days

".Informal Social Confrols include family,peers, guardians/advocates, treatmenlproviders. and community groups.

66 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 68 Number 2

tion (both formal and informal). In Burling-ton, Vermont, and Spokane,Washington,forexample,the police work in conjunction withlocal community correctionsstaff to conductcurfew checkson targetedoffendersboth byhome visits and stops at targeted locations(e.g,. bars, street corners). Police may also actinformally by simply talking with "at-risk"offenders-those who appear to be havingtrouble finding a job, suitable housing, and/or receiving treatment for mental health orsubstance abuse problems. It appears that thepolice have a role in the community reintegra-tion phase that will change over time based onthe behavior of the offender and the specificfeatures of the reentry program examined.

The Police and Institutional Corrections

When we think about the police, it is usu-ally in the context of offender control, notoffender change. But police departments inRPI jurisdictions view their role somewhatdifferently: they are involved in both offend-er control and offender change activities. InVermont, for example, police serve on localcommunity boards that review and approveeach offender's institutional treatment plan,which was developed by the offender (in con-junction with prison program staff) \'{ithin 45.days of incarceration. They are also involvedin reviewing the offender's progress in treat-ment and in the developmentof a structured

reentry plan. While Vermont is unique interms of the police role in institutional treat-ment, the police are actively involved in pre-release planning in several jurisdictions (e.g.Massachusetts, Washington, and Maryland).

RPI programs require that police act innew ways toward the offender, not only uponrelease but also while incarcerated. For exam-

ple, police officers at several sites actuallyvisited the offender while in prison to discussthe police department's role in the reentryprogram. In the Lowell, Massachusetts pro-gram, a neighborhood police officer meetswith the offender in prison about a monthbefore the offender is scheduledto return tothe officer's neighborhood. Importantly, theofficer does not attend this meeting alone; he/she comes as part of a neighborhood reentryteam that also includes a local treatment pro-vider. The utilization of a police-communitytreatment provider "partnership" team withinan institutional setting representsa new rolefor police in the institution. At the meeting,the neighborhood police officer describeshow the police department has changed inrecent years in this community, due in large

part to two factors: 1) community policing,and 2) more cops on the street. The officerthen focuses on his/her dual role as a resource

person/problem-solver and community sur-veillance/control officer. The "message" thatthe offender receives is that the police arethere to help the offender, but that they willdo their "helping" within the broader con-text of public safety. In the name of publicsafety, police officers will not allow offendersto return to the community anonymously;informal surveillance of reentry offenderswill occur. Massachusetts is not the only siteto employ this strategy; other sites using simi-lar approaches include Washington, Mary-land, South Carolina, and Missouri.

Police will also interact with institutional

corrections staff in a wide variety of activi-ties directly related to offender reentry. First,meetings with offenders in prison must becoordinated through the state's department ofcorrections. Next, the development of offenderprofiles to be used by local police will requireinformation to be shared by the research staffsof the releasing institution and the policedepartment (e.g., current offenses, criminalhistory, institutional behavior, gang affilia-tions, specific release conditions). Third, thetarget population selected for the programshould reflect police preferences. And finally,police may participate on community boardsthat have a direct impact on release deci-sions and/or the conditions of release. In

Vermont, for example, offenders are expectedto develop (individual) offender responsibilityplans, which are reviewed by restorativejusticeboards comprised of a wide range of commu-nity members, including the police.

When the topic of prison release is raised,it is usually within the context of judicialand/or parole decision-making. However, itcan certainly be argued that police depart-ments should have a role in release decisions

as well, in such areas as the timing of therelease, the offender's location in a particularcommunity, and the determination (whereapplicable) of release conditions. Once again,it is Burlington, Vermont's restorative justicemodel that provides the framework for thistype of active police participation in thestructured release process. In Vermont's RPImodel, police serve on community boardsthat review the offender's individual respon-sibility plan approximately one month priorto the offender's proposed release date. Ifthe offender has made progress address-ing the problem/need areas identified in the

plan, then the community board will likely

recommend release; but if the offender has

not made sufficient progress then the boardwould not likely support release. In essence,the local community board-with activepolice involvement-will be acting as a paroleboard at this site.

The Police and Treatment Providers

As we noted above, the role of the policein the reentry process will change not onlywith respect to police-offender interactions,but also ih the nature and extent of police-treatment provider interactions. For manyofficers, this program provides them withtheir first opportunity to work directly andcollaboratively with treatment providers. Forboth parties, this new partnership will likelyrequire some intensive cross-training duringthe program's initial stages, because both thepolice and the treatment provider come fromsuch different backgrounds and skill orienta-tions. In such partnerships, role conflict isinevitable.

For the RPI program to be effective, thistype of ongoing role conflict will have tobe addressed. At one site we visited, for

example, treatment staff expressed concernthat offenders would not agree to partici-pate in (voluntary) treatment programs uponrelease, because they believed that offend-ers would have trouble "trusting" the treat-ment providers if they arrived at the meetingtogether with the police. It is possible thatsuch concerns are valid; it is also possible thatthey actually reflect the treatment provider'sorientation toward police, not the offender'sperspective. In any event, information shar-ing between police and treatment providersappears to be an essential feature of a reentryprogram where differential police surveil-lance and control is triggered by an offender'sprogress in treatment.

The Police and Community Corrections

In the eight programs we examined, we seeindications of a fundamental change in thenature and extent of the interaction between

police and community corrections personnel(e.g., probation/parole). In Spokane, Wash-ington, for example, police and communitysupervision officers are physically located inthe same "cop shops:' where they often shareinformation on offenders under communitysupervision. In Vermont, police and com-munity corrections officers conduct joint"curfew checks" on reentry offenders, target-ing specific locations in the community (e.g.,bars) where offenders may be located. In Las

September 2004 POLICE IN REENTRYPARTNERSHIPS 67

Vegas, Nevada, community supervision offi-cers focus exclusively on the surveillance andcontrol aspects of community supervision.Since these community supervision officersalso have police "arrest" powers (and training),it could be argued that in this jurisdiction, theline between community police and commu-nity supervision officers is becoming blurred.

In Massachusetts, the Lowell policedepartment's intelligence unit creates "post-ers" for each offender released to the com-

munity each month, which are hung up in thepolice station for officers to view at roll call.It is assumed that this information will resultin an increased level of informal surveillance

by police in target communities and that theresults of these surveillance activities will be

shared with the community supervision offi-cers who work in this area.

In South Carolina, officers from the policeand sheriff's department contact offendersimmediately upon release from prison, eitherby phone or by home visit. The purpose of thiscontact is twofold: first, to demonstrate the

"helping role" of police by identifying availablecommunity resources and services;and second,to reinforce the surveillance and control role of

local police. It certainly appears that the roleof local police is to enhance (or supplement)community supervision among conditionalreleasees, while taking primary responsibilityfor those inmates released unconditionally.

The Police and the Community

RPI programs have affected the way policedepartments interact with local communi-ty residents and groups, including crimevictims. At two sites-Missouri and Ver-

mont-neighborhood police officers sit onlocal community boards that make a widerange of decisions affecting offenders bothdirectly and indirectly. In Washington, policedepartments work with volunteer "guard-ians:' who assist offenders in a variety ofareas (e.g., transportation, job preparation,housing, etc.), while also acting as another setof "eyes and ears" for the police. In Vermont,and Missouri, police officers serve on restor-ative justice boards involved in all aspectsof institutional treatment and communityreintegration. As these examples illustrate,the role of the police in the communityhas certainly been expanded to include bothinformal social control strategies (e.g., theuse of guardians) and the pursuit of commu-nity justice initiatives. Will such an expandedpolice role improve the reentry prospects ofoffenders or will it have potentially detri-

mental consequences for both the offendersand communities? At this point in the design,implementation, and evaluation process, theanswer to this question is clear: we don'tknow. For this reason, it is critical that we

examine the impact of this new wave ofreentry programs on both targeted offenders(e.g. re-arrest, reconviction, re-incarceration)and targeted communities (e.g. crime rates,disease rates, poverty rates).

The Police and the Victim

The police play an important role in reentry,not only in the areas of offender surveillanceand control, but also in the provision of ser-vices to victims and families of victims. Vic-

tims of crime have problems and needs thatare only partially addressed when the allegedoffender is arrested. An examination of clear-

ance rates [Le.,the number of reported crimescleared by the arrest of the offender(s) ] revealsthat most jurisdictions do a pretty good jobof making an arrest when the reported crimewas a crime against a person (with clearancerates usually around 50 percent); they are notnearly as effective when it is a property crime(20 percent clearance rates). Since only a frac-tion of all arrested offenders are convicted

and incarcerated, it is not surprising thaicommunity residents ask the police for helpwith the "offenders walking among us" (e.g.,dispute resolution, formal and informal sur-veillance, active investigation). Since 9 out of10 offenders who enter prison eventually getout, it seems logical that crime victims wouldask the police for help with these offend-ers as well, especially when the offender has"maxed-out" of prison.

Victims of crime may need informationon when the offender is being released andwhere he/she is planning to reside. They maywant assistance in resolving ongoing disputeswith the offender and his/her family andfriends. They may also want increased policesurveillance and protection. Finally, theymay ask police assistance in filing restrain-ing orders against the offender, especially ifchild protection and/or domestic violence isan issue. While getting out of prison is "goodnews" for the offender, it is a time of greatanxiety and stress for many crime victims,friends, and family. In the past, victims couldturn to community corrections for help andassistance; now, the role and responsibilityappears to have moved to the police, particu-larly for those offenders released uncondi-tionally from prison or jail.

The Police and the Offender

For some observers, it may seem paradoxicalthat police departments are now active part-ners in offender reentry initiatives, since thesesame departments were actively involved inremoving these offenders from the com-munity in the first place. To others, however,police-corrections partnerships represent anattempt to address the underlying causes ofcriminal behavior, by focusing on a variety ofindividual-level and community-level prob-lems that have been linked to criminality.

At the individual level, offenders are often

afflicted with multiple problems, includingdrug addiction, alcoholism, communicabledisease, and mental illness. As a recent RANDResearchBriefhighlighted,".. .almost 25 per-cent of state prisoners released by year-end1999were alcohol-dependent, 14percent werementally ill, and 12 percent were homeless atthe time of arrest (2003:1). RAND researchers

go on to report that offenders released fromprison have an 8 to 9 times higher prevalencerate for HIV (compared to the general popu-lation), a 9 to 10 times greater prevalence ratefor Hepatitis C, a 5 times greater prevalencerate for AIDS, and a 3 to 5 times greaterpreva,lence rate for serious mental illness(i.e. schizophrenia or other psychotic disor-ders). For many of these offenders, substanceabuse has been a significant, long standingproblem (National Commission on Correc-tional Health Care, 2002). Unless these indi-vidual-level problems are addressed, it seemsinevitable that this month's releasees will be

next month's rearrests and next year's "new"prison admissions.

Of course, the types of individual-levelproblems just described cannot be addressedwithout recognizing their broader commu-nity context (see e.g., Sampson, Raudenbush,and Earls, 1997). Community-level problemsinclude unemployment, income inequality,inadequate housing, homelessness, and inef-fective informal social control networks (i.e.family, school, church, neighborhood). Thepolice-corrections partnerships highlightedin this review appear to recognize the need toaddress problems at both the individual andcommunity level. However, it is still unclearexactly how the "zero tolerance" policingstrategies commonly associated with the"Broken Windows" version of communitypolicing (Kelling and Coles, 1996; Bratton,Wilson, Kelling, Rivers, and Cove, 2004) willcoexist with RPI program initiatives designedto provide housing, treatment, services, andsupport to targeted offenders.4 Ultimately,

68 FEDERALPROBATION Volume 68 Number 2

the success of police-corrections partnershipsmay hinge on the ability of local police towork simultaneously on crime preventionand crime control initiatives, and in the pro-

" cess, to resolve the conflicts inherent in cur-

rent "broken windows" policing strategies.A proactive, problem-solving approach

is at the core of police-offender interactionsin reentry jurisdictions. In the RPI model,police visit offenders in prison prior to releaserather than waiting until the offender is backon the street. Utilizing the latest offenderproflle data, police know who is returning totheir community beforethey are released. Andwhen police interact with offenders once theyreturn to the community it is before not after,a problem occurs or there is a call for service.It will likely take some time for offenders torealize that the role of the police in reentryjurisdictions has changed and that police arenow involved in activities (related to housing,employment, and treatment) that can helpoffenders turn their lives around (Taxman,

Young and Byrne, 2003b). However, offendersmust also recognize that the police will knowwhere offenders live, which offenders are in

treatment, and .whether they are employed;and that they will adjust their surveillanceand control activities based on this informa-tion. It remains to be seen whether" the police-offender interactions associated with reentryinitiatives will have their intended effect, both

on individual offender change and commu-nity-level order maintenance.

ConclusionThe police-corrections partnerships describedin this article represent an important shift inboth the philosophy and practice of pris-oner reentry. Given the inherent conflictassociated with the interests of police andinstitutional corrections vis-a-vis offender

reentry (after all, police remove offendersfrom the community and corrections sendthem "home" again, often to the same com-munity), it is remarkable that these programshave emerged and appear to be successful, atleast in terms of implementation.s However, anumber of issues related to the expanded roleof police in the offender reentry process stillneed to be resolved, including 1) the potentialfor racial proflling, inherent in offender/com-munity targeting decisions, 2) the limits ofinformation sharing across agencies, (in par-ticular, between police and treatment provid-ers), and 3) the impact of this expanded rolefor police on both offenders released fromprison and jail and the communities to which

they return. Similarly, both institutional andcommunity corrections agencies will have toconsider their own need for role redefinition,

particularly regarding offenders who "max-out" of prison and return to the communitywithout the surveillance, services, and con-

trol provided by traditional community cor-rections agencies. Police departments acrossthe eight jurisdictions we visited appear tobe filling the void created by sentencingreforms, but the long-term consequences ofthis expanded police role-for both offend-ers and the communities targeted for reentry-have yet to be evaluated.

Selected ReferencesBratton, William, J.Q. Wilson, G. Kelling, R.E.

Rivers, and P. Cove (2004) "This works:Crime Prevention and the Future of Broken

Windows Policing" CivicBulletin 35:1-14.Byrne, J.M., Taxman, F.S.& Young, D. (2003)

Emerging Roles and Responsibility in theReentry PartnershipInitiative: New Ways ofDoingBusiness.National Institute ofJustice:Washington, DC.

Harrison, P and Beck,J. (2003)Prisonersin 2002Washington, D.C.: u.s. Department of Jus-tice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau ofJustice Statistics,NIC 200248.

Langan, P. and Levin, D. (2002) Recidivismof PrisonersReleased in 1994. Washington,D.C. U.S.Department of Justice,Bureau ofJustice Statistics NCI 193427.

Maguire, Edward (1997) "Structural Change inLarge Police Organizations" Justice Quar-terly 14:547-76.

Manning,Peter(2003)PolicingContingencies(Chi-cago,Illinois:Universityof ChicagoPress).

Manning, P. (2001) "Theorizing Policing: TheDrama and Myth of Crime Control in theNYPD" TheoreticalCriminology5:315-344.

Maruna, S. and Immarigeon, R, editors (2004)After Crime and Punishment: Pathways toOffender Reintegration. Portland, Oregon:Willan Publishing.

Meehan, A and M. Ponder (2003a)"How Road-way Composition Matters in AnalyzingPoliceData on RacialProfiling"PoliceQuar-terly 5:306-333.

Meehan, A. and M. Ponder (2002b) "Race andPlace:The Ecologyof RacialProfiling Afri-can American Drivers" Justice Quarterly19:399-430.

National Commission on Correctional Health

Care (2002) The Health Status of Soon-To-Be-ReleasedInmates,Volume 1Washington,D.C., Office of Justice Programs.

National Research Council (2004) FairnessandEffectivenessin Policing.Washington, D.C.National Acad~myPress.

Parent, D. & B. Snyder (1999). Police-Corrections

Partnerships. National Institute of Justice:Washington, DC.

Rand (2003) "Prisoner Reentry: What Are the Pub-

lic Health Challenges?" RAND Research BriefSanta Monica, CA: RAND, RB-6013-PSJ.

Sampson, Robert, S. Raudenbush, and F. Earls(1997) "Neighborhoods and Violent Crime"Science, 227:918-24.

Taxman, F.S., Young, D. & Byrne, J.M. (2003a).

From PrisonSafetyto PublicSafety:BestPrac-tices in Offender Reentry. National Institute

of Justice: Washington, DC.Taxman, F.S.,Young, D. & Byrne, J.M. (2003b).

Offender's Views of Reentry: Implications forProcesses, Programs. and Services. National

Institute of Justice: Washington, D.C.Taxman, F.S., J. Byrne and D. Young (2002).

Targeting for Reentry: Matching Needs and

Services to Maximize Public Safety. NationalInstitute of Justice: Washington, D.C.

U. S. General Accounting Office (2004). High-Performing Organizations: Metrics, Means,

and Mechanisms for Achieving High Per-

formance in the 21st Centllry ManagementEnvironment. GAO-04-343SP. Washington,D.C. February, 2004.

Walker, S., C. Spohn, and M. DeLone (1996) The

Color of Justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Endnotes

1. This article has been adapted from a report pre-pared for The National Institute of Justice, Officeof Justice Programs. Emerging Roles and Respon-sibilities in the Reentry Partnership Initiative: NewWaysof Doing Business, James Byrne, Faye Taxmanand Douglas Young (Aug. 2001).

2. For more detail on the research highlighted in thisarticle, seethe seriesof articles prepared for NIJ undergrant 2000IJCX0045and available from NCJRS.

3. The eight case studies of model Reentry Partner-ship Initiative (RPI) programs were conducted inthe spring, 2001 by an evaluation team directed byFaye Taxman, University of Maryland, who servedas the principle investigator of the NIJ-sponsoredevaluation. The site visits were conducted by Dr.Taxman (Florida, Massachusetts, South Carolina,Maryland), Dr. Byrne (Massachusetts, Vermont,Maryland, Nevada, and Washington), Doug Young(Maryland, Missouri, Washington), MeredithThanner (Nevada, South Carolina), Dr. Anspach(Vermont), and Dr. Holsinger (Missouri). Copiesof individual site evaluations can be obtained bycontacting either Faye Taxman or James Byrne.

4. Consider, for example, the problem of subwaycrime. Kelling has argued that the main cause ofsubway crime in New York City was lawlessness,not homelessness, and "it didn't take much timeto end that culture once you figured out what theproblem was" (2004:8). The problem with Kelling'sconceptualization is that it suggests that police canmaintain order in the subway without addressingthe homelessness problem of these "lawless" indi-viduals. A very different approach to this problemwould be taken by police in the reentry programs wevisited; in many jurisdictions, there would be a zero-

September 2004 POLICEIN REENTRYPARTNERSHIPS69

tolerance policy on homelessness among releasees

from prison, not on minor subway crime.

5. Despite the recent research attention focused on

the offender reentry issue (see, e.g. Maruna andImmarigeon, editors, 2004 for an overview), we know

remarkably little about the impact of adult reentryprograms on either offenders or communities (see,

Petersilia, this issue, for a preliminary review).