Police Corrections Partnerships

7/31/2019 Police Corrections Partnerships

1/61

T H E I N T E R N A T I O N A L A S S O C I A T I O N O F C H I E F S O F P O L I C E

POLICE-CORRECTIONSPARTNERSHIPSCOLLABORATING FOR

STRATEGIC CRIME CONTROL

Bureau of Justice AssistanceU.S. Department of Justice


2/61

This project was supported by Grant No. 2007-DD-BX-K110 awarded by the Bureau o Justice Assistance. The Bureau o Justice Assistanceis a component o the O fce o Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau o Justice Statistics, the National Institute o Justice, theO fce o Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the O fce or Victims o Crime, and the O fce o Sex O ender Sentencing,Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Points o view or opinions in this document are those o the author and do not necessarily represent the o fcial position or policies o the United States Department o Justice.

Bureau of Justice AssistanceU.S. Department of Justice


3/61

Executive Summary ...................................................... iiiIntroduction .................................................................. vPolice-Corrections Partnerships De ned ............................1

Typologies ..........................................................2

Partnership Objectives ..........................................3The State o Practice ......................................................8

The Literature .......................................................9Focus Groups ....................................................10

Site Visits ..........................................................11Field Survey ...................................................... 13Police Operations Management Studies ................ 15

Partnership Options and Evaluation ..................... 16Synthesis...........................................................16

A Police-Led Partnership Model .....................................18A Corrections-Based In ormation Model or Police ..19

Data Elements ...................................................20

Data Management and Integration.......................28Incorporating the Model .....................................29

Making Partnerships Work........................................... 30Steps Toward Success ul Collaborations ................ 31Challenges and How to Overcome Them .............. 34Tracking and Sustaining Progress .........................36

Probation and Parole: A Primer .....................................38Introduction .......................................................39Who Are Probation and Parole O cers? .............. 40Specialization ...................................................41

Social Aspects o Probation and Parole ................42A Force or Positive Change ................................42

Appendix: Survey Results .............................................44

Appendix: Sample MOU .............................................49

POLICE-CORRECTIONS

PARTNERSHIPSCOLLABORATING FOR STRATEGIC CRIME CONTROL

TABLE OF CONTENTS


4/61


5/61

THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

State and local governments across the country are acing reduced budgets. Law en orcement agencies andcorrectional entities are experiencing residual e ects through unprecedented sta reductions and decliningresources. These reductions a ect community services, including public sa ety, and impact the criminaljustice system. Un ortunately, community expectations do not decline with the economy. Agencies arechallenged to nd new and creative ways do more with less. One way is to share resources and drivestrategic crime control together.

Through a series o ocus groups and site visits, a literature review, and a survey, the InternationalAssociation o Chie s o Police (IACP) examined the state-o -practice o police-corrections partnerships.This report summarizes the results o our examination and presents a police-led, corrections-basedin ormation exchange model that should power police and corrections to achieve crime control objectivesmore e ectively.

POLICE-CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIPS FOR CRIME CONTROL

Law en orcement and correctional agencies share a common goal: public sa ety through crime reduction.Each pursues this goal rom a di erent perspective: law en orcement seeks to maintain order whilecorrectional agencies seek to rehabilitate. By joining orces, the two can leverage complementaryresources or mutual bene t. Despite this seemingly logical and natural t, the potentials o police-correctionspartnerships are struggling to nd a place in the routine operations o either police or corrections. Mostpartnerships have an ad hoc or boutique nature about them and have not blended into the core work o police or corrections.

However, evidence is mounting that police-corrections partnerships can and do produce signi cant crimecontrol and prevention outcomes. While evidence does not meet rigorous standards or controlledexperiments, it is su cient to advocate that corrections partnerships become a part o the institutionalizedport olios o police agencies. This report presents one idea or doing so.


6/61

POLICE-CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIPS COLLABORATING FOR STRATEGIC CRIME CONTROL

IV A PO LI CE- LE D INF OR MA TIO N EX CH AN GE MO DE L Practitioners cite in ormation as the most valuable asset o corrections partnerships. In ormation sharing andexchange represent the most basic partnership and the building block upon which more collaborative crimecontrol e orts can be initiated. This report presents a corrections-based in ormation model or police.

Law en orcement agencies are encouraged take a leadership role in establishing relationships withcorrections o cials to share data and work together to drive smart, strategic crime control e orts. Verysimply stated, police are urged to:

z Develop and institutionalize the most comprehensive base o in ormation that corrections agenciescan supply, that has potential use or traditional and innovative police operations (such as patrol,investigations, special operations, crime analysis, CompStat, smart/predictive policing, and usioncenter exchange).

z Weave the use o the in ormation as seamlessly as possible into those operations.

z O er police data on o enders to corrections.

zMonitor and evaluate the valuethe return on investmento the in ormation exchange approach.

DATA AND PARTNERSHIP MANAGEMENT The model was designed to be implemented without additional sta . Management o the data and thepartnership arrangement can absorbed by existing sta . However, records management system vendors andso tware developers should strive to create programs that can capture, assimilate, and analyze correctionsdata alongside traditional police data. More work is needed in the area o in ormation exchange packetdevelopment, advanced/predictive analytics, and shared database protocols.


7/61


INTRODUCTION

For years, the IACP has been involved in projects that stress the importance and value o law en orcementpartnerships with corrections. In 2006, the IACP hosted a national policy summit on o ender reentry toconsider the role law en orcement executives and their agencies should assume in o ender reentry e orts.Since that time, the IACP has conducted uninterrupted police-corrections research and developmentwork with nancial support rom the Bureau o Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S. Department o Justice.Key publications include the ollowing:

z Sex Offenders in the Community: Enforcement and Prevention Strategies for Law Enforcement (2007) provides an overview o the sex o ender population and examples o prevention and en orcement strategies rom agencies around the United States.

z Building an Offender Reentry Program: A Guide for Law Enforcement (2007) is acomprehensive examination o law en orcements role in reentry initiatives including identi cation o promising practices and steps or building a reentry program.

z Offender Reentry: Strategies and Approaches to Enhance Public Safety A Training Guide for Law Enforcement (2008) helps law en orcement to gain insight into reentry strategiesthrough interactive and practical examples.

z Strategically Monitoring Sex Offenders: Accessing Community Corrections Resources to Enhance Law Enforcement Capabilities (2008) provides baseline in ormation to improvecommunication between the law en orcement community and community corrections o cers.

The Federal Bureau o Investigation (FBI) Law En orcement National Data Exchange (N-DEx) Program is acurrent and prominent initiative with police-corrections dimensions. In ormation sharing is a mission criticalcomponent o todays public sa ety mandate or local, county, state, tribal, and ederal agencies to enhance


8/61


VI crime ghting. N-DEx is a power ul investigative tool that allows law en orcement agencies to submit andquery incident data to make connections between person, places, events, and crime characteristicslinkingin ormation across jurisdictions and allowing o cers to connect the dots between data that are notapparently related. The IACP, in partnership with the FBI, delivers a communications and educationaloutreach program to promote awareness and use o N-DEx. The goal is to discuss with the criminal justicecommunity the bene ts o sharing incident, o ense, booking, corrections, and probation and parolein ormation to assist the practitioner to e ect arrests, investigate crimes, and conduct pretrial and sentencinginquiries.

MAINSTREAMING POLICE-CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIPSThis document builds upon and advances our previous work and rein orces the IACPs commitment topolice-corrections partnership building. In the 21st century policing environment where declining resourcesappear to be the new normal, leveraging partnerships to aid in crime control is a necessity. This projectsuggestsand the literature appears to showthat police-corrections partnerships produce quanti ablecrime reductions. However, the potentials o police-corrections partnerships are struggling to nd a placein police agency operations port olios. While agencies are quick to assert their applications o communitypolicing principles or CompStat models, ongoing interactive collaboration and data sharing with correctionso cials are ar less mainstream. In this regard, the system-wide solutions approach so requentlyadvocated is underachieving badly.

Accordingly, the highlight o this work is a construct (model) to encourage and guide ormal establishmentand, ideally, institutionalization o police-corrections programming within law en orcement agencies. Atthis juncture, reentry programs, sex o ender initiatives, and the more prominent partnership tactics (jointhome visits, or example), seem to have a boutique nature about them. They have not blended intocore police operations in a material way. The model that has been conceptualized seeks to mainstreampolice-corrections strategies, tactics, and speci cally in ormation, to address the mutual concerns o lawen orcement and corrections, crime control in particular. Our expectation and hope is that law en orcementwill take the lead in orging collaborative partnerships with correctional entities and use these relationshipsto drive strategic crime control.

THE WO RK PR OG RA MExamination and analysis o police-corrections partnerships has been a subject o ormally unded study

or only the past decade or so. Study has been sporadic. The level o attention hardly rivals, or example,police leadership or gang control. Accordingly, the subject matter is still elusive.

Due to the limited in ormation available on police-corrections partnerships, the IACP qualitatively andquantitatively examined the eld in the ollowing ways:

Literature Search. The published body o work, and a ew still-to-be-published pieces, though limited,made an important contribution. Descriptions o partnership arrangements (case studies) have beenespecially use ul.

Focus Groups. Four ocus groups with aggregate participation o approximately 80 practitioners,including law en orcement executives and representatives rom institutional corrections, probation, andparole.

Site Visits. Site visits to seven jurisdictions to interview police executives and partners to observe programsin action. Locations were identi ed through the ocus groups as having promising programs. Five additionalregional site visits were conducted in the Washington, D.C. metro area.

Survey. A narrowly- ocused 21 item electronic survey was designed primarily to con rm observationsdeveloped rom peer group sessions. Responses approached 100.


9/61


ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT Chapter I, Police-Corrections Partnerships Defned , rames the report with a de nition o police-corrections partnerships, supplemented by several typologies. The case or partnerships, anenumeration o potential bene ts, anchors the chapter.

The State o Practice , Chapter II, summarizes the in ormation gathered rom the project in an e ort tooutline the characteristics o police-based corrections partnerships and to answer questions such as Whattypes o partnerships are common? What is the requency o partnershipshow o ten do collaborationsoccur? Are they ongoing/institutionalized or situational? What do they producewhat are theirvalues? A table summarizing success ul police-corrections partnerships is also included.

A Corrections-Based In ormation Model or Police , Chapter III, outlines a corrections-resourcedin ormation exchange model that should, properly built and exploited, empower police and corrections toachieve crime control objectives more e ectively. It is an asset to be employed by police when they unctionas a member o a corrections collaboration or, equally, when they unction independently.

Making Partnerships Work , Chapter IV, o ers tips/guidelines or working e ectively with correctionsagencies, much o this gleaned rom published literature and assembled experience, in itsel a broad bodyo literature. Common challenges are also addressed.

Finally, Chapter V, Probation and Parole: A Primer , provides knowledge o the place, nature, andpurposes o the parole and probation unction.

ACK NO WL EDGM EN TSFunding and support orPolice-Corrections Partnerships: Collaborating or Strategic Crime Control came

rom the Bureau o Justice Assistance (BJA) within the O ce o Justice Programs (OJP), U.S. Department o Justice. We are grate ul to our Senior Policy Advisor, James Chavis III and BJAs senior leadership or theirsupport o this project.

We would also like to acknowledge the support and assistance rom IACPs Pro essional Standards, Imageand Ethics Committee; Community Policing Committee; Patrol and Tactical Operations Committee;Investigative Operations Committee; and their respective chairs, Chie (Ret.) Ron McBride, Chie Todd Miller,Chie Joe Kistle, and Peter Moda eri.

We are thank ul to the agencies we visited to produce this guide. We also bene tted rom input andassistance rom Bob May at the Association o State Correctional Administrators, Carl Wicklund rom theAmerican Probation and Parole Association, Dr. Peter Schar , Chie (Ret.) Darrel Stephens, Vincent Talucci,Liz OConnor, and James Jordan.


10/61


VIII


11/61

Typologies ................................................ 2

Partnership Objectives ................................ 3

POLICE-CORRECTIONSPARTNERSHIPS DEFINED


12/61


2 Police-corrections partnerships are ormal and in ormal arrangements between police, sheri s departments,and corrections agencies to deter new criminal o enses by the persons most likely to commit them.

Corrections agencies all into two categories, or both adults and juveniles: community corrections andinstitutional corrections. Community corrections agencies include probation, parole, and providers o alternatives to incarceration. Institutional corrections agencies include jails, prisons, and houses o corrections. In this document the term police-corrections partnership(s) re ers to any working relationshipbetween police departments and any type o corrections agency.

Police-corrections arrangements and relationships sometimes include additional agencies o government;or example, health and social services, and non-pro t organizations, advocacy groups, individuals, and

community groups.

SECTION 1: TYPOLOGIES

The orms that a police-corrections partnership can take vary widely. An early and still infuential typologywas introduced in the landmark National Institute o Justice (NIJ) documentPolice-CorrectionsPartnerships.1

Enhanced supervision partnerships joint police and corrections supervision initiatives aimed athigh-risk probationers and parolees (e.g., violent individuals, sex o enders, gang members, and those withdrug involvement). Enhanced supervision partnerships seek to deter o enders rom committing new crimesor violating conditions o release by connecting o enders with treatment and employment services.

Fugitive apprehension joint police-corrections operations ormed to locate and apprehendprobationers or parolees who have absconded, violating conditions o release.

In ormation sharing partnerships police and corrections in ormation exchanges ocused on classeso o endersand individual o enderswho have or may have interactions with both types o agencies.

Specialized en orcement partnerships police-corrections partnerships that jointly address speci ccrime problems within a community (e.g., gang activity, rearms, and drugs).

Interagency problem-solving partnerships executive collaborations between police andcorrections agencies to identi y mutual concerns and larger strategic issues, develop strategies, andallocate resources.

Reordering these types to construct a continuum is help ul:

1

Dale Parent and Brad Snyder,Police-Corrections Partnerships,Issues and Practices in Criminal Justice (Washington, D.C.: National Institute o Justice,1999), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pd les1/175047.pd (accessed September 21, 2011).

Information Sharing - Problem Solving - Prevention (Enhanced Supervision)Specialized Enforcement - Apprehension


13/61


Table 1 presents an activity-based view, using the results o our site visits and literature review. Thesepartnerships are characterized by many common elements (activities). The array o jurisdictions displayed isentirely random, based primarily on the possibility that these may represent leading practice agencies.

EXAMPLES OF TYPES OF PARTNERSHIP ACTIVITIES

Partnership Activity

Supervising high-risk probationers

Supervising high-risk parolees

Joint warrant apprehension programs

Reentry programs [providing resources and support]

In ormation exchange regarding speci c o enders Joint crime analysis

Crime reduction e orts ocused on speci c crime problems

Shared public sa ety strategy development

B r a n f o r d , C

T

H i g h P o i n t , N C

M i n n e a p o l i s

, M N

T o p e k a , K

S

S a v a n n a h , G A

B o s t o n , M A

P r o v i d e n c e , R

I

O r a n g e C o u n t y , C

A

In ormation exchange is the most common activity we observed/encountered. Our in ormal survey o agencies experiences with corrections partnerships bears this out. The survey also provides insight intothe various types o active partnerships. Seventy-three percent o respondents conduct joint eld operationswith probation/parole. O joint operations, monitoring high-risk o enders, criminal investigations, andspecialized en orcement operations (stings, round-ups) are the most common activity types. Nonoperationalpartnerships (e.g., training, community meetings) are less common.

The e orts o this project suggest that the practices commonly re erred to as police-corrections partnershipsare a mix o in ormation trans ers and joint eld initiatives. The lack o an identi able typology makes itdi cult to grasp the eld. No standard metric exists by which to categorize existing partnerships or measuretheir e ectiveness.

SECTION 2: PAR TNERSHIP OBJECTIVES

E ective partnerships are built where the goals o police and corrections intersect: crime control. Bothentities seek to control and reduce crime but rom di erent perspectives. Police do so by apprehendingcriminals, whereas corrections seek to rehabilitate. The key to success ul partnering is understanding andrespecting these di erent but complementary perspectives. With crime reduction as the core objective, thecase or partnerships can be made on the promise o achieving one or more ancillary objectives:

z Increased sa ety or both police o cers and correctional o cers

z Productive use o resources

z Response to expressed citizen and community concerns

z Applications o emerging and evolving data-driven strategies based on intelligence-ledand predictive policing concepts


14/61


4 Figure 1

RATIONALE FOR POLICE CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIPS

INCREASE OFFICERSAFETY

USE RESOURCES MOREPRODUCTIVELY

REDUCE CRIME

USE INTELLIGENCE-LEDAND PREDICTIVEPOLICING-BASED

DATA-DRIVENSTRATEGIES

RESPOND TOCITIZEN AND COMMUNITY

CONCERNS

1. Crime Reduction

Reducing crime in our communities, especially violent crime, is and should continue to be the driving orcebehind creating police-corrections partnerships.

Experiences across the country indicate that when joint resources o police and corrections are applied tosupervise high-risk probationers and parolees, o enders can be deterred rom committing new crimes. Table2, in Chapter II, o ers compelling examples o partnerships that yielded quanti able and anecdotal crimereductions.

The practitioners who composed our ocus groups, colleagues at the sites we studied, and other pro essionalswho participated ormed a consensus in avor o a partnership-based deterrence strategy. Their reasoning

ollows:

You can arrest them, but they dont go away. Most o enders who are convicted o crimes servetheir sentences in the community. According to the Bureau o Justice Statistics, at the end o 2009, about 4.3million individuals were on probation in the United States and another 800,000 were serving sentences onparole. These gures ar surpass the two million persons currently incarcerated in both jails and prisons.

Almost all o the individuals who are incarcerated eventually return to the community. Absent meaning ulintervention and deterrence, most return to commit new crimes. The Bureau o Justice Statistics conducteda study o 272,111 prisoners released across 15 states. Within three years o release, two-thirds o these

o enders were rearrested or committing an estimated 306,100 new crimes. More than hal were back injail.2

Rearrest, not paralleled by prevention, deterrence, or treatment strategies, is not a long-term answer. Policeare not well positioned to impose the blend o options in isolation.

Criminals decide whether or not to commit another crime. Many o enders make choices basedon what they understand as the costs and bene ts o their behavior. As police in High Point, North Carolina,have documented, o enders make judgment calls based on their belie s about the bene ts o the crime theycould commit weighed against the likelihood o getting apprehended. The cost-bene t mind-set o returningo enders is shown in gure 2. With, among, and through partners, police can multiply the opportunities toinfuence the mind-set o those likely to engage in urther criminality.

2

Recidivism o Prisoners Released in 1994, Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D., David J. Levin, Ph.D., 2002.


15/61


Most crimes are unreported.

z Most crimes are unreported.

z Most criminals are not apprehended.

z When apprehended, chances o lengthy incarceration are low.

z Most arrests will result in probation.

z Probation has no teeth.

z Most violations o terms o probation, including new crimes,will go unnoticed.

Leverage Complementary Resources to Reduce Recidivism. Police o ten apply the Pareto principle

(i.e., the 80/20 rule) to o enders in their communities, purporting that 20 percent o the criminals areresponsible or 80 percent o the crime. True or not, recidivism is a core concern o police and corrections.To control reo ending and generally make the system work better, police and corrections must shareknowledge o and access to in ormation on known o enders. Latent and potentially use ul in ormation isdiscussed later in the report. Strategically leveraging these data on repeat and high-risk o enders can reducerecidivism, ultimately driving down crime.

2. Guarding Officer Safety

In ormation sharing across agencies can enhance o cer sa ety signi cantly or both police and correctionalo cers. In ormation is power . . . and sa ety. At the most basic level, police o cers should know whendangerous individuals are released rom prison. They should be in ormed at roll call to expect to see anamed o ender back on the street. They should have handheld devices and/or cruiser laptops with

up-to-date in ormation on the status o paroled o enders. The more o cers know about the tendencies andhabits o the dangerous persons they encounter, the more they can take steps to protect themselves.

Similarly, correctional o cials bene t greatly rom knowledge o o ender behavior and interactions withpolice prior to incarceration. Data-driven solutions can help both police and corrections prioritize theirapproaches to handling known o enders.

3. Addressing Citizen Concerns

Citizens are not com ortable with o enders returning to their neighborhoods. Indeed they are consciouslywary. Parents, guardians, and school o cials express particular concern about o enders who reside nearschools. Complaints about drug corners and gang members or perceived gang members loitering areconveyed to police with regularity. Opportunities or both proactive and reactive police responses are

multiplied by the in ormation and intelligence that correctional partners can supply. Moreover, policeresponse to communities, groups, and individuals is likely to be more credible when agencies can point topartnership arrangements that demonstrate police are not working in isolation.

4. Intelligence-Led and Predictive Policing

Data-driven policing, symbolized preeminently by intelligence-led and predictive research and discourse,is powered by in ormation. While not yet singled out or attention, as a package, it seems obvious thatcorrections-supplied in ormation needs to be actored into on-the-ground e orts. Meshing traditional policecrime data with corrections o ender data can lead to a new level o tactical crime analysis and data-drivenpolicing. Geospatial crime orecasting, risk assessments, and prioritization or o enders and crime locationsare among the possibilities.

Figure 2

OFFENDERS RISK MANAGEMENT MODEL

E s t i m a t e o f R i s k

Source: High Point, North Carolina, Police Department


16/61


6 Similarly, corrections institutions, many with intelligence and analytical units, stand to bene t rom lawen orcement intelligence. Police data on o enders can in orm and enlighten inmate intake andmanagement. Community corrections, with knowledge o police interactions with o enders, can adjustthe intensity o supervision as needed.

The sources and potential applications o police-corrections data sharing or strategic crime control arepresented in greater detail in Chapter III.

5. The Productivity Imperative

Law en orcement agencies and their parent governments are struggling to absorb the most consequentialresource reductions in decades. The same is true or state correctional institutions; community supervisionis increasingly becoming a cost-saving alternative to incarceration. A turnaround is not in sight. For manyagencies, core services are at risk. Preservation o public and o cer sa ety is increasingly contingentupon exercise o best policy and operational practices, managed cost-e ectively. The threat is generatingreexamination o the police role in our society as well as early-stage discussions o new, return on investment(ROI)-driven business models. In this context the resource multiplying value o partnerships is unarguably animperative.

Partnerships Are Force and Capacity Multipliers. Shared supervision and joint warrantapprehension teams typi y partnership eld operations that multiply manpower, normally situationally.Augmentations are essentially no-cost.

All arrangements multiply in ormation and intelligence to enhance analysis, planning, and operations.Corrections-to-police reentry and sex o ender in ormation exchanges are commonplace. Sharing o in ormation on known o enders and using that in ormation to drive operational e orts can be a orcemultiplier.

Standard e ectiveness and productivity metrics (ROI measurements) or police-corrections partnerships are ishort supply. Especially now as both elds are preoccupied with sustaining meaning ul levels o programming, the ability to prove productivity value, is essential.

New Investments Are Marginal. Partnership activities involving direct interaction, such as jointmonitoring or task orce operations, can be made to blend with existing police unctions, sta ngarrangements, and policy prescriptions. While some sta ng reallocation may be necessary, newinvestments are negligible and operational interruptions are not required. In ormation-basedpartnershipssuch as those presented in Chapter III, vary in the investment o time, depending on thetypes o in ormation, the ormat (electronic vs. hard copy), and data system compatibility. Some systemenhancement may be required, but most data tracking can be absorbed by existing analysis or recordsunits or handled by volunteers.

Prevention Lowers the Costs o Crime. For law en orcement, the criminal justice system, and society atlarge, the cost reduction potential o crime prevention is eagerly pursued. The cost o crime is estimated asan aggregate o many meaning ul tangible and intangible components. Tangible costs are (usually) subjectto quanti cation using documented expenditure data.

z Costs o criminal justice operations, rom police prevention and en orcement through probationand parole activities

z Property loss and destruction

z Medical treatment

z Income loss

z Productivity loss


17/61


Intangible costs are more di cult to measure, sometimes impossible.

z Psychological and emotional su ering o victims and their amilies and riends

z Community ear

z Neighborhood and economic decline or ailure to fourish

For present purposesin evaluating the police-corrections partnershipthe cost consideration becomesthe value o e ective prevention, tangible and intangible. In light o the present economic environment,consider the ROI, the economic trade-o o reallocating and prioritizing present resources, mainly sta ,and/or augmenting sta .

Social service literature does not supply an abundance o studies to enlighten these considerations, but asillustrated in Table 2, e ective partnerships can reduce crime. While the cost savings are di cult tocalculate, it would be oolhardy or budget decision makers to deny investments. The preventive resultsand potentials o police-corrections partnerships, tangible and intangible, must become priorities in theoperations port olios o every law en orcement agency.

COSTS OF CRIME

z The costs of crime to America are plausibly on the order of $2 trillion per year. By way of comparison, total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States in 2010 was equal to $14.5trillion. Put differently, the crime tax on Americansthat is, the reduction in quality of life due tocrimeis the equivalent of around 14% of GDP.

z Included in the overall cost of crime is around $200 billion in government expenditures on thecriminal justice system and another $167 billion in costly private measures to protect people and

businesses against crime. Non-pecuniary costs also gure prominently in the burden of crime toAmerican society.

z Given the enormous toll that crime imposes on American society, even costly new initiatives toreduce crime can generate bene ts to American taxpayers and citizens that justify the increasedgovernment expenditures.

z Particularly cost-effective may be crime-control interventions that focus on those people who are atthe highest risk for criminal activity, such as ex-offenders who are re-entering society from prison.

Source: Jens Ludwig, former professor, Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University. Testimonybefore the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, September 19, 2006.

National Income and Product Accounts Tables, 2010, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department ofCommerce, http://www.bea.gov/national/pdf/dpga.pdf (accessed 12/07/11)


18/61

The Literature ............................................ 9

Focus Groups .......................................... 10

Site Visits ............................................... 11

Field Survey ........................................... 13

Police Operations Management Studies ........ 15

Partnership Options and Evaluation ............. 16

Synthesis ............................................... 16

THE STATE OF PRACTICE


19/61


Since the tentative steps taken by police and probation o cers in Bostons Operation Night Light programover 20 years ago, police practice has tended toward increasing interaction between police and institutionalcorrections. Police and corrections were rmly entrenched in views o the distinctness o their pro essionsthat were isolating. Many police executives prior to 1990 did not recognize the bene ts o the broadcollaborative strategy o policing that emerged with community policing in the 90s.

The police-corrections concept has developed in the much broader problem-oriented or community-orientedapproach to crime and disorder. In one sense, a police-corrections partnership is a problem-solvinginstrument. It strategically ocuses public resources on the individuals most likely to generate harm and causedisorder problems in communities. The community policing, problem-solving environment notwithstanding,it is impossible to speak authoritatively about how much and how well police-corrections partnerships havedeveloped.

This project documents and attempts to answer, in an in ormed manner, such questions as the ollowing:

z How many law en orcement agencies have arrangements with corrections partners that are morethan transitory?

z What are the types and prevalence o arrangements?

z What are the level and nature o resource commitments?

z What are the internal structural arrangementsorganizational location and accountability?

z Are there clear outcomes and other evaluation metrics?

During this project the authors worked industriously to ll gaps in knowledge o current practice, beginningwith an examination o literature, ollowed successively by two ocus groups, eld visits, two additional ocusgroups, and nally a survey o law en orcement agencies. Despite the concentration o e ort, progress waslimited. As is so o ten the case, it took most o the project to determine how questions should be asked!Much work remains to be done.

SECTION 1: THE LITERATURE

The bookends o the literature, de ned by utility or this work, are the seminal 1999 National Institute o Justice Issues and Practices in Criminal Justice documentPolice-Corrections Partnerships, PromotingPartnerships between Police and Community Supervision Agencies: How Coordination Can Reduce Crime and Improve Sa ety 3 rom the Urban Institute and the O ce o Community Oriented Policing Services(COPS), and the orthcomingCorrectional Intelligence, Counter-terrorism, Gangs, Violent Crime and In ormation Sharing( rom the Association o State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) and BJA). In between

is a modest body o relevant journal articles, con erence proceedings, and government publications.Collectively, the literature provides unquali ed advocacy or police-corrections partnerships, most commonlysupported by oundational statistics on the volume o o enders returning to the communities, the numberunder probation or parole supervision, and the number unsupervised. There is an accumulation o programdescriptions, scattered anecdotal reports on demonstrated bene ts and value, but ew systematicallyconducted process or impact evaluations. Expectations o crime reduction through partnerships,emphasizing deterrence, social service interventions, and behavior modi cation are prominently theorized;some partnerships have demonstrated tangible crime reductions. Elements o , conditions or, and barriers toe ective partnership building receive requent and prominent treatment.

3

Jesse Janetta and Pamela Lackman,Promoting Partnerships between Police and Community Supervision Agencies: How Coordination Can Reduce Crime and Improve Sa ety (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute and the COPS O ce, May 2011).


20/61


10 The literature, reviewed and summarized in a companion document, does not supply the answers to thequestions previously posed. Accordingly, the authors turned to other methods to try to construct a clearerpicture o police-corrections partnerships.

SECTION 2: FOCUS GROUPS

Four practitioner ocus groups were conducted: Newark, New Jersey (June 2008); San Francisco, Cali ornia(June 2008); Atlanta, Georgia (September 2010); and Las Vegas, Nevada (November 2010). The agendaevolved rom event to event, based on each previous experience. The central topics o exploration remainedthe same: the state o practice; promising collaborations; building partnerships; and issues and barriers.Fi teen to twenty practitioners ormed each group, primarily rom law en orcement and secondarily romprobation and parole.

In addition to these eld-driven ocus groups, IACP hosted a meeting in Alexandria, Virginia (April 2009)

o criminal justice educators and researchers, sta rom ASCA, and sta rom the American Probation andParole Association (APPA) to ensure views o correctional leaders were acknowledged and incorporated.

Although the original intent o the project was to examine police partnerships with community corrections,it became evident at the rst session that work could not proceed intelligently without consideration o institutional corrections. Accordingly, IACP representatives participated in two o our regional workshopshosted by ASCA or its companion project on police-institutional corrections partnerships with ederal, state,and local law en orcement representatives and other stakeholders. These workshops helped to put the issuesand concerns o state corrections leaders in context.

Focus group discussions conveyed a state o practice characterized by the ollowing:

z Interactions are more situational (case speci c) and peer-to-peer based, than a product o ormal,

institutionalized agency programs.z Simultaneously, ormal programming may be multiplying.

z An absence o typologies and a common police-correction partnership language steers and restrictsdiscussion.

z Themes and issues commonly covered in the literature did not sur ace; one such issue the authors wereled to expect that did not sur ace was that conficting goals o police and community corrections serveas a barrier to e ective relationships.

The ollowing ocus group observations infuenced nal orientation o the project, and these ideas havebecome part o this nal product:

z Partnership activity is boutique in nature rather than a value that is prioritized by and su uses thepolice culture.

z Among agencies that have ormal arrangements, there is excitement about results and potentials.

z Probation objectives, operations, and in ormation assets are insu ciently understood by lawen orcement o cers.

z Community-oriented policing concepts are evident in partnership arrangements, most notably strategiesor e ective partnering and problem solving.


21/61


22/61


12 to identi y the ways in which agency practitioners worked both ormally and in ormally with corrections,something that could seemingly be best accomplished through in ormal and candid discussions regarding thedynamics o such relationships. Key ndings rom these site visits include the ollowing:

1. Nature of Par tnerships

Agency investigators varied in their responses to questions posed by IACP sta concerning the dynamicso and the extent to which they work with corrections practitioners. The nature o police-correctionsinteraction ranged rom tenuous to very cooperative and cordial. Overall, agency investigatorsrecognized the advantages o collaboration with corrections practitioners and noted the bene ts toin ormation sharing and joint operations. Respondents all noted that they interact with probation, parole,and jailers in some capacity, though requency tended to vary by individual and department. In terms o the

ormality o collaboration, partnerships tended to be in ormal in nature, with the exception o the BaltimoreCity Police Department, which is engaged in a number o ormal partnerships with corrections.

2. Common Activities

The level o activity ranges rom low (one task orce or periodic meetings) to moderate (regular meetings

and multiple task orces) to highly active (joint task orces; embedded o cers). Common activities includein ormation exchanges and joint meetings. In ormation exchange ranged rom monthly lists o probationersand parolees to a shared web-based plat orm. Joint meetings occurred at various levels, some on an adhoc, as needed basis, while one agency conducts weekly in ormation sharing sessions with probation andparole command sta s.

3. Keys to Success

The importance o personal contacts, mutually respect ul relationships, and trust building were notedrepeatedly as keys to success. Success ul collaboration and in ormation exchange depends on the individual;some probation and parole o cers tend to be very orthcoming and cooperative with law en orcement, whileothers may not. Respondents generally acknowledged that philosophical di erences in mission between

EAST PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT ANDCALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION (CDCR) COMMUNITY-BASED COALITION

In April 2007, the East Palo Alto City Council authorized the City Manager and the Police Department(PD) to contract with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in order toimplement the East Palo Alto Community-Based Coalition (CBC). This coalition operates under thedirection of the East Palo Alto Police Department and integrates government, community, andfaith-based organizations in order to assist parolees in reintegration through blended programmingand enforcement services. The stated goal for this initiative is reduction of parolee recidivism rates inthe City of East Palo Alto.

The partnership was formed as a three and a half year pilot program and was funded with $3.4 million(or $949,000 annually). The product of six months of collaboration, CBC is designed to serve 120parolees annually. A Day Reporting Center within walking distance of the East Palo Alto policeheadquarters serves as a single reporting location for parolees to receive a host of reentry servicesincluding cognitive and life training courses taught by employees of Free At Last and JobTrain, localcommunity-based organizations. One state parole of cer and two East Palo Alto PD of cers are alsostaffed at the center full-time.


23/61


SECTION 4: FIELD SURVEY

The nal e ort to capture partnership conditions and practices was a limited scope, quick turnaround eldsurvey. Completed responses are displayed in Appendix A.

1. The Survey

A 21-question survey posed two sets o parallel questions, one set to assess police partnerships withcommunity correction agencies, the second to assess partnerships with corrections institutions. The surveyswere distributed to active law en orcement personnel rom our IACP standing committees, with combinedmembership approximating 120: Community Policing; Patrol and Tactical Operations; Pro essionalStandards; Image and Ethics; and Investigative Operations. While membership o these committees spansagencies o all sizes and the country geographically, no e ort was made to structure a sample. (Thecommittees have members representing ederal law en orcement.)

2. Response

A total o 91 responses were received. Overwhelmingly, responding agencies are (city) municipal,94 percent. Measured by sworn o cers the size distribution ollows:

SWORN OFFICERS PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS

1 5 2.0%6 15 5.9%16 25 7.8%26 49 15.7%50 99 19.6%100 249 29.4%250 499 9.8%500 999 2.0%1,000+ 7.8%

Thirty- our (34) agencies, 37 percent (37%), ailed to indicate size.

Responses were received rom agencies in 27 states, with Cali ornia (5), Kansas (5), and Texas (8), beingthe leading respondents.

agencies can have a huge bearing on overall successes and ailures o collaborative work. While thedirect involvement o executive sta is not needed, their support and consent are.

4. Challenges

Common challenges to police corrections partnerships include turnover among key personnel, requiring thereestablishment o personal relationships as noted above, and teaching young o cers the value o collaborations. Con usion between parties over what in ormation can be legally shared and what cannotwas another common obstacle.


24/61


14 3. Findings

Findings that are most use ul or painting a picture o police-corrections partnerships include the ollowing:

In ormation Exchange and Access. Eighty-two percent o responding agencies (90 or this question)receive or have ready access to in ormation rom correctional institutions and/or state personnel.

A smaller proportion, 72 percent, receive or have access to in ormation rom local probation and paroleagencies.

Database. Types o in ormation received or available rom correctional institutions is very wide ranging. Indescending order o requency, the range includes photographs and video images; criminal histories; ganga liations; personal histories; release in ormation; visitors; recorded conversations; criminal activity while indetention; emergency contacts; amily members and associates; rules violations and disciplinary actions; andcommissary activity (who paid and how much).

Types o in ormation received or available rom probation and parole range less widely and di er in nature.In descending order o requency, the range includes criminal histories; conditions o probation and parole;personal histories; employment in ormation; and amily members.

Exchange Media . Police-institution in ormation trans er technologies and communications procedures are,rom most to least widely reported, shared databases; e-mail; telephone; in person; hard copy; and regular

data trans ers.

With regard to probation and parole, police use e-mail and telephone most requently, in-person interactiononly slightly less, ollowed by hard copy, shared databases, with regular data trans ers being leastprominent.

In ormation Use. The three most prominent uses o institution-supplied in ormation by police agenciesare to conduct or enhance criminal investigations; locate and arrest criminal suspects; and or o cer sa etybulletins. Less requent uses include crime and o ender mapping applications; developing crime reductioninitiatives; preparing or (and using the in ormation) during community meetings and while responding tocitizen inquiries.

The pattern o the use o community corrections-supplied in ormation is very similar to that described above.

Joint Initiatives. Almost three-quarters, 73 percent, o responding police agencies conduct or haveconducted joint eld operations with community corrections agencies and o cers. More than one-quarter,27 percent, have not. The requency o these eld operations was not addressed.

Joint prevention and en orcement activities that police conduct with probation and parole agencies ando cers most requently are monitoring high-risk parolees and probationers; conducting specializeden orcement operations (stings and roundups); participating in crime- and o ender-speci c task orceactivities; conducting sex o ender monitoring operations; and per orming criminal investigations. (The

requency o joint prevention and en orcement activities was not assessed.)

A bare majority o responding agencies 52 percent report that partnership activity is restricted to eld-basedor operational activities. In settings where partnerships go beyond eld operations, activities includejoint training, joint development o en orcement strategies and initiatives, crime meetings, and communitymeetings.

Objectives and Outcomes. Police-corrections arrangements are not characterized by clearly de nedand measurable objectives and outcomes. Only 7 percent o respondents reported partnerships supportedby measurable objectives. About 65 percent declared their partnerships to be characterized by generaland mutually understood objectives and outcomes. Twenty percent describe the purpose (objectives) to be


25/61


vague. Nine percent responded dont know. We presume this condition characterizes the situational,one-time initiative as well as ongoing relationships.

Priority o Objectives. Fi ty-eight percent o respondents indicated that the most important objective isto satis y stakeholder concerns, especially community members; 56 percent indicate that the second mostimportant objective is to use resources more wisely. The least requent response was to prevent or reducecrime. This response is wholly unexpected based on ocus group discussions, which emphasize preventionand control o crime and victimization. Another survey question asks how in ormation rom partnerships isused. The primary response is to conduct and enhance investigations. The apparent disconnect betweensurvey answers and other result is not explainable.

Formal Evaluation. Very little ormal evaluation o partnerships is conducted. Eighty-three percent o respondents report that no ormal evaluation has been conducted. Twelve percent responded dont know.This is explained by the Objectives and Outcome ndings.

Value. Slightly more than hal o a limited number o respondents (26, 54%) cite in ormation sharing asa response to the open-ended question what aspects and/or results o partnership are o greatest value?Examples include shared database; getting in ormation; and exchange o in ormation. Communicationsand cooperation was the next highest response o respondents. Examples include the open communicationbetween agencies; a willingness to help; and communication, training, and collaboration.

In ormal/Experiential Evaluation. Only three percent o respondents rate their partnerships as highlye ective. However, about one-third (37%) indicate that their partnerships are (were) e ective, paralleledby 32 percent that rate them somewhat e ective. A small minority o respondents (5%) rate partnerships asine ective.

Essentials or Partnerships. To orm, conduct, and sustain success ul police-corrections partnerships, themost essential ingredients ollow:

z In ormation exchange (16 responses)

z Communications (12 responses) z Positive working relationships (8 responses)

z Clear objectives, including lines o authority (4 responses)

The priority actors o ered are congruent with those selected in the values question.

Advancing Police-Corrections Partnerships. O respondents who believe in the value and potentialbene ts o police-corrections partnerships (59) the research and tools they desire most are programs andpractices in ormation (40); evidence-based evaluations (37); and implementation models (32).

SECTION 5: POLICE OPERATIONSMANAGEMENT STUDIES

The IACP evaluates the conditions, policies, and practices o many police agencies. These engagementsprobe deeply into matters o organization, sta ng, and programming. They concentrate on goals andobjectives; training; in ormation management; and databases, both internal and linked, and assemble awide range o metrics. These evaluations have not ocused deliberately on police-corrections partnerships.The expectation, however, was that studies would sur ace, at least occasionally, that showed the presence


26/61


16 o partnerships. This has not occurred. The survey data indicate a greater presence than was ound. Mostlikely, the response is more refective o reality, and studies, simply, have not been attentive or ocused to ndpartnerships. Due to the absence o priority accorded to partnerships, they remain more an a terthoughtrather than a mainstream operational strategy.

SECTION 6: PAR TNERSHIP OPTIONS ANDEVALUATION

Neither a directory or clearinghouse, nor a one-stop point-o -contact exists or police to access that outlinesexisting partnership options. Government- unded research reports, reentry and sex o ender project reportsin particular, eature snapshots o partnership programs, explicitly or implicitly presented as best practices.This current knowledge-base is valuable or conveying the program designs and successes.

Table 2 arrays the names, locations, and oci o 13 partnerships. Culled rom literature and research,published and unpublished, the criterion or inclusion is the centrality o preventing new crimes by returningo enders or new o endersproo o crime reduction. The goal was to eliminate the randomness o choicin some other works. The reductions have been sizeable in many cases. These encouraging ndings justi y

uture work to build on this port olio.

SECTION 7: SYNTHESIS

More work remains to rame the state-o -practice o police-corrections partnerships. The e orts o this prosuggest that the practices commonly re erred to as police-corrections partnerships are a mix o in ormationtrans ers and joint eld initiatives, occurring with a requency that is still uncharted. I the number o agencies that receive or have ready access to corrections agency in ormation can be used as a metric orprevalence, police-corrections partnerships may be more widespread than expected. At the same time, thelack o in ormation on how requently in ormation is exchanged and joint operations are conductedprecludes suggesting more than that the potential is very positive. Police-corrections partnership practicesare still a peripheral, evolving, and promising police practice and asset.

Each state-o -practice exercise rein orces the current value and potential o investing in partnerships. Awillingness to explore and technical readiness to do so seem to exist among police agencies. Unlike studieso best practices or pre-selected advocacy practitioners commonly gathered to explore innovations, this worksubjected the idea o partnerships to a random (admittedly unscienti c) sample o the eld: the surveygroup and the regional site visits. These groups noted the value and e ectiveness o this experience.

In ormation is valued most highly in the eld. A partnership based on in ormation is, perhaps, the simplestto establish and has the potential to generate consistent outcomes. In ormation sharing and exchange arethe basis or more tactical and operational partnerships or strategic crime control. Law en orcement isreceivingand is technologically equipped to receive morein ormation rom both institutional andcommunity corrections agencies. This in rastructure justi es proceeding with design and implementation o a model called or by practitioners in the eld. One design is o ered next.

Considering responses to questions concerning attributes o police-corrections partnerships, e ectiveness,and uses o in ormation, there clearly seems to exist a readiness to engage more aggressively.


27/61


28/61

A Corrections-Based In ormation Model or Police .. 19

Data Elements .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . 20

Data Management and Integration ... . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. 28

Incorporating the Model .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. 29

A POLICE-LEDPARTNERSHIP MODEL


29/61


Law en orcement practitioners regard police-corrections partnerships avorably as an e ective crimeprevention and en orcement strategy and, even more so, as a technique to satis y citizen concerns, o tenregarding the presence o returning o enders to the neighborhoods in which they commonly reside. Policeengagement with institutional and community corrections agencies is probably increasing; certainly,in ormation-linked engagement is increasing, no doubt powered by sex o ender legislation and mandatesand strong advocacy or reentry initiatives. However, many police-corrections partnerships are time andtarget transitory. Corrections engagement is not a priority among police crime control strategy choices. Thisis attributable to a constellation o actors that include an absence o ederal unding and advocacy, a siloculture with a tendency to regard system-wide criminal justice coalitions passively, and simple inertia causedby a lack o knowledge on where and why to begin.

It is the authors view that the primary emphasis in literature, research, and practice has been onpartnership-building, cross-agency structures, and arrangements. There has been limited concentrationon how the police-corrections concept can be tailored, tted, and organically blended into everyday lawen orcement and corrections operations to drive in ormation-led crime reductions. Responding to this belie ,the authors present an ideaa challengethat police recognize the mutual bene ts o police-correctionspartnerships and take a leadership position by reaching out to institutional and community corrections to

share data and drive smart, strategic crime control e orts.

SECTION 1: A CORRECTIONS-BASEDINFORMATION MODEL FOR POLICE

Practitioners cite in ormation as the most valuable asset o police-corrections partnerships. In ormationsharing and exchange represent the most basic o partnerships and the building block upon which morecollaborative crime control e orts can be initiated. Corrections in ormation can and should in orm policeoperations. All indications show a substantial range o in ormation is trans erred to police routinely byvarious media, is accessible, and is or can be supplemented by person-to-person contact. Thesecharacteristics, along with an apparent appreciation or the potentials o partnerships, are the oundationalunderpinnings o the model described next.

A graphic concept o a model designed to enhance desired public sa ety outcomes o police is presented ingure 3. Very simply stated, police are urged to do the ollowing:

z Develop and institutionalize the most comprehensive base o in ormation that corrections agenciescan supply, that has potential use or traditional and innovative police operations (such as patrol,investigations, special operations, crime analysis, CompStat, smart or predictive policing, and usioncenter data exchanges).

z Weave the use o the in ormation as seamlessly as possible into those operations.

z Monitor and evaluate the value and ROI o the approach to improve value or take other action, whichcould include shutting the process, or parts thereo , down.

z O er police data on o enders to corrections, including gang in ormation, eld interviews, and tra cstops.


30/61


20 The comprehensive in ormation base is the plat orm or the entire approach. The data should be built romthree sources:

z Institutional corrections agencies

z Community corrections agencies z State, national, and regional data exchange systems

The comprehensiveness, timeliness, and, thus, the potential value o the data will vary with technicalcapacities, nancial assets, and cooperative relationships o and between law en orcement and correctionsagencies.

The potential o the approachthe ROI and its limitswould be de ned by the requency with whichdata are considered and the ability to convert them into actionable in ormation. In this regard, ndingvalue in police-corrections partnerships is no di erent rom nding the value o any police intelligence-baseoperation, including crime analysis, CompStat, and/or usion center interaction.

Finally, law en orcement should be prepared to share data as needed with corrections.

SECTION 2: DATA ELEMENTS

Law en orcement agencies and o cers manage crime prevention and control strategies with excellence.The model requires that agencies weave the corrections-supplied in ormation as seamlessly as possible intoeveryday operations. This requirement should pose no problem. Merging corrections data with traditionalpolice crime data can allow agencies to maximize their insight into emerging community threats and adjustoperational tactics as needed. The ollowing summaries detail types o corrections in ormation police may

nd use ul.

1. Institutional Corrections Information

Eight classes o in ormation are described along with their potential applications to police operations. Thesedo not constitute the totality o what may be available or the use potential.

Personal History, Photographs, and Family Members. Institutional correction agencies maintainpersonal history in ormation about all inmates. Basic identi ers such as name, address, race, gender, anddate o birth are kept or administrative processing and identi cation. Other in ormation that can beparticularly use ul to law en orcement o cers includes tattoos, scars, other identi ying marks, nicknames, angang a liations. Since many criminals are only known by nicknames or street names, this in ormation canbe use ul or identi ying suspects or witnesses to crimes where limited in ormation is available. O particulaimportance are photographs taken by institutions. In addition to acial eatures, they may also include tattoosor identi ying marks. This in ormation helps law en orcement establish identities o criminal suspects througphoto line-ups, during surveillance and undercover operations, or rom in ormants. In ormation about

amily members can aid in locating ugitives, identi ying other suspects, or determining locations used to hideevidence.

Visitor Logs. Visitors to correctional institutions are normally required to sign a log and record the name o the inmate to be visited or the purpose o the visit. Institutions require a visitor to provide identi cation. Logsare a trail o potential witnesses and addresses or law en orcement investigators to ollow. The in ormationcan be particularly use ul or locating ugitives, establishing relationships among multiple suspects in a crimeand/or identi ying locations where evidence may be stored.


31/61


Commissary or Inmate Accounts. Inmates rely on amily members, riends, and associates to depositmoney into their accounts to enable them to purchase items not provided by the institution. O ten, criminalassociates, gang members, or previously unidenti ed suspects provide money to inmates as a sign o supportor to encourage continued silence. The name o the depositor and the method o payment are commonlydocumented. Some institutions, such as the Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheri s O ce, use cash kiosks toaccept deposits. These kiosks accept deposits via cash, check, or credit card. Deposits can also be madevia telephone or website. All o the in ormation related to these transactions is recorded and available tothe institution to which the payment is made. With the availability o electronic deposits, the potential list o witnesses and addresses increases signi cantly. Just as visitor logs create a trail o associates and addressesrelated to an inmate, so, too, do inmate commissary accounts.

Recorded Conversations. Inmate conversations made by telephone or during personal visits aremonitored and recorded in many institutions. The primary purpose or recording is to sa eguard the securityo the acility and protect the sa ety o employees and visitors. Inmates, visitors, and parties to telephoneconversations get prior notice o recording. Recordings provide perhaps the most substantial source o intelligence and criminal in ormation available rom a corrections acility. Despite warnings about recordedconversations, inmates discuss their criminal activities reely, both past and pending. They requently identi y

other suspects involved in a criminal activity; describe crimes by riends, amily, and other associates; andcriminal activity that occurs inside a correctional acility. In most cases, this in ormation is available to lawen orcement investigators without a subpoena or search warrant. Some correctional institutions provide thisin ormation via an Internet connection, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Investigators requentlyidenti y other suspects and the location o evidence simply by listening to recorded conversations o a personarrested or a crime or his or her amily members, riends, or associates that may be housed in the samecorrectional acility.

Criminal Activity. An abundance o criminal activity occurs in correctional institutions. Some ispredictable: assaults, drug possession, and the ts, but some is unexpected and quite sophisticated. Thereare countless stories o raud schemes by inmates, submitting alse income tax returns, insurance claims, andgovernment bene t claims. The most signi cant criminal activity in correctional acilities is organized andcontrolled by gangs. Numerous inmates are convicted o extortion, bribery, witness intimidation, and evenmurder while incarcerated.

Only a small raction o crime in correctional institutions is reported to law en orcement. Much o it ishandled administratively by corrections o cials through sanctions, loss o privileges, or isolation. Althoughthese incidents may go unreported to law en orcement, institutions maintain records o the incidents. Recordsinclude names o other inmates involved in the crime; details o the method o operation; and, occasionally,names o persons outside the acility involved in the crime: ormer inmates, amily, riends, or gang members.In the hands o law en orcement investigators, this in ormation is valuable or determining the identities o suspects, recovering evidence or stolen property, or preventing additional crimes.

Disciplinary Actions. Violations o rules and regulations, disputes with sta or other inmates, orbehavioral problems can help investigators to establish background in ormation about a suspect or evenestablish motives or criminal activity. This is especially important in crimes committed by gang members.Disputes between gangs, competition or crime markets, or organized crime activity o ten mani est themselvesthrough violations o rules and regulations. These actions can be a very important part o an investigatorstask o identi ying the who or why aspect o a crime.

In ormation about protective custody inmates, reasons or being held in protective custody, and the durationo con nement can establish relationships between inmates; identi y past behavioral problems; or, moreimportant, identi y an existing personal sa ety or security threat to an inmate. A picture o an inmatesbehavior in jail can provide insight into behavior upon release.


32/61


22 Inmate Release. The most widely used in ormation rom corrections agencies are inmate releases.Names, addresses, and criminal conviction in ormation are generally provided by state corrections agenciesto local law en orcement and intelligence usion centers. In ormation is redistributed internally to crimeanalysis units; patrol o cers; and, in some cases, externally to a ected community or business leaders. Froman analytical perspective, this in ormation can be used to develop crime reduction strategies or or targeteden orcement operations. It is bene cial to detectives who may be investigating certain crimes in aneighborhood where individuals who were recently released rom jail and have a history o similar crimespecialties reside. Using geographic in ormation systems (GIS) to map o ender residences, places o employment, and previous targets can o er a telling visual representation and provide a launching point

or investigators when no other suspect in ormation exists. Further, providing patrol o cers with lists o probationers and parolees who live and work in their respective zones or beats improves awareness ando cer sa ety.

With advance in ormation about the release o o enders, law en orcement leaders can implement actionsto minimize impact. Additional police patrols, community meetings, media releases, or public sa etybulletins can help to alleviate citizens ears, increase public awareness about a person, and generate utureintelligence in ormation.

Medical and Health In ormation. Law en orcement may obtain personal health in ormation regardinginmates as it relates to the sa ety and health o others. Medical and psychological histories, including currentmedications, substance abuse history, mental health, and behavioral issues, provide in ormation that can becritical or o cer sa ety.

2. Infor mation from Community Corrections Agencies

Three classes o in ormation are described. These do not constitute the totality o what is available.

Personal History, Photographs, and Family Members. Much o the basic personal historyin ormation maintained by correctional institutions is also available rom community corrections agencies.Probation and parole in ormation in this category is generally less descriptive. It may not include tattoos,scars, marks, or unusual identi ying marks. Community corrections agencies may not have photographs o individuals or tattoos.

Because being employed, or actively seeking employment, is a condition or most individuals undercommunity corrections supervision, current or previous employer in ormation is usually available.Depending on the nature o a crime being investigated and the nature and location o an o endersemployment, investigators may be able to link the data, particularly or locations where evidence or stolenproperty may be stored. For investigations o computer crime, this may be critical in ormation.

In ormation about current social relationships may be available rom community corrections agencies.Parolees or probationers are required to provide accurate and current in ormation about their residences, aswell as the names o and their relationships to all persons that live in the residence. Names o boy riends,girl riends, or acquaintances may not sur ace to law en orcement investigators through normal background

checks. This in ormation can produce suspects in a crime or, in some cases, become the basis or a paroleor probation violation.

Conditions o Parole or Probation. Terms and conditions o parole or probation are one o the mostvaluable categories o community corrections in ormation. Restrictions (conditions) placed by a judge

requently limit the locations o enders may visit, the type o activities in which they may engage, personswith whom they may live or socialize, or even the time o day they may be out in public.

Violation o restrictions may result in incarceration. In most states, parole and probation o cers must applyto a judge or a warrant to initiate a violation hearing. In Oregon, parole and probation o cers have theauthority to make an immediate arrest or observed violations and hold an o ender in custody until a


33/61


hearing is scheduled. Unless law en orcement o cers are aware o the terms o an individuals parole orprobation, violations may go undetected. The knowledge alone that local law en orcement o cers areaware o conditions o parole or probation may be enough incentive to prevent behavior that mightconstitute a violation.

Behavior o an individual under community corrections supervision can be disruptive to a citizen, community,or business, but may not constitute a crime or even a violation o parole or probation. Nonetheless, patrolo cers are tasked to eliminate o ensive behavior. Typical responses include zero tolerance en orcementprograms, increased patrols, or surveillance and undercover operations to detect criminal activity. Theseresponses are usually manpower intensive, take time to develop, and are usually o short duration. Asingle patrol o cer armed with in ormation about the terms and conditions o an individuals parole orprobation can determine when the disruptive behavior becomes a potential violation. This is particularlyhelp ul in combating gang activity, drug distribution, prostitution, and general nuisance crimes such asloitering or vagrancy.

Modi ying the terms o an individuals parole or probation represents one alternative to traditional lawen orcement methods that can be accomplished only through shared in ormation and resources. Withthe constant rise in the numbers o persons on parole or probation and the shrinking resources o lawen orcement agencies, it represents an e ective means to resolve problems with minimal e ort.

Lists and Registries. Parole and probation agencies produce and maintain in ormation abouto enders that has signi cant potential or law en orcement agencies or crime analysis, developing crimereduction plans, preserving o cer sa ety, and e ective community policing and problem solving. Sexo ender databases are common and critical. Investigators who search or suspects in sex crimes access thenames, addresses, and physical descriptions o known o enders living in and beyond the area o asex crime, who are on parole or probation. With limited analysis o the lists, investigators can generatepotential suspects in short periods o time.

Similarly, burglary and auto the t investigators can generate suspect lists simply by searching or in ormationabout persons under community corrections supervision or those crimes. As with lists o inmate releases

rom corrections institutions, using GIS to map o ender residences, places o employment, and previoustargets can o er a telling visual display and provide a launching point or investigators when no othersuspect in ormation exists. This is especially help ul in high-pro le cases. Providing patrol o cers with listso probationers and parolees that live and work in their respective zones or beats improves awareness ando cer sa ety.

O ender lists can serve as a source o manpower or community improvement projects. Judges requentlysentence individuals to community service hours in addition to other terms o parole or probation. A queryo a parole and probation database by region or by zip code will likely produce a long list o volunteers tohelp with community clean-up projects, gra ti abatement, or similar tasks where a large number o personsare needed. These e orts can be easily coordinated through the local parole or probation o ce whereo enders report or meetings.

3. National and State DatabasesA substantial body o corrections-related in ormation can be assembled to load an agencys police-corrections database rom secondary sources: in ormation exchanges. These exchanges have been andare being developed to supply crime control and intelligence in ormation that goes ar beyond the police-corrections partnership database under discussion here. While the myriad o in ormation sharing systemscan be con ounding or law en orcement, their potential cannot be denied. A sampling is provided below.Departments should investigate what databases are available in their states and how to exploit them.

N-DEx. N-DEx, the Law En orcement National Data Exchange, is an in ormation sharing database orcriminal justice agencies, which is operated and managed by the Federal Bureau o Investigation (FBI). The


34/61


24 objective o N-DEx is to provide law en orcement investigators with resources to search, link, analyze, andshare criminal justice in ormation4 such as incident/case reports, incarceration data, and parole/probationdata on a national basis. N-DEx data are provided through a secure Internet connection to participatingagencies. N-DEx contains in ormation rom criminal justice agencies such as o ense reports, arrest andbooking records, and parole and probation in ormation. However, it does not capture or store intelligencein ormation. Ownership o the in ormation provided remains with the submitting agency, which is alsoresponsible or its accuracy. Individual agencies have the option to decide what in ormation, and howmuch, is provided to an N-DEx user. Once ully implemented, N-DEx will also provide analytical andmapping capabilities to all users.

JNET. JNET, or the Pennsylvania Justice Network, is a virtual database developed or all Pennsylvania lawen orcement and criminal justice agencies. It contains records rom police agencies, parole and probation,courts, prisons, sheri s and constables, and motor vehicle agencies. Authorized users access in ormationthrough a secure Internet connection. Database resources include photographs and immediate noti cations

or a customizable list o events.

NLETS.Nlets, the International Justice and Public Sa ety Network, links together and supports every state,local, and ederal law en orcement, justice, and public sa ety agency or the purposes o sharing andexchanging critical in ormation. Nlets o ers criminal history exchanges, drivers license image exchanges,and corrections photo and inmate in ormation exchanges.

RISS. Through six regional centers, the Regional In ormation Sharing Systems program connects disparatecriminal justice systems and provides in ormation sharing resources and investigative and analytical support.

CriMNet. In Minnesota, CriMNet5 was established as a statewide justice in ormation sharing initiative toenable all relevant justice agencies to access o ender data. CriMNets primary initiatives are the ollowing:

z To accurately identi y individuals

z To make sure that criminal justice records are complete, accurate, and readily available

z To ensure the availability o an individuals current status in the criminal justice systemz To provide standards or data sharing and analysis

z To maintain the security o in ormation

z To accomplish tasks in an e cient and e ective manner

Some examples o CriMNets successes include the ollowing (taken rom http://www.crimnet.state.mn.us/index.htm):

z An Automated Fingerprint Identi cation System (AFIS) has proven to be a pivotal resource in reducingthe time it takes to accurately determine identi cation. AFIS decreased the process time rom months tominutes.

z A Computerized Criminal History (CCH) enables any authorized agent to access les in minutes.

z A Comprehensive Incident-Based Reporting System (CIBRS) enables data recorded by a local agencyin a records management system to be sent to the CIBRS database, allowing the in ormation to besearched by other law en orcement agencies.

5. Sharing Police Data with Corrections

As law en orcement leverages corrections data to enhance strategic and tactical crime control e orts, itshould be prepared to provide data back to corrections in an active in ormation exchange partnership.

4

N-DEx Overview, Federal Bureau o Investigation, http://www. bi.gov/about-us/cjis/n-dex/ndex_overview (accessed September 21, 2011).5 CriMNet, About CriMNet, http://www.crimnet.state.mn.us/About/aboutcrimnet.htm.


35/61


Police data can in orm the supervision and incarceration plans or o enders. Data that are the purview o police are assets to correctional acilities preparing or an o enders detention and to community correctionso cials who manage them upon release.

Examples o law en orcement in ormation ideal or sharing with corrections include the ollowing:

z Police contacts with probationers and parolees (e.g., eld interviews, tra c stops, and pawn activity)

z Gang and security threat group a liations

z Physical and mental health issues

z Drug use

z Known associates

z Arrest reports

z Weapons registrations

z Victims in ormation (important or domestic violence and sex o ense cases)

4. Operational and Operational Support Partnerships

The raw in ormation exchange between police and institutional and community corrections o cials can leadto more collaborative endeavors, which, in turn, can produce additional in ormation to uel investigationsand analysis. Common types o collaborative endeavors are summarized here.

In-Field Monitoring Programs. Parole and probation agencies monitor individuals under their chargethrough a variety o methods including telephone calls, GPS ankle bracelets, in-person meetings, and homevisits. The home visit has the greatest potential bene t to law en orcement. Many police agencies alreadypartner with parole and probation agencies to conduct home visits o parolees or probationers. The BoiseIdaho Police Department and the Idaho Department o Corrections methamphetamine project is anexample o a success ul partnership. (See the video:Targeting Criminality: Success ul Police CorrectionsPartnerships.)6 This partnership has a dual bene t or both agencies in that the parole and probation o cerhas a higher level o sa ety and law en orcement o cers have the opportunity to look or evidence o othercrimes. Parole and probation o cers have the law ul authority to enter and inspect the o enders residenceto veri y residency. This inspection is usually limited to the o enders sleeping area but o course other areaso the residence must be navigated in order to reach it. I any evidence o criminal activity is observed, lawen orcement o cers have the authority to seize it and make an immediate arrest, or delay the arrest until amore thorough review o the circumstances is conducted. In addition to making arrests or criminal activity,law en orcement o cers also have the opportunity to gather intelligence in ormation about other crimes inthe community or gang activity during the in ormal contact with the o ender.

O ender monitoring programs also provide law en orcement o cers with an opportunity to inspect the

residence o a speci c o ender that may be under investigation or another crime. By accompanying theparole and probation o cer on a home visit, the investigator has an opportunity to look or evidence o thecrime that may be in plain sight, such as clothing or stolen property. The investigator also has an opportunityto learn in ormation about the o enders activities at the time o the crime, through in ormal conversation.Observations by the investigator or statements by the o ender can easily lead to the identi cation o othersuspects, the issuance o search warrants, or even an immediate arrest.

Electronic monitoring through GPS-enabled ankle bracelets is increasing as an alternative to incarceration.Law en orcement can use the data rom these devices to track the movements o known o enders andpossibly place a suspect in the vicinity o a crime. Some police agencies have helped und additionalbracelets to monitor o enders o particular interest.

6

This video is available at http://www.theiacp.org/PublicationsGuides/Projects/ViolenceReductionStrategies/TargetingCriminalityVideo/tabid/254/De ault.aspx.


36/61


26 Task Force Operations. An obvious, but o ten overlooked, use o parole and probation in ormation andresources is through the use o task orces, in both the short and long term. The inclusion o a parole andprobation o cer in a task orce enables all task orce members to access parole and probation agencyin ormation through the o cer. While access to that in ormation is limited to when the o cer is availableto retrieve it, the o cer provides immediate resources that may not be available in any other ormat.Depending on the objectives o the task orce, parole and probation in ormation and resources can be used

or any o the previously mentioned objectives, or, in some cases, to accomplish di erent objectives. Forexample, the Baltimore, Maryland, Police Department has operated a regional Warrant Apprehension TaskForce since 2000 that has a contingent o parole and probation o cers. These o cers have arrest authorityand actively search or suspects wanted or parole violations. Further, their presence during an arrest or ata sus

Documents

Police Corrections Partnerships