Working Together or Working on the Same Task but Separately? A Comparison of Police Chief and Chief Probation or Parole Officer Perceptions of Partnership

Abstract

It remains unclear how pervasive police-community corrections partnerships are, and to what extent they are integrated into routine practice, as well as whether or not police chiefs and chief probation or parole officers within the same jurisdictions perceive them to be effective. The current study enhances our understanding of such partnerships between police and probation or parole. Data were collected through a statewide survey of a random sample of municipal police chiefs and county chief probation or parole officers in Pennsylvania. The primary research questions focus on identifying the following: (a) empirically derived and meaningful patterns of police-community corrections partnerships, (b) a comparison of police chief and chief probation or parole officer perceptions of benefits and problems regarding their partnerships, and (c) the predictors of these perceptions. Results reveal that such partnerships are prevalent, but they are predominantly informal, with formalization largely contingent on the progressiveness of the police chief (i.e., newer police chiefs were more likely to engage in formalized partnerships). Further, the crime prevention and recidivism reduction potential of these partnerships remain unclear from the perspectives of both law enforcement and community supervision leaders. In general, Pennsylvania police chiefs are less favorable to the partnerships than are the chiefs of probation or parole offices, and certain partnership types relate to the negative perceptions of some agency leaders. The implications of the findings reported here for policies, training, and future research are discussed.

Revisiting Police–Adult Probation Partnerships in Texas: Troubling Signs

“…Even if the benefits of such partnerships might not be directly crime-related in the short term, they can increase community satisfaction and police legitimacy which ultimately lead to long-term increases in compliance with the law (Telep & Weisburd, 2016). Of the interagency partnerships in the criminal justice field, the concept of police-probation partnerships has grown in popularity in response to a greater need for proactive supervision of probationers (Kim, Matz, & Lee, 2017). Beginning in the mid-1990s, police and probation officers began to collaborate informally on work (Parent & Snyder, 1999).…”

Barriers to formal police–community corrections partnerships

“…Formalized police-probation/parole partnerships reached prominence in the mid-to-late 1990s as a consequence of the perceived success of Boston's Operation Night Light (Beto, 2005;Matz and Kim, 2016). However, recent studies have shown that the overwhelming majority of partnerships were based on individual relationships and were informal in nature, limited largely to periodic information sharing (Kim et al, 2017). The persistence of informal partnerships, or no partnerships at all, as opposed to formal partnerships, was consistent for both law enforcement studies (Kim et al, 2010; and the study of probation and parole agencies (Beto, 2005;Matz, 2016a).…”

“…What made Operation Night Light unique was that it went beyond personal relationships and became a collaborative model embraced by a number of agencies and stakeholder organizations (Beto, 2005;Fitzgerald, 2006). Formalizing such informal working relationships between police and community corrections officers, officially sanctioning them at the organizational level, and engendering a commitment on behalf of both agencies in a more formal sophisticated set of partnerships, has proven to be important in reducing the potential for unintended negative consequences (Jannetta and Lachman, 2011;Kim et al, 2010Kim et al, , 2017Murphy, 2005).…”

Working with the Police: a Positive Outlook from a National Sample of Probation and Parole Officers

“…Parent and Snyder's (1999) early research examined a variety of policeprobation/partnerships and grouped these partnerships into categories based on similar goals and objectives. These findings served to inform a taxonomy of partnerships used extensively in subsequent surveys (Kim & Gerber, 2018;Kim et al, 2010;Kim, Matz et al, 2013;Kim, Matz, & Gerber, 2017;Kim, Matz, & Lee, 2017;Matz, 2016;. These partnership categorizations include enhanced supervision, information sharing, fugitive apprehension, specialized enforcement, and interagency problemsolving partnerships.…”

“…These categorizations have guided several surveys administered by the Center for Project Spotlight in Texas (Kim et al, 2010) and later Pennsylvania (Kim, Matz, & Lee, 2017). These researchers were interested in understanding to what extent partnerships persisted despite the lack of federal or state funding support.…”