Predictors of Law Enforcement Agencies’ Perceptions of Partnerships With Parole Agencies

Abstract

The current study aimed to enhance the understanding of how law enforcement agencies collaborate with parole agencies and how they view police-parole partnerships. The data were collected through a state-wide survey of all sheriffs’ offices and a random sample of municipal police departments in Texas, the state with the nation’s largest parole population. The primary research question focused on identifying (1) empirically derived and meaningful patterns of police-parole partnerships and (2) the predictors of the perception among law enforcement agencies with regard to partnerships with parole agencies. The main finding was that police agencies who valued partnerships with parole agencies tended to already be involved in collaborations with parole agencies and had an organizational culture which supported working with other agencies.

Keywords

police parole police-parole partnership community oriented approach Texas

Police agencies are being tasked with being more proactive than reactive. Consequently, more law enforcement leaders are looking for opportunities to develop partnerships with other criminal justice agencies having expertise and resources to share, especially in an era of shrinking budgets (Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services, 2011; Sexton, 2000). Advocates have touted police partnerships with community correctional agencies as ways to improve public safety, streamline service provision, and accomplish common missions (such as crime reduction), despite essential differences in philosophy, background, and orientation toward criminals (Byrne & Hummer, 2004; Parent & Snyder, 1999). With cuts in state budgets, many correctional agencies have increased their use of parole, which increases the number of parolees returning to the community (Glaze & Bonczar, 2011). This situation presents a unique opportunity for police agencies to form partnerships with parole agencies in order to protect the community, where parole agencies can provide police departments with valuable information about supervised offenders in the community and the police, in theory, can provide surveillance of the parolee as well as assisting parole agents with home visits. Parole agencies can also provide new resources to help the police in their mission of protecting and serving the community by providing additional agents in the community who can report potential problems to the police. Parole agencies gain from working with the police as well, including increased community supervision of the offender, supplemental information on criminological forces in the community that could hamper the success of parolees, and the additional attention of the police providing a deterrent effect on criminal activities by parolees. These are some of the benefits of active partnerships that break from the traditional roles of both police and parolee agencies.

While partnerships between the police and parole agencies offer new benefits and opportunities, they also offer challenges. Police and parole agencies serve different functions in the criminal justice system, which only partially overlap with one another. Police agencies tend to focus on being enforcers, protecting the community through the arrest of criminal suspects. Parole agencies, on the other hand, are expected to both protect the community and rehabilitate offenders by monitoring offenders and guiding them to treatment services (Murphy & Lutze, 2009). Potential partnerships between police and parole agencies may be hampered by these differing organizational goals. The literature suggests that implementation of effective police and parole agency partnerships may require not only cultural changes in both agencies but also changes in how police and parole agencies view these partnerships (Adams, Rohe, & Arcury, 2002). Moreover, whether police are interested in these types of collaborations is unclear. The extent and types of partnerships found between police and parole agencies is unknown. In order for a partnership between police and parole agencies to develop, it is critical to explore the views of agencies on these types of partnerships. This information is particularly relevant in helping develop and maintain collaborations in the community.

This study was undertaken to explore how law enforcement agencies in Texas viewed partnerships with parole agencies and the patterns of such partnerships. In the U.S. there are almost 840,000 individuals on parole, of which about 50,000 are listed as absconders; in Texas, there are almost 105,000 on parole, of which approximately 11,000 have absconded (Glaze & Bonczar, 2011). High caseloads have placed burdens on Texas parole officers in the ability for them to do their jobs (Stinchfield, 2011). In addition, the economic downturn has led to budget cuts and related issues for many U.S. police agencies, including those in Texas (Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services, 2011). While partnerships between police and parole are seen as a possible effective method for dealing with pressing needs of dealing with parolees, including those who abscond, there has been very little research on how police agencies view these types of partnerships, what type of partnerships exist, and what variables help explain why some law enforcement agencies have engaged in a partnership with parole agencies and others have not. In an era of shrinking budgets and increased demands, this information is critical. It is hoped that this study will provide information that will lead to increased partnerships between police and parole so that the safety of the community can be better served as well as providing for more supervision and services for parolees so they are able to be reintegrated back into law-abiding society.

Literature Review

The Development of Partnerships in Law Enforcement

The development of interagency partnerships is not a new idea, but it does emerge that today’s police are much more likely to enter into formal (and sometimes informal) partnerships than their predecessors. One reason for this collaborative approach on the part of the nation’s police agencies is the adoption of community-oriented policing (COP). Restructuring police organizations to promote COP represents a fundamental shift in strategy. Rather than working alone, police officers are encouraged to meet and work more closely with community residents, representatives from the court system, local government organization, social service agencies, victim services, and other criminal justice agencies to determine how best to address community problems safely and effectively (Byrne & Hummer, 2004). As police often do not have the resources alone to deal with problems linked to crime, working with others in the community can be an effective strategy, especially working with nontraditional community organizations that have additional and often unique resources of their own to offer.

In addition to community policing reforms, the Reentry Partnership Initiative (RPI) represents another cooperative effort in law enforcement (Byrne & Hummer, 2004). RPI is one of a series of system-wide reentry initiatives developed by the Office of Justice Programs at the U.S. Department of Justice in an effort to reduce the recidivism of offenders (Byrne, Taxman, & Young, 2002). The RPI programs have a common theme of the formation of partnerships between key criminal justice system agencies, social service organizations, and community groups so as to provide shared efforts to help offenders reintegrate back into mainstream society. Local police departments have played a critical role in the development of the RPI model in several sites across the country by helping with supervision of offenders and working in the rehabilitation of the offenders, a marked change from the past police role of crime detection and apprehension (Byrne & Hummer, 2004; Murphy & Worrall, 2007).

When COP or RPI-model police agencies partner with a wide variety of agencies and community groups, the philosophical shift that places increasing emphasis on public safety has also led both institutional and community correctional agencies to consider working together with other criminal justice agencies (Murphy & Lutze, 2009). Not only can police departments benefit from such partnerships, so can community correctional agencies. Probation and parole agencies are increasingly recognizing that collaborating with law enforcement agencies can be beneficial (Burrell, 2005). In response to the need for enhanced community supervision standards, the Community Corrections Division of the National Institute of Corrections has encouraged the development of police-probation partnerships (Evans, 1997a, 1997b). In the past several decades, an exciting atmosphere of collaboration and partnership has developed between law enforcement and community correctional agencies in various jurisdictions, especially between police and probation agencies (Leitenberger, Semenyna, & Spelman, 2003; Murphy & Worrall, 2007; Worrall & Gaines, 2006). Both law and enforcement and correctional leaders are seeking to increase partnerships with one another (Greenwald, 2009; Kim, Gerber, & Beto, 2007).

The Impact of Police-Corrections Partnerships

Although very little research is available, advocates believe that there are at least two significant benefits for police-corrections partnerships (Leitenberger et al., 2003; Murphy & Worrall, 2007). First, partnering is beneficial from an information-sharing standpoint (Domash, 1999; Worrall & Gaines, 2006). In theory, officers from each agency involved meet regularly to share information (Leitenberger et al., 2003). With the help of correctional agency partners, police departments can collect better and more detailed information about clients with community supervision status and unique supervision conditions, expand the scope of searches, and solve new crimes (Byrne & Hummer, 2004; Leitenberger et al., 2003). Second, enhanced supervision partnerships, in particular, have earned widespread support because of the potential of such programs to facilitate additional supervision of probationers and parolees, to reduce crime, and contribute to public safety (Leitenberger et al., 2003; Murphy & Worrall, 2007). Recent studies have suggested that enhanced supervision partnerships between community corrections and community policing have an effect on arrests for specific types of serious crime and crime rates, as evidenced by a reduced number of new crimes by convicted offenders under supervision services and lower crime rates in the communities (Leitenberger et al., 2003; Murphy & Worrall, 2007; Worrall & Gaines, 2006). These partnerships can results in having an additional set of eyes and ears for protecting the community, as well as increased presence of agents in target neighborhoods (McKay & Paris, 1998; Parent & Snyder, 1999).

While considerable attention has been directed at several potential benefits associated with police-corrections partnerships, the growth of such partnerships has been accompanied by an increased awareness of the potential threats of mission distortion, a possibility that distinctions in the respective missions of traditional law enforcement and community correctional officers become blurred and confused (Murphy & Worrall, 2007; Nash, 2008). Effective partnerships require personnel from both agencies to change their roles and activities and to share meaningful information with one another. There is the issue with mission distortion, where agencies and their employees must deal with mission distortion from the movement from previous to new roles and duties. For example, Corbett (1998) suggested that probation officers would lose sight of their service responsibilities by working with the police to conduct heightened supervision of probationers. Although police-probation partnerships are anticipated to result in stronger mission distortion among probation officers than among police officers, working with probation officers within active partnerships also entails the risk of law enforcement officers suffering from role conflict. In fact, mission distortion has already been a leading subject of concern among critics of COP. Research findings, although limited, are consistent with the finding that, as community policing broadened the police roles, resistance by officers to community policing increased (Adams et al., 2002). Traditional policing usually emphasizes the role of police officers in the context of offender control, not offender change, while community correctional agencies place their emphasis on personal change and fostering responsibility for reducing recidivism (Byrne & Hummer, 2004; Murphy & Worrall, 2007). In addition, the procedural guidelines that police officers are required to follow are significantly different from ones that community correctional officers must follow (Murphy & Worrall, 2007). Murphy (2005), Worrall and Gaines (2006), and Murphy and Worrall (2007) each examined the implementation of a police-probation partnership and found that the officers involved in the programs felt the lack of accurate knowledge on each other’s roles and mandate; moreover, some of the officers were uncertain what their own mission should be. Historically, as a result of interdepartmental rivalry or a perceived conflict of missions, many police departments have had little, if any, contact or communication with community correctional agencies serving the same jurisdiction (McKay & Paris, 1998). It is, however, important to recognize that not all police-correctional cooperation and collaborations pose the threat of mission distortion. The degree of role conflict law enforcement officers feel may be contingent on whether their partnership is placing an emphasis on law enforcement or corrections activities. Partnerships between police and community corrections agencies will probably mean the need to expand the mission scope of both agencies from those traditionally held.

Implementing Police-Corrections Partnership: Organizational Culture for Partnership

Marks (2000) suggested that new policies or changes to existing policies, on their own, are not a guarantee for desired transformation within the police. The transformation of departments from traditional to COP, for example, has not been easy. Many chiefs and sheriffs have found themselves out of a job due to the resistance of line officers and a lack of support from command staff for the transformation of the department to COP (Adams et al., 2002). The combination of an organizational culture that resists changes and administrators who have little experience and understanding on how to create changes can prove lethal to any change (White, 2005). There is a need, therefore, to be aware of organizational culture when developing partnerships. Organizational culture refers to the norms of behavior and shared values among members of a particular organization. This culture helps direct individuals to think and act in a proscribed manner (Beekun & Glick, 2001). These organizational beliefs, principles, and values are communicated and reinforced formally to employees and others, through documents such as vision and mission statements. They can also be communicated through informal ways. To be successfully implemented, inter-agency alliances in law enforcement must focus on organizational culture that transforms intentions into joint actions (Marks, 2000; Sexton, 2000).

The first component of organizational culture, core culture, refers to “the organization’s publicly stated values, vision and mission; as well as its informal customs and ‘unwritten’ rules that let employees know what matters most” (Sexton, 2000, p.12). Sexton (2000) suggested that, to be successful, interagency partnerships require that all organizations participating in these programs adopt a core culture supporting creation and maintenance of public safety by assisting offenders in leading positive and law-abiding lifestyles and reflecting the goals of the independent agencies with an emphasis on openly working with others. Line staff in law enforcement agencies may resist the fundamental changes in roles and responsibilities resulting from partnerships with correctional agencies, unless the core culture (beliefs, missions, and values) of public safety and partnership is clearly described and institutionalized (Byrne et al., 2002). Using a qualitative case study of a police-probation partnership, Murphy and Lutze (2009) found both police and community correctional officers’ attitudes toward interagency partnerships strongly reflected the mission and goals of their agency to make the community a safer place to live and work.

Leadership, another component of organizational culture, is the most important determinant in implementing a new policy or changing a policy in bureaucratic agencies (Wang, 2006). Examining departments in transition from traditional to COP, previous studies have found that officers’ job satisfaction was closely associated with perceptions of leadership (Glaser & Parker, 2001; Wang, 2006). In police agencies with leaders who have little experience and understanding of how to create changes, their officers tend to characterize COP as social work, reflecting their hostility to enacting their roles in new and innovative ways (Adams et al., 2002). Leaders are “the people throughout the organization who can motivate their colleagues to do things right and to do the right things” (Sexton, 2000, p. 12). Because many police officers do not have experience and knowledge to navigate the changes the interagency partnerships bring, leaders committed to fostering partnerships must be aware that resistance and disagreement will exist at times (McKay & Paris, 1998; Murphy & Worrall, 2007). Police leaders will need to guide and direct their agencies to alter the core culture so it supports partnerships and allow officers in each agency to work effectively with one another.

Current Study

Parole refers to a wide array of agencies, entities, and activities, including both paroling authorities (e.g., parole boards) and parole supervision agencies which responsible for supervising offenders once released to parole (Burke & Tonry, 2006). Even with a punitive, control approach to dealing with crime, parole is stilled used in many jurisdictions, and parole has been predicted to increase since many states continue to use the indeterminate sentence model for dealing with those sentenced to prison. Additionally, the indeterminate model is philosophically and pragmatically more congruous with emerging interests in both restorative and community justice, which supports the contention that parole will remain a salient part of the U.S. correctional system (Burrell, 2005).

Analysis of national figures of individuals on parole or some other form of conditional release suggests that, in recent years, the vast majority of offenders failing upon reentry and returning to prison are doing so as a result of parole violations and revocations, not the result of new convictions (Burke & Tonry, 2006; Pew Center, 2010). Criminal justice policymakers and practitioners have become aware that successful offender reentry means community safety and strengthening of parole (Burke, 2001; Pew Center, 2009). Because of budget and citizen pressure, there has been a push to increase the success of parolees, which means that correctional agencies must look for new solutions (Pew Center, 2009).

Police-parole partnerships have played a significant role in offender reentry efforts in several sites across the country (Byrne et al., 2002). For example, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation started a program to form a partnership between police and community correction teams to help deal with offenders in the community, especially sex offenders, through information-sharing and improved relations (Werth & Sumner, 2006). Since 2004, the California Office of Correctional Safety, a unit in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has formed a partnership with local law enforcement agencies to deal with community activities by prison gangs (The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2008). There has have been partnerships between the police and probation agencies with social work agencies to help deal with offenders (such as diverting them to appropriate treatment programs), victims (such as providing them with help and guidance), and to deal with family crises, with each party offering unique services and skills to deal with diverse situations and problems (Dwoskin & Long, 1981; Schonborn, 1976). The U.S. Marshalls and the Houston police work with Texas parole offices to locate parolee absconders under the Gulf Coast Violent Task Force, which includes a full-time investigator assigned from the Texas Office of Inspector General and information-sharing (Crain, 2008). Under Operation Spotlight, grant funding was provided to form police-probation partnerships in seven large Texas counties from 1999 to 2002 (Kim et al, 2007).There has been mixed success with these partnerships, with some working and other not. For example, the Gulf Coast Violent Task Force is described as being successful in terms of locating parole absconders because of information-sharing without duplication of resources (Crain, 2008). Conversely, Parent and Snyder (1999) reviewed several police-parole partnerships and found an intense distrust between police and parole officers in the studied jurisdictions, even to the point of hostility.

There has been less research on the views of police agencies towards such partnerships (Murphy & Lutze, 2009). Building on prior research on police-probation partnerships (Murphy, 2005; Murphy & Worrall, 2007), this study explored the nature and the pattern of police-parole partnerships in Texas and analyzed the views of police agencies participating in partnerships with parole agencies. Specifically, the present study concentrated on the effects of the agency characteristics, the partnership patterns, and the organizational cultures on law enforcement agency views towards partnerships with parole agencies.

Method

Sample

Richard Nedelkoff, the Executive Director of Governor George W. Bush’s Criminal Justice Division in 1999, created Project Spotlight, with the support of the Texas Legislature, to provide support and resources for creating working partnerships between police and community correctional agencies with the goal of crime reduction (Beto, 2005; Kalmbach, 2002). While efforts were made to grow the partnerships under Project Spotlight, when Governor Bush resigned following his election as President and Richard Nedelkoff left to become Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, much of the program’s support departed as well. In 2003, funding for Project Spotlight was eliminated; however, the idea of partnerships and collaborations between police and community correctional agencies had taken root in many jurisdictions across Texas (Beto, 2005). To evaluate the nature and perceptions of partnerships with police agencies, the Correctional Management Institute of Texas and the Regional Center for Policing Innovation surveyed adult and juvenile community correctional agencies (Beto, 2005). Building on this previous research, in 2007, the Correctional Management Institute of Texas and the Texas Regional Center for Policing Innovation conducted a survey of police agencies to determine their views on partnerships and collaborations with community correctional agencies. This survey was sent to all 254 sheriff offices and a random sample of 262 of the 1,055 police departments in Texas. A cover letter addressed to the head of the agency was sent explaining the nature of the survey. While the mailings were addressed to the respective county sheriffs and the chiefs of police, the instructions accompanying the surveys asked for the most appropriate person in each department to complete it. The surveys were returned using a postage-paid envelope. A follow-up reminder letter and a second copy of the survey were sent to agencies that had not responded after three weeks of the initial survey.

Of the total of 516 surveys mailed, 232 completed ones were returned, which is an overall response rate of 45%. In terms of breakdown by type of law enforcement agency, 102 of the completed surveys were from sheriff offices (a 40% response rate) and 130 were from police departments (a 50% response rate). No pattern of bias in the responses could be found. A comparison of the respondents with the actual population of Texas law enforcement agencies revealed no significant differences; however, the possibility exists that nonrespondents were agencies that either did not have partnerships or were agencies with longstanding completely comfortable partnerships that elected not to reply because they do not see the relevance of the questions to their circumstances. The returned surveys represented a cross-section of the state, coming from both urban and rural jurisdictions and from very small to large law enforcement agencies. About 19% of the returned surveys were completed by a sheriff, 40% by a police chief/commissioner/superintendent, 2% by an assistant chief/commissioner/superintendent/sheriff, 10% by a deputy chief/deputy commissioner/deputy superintendent/undersheriff, 6% by an inspector/commander/colonel, 0.4% by a major/deputy inspector, 6% by a captain, 11% by a lieutenant, 6% by a sergeant, 3% by a detective/inspector/investigator, and 2% by a corporal/deputy/officer. Overall, the major of the surveys (about 80%) were completed by a member of the administration or upper management.

Measures

The variables of supplementary agency characteristics, partnership types with parole agencies, the features of organizational culture (core culture and leadership) of the law enforcement agency, and the perception of partnerships with parole agencies were used.

Agency characteristics

Supplementary agency descriptors included number of square miles a law enforcement agency served, size of population in the agency’s jurisdiction, and number of full-time sworn officers in the agency. Primary area served was measured as being rural, suburban, or urban. Type of law enforcement agency was measured being either a sheriff’s office or a police department. In addition, the existence of training concerning parolee agencies was measured by the following item: “Did officers in your agency receive training as to what the duties and responsibilities of the adult parole agencies are?”

Partnership types

In this study, a police-correction partnership was defined as a formal or informal collaboration between police and community correctional agencies that involved staff from each agency in the joint performance of a line or support functions and provided benefits to both agencies (Parent & Snyder, 1999). The survey asked whether their respective department had a formal partnership (referring to situations in which there are operational agreements, protocols, contracts, and/or memoranda of understanding between organizations), informal partnership (referring to programs and initiatives forged on relationships between personnel), or no partnership.

In addition, the survey asked about the type of partnerships that existed and the activities involved. The five categories of the police-corrections partnerships identified by Parent and Snyder (1999) were included in the survey: “(1) enhanced supervision partnerships, in which police and correctional agencies perform joint supervision or other joint functions (such as neighborhood patrols) for persons on supervision; (2) fugitive apprehension units, in which police and correctional agencies collaborate to locate and apprehend persons who have absconded from supervision; (3) information-sharing partnerships, in which correctional and police agencies institute procedures to exchange information related to offenders; (4) specialized enforcement partnerships, in which police and correctional agencies, as well as community organizations, collaborate to rid communities of particular problems, and (5) inter-agency problem-solving partnerships, in which police and correctional agencies confer to identify problems of mutual concern and to identify and implement solutions to them” (p. 7). For each of these five types of partnerships, respondents were asked to indicate the levels of partnerships with parole agencies by reporting whether their agencies have formal partnerships (referring to situations in which there are operational agreements, protocols, contracts, and/or memoranda of understanding between organizations), informal partnerships (referring to programs and initiatives forged on relationships between personnel), or no partnerships.

Organizational culture for collaboration

Two indices of organizational culture—core culture and leadership—were measured using questions created by Sexton (2000) to assess organizational and jurisdictional capability or fitness to fulfill its responsibilities in an interagency partnership. For those police agencies that had a partnership with parole, core culture was measured by inquiring the level of commitment to the partnership and if the agency’s values, vision, and mission were such to allow for successful partnerships. Specifically, the index of core culture measured the degree to which the agency agreed with the following two statements: “The majority of employees in our organization believe that selected groups of offenders can change their behavior and lifestyles and that a balanced combination of sanctions, supervision, and services can assist them in doing so,” and “Our organization’s culture is consistent with the ideals of a successful interagency public safety alliance.” Each statement was answered using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (coded 1) to strongly agree (coded 5). The reliability of the core culture index was .60. Although this was a moderate coefficient, it was not surprising since only two items were used (Pallant, 2001). As suggested by Pallant (2001), the mean interitem correlation for these two items was checked, and the interitem correlation of .43 was within the optimal range.

Leadership was measured by the following four statements: “The personal beliefs, principles and values of our organization’s executives are in alignment with the ideals which are at the core of a successful interagency public safety alliance,” “The leaders of our organization know what it will take to create and maintain an interagency public safety alliance in our jurisdiction, and they are committed to doing so,” “Our leaders look beyond our organization’s short term interests and make important decisions based on what will make our community safer,” and “Our organization’s executives and supervisors encourage and support our own employees to work together with the employees of community correctional agency when dealing with the issues or problems confronting an interagency public safety alliance.” These four items were also answered using a five point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (coded 1) to strongly agree (coded 5). The internal consistency of the leadership scale was .88.

Experience and views of partnership with parole agencies

The survey assessed police/sheriff agency experiences and views toward partnerships with parole agencies using 10 items. The items were adapted from Hughes (2000), and these items asked about role conflict, perceived effectiveness of partnership, and whether or not the partnership was considered to be a worthwhile endeavor that should be expanded.¹ The items are also answered using a five-point Likert-type scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha for the 10 items was .78.

Analytic Approach

Analysis proceeded in two stages. First, cluster analysis was used to identify a smaller number of coherent subgroups of law enforcement agencies in Texas on the basis of the types of partnerships with parole agencies described above (Parents & Snyder, 1999).² Second, Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression was used to examine the predictive strength of selected agency characteristics, the patterns of partnerships with parole agencies, and organizational cultures for collaboration (core culture and leadership) on the perception among law enforcement agencies with regard to partnerships with parole agencies.

Results

As presented in Table 1, the number of partnerships the law enforcement agencies had with parole agencies varied. Forty percent had no form of formal or informal partnerships, while 60% had some form of formal or informal partnerships.

Table 1.

Numbers and Percentages of Partnerships with Parole Agencies (N = 232).

Partnerships	N	%
0	92	39.7
1	29	12.5
2	31	13.4
3	27	11.6
4	26	11.2
5	27	11.6

As indicated in Table 2, over half of the responding agencies had information-sharing partnerships, but almost all were informal (50.9% informal versus 2.2% formal). Less than half of the agencies reported any type of partnership for enhanced supervision (e.g., ride alongs, coordinated beats, targeting high crime areas, and targeting high risk offenders), fugitive apprehension, specialized enforcement (e.g., sex offenders, domestic violence, gun removal, bar checks, gang interdiction, drug trafficking, quality of life issues, and other public safety related matters), or interagency problem-solving partnerships. As with information-sharing, very few were formal partnerships. Of the five types of partnerships asked about, specialized enforcement was the highest in terms of formal partnerships at 7% of agencies. It is important to note that informal partnerships were far more common for specialized enforcement, with 36% of agencies reporting having an informal partnership with a parole agency for specialized enforcement. Enhanced supervision, interagency problem-solving, and fugitive apprehension were the least common forms of partnerships between police and parole agencies, with 75%, 73%, and 71% of responding agencies reporting that they had no partnerships with parole agencies, respectively.

Table 2.

Number and Percentages of Types of Police-Parole Partnerships (N = 232).

	No partnerships		Informal partnerships		Formal partnerships
	N	%	N	%	N	%
Enhanced supervision	174	75.0	56	24.1	2	0.9
Fugitive apprehension	165	71.1	64	27.6	3	1.3
Information-sharing	109	47.0	118	50.9	5	2.2
Specialized enforcement	132	56.9	84	36.2	16	6.9
Interagency problem-solving	169	72.8	60	25.9	3	1.3

Table 3 provides the characteristics of the sample stratified by status of partnership, no partnership versus having formal or informal partnerships. As very few agencies reported formal partnerships with parole agencies, formal and informal partnerships were combined. There was no significant association between types of primary area served and partnership status. Additionally, no significant differences in number of square miles served, population in jurisdiction, or the number of full-time sworn officers was observed. Finally, differences in partnerships between sheriff’s offices and police departments were not significant.

Table 3.

Characteristics of Law Enforcement Agencies by Partnership Status (Chi-squared or t-test reported) (N = 232).

Characteristics	No partnerships (N = 92)	Formal or Informal partnerships (N = 140)	t or X²	p
Primary area served			4.54	.10
Rural (%)	59.3	64.4
Suburban (%)	23.1	12.6
Urban (%)	17.6	23.0
Number of square miles served (M)	512.41	515.36	–0.02	.98
Population in jurisdiction (M)	82523.33	28929.36	1.41	.16
Number of full-time sworn officers	29.93	39.19	–1.09	.28
Type of law enforcement agency			0.11	.79
Sheriff’s office (%)	42.4	44.6
Police department (%)	57.6	55.4

Note: t represents the t-test value, X² the Chi-Squared value, p the probability level, and M the mean value.

Using only agencies that reported some type of partnership, the cluster analysis produced a four-cluster solution. Only agencies that reported any type of partnership were included in this analysis. Table 4 displays the cluster groups across cluster analysis variables (partnership types). The clusters are well differentiated across variables of partnership types, as indicated by Chi-Squared test results (see Table 4). The first pattern (Pattern 1 in Table 4) represented agencies that engaged in information-sharing partnerships but were low on the other types of partnerships. This group basically limited the partnership to sharing information and the flow of information was more informal than formal. The second pattern observed was a cluster of agencies that engaged in specialized enforcement partnership, moderate on information-sharing, but were low on the other types of partnerships. This pattern appeared to represent a partnership that tended to focus on the law enforcement efforts of controlling offenders in the community. A third pattern consisted of agencies that typically engaged in information-sharing and interagency problem-solving and to a lesser degree specialized enforcement and fugitive apprehension. This group appeared to represent cooperation between the agencies in dealing with problems and the use of information to help solve problems. The fourth cluster was typified by their high levels of partnerships with parole agencies, except for a moderate level of interagency problem-solving. Overall, agencies in this group had greater-than-average rates of most types of partnerships. In particular, all agencies in this cluster had enhanced supervision and specialized enforcement partnerships. It would appear this group of agencies had embraced a wide array of partnerships with parole agencies.

Table 4.

Cluster Differences on Measures of Police-Parole Partnerships (Cluster Analysis; N = 140).

Measures	Pattern 1 No FA^b low ES^a, SE^d, ISP^e high IS^c partnerships	Pattern 2 No ISP^e low ES^a, FA^b moderate IS^c high SE^d partnerships	Pattern 3 No ES^a moderate FA^b, SE^d high IS^c, ISP^e partnerships	Pattern 4 High ES^a, FA^b, IS^c, SE^d moderate ISP^e partnerships	Chi-squared value
N (% of total)	31 (22.1)	32 (22.9)	30 (21.4)	47 (33.6)
Cluster analysis variables
Enhanced supervision (%)	32.3	3.1	0	100.0	1.081***
Fugitive apprehension (%)	0	34.4	40.0	93.6	70.964***
Information-sharing (%)	100.0	65.6	93.3	91.5	20.535***
Specialized enforcement (%)	19.4	100.0	50.0	100.0	79.540***
Interagency problem-solving (%)	9.7	0	100.0	63.8	85.209***

Note: Bole number = values that are above the overall mean for a particular partnership type.

ES = Enhanced Supervision partnership; ^bFA = Fugitive Apprehension partnership; ^cIS = Information-Sharing partnership; ^dSE = Specialized Enforcement partnership; ^eIPS = Interagency Problem Solving partnership.

***

p < .001.

In order to examine the predictive strength of the perceptions of law enforcement agencies with regard to partnerships with parole agencies, three sets of predictor variables were used in an OLS multivariate regression analysis: (1) Agency characteristics (number of square miles a law enforcement agency serves, size of population in the agency’s jurisdiction, number of full-time sworn officers in the agency, measures of primary area served [rural, suburban, and urban], type of law enforcement agency, and the existence of training about parole agencies), (2) the patterns of partnerships with parole agencies, and (3) organizational cultures for collaboration (core culture and leadership). Only agencies that reported any type of partnership were included in the OLS regression analysis. The results are reported in Table 5. The predictor variables explained about 32% of the observed variance of perception of partnerships with parole agencies. None of the agency characteristics had a significant association with perception of partnerships with parole agencies. Partnership patterns were measured with dummy variables consisting of patterns obtained from the cluster analysis, with the last pattern being the reference group (i.e., the dummy variable for this pattern was excluded from the regression analysis). Among the partnership patterns, those agencies that were high on specialized enforcement partnerships (Pattern 2 in Table 4) had a statistically significant negative relationship with perception of partnerships. The other two partnership variables had a nonsignificant association. Among the two organizational culture variables (core culture and leadership), only core culture had a significant association. Higher levels of the core culture variables were associated with more positive views of partnerships with parole agencies. Based on the standardized regression coefficients, core culture had the largest sized effect, followed by the variable representing the Pattern 2 type of partnership. Overall, results of the final model demonstrated that high levels of partnerships with parole agencies and strong core culture supporting partnerships were closely related to positive perception of partnerships among law enforcement in this sample.³

Table 5.

OLS Regression Result of the Perception of Partnerships With Parole Agencies Predicted by Agency Characteristics, Patterns of Partnerships, and Organizational Cultures for Collaboration.

	Perception of partnerships with parole agencies
Variable	B	ß
Agency characteristics
Number of square miles	.001	.148
Size of population	–.001	–.009
Number of officers	.006	.107
Primary area served	–.033	–.004
Agency type	.912	.124
Training	.690	.049
Patterns of partnerships
Pattern 1	.018	.002
Pattern 2	–2.415	–.279**
Pattern 3	–.796	–.090
Organizational culture
Core culture	.897	.368***
Leadership	.167	.119
F-statistic	5.476***
Model R²	.320
Adjusted R²	.262

Note: B represents the unstandardized regression coefficient and ß the standardized regression coefficient. Number of square miles was a continuous variable representing the number of square miles that the police agency covered. Size of population was a continuous variable representing the number of people residing in the area covered by the police agency. Number of officer was a continuous variable representing the number of full-time sworn officers employed by the police agency. Primary area served was measured as a dichotomous variable (0 = rural, 1 = suburban or urban). Agency type was a dichotomous representing if the police agency was a Sheriff’s department (coded 0) or a municipal agency (coded 1). Training measured if the agency provided in training covering the duties and responsibilities of the adult parole agencies (no = 0 and 1 = yes). Each of the pattern variables was a dichotomous variable representing if the agency was in this pattern area (coded 1) or not (coded 0). For more information on the Patterns of Partnership variables, see Table 4. The dichotomous variable for Pattern 4 as the omitted/reference group. Core culture was a two item index. Leadership was a four item index. N = 140.

p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study focused on police agencies in Texas to examine whether it is possible to identify patterns of police-parole partnerships and to explore possible predictors of the views among police departments with regard to partnerships with parole agencies. In our sample, both the numbers and the types of partnerships varied. While recent studies have suggested that formal police partnerships with community correctional agencies have become more commonplace, the current study found that the overwhelming majority of police-parole partnerships that existed among the responding Texas police agencies were informal rather than formal (51% versus 2%; Murphy & Lutze, 2009; Murphy & Worrall, 2007). In addition, information-sharing was the most common form of informal partnership (51% of police agencies with a partnership reported an informal one based on information-sharing). In practice, partnerships between community correctional and police agencies have been in existence for many years, but, in most instances, partnerships in the past were based on individual relationships and were primarily informal in nature (Beto, 2005; Kim et al., 2007). Such informal partnerships were limited to periodic information sharing, and thus were often terminated when key actors retired, were transferred, or were promoted (Beto, 2005; Murphy, 2005). Formalizing these informal working relationships between police and parole agencies, officially sanctioning them at the organizational level, and requiring a commitment on behalf of both agencies to engage in a more formal, sophisticated partnerships is important in order to reduce the potential for negative consequences and to solve community problems (Murphy & Worrall, 2007).

It is unclear of why formal partnerships are not being formed. Almost 40% of the responding agencies reported no partnership with a parole agency. It could be that there is no pressure to do so or there is no clear reward for doing so. It could be that agencies feel that they can handle problems that may arise with parolees being in the community or feel that the costs of such partnerships outweigh the benefits. It may also be that some police administrators are unaware of the existence of or the benefits from partnerships. Substantial barriers to the implementation and continuation of partnerships may exist. Geography could play a role. It may be easier to form partnerships in urban areas were parole offices and police stations are located within a reasonable distance from one another. It could that distances in rural areas between the locations of each agency hamper the creation and continuation of partnerships. It is important to note that parole in Texas is divided into five regions, with 67 field offices, and some regions have far more offices than other reasons based on population density. Texas is a large state in which there are huge rural areas between the large cities. This may explain why only 7% of the responding agencies reported having a formal partnership involving specialized enforcement. In addition, there may be legal barriers of sharing information between police and parole agencies, which may explain why only 2% of the police agencies reported to having a formal partnership involving information-sharing. These barriers need to be explored to see what, if any, role they play in fostering or hampering partnerships.

The results of the current study cannot provide information on why and how informal partnerships are formed. Future research is needed to determine why some agencies form no partnerships, and others form informal rather than formal partnerships. The partnerships reported in the current study could have arisen through efforts by agency administrators or could have occurred through the efforts of line staff in order to accomplish what they saw as important. While understanding how partnerships work is important, it is equally important to understand the forces which help form and sustain partnerships as well as the forces that act against partnerships. Without this information, it will be hard to determine what obstacles exist for police-parole partnerships.

In terms of agency characteristics, the findings suggest that no significant difference exists among police agencies in their receptivity to the philosophy and practices of cooperation with parole agencies. The most encouraging finding of this study is that where collaborations are highest, there is a tendency for law enforcement agencies to see their partnerships with parole agencies as making considerable contributions in reducing of crime and to have a better understanding of the roles of parole agencies. Furthermore, agencies that had more partnerships tended to feel less role conflict. This leaves room for hope for expansion of such partnerships in the future. It would appear that the more types of partnerships that a police agency has, the more positive perception formed about building on these partnerships. This would suggest that the major obstacle is having police agencies engage in more than one type of partnership with parole agencies. Once there are significant and varied partnerships, the likelihood that a positive view of forming partnerships with other various community correctional agencies increases. The findings are consistent with previous community policing research indicating that once law enforcement agencies become involved in COP, they often change their opinions and come to endorse the concept (Oliver, 2004; Wang, 2006). Working together with parole officers frequently tends to help police officers learn the parole system and its intricacies, comfortably use the partnerships to their advantage, and thus, foster a teamwork attitude and greater reciprocity (Murphy & Worrall, 2007). Further, more contact and communication with parole agencies helps police agencies understand that both institutions share the same broad objective of administering justice despite different individual missions (McKay & Paris, 1998). It is important to note that the current study did not ask if the agency participated in COP. There is a need to examine if engagement in COP is associated with forming partnerships and views of partnerships.

What is not known from the current study is if and how partnerships change the views and behaviors of individual police officers. Based on the research done concerning COP, it would appear that individual officers who are involved with parole and other community correctional agents may see the partnership in a favorable light and work in helping the partnership grow and flourish. This is an untested postulation. Future research is needed to determine how individual police officers view police-parole partnerships and whether engagement in partnership activities influences the perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors of police officers. This information is needed in order to help “sell” police-parole partnerships to agencies and staff.

The multivariate results partially support the postulation that implementing a core culture emphasizing the importance of working closely with other agencies and recognizing parolees as an integral part of the larger community rather than simply a threat to public safety may be the single greatest predictor of successful police-parole partnerships, and the same holds true for department leaders who see a benefit in partnerships (Murphy & Lutze, 2009). In this study, an agency’s core culture best predicted positive views of partnerships with parole agencies; however, leadership was not significantly related to views toward partnerships with parole agencies. Organizational culture could be more important than the views of specific police leaders in shaping the perceptions of the values of police-parole partnerships. A lack of strong leadership on the matter could either lead to no partnerships, limited partnerships, and/or informal partnerships. This may explain why the vast majority of partnerships reported were informal rather than formal. Formal partnerships may require strong leadership endorsement. Most of the partnerships reported are generally consistent with the functions/goals of police. Formal partnerships that encompass beyond typical law enforcement goals may require strong leadership to change organizational culture, implement said partnerships, and nurture them to grow and be successful over the long run. This is an interesting finding that needs to be further explored.

The management and policy literature is rife with examples of the importance of a clear and elevating core culture as a key to successful endeavors for implementing new organizational policies (Burke, 2001). Without a clear core culture (vision and mission) that is understood and embraced by agency staff, a new policy or any change in organization can rarely inspire the kind of action necessary to generate and maintain the change. The implementation of partnerships is a paradigm shift that certainly will necessitate agency self-consideration and self-adaption (White, 2005). It is unlikely to occur unless there is a fundamental retooling of the law enforcement core culture or mission accommodating the new approach to promote both successful offender supervision and reintegration and long-term public safety goals (Murphy & Lutze, 2009; White, 2005). This is easier said than done. Organizational culture can either support or oppose partnerships. An organizational culture negatively focused against partnerships could easily be the reason for the lack of partnerships. This area requires additional research.

Implementing or changing police organizational culture is not a simple task that can be achieved simply via new training and policy (Marks, 2000). Rather, White (2005) suggested a number of ways in which an agency’s organizational culture is changed, created, and reinforced: “statements or documents concerning the vision, mission and goals; established policy, procedures, and systems of operation; criteria used to select, reward, and promote staff; the activities that are measured and monitored; how the agency reacts to crisis; and perhaps most importantly, the actions and behavior of its leaders” (p. 6). Without specific changes in the language of vision and mission statements, recruitment and training procedures, and criteria for evaluation and promotion, collaborative efforts are more likely to face resistance to role changes required by the partnerships, and thus, are less likely to be successful (Adams et al., 2002; Murphy & Worrall, 2007). Not only should a supportive culture of partnerships be developed within police agencies, a similar supportive culture is necessary within parole offices.

It is important to note that the direction of the relationships between organizational culture, level of engagement in partnerships, and views on partnering with parole agencies is unclear. While it is reported here that high levels of involvement in different types of partnerships and supportive organizational culture leads to positive views of partnerships. It is possible for other causal directions to be occurring. It could be that positive views of partnerships leads to implementation of an organizational culture which supports forming partnerships, and this in turn leads to a high level of varying types of partnerships. It could also be that some partnerships formed not deliberately but spontaneously, perhaps for a particular ad hoc purpose, and when they became successful, views of partnership changed, leading to a more supportive organizational culture and greater support for partnerships. Similarly, that organizational culture could have formed first, leading to strong support of partnerships, which in the end lead to a wide array of different types of partnerships. All that the results of the current study support is that there is a relationship between organizational culture, support for partnerships, and the types of partnerships reported by various Texas law enforcement agencies.

The findings from the analyses presented here need to be understood in light of the study’s strengths and limitations. The current study advanced current knowledge by using a state-wide survey of a random sample of sheriff’s offices and municipal police departments in Texas. Most previous studies on interagency partnerships focus on a single agency or limited location. Collecting data from large, midsize, and small law enforcement agencies allowed a broader comparison on the similarities and differences of implementing police partnerships with parole agencies and views toward such partnerships. An additional strength of the study is its scales. As noted above, the survey contains multi-item scales of police-parole partnerships used in other evaluations of police-community corrections collaborations and appear to have face validity (Adams et al., 2002; Hughes, 2000; Sexton, 2000).

The study also has limitations. This was but a single exploratory study. The present study only focuses on police-parole partnerships in Texas, a large and diverse state. It is unknown the extent and types of partnerships in other states. It is possible that police-parole partnerships differ across various jurisdictions and settings. It is also unclear why some of the surveyed police agencies engaged in partnerships with parole agencies and others did not, and why some types of partnerships were formed and not others. It is likely that partnerships are formed to address different issues but it is unclear of what pressing issues or forces are more likely to result in partnership being developed (Parent & Snyder, 1999). This needs to be explored by future studies. The response rate was less than ideal, at 45%. While there appeared to be no significant differences in those who responded (i.e., size, location, type of population served, etc.), it is unclear what if any partnerships existed within the agencies that failed to respond. It could be that agencies who failed to respond have no partnerships with parole agencies. If this was the case, then the number of agencies who form partnerships would be much lower than that reported. It is also unknown how nonresponding agencies view partnerships with parole agencies. Another limitation is that the data is cross-sectional, which means that the relationships found in the regression analysis cannot be said to be causal in nature. In other words, it cannot be empirically shown that holding a positive view of partnerships actually leads to the formation of a partnership with a parole agency. The direction of the relationship needs to be explored.

In addition, future research needs to examine how agencies view the benefits and the costs of partnerships and what is prohibiting the formation of formal partnerships. This information is critical if the goal is to increase partnerships between police and parole agencies. The results cannot provide information of how long the partnerships have existed. Likewise, it is unknown if there were past partnerships or, if so, why they ended. More detailed variables for agency characteristics, types of partnerships, the specific interactions and the frequency of the interactions, and more detailed measures of leadership and culture are needed. For example, it could be a lack of resources, including personnel and covering large areas prohibit partnerships, or it could be a lack of resources, and covering large areas and/or dealing with large populations help create partnerships. Likewise, it is unclear what relationship workloads, work shifts, training, and work roles play in helping form or oppose partnerships. The fact that only law enforcement agencies were surveyed about partnerships without data from partner parole agencies presents an additional problem. This means the views of only one side of the partnership were explored in this study. It is unclear how parole agencies view partnerships and the types of partnerships formed. As there is no information from parole partners, there can be no examination of the reality of police-parole partnerships including the extent that they are mutually recognized. It could be that one agency sees an informal partnership when another agency does not or that one agency values the partnership more than the other, as well as supports it more with resources and efforts. These and other questions can only be answered by including both law enforcement and parole agencies in future studies. Another shortcoming is that the experiences and views of the agencies were based on a single person who completed the survey. In most cases, a top-level administrator completed the survey, but not always. It is unknown how accurate the views reported represent the overall membership of the particular agency. Future research should survey a random sample of employees within each agency to determine if there is a shared view on partnerships. Likewise, it is unclear how accurate the views reported by a single person on behalf of the agency represent the complex partnerships with parole agencies over time.

An additional shortcoming is that it is unclear if the partnerships were successful and what problems needed to be overcome for partnerships to be formed. As indicated at the beginning, the mission goals and the tasks of police and parole agencies differ from one another. It is unclear how agency goals interact with the forming of partnerships and if partnerships over time help alter the goals of the agency. The effectiveness of partnerships is unclear, as well as whether they actually improve the safety in a community or improve the chances of successful completion of parole. As noted by Murphy and Lutze, “the potential of collaborations to do good is as great as their potential to do harm” (p. 75). Tied with how police and parole agencies view partnerships is how they define them. In this study, a police-parole partnership was defined as a formal or informal collaboration between police and parole agencies that involved staff from each agency in the joint performance of a line or support functions and provided benefits to both agencies. This may not be an accurate definition of how police or parole agencies definite a partnership. It could be that there are varying degrees of partnerships on how an agency defines it. In addition, because most of the partnerships found were informal, this suggests they are more collaborations than the formal police-community corrections partnerships described earlier. Informal partnerships are more likely to be fragile collaborations which may not last over long periods of time. Research is needed to see if and how formal and informal partnerships differ from one another. These and many other questions need to be explored, particularly in light of the push for more partnerships.

In closing, the past several decades has seen a push for police agencies to form partnerships with other criminal justice agencies, including parole agencies. These types of partnerships represent a unique opportunity for both agencies. Even though these partnerships do occur and represent possible benefits for police agencies, parole agencies, parolees, and the community, there has been relatively little research on them. Not much is known about the extent and types of partnerships found between police and parole agencies. The current study aimed to enhance the understanding of how police agencies collaborate with parole agencies and how they view police-parole partnerships. Using data from surveyed Texas police agencies, this study found formal partnerships were rare, and the most common informal partnership was information-sharing. The least common form of partnership was enhanced supervision, followed closely by interagency problem-solving and fugitive apprehension. Additionally, a positive relationship between valuing partnerships and the number of partnership with parole agencies was observed. Likewise, a positive association was found between organizational culture and the perception of forming partnerships. The findings from this single study probably raised far more questions than they answered. More research is needed to answer the questions raised by this study, especially in light of the potential theoretical and practical benefits. Future studies will hopefully explain not only why partnerships are formed but also the reasons for why they are not formed. At the very least, it is hoped that this study will spark further research in this area. In an era of shrinking budgets and increased demands, this information is critical.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank the editor and the reviewers for their comments and suggestions, which improved the paper. We also thank Janet Lambert for proofreading the paper.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Bitna Kim is the Assistant Professor, Criminology Department, at Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP). Specific areas of interest include meta-analysis, gender issues in CJ system, and comparative criminology. Recent publications have appeared in Crime and Delinquency, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, Journal of Criminal Justice, Violence and Victims, Women and Criminal Justice, and Prison Journal.

Jurg Gerber is professor of criminal justice and Director of International Initiatives in the College of Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University. Research interests include white-collar crime, criminology, drug control policy, and international criminal justice issues. He has co-edited two books on drug policy, one on white-collar crime, and has published extensively in all of the above areas.

Dan Richard Beto, M.A., Chair of the Governing Board of the Texas Regional Center for Policing Innovation at Sam Houston State University, has devoted four decades of service to the criminal justice system. He is widely published in journals peculiar to the corrections profession and has served as editor of Texas Probation, Texas Journal of Corrections, and Perspectives.

Eric G. Lambert is professor of criminal justice and department chair, at Wayne State University. Specific areas of interest include Organizational behavior issues; organizational effects on criminal justice performance outcomes; death penalty attitudes; the effects of treatment interventions on institutional behavior and post-release behavior of convicted individuals. Recent publications have appeared in Criminal Justice and Behavior, International Criminal Justice Review, Criminal Justice Policy Review, and Journal of Criminal Justice.

References

Adams

R. E.

Rohe

W. M.

Arcury

T. A.

(2002). Implementing community-oriented policing: Organizational change and street officer attitudes. Crime and Delinquency, 48, 399-430.

Beekun

Glick

(2001). Development and test of a contingency framework of coupling: Assessing the covariation between structure and culture. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37, 385-407.

Beto

D. R.

(2005, Summer). Probation partnerships: Insights from the past, a view of the present, and a call for leadership. Executive Exchange, 8-11.

Burke

P. B.

(2001). Collaboration for successful prisoner re-entry: The role of parole and the courts. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5, 11-22.

Burke

Tonry

(2006). Successful transition and reentry for safer communities: A call to action for parole. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy.

Burrell

W. D.

(2005). Trends in probation and parole in the States. In Council of state government, Book of the state. Lexington, KY: Council of State Government.

Byrne

J. M.

Hummer

(2004). Examining the role of the police in reentry partnership initiatives. Federal Probation, 68(2), 62-69.

Byrne

J. M.

Taxman

F. S

Young

(2002). Emerging roles and responsibilities in the reentry partnership initiative: New ways of doing business. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

Corbett

(1998). Probation blue: The promise (and perils) of probation-police partnerships. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2, 31-39.

10.

Crain

C. M.

(2008). Collaborative partnerships for a common goal. Retrieved from http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/connections/JanFeb2008/training_v15no3.html

11.

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2008). Successes and challenges: The CDCR story. Sacramento, CA: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

12.

Domash

S. F.

(1999). Police and probation officers create effective partnerships. Police, 23(12), 22-26.

13.

Dwoskin

S. I.

Long

C. W.

(1981). How police/social work teams operate. Reno, NV: National Council on Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

14.

Evans

D. G.

(1997a). Exploring police, probation partnerships. Corrections Today, 59(1), 86-92.

15.

Evans

D. G.

(1997b). Enhancing public safety through a police and parole partnership. Corrections Today, 59(2), 145-147.

16.

Glaser

M. A.

Parker

L. E.

(2001). The thin blue line meets the bottom line of community policing. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 4(1/2), 163-195.

17.

Glaze

L. E.

Bonczar

T. P.

(2011). Probation and parole in the United States, 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

18.

Greenwald

(2009, July). Making prisoner reentry work: Reforms at the local level can help reduce recidivism. City Journal, 1-2.

19.

Hughes

D. K.

(2000). A comparison of Paterson juveniles under probation supervision before and after implementation of the Paterson Juvenile Justice Village Initiative: Are probation/police collaborations effective models for probation supervision? Trenton, NJ: Institute for Court Management: Court Executive Development Program.

20.

Kalmbach

K. C.

(2002). Project spotlight: The Texas interagency initiative to provide intensive probation supervision. TELEMASP Bulletin, 9, 1-7.

21.

Kim

Gerber

Beto

D. R.

(2007). Collaboration between law enforcement and community corrections agencies. TELEMASP BULLETIN: Texas Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics Program, 14(1), 1-11.

22.

Leitenberger

Semenyna

Spelman

J. B.

(2003). Community corrections and community policing: A perfect match. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 72(11), 20-23.

23.

Marks

(2000). Transforming police organization from within: Police dissident groupings in South Africa. British Journal of Criminology, 40, 557-573.

24.

McKay

Paris

(1998). Forging a police-probation alliance. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 67(11), 27-32.

25.

Murphy

(2005). Making police-probation partnerships work. New York: LFB Scholarly.

26.

Murphy

Lutze

(2009). Police-probation partnerships: Professional identity and the sharing of coercive power. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 65-76.

27.

Murphy

Worrall

J. L.

(2007). The threat of mission distortion in police-probation partnerships. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30, 132-149.

28.

Nash

(2008). Exit the probation officer? Decoupling police and probation. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 10, 302-312.

29.

Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services. (2011). The impact of the economic downturn on American police agencies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

30.

Oliver

W. M.

(2004). Community oriented policing: A systemic approach to policing (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

31.

Pallant

(2001). SPSS survival manual. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

32.

Parent

Snyder

(1999). Police-corrections partnerships. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

33.

Schonborn

(1976). Police and social workers as members of new crisis management teams. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 3, 679-690.

34.

Sexton

G. E.

(2000). Working together: Assessing organizational readiness for collaboration. Knoxville, TN: The Knoxville Safety Collaboration.

35.

Stinchfield

(2011). Most Texas parole officers say they are overworked. Retrieved from http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Most-Texas-Parole-Officers-Say-They-Are-Overworked-113250814.html

36.

The Pew Center (2009). Maximum impact. Targeting supervision on higher-risk people, places, and times. Retrieved from http://www.pewstates.org/research/reports/maximum-impact-85899374124

37.

The Pew Center. (2010). Prison count 2010. Retrieved from http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2010/Pew_Prison_Count_2010.pdf

38.

Wang

Y. R.

(2006). Does community policing motivate officers at work and how? International Journal of Police Science & Management, 8, 67-77.

39.

White

(2005, Summer). Evidence-based practice in probation and parole: The implementation change. Executive Exchange, 3-7.

40.

Werth

Sumner

(2006). Inside California’s prisons and beyond: A snapshot of in-prisons and re-entry programs. Irvine, CA: University of California.

41.

Worrall

J. L.

Gaines

L. K.

(2006). The effect of police-probation partnerships on juvenile arrests. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 579-589.