Most organizational theories assume that agency partnerships within a system are seamless and tightly fit. Through qualitative interviews with program personnel, this study measured the extent to which juvenile probation and police partnerships were characterized as a ‘‘loosely coupled system.’’ Loosely coupled systems were measured by each agency’s willingness to share information, willingness to share power, flexibility in decision making, open communication without fear of reprisal, valuing diverse backgrounds of outside agencies, and degree of mutual commitment toward a common goal. Evidence to support the existence of a loosely coupled system was the willingness of officers to expand and broaden their traditional roles and appropriately share power, such that there was no mission distortion and role confusion observed. Information sharing efforts had a significant impact on dissolving old ways of thinking about traditional roles and instead built a new sense of trust, improved morale, and greater access to information.
Boyd, B. (n.d.). Best practice number seven: Strict enforcement of probation for high-risk youthful offenders through the operation nightlight initiative. Memphis Shelby Crime Commission: Memphis, TN. Retrieved February 28, 2010, from http://www.memphiscrime.org/research/bestpractices/bestpractices-7.html
2.
Burrell, W. ( 1999). Getting the most out of probation/parole-police partnerships . Community Corrections Report, 7, 1-12.
3.
Byrne, J.M., & Hummer, D. ( 2004). Examining the role of the police in reentry partnership initiatives. Federal Probation, 68, 62-69.
Corbett, R.P. ( 1998). Probation blue: The promise (and perils) of probation-police partnerships. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2, 31-39.
6.
Corbett, R.P., Fitzgerald, B.L., & Jordan, J. ( 1998). Boston’s operation night light: An emerging model for police-probation partnerships. In J. Petersilia (Ed.), Community corrections: Probation, parole, and intermediate sanctions (pp. 180-186). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
7.
Hagan, J., Hewitt, J.D., & Alwin, D.F. ( 1979). Ceremonial justice: Crime and punishment in a loosely coupled system. Social Forces, 58, 506-527.
8.
Jones, M.A., & Sigler, R.T. ( 2002). Law enforcement partnership in community corrections: An evaluation of juvenile curfew checks. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 245-256.
9.
Jurik, N.C., Blumenthal, J., Smith, B., & Portillos, E.L. (2000). Organizational cooptation or social change? A critical perspective on community-criminal justice partnerships . Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 16, 293-320.
10.
Leitenberger, D., Semenyna, P., & Spelman, J. ( 2003). Community corrections and community policing: A perfect match. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 72, 20-23.
11.
Mawby, R., & Worrall, A. ( 2004). Polibation revisited: Policing, probation and prolific offender projects. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 6, 63-73.
12.
Morgan, T., & Marrs, S. ( 1998). Redmond Washington’s SMART partnership for police and community corrections. In J. Petersilia (Ed.), Community corrections: Probation, parole, and intermediate sanctions (pp. 170-180). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13.
Murphy, D. ( 2005). Making police-probation partnerships work. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
14.
Murphy, D., & Lutze, F. ( 2009). Police-probation partnerships: Professional identity and the sharing of coercive power. Journal of Criminal Justice , 37, 65-76.
15.
Murphy, D., & Worrall, J.L. ( 2007). The threat of mission distortion in police-probation partnerships. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 30, 132-149.
16.
Orton, J.D., & Weick, K.E. ( 1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15, 203-223.
17.
Parent, D., & Snyder, B. ( 1999). Police-corrections partnerships, NCJ 175047. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
18.
Rowe, J. ( 2009). An evaluation of the Keystone Opportunity Zone (KOZ) program. Presentation at the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee Meeting, July 9, 2009. Retrieved from http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/reports/2009/20prs.PDF
19.
Sharp, C.R. ( 2009). Theoretical and practical application of loose coupling: A study of criminal justice agencies in the state of Florida. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 6, 45-58.
20.
Singer, S.I. ( 1998). Criminal and teen courts as loosely coupled systems of juvenile justice. Wake Forest Law Review, 33, 509-521.
21.
Stapleton, V., Aday, D.P., & Ito, J.A. ( 1982). An empirical typology of American metropolitan juvenile courts. American Journal of Sociology, 88, 549-564.
22.
Thomas, J. ( 1983). Justice as interaction: Loose coupling and mediations in the adversary process. Symbolic Interaction, 6, 243-260.
23.
Thomas, J. ( 1984). Some aspects of negotiated order, loose coupling and mesostructure in maximum security prisons. Symbolic Interaction , 7, 213-231.
24.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov
25.
Weick, K.E. ( 1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems . Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
