Working Together or Working on the Same Task but Separately? A Comparison of Police Chief and Chief Probation or Parole Officer Perceptions of Partnership. (March 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kim, Bitna; Matz, Adam K.; Lee, Selye
• Is Part Of: Police quarterly. Volume 20:Number 1(2017:Mar.)
• Page Start: 24
• Page End: 60
• Publication Date: 2017-03
• Subjects: police-community corrections partnership -- leadership -- Pennsylvania; Police -- Periodicals; Law enforcement -- Periodicals; Police -- Périodiques; Lois -- Application -- Périodiques; 363.2
• DOI: 10.1177/1098611116657283
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1098-6111

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.