Community corrections and community policing: a perfect match.

Cooperation between criminal justice agencies can draw on the strengths of all entities involved to effectively accomplish common objectives. In Richland County, Ohio, community corrections and community policing have formed a partnership that has seen enhanced corrections efforts, as evidenced by a reduced number of new crimes by convicted offenders under adult supervision services within the county.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Partnership and Enhanced Supervision

Enacted on July 1, 1996, Ohio Senate Bill 2, also known as the "truth-in-sentencing" law, eliminated indeterminate sentences (1) and parole in Ohio in favor of a system of determinate sentences (2) and postrelease control (PRC), (3) or supervision of an offender after the completion of a court-ordered sentence. This focus on PRC challenged the criminal justice community to develop new community-oriented corrections programs. Richland County formed a community corrections board, composed of citizens and representatives from the court system, law enforcement agencies, local government organizations, social service agencies, and victim services, to study current supervision and treatment methods and criminal offender profiles in Richland County to determine how best to safely and effectively supervise correctional clients in the community.

In response to this need for enhanced community supervision standards, in 1998, officers from the Richland County Adult Probation Office initiated a partnership with officers of the Richland County Sheriff's Department, the Mansfield Police Department, the Mansfield Adult Probation Department, and the regional office of the State Parole Authority. Interest in community corrections and community policing cooperation began with the idea that collaboration might compliment the power of each office, thus increasing public protection.

This new partnership made possible the intensive supervision program (ISP), which employs electronic monitoring bracelets that allow any police or corrections officer equipped with a drive-by or hand-held unit to identify and closely monitor offenders. This program also uses a system of sanctions and incentives and follows a step-down and step-up approach (a decrease or increase of controls, depending on client behavior). Not only does the ISP offer more effective surveillance and safer communities but it also allows officers to identify clients that may need treatment or other services.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The ISP improved in 2001 with the implementation of the first felony reentry court in Ohio, a partnership between Richland County and state authorities. Out of this partnership came the creation and incorporation of a single set of community supervision standards that became applicable to all persons under adult supervision in Richland County, whether subject to county community control or state probation, parole (for those sentenced prior to July 1, 1996), or postrelease control.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Under these standards, participants must seek and maintain employment, obey curfew, make restitution to victims, submit to frequent random drug and alcohol testing and maintain treatment requirements, avoid bars and high drug-trafficking locations, refrain from carrying cell phones or pagers, and shun gang or other criminal associations. Officers enforce these conditions through a more flexible supervision system in which they monitor clients on a 24-hour-per-day, 7-day-per-week basis; have 33 percent of their contacts with clients during evenings and weekends; and make sufficient contacts with treatment providers, employers, and appropriate government agencies.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Cooperation and Success

The interaction between corrections and police officers has served the enhanced supervision in Richland County well; their assignements faciliate this important relationship. Community police handle specific clients; this contact enhances police familiarity with supervised offenders and allows them to take an active part in supervision. Likewise, corrections officers generally supervise offenders in the police department zone where they reside; consequently, they already have considerable knowledge of both the citizenry and the neighborhood of their assigned zone. Assigning community police and corrections officers in this way helps them to work together effectively.

Officers from each agency involved also meet regularly to share information. This information sharing has helped community police officers to investigate and solve crimes, to identify clients with community supervision status and unique supervision conditions, and to recognize persons who have absconded from community supervision. Likewise, information sharing assists community corrections officers. They more quickly become aware of clients and others with outstanding arrest warrants, local gang involvement, specific crime problems, and criminal associations.

The cooperation between community corrections and community policing has made the partnership a success. For example, the Richland County Community Policing and Community Corrections Partnership Program received the 1999 Governor's Award of Excellence of the state of Ohio. This award honors a partnership that has seen lower crime rates for the citizens it serves through the ISP and great success in its major joint operations.

Statistics seem to support the assertion of Richland County authorities that unified supervision programs result in lower crime rates. Local crime statistics released by the Richland County Sheriff's Office for 2000 and 2001 showed a 4.5 percent reduction in violent and property crime within its primary policing jurisdiction and a 13 percent reduction in Madison Township, served jointly by the Richland County Sheriff's Office and the Mansfield Police Department with a special emphasis on the police-corrections partnership. Data furnished by the Richland County Court Services Department indicated that in 2000, the Richland County ISP case failure (4) rate was 8.5 percent, well below the 37 percent new arrest average for a 1-year period for ISP programs. (5)

Teams of community policing and community corrections officers have conducted four major joint operations since 1999 with great success. These four operations and their results after the first 3 years include Sam and Charles Night Out, in which joint inspections of local bars resulted in the arrests of over 143 violators; Lights Out, in which joint searches for curfew violators found over 211 persons on probation status in violation of curfew (these curfew violations have since decreased); Fugitive Surveillance, in which joint searches for clients of the ISP, electronic monitoring, or house arrest programs who have absconded from supervision resulted in 252 arrests; and Day and Night Ride Along, which involved a total of 2,625 joint visits of client homes or places of employment.

Future Expectations

In 2002, corrections officers joined police officers to perform many new community policing initiatives. Local criminal justice administrators would like to increase the number of participating agencies in these programs. Some examples include bicycle patrols, park-and-walk patrols, public speeches, and crime prevention training. Another partnership initiative now in the planning stages, a fugitive response unit, aims to capture specific violators who present a high risk of violence to the community.

Richland County also wants to expand its partnership and operations into neighboring cities and counties. For example, officers have teamed up with Ashland Country's police, municipal court probation, and state officers to help identify probationers and parolees from Richland County who have been patronizing Ashland County bars to avoid detection by authorities.

Conclusion

Effectively and safely supervising correctional clients in the community can prove difficult for criminal justice agencies. Drawing on the strengths of both community corrections and community policing, this unique partnership in Richland County, Ohio, has successfully addressed this challenge. For other localities willing to unite corrections and police officers in this regard, such cooperation can help provide effective offender supervision and a lower crime rate in their communities.

MONTHLY MINIMUM SUPERVISION STANDARDS

           Home Visit  Office Visit  Other  Treatment  Total

Intensive  3/mo.       1/mo.         1/mo.  2/mo.      6+/mo.

High       2/mo.       1/mo.         1/mo.  1/mo.      5+/mo.

Medium     1/mo.       1/mo.         1/mo.  1/mo.      4+/mo.

           Drug Tests

Intensive  8+/mo. (2/week)

High       4/mo. (1/week)
       & 1 R/mo.

Medium     1/mo. & 2 R/mo.

Note: R=random drug testing

Endnotes

(1) In an indeterminate sentencing system, a judge sets a minimum and a maximum amount of time for an offender to serve; the exact length of the sentence is largely dependent on parole.

(2) In a determinate sentencing system, a judge sets a fixed sentence prescribed by law.

(3) Postrelease control is mandatory or discretionary, depending on the type of offence or felony level.

(4) Offender arrests or violations of supervision rules.

(5) Joan Petersilia and Susan Turner, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Evaluating Intensive Supervision Probation/Parole: Results of a Nationwide Experiment (NCJ 141637) (Washington, DC, 1993), 5.

By DAVID LEITENBERGER, PETE SEMENYNA, and JEFFREY B. SPELMAN, Ph.D.

Chief Leitenberger heads the Richland County, Ohio, Adult Court Services.

Mr. Semenyna serves as supervisor of the Richland County, Ohio, Adult Court Services.

Dr. Spelman is an assistant professor at Ashland University in Ashland, Ohio.