Community and Government Case Studies

The Development of High Performance Teams with Cross-cultural Criminal Justice Agencies

The nature of the problem In the mid-90’s it became acutely obvious to the Department of Justice, researchers, police, probation officials, practitioners, and citizens alike that a relatively small number of criminals were responsible for an inordinate number and percentage of crimes. In fact, through computerized crime mapping techniques, police were able to pinpoint where crimes have occurred and will likely occur in the future. Researchers determined that 50 percent of crimes were coming from 3 percent of the residences. It would seem to be common sense to focus on the at-risk of recidivism offenders in the high crime areas and at the identified residences. Yet, for every complex problem there is an easy solution…that is usually wrong. The writer addressed the problem not with a view toward developing a new “program.” Instead, I compared this problem with problems in other domains and then deduced essential ingredients that might serve as a guide toward a new “process.” Given that serious crime really is a matter of life and death (often a slow death visited upon the children of offenders and victims), the vision of an emergency room during a multi-person injury emerged (think bus accident). The following are some of the essential ingredients of a successful emergency room crisis intervention: triage methodology exchange of information quickly accurate information efficient equipment and supplies well-trained staff clarity of roles communication between patients, EMS, police, hospital emergency staff, and, on-call surgeons, Red Cross, families and loved ones, media management, record keeping post-surgery care patient maintenance post-episode debriefing planning for future crises Applying this abbreviated “essential ingredients” list from the medical emergency above, it becomes clear, that the following problems would derail an intervention with our “high crime” problem: Community police know (by face and name) only about 10 percent of the serious offenders in their communities. Police don’t always sing the praises of the courts or probation systems. There are multiple community agents responsible for supervising at-risk offenders in the community. They do not regularly share information within their own agencies or between agencies. Many probation officers think police are only interested in making “collars” (arrests). Citizens do not interact with probation officers or police regularly. Training budgets have been hard hit in police and probation agencies, and are not regarded highly. Often police and probation officers have insufficient tools (cell phones, PC’s, etc.) There is a common view that unnecessary and duplicative paperwork hinders the core product. One might conclude the only folks communicating effectively are offenders. They talk every day about their activities and goals. The process development and initial interventions The writer developed a process by which multiple components (stakeholders) in the local communities could share select information about offenders by becoming part of a cross-agency team located directly in the targeted area. The goal would be triage-like; that is, teams would work together under a planned format to separate at-risk offenders into two groups. For offenders who were making a real effort at a pro-social lifestyle, yet had significant problems, the teams sought to provide support and assistance through established community resources and assets. For offenders who were so anti-social that their only interest was to continue a lifestyle of crime, the teams sought to have them removed from the community. By way of multiple grants, the new process was put into place in an eastern state. Thereafter, the writer put together a team of experts and guided the development of 90 courses that were provided to local cross-cultural teams over a two-year period. Simultaneously, policies were modified to enable the sharing of select information between agencies and team members. The writer served as a consultant to a cross-agency matrix management team. The management team’s task was to facilitate the evolving process. A permanent cross-agency technical assistance team was especially trained and put into place in three years. What did the participants say about the new process? The central response was that participants reported that the new teams allowed them to do what they came into their system to do…to make a difference in the lives of others. Outcome A formal evaluation found the process to be the most effective crime fighting process in the country. There was no blueprint for this consultation. The writer brought to this problem a belief that most problems are resolved best when participants “own” the process. And, more so than not, people really do want to make a difference in the lives of others. Policies and procedures often are followed resolutely by mid-management to gain a sense of control over organizational activities. Unfortunately, the outcomes are quite different than the agency’s stated mission. If it is true that by longevity all things get off course, than an examination of an agency’s goals and actual practices can revive an organization - most particularly if all of the appropriate stakeholders are engaged actively and information is shared openly. As of this writing, the political person who supported this new paradigm, is running for Governor, based primarily on advances in crime.  «Back