Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:13 am
Time: 3:13 am
Results for interagency cooperation
6 results foundAuthor: Mair, George Title: Doing Justice Locally: The North Liverpool Community Justice Centre Summary: This research project examines the changes brought about at the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre - the first and the most ambitious site of community justice in the UK. Opened in 2005 and inspired by the Red Hook Community Justice Centre in Brooklyn, the North Liverpool Centre is implementing key aspects of community justice in the UK. This includes a problem-solving approach, greater partnership working, local community engagement, and having a single judge with the capacity to review the progress of those sentenced to a community-based order. This report draws on data collected by the Centre as well as interviews with Centre staff, representatives of the agencies working at the Centre, defendants, and members of the local community to examine the innovations which have taken place. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2011. 105p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 8, 2011 at: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1828/Doing_justice_locally.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1828/Doing_justice_locally.pdf Shelf Number: 120910 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationCommunity Based CorrectionsCommunity Justice Centers (U.K.)Interagency CooperationIntermediate SanctionsSentencing |
Author: National Center for School Engagement Title: The Story Behind the Numbers: A Qualitative Evaluation of the Houston TX Truancy Reduction Demonstration Program Summary: The Gulfton Truancy Reduction Demonstration Project in Houston, TX, uses two primary methods of reducing truancy. The first is a case management model in which students and families are assigned to a case manager in an effort to identify and address unmet needs that may be impacting school attendance. The case manager attempts to establish a network of community resources to serve families in a variety of areas. Based upon a family’s particular needs, the case manager makes referrals to the appropriate community service agencies. These agencies provide to families of truant youth services such as temporary shelter, food, clothing and physical or mental health assistance. The case management model is used in conjunction with a second method, commonly known as “Knock and Talk,” in which police officers make visits to the homes of students with identified truancy patterns. Officers may issue tickets to the students and/or parents indicating that the student is in violation of state law for mandatory school attendance. Officers attempt to connect with families and engage them in conversation about the kinds of behaviors that lead to truancy and the importance of school attendance. Additionally, the officers attempt to build relationships with the student and families that extend beyond the formal home visit. Officers also make referrals to community agencies or to the case manager if they detect a particular need that may be impacting school attendance. In an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of these two methods, focus groups were held with three groups of people: high school and program staff (including police officers), the students receiving the services, and parents of those students. Topics discussed included the experiences with the programs, perceptions of program effectiveness, and opinions about what worked well and what could be improved. People involved with both the case management and the “Knock and Talk” interventions were included in the focus groups. This paper presents a summary of the findings from those data collection processes. Details: Denver, CO: National Center for School Engagement, 2006. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 7, 2011 at: http://www.schoolengagement.org/TruancypreventionRegistry/Admin/Resources/Resources/TheStoryBehindtheNumbersAQualitativeEvaluationoftheHoustonTXTruancyReductionDemonstrationProgram.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.schoolengagement.org/TruancypreventionRegistry/Admin/Resources/Resources/TheStoryBehindtheNumbersAQualitativeEvaluationoftheHoustonTXTruancyReductionDemonstrationProgram.pdf Shelf Number: 122005 Keywords: Interagency CooperationSchool DropoutsStatus OffendersTruancy |
Author: Price, Michael Title: National Security and Local Police Summary: The September 11, 2001 attacks prompted a national effort to improve information sharing among all levels of law enforcement, including on the local level. Federal money poured into local police departments so they could fulfill their new role as the "eyes and ears" of the intelligence community. But how do local police departments go about collecting intelligence? What guidance do they use? What standards or policies, if any, must they adhere to? To learn how state and local agencies are operating in this domestic intelligence architecture, the Brennan Center surveyed 16 major police departments, 19 affiliated fusion centers, and 14 JTTFs. What we found was organized chaos - a sprawling, federally subsidized, and loosely coordinated system designed to share information that is collected according to varying local standards. As detailed in the following report, this headlong rush into intelligence work has created risks that hurt counterterrorism efforts and undermine police work. The lack of oversight, accountability, and quality control over how police collect and share personal information about law-abiding Americans not only violates their civil liberties of Americans, but creates a mountain of data with little to no counterterrorism value. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice, NYU School of Law, 2013. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 13, 2014 at Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/NationalSecurity_LocalPolice_web.pdf Shelf Number: 131768 Keywords: CounterterrorismIntelligence GatheringInteragency CooperationNational SecurityPolicing Networks |
Author: Campbell, Rebecca Title: Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) Implementation and Collaborative Process: What Works Best for the Criminal Justice System Summary: Historically, community services for sexual assault victims have been uncoordinated and inadequate (Martin, 2005). Sexual Assault Response Teams (SARTs) were created to coordinate efforts of the legal, medical, and mental health systems, and rape crisis centers, in order to improve victims' help-seeking experiences and legal outcomes. SARTs are espoused as best practice and have been adopted widely across the U.S. (DOJ, 2013; Ledray, 2001). Descriptive research (using convenience sampling) suggests that how SARTs are structured varies from community to community (Zajac, 2006). However, studies have not yet examined how differences in SARTs' structure relate to their effectiveness (Greeson & Campbell, 2013). To address this gap, Study 1 sought to (1) use random sampling methods to identify a nationally representative sample of 172 SARTs; (2) understand the structure and functioning of U.S. SARTs; (3) identify patterns of SART implementation; and (4) examine how these patterns relate to SARTs' perceived effectiveness at improving victim and legal outcomes. Consistent with prior studies of domestic violence coordinating councils, this study examined SART members' perceptions of their SARTs' effectiveness. Specific features of SARTs' structure that were examined included: membership breadth (the number of different stakeholder groups that participated in the collaboration) and implementation (their formalization and use of recommended collaborative activities). Findings confirmed that U.S. SARTs vary in their structure. Using cluster analysis, three types of SARTs were identified. SARTs in the "Low Adopters" cluster (38% of the sample) utilized fewer formal structures, were less likely to institutionalize multidisciplinary trainings and policy/protocol review into their collaboration, and did not engage in program evaluation. The "High Adopters except Evaluation" cluster SARTs (47%) used more formal structures and had greater institutionalization of multidisciplinary trainings and policy/protocol review; however, none of them engaged in program evaluation. The "High Adopters plus Evaluation" cluster (16%) also used more formal structures and had greater institutionalization of multidisciplinary trainings and policy/protocol review, and in addition, engaged in program evaluation. These clusters, and other features of the SARTs and their communities, were examined as predictors of SARTs' perceived effectiveness. The "High Adopters plus Program Evaluation" cluster was perceived as more effective than the "Low Adopters" cluster on all four effectiveness measures. SARTs in the "High Adopters plus Program Evaluation" group perceive themselves as more effective on one of the four domain of effectiveness than SARTs in the "High Adopters except Evaluation" cluster. In addition, active membership from a greater number of sexual assault stakeholder groups was associated with higher perceived effectiveness on all three forms of legal effectiveness. These findings suggest that formalization, regular collaborative processes, and broad active membership from diverse stakeholder groups are key components of successful SARTs. SARTs in the Study 1 "High Adopters plus Evaluation" cluster--the most effective cluster--were then selected to participate in a study of model SARTs. Specifically, in Study 2, we used social network analysis to examine the structure of inter-organizational relationships within model SARTs. Within each SART, all organizations were asked about their relationships with all other organizations that participated in their team (specifically, frequency of communication, the extent to which they felt that other organizations valued their role, and the extent to which they felt that other organizations were a resource to their own organization's work). Findings are based on the three SARTs that fully participated. Results revealed a high degree of connection between organizations both within and across sectors (criminal justice vs. not) in model SARTs. However, findings also revealed occasional stratification of relationships within SARTs. Finally, there was evidence that inter-organizational relationships tended to be mutual, and the three types of relationships were positively correlated with one another. Details: East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 2013. 226p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 27, 2014 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243829.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243829.pdf Shelf Number: 131810 Keywords: CollaborationInteragency CooperationRapeSexual AssaultSexual Assault Response TeamsVictim Services |
Author: Greater London Authority Title: Confronting Child Sexual Exploitation in London Summary: Child sexual exploitation (CSE) is not new, but recent high profile investigations and criminal trials have raised awareness of the possible widespread nature of these offences and the gravity of their impact. Professor Alexis Jay's report, the Independent Inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham (the Jay Report), and cases such as those in Rochdale, Oxford and Derby, have uncovered the previously hidden scale and organised nature of much CSE. Our investigation examines London's approach to safeguarding children in the light of the lessons that can be learned from tackling CSE in Rotherham. There is an expectation that the local response to CSE is led by Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs). LSCBs have a statutory duty to bring agencies together to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. They have a range of functions and play a key role in developing local safeguarding children policy and procedures and scrutinising local arrangements - including CSE. The multi-agency London Safeguarding Children Board provides strategic advice and support to London's 32 LSCBs. Its membership is made up of representatives from London boroughs, police, health, probation and independent, voluntary and community agencies in London. We would welcome assurance from London's Directors of Children's Services, the lead professionals responsible for the provision of children's services in London, the London Safeguarding Children Board and LSCBs that all London boroughs have robust mechanisms in place to protect London's children and young people from CSE. No one knows the true scale of CSE. The Jay Report made a conservative estimate that approximately 1,400 children were sexually exploited in Rotherham over the 16 year inquiry period. The Met anticipates it will receive between 1,800 and 2,000 referrals a year. From January 2014 to October 2014, the Met reported 1,612 referrals of CSE, including 265 positive interventions and 55 detections. High profile cases of CSE have raised concerns about how the police and other services work together to respond to CSE. The Jay Report documented a number of ways the police and partner agencies failed to prevent abuse or prioritise dealing with CSE in Rotherham and the Serious Case Review into CSE in Oxfordshire reported multiple missed opportunities by agencies to act rigorously. Rotherham had many policies and plans to tackle CSE. However, inspection reports describe how children's social care was typically understaffed, overstretched and struggling to cope with demand. Thresholds for action were identified as very high and there were significant weaknesses in scrutiny and challenge within Rotherham's governance system. Professionals ignored warnings about the scale of CSE and failed to recognise and believe victims and young people at risk of CSE. Similarly, the Serious Case Review in Oxfordshire found that it took agencies too long to recognise CSE, used language that blamed the victims, and a lack of understanding led to insufficient inquiry. Many London boroughs have made significant developments in their response to CSE over the past few years. Policies and procedures have been developed, multi-agency groups have been established, and investment in training increased. The Met has shown positive progress in developing its approach to CSE. In February 2014, the Met launched The London Child Sexual Exploitation Protocol. The protocol sets out the procedures for the Met and partner agencies for safeguarding and protecting children from sexual exploitation. Our report, Keeping London's children safe welcomed the protocol and recommended the Met should review the evidence and impact of the CSE Protocol on reporting and identifying CSE in London, and the level of resource dedicated to tackling CSE. The Met told us it has scheduled a review of the Pan-London CSE Protocol to start in January 2015 and will also publish a good practice guide. CSE is not a MOPAC 7 priority.6 We were told that as borough police are not measured on CSE it becomes less of a "priority" in some areas. This is a concern. MOPAC is establishing a performance monitoring framework for crimes that fall out of the MOPAC - However, while the Met has made progress in recording CSE data, MOPAC is yet to establish its performance monitoring framework. MOPAC must set out a clear performance monitoring framework for holding the Met to account on its safeguarding children duties, including CSE, as a matter of urgency. National guidance requires local areas to have appropriate policies and procedures in place to tackle CSE. We found that CSE is a strategic priority for London boroughs and the challenge is to ensure boroughs work together to deliver a system that can effectively implement strategies, plans and protocols to tackle CSE and safeguard children across the whole of London. Strategies, policies and procedures need to be robustly monitored and regularly reviewed to ensure effectiveness. While Rotherham had good inter-agency CSE policies and procedures, members of the Safeguarding Board rarely checked whether they were being implemented or effective. Strong leadership and full commitment from partner agencies is essential. We ask that LSCBs have robust governance mechanisms in place to ensure effective monitoring, oversight and regular review of the local response to CSE. This should include well-defined links with other safeguarding children strategies and robust reporting structures between the LSCB and the Community Safety Partnership and Children's Board. Agencies must work together to tackle CSE. While we are encouraged by local arrangements and the progress made by the police, local authorities and other partners that have come together to tackle CSE, partnership working is one area where further work is required. Details: London: Greater London Authority, 2015. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2016 at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/Confronting%20CSE%20in%20London%20-%20final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/Confronting%20CSE%20in%20London%20-%20final.pdf Shelf Number: 137878 Keywords: Child PornographyChild ProstitutionChild ProtectionChild Sexual AbuseChild Sexual ExploitationChild WelfareInteragency Cooperation |
Author: International Association of Chiefs of Police Title: Establishing and Sustaining Law Enforcement-Researcher Partnerships: Guide for Law Enforcement Leaders Summary: Law enforcement leaders are increasingly recognizing the benefits of applying research findings in their work. As more researchers direct their efforts toward producing practical knowledge about effective police policies and practices, law enforcement agencies are better able to use that information to maximize their capacity to protect the public and bring lawbreakers to justice. In this era of shrinking budgets, research that points to what works best can help law enforcement leaders do more with less. Evidence-based policing (EBP) is an approach to testing and validating all facets of policing that encourages law enforcement agencies to develop their policy and program guidelines based on knowledge of best practices, and to carefully define and monitor outcomes that are achieved through their actions. Policymakers, funders and even community members have come to expect publicly-funded agencies to demonstrate that their policies and practices are proven to be costeffective. EBP is not an all-or-nothing approach that results in discarding "failed" programs, but rather a way for law enforcement agencies to continuously refine and update their policies and practices. By working with researchers, police departments can contribute to the continuing development of evidence-based policies, programs and practices. Since law enforcement personnel are trained in investigative techniques, they have a natural appreciation for well-done research, i.e., research efforts that ask meaningful questions, assemble relevant evidence, and make a convincing case for recommended actions. Police departments that have implemented community and problem-oriented policing are familiar with the problem-solving process that is the foundation of action research: problem identification and analysis, response development and implementation, ongoing monitoring and refinement, and impact assessment. Many police staff members find that they can become critical consumers of research, able to discern which studies or findings are valid and understand how best to apply them in their own agencies. This guide outlines ways that law enforcement leaders can move from being consumers of research to working with researchers to generate useful knowledge about what works in their own agencies and for policing in general. The guidelines in this document are grounded in the experience of a number of law enforcement agencies that have already partnered with researchers to continuously improve police performance. Many of these agencies have been able to use the results of research on the effectiveness of their policies and practices to successfully advocate for needed resources or policy changes. A few have contributed significantly to the general body of knowledge about what works best in policing. Details: Alexandria, VA: IACP, 2018? 32p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed August 23, 2018 at: http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/documents/pdfs/EstablishingSustaingLawEnforcement-ResearchPartnershipsGuideforLELeaders.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/documents/pdfs/EstablishingSustaingLawEnforcement-ResearchPartnershipsGuideforLELeaders.pdf Shelf Number: 151242 Keywords: CollaborationCriminal Justice ResearchInteragency Cooperation Police Administration Police Research Research Partnerships |