Contents  1

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Joanne Katz, J.D. Gene Bonham, Ph.D.
This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number 2003-CK-WX-K069 by 

the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The 

opinions contained herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent 

the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific agencies, 

companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement of the 

product by the authors or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are 

illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues.
Contents  3

Contents

Acknowledgments 5

Foreword 9

Alternatives to Incarceration: A New Role for Police 11

The Need for Viable Alternatives to Incarceration 12

Overview of Current Alternatives 

to Incarceration 15

The Role of Law Enforcement in Collaborations That Support 

Alternatives to Incarceration 23

Model for Police/Community Corrections Collaborations 24

The Community: An Essential Partner in Supporting Alternatives to 

Incarceration 29

A Model Program for Juveniles: 

Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative 31

Overview of the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative 32

JDAI in Multnomah County, Oregon 36

JDAI in New Jersey 40

New Approaches to Traditional Collaborations 45

Collaboration Trends 46

Operation Night Light 47

Project Spotlight 49

Kansas Probation/Reentry Programs 51

Informal Collaborations 52

Model Informal Federal Probation Collaborations 53

Overcoming Obstacles to Collaboration 55
4  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Restorative Justice: Accountability, Restitution, 

and Transformation 57

About Restorative Justice 58

Restorative Justice and the Police 61

Community Restorative Boards 62

Vermont’s Reparative Boards 64

St. Louis County’s Juvenile Conference Committees 68

Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System: 

A New Era 71

Alternatives to Dealing with Mental Illness: An Overview 72

Memphis Police Department Pioneers the First Crisis 

Intervention Team 73

Fort Wayne Police Department: Another Outstanding Crisis 

Intervention Team 76

Mental Health Courts 78

Broward County (Florida) Mental Health Court 78

Boone County (Missouri) mental Health Court 80

Barriers to Mental Health Courts 82

Summary 83

Conclusion 85

References 89
Acknowledgments  5

Acknowledgments

Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections 

and Communities has been a collaborative effort. In a time of shrinking 

resources, the country needs to be vigilant and practical about the 

interventions used in the criminal justice system. Through our research, we 

have delighted in talking with people from around the country who have 

found effective ways of dealing with crime while, as much as possible, keeping 

low-risk offenders in the community. We have found committed individuals 

who have developed successful programs that are making a difference in their 

communities. Many of these people have generously given of their time to 

make sure that we had all of the information we needed to share their work 

with you. Below we list many of the people interviewed for this publication:

Dan Richard Beto

Texas Regional Center for Policing Innovation

Governing Board Chair

College of Criminal Justice

Sam Houston State University

Huntsville, Texas

Jim Bueermann

Chief of Police

Redlands Police Department

Redlands, California

Dottie L. Davis

Deputy Chief

Administrative Support Division

Fort Wayne Police Training Center

Fort Wayne, Indiana 

Christine Carpenter

Circuit Court Judge

Boone County 

Columbia, Missouri

Major Sam Cochran, Retired

University of Memphis

School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Memphis, Tennessee 

Thomas J. Fisken

Senior Deputy Attorney General

Division of Criminal Justice

New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety

Trenton, New Jersey
6  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Sally Frey

Director

Sedgwick County Reentry Services

Wichita, Kansas 

Janelle Gilbert-Fuller

Director

Winooski Community Justice Center

Winooski, Vermont

Hemali Gunaratne

Director 

Office of Research and Development 

Boston Police Department

Boston, Massachusetts

Deb Hamel

Director

Essex Community Justice Center

Essex, Vermont

Officer Mike Hays

Mental Health Court Team

Boone County

Columbia, Missouri

Jake Horowitz 

Senior Associate, Public Safety Performance Project 

The Pew Charitable Trusts

Washington, D.C.

Rick Jensen

System Reform Project Manager

Juvenile Services Division 

Multnomah County Department of Community Justice

Portland, Oregon

Hans Johnson

Department of Corrections

Director of Community Justice Centers

Montpelier, Vermont

Jennifer LaBaron

Juvenile Justice Commission

New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety

Trenton, New Jersey

Stacey Langendoerfer

Mental Health Court Coordinator

Boone County

Columbia, Missouri
Acknowledgments  7

Bart Lubow

Director, Program for High Risk Youth

The Annie E. Casey Foundation

Baltimore, Maryland

Steve McQueen

Chief

Winooski Police Department

Winooski, Vermont

Michelle Meyers

Juvenile Conference Committees Program Coordinator

Family Court of St. Louis County

Clayton, Missouri

Geoff Morrison

Detective

Kirkwood Police Department

Kirkwood, Missouri

Bob Sarnecki

Retired Juvenile Officer

President of Juvenile Officer Association (past)

Clark, New Jersey

Ron Schweer

Chief U.S. Probation Officer 

District of Kansas

Kansas City, Kansas

Ken Sisson

Director of the Southern Parole Region

Kansas Department of Corrections

Wichita, Kansas

Gayla Stidmon

Executive Director

National Alliance of Mentally Ill (NAMI)

Greater Kansas City Chapter

Kansas City, Missouri

Lynne Walsh

Director

Rutland’s United Neighborhoods Community

Justice Center 

Rutland, Vermont
8  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

In addition, we must thank Katherine McQuay, Supervisory Policy Analyst 

for Partnership Development, at the COPS Office. Katherine’s commitment to 

innovative and compassionate approaches to law enforcement opened the 

door to this document. Dr. Sandra Webb, Deputy Director of Support, also of 

the COPS Office, has supported us throughout the research and development 

of this document, and we, as always, cherish her wondrous intellect and 

abilities.

Finally to our amazing editor, Mary Beth Gordon, whose commitment to the 

written word keeps us honest and hard working, and forever expanding the 

quality of our work. 

This publication was written during a new age of criminal justice reform. 

There are many humane ways to approach a future where we can no longer 

afford the present dependence on incarceration. Luckily, the programs 

profiled here, which already have effective applications in place, are the 

vanguard for the future.

Joanne Katz

Gene Bonham

March 2009
Foreword  9

Foreword

The criminal justice system operates along a very broad continuum that 

stretches throughout American society, with many points of intervention along 

the way to change the course of criminal behavior. Law enforcement plays 

very important roles across this continuum, in apprehension and investigation, 

of course, but certainly in the course of the judicial process, and in prevention 

efforts, as well. There are also many opportunities for police involvement 

in reducing recidivism through collaboration with community corrections 

operations toward the end of the continuum, shutting the revolving door of 

reincarceration.

Many and varied approaches to handling crime in more efficient and effective 

ways have evolved and been tested at all of the points along the criminal 

justice spectrum during the past 20 years. One of the most significant of these 

developments has been in the demonstration and proliferation of “problemsolving courts,” beginning with Mental Health Courts in Florida and expanding 

to encompass hundreds of drug courts and, more recently, reentry courts. The 

innovative team approach to jurisprudence exemplified by problem-solving 

courts enables judicial intervention to focus on the real source of a problem, 

bringing multiple resources to bear on the issue at hand, be it drug addiction, 

mental illness, or some other aspect of the defendant’s life for which treatment 

and stabilization represent the highest likelihood of stopping future criminal 

behavior in its tracks. 

Meanwhile, innovations of comparable scope have arisen in the areas of 

juvenile justice, addiction treatment, assessment, and successful interventions 

such as cognitive behavioral therapy. Accompanying evaluation of new 

methods and techniques has created a strong body of research validating 

some practices while rejecting others. The criminal justice world now has an 

extensive body of evidence-based practices from which to draw that support 

our common goal of promoting public safety. 

In this publication, Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations 

with Corrections and Communities, Joanne Katz and Gene Bonham review 

the research literature and describe multiple real-life demonstrations of best 

practices, many of which detail the collaborative endeavors between police 

forces and community corrections to further reduce and prevent crime through 

timely and effective interventions. 

Strategic placement of police resources can result in active engagement of 

the profession at all points of the criminal justice spectrum, broadening and 

strengthening the profession while achieving the best and most cost-effective 

results for all of society. 

Jane Browning

Executive Director

International Community Corrections Association

Washington, D.C. 

Alternatives to Incarceration: 

A New Role for Police
12  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

The Need for Viable Alternatives to 

Incarceration

The criminal justice system in the United States is primarily charged 

with protecting the public from crime, thus ensuring that residents have 

a safe place to live and work. This has traditionally been accomplished 

in part by incarcerating offenders considered to be the most harmful to 

society. In recent decades, however, proportionately more offenders—

representing a continuum of crimes from serious to relatively minor—have 

been incarcerated, resulting in a meteoric rise in the U.S. prison and jail 

population. 

In fact, between 1972 and 2008, the adult population in the American 

penal system soared nearly 600 percent from 330,000 to 2.3 million. What 

fueled this increase where more than one in every 100 American adults is 

confined to jail or prison (Pew, 2008)? There are multiple explanations. Only 

a relatively small part of this spike appears to be related to an increase in 

criminal violence. By far the largest share (88 percent) of the growth in the 

incarcerated population resulted from changes in sentencing policy, often 

fueled by concerns that the criminal justice system was too soft on crime 

(Mauer, 2004). A series of “get-tough” policies—such as three-strike laws, 

mandatory prison for drug offenses, and using prison as the response to 

probation/parole violations—were adopted nationwide. The impact has 

been that more so-called “low-risk” offenders are being incarcerated for 

nonviolent crimes and probation and parole violations. This same trend 

is also seen in the juvenile justice system, leading to a dramatic increase 

in short-term detention and long-term confinement of delinquent youth. 

Juveniles are sometimes housed with and influenced by more serious 

offenders, instead of remaining with their families and receiving counseling 

and other community services (Annie E. Casey, n/d).

Additionally, states increasingly have endorsed laws that move juveniles 

accused of certain serious offenses into the criminal courts and allow 

sentences to extend beyond their juvenile years into adulthood (Bishop, 

2006). 

The astronomical expansion in the number of adults incarcerated—and 

to a lesser extent the number of juveniles detained and confined—brings 

with it tremendous financial and human costs. But viable community-based 

alternatives to incarceration are available today.

The Costs of Incarceration

The financial cost and human consequences of incarceration can be 

enormous; as can be the substantial collateral effects—the long-term impact 

on the offender, as well as on his or her family and the greater community. 
Alternatives to Incarceration: A New Role for Police  13

Financial Cost: Twenty years ago, states spent a total of $11 billion on 

corrections; today states are struggling with ballooning annual corrections 

costs of $52 billion, by far the largest share involving incarceration expenses 

(Pew, 2009). Even adjusting for inflation, the corrections budget for states has 

risen 127 percent. In 2007, states on average invested nearly 7 percent of their 

general funds—or one in every 15 dollars—on corrections. This, of course, took 

a toll on the amount of money available for other vital state services, such as 

education and health care (Pew, 2008). 

Human Cost: The ripple effect of incarceration expands well beyond the 

offender to his or her family and the community. Six kinds of collateral effects 

of incarceration have been identified by Tonry and Petersilia (2000). First, 

there is the impact of incarceration on the physical and mental health of the 

offender. Inmates tend to have higher than normal levels of communicable 

diseases, such as tuberculosis, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV. 

Substance abuse and mental illness are also serious health concerns. Roughly 

75 percent of jail and prison inmates deal with some level of substance abuse 

(www.reentrypolicy.org), and one comprehensive study found that more than 

half of all prison and jail inmates experienced at least some mental health 

problems, although less than a third were receiving treatment (James and 

Glaze, 2006). 

The high incidence of physical and mental health problems among the 

incarcerated, exacerbated by the harsh reality of prison life, can erode an 

offender’s self-confidence and ultimately his or her ability to maintain a 

relationship with family and other loved ones—a second collateral effect. 

Incarcerated offenders have limited contact with spouses or unmarried 

partners and even less contact with their children. They rarely pay child 

support. As a result, the families of incarcerated offenders struggle to survive 

both financially and emotionally. It is not uncommon for the children of 

imprisoned offenders, especially female offenders, to end up in foster care 

because there is no one to care for them.

A third collateral effect of incarceration involves the larger community, 

specifically on urban neighborhoods where so many offenders once resided. 

These are generally poor, heavily minority-populated areas. The absence of a 

large proportion of young males who are serving time in jails or prisons—and 

not available for employment, marriage, or active parenthood—disrupts the 

stability of these communities. Another concern for the wider community 

is maintaining the exploding prison and jail population. As explained in 

the Financial Cost section, the more money invested in keeping offenders 

confined, the less there is available for other much-needed community 

services.
14  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Once released, it is often extremely difficult for ex-offenders to resume a 

normal role in society. A major fourth collateral effect involves employment. 

Recently released ex-offenders are lucky to find any work at all, much less a 

decent-paying job, due to the reluctance of employers to hire anyone with a 

criminal record. 

A fifth collateral effect is that the physical and mental health problems 

experienced while incarcerated do not end upon release. Without treatment, 

which may not be initially sought, these problems tend to erode a person’s 

ability to function and relate in a healthy way to family, co-workers, and the 

community.

A sixth and final possible collateral effect is that incarceration, coupled with 

the negative, post-release experiences of many offenders, can eventually 

lead to a return to crime. When an ex-offender can’t find a job and is perhaps 

alienated from his family and/or at least his community, he may be likely to 

return to behaviors that led to his initial arrest.

Negative Collateral Effects of Incarceration Versus 

Public Safety

The negative collateral effects of incarcerating offenders—and the 

subsequent impact on their lives as well as on their families and the 

community—must obviously be balanced against the need for public safety. 

While the safety of the community must be paramount, many offenders are 

incarcerated for nonviolent crimes, such as technical probation and parole 

violations, or nonviolent drug-related offenses. Additionally, many people 

are incarcerated for less serious crimes that are rooted in mental health or 

substance abuse problems. The research shows that removing such low-risk 

offenders from their families and neighborhoods has not proven to increase 

the safety of those areas. During the last 20 years, the recidivism rate—

more than half of inmates released from prison will return within 3 years—

has remained unchanged (Pew, 2008). This is true despite a significant 

increase in the number of offenders incarcerated with substance abuse and 

mental health issues, which are often exacerbated during confinement and 

perpetuate antisocial behavior after prison.

When a low-risk offender is sentenced to prison or jail, rather than 

pursuing alternative sanctions that would allow him or her to remain in 

the community, the repercussions can be staggering. The state, supported 

by taxpayer dollars, spends an average of nearly $29,000 a year to keep 

someone in prison who might otherwise be served by less-costly corrections 

options (Pew, 2009). Unnecessary incarceration can damage families 

because the incarcerated offender provides little or no financial or emotional 

support to his or her spouse and children. This is particularly true in minority 

communities, where one in nine African-American males between the ages 

of 20 and 34 is in prison (Pew, 2008).
Alternatives to Incarceration: A New Role for Police  15

Viable Alternatives to Incarceration

Many criminal justice experts feel that the growing level of incarceration in 

the United States has become both financially and socially untenable. As 

a result, numerous alternative, cost-effective approaches to incarceration 

have been developed and tested. This report will concentrate on model 

alternative approaches to incarceration that utilize law enforcement and can be 

implemented in ways that protect the safety of the greater community. It will 

focus on programs that divert low-risk offenders, both adults and juveniles, 

away from institutional confinement and into well-supervised communitybased corrections programs. These are programs designed to change 

behaviors that lead to criminality and, in many cases, address the mental 

health and/or substance abuse issues underlying some of these behaviors. 

Each model program featured in this report involves police working in 

collaboration with community corrections professionals and other community 

partners. Each is rooted in the concept that the greater community—and 

not just law enforcement and corrections officials—has a stake in the way 

offenders are treated. This commitment to shared responsibility has given rise 

to the restorative justice movement and has the potential to transform both 

the criminal and juvenile justice systems so that those who offend get the help 

they need to permanently change their lives, at the same time ensuring the 

safety of the community. 

The concept of collaborating to find alternatives to incarceration lies within the 

basic tenets of community policing. Community policing promotes collective 

problem solving—partnering with governmental, community, and faithbased resources—to find creative ways to deal with public safety issues. This 

collaborative approach is an excellent way to address the issues resulting from 

criminal justice policies that can create an overdependence on incarceration as 

a response to crime.

Overview of Current Alternatives 

to Incarceration

Introduction

Traditionally, sanctions or punishment for those who have committed crimes 

focused either on an institutional placement, such as prison, or on some form 

of community-based supervision, such as probation. Probation is considered 

a front-end approach—that is, community-based supervision in lieu of serving 

any time in prison. Parole, on the other hand, is considered a back-end 

approach—that is, community supervision after one has been released from 

prison or jail.
16  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Incarceration is by far the most expensive form of correctional sanction in 

the United States. The average cost of keeping an offender in prison ($78.95 

per day or almost $29,000 per year) pales by comparison to the per-offender 

cost of probation ($3.42 per day or about $1,250 per year) and parole ($7.47 

per day or about $2,730 per year). The total bill for incarceration has been 

mounting fast. During the last 25 years, the adult population in American 

jails and prisons surged 274 percent to 2.3 million (Pew, 2009).

Of course, cost cannot be the only consideration where public safety is 

concerned. But research demonstrates that despite the rapid increase in the 

U.S. incarcerated population over the last 2 decades, recidivism rates have 

not changed. At least half of those released from prison will return within 3 

years (Pew, 2008). It is in this environment of exploding incarceration costs, 

coupled with the fact that incarceration is not very effective in deterring 

criminal behavior, that more viable, community-based alternatives to 

incarceration have evolved. 

Community-Based Supervision: 

Components of Community-Based Sanctions

Convicted offenders who are not incarcerated are typically sentenced to one 

or more sanctions or services to be delivered in the community under the 

supervision of corrections officials or representatives of other community 

agencies.

The continuum of community-based sanctions encompasses both sanctions 

and services. Sanctions range in severity from least severe to most severe. 

For example, a monetary fine would be at the lower end of the severity 

continuum and house arrest at the higher end. There are numerous other 

sanctions along the continuum, each with increasing levels of severity and 

supervision. In an effort to achieve important correctional goals, the courts 

will often mandate a combination of sanctions and services that together 

will help an offender achieve sentencing goals deemed important by the 

sentencing court.

A diagram of the continuum of sanctions is shown in Figure 1. Moving 

from left to right—beginning with “Fines/Restitution”—each new sanction 

provides an increasing level of severity as well as a growing level of offender 

restriction. Prison is listed as the final option, which takes the offender out of 

the community. (Treatment options are also included in the continuum.) For 

example, an offender sentenced to regular probation with treatment would 

experience much less restriction than an offender sentenced to boot camp. 

Space does not allow all the components of community-based sanctions 

to be shown here. Below are brief descriptions of many of the sanctions 

frequently utilized by the courts.
Alternatives to Incarceration: A New Role for Police  17

Figure 1: Continuum of Community Sanctions

Fines 

Restitution

Restorative 

Justice

Treatment 

Options

House

Arrest

Intensive 

Probation

Prison

Community

 Service

Alternative 

Sentencing 

Courts

Probation Surveillance Boot Camp

1. Fines, Costs, and Restitution

At the least-restrictive end of the sanctions spectrum, there are fines, 

court costs, and restitution. The purpose of restitution is to compensate 

the offender’s victims for their losses, while fines typically are paid to the 

state or judicial system as a form of punishment. In most criminal cases, 

the court will assess court costs and restitution to the victims, if there 

are any. It may also levy fines based on the statutory provisions relevant 

to the court’s respective state criminal code. Monetary assessments are 

considered a less intrusive form of punishment in terms of restrictions and 

loss of freedom.

2. Community Service

The court has the option of ordering the offender to complete community 

service work as a form of punishment. Normally, the courts will assign a 

specific number of hours to be completed, usually between 40 and 200 

hours, depending upon the state. This work is to be performed by the 

offender without financial compensation. It is one way for an offender to 

pay back the community for his or her crimes. Sponsors of community 

service work usually include nonprofit agencies or governmental entities. 

3. Restorative Justice

Restorative justice is a philosophy that focuses on the harm that comes to 

the victim as a result of a criminal act. It holds the offender accountable 

and seeks to involve him or her in repairing the damage caused to victims. 

This relatively new approach to dealing with offenders is used most often 

with juvenile offenders who, due to their youth, are more likely to feel 

remorse for the pain and suffering they inflicted on their victims, and, as a 

result, change their future behavior. 

Within the various restorative justice models, the victims include not only 

the people directly harmed, but also the wider community, whose sense 

of safety is compromised when a crime occurs in the neighborhood. Thus, 

both the primary victim and members of the community are encouraged 

to become part of the healing process. Examples of restorative 

approaches include victim-offender dialog; family group conferencing; 
18  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

and community restorative boards. Agreements that are reached during 

these interventions often include restitution and community service. 

Community restorative boards, which will be described in detail in this 

report, represent a unique opportunity for police/community-based 

corrections collaboration. 

4. Alternative Sentencing Courts

Alternative sentencing courts, sometimes referred to as special needs 

courts, evolved out of the of recognition that certain defendants in 

criminal cases may have significant needs that can best be addressed 

outside of prison without undue risk to public safety. One example is the 

drug court, where offenders may avail themselves of substance abuse 

treatment for a period of time in return for a dismissal of their case—if 

they successfully complete treatment. The typical drug court may last 

up to 1 year. In addition to attending treatment, the offender must meet 

with the judge weekly in open court to discuss the progress of his or her 

treatment. 

Another example of an alternative sentencing court that will be 

highlighted in this report is the mental health court. This type of 

alternative court attempts to address the growing number of offenders 

in the criminal justice system with serious mental health problems 

that in some way contribute to their inability to remain law-abiding 

citizens. If offenders meet specific mental health criteria, they may avoid 

being processed through the normal court system. Instead, they may 

be sentenced through a mental health court where the focus will be 

on treatment and the monitoring of medications rather than on prison 

or other more traditional sanctions. These alternative courts are not 

available in all jurisdictions and may depend in part on grants and other 

external funding.

5. Treatment Options

Next along the continuum of sanctions are a variety of treatment options 

for offenders. For example, if there is a documented history of drug 

or alcohol abuse, the court may order either in-patient or out-patient 

substance abuse treatment. The idea is that the criminogenic needs 

of offenders, that is, those needs or factors that contribute to criminal 

behavior, be addressed through some type of therapeutic intervention 

designed to reduce the risk of reoffending. There are a growing number 

of offenders with mental illness who require treatment, as well as 

other special needs groups, such as sex offenders. Therefore, treatment 

is frequently a sanction ordered by the court to assist offenders in 

becoming law-abiding citizens.
Alternatives to Incarceration: A New Role for Police  19

6. Regular Probation

Regular probation is a common form of community-based supervision. 

Probation officers monitor the offenders assigned to them to assure 

compliance with orders of the court. They also attempt to refer offenders 

to appropriate resources, which might include social service agencies 

or substance abuse treatment. Offenders on regular probation would 

normally be required to report to their probation officer once or twice 

each month. They must also comply with a set of standard probation 

conditions, such as abiding by the law, refraining from use of alcohol 

or drugs, and not possessing a firearm, to name a few. Each court of 

jurisdiction determines what the standard conditions of probation will be. 

Additionally, the sentencing court may order special probation conditions 

related to the specific needs of the offender. For example, if an offender 

has a documented history of substance abuse, the court might very well 

order substance abuse treatment. Or, if the offender had a codefendant, 

the court might order that the offender have no contact with his or her 

codefendant. It is the job of the probation officer to monitor and assure 

that all standard and special conditions of probation are followed.

Diversion is another option similar to probation, except diversion is 

usually used for minor charges. The offender still must abide by rules 

and meet obligations similar to those of probation. However, this is 

usually done before there is court involvement. It can be a referral from 

the prosecutor’s office, or in some jurisdictions police can make direct 

referrals to diversion programs. Examples include anger management or 

restorative justice programming. In most cases, successful completion of 

a diversion program allows an offender to avoid the imposition of a formal 

sentence as well as a conviction being placed on his or her record.

7. Intensive Supervised Probation

Intensive supervised probation is a more heavily supervised and 

restrictive form of probation, as explained earlier. The intensity of 

supervision is frequently dependent on an assessment of risk and needs 

completed by the intensive supervision officer. It is not unusual for 

other forms of control, such as surveillance, house arrest, or electronic 

monitoring, to be imposed in conjunction with increased supervision 

levels. Sometimes called an intermediate sanction, intensive supervised 

probation is targeted toward offenders who, without this option, might 

otherwise be sentenced to prison.

8. Surveillance

Surveillance is a sanction designed to assure that offenders comply with 

the conditions of their community-based supervision. In some instances, 

a surveillance officer may visit an offender unannounced at a place he is 

expected to be, such as work, home, or even a treatment center. The officer 

monitors not only the offender’s required presence at a specific location 

but also ensures that offender is, for example, performing required work 
20  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

duties or receiving court-ordered treatment. Surveillance may occur 

during the traditional 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. work week or after hours as well 

as on weekends. An important objective of after-hours surveillance is to 

document that the probationer indeed lives where he says he lives and 

that he is not involved in prohibited behaviors, such as drinking or drug 

use. Surveillance, of course, is a more restrictive form of community 

supervision.

9. House Arrest and Electronic Monitoring

Yet another step up along the continuum of sanctions is house arrest. 

The offender is required to remain in his home except for certain 

approved periods when he is permitted to leave to attend counseling, 

report to a probation officer, or go to work or school. An approved 

schedule of home confinement is usually developed for the probationer. 

Leaving home at a time that is not approved constitutes a violation of 

house arrest and could result in revocation of probation or parole. 

One problem with house arrest is monitoring offender compliance. 

Random telephone checks as well as surveillance officers visiting the 

home unannounced are strategies sometimes used in an attempt to 

monitor compliance. To better monitor compliance, house arrest is 

frequently combined with electronic monitoring. This involves the use 

of an electronic bracelet—placed either on the ankle or the wrist of the 

offender—which works in conjunction with a receiver/transmitter set up 

in the offender’s home. 

10. Day Reporting Centers

Day reporting centers represent yet another sanction along the 

continuum. The court may order an offender to report daily to a 

specified day reporting center, where he will be required to participate in 

vocational, educational, or treatment services provided at the center as 

well as keep daily/weekly itineraries outlining the entire week’s activities. 

The supervising officer may then utilize surveillance officers to check 

and verify compliance with the approved center schedule. This type of 

sanction allows the offender to remain in the community while receiving 

a good deal of support and structure to assure compliance with the law 

and the court-ordered conditions of probation.

11. Residential Treatment Centers

These centers provide a form of treatment, usually related to substance 

abuse, that requires the offender to become a patient in a treatment 

facility. Some of these facilities may offer what are called therapeutic 

communities, which are designed to deal with long-standing and 

severe addiction to alcohol or drugs. Residential treatment typically 

lasts between 30 days and 6 months. Those involved in therapeutic 

communities may be in residential treatment for longer periods.
Alternatives to Incarceration: A New Role for Police  21

12. Boot Camps

Boot camps, which provide offenders a high degree of military-type 

discipline and structure, are another increasingly restrictive sanction. They 

are patterned after military boot camps and are most frequently used as 

a sanction for juvenile offenders. While in boot camp, an offender lives 

in a dormitory-style residence. He participates in a variety of activities 

designed to instill discipline and a strong work ethic. He also has access to 

educational, vocational, and treatment opportunities. An offender usually 

spends between 90 days and 6 months in a boot camp.

13. Shock Incarceration

This is an intermediate sanction designed to shock the offender into 

recognizing where he might be headed if he does not change his ways. It 

is a form of probation in which the offender must serve a brief time in jail 

prior to beginning the probation supervision. With shock incarceration, 

the offender gets a taste of what incarceration is like. It is hoped that 

this experience will motivate him to comply with the conditions of his 

probation and remain law abiding in order to avoid imprisonment. 

14. Work-Release Programs

Work- or day-release programs are usually created as a way to allow 

inmates to maintain employment in the community. Some of these 

programs are part of reentry processes, while others are offered for those 

who are deemed not to be a threat to the community while incarcerated. 

Most of the work-release programs move inmates to a residential center 

where they are required to work during the day and return at night. 

Inmates usually pay a portion of their salary for their room and board, 

and court costs, restitution, and other court-ordered payments are taken 

from their paychecks. Inmates typically can save money or send it to their 

families while they complete their sentence.

15. Prison

Prison is the most restrictive sanction available to the court. In some 

states, the length of a prison sentence depends upon sentencing 

guidelines; in other states, the judge has more sentencing discretion 

within certain parameters set by statute. While programs and services 

are available to inmates in prison, the primary focus is on punishing the 

offender and separating him from the community in order to protect the 

public from harm.
22  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Benefits of Community-Based Sanctions

The benefits of community-based sanctions (CBS) are many and varied. 

Among their primary benefits, CBSs:

 Help to alleviate jail and prison overcrowding 

 Offer a realistic way to rehabilitate offenders

 Support increased monitoring and intensive supervision of targeted 

offenders—much more than would ever be available through regular 

probation

 Provide the courts with a much wider range of sanctions and services 

than are available through regular probation.

Growing Support for Community-Based 

Alternatives to Incarceration

This report examines programs that serve as safe and 

effective alternatives to incarceration. These programs may 

become more popular, as studies show the potential flaws 

in the practice of incarcerating low-risk offenders. 

One example of that is a recent report by the Pew Center 

on the States, One in 31: The Long Reach of American 

Corrections. The report, utilizing data from all 50 states, 

indicates that while traditional incarceration is extremely 

expensive, it has not measurably improved public safety.

According to the 2009 report, the adult population in U.S. 

jails and prisons has ballooned 274 percent to 2.3 million 

during the last 25 years. Today, 1 in 100 American adults is 

incarcerated. States are paying a huge price for the rapid 

expansion of their prison and jail populations, spending 

an estimated total of $52 billion on corrections in fiscal 

2008—88 percent or roughly $46 billion tied directly to 

incarceration costs. This represents a 300 percent increase 

in state corrections costs since 1988, outpacing the growth 

in state general funding of other essential services during 

the same period, including public assistance, (up 9 percent), 

transportation (up 82 percent), and elementary and 

secondary education (up 205 percent).

At the same time we have seen increased levels of 

incarceration, the 50 percent recidivism rate for released 

prisoners has not changed in 2 decades: more than half of 

those who leave prison will return within 3 years. 

The Pew study also found that it was far cheaper to put a 

low-risk offender on probation or parole—at an average 

annual cost of $1,250 and $2,730, respectively—than to 

sentence him or her to prison at an average annual cost of 

$29,000. Besides the tremendous savings, probation, parole, 

and other well-designed studies have found that many 

community-based alternatives to incarceration have proven 

to be more successful in preventing future crimes than 

confinement in a penal institution. The Pew report provides 

a detailed framework for effective, community-based 

alternatives. Although states will likely have to beef up their 

probation, parole, and other community-based alternative 

programming, the cost-per-offender will still be far less than 

states spend on incarceration (Pew, 2009).

Our report, Effective Alternatives to Incarceration, provides 

a detailed explanation of the various community-based 

sanction options available to states. It also profiles specific 

alternative programs nationwide that have successfully 

deterred offenders from crime and, at the same time, saved 

individual states millions of dollars annually.
Alternatives to Incarceration: A New Role for Police  23

The Role of Law Enforcement in 

Collaborations That Support Alternatives to 

Incarceration

Law enforcement has good reason to participate in collaborations that support 

viable alternatives to incarceration that are designed to aggressively address 

some of the root causes of criminal behavior. Such collaborations with 

community corrections groups and others who have a stake in protecting their 

communities from crime represent a proactive approach to crime control, a 

concept which the COPS Office (see sidebar on page 24) has been promoting 

since the mid-1990s.

The COPS Office has long recognized the need for partnerships between law 

enforcement and stakeholders in the community to maximize its effectiveness 

in crime prevention and expand the resources available to do so. Partnerships 

with faith-based organizations resulted in the COPS Value-Based Initiative, 

which successfully engaged the faith community to work closely with law 

enforcement in dealing with some of the socioeconomic issues underlying 

crime (Gordon, 2004). Partnerships with probation and parole officials have led 

to the establishment of reentry programs that work in concert with local and 

regional law enforcement (La Vigne, Solomon, Beckman, and Dedel, 2006).

Community-based corrections offers yet another opportunity at collaboration, 

one that assists law enforcement in their efforts to maintain safe communities. 

(For juveniles, most “community corrections” occur in the form of juvenile 

court services.) Keeping low-risk offenders out of prison and in the community, 

actively involved in jobs and families, can avert many of the social and 

emotional problems caused or exacerbated by incarceration. In addition, 

police have much to offer community corrections organizations beyond 

their usual enforcement role. They often know people and neighborhoods 

better than corrections and/or rehabilitation groups do. Because police are 

so strongly invested in maintaining the peace of a community, they readily 

transmit their enthusiasm and commitment to outside groups. And finally, by 

collaborating with established programs, the resources of law enforcement 

can be greatly expanded.

Detailed information about developing and maximizing effective collaborations 

between and among law enforcement and other community groups is 

presented in the next section.
24  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Model for Police/Community Corrections 

Collaborations

Why Collaborate

Collaboration gives groups with at least some shared interests greater ability 

to accomplish common goals by combining their skills and resources. It 

allows collaborating organizations—in most instances, natural community 

partners—to maximize their resources and avoid duplication of efforts. For 

example, if two groups want to stem auto thefts in a neighborhood, they can 

come together and make a plan that identifies and assigns responsibility 

for all the tasks involved in their joint project. Whatever resources they have 

can be used in a strategic way to achieve their common goal of reducing car 

thefts. 

When police participate in collaborations that strategically utilize skills and 

resources, they are supporting a systematic, comprehensive approach to 

addressing community crime and protection. At the same time, they become 

more visible to stakeholders throughout the community and thus gain 

greater acceptance.

Collaboration: A Definition

The COPS Office has developed models to maximize the ability of 

law enforcement to create partnerships with different community and 

stakeholder groups. Collaboration within community oriented policing has 

been defined as follows:

Collaboration occurs when a number of agencies and individuals make 

a commitment to work together and contribute resources to obtain 

a common, long-term goal. Collaboration is the most intense type of 

working relationship, and the one that is most frequently required when 

implementing community policing. Building and sustaining an effective 

community policing collaboration requires much more than a decision 

About the COPS Office

The COPS Office was created through the Violent Crime 

Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. As a component 

of the U.S. Department of Justice, the mission of the COPS 

Office is to advance the practice of community policing as 

an effective strategy to improve public safety. Moving from 

a reactive to proactive role, community policing represents 

a shift from more traditional law enforcement practices. 

By addressing the root causes of criminal and disorderly 

behavior in the community, rather than simply responding to 

crimes once they have been committed, community policing 

concentrates on both preventing crime and alleviating the 

atmosphere of fear it creates. Additionally, community 

policing encourages the use of crime-fighting technology, 

operational strategies, and the development of mutually 

beneficial relationships between law enforcement and the 

community. By earning the trust of the members of their 

communities and making those individuals stakeholders in 

their own safety, law enforcement can better understand and 

address the community’s needs as well as the factors that 

contribute to crime. 
Alternatives to Incarceration: A New Role for Police  25

to merely work together. Effective collaborations promote team building, a 

sense of ownership, enthusiasm, and an environment that maximizes the 

chance of collaborative partnerships succeeding (Rhinehart, Laszlo, and 

Briscoe, 2001, p. 5–6).

The following are components of an effective collaboration: 

 Stakeholders develop a vested interest in the collaboration.

 Trusting relationships develop among and between the partners.

 A shared vision and common goals emerge for the collaboration.

Building and Sustaining Collaborations

The process of building and sustaining collaboration is ongoing and circular 

in nature. The process begins with developing a shared vision, or sometimes 

simply a shared concern, and ends with developing, implementing, and 

assessing an action plan to accomplish the vision or concern. Throughout 

the life of the collaborative effort, however, the partnership will attract new 

expertise, decide on additional motivators, and identify and access new means 

and resources. Partners must continually reassess the collaboration and, if 

necessary, determine what actions should be taken to strengthen one or a 

number of these components. Routinely examining “what’s working” and 

“what’s not working” is essential to building, motivating, and sustaining a 

collaboration that can achieve results. 

 

 









Focus – Vision

Innovation

Best Practices in Collaboration

Open communication/information sharing

Teamwork strategies

Sharing resources

Sufficient means to 

implement action plan

Motivated partners

Trust

Shared vision

Common goals

Expertise of 

partners

Informal

Personal

relationships

Formal

Grant funded

Memo of

Understanding

Contracts

Action Plan

Sustainability of

Collaborations

Figure 2: Model: Building & Sustaining Innovative

Police/Community Corrections Collaborations
26  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Unique Nature of Police/Community Corrections 

Collaborations

This report will examine different ways that law enforcement agencies have 

combined their talents with community-based corrections groups to create 

powerful collaborations. Before studying specific partnerships, however, it is 

important to understand the unique characteristics of these relationships.

1. Nature of Collaborations

Because police and sheriffs are the enforcers of the law, most 

connections between community-based corrections and police and 

sheriffs have traditionally involved some form of enforcement. If 

probationers violate the terms of their probation, it is the police who will 

arrest them and move them back into the criminal justice system. Police 

are often given lists of names of those in the community who are on 

probation, and they work with corrections agencies to keep an eye on 

their charges.

Today, however, protecting the public from crime requires approaches 

beyond merely enforcing the law. The prison population is exploding 

in part because many low-risk, nonviolent offenders are incarcerated 

for technical probation violations. Both police and community-based 

corrections groups have a vested interest in finding ways to acknowledge 

and punish the violation without imprisoning the violator. Numerous 

collaborations have evolved around this and similar issues related to 

finding the most appropriate way to sanction offenders. For example, law 

enforcement is part of restorative justice programs involving juveniles, 

where offenders are required to face members of their community at 

community restorative boards. Police and sheriffs are also working with 

mental health courts, where probationers are given the opportunity to 

benefit from treatment instead of being incarcerated. 

2. Types of Collaborations

The police/corrections collaborations that exist run the gamut of types. 

Although they traditionally revolve around enforcement issues, many 

police/corrections collaborations focus on other concerns. Police are 

involved with community efforts to deal with issues of public safety. For 

example, in the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative—an alternative 

to detention for juveniles covered in detail in this publication—police 

involvement has included the development of a risk-assessment 

instrument where law enforcement concerns are addressed. Police 

become partners in dealing with the issues of offenders in mental 

health courts and also serve on community restorative boards working 

with juvenile offenders. Their role helps create interventions that are 

successful because they include the knowledge developed as a result 

of their traditional enforcement background combined with newer 

approaches.
Alternatives to Incarceration: A New Role for Police  27

3. Sustainability of Collaborations

Stakeholders associated with both law enforcement and community-based 

corrections might work together, and sometimes this is based on the 

personal and professional relationships of the people involved. This tends 

to occur within enforcement types of partnerships and collaborations, 

such as those concerning probation violation issues. 

While mutually helpful, there are problems with “informal” collaborations 

between law enforcement and community-based corrections. Because 

many informal collaborations are unique to the individuals involved, 

they may last only as long as the tenure of those individuals. Formal 

collaborations are usually developed in response to a particular need 

shared by two or more different agencies. These collaborations are often 

formalized through an agreement between the agencies, sometimes 

negotiated by the principal parties. These agreements are more often 

specific to agencies rather than to the key individuals involved.

The sustainability of formal collaborations can be more secure than 

informal ones; however, many of these collaborations are built around 

grants or other temporary funding, and, therefore, their sustainability may 

be unreliable.

Model for Police/Community Corrections 

Collaborations

This section concludes with a discussion of the model for police/community 

corrections collaborations (see the Figure 2 diagram on page 25). It focuses on 

the key concerns, outlined below, that must be addressed in developing and 

implementing this innovative model for viable collaborations. 

1. Best Practices in Collaboration 

When possible, every stage of the collaboration should be part of a 

joint effort that includes the active participation of all agencies. These 

stakeholder groups should voice their individual agency goals as it 

relates to the partnership and then work to develop a group goal for their 

collaboration. All parties involved should see participation as a win-win 

situation, meaning that both groups and the community will benefit from 

the execution of their joint plan. Indicators of strong collaborations include 

the following: 

 Open communication and information sharing

 Shared vision and common goals

 Experienced and motivated partners willing to share resources

 Collective efforts to find the means to implement the developed plan.
28  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

2. Sustainability 

It is common for the beginning stages of a police/community-based 

corrections partnership to be initiated by friends from two different 

agencies. For the partnership to survive and flourish long term in the 

event one of the key initiators leaves his or her agency, it eventually 

must become agency-focused rather than individual-focused. This is 

most likely to occur through true collaboration, where the needs of all 

of the stakeholders involved are met. Such partnerships can also be 

maintained through formalized agreements. If the partnership is initiated 

through a grant or other outside funding, sustaining the funding should 

be a paramount issue when developing program plans. 

3. Innovation 

With 1 in 100 adults now incarcerated (Pew, 2008), new methods and 

collaborations are being examined. Collaboration with communitybased corrections gives police an opportunity to move beyond their 

typical enforcement roles to help develop and support alternatives to 

incarceration. Some of these efforts will focus on offender accountability 

and others on rehabilitation.

4. Ability to Duplicate 

While every collaboration is unique and reflects the place and 

circumstances of its creation, this report gives examples of model 

partnerships that have succeeded beyond the confines of the 

communities/agencies for which they were designed. The leaders of the 

model partnerships featured herein have learned by trial and error the 

best ways to share the skills and resources of their agencies in order to 

find viable alternatives to incarceration. These models—which represent 

collaborations throughout the country—provide a wealth of proven ideas 

for developing strong partnerships and establishing effective programs. 

5. Measurable Results 

Finding a way to measure the effectiveness of any program created by 

a police/corrections collaboration is an essential element of success. 

All programs should be evaluated to determine if they are in fact 

meeting the objectives of their respective partners. For example, was 

the recidivism rate among mentally ill offenders sentenced to treatment 

programs lower than that of similar offenders sentenced to prison or 

jail? Did each of the agencies involved in a collaboration complete all the 

tasks assigned and contribute all the agreed resources?
Alternatives to Incarceration: A New Role for Police  29

The Community: An Essential Partner in 

Supporting Alternatives to Incarceration

The success of the alternatives to incarceration examined in this publication 

relies to a large extent on collaboration and cooperation between and among 

law enforcement, the courts, and the corrections system. Yet the greater 

community, be it in the form of public and private agencies or individual 

citizens, increasingly plays a vital role in the long-term effectiveness of 

many alternative and related support programs. A primary reason is that the 

community is perhaps the most important stakeholder in the criminal justice 

system.

 As victims of crime, the community, through residents who live there 

and the businesses and organizations that operate there, bear the brunt 

of the harm caused by crime. If, for example, a home is burglarized, the 

homeowner and his or her family are not the only ones affected. The 

people in the neighborhood—such as other homeowners, renters, as 

well as those who work or own businesses in the area—experience a 

heightened sense of fear that ultimately erodes their quality of life.

 As citizens, the community pays the huge financial and social costs 

of incarceration (as documented elsewhere in this publication). The 

skyrocketing expense of building and operating prisons often means less 

money for other essential community services, such as education, police, 

and fire protection.

Because crime—and the subsequent punishment meted out by the criminal 

justice system—so strongly affects the greater community, it is not surprising 

that community organizations as well as individual community members 

directly or indirectly partner with the criminal justice system in supporting 

alternatives to incarceration. 

The most obvious community partnership represents agencies outside the 

criminal justice system operating programs that function as alternatives 

to incarceration. For example, the Community Justice Centers in the state 

of Vermont offer many restorative justice programs that serve as viable 

alternatives to incarceration. One such program, known as the Reparative 

Board (see page 62), focuses on diverting from incarceration primarily 

young, first-time offenders. The Reparative Board is composed of police and 

volunteer private citizens who work together to find a meaningful way to hold 

the offender accountable, which includes making amends to the victim and 

accessing the services that will help him/her avoid future criminal activity.

Other government or privately funded community agencies offer a wide 

range of support services that those who are being diverted from prison or 

jail may need to turn their lives around. These include mental health services, 

substance abuse services, housing assistance, job counseling, training, and 

many others. 
30  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Additionally, churches and other community groups provide services and 

address issues related to crime, such as operating/volunteering at shelters 

for battered women or offender reentry programs. One example of a 

volunteer community group that has partnered with the criminal justice 

system is the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), an organization 

representing the mentally ill, their families and friends as well as mental 

health professionals. NAMI has consistently supported the development 

of mental heath courts (see page 76), which seek to find treatment and 

other appropriate alternatives to incarceration for mentally ill offenders 

who commit minor crimes. NAMI has also collaborated with the police in 

the development of crisis intervention teams (see page 73), which in some 

cases are composed of specially trained police who are on call to respond 

appropriately to suspects who exhibit signs of mental illness.

Virtually all groups that operate alternatives-to-incarceration programming, 

as well as related support services, depend on volunteers from the 

community. As a group, these volunteers feel more empowered by their 

participation. They believe they are playing a vital role in controlling crime 

and punishment and, as a result, become more invested in the life of their 

community. A 2000 study of 293 volunteer Reparative Board members in 

Vermont documented that more than nine in 10 found personal satisfaction 

with their Reparative Board participation and nearly 8 in 10 felt an increased 

sense of membership in the community (Karp, Bazemore, and Chesire, 2004).
A Model Program for Juveniles: 

Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative
32  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Overview of the Juvenile Detention 

Alternatives Initiative 

The Problem: Unnecessary Detention of Nonviolent 

Juveniles

The old-fashioned strategy of turning juveniles who commit petty crimes 

over to their parents for punishment has been replaced in recent decades 

by a growing tendency to confine juveniles arrested for relatively minor 

offenses in locked facilities. Of the estimated 100,000 juveniles residing in 

U.S. juvenile detention centers each day, less than a third have been arrested 

for violent crimes. Approximately two in three juveniles have been detained 

for nonviolent and nonserious offenses, at least in terms of public safety, 

such as status offenses (runaways and truants), property damage, and 

nonviolent drug or alcohol violations.

Research shows that this “get-tough” approach to juvenile delinquency has 

had unexpected consequences. First, it is extremely costly, both in financial 

and human terms. Communities spend $200–$300 per day to keep a youth in 

a juvenile facility. Despite this substantial investment, too often it seems that 

none of the primary objectives of confinement—rehabilitate the offending 

juvenile and protect the community from harm—is achieved. An estimated 

50 to 80 percent of youth released from juvenile facilities are rearrested 

within 3 years. Additionally, the long-term repercussions for the confined 

juvenile can be devastating. Compared to other youth, he or she is more 

likely to leave school without a diploma, work in low-wage jobs, struggle 

with substance abuse and other health problems, and end up in jail or prison 

as an adult (Annie E. Casey, n/d). 

Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative: An Alternative 

to Confining Juveniles

The literature documents that there are more effective and less harsh 

approaches to dealing with nonviolent juvenile delinquents who are, by 

nature of their youth, less culpable for their acts and more amenable to 

rehabilitation.

In 1992, the Annie E. Casey Foundation—which during the last 60 years has 

developed a variety of national programs to help vulnerable youth—utilized 

this and other research to establish the Juvenile Detention Alternatives 

Initiative (JDAI). This pilot project focused on diverting low-risk youth 

arrested for relatively minor offenses away from juvenile detention centers 

and into more developmentally appropriate community programs and 

services. The primary objectives of JDAI were to save jurisdictions millions 

of dollars in detention costs and, at the same time, protect the public safety 

and produce better outcomes for youth involved in relatively minor offenses. 

(See sidebar about core JDAI strategies on page 36.)
A Model Program for Juveniles: Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative  33

Basic Components of JDAI

Objective Screening Instrument

The first step in reducing unnecessary confinements in juvenile detention 

centers was to find a way to quickly determine who among recently arrested 

juveniles belonged in locked facilities and who would benefit from less costly, 

community-based alternatives without jeopardizing public safety. JDAI helped 

participating jurisdictions develop objective screening instruments—based on 

data related to each youth’s risk factors—that would separate low-risk youth 

from higher-risk delinquents who required confinement. Because police have 

a frontline role in arresting offending juveniles and developing the initial 

case record, they will typically play a key role in developing the screening 

instrument.

One important outcome of the screening tool is that it strives, as much 

as possible, to be color-blind and not discriminate on the basis of race or 

ethnicity. This is critical because juveniles of color are disproportionately 

confined in juvenile facilities. For example, although African-American youth 

represent roughly 16 percent of the youth population, they account for 38 

percent of the population in juvenile correctional facilities.

Alternatives to Juvenile Detention

But what do you do with all the low-risk kids who have broken the law? JDAI 

assists jurisdictions in identifying—and creating when necessary—viable 

community-based alternatives to detention. The most obvious and frequently 

used alternative is some form of home detention under the direct supervision 

of parents and, when necessary, with additional monitoring on the part of the 

juvenile court. Low-risk juveniles without a reliable home base are sometimes 

assigned to 24-hour shelters that specialize in dealing with delinquent youth.

Another alternative to confinement is day or evening reporting centers. 

Such centers, usually open between 3 p.m. to 9 p.m. when youth are most 

likely to get into trouble, provide a rich variety of supervised educational and 

recreational activities. Some juvenile offenders may be diverted to both home 

detention and a reporting center. 

Effective Collaboration: Key to Success of JDAI

At the core of JDAI is a different strategy—a switch in focus from “fixing” 

delinquents to changing the attitudes and behaviors of the adults who deal 

with them. This change in approach must encompass all the agencies that 

have meaningful contact with juvenile offenders, from the police who arrest 

them and the juvenile justice system that handles their cases to the myriad 

of community agencies that provide youth services. To achieve this level of 

systemic change requires the intense cooperation and collaboration of all 

relevant agencies. Police and other law enforcement officials must be key 

players in any such collaboration. As first responders to criminal activity in 

the community, they often possess a great deal of insight about the nature of 

juvenile crime and why some kids get into trouble. 
34  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Under JDAI, the necessary collaboration among agencies is established 

via a so-called central coordinating group that must find ways to garner a 

“buy-in” among key participants and develop a plan of action for diverting 

low-risk delinquents to alternative community-based programs. Forging such 

collaborations can be challenging as will be demonstrated in the example 

profiles discussed later in this section.

The Success of the JDAI Model

Juvenile court systems that have embraced the JDAI model are experiencing 

outstanding results. The average daily population in juvenile detention 

centers is down considerably as is juvenile crime. Below is a sampling of 

outcomes experienced by some of the earliest model JDAI sites.

Substantial Reduction in Average Daily Juvenile Detention Population

Detention Population Reductions in JDAI Model Sites

Multnomah

Average

Daily

Population

(1993–2002)

Santa Cruz

Average

Daily

Population

(1997–2005)

Bemalillo

Average

Daily

Population

(1999–2004)

Cook County

Average

Daily

Population

(1996–2002)

Source: Annie E. Casey Foundation, www.aecf.org

65% 65% 58% 37%
A Model Program for Juveniles: Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative  35

Other Positive Outcomes

 The substantial disparity in the detention of youths of color, especially 

African-Americans, has been greatly reduced in most model JDAI 

programs. For example, in Multnomah County, Oregon, (Portland and 

surrounding suburbs) the share of minority youth confined in detention 

centers fell from 70 percent in 1993 to 50 percent in 2003.

 The success of JDAI has generated a growing awareness of the need 

for juvenile detention reform. Numerous states, counties, and other 

jurisdictions have already or are in the process of changing their juvenile 

detention policies in line with JDAI principles. Three JDAI model sites 

were selected to participate in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s 

Reclaiming Futures, an initiative that seeks to increase the prevention and 

treatment services available to drug-involved youth in the juvenile justice 

system.

 JDAI sites have substantially reduced their detention budgets and 

redeployed resources into more productive, cost-effective uses. For 

example, Pierce County, Washington, closed a 50-bed unit in its juvenile 

detention center and used the approximately $800,000 in reduced 

operating costs to support community-based alternatives to detention for 

delinquent youth.

Substantial Reduction in Juvenile Crime

Juvenile Crime Reductions at JDAI Model Sites

Cook County

Youth Violent 

Arrests

(1993–2000)

Multnomah

Juvenile Felony 

Arrests

(1994–2000)

Santa Cruz

Juvenile Felony 

Arrests

(1996–2000)

Bemalillo

Juvenile Arrests

(1996–2006)

Source: Annie E. Casey Foundation, www.aecf.org

45% 38% 37% 54%

Notes: 1. Although the dates covered in the two graphs are not identical for each JDAI 

site, there is nonetheless a clear trend indicating a substantial reduction in both juvenile 

detention and crime. 2. The reduction in detention represents nonviolent offenders, while 

the reduction in crime represents both violent and nonviolent offenders.
36  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

JDAI in Multnomah County, Oregon

In the early 1990s, the juvenile justice system in Multnomah County, Oregon, 

was under siege. A federal consent degree had been issued because of 

overcrowding and a host of other unacceptable conditions in the county’s 

juvenile detention facility. 

The Problem

In practice if not in policy, the vast majority of juveniles arrested, no matter 

how insignificant the offense, were detained for adjudication. The county’s 

“lock them up” stance was not improving public safety. Both juvenile crime 

and recidivism rates were rising. And county expenditures for incarcerating 

offending juveniles were escalating out of control. Something had to be 

done. 

JDAI as a Solution

In the early 1990s, officials in the county’s Department of Community Justice 

(DCJ) had begun investigating the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative 

(JDAI) established by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. JDAI focuses on 

channeling juveniles accused or convicted of relatively minor crimes away 

from detention and into more developmentally appropriate settings. More 

than a decade after adopting a JDAI-like approach, things have changed 

dramatically. Detentions are down from 96 per day in 1993 to an average of 

20 per day in 2008. Less than 2 in 10 juveniles arrested are put in a detention 

facility. The rest end up in a variety of settings, from home with parents 

to supervised shelters and treatment programs—all with intensive social 

service support. “It has been amazing,” says Rick Jensen, systems reform 

project manager for the Multnomah County Department of Community 

Justice. “The more we pushed kids out of the system, the more crime went 

down.”

Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative Core 

Strategies

JDAI is based on interconnected strategies and approaches 

to promote smarter, fairer, more efficient, and more 

effective systems. They include the following:

Collaboration between major juvenile justice agencies and 

community organizations.

Use of accurate data to diagnose the system’s problems 

and identify real solutions.

Objective admissions criteria and instruments to replace 

subjective decisions that inappropriately place children in 

custody.

Alternatives to detention to increase the options available 

for arrested youth.

Reforms to speed up case processing so that youth don’t 

languish in detention.

Reducing the use of secure confinement for special cases 

like technical probation violations.

Improving conditions of confinement through routine 

inspections.

Source: Annie E. Casey Foundation, www.aecf.org
A Model Program for Juveniles: Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative  37

Transformation Through Collaboration

The fact is that the county’s DCJ transformed its juvenile justice system. But 

the transformation did not happen all at once. It occurred during the course 

of several years and was spearheaded by a coordinating committee, known 

as the Detention Reform Committee (DRC). The role of the DRC was to find a 

way to reduce the number of juveniles confined by the county without putting 

the public at risk. The DRC included every group involved in any aspect of the 

juvenile justice system, from the police who arrest and the attorneys who 

prosecute juvenile delinquents to judges and other officials in the juvenile 

court system to social workers, educators, and others who understand the 

needs of troubled youth.

Initially, there was considerable skepticism among many of those participating 

in the DRC. Representatives from the Portland Police Bureau, for example, did 

not immediately embrace the idea of releasing a substantial portion of the 

delinquents they arrested. Their stance: we’ll just arrest these same kids again 

within the month for another offense. They had to be convinced by experts and 

research that putting youngsters considered to be relatively criminally naive 

in facilities with hard core delinquents did nothing to rehabilitate them. In fact, 

seasoned delinquents taught them to be better criminals.

High-Risk versus High-Need Formula

After many meetings and animated discussions, the DRC came to a consensus 

around detaining juveniles. Their formula: detain only so-called high-risk 

juveniles (those accused of felonies or misdemeanors involving violence). The 

remaining juveniles—officially labeled high-need youth—were to be channeled 

into programs and services to address the underlying problems, such as 

homelessness or substance abuse—that tend to be the root cause of the lowlevel crimes they commit.

Agreeing on definitions for high-need and high-risk juveniles was just the 

beginning for DRC members. The next step was more formidable: what to 

do with all the high-need kids, many of whom were homeless or living with 

dysfunctional families. Initially, a social worker was placed in the downtown 

police precinct where the majority of juveniles were arrested; however, the 

task of finding appropriate placements for so many high-need youngsters 

proved overwhelming. The DRC eventually worked with an area youth 

organization to establish a processing entity, known as the Reception Center, 

for all high-need youth.

The Reception Center: A Unique Approach to Dealing with 

Low-Risk, High-Need Juveniles

The Reception Center, which is operated under the umbrella of New Avenues 

for Youth, a local nonprofit program, is where police take the high-need 

juveniles they arrest. There, the juveniles are fed, given a chance to calm down, 

and then assessed to determine the best placement. Those juveniles with 

families willing and able to take responsibility for them are released into the 
38  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

care of parents or guardians. The rest are assigned to youth shelters skilled 

in working with delinquent young people. A case manager assigned to each 

juvenile ensures that the child receives all the health and social services 

required to get his or her life on track. This includes family reunification, if 

possible.

It is the police who decide which arrested juveniles are high-risk and which 

ones are high-need. This determination is made on the basis of known facts 

rather than a risk assessment tool. If the juvenile has been arrested for a 

felony or even a misdemeanor involving violence or a weapon, he or she is 

taken to the juvenile detention center for further assessment. If the arrested 

youth has committed a less serious crime—or a nondetainable act, such 

as truancy, running away from home or other status offense—he or she is 

automatically taken to the Reception Center. Police officers routinely receive 

special training in separating high-risk juveniles from high-need juveniles.

The Fate of High-Risk Juveniles

Today, approximately two-thirds of juveniles arrested in Multnomah 

County are considered high-need and are taken to the Reception Center. 

The remaining high-risk juveniles are transported to the county’s detention 

center. However, they are not automatically incarcerated. Instead, detention 

officials further evaluate each youngster, using an objective risk-assessment 

tool to determine who is a candidate for release via Multnomah County’s 

various supervised informal diversion programs and who should be confined 

because his or her release would pose a significant threat to the public.

Risk-Assessment Instrument

The risk-assessment instrument (RAI) used today was developed during a 

period of 2 years by a subcommittee of the Detention Reform Committee. 

It included representatives from law enforcement, juvenile prosecutors, 

the juvenile court system, and other youth-serving organizations. It was 

designed to be very objective so that detention center staff would not be 

influenced by race, gender, or other considerations that did not directly 

affect the likelihood that a juvenile would commit another crime if released. 

The county’s juvenile RAI assigns point values for a range of indicators 

associated with the arrested youth: the nature of current offense, previous 

history in the juvenile justice system, family support, school attendance 

and performance, etc. The finding of the RAI, either for supervised informal 

release or detention, is subject to override by the arresting police officer or 

the detention intake worker who implements the RAI. One or both may have 

additional information, based on personal contact with the juvenile, that 

would change a release or confinement finding by the RAI.
A Model Program for Juveniles: Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative  39

The initial RAI was revised within a few months when too many juveniles 

released due to low RAI scores reoffended or did not show up for court. The 

current RAI, however, seems to be hitting the mark. Among the high-risk 

juveniles released into the county’s biggest supervised informal diversion 

program in 2007 (the most current year for which data was available), only 

3 percent reoffended before the disposition of their initial case and only 4 

percent failed to appear for their court hearing.

The Multiple Benefits of the JDAI

Confining juveniles in detention facilities is not a cost-effective option for 

the county and, research shows, is the least likely option to produce positive 

outcomes for juveniles. Multnomah County pays about $300 a day to keep a 

juvenile in a detention center compared with about $50 a day for supervised 

release. Plus, the county no longer has to invest much in the two-thirds of all 

juveniles arrested who are determined to be high-need youth who pose little 

if any risk to the public. They are now diverted to the Reception Center. Of the 

many social services and treatment programs subsequently available to these 

troubled youngsters and their families, most already existed in some form. 

Although some expanded to accommodate delinquent youth who previously 

would have been incarcerated, the juvenile justice system does not pay for 

these community services.

Essential Elements of the Multnomah County’s JDAI

To responsibly reduce juvenile detention, communities need to do several 

things, according Rick Jensen, who oversaw the implementation of one of the 

first and most successful JDAIs in the country.

 Collaborate with partners. It is imperative that every group that has 

anything to do with the juvenile justice system come to the table. The 

police represent an essential partner because they are the first point of 

contact with juvenile offenders.

 Create a predictable RAI. There is a need for an RAI that separates the 

relatively few true bad guys, who need to be locked up, from kids who are 

just troublesome and, with time and appropriate intervention, will turn out 

fine.

 Provide a broad range of intervention services. These include substance 

abuse treatment, mental health services, health care, and other support 

services for children and their families.
40  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

JDAI in New Jersey

New Jersey is the first state to be named a model for implementing the JDAI 

on a statewide basis. 

The Problem

The reason: many juvenile courts throughout the state were facing crisis 

situations that had been escalating for years. In the late 1980s, Essex County 

was placed under a federal consent decree to ease overcrowding and 

improve other unsanitary and unsafe conditions in their juvenile detention 

facilities. Additionally, in Camden County, where the official capacity for 

juveniles in its detention facility was 37, the daily population was frequently 

as high as 90.

Juvenile detention problems in Camden and Essex counties were reflected 

to a greater or lesser extent in most of the juvenile facilities throughout the 

state. In 1996, New Jersey took bold action by forming a statewide Detention 

Reform Task Force to study and develop solutions to the growing use of 

secure detention in the juvenile justice system. In time, members of the 

task force, which included police, prosecutors, judges, juvenile justice staff, 

and others associated with the juvenile justice system, came to consensus 

on several issues. They agreed that many juveniles currently confined in 

detention facilities did not necessarily need to be there. Comprehensive 

research from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which develops and supports 

programs to help vulnerable youth, indicated that incarcerating juveniles 

who commit low-level crimes neither improves public safety nor rehabilitates 

the errant youth. 

Looking to JDAI for Solutions

New Jersey already had a successful program, known as Stationhouse 

Adjustments, that gave police and other law enforcement agencies the 

discretion to deal directly with juveniles involved in minor offenses, a strategy 

that keeps them out of the court system. (See sidebar on page 43.) The success 

of Stationhouse Adjustments, which began in 1990, seemed to sustain the 

notion that diversion strategies for juveniles who commit minor offenses do 

not put the public at risk. By the early 2000s, juvenile crime in the state was 

also declining. At the same time, however, New Jersey’s juvenile detention 

population was growing, as was the cost of confinement. Additionally, 

minority juveniles were proportionately overrepresented in state detention 

facilities. The New Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC), the state’s youth 

correctional agency and the agency with a legislative mandate to lead juvenile 

justice reform, recognized that fewer juveniles could be placed in detention 

facilities if there were viable alternative programs in the community to serve 

lower-risk delinquents. Through a partnership with the Coalition for Juvenile 

Justice, a national nonprofit organization, the JJC decided to apply to the 

Annie E. Casey Foundation to implement its Juvenile Detention Alternatives 

Initiative statewide. The application was approved in 2003.
A Model Program for Juveniles: Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative  41

Collaboration

New Jersey’s JDAI State Steering Committee—the official planning body 

under the JDAI model—included representatives from police, juvenile judges 

and prosecutors, public defenders, probation officials, juvenile court staff, 

human service agencies as well as other groups with a stake in issues related 

to juvenile crime. Each of New Jersey’s JDAI counties has a local Steering 

Committee that mirrors the state committee’s membership. Key among the 

original JDAI State Steering Committee members was Bob Sarnecki, the 

president of the statewide Juvenile Officers Association, which is composed 

of police officers assigned to oversee juvenile crime matters in every police 

department in the state. These are officers who work directly with juvenile 

delinquents accused of everything from skipping school to murder. They 

handle Stationhouse Adjustments and have considerable insight into the types 

of juveniles who will respond positively to community-based alternatives to 

incarceration. 

It was the collaboration of these groups of key participants at both the state 

and county level that led to the success of the JDAI project, but it took time 

and patience. Each group was representing its own stakeholders, and it was 

imperative that there was much listening during these meetings. Everyone had 

a similar goal, that of protecting the public safety. According to Sarnecki, there 

were “spirited discussions” but in the end, they were able to find a common 

goal.

Risk-Assessment Instrument 

This diverse group of JDAI stakeholders had a variety of interests and 

priorities. As a result, it took them more than 2 years of quarterly meetings to 

create and build consensus around a plan to implement a RAI for New Jersey. 

The Juvenile Officers Association was an integral part of the subcommittee 

that developed the RAI. The RAI would eventually be used to determine which 

arrested juveniles would be detained in a juvenile facility until his or her case 

was adjudicated and which ones would be diverted into alternative community 

programming. The RAI was designed to be objective and racially and ethnically 

blind, taking into consideration only the criminal behavior and history of the 

juvenile. Specific points are assigned to the different levels of response to 

the various questions on the RAI, such as the severity of the offense, history 

of past juvenile adjudications, and failure to appear in court to answer to 

previous charges. If the RAI score is below a preset number, the juvenile is 

eligible for release to parents/guardians or a community-based, alternative 

program. Otherwise, he or she will be detained.

Although the RAI was to be implemented by juvenile intake officers at the 

court, it was imperative that police accept the RAI as a legitimate measure 

of risk. It needed to effectively identify and separate so-called high-risk 

delinquents, who pose a considerable risk to society, from those who are 

unlikely to commit any serious crime if released. It was agreed that the RAI 

was a working document that could be adjusted if police or other members of 
42  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

the RAI subcommittee found it wanting. Finally, since the RAI is implemented 

by court officials and not by police officers, it does not impede the discretion 

of the police in determining whether to request detention for a given 

juvenile. 

Alternatives to Detention

Another hurdle for the JDAI Steering Committee was the lack of alternative 

programming for juveniles who were deemed by the RAI to be eligible 

for some kind supervised release. The purpose of supervised release is to 

ensure that the accused juvenile, during the 30 to 60 days before the final 

disposition of his or her case, 1. does not reoffend and 2. shows up for the 

court hearing. Most JDAI jurisdictions already had at least one alternative 

program, usually some form of electronic monitoring, that enabled juvenile 

officials to keep tabs on the whereabouts of juveniles under supervision of 

the court.

By reallocating existing funding streams (juvenile funds, county funds, and 

state budget allocations), New Jersey was able to significantly increase the 

level of alternative programming available to juveniles. Two major initiatives 

were added or enhanced. The first was the home detention program, already 

available in several communities, with juvenile staff making both announced 

and unannounced home visits and calls to confirm that a youth was 

where he or she is supposed to be. The second was the Evening Reporting 

Center, new to New Jersey but part of the JDAI complement of supervised 

alternative programming. The reporting center keeps juveniles occupied 

after school and in the early evening hours, times when research shows they 

are most likely to get into trouble. Participating juveniles are picked up at 

home or school and transported to the local reporting center, where they are 

engaged in a variety of recreational, tutoring, and skill-building activities. 

In New Jersey, it costs an average of about $150,000 per year to operate an 

Evening Reporting Center.

Progress to Date

New Jersey began formally implementing JDAI in 2004, and to date it has 

been fully incorporated in 11 of the state’s 21 counties. It will be implemented 

in the remaining 10 counties by 2011. 

But even partial JDAI implementation is producing outstanding results. 

Juvenile detention rates fell 25 percent statewide from 2002, when the JDAI 

planning process began, to 2006 (New Jersey Kids Count, 2006). This cannot 

be attributed to dramatically declining arrest rates, which fell only 2 percent 

during the same period. Another testament to the efficacy of JDAI is that 

the juvenile detention numbers in some counties where JDAI has yet to be 

implemented soared by as much as 50 percent (The Press of Atlantic City, 

6–12–08). 
A Model Program for Juveniles: Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative  43

Based on these data, it seems reasonable to anticipate that once JDAI—with 

its RAI and the development of alternative placement programming—is fully 

implemented in every New Jersey county, juvenile detention and the high 

costs associated with it will continue to fall. While the state is saving money, 

outcomes for lower-risk youth diverted into alternative programs should 

continue to improve.

Stationhouse Adjustments

Adapted from the New Jersey Attorney General’s 

Stationhouse Adjustments Guidelines 

March 31, 2008

The Stationhouse Adjustment is an alternative method 

for handling juvenile offenders who have committed 

minor juvenile offenses and is now used by every police 

department in New Jersey. The intent is to provide the 

juvenile with an opportunity to avoid the stigma of a formal 

juvenile delinquency record. It is not, however, a “get out 

of jail free” ticket. Stationhouse Adjustments impose fast 

and specific consequences on the offending juvenile and 

provide prompt and convenient resolution for the victim.

Stationhouse Adjustments are generally implemented 

by the police officer (also known as the juvenile officer) 

assigned to oversee juvenile crime matters in each 

precinct. If all involved parties agree to participate, the 

juvenile, his or her parent/guardian, and the victim each 

meet with the juvenile officer to discuss the offense. 

Restitution on the part of the juvenile is essential. If 

property has been stolen or damaged, the juvenile will 

be required to make restitution in some form that is 

acceptable to the victim. This may include performing 

community service as an alternative to financial restitution. 

If appropriate, the juvenile and his family may be referred 

to needed social services.

This process allows juvenile officers to resolve minor 

incidents without filing a formal complaint and 

overloading the court with problems best resolved 

outside the courtroom. If the victim is not satisfied with 

the Stationhouse Adjustment process, he or she retains 

the right to file a formal complaint against the offending 

juvenile.

New Approaches to

 Traditional Collaborations
46  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Collaboration Trends

Rationale for Interagency Information Sharing

Law enforcement and community corrections agencies have always shared 

information, in part because the two groups have a common interest. Police 

and sheriffs arrest criminals, many of whom eventually end up on probation 

or parole. Both the police and corrections officials have a stake in ensuring 

that probationers and parolees adhere to the terms of their court-ordered 

supervision because doing so substantially reduces that likelihood that they 

will re-offend.

Historically, the sharing of information about criminals and potential 

criminal behavior has been informal and based on personal and professional 

relationships between law enforcement officials and probation and parole 

officers. For example, police may know that John, whom they arrested last 

year for breaking into a stereo store, is currently on probation for a first-time 

offense. But they see John on the street loitering with known gang members 

in clear violation of his probation. By contacting John’s probation officer, 

the police are conveying vital information that could be used to intervene—

such as by threatening to send John to prison if he is ever caught again 

associating with gang members—and hopefully prevent what has been for 

some an endless cycle of crime, arrest, punishment, and recidivism.

For the most part, this sharing of information between agencies that had 

mutual interests was informal and based on the whims of the people 

involved. Since the 1990s, however, there has been a growing trend toward 

more formal police/probation or parole partnerships—something less casual 

and more official specifically designed to reduce violent crime as well as to 

better monitor probationers and parolees (Condon, 2003). This chapter will 

describe several formal partnerships between law enforcement agencies and 

corrections officials that played an important role in quelling gang activity 

and violent crime in urban areas. The last section of this chapter will focus on 

a variety of informal but very effective federal probation collaborations with 

local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. 
New Approaches to Traditional Collaborations  47

Operation Night Light

Operation Night Light began as an informal partnership between police 

and probation officers in Boston in 1992, during a period when youth gang 

violence was undermining the safety in the city’s urban neighborhoods. The 

problem that led to Operation Night Light was that many young probationers 

were violating the terms of their probation—such as leaving their homes after 

dark—because probation officers were not monitoring them during evening 

hours, when they were most likely to get into trouble. Probation officers 

avoided night visits for good reason: most probationers lived in high-crime 

neighborhoods, and probation officers did not feel safe in those areas at night. 

With little or no supervision, many probationers felt free to do as they pleased, 

which included participating in criminal activities. During this same period, the 

Boston Police Department (BPD) had been developing strategies to combat 

gang violence. To catch the gang leaders and reduce the level of gang violence, 

they needed more information about gang activities at the neighborhood level. 

Operation Night Light evolved out of conversations that turned into a 

collaboration between probation officers in the Dorchester District Court and 

police officers from BPD’s Anti-Gang Violence Unit. They hatched a plan to 

satisfy the needs of both agencies. Specifically, by accompanying probation 

officers during evening home visits, the police, simply by virtue of their 

presence, would greatly reduce the risk of harm. At the same time, the police 

would be in an informal situation where they were more likely to secure 

valuable information about youth crime in the very neighborhoods where 

youth violence was rife.

Program Overview

The resulting collaboration paired one probation officer with two BPD police 

officers. Several evenings a week, Operation Night Light teams would make 

unannounced visits to probationers’ homes, schools or work sites. These 

visits would generally occur between 7 p.m. and midnight. The police dressed 

in civilian clothes and drove unmarked cars, in part to avoid tipping off 

probationers and in part to blend into the neighborhood. During the visit, the 

probation officer would caution the probationer about violating the terms 

of his probation, and the police would talk with both the probationer and 

his parents about resources available to help the errant youth go straight. 

Once Operation Night Light became well known in the community, youth on 

probation were more likely to be where they were supposed to be at night, 

fearing an unannounced visit from their probation officer. A violation of 

probation could result in incarceration.

In time, Operation Night Light produced such positive results that the program 

was formalized and became part of the BPD’s larger strategic plan to combat 

youth crime.
48  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Early Outcomes/Recent Trends

As indicated below, Operation Night Light was successful early on in 

increasing compliance and reducing arrests among probationers monitored 

by the program, which resulted in reduced homicides in Boston. A more 

recent analysis by the BPD documents significant decreases in youth arrests 

as well as in violent crime in those areas of the city where crime is most 

concentrated. 

Early Outcomes

 Probationer arrests declined 9.2 percent between January 1994 and June 

1996 while arrests increased 14 percent statewide.

 Homicides, which reached a high of 152 in 1990, fell nearly 79 percent to 

31 by 1999.

Recent Trends

A more recent analysis released in 2009 by the BPD’s Office of Research 

and Development documents significant decreases in youth arrests as 

well as in violent crime in those areas of the city where crime is most 

concentrated. According to the report, these reductions are related primarily 

to Operation Night Light and Operation Homefront. Both programs feature 

evening visits to the homes of young people by police and other community 

officials. However, unlike Operation Night Light, which focuses exclusively 

on probationers who have already been convicted of crimes, Operation 

Homefront involves youth who are considered to be potential future 

offenders by school officials and others in the community who work with 

youth.

2009 report findings:

 In 2007, youth arrests were down 26 percent, from 971 in 2006 to 718 in 

2007.

 In Boston’s high-crime hot spots, violent crime declined 12 percent in a 

single 6-month period, October 2007–March 2008, compared with the 

same period the previous year.

 Several areas—including Codman Square (down 54 percent) and South 

End (down 40 percent) experienced significant reductions in violent 

crime during the same period in 2008.

These reported outcomes show the power and effectiveness of 

collaboration by police and probation and parole agencies to stem crime 

and improve compliance with court-ordered probation conditions. The 

program exemplifies interagency, enforcement-oriented cooperation and 

coordination. 
New Approaches to Traditional Collaborations  49

Operation Night Light has been duplicated in other jurisdictions nationwide 

that are dealing with youth crime and violence. Maryland, for example, 

launched a similar program in September 1997 that pairs up three or more 

probation agents with police officers in 35 crime hot spots. Texas also used this 

basic model to develop Project Spotlight, described below. 

Project Spotlight

Project Spotlight was created and funded by the Texas Legislature in 1999 

to reduce violent crime in high-crime neighborhoods in seven of the largest 

urban counties in Texas (Evans, 2001). Unlike Boston’s Operation Night 

Light, which began informally, Project Spotlight was from the start a formal 

collaboration between law enforcement and juvenile and adult probation 

agencies.

Issues That Led to the Collaboration

In the late 1990s, most urban Texas communities were struggling with growing 

levels of violent crime perpetrated by juveniles and young adults. Many of 

these youthful criminals reoffended while they were on probation, suggesting 

that the existing system for supervising probationers wasn’t very effective. 

A major obstacle to better supervision was the lack of communication 

between correction agencies (juvenile and adult probation officers) and 

law enforcement officials. Both groups played a role in monitoring highrisk probationers, but they rarely spoke to each other, much less shared 

information.

Program Operation

Project Spotlight was designed to address both these problems via probation 

monitoring teams, each composed of one juvenile probation officer, one 

adult probation officer, and one law enforcement officer (from the local 

police department or sheriff’s office). Together, they would provide intense 

supervision of high-risk probationers assigned to their team (Project Spotlight, 

2002).

Project Spotlight teams would visit the homes, workplaces, and even schools 

of each probationer three to five times a week, during the evening and on 

weekends, nontraditional hours by probation-monitoring standards. Some 

visits were scheduled; others were unannounced. The intent was to ensure that 

probationers were where they should be during periods when they were most 

likely to violate probation and possibly commit other crimes.

Several features were built into Project Spotlight to make it more effective 

than traditional probation supervision programs. Chief among these was the 

small caseload of 16 probationers assigned to each team, making it possible 

to provide intensive monitoring not just in theory but in practice. As a result, 

probation officers were able to act quickly to sanction, and if necessary 
50  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

incarcerate, probationers who violated the terms of their probation. Police 

and other law enforcement officials who served on Project Spotlight teams 

often functioned as informal case managers, referring probationers and their 

families to needed services, such as education and job training, substance 

abuse counseling, and parenting programs.

Funding

The Texas Legislature funded Project Spotlight via an initial $5.2 million 

appropriation to the Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council for a 2-year 

period to support a collaborative probationary effort that would achieve the 

following objectives:

 Lower the crime rates in the targeted areas

 Improve the supervision of offenders on probation

 Decrease the recidivism rates of probationers under Project Spotlight’s 

supervision

 Improve public safety in communities served by Project Spotlight 

(Evans, 2001).

Outcomes

Outcome information is limited in part because the measures by which 

Project Spotlight was to be evaluated changed several times between 

1999 and 2003, when the collaboration was terminated due to a lack of 

funding. There were many anecdotal testimonials from probationers who 

said Project Spotlight had changed their lives. Such testimonials were 

partly a result of a spin-off from Project Spotlight for wraparound support 

services, funded by Project Spotlight, for probationers and their families. 

These included GED centers where probationers could complete their high 

school education, substance abuse programs, parenting classes, and gang 

intervention activities designed to help individuals extricate themselves 

from gang involvement. Cooperation and improved communication among 

Project Spotlight collaboration partners contributed to interceptions of large 

quantities of drugs on several occasions. 

Funding Problems

In retrospect, although the comprehensive project funding provided by the 

state of Texas proved to be invaluable in getting Project Spotlight off the 

ground, it turned out to be a detriment to sustaining the program long term. 

In 2003, the Criminal Justice Policy Council, the oversight agency for Project 

Spotlight, was defunded partly for reasons having nothing to do with the 

efficacy of Project Spotlight. Nonetheless, without substantial funding from 

other sources, Project Spotlight was terminated. The lesson learned: when 

collaborations are dependent in large part on one or a few funding sources, it 

may be very difficult to sustain them in the event that such funding dries up, 

a common occurrence in today’s difficult economic environment.
New Approaches to Traditional Collaborations  51

Kansas Probation/Reentry Programs

The Problem

Like most states, Kansas was grappling with the rising cost of incarceration. 

By 2000, corrections officials were projecting the need for $500 million in new 

prison construction by the end of the decade. Something had to be done to 

control these soaring costs. Since Kansas parolees were responsible for one in 

every two prison admissions in the state, finding a way to keep parolees from 

returning to prison—without jeopardizing public safety—was the most obvious 

and cost-effective way to reduce prison costs.

A New Approach to Supervising Offenders

With assistance from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), which was 

spearheading an effort to find viable ways to keep parolees from returning to 

prison, the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) focused on “evidencebased” practices that had been proven to work. The new approach, which cost 

in excess of $4 million and has been ongoing since 2003, featured three key 

strategies:

1. Expand release planning and reentry programs.

2. Change the way parolees are supervised.

3. Prioritize programs and services that are most successful in keeping 

parolees from violating the terms of parole and/or reoffending.

As a first step, KDOC adopted a new, widely validated assessment tool, known 

as the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R), to better separate high-risk 

offenders from lower-risk offenders. Those determined most likely to reoffend 

received the most attention/services.

Expanded Release Planning and Reentry Efforts

Traditional release planning in Kansas prisons focused on a single concern: 

ensuring that the offender had a place to go upon leaving prison. Today, 

however, release planning—especially for those determined to be high-risk 

by the LSI-R assessment—addresses the full range of considerations required 

for a successful transition to life in the community. This includes helping the 

offender figure out where he or she will live; how to secure a job; and what 

kind of services, ranging from employment training to substance abuse or 

mental health counseling, will improve the ability of the offender to function in 

society.

An important part of release planning, which continues for an average of 

6 to 8 months during the parole period, is the Accountability Panel. Panel 

members, including former parolees, reentry and parole staff, police, plus 

a cross section of community representatives, help offenders deal with the 

challenges of reentry. Police are an integral part of this effort, according to 

Sally Frey, director of Sedgwick County (Kansas) Reentry Services. “They assist 

parolees in various ways,” she says. “They might take someone to substance 
52  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

abuse counseling or give him or her sage advice about avoiding crime or 

just life in general. If there’s a problem, such as a charge of domestic abuse, 

police on the Panel can investigate. Ultimately, they offer the offender a more 

balanced, positive view of law enforcement.”

Better Parolee Supervision and Services

As part of state efforts to reduce parole violations and recidivism, the KDOC 

has changed tactics. In the past, parole officers were primarily concerned 

with finding out if the offender was complying with the terms of his or her 

parole. Since 2003, however, the focus has been on giving parolees the full 

range of support they need to reintegrate into society without getting into 

trouble. If, for example, a parolee is caught consuming alcohol or using 

drugs in violation of the terms of his release, then a revocation of parole 

and a return to prison is not automatic. In many instances, the offending 

individual will be put in a substance abuse program, which is more likely to 

produce better long-term outcomes than prison, which sometimes cultivates 

substance abuse.

Positive Outcomes

So far, efforts by the KDOC to improve the way it supervises parolees is 

producing promising results. Parolee violations, as well as new felony 

offenses that send parolees back to prison, are on the decline.

 In 2000, the average number of monthly parole violations represented 

nearly 5 percent of parolees supervised by the state. By 2009, average 

monthly violations—representing 1.7 percent of parolees—were down by 

nearly two-thirds.

 From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2008, there was more than a 50 

percent reduction in the number of parolees returned to prison for felony 

offenses.

Informal Collaborations

History

Whether out of necessity or a simple desire to help out a colleague at 

another agency, corrections and law enforcement officials have informally 

shared information and resources for years. Historically, however, there 

have been some built-in obstacles to informal collaboration. The criminal 

justice system is structured in such a manner that it creates a wide range 

of agencies at the local, state, and federal level. In law enforcement, for 

example, at the local level there are police and sheriff’s departments and 

on the state level there is the highway patrol, which is responsible for 

a specified category of crimes. And then there are a variety of federal 

law enforcement agencies with authority that is different from and often 

supersedes that of state and local agencies. 
New Approaches to Traditional Collaborations  53

This situation is further exacerbated by the myriad of criminal justice agencies, 

such as the courts and corrections agencies (including probation and parole 

departments), that have a role in dealing with criminals. It is no wonder that 

this complicated system resulted in conflicts between agencies, inevitably 

discouraging casual cooperation that was not backed by formal written 

agreements between agencies. 

This attitude changed quickly in response to the terrorist attacks on this country 

on September 11, 2001. Law enforcement agencies began to acknowledge how 

an unwillingness to share information and resources put the nation at risk. This 

sad event in the nation’s history had the very positive effect of reminding all 

agencies responsible for public safety, whether they were fighting terrorism or 

street crime, that those interagency collaborations, both formal and informal, 

are essential. In the current economic climate, with financial resources in short 

supply, the value of collaboration—sharing information and resources in ways 

that avoid a duplication of efforts—cannot be underestimated.

Model Informal Federal Probation 

Collaborations

Informal partnerships and collaborations between law enforcement agencies 

frequently are rooted in cross-agency friendships or professional relationships. 

They usually begin with a basic need, such as a desire to access information or 

resources that another agency might have or to provide better safety for staff 

in the field. If the initial interagency cooperation is successful, it may evolve in 

time into a broader collaboration involving key officials within the partnering 

agencies.

That’s how many informal collaborations began between the United States 

Probation Office—Eastern District of Missouri (USPO/ED), St. Louis, and other 

local, state, and federal agencies. “We supervise people who have been in 

trouble with the law,” says Ron Schweer, chief U.S. probation officer for the 

District of Kansas and former deputy chief probation officer for the USPO/

ED. “We have information about criminals; other agencies have information. 

By sharing what we know, we can intervene in a potential criminal situation 

before things get out of hand.” 

The following is a brief summary of three informal collaborations between the 

USPO/ED and law enforcement agencies. 

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)

A USPO/ED probation officer routinely contacted the DEA when he supervised 

someone with a history of drug involvement. Eventually, through his efforts 

and the efforts of his DEA contact, probation and DEA managers expanded 

the relationship to meet the multiple needs of both agencies. For example, 

the DEA has surveillance vehicles equipped with cameras and videotape 
54  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

equipment, which are used to observe suspects and sites where illegal drug 

activity might be occurring. When probation officials suspect that someone 

under their supervision might be selling drugs, they may require him to 

come to the probation office, intending to conduct a search. At the request of 

the USPO/ED, the DEA will monitor with surveillance vehicles the homes of 

individuals scheduled for such meetings and alert probation officials about 

the kind of car the individual is driving and any distinguishing clothing he is 

wearing. 

This was invaluable information because an individual trying to hide drugs 

kept in his car, for example, typically parks far away from the probation 

office and claims he arrived by bus. But with the DEA’s advance information, 

probation officers can watch for the individual under suspicion (perhaps he is 

wearing a red cap or a unique T-shirt). By noting the direction from which he 

was walking, they can make reasonable assumptions about the general area 

where he might have parked. As a result, it is relatively easy to find his car 

(thanks to the description from the DEA) and, with proper approval, search it. 

Both agencies benefit by this joint effort to get people involved with drugs off 

the streets.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

When someone on probation or parole has a history of terrorist activities or 

associations, the probation office is committed to keeping close tabs on him 

or her to prevent any future terrorist event. Because the FBI scrupulously 

monitors those who had been convicted of terrorist acts, the agency has a lot 

of information that could be useful to USPO/ED. But the FBI couldn’t share 

information with anyone who did not have a high-level security clearance. 

At the urging of the FBI, the probation office worked through the system to 

secure the appropriate security clearances for parole officials.

As a result, probation officers are no longer in the dark about FBI activities 

that might affect how they deal with a probationer or parolee. For example, 

if the FBI is in throes of an investigation of a potentially dangerous situation 

involving a USPO/ED probationer or parolee, agents will notify the probation 

office so that its officers can avoid situations that put them in harm’s way. At 

the same time, because parole officers has frequent in-home and community 

contacts with individuals under their supervision, they are in a position to 

provide the FBI with information it might not otherwise be able to secure.

Missouri State Highway Patrol

The Missouri State Highway Patrol has been cooperating with the USPO/

ED for years in the sharing of information and other resources. For example, 

the highway patrol has helicopters for use in air patrols. It allows probation 

officials to accompany troopers on air patrols during winter months—when 

trees and other vegetation are least likely to camouflage a site—to take 

aerial photos of the homes of people under the supervision of the probation 

office. These photographs help probation officers determine the best way to 
New Approaches to Traditional Collaborations  55

access a property when the probation office must act quickly to intervene in a 

situation involving someone on parole or probation.

The helicopters of the Highway Patrol came into play when the FBI requested 

the file on a man who had previously been under the supervision of the 

probation office. Unfortunately, the old records were in Kansas City—a 9-hour, 

round-trip drive from St. Louis—and the FBI needed the file immediately to 

avert a potential crime. At the request of the probation office, a Highway Patrol 

helicopter was dispatched, and the FBI had the file within a few hours.

The United States Probation Office has established law enforcement 

partnerships with more than 135 law enforcement agencies. These include 

other federal agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security and 

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In addition, the 

probation office has partnered with state agencies throughout the country, 

including the California Department of Corrections and the Illinois State 

Police. Most partnerships are with local agencies in Missouri. Police and 

sheriff’s departments in the eastern side of the state have partnered with the 

United States Probation Office, each being available for assistance. Finally 

multiagency groups and coalitions forge important collaborations. This is seen 

in work with different area drug task forces as well as antiterrorism networks. 

Such partnerships range from sharing training and resources to assisting each 

other in locating and apprehending offenders. 

Overcoming Obstacles to Collaboration

Informal collaborations that work in the long term involve agencies that 

rise above turf wars and move beyond the notion that the information and 

resources they have at their disposal cannot or should not be shared. The best 

approach, according to Schweer, is to build relationships of mutual trust with 

agencies before you desperately need their help. “You have to push yourself 

away from your desk and get out there and meet officials from other agencies 

with which you share a mutual interest,” he says. “In most cases, e-mails and 

texting alone won’t do it. If you want to build trust, at some point you’re going 

to have to meet face to face. Your word and a handshake mean something.”

Another barrier to collaboration is the operational integrity of each 

collaborative partner. One partner agency may have traditional 8 a.m. to 5 

p.m. hours. If a specific collaboration requires that staff be available evenings 

or weekends—to better monitor probationers, for example—then the 

partnering agency with traditional hours must be willing to adapt. The bottom 

line is that both agencies must agree to perform their collaboration-related 

responsibilities when they are needed, rather than at the convenience of a 

partner agency. Such a commitment will engender the good will and trust that 

both partners need to sustain a collaboration.

Restorative Justice: 

Accountability,Restitution, and Transformation
58  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

About Restorative Justice

Defining Restorative Justice

Restorative justice is a relatively new and different approach to meting 

out justice to adult and juvenile offenders in the United States. Its growing 

appeal to those involved in the criminal justice system is that it often offers 

an effective alternative to incarceration. Under the traditional justice system 

in this country and much of the Western world, the focus is on the offender. 

When someone commits a crime, his act is considered a violation not so 

much against the person who suffered the crime, but against the law. The 

offender, if convicted, is subsequently punished. The court (or juvenile office) 

determines the appropriate sanction, such as incarceration or probation, 

and the victim has little or no say in the outcome. Furthermore, although the 

offender is punished, unless ordered to make restitution or other apology, he 

rarely makes amends to the victim.

Restorative justice, on the other hand, is a philosophy that focuses as much 

on the victim and the community as on the offender. It views crime as a 

violation of the victim and the community as well as a violation of state law. 

It also recognizes the significant impact that crime has on the victim, and 

often the greater community, and seeks to involve the offender in repairing 

the damage she has caused. In all restorative justice programs, the offender 

is asked the following:

 Who was harmed?

 What was the harm done?

 Who is responsible for repairing the harm?

Instead of shielding the offender from the human consequences of his or her 

actions, the offender—through a variety of restorative justice interventions—

is held accountable to those he or she has harmed. 

In a restorative justice setting, the offender meets with and is accountable 

to the victim and/or the community. They engage in a dialog about the 

circumstances of the crime, the harm incurred by the victim and the 

community, and other relevant issues related to both victim and offender. 

Then together—the victim, offender, and community members, with the 

guidance of a trained facilitator or a community restorative board—work out 

a plan to restore every party associated with the crime.

Most restorative justice programs in the United States deal with juvenile 

offenders and minor/first-time offenses. While the first Restorative Justice 

programs were initiated in the United States in the late 1970s, most 

documented police involvement in these processes date back to the 1990s. 

Today, more than 1,000 programs operate throughout North America and 

Europe (Katz and Gordon, 2006).
Restorative Justice: Accountability, Restitution, and Transformation  59

Restorative Justice Benefits Everyone Associated 

with Crime

Restorative justice is a collaborative approach to justice that has the potential 

to produce better outcomes for virtually every person and entity affected by 

crime. 

The Victim

In juvenile cases, the victim rarely has his or her day in court because most 

cases are handled informally. Typically, once a victim has been harmed by an 

offender and makes a report to the police, he or she has little or no role in the 

judicial process that follows. Although he or she has a legal right to make a 

victim impact statement in writing, detailing the losses caused by the offense, 

he or she has no say in what happens to the offender or how he will be made 

to account to him or her for unlawful actions.

As a result, it is not unusual for victims to feel angry at the criminal justice 

system. From the point of view of many victims, the system is coddling the 

offender—the perpetrator of a crime—at their expense.

How Restorative Justice Benefits Victims

 It allows victims to meet with their offenders in a controlled environment 

and seek answers to questions about the crime that continue to haunt 

them. 

 It encourages victims to communicate their anger, frustration, and sense 

of violation directly to the offender. 

 It requires the offender to make restitution to victims, including at least 

partial payment for the monetary losses they incurred and/or some other 

concrete action on the part of the offender to make amends.

 The process gives victims a sense of empowerment and closure that is 

rarely achieved in the traditional juvenile justice system.

The Community

The community is an extension of the victim because crime invariably has a 

ripple effect. If a neighbor's home is vandalized, the entire neighborhood will 

live in heightened fear. Communities often are the biggest loser when crime 

is committed, and have traditionally had the least input into any criminal 

case. When an offender is incarcerated, the community is left to suffer the 

consequences of the criminal behavior without any acknowledgment of its 

loss. When an offender is allowed to remain in the community without being 

held accountable for the harm he or she has caused, everyone lives with 

resentment and fear.
60  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

How Restorative Justice Benefits Communities

 It offers communities an opportunity to play a larger role in keeping 

their neighborhoods safe and in addressing the problems that cause 

crime. Dealing with juvenile offenders, who are most likely to respond 

to early intervention efforts, offers communities a practical way to effect 

meaningful change in the area of crime control.

 It gives communities a say in how the victim and offender, and their 

neighbors, are treated. 

 When the community is involved in restorative justice efforts, people 

living there feel empowered and experience less fear of crime.

The Offender

The adult and juvenile offender typically would very much like to avoid the 

consequences of his or her unlawful or inappropriate behavior. And the 

traditional criminal justice system at times inadvertently supports this by 

providing minor sanctions to all but the most serious offenders. Although the 

offender may be required to provide some kind of restitution to the victim, 

he or she rarely has to face his or her victim or community and explain his or 

her actions.

How Restorative Justice Benefits the Offender

More than anything, the offenders, especially juveniles, need to be held 

accountable.

 Restorative justice requires the offender to accept responsibility for her 

actions. This means he or she must stop trying to justify what he or she 

has done with excuses such as, “It wasn't my fault,” or “no one was hurt.”

 It encourages the offender to face his victim and the community, no 

matter how uncomfortable that might be. The offender needs to hear the 

human consequences of his or her offense from the people he or she has 

harmed. 

 It requires the offender to make amends to his victim and the community 

for the harm he or she has caused. 

The Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system seeks to curb adult crime and juvenile 

delinquency and, at the same time, give first-time offenders a chance to 

mend their ways before they develop a permanent criminal record. However, 

the primary emphasis is on the needs of the offenders rather than the losses 

of the victims.
Restorative Justice: Accountability, Restitution, and Transformation  61

How Restorative Justice Benefits the Criminal Justice System

 Restorative justice provides, in this era of diminishing resources, a greater 

variety of affordable alternatives to probation and incarceration.

 It offers more and better mechanisms to assuage victims and to hold adult 

and juvenile transgressors accountable in ways that can possibly deter 

unlawful behavior in the future.

 It provides a more appropriate forum for status offenses and other 

juvenile cases that are not well-suited to the conventional criminal justice 

processes.

Restorative Justice Is a Philosophy with Different 

Processes

Restorative justice is a philosophy and a set of principles which hold that crime 

is about the harm done to individuals and the community, and that addressing 

crime in a meaningful way requires that the response be focused on that 

harm. Many different processes are used to engage in restorative justice. This 

publication will concentrate on Community Restorative Boards; however, are 

several other restorative justice processes that are employed in communities 

throughout the United States. (See sidebar on page 63.)

Restorative Justice and the Police

Since the 1990s, restorative justice has been viewed as an avenue for police 

involvement in the criminal justice system beyond their traditional function 

of arresting criminals. Police today play a variety of restorative justice-related 

roles, from deciding which cases are appropriate for restorative justice 

to making referrals to restorative justice agencies to participating in an 

restorative justice activity, such as a Community Restorative Board (CRB).

In 1999, the COPS Office published a monograph titled Community Policing, 

Community Justice, and Restorative Justice. The concept of police involvement 

was gaining acceptance. Many of the early models came from Australia/New 

Zealand and Canada. Both countries engaged in Family Group Conferencing, 

where offenders gathered with their victims and their respective family 

members. Police were actively engaged in this process, which came to be 

known as the Wagga Wagga model, named for an area of Australia where 

police first participated in Family Group Conferencing. 

 By the mid-1990s, restorative justice initiatives involving police had moved 

to the United States, beginning with Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and Woodbury, 

Minnesota. Both followed the Wagga Wagga model, and police led Family 

Group Conferences. In both instances, there was strong buy-in on the part of 

the police as well as positive responses from police who participated in these 

restorative justice initiatives (Hines and Bazemore, 2003).
62  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Community Restorative Boards

CRBs are a newer application of restorative justice. Although they are known 

by different names in different communities, such as reparative boards and 

neighborhood accountability boards, they all focus on engaging the broader 

community in holding the offender accountable for the harm he has done. 

Key CRB participants include the victim, the offender, and their respective 

families; and the police; the court; corrections; and other community 

partners.

During the course of a CRB meeting, community board members discuss 

the nature of a specific crime and its impact on the victim and the greater 

community. They meet with the offender to hear his version of what 

happened and, if possible, the victim to better understand the negative 

consequences of the offender's unlawful conduct. They speak frankly with 

the offender and his parents (if a juvenile offender), asking probing questions 

about the circumstances of the crime as well as about what is going on in 

the offender's life. After consulting everyone involved, they develop a plan 

of action. It holds the offender accountable by mandating some kind of 

restitution to the victim. In most instances, it also requires the juvenile to 

engage in activities, such as counseling or community service, designed to 

help him turn his life around.

CRBs meet at regularly scheduled times, from once weekly to once a month, 

depending on the program. In some circumstances, all referrals for CRBs 

come from the court (see section on St. Louis County). Other jurisdictions 

allow direct referrals from police officers, thus by-passing the court system 

(and criminal justice record) for minor crimes (see section on Vermont). 

While most CRBs have a paid staff member, they are fundamentally 

community-based volunteer organizations. Volunteers recruited from 

the community receive about 20 hours of specialized training related to 

restorative justice and the operation of CRBs. Most volunteers find the CRB 

experience to be very rewarding, giving them an opportunity to serve the 

community and perhaps make a difference in the life of the offender.

This section will profile two programs where police today are actively 

involved in restorative justice. Although each program has a different name 

and is based in a different community—Reparative Boards in the state of 

Vermont and Juvenile Justice Committees in St. Louis County, Missouri—

both fall under the umbrella of CRBs. These two model restorative justice 

committees and boards serve primarily low-level juvenile offenders and are 

used as a diversion from the more onerous and expensive traditional court 

processes.
Restorative Justice: Accountability, Restitution, and Transformation  63

Other Restorative Justice Processes

The following is a brief summary of key restorative justice 

processes that are not profiled in this chapter.

Victim/Offender Dialog: In victim/offender dialog, the victim 

meets face-to-face with the offender in a safe, structured 

environment. After establishing that the offender is 

remorseful, and the victim is willing to meet, the facilitator 

engages with the parties to talk about the crime and the 

impact on the victim, and creates a restitution agreement.

Family Group Conferencing: Family group conferencing 

involves the community of people most affected by the 

crime: the victim and the offender as well as the family, 

friends, and key supporters of both. All have a role in 

deciding the resolution of a criminal incident. Family group 

conferencing was developed from a Maori tradition in 

New Zealand, where it is currently used for most juvenile 

offenses. The process was adapted by police in Wagga 

Wagga, Australia, and then introduced to the United States, 

where it is used by some police agencies, schools, and 

courts. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police use it in its 

Community Justice Forums. where police and community 

volunteers facilitate the conference (Mirsky, 2005).

Child Dependency Mediation: Child dependency mediation 

is a form of restorative justice that is increasingly used in 

abuse and neglect cases. The process, which is facilitated by 

a mediator, is primarily used in juvenile/family courts where 

a child has been removed from a home. The parent(s) are 

given an opportunity to meet with a court representative 

and a social service worker to work out a plan, with the 

guidance of a mediator, for reunification. The parent(s) are 

encouraged to invite their family and support network to 

the mediation meeting. 

Circles: A circle is a community-directed process, which 

can be conducted in partnership with the criminal justice 

system, to look at ways to find an appropriate plan that 

addresses the concerns of all interested parties. Sentencing 

circles are used when a community is involved with the 

disposition of a case. Sentencing circle participants include 

the victim and victim supporters, the offender and offender 

supporters, the judge and court personnel, the prosecutor 

and defense counsel, the police, and all interested 

community members. During the session, a talking piece is 

passed around; participants are allowed to speak only when 

they are holding the talking piece, a strategy that avoids 

distracting and confusing crosstalk. Then together, they 

identify the steps necessary to assist in healing all affected 

parties and prevent future crimes.
64  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Vermont’s Reparative Boards

Restorative justice is a policy that is statutorily prescribed in Vermont on a 

statewide basis. The restorative justice movement began in the mid-1990s 

because the public was unhappy with the current criminal justice system. 

The Department of Corrections commissioned a study (by John Doble and 

Associates), which identified the following as the community’s primary 

concerns:

 The community wants to be safe.

 Offenders need to be held accountable.

 The damage or loss as a result of crime needs to be repaired.

 Offenders should get treatment when needed.

 Communities want to be more involved in decision-making around 

criminal justice issues (Karp and Drakulich, 2004).

As a result of this study, the concept of Community Justice Centers (CJC) 

emerged. A network of CJCs was created, under the auspices of the Agency 

of Human Services, to work with law enforcement and other community 

resources to help further the “policy interest of achieving restorative justice.” 

(Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24 §1961) In addition, a state policy from the Department of 

Corrections was legislated, adopting restorative justice to deal with people 

charged or convicted of criminal offenses. (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28 §2a) Through 

a series of enabling legislation, and in many cases local financial support, a 

statewide system of CJCs was established (Dembinski, 2003).

CJCs give citizens and government agencies an opportunity to collaborate 

on issues related to crime prevention, resolving conflict, and rendering 

justice. All CJCs provide a variety of services. While this section will focus 

on reparative programs, these centers also offer opportunities for adult 

reparative probation and reentry programs.

CJCs rely on the talents of community volunteers, who substantially 

expand and enhance the efforts of the CJCs. Each center recruits and trains 

volunteer citizens for their various restorative justice boards and panels. A 

Department of Corrections policy promotes the use of volunteers throughout 

all its programs. In fact, the use of volunteers as unpaid staff has changed 

the culture of the corrections department by enlarging services through the 

meaningful participation for these unpaid staffers (Boyes-Watson, 2004). 

The role of law enforcement has been paramount in the growth of restorative 

justice efforts within the state, particularly as it related to the CJC’s reparative 

boards—Vermont’s version of a Community Restorative Board. 

Some referrals to reparative boards are initiated by the police while others 

come from the State’s Attorney’s Office. In Essex, Vermont, for example, 

a relationship has been built with the State’s Attorney so that a list of 

predetermined, minor offenses can be referred by the police to the Essex 
Restorative Justice: Accountability, Restitution, and Transformation  65

Reparative Board. These include retail offenses and bad checks of less than 

$300, neighborhood and school conflicts, low amounts of alcohol by underage 

drinkers, and the possession of small amounts of marijuana. (Note that in the 

last two categories, these are only for simple possession.) It is up to the State’s 

Attorney in each county to determine which cases can be diverted without 

prosecutorial involvement.

Today there are 12 CJCs throughout Vermont. Each CJC offers a variety of 

restorative justice programs including reparative boards (profiled here), 

offender reentry programs, and community conferencing to resolve disputes 

between neighbors. In 2006, there were 35 different restorative justice boards 

and panels—assisted by more than 500 volunteers—in the CJC network. 

Every year, some 1,400 cases (including panels operated by the Department of 

Corrections) are involved in some kind of restorative justice process.

At the local level, Vermont’s CJCs are regarded as important government 

programs. All centers operate out of a location identified with their restorative 

justice/community justice mission. Activities can occur in other locations or 

satellite offices, but it is important to maintain the location as a place where 

community justice matters are addressed. 

Essex Community Justice Center: 

The Essex Community Justice Center was established in 2003 in a city that 

has embraced the ideals of restorative justice. According to Deb Hamel, CJC 

director, there was a strong tradition of community policing in Essex, and 

police wanted to divert low-level crimes to keep the offenders out of the 

criminal justice system. Police have the discretion to make direct referrals to 

the CJC’s reparative board for specific crimes, and the State’s Attorney will 

make referrals for other crimes. Most reparative board cases involve juveniles. 

Cases are also referred for reparative probation.

Police are increasingly referring cases to the reparative board. In 2003, fewer 

than 10 cases were referred; today police refer an average of 50 cases a year. 

Police typically attend the reparative board meeting related to juvenile cases. 

This level of personal involvement has resulted in improved relationships 

between the parents of offenders and the police. Parents are usually grateful 

for the interest of everyone involved in the intervention that keeps their child 

out of the system. The underlying philosophy in juvenile cases is to elevate the 

status of the family and give them the opportunity to help the juvenile offender 

turn his crime into a mistake that can be corrected.

Most reparative board meetings take approximately 1 hour. If a victim 

appears, he or she is given the opportunity to speak. If no victim is present, the 

conversation revolves totally around the offender, the harm that was caused, 

and what can be done to repair it. The juvenile is usually left to find his or her 

own community service with the assistance of the family. 
66  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Rutland’s Community Justice Center:

Rutland’s CJC was established in 2001 in response to a public outcry for 

change. Problems with crime in the community had been escalating, 

culminating in the deaths of two people from heroin. The center was created 

with the support of the mayor and the Rutland Police Department. Several 

programs are offered at the center, including reparative boards.

The Rutland CJC has a direct referral program from the police. The 

precharge direct referral begins when the police issue a citation. Although a 

memorandum of understanding was executed between the CJC, the police, 

the sheriff, and the State’s Attorney, initially it was difficult to get buy-in from 

the police, who were reluctant to make referrals. Police did not immediately 

embrace this new approach to law enforcement. Through the conscious 

efforts of the CJC staff, who met with each shift of officers and provided 

referral forms, the police began to understand and appreciate the value of 

reparative boards. They saw that the offenders were successful at completing 

the reparative agreements reached during board sessions and that, in many 

cases, police did not encounter that person again. Today, the CJC is no longer 

concerned with police participation; rather it is concerned with the capacity 

of the center to handle all of the referrals.

Part of the success of the reparative board program lies in its expediency. 

Once a case is referred, the offender (and his parents if a juvenile) meet with 

a staff person at the center. He is told that the program is voluntary, and that 

he will not have a criminal record if he meets the terms of the reparative 

agreement that will be developed during the proceedings. CJC staff also help 

the offender understand the nature of restorative justice and reframe the 

situation in terms that emphasizes the harm that has been caused. Within 2 

weeks of the referral, the offender meets with the reparative board. All of the 

terms of the agreement must be met within 90 days. 

Police recognize the many benefits of participating in the CJC. Cases are 

handled quickly and there is almost no recidivism. The offenders take 

their restitution obligations very seriously and complete their reparative 

agreements. Additionally, police like having the discretion to refer offenders 

(especially juveniles) to the CJC. In the past, many incidents involving 

juveniles did not rise to the level of a formal criminal charge, yet police 

wanted to do something to hold the offender accountable. Now they can 

make a referral to the CJC which, through the reparative board, will make the 

juvenile accountable but without the stigma of the court.
Restorative Justice: Accountability, Restitution, and Transformation  67

Winooski Community Justice Center

The Winooski Community Justice Center was established in 2000 with the help 

of Winooski Police Chief Steve McQueen, who supported the center’s proactive 

approach to law enforcement. The CJC is housed in the Winooski Police 

Department, and the CJC director is an employee of the police department.

Winooski police can make direct referrals to the CJC’s reparative boards. In 

fiscal 2007/2008, nearly half the referrals came from police. In all, 115 people 

worked through reparative boards to develop reparative agreements. Other 

cases were referred by the Burlington Probation and Parole by the Chittenden 

District Court. 

Volunteers assist reparative boards in implementing the program. Reparative 

board representatives go to great lengths to help offenders understand 

the impact of their behavior as well as to assist them in becoming actively 

engaged in the community as part of their service. For example, reparative 

board members have influenced college-age offenders to create brochures or 

posters for community events. Another effective way for offenders to perform 

meaningful community service is by working with antipoverty agencies.

There is an active effort to engage victims in the reparative board process. 

Victims are invited and encouraged to speak at the board meeting. If the 

victim is not comfortable attending, (e.g., concerns about being bullied by the 

offender), he can send a surrogate, such as a parent, to speak about the harm. 

Referring police officers also participate in the meetings, but usually in plain 

clothes. This allows them to hear what the offender has to say without the 

possible intimidation of the uniform.

School resource officers (SRO) also engage in the reparative boards. All SROs 

are trained in Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) language, and it is the 

accepted approach in the schools. 

 The efforts of the reparative boards seem to be working. While there are no 

available records on recidivism rates, in a recent record check conducted by 

the Winooski Community Justice Center, not a single juvenile offender who 

had participated in reparative boards showed up as an adult offender.

According to Chief McQueen, the Winooski Community Justice Center is 

an arm of the police department. Its work in reparative boards, reentry and 

reparative probation are all essential to the safety of the community.
68  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

St. Louis County’s Juvenile Conference 

Committees

Established in 2001, the Juvenile Conference Committee Program in St. 

Louis County, Missouri, is gaining continued acceptance. It was developed 

in response to an administrative judge at the Family Court who wanted to 

find an alternative for first-time offenders. She felt the need to include the 

community. This imperative was rooted in three core beliefs about helping 

juveniles:

1. Kids needed more help than the court could give them, and the 

community needed to feel a part of dealing with these issues.

2. The people who were part of the individual communities within St. 

Louis County understood the diversity and attitudes and values of their 

communities better than the court did.

3. The court did not have the financial resources to give each case the 

attention it deserved and would receive if community volunteers were 

utilized.

With this in mind, the Juvenile Conference Committees (JCC)—a restorative 

justice strategy—seemed like a good choice. The JCC allowed greater 

involvement on the part of community members. In fact, each JCC includes 

a small group of volunteer local citizens who have a stake in the quality of 

life in their community, which includes controlling crime. Each committee 

comprises 4 to 6 members. Volunteers from the community apply for 

committee positions, which are staggered in 2- and 3-year terms. All 

appointments are made by the Family Court. 

During the course of a JCC meeting, committee members discuss the 

nature of a specific juvenile crime and its impact on the victim and the 

greater community. They meet with the offender to hear his version of what 

happened and, if possible, the victim to better understand the negative 

consequences of the offender's unlawful conduct. They speak frankly with the 

offender and his parents, asking probing questions about the circumstances 

of the crime as well as about what is going on in the offender's life. After 

consulting everyone involved, they develop a plan of action. It holds the 

offender accountable by mandating some kind of restitution to the victim. In 

most instances, it also requires the juvenile to engage in activities, such as 

counseling or community service, designed to help him turn his life around 

(Katz and Bonham, 2008).

In St. Louis County, only specific types of cases are referred to the JCC. These 

include first-time, minor offenses; those who had a previous referral to the 

court for something so minor that it was handled by a telephone call; and a 

second offense if the first was handled successfully by a previous committee. 

All offenders live within the boundaries established for each JCC and are 

generally tied to school district boundaries.
Restorative Justice: Accountability, Restitution, and Transformation  69

Initial funding for the JCC was secured by working with the juvenile justice 

specialist at the Missouri Department of Public Safety. Funding from the Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) for the first and 

subsequent years has been channeled through the Missouri Department of 

Pubic Safety.

JCC Director Michelle Meyers, who has been with the program since its 

inception, developed the design after studying similar programs across the 

country. Because St. Louis County is large (524 square miles/81 cities/24 public 

school districts), the first JCC was established in Kirkwood, Missouri, a city 

with its own police department and school district. Kirkwood is a community 

of more than 28,000 and is relatively affluent. 

Early on, Meyers enlisted the help of Kirkwood Police Detective Geoff 

Morrison, who deals with all the juvenile cases in the city. Initially Morrison’s 

role was to be more of a liaison and safety officer for the JCC. As time went on, 

however, he became an active committee member. His involvement brought 

many strengths to the JCC.

 He is good at asking questions, and understands his role on the board 

versus a typical police role. For example, he is looking to hold the offender 

accountable, not cross-examine him. 

 He is well-known in the community, and parents have usually dealt with 

him before they come to the board.

 Parents often have lots of questions about the law, and he has the 

expertise to answer them.

 Committee members feel safer with him there. 

Morrison—as well as other police participating in JCCs—has the specific 

position of “liaison” with the JCC. Besides serving on the JCC as consultant 

for legal and neighborhood issues, Morrison is the “unofficial monitor” should 

the committee assign the juvenile responsibilities to complete within the 

community. In Normandy in northern St. Louis County, the CJC has continually 

used SROs as police liaisons. SROs are accustomed to being around 

adolescents and can speak their language. 

Initially, police attended JCC meetings to protect committee members, a 

role still sought in some JCCs. However, police are now considered to be 

an important voice that brings a unique perspective to the committee. They 

work in collaboration with other committee members to hold the juvenile 

accountable in ways that will discourage the youth from engaging in future 

crime. 

In contrast to Vermont, all cases are referred to the JCC by the Family 

Court. Police can “flag” a case that they think would be appropriate for the 

committee; however, there are no direct referrals from police.
70  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Since the first JCC in Kirkwood, the program has expanded to four different 

school districts, with six different JCCs. While it started in a more affluent 

area, the program has expanded into the north part of St. Louis County, 

which experiences higher crime rates and more serious crimes. 

The police who are involved with JCCs see their role as very different from 

that of the usual “cop” role. Some were skeptical at first, but then became 

intrigued by the successes they saw. In 2007, for example, the program 

served 122 juveniles during the grant year. Victims requested more than 

$1,500 in restitution, all of which was paid. Thirty-six volunteers provided 770 

hours of service. Juveniles were ordered to perform 498 hours of community 

service, and 489 or 98 percent of these hours were completed. Some 94 

percent of those who entered a JCC agreement successfully completed all 

of the terms, and only 3.3 percent reoffended during the year. Preliminary 

data for 2008 is also very encouraging. Of 114 juveniles served by the JCC 

last year, only 5 (4 percent) were referred back to the court, and none for 

crimes against persons. Ninety-nine percent of those who remained with the 

program after the development of a behavioral contract completed the terms 

of their agreement.

Most of the police officers involved shared a similar view that keeping a 

juvenile out of “the system” was what was desirable, and that the JCC was 

an effective tool for accomplishing this goal. And while participating in the 

JCC meant attending nighttime meetings of the committees, no one voiced 

any negative feelings about that. 

Volunteers who participate in the committee meetings also reaped many 

benefits, according to police involved in the JCC. Committee members 

gained insight into the complexities of juvenile behavior and became 

educated about the Family Court. In addition, volunteers provided support 

for the families. Finally, the involvement of volunteers in the JCC improved 

the relationship between police and committee members as well as the 

greater community. 
Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System:

A New Era
72  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Alternatives to Dealing with Mental Illness: 

An Overview

The Problem: Criminalization of the Mentally Ill

A serious and escalating dilemma in the criminal justice system is how to 

handle the growing number of offenders who are mentally ill. The problem 

is twofold. First, in the general population, there are a surprising number of 

mentally ill people. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, one 

in 17 Americans lives with a serious mental illness. Second, many of these 

mentally troubled individuals go untreated. The reason: during the 1960s 

and 1970s, there was a growing trend to deinstitutionalize all but the most 

severely mentally ill. Many residential treatment facilities were shut down. 

Unfortunately, not enough community-based mental health programs were 

established in their wake to deal with all the people needing treatment, in 

part because funding for mental health services was declining. As a result, it 

is not uncommon for mentally ill individuals to exhibit socially unacceptable 

behavior in public that brings them into contact with the criminal justice 

system.

The Police and the Mentally Ill

One study found that of 331 people with severe mental disorders who had 

been hospitalized, some 20 percent reported being arrested or detained for 

a crime in the 4 months prior to their admission to the hospital. The most 

common reason for police contact involved alcohol, drugs, or public disorder 

(Consensus Project, n/d). Unfortunately, most police have little or no training 

in dealing with mentally ill people whose crimes are more of the nature of 

public nuisance rather than serious criminal behavior. Although research 

shows that police tend to be empathetic to the mentally ill (Price, 2005), they 

also have misconceptions about this population that affect how they respond 

to them in crisis situations. For example, some police officers believe that 

mentally ill individuals are incapable of reasoning or that they are typically 

violent—both stereotypes that are untrue (Ruiz and Miller, 2004). 

Nonetheless, because police are traditionally trained to take control 

of situations involving potentially aggressive individuals, they may 

automatically adopt a coercive or intimidating stance that may further 

aggravate the mentally ill suspect. Without appropriate training, police lack 

the information to identify individuals who may be acting strangely due to 

mental illness rather than any intent to do harm to a law enforcement official 

or the public. Such an individual may be confused and not understand the 

directions given by a police officer, who may interpret the suspect’s behavior 

as aggressive or otherwise threatening. As a result, the officer may overreact 

and inadvertently escalate a situation, leading to unnecessary injury or even 

death to the mentally ill suspect or to the police or an innocent bystander. 
Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System: A New Era  73

In recent years, some law enforcement agencies have been proactive in 

changing the way they deal with mentally ill suspects. Police—in collaboration 

with mental health professionals, mentally ill persons and their families, and 

other stakeholders—developed the Crisis Intervention Team (CIT), which will be 

examined in-depth in this section. 

Other Aspects of the Criminal Justice System and the 

Mentally Ill

Once arrested, it is not unusual for mentally ill offenders to be convicted and 

incarcerated simply because, due to the lack of treatment options and mental 

health support programs, the criminal justice system has no better alternative. 

That’s why, according to Pfeiffer (2007), jails and prisons have become 

“dumping grounds for a difficult and growing population of mentally ill 

inmates” (p. 3). In fact, one comprehensive study found that more than half of 

all prison and jail inmates experienced at least some mental health problems, 

although less than a third were receiving treatment (James and Glaze, 2006). 

Certainly, mentally ill offenders must be held accountable for their criminal 

actions. However, those offenders suffering from mind-altering brain disorders 

should be judged by a different standard than that applied to other offenders. 

This recognition led to the establishment of Mental Health Courts, another 

important collaboration between police and others in the criminal justice 

system. Mental Health Courts will also be highlighted in this section. 

Crisis Intervention Teams

The CIT consists of a group of police officers who are trained to respond to 

calls involving any person who is acting in a manner that might suggest that 

he or she is mentally ill. CITs are designed to reduce the likelihood of tragic or 

other negative outcomes that sometimes occurs when the police encounter 

mentally ill suspects or offenders.

Memphis Police Department Pioneers the 

First Crisis Intervention Team

As frequently happens, it takes a tragic event to stimulate change in the 

criminal justice system. This was the case in Memphis, Tennessee, when—

due to a lack of training and a rush to judgment—the police shot and killed a 

mentally ill man who had a knife and was threatening suicide. Although the 

officers involved were justifiably threatened, the incident might have had a 

better outcome if the police had been trained to identify behavior that signaled 

mental illness as well as how to defuse the situation with a minimum of force. 

To avoid a repeat of a similar tragedy, which had occurred not only in Memphis 

but in police departments across the nation, the Memphis Police Department 

(MPD) established the Memphis Crisis Intervention Team in 1988. The goal 

of the CIT was to substantially change the way the police responded to the 

mentally ill, thus turning potential tragedies into positive outcomes. 
74  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

The CIT Partners

The Memphis CIT is a collaboration involving the MPD, the Memphis chapter 

of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), a number of local mental 

health treatment providers, mental health consumers and their families, 

and the University of Memphis. While training is a key component of the 

CIT model in Memphis, the model is “more than just training” (Slate and 

Johnson, 2008). It is a true partnership between stakeholders to improve the 

quality of services to those who struggle with mental illness. It also focuses 

on reducing the stigma associated with mental illness and educating CIT 

partners and the public about the disease and how it can affect a person’s 

ability to function in society. In this sense, CIT is attempting to change 

societal attitudes about mental illness.

CIT Personnel

Police are at the center of the Memphis CIT model because they are typically 

the first responders to situations in the community that involve a mentally 

ill individual. But not all MPD police are directly involved in CIT efforts. Early 

on in the development of the program, it was recognized that the CIT was 

not suitable for all officers. Some officers viewed their function strictly as 

enforcing the law, catching criminals, and arresting them. Rather than forcing 

all officers into a CIT role that they were clearly not comfortable with, officers 

were given the option of volunteering to participate in the CIT. The MPD 

looked for volunteers who were compassionate by nature and possessed 

strong communication skills. This volunteer approach made the CIT both very 

effective and acceptable to the entire police force. 

Volunteer CIT officers are trained to provide situationally appropriate 

responses to “mental disturbance crisis calls” (Cochran, Deane, and Borum, 

2000). The Memphis model requires that a minimum of 15 to 20 percent of 

sworn patrol officers be trained in CIT so that CIT officers are available in all 

precincts 24 hours a day (Slate and Johnson, 2008). CIT officers maintain 

their regular patrol duties and respond as needed to mental health-related 

calls.

This is how it works. The police dispatcher deploys a CIT officer whenever 

a call involves someone with a potential mental illness. Once on the scene, 

the CIT officer will assess the situation, determine the risk, and intervene in 

a way that ensures the safety of all involved. For example, the situation may 

not end with an arrest but rather in a referral for treatment, transportation 

to the psychiatric emergency room of the University of Tennessee Medical 

Center in Memphis, or contact with any known case managers assigned 

to the mentally ill individual. CIT officers work closely with mental health 

and medical resources to assure a timely transfer of custody of people 

experiencing mental health crises. The CIT partner facilities accept all 
Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System: A New Era  75

referrals by the police, a strategy critical to maintaining good relationships 

with the police and minimizing the amount of time both officers and the 

mentally ill in their custody must wait to secure services (Cochran, Deane, and 

Borum, 2000).

CIT Training

Volunteer MPD officers receive at least 40 hours of special training that covers 

a wide variety of relevant topics, including the following: 1. how to recognize 

and understand the signs and symptoms of mental illness, 2. a primer on 

psychotropic medications, 3. communication and deescalation skills designed 

to reduce the chances of tragic outcomes in encounters with the mentally ill, 

and 4. detailed information about available resources in the community. Other 

CIT training components may address “cultural differences, developmental 

disabilities, substance abuse, and dementia/Alzheimer’s disease” (Slate and 

Johnson, 2008, p. 101). Training is provided by mental health providers, family 

advocates, and mental health consumer groups at no charge to the police 

department. 

Memphis CIT Costs

CIT annual operating costs are about $70,000, or an average of $10 per call, 

for a CIT team of at least 180 officers (Dupont and Cochran, 2002). If volunteer 

and matching in-kind resources—such as the provision of CIT training by CIT 

partners—were not forthcoming, CIT operating costs would easily be double 

the current level. This program is truly one of the “lowest-cost intervention 

programs available” (Dupont and Cochran, 2002, p. 65). 

Successes/Outcomes of Memphis CIT

Three major evaluations of the Memphis CIT involve the University of 

Tennessee, the Policy Research Associates funded by a National Institute of 

Justice grant, and a national jail diversion project funded by the Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). So far, results 

are very promising. The following is a list of some of the key results from these 

evaluations: 

 A positive effect on officer perceptions related to crisis interventions with 

the mentally ill

 A decreased response time to the targeted incidents of more than 5 

minutes

 A minimum use of arrest, 2 percent compared with 20 percent, which was 

the national average for similar types of calls

 A much greater use of health care referrals

 A major decrease in officer injuries

 A reduced need for a Tactics Apprehension and Containment Team and 

hostage negotiation responses (Dupont and Cochran, 2002).
76  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Duplication Nationwide of the Memphis CIT Model

One factor in determining the success of any collaborative effort is whether 

it can be sustained in time and duplicated in other locations. The Memphis 

CIT has been doing business for more than 20 years. It is also estimated 

that today there are between 500 and 600 jurisdictions nationwide that have 

adopted CIT programs based at least in part on the Memphis CIT model 

(Slate and Johnson, 2008). This includes the Chicago Police Department, 

which serves a population of about 3 million and smaller law enforcement 

agencies like the Fort Wayne (Indiana) Police Department, which serves about 

250,000 people. The Memphis CIT serves a population approaching 700,000.

Fort Wayne Police Department: Another 

Outstanding Crisis Intervention Team

Like Memphis, Fort Wayne established a CIT program in response to a series 

of unfortunate incidents in the 1990s involving the police and mentally ill 

people. In some instances, police justifiably injured or killed mentally ill 

suspects whose behavior was erratic and threatening. In other instances, 

police released obviously mentally ill individuals rather than divert them 

to treatment. For example, when Fort Wayne police decided not to detain a 

mentally ill teenager who was wandering haplessly along a country road, the 

young man was struck and killed by a car on the same stretch of road later 

that day.

The Fort Wayne Police Department (FWPD) joined with NAMI, the mentally 

ill and their families, and other community groups to find a better way for 

police to handle mentally ill suspects. “It was apparent that the way the 

police traditionally dealt with the mentally ill wasn’t working,” says Dottie 

Davis, deputy chief of the FWPD and director of CIT Training. Under existing 

FWPD procedures, police had two alternatives when a suspect exhibited 

symptoms of mental illness. First, the responding officers could take the 

individual to a hospital for 72-hour involuntary emergency detention so he 

or she could be assessed. According to Davis, police avoided that option 

because the process, including transporting to and waiting around the 

hospital to get the person admitted, readily consumed an average 5 to 6 

hours of their day. As often as possible, they chose the second option of 

arresting the individual for being in public under the influence of alcohol 

or drugs, a fairly common situation for a mentally ill person not receiving 

treatment. “Or an officer, frustrated by the lack of viable alternatives, might 

take the mentally ill person to the edge of town and release him,” Davis adds.

Structure and Operation

After much discussion and research, Fort Wayne officials decided to 

duplicate the Memphis CIT model, which would be operated by the FWPD in 

collaboration with NAMI and the other players involved in responding to the 
Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System: A New Era  77

initial crisis. Like the Memphis program, only those officers who volunteered 

were considered for the CIT. The training curriculum was almost identical to 

that provided by the Memphis CIT, including that it was provided at no cost by 

area mental health experts. 

Today, CIT-trained officers respond to more than 900 calls a year involving 

potentially mentally ill people. They assess the situation; deal with the mentally 

ill in a nonthreatening way that tends to calm a disturbed suspect; and, if 

immediate mental health intervention is indicated, transports the individual 

to an area hospital for 72-hour detention. CIT officers have no reason to avoid 

these mental health runs because all participating hospitals have streamlined 

the admitting system for individuals brought in by CIT officers. “Today, the 

average CIT call involving a hospital admission takes 1 1⁄2 hours; that’s from 

the time a CIT call is dispatched until the officer returns to duty after taking 

someone to the hospital for mental health observation,” Davis explains.

Minimal Operating Costs

The only official cost of the FWPD’s CIT is a $200 annual stipend for each of 

the approximately 80 CIT-trained officers. Training and related materials were 

provided free by community groups, and any additional costs are simply 

absorbed into the FWPD’s budget.

Outcomes

FWPD’s CIT program has benefited both the police and the mentally ill, 

according to Davis.

 Arrests of mentally ill suspects—about 20 percent nationwide and 2 

percent for the Memphis CIT—are rare. Of 926 calls involving potentially 

mentally ill suspects in 2008, only three arrests (or less than a third of a 

percent) were made.

 The substantial amount of time saved in transporting individuals to 

area hospitals for mental health assessment and care under the CIT 

system—11⁄2 hours compared with a previous average of 5 to 6 hours—

means the FWPD has to spend less money keeping officers on the streets.

 Since the implementation of the CIT program, there has been a 55 percent 

decrease in SWAT Team crisis calls, the majority of which involve some 

level of mental illness. Because each SWAT Team includes 28 members, 

all of whom respond to every call, a reduction in SWAT calls results in 

significant savings for the FWPD.

Other Benefits

The CIT program operated by the FWPD is recognized both locally and 

statewide for its outstanding handling of mentally ill suspects. For example, 

when the FWPD considered the use of Tasers, the subject of considerable 

controversy nationwide, department officials were supported by the local 
78  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

NAMI branch. “They trusted our judgment,” Davis says. Additionally, police 

departments throughout Indiana come to the FWPD to study its CIT model 

and to receive CIT training.

Mental Health Courts

The Mental Health Court concept evolved in response to the mishandling 

of criminal cases involving the mentally ill, some of which resulted in 

documented tragedies. As portrayed in Mary Beth Pfeiffer’s book, Crazy in 

America, jails and prisons had become de facto mental health hospitals 

of the last resort. Correctional institutions are ill-prepared to deal with the 

problems associated with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, clinical depression, 

and the myriad other mental illnesses. By warehousing the mentally ill in 

such facilities, much harm is done. Little, if any valid treatment is afforded 

to such individuals. In some cases, the mentally ill are easy prey for other 

inmates and may spend long periods in isolation, primarily because they 

are not equipped to deal with the controlling environment of a jail or prison 

setting. In the worst case scenario, suicide occurs. 

The primary goal of the Mental Health Court is to divert the mentally ill 

person who has committed specified, less serious crimes to a nontraditional 

court designed to hold the offender accountable in a way that allows for 

treatment of the underlying and causal mental illness. Today, more than 700 

jurisdictions nationwide have some form of a Mental Health Court. Two of 

these courts—one in Broward, County, Florida, and another in Boone County, 

Missouri—are profiled in this section.

Broward County (Florida) Mental Health 

Court

After an incident in Broward County involving a mentally ill person resulted 

in tragic deaths that occurred in the county jail, Circuit Judge Mark Speiser 

took action in 1994. Working with major stakeholders, including police and 

mental health providers who were key players in the development of CITs, 

he formed an ad hoc criminal justice task force to address mental health 

issues related to the criminal justice system. Broward stakeholders included 

the Public Defender’s Office, State’s Attorney’s Office, Sheriff’s Office, county 

government staff, local members of NAMI, as well as community mental 

health and treatment providers. At the urging of the task force, the first 

Mental Health Court was created in 1997 as a subdivision of the Broward 

County Criminal Court. 
Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System: A New Era  79

Purpose of the Mental Health Court

The primary objectives of the Broward County Mental Health Court are as 

follows:

 Create a courtroom with a high degree of sensitivity to the specialized 

needs of this population.

 Assure that the mentally disabled defendant does not languish in jail 

because of his or her illness and is able to obtain needed emergency 

psychiatric treatment without compromise of the individual’s substantive 

legal rights.

 Balance the defendant’s individual rights, treatment considerations, and 

public safety.

 Apply a therapeutic approach to the processing of mentally ill offenders 

to assist them and their families in the recovery process and in assuming 

personal responsibility for their comprehensive health needs. Reducing 

the stigma associated with mental illness is another important objective of 

this approach.

 Ensure and oversee the coordination, effectiveness and accountability 

of 1. the delivery of community-based treatment and services and 2. 

compliance with treatment by the individual defendant.

 Reduce the contact of the mentally ill with the criminal justice system by 

building better collaboration between community mental health resources 

and the jail system.

The target group for the Mental Health Court was mentally ill individuals 

charged with misdemeanor offenses so long as the offenses did not involve 

driving under the influence, domestic violence, or assault charges (Slate and 

Johnson, 2008).

Key Components of the Model

The Mental Health Court is a voluntary, specialized docket that meets daily, 

as needed. Referrals come from family members, police, lawyers, jail staff, 

magistrate, and other county criminal court judges. The court operates under 

the philosophy of “therapeutic jurisprudence,” which views the role of the 

court as an active therapeutic agent in the therapeutic process. The judge 

becomes the primary coordinator of treatment, services, and housing, with 

much input on an ongoing basis from a multidisciplinary Mental Health Court 

Team.

This team is a key part of the Mental Health Court model. Team members 

include law enforcement, treatment providers, the mentally ill and their 

families, as well as the legal representatives. They collaborate and share 

information and resources in an effort to provide the mental health and 

other community services that a mentally ill offender needs to function 

more effectively in society and avoid the kind of offenses that brought him 

or her in contact with the criminal justice system. Team members meet on 
80  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

a regular, often weekly basis to discuss cases within the court and make 

specific treatment plans for each mentally ill offender. Offenders are required 

to come before the court during docket and interact with the judge on a 

personal, informal basis. Most team members attend dockets to provide the 

judge with information and recommendations regarding the treatment and 

progress of a mentally ill offender.

Law enforcement plays an important advisory role on the team because 

police are on the frontline in handling and following up on public 

disturbances and criminal activity involving the mentally ill. As a result, they 

may possess valuable information about the history and current status of a 

mentally ill offender. Much like the CIT Model, all stakeholders in the Mental 

Health Court contribute much needed resources and assistance related to 

the problems faced by mentally ill persons who are under the purview of the 

criminal justice system.

Successes and Outcomes 

A review of the literature reveals the following findings related to offenders 

appearing before the Broward County Mental Health Court:

 They experienced increased access to mental health services (McGaha, 

Boothroyd, Poythress, Petrila, and Ort, 2005).

 They perceived that the court was fair and noncoercive (Petrila, 2003).

 They experienced significantly shorter jail stays than a comparison 

group. A study shows that the average stay was 3.0 days for those in 

the Mental Health Court, while the average stay for a comparison group 

not involved in the Mental Health Court was 10.5 to 12.0 days (Christy, 

Poythress, Boothroyd, Petrila, and Mehra, 2005).

 Treatment included long- and short-term residential treatment, as well as 

intensive case management for those in the community (Spigel, 2001).

The Mental Health Court collaborations and partnerships entered into in 1997 

continue in Broward County today. Additionally, many other jurisdictions 

have used modified versions of the Broward County model to implement 

Mental Health Courts in their communities.

Boone County (Missouri) 

Mental Health Court

Overview

The Boone County Mental Health Court was established in 2003 to allow 

the 13th Judicial Circuit (Columbia, Missouri) to better respond to the 

growing number of mentally ill people whose nonviolent criminal offenses 

were more the result of mental illness than an intent to cause harm. In 

practice, the court functions as an alternative sentencing program that 

attempts to bring together all the experts and resources required to help 
Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System: A New Era  81

the mentally ill individual successfully live in society without further contact 

with the criminal justice system. It focuses on treatment and rehabilitation 

rather than punishment. This approach not only benefits the mentally ill, but 

it also reduces the high level of recidivism among mentally ill convicts, which 

ultimately improves public safety.

To be eligible for the Mental Health Court, one must be a resident of 

Boone County; accused or convicted of committing a nonviolent criminal 

misdemeanor or felony offense; and diagnosed with an Axis I mental illness, 

which includes major mental disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar 

disorder, clinical depression, as well as developmental and learning disorders. 

Participation in the court is voluntary.

The Boone County Mental Health Court model is much like the Broward 

County model in Florida. A team of advocates, court officials, law enforcement 

officers, mental health professionals, and service providers evaluates each 

offender and, in conjunction with the Mental Health Court judge, develops a 

comprehensive treatment plan that typically lasts a year. It consists of three 

phases: 

1. Stabilization, which focuses on mental health, substance abuse and 

related services designed to stabilize people in crisis.

2. Cognitive life skills building, which provides the practical education and 

related training services people need to develop the skills to be selfsupporting.

3. Reintegration, which prepares people to live independently in the 

community. 

Each phase also includes comprehensive mental health treatment, including 

counseling, medications, and care in an in-house treatment facility, if 

needed. Substance abuse treatment is also available to the many mentally 

ill individuals who struggle with alcohol or drug dependence. If the offender 

follows the treatment plan, attends all required court hearings, and avoids any 

further criminal activity, he or she will not likely be sentenced to serve time in 

jail. In some instances, charges may be dropped altogether. If the offender fails 

to follow the rules, a variety of sanctions are implemented, including removal 

from the program, which would result in his or her case being referred back to 

the court for conventional prosecution.

Unique Aspects of Boone County Court

Mental Health Court Team

In addition to the usual range of court officials, legal advocates, and mental 

health experts, the Boone County Mental Health Court Team includes a wide 

variety of community agencies that are in a position to deliver services 

typically needed by a mentally ill person in crisis. These include housing 

services, emergency assistance, employment training and job counseling, 

educational services, and one-to-one assistance in filling out paperwork 

required to secure various services and government benefits. 
82  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

The Judge

Mental health court judges routinely consult with team members about the 

needs and progress of each participant during the court docket. But Associate 

Circuit Judge Christine Carpenter, who presides over the Boone County 

Mental Health Court, doesn’t wait until she enters the courtroom to collect 

information. She meets with team members before the hearing to discuss 

the details of each case, including the progress of the individual, problems 

and successes, the need for mental health, and other community services, 

as well as any special considerations that might result in a change in an 

offender’s treatment plan. By the time she meets with the offender in court, 

she is able to conduct a meaningful conversation about his or her situation, 

including applauding successes and warning about missteps.

The Role of Law Enforcement

An officer from the Columbia Police Department is an integral part of 

the Mental Health Court Team. Because police are on the frontline in the 

community, knowledgeable about what is happening on the streets, 

he is often able to alert the team members to situations that might be 

dangerous or inappropriate for a court offender. For example, if the team 

was attempting to find a job for an offender at a certain Laundromat, the 

officer might know that there’s a lot of drug activity around the site and 

urge the team to look at another alternative. He is also available to respond 

to emergency situations involving court offenders. If someone does not 

show up for his scheduled court hearing—or there are reports that an 

offender is homeless or living in an unhealthy environment—the police team 

member will check it out and report back to the team. Further, because he 

has developed a deep understanding of mental health issues as an active 

member of the team, he informally trains other Columbia police officers 

to watch for the signs of mental illness and take the steps necessary to get 

them referred to the Mental Health Court.

Funding

The Mental Health Court was initially funded by Proposition L, a 1/8th percent 

sales tax approved in 2002 by Boone County voters to support the court and 

other law enforcement-related activities. Additional start-up funding was 

provided by a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance for the support of 

mental health treatment and housing expenses for court participants. Today, 

Proposition L is the primary funder of the court. 

Barriers to Mental Health Courts

Mental Health Courts can be a very effective in dealing with the special 

needs of mentally ill offenders. However, the one major challenge is the 

lack of adequate mental health and related resources, such as housing, 

insurance, and other community assistance, available to the Mental Health 

Court. Much of this is due to a decline in state funding, reduced Medicaid 
Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System: A New Era  83

benefits, and a shortage of hospital beds for the mentally ill. This limits the 

ability of the Mental Health Court Team to arrange for all the resources a 

mentally ill offender requires. If the Mental Health Courts in Broward County, 

Boone County, and other communities are to effectively serve all the qualified 

offenders, then states and other governing bodies must allocate the resources 

needed to properly deal with the mentally ill. Otherwise, the revolving door of 

this population into and out of the criminal justice system will continue.

Summary

This chapter highlights two innovative police collaborations—CITs and Mental 

Health Courts—both designed to improve the way law enforcement and other 

groups involved in the criminal justice system deal with mentally ill suspects 

and offenders. Each collaboration requires the police to adopt new, more 

appropriate and humane behaviors that go beyond their traditional role of 

apprehending criminals. The efforts of the police, as well as the many partners 

active in CITs and Mental Health Courts, have produced “best practices” 

that can be emulated to create sustainable collaborations for working more 

effectively with mentally troubled individuals in the criminal justice system. 

These collaborations mark the beginning of a much needed reduction in the 

level of the criminalization of the mentally ill in the United States.

Conclusion
86  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Conclusion

There are many reasons why police might want to further explore the kinds 

of alternatives-to-incarceration programming highlighted in this publication. 

First and foremost are the many direct and indirect benefits that police 

reap when they collaborate with community corrections officials and other 

people within the criminal justice system and the community to find safe, 

effective, and affordable ways to hold low-risk offenders accountable without 

incarcerating them. Although this report examines only a limited number 

of alternative programs, it quickly becomes apparent that the involvement 

of law enforcement in these programs improves public safety. Additionally, 

under the traditional criminal justice system, police hand over offenders to a 

system that will make all decisions about their punishment with little or no 

input from law enforcement. With alternative programming, the expertise 

of police who deal with criminals on a daily basis is utilized to develop 

programs that will—without jeopardizing the safety of the public—give 

offenders the support they need to avoid criminal activity in the future.

This report outlines many of the most important benefits that police enjoy 

when they participate in alternatives-to-incarceration programming.

1. Cost effectiveness 

In a world of competing interests for diminishing resources, the criminal 

justice system is struggling to keep a lid on incarceration costs that 

have been spiraling out of control in recent decades. One good way to 

do this is by keeping low-risk offenders in the community, a strategy 

that is much less expensive than incarcerating them. According to 

the Pew Center on the States (2009), the average cost of keeping an 

inmate in prison is $29,000 per year as opposed to keeping them in the 

community on probation at an average cost of $1,250 per year. As this 

publication demonstrates, there are many successful community-based 

interventions which can be used to maintain public safety and, at the 

same time, assist low-risk offenders in making life changes that will help 

deter them from reoffending.

2. Effectiveness of alternatives to incarceration

Today, more creative and innovative alternative programs are being 

implemented with a variety of populations in community corrections, 

most documenting significant decreases in recidivism rates. These 

successes should inspire police, whose commitment to public safety 

is paramount. For example, among many jurisdictions involved in the 

Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), it has been shown that 

as the detention rates among arrested juveniles fell, so did juvenile 

crime rates. Additionally, the use of mental health courts has been a 

crucial factor in stopping the revolving door of the mentally ill in and 

out of prison. Operation Night Light, a very productive collaboration 

between police and corrections, has proven to be an effective crime-
Conclusion  87

reducing program. Another alternative-to-incarceration effort initiated by 

the Department of Corrections in Kansas has drastically reduced the prison 

population by instituting new ways of dealing with minor probation and 

parole violations. Law enforcement has played an important role in the 

planning and/or execution of all of these efforts.

3. Lessening police hassles

Police already have so much to do that the idea of finding time to 

explore and participate in local alternatives to incarceration may initially 

seem unrealistic. Yet research and anecdotal information related to the 

alternative programs featured in this report strongly suggest that police 

involvement in these efforts makes their lives easier.

Consider the Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) model. CIT teams, composed 

of police officers with intensive training in dealing with the mentally ill, 

has the potential to save police many hours of waiting in a hospital to get 

a mentally ill offender admitted for observation. Under the CIT system, 

police collaborate with mental health facilities that allow CIT officers to 

make on-the-spot admissions with practically no waiting or red tape. A 

secondary benefit is that more mentally ill offenders are getting the mental 

health care they need to avoid reoffending. The Vermont Community 

Justice Centers (VCJC) represent another time-saving alternative program, 

one that focuses on restorative justice via reparative boards. VCJCs offer 

police an opportunity to make direct referrals to reparative boards when 

dealing with low-level crime. So instead of investing a lot of time testifying 

and otherwise supporting the prosecution of a case, police who refer 

offenders to reparative boards free up time for other vital law enforcement 

activities—all the while protecting the public from harm. That’s because 

VCJC reparative boards utilize a proven, standardized approach to holding 

the offender accountable for his illegal actions against the victim and the 

community. These and many other alternative-to-incarceration programs 

allow police to decrease the time and energy they typically spend 

processing cases.

4. More police discretion

Too often, those suspected of committing crimes are arrested and 

automatically channeled into the criminal justice system. At that point, 

police—who often possess a good understanding of the offender’s history 

and risk of reoffending—have little or no input into what happens to the 

offender. By contrast, many alternative programs rely on the expertise 

and judgment of police in determining the fate of offenders. For example, 

police are very involved in the development of the JDAI assessment tool, 

which is used to separate high-risk juveniles, who should be confined 

after arrest, from low-risk juveniles, who can be released prior to the 

adjudication of their case without risk to the community. Similarly, the 

decision to refer cases to restorative justice in some jurisdictions is 
88  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

left to the law enforcement agency that has the first interaction with 

the offender. Officials within the criminal justice system increasingly 

recognize that the experience and ideas of police are vital assets in 

developing and implementing alternative programs.

5. Improving community/police relationships

Community policing advocates for stronger relationships between police 

and the community. All of these programs offer new and expanded ways 

that police can work together with different segments of the community. 

As a result, many experience better relationships among the people they 

deal with in the criminal justice system. The restorative justice program 

in St. Louis County definitely reflected this. For example, the volunteers 

on the Juvenile Justice Committee (JJC) in Kirkwood, Missouri (part of 

St. Louis County), got to know their police liaison and learned to respect 

his expertise. The parents of the juveniles who appeared before JJCs 

saw the police officer as someone who was truly trying to help their 

child, rather than someone who fit the stereotypical role of “catching” 

him doing something wrong. In both the mental health court and the CIT 

programs, police consistently demonstrate that they are sensitive to the 

needs of the mentally ill and their families. These and other alternative 

programs have led to many positive, productive relationships between 

the police and the community.

Police who participate in alternatives-to-incarceration programs enjoy all 

the benefits outlined above without jeopardizing—and in many instances 

improving—public safety. As communities increasingly look for new 

ways to control their spiraling prison/jail populations, now is an ideal 

time for police to consider working with both the community and the 

criminal justice system to develop viable alternatives to incarceration.
References
90  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

References

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of June 2009. 

Given that URLs and web sites are in constant flux, neither the authors nor 

the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity. 

Annie E. Casey Foundation. A Road Map for Juvenile Justice Reform. (no date) 

www.aecf.org/~/media/PublicationFiles/AEC180essay_booklet_MECH.pdf

Beto, D.R. “Successful Multi-Agency Collaboration.” TRCPI informer 9 (1) 

(2007): 4.

Beto, D.R. and J. Kester. Project Spotlight: A Rational Strategy for Crime 

Reduction in Texas Neighborhoods, 2003.

Bishop, D. “Public Opinion and Juvenile Justice Policy: Myths and 

Misconceptions.” Criminology & Public Policy 5 (4) (2006): 653–664. 

Boyes-Watson, C. “The Value of Citizen Participation in Restorative/Community 

Justice: Lessons from Vermont.” Criminology & Public Policy 3 (4) (2004): 

687–692.

Christy, A., N. Poythress, R. Boothroyd, J. Petrila, and S. Mehra. “Evaluating 

the Efficiency and Community Safety Goals of the Broward County 

Mental Health Court.” Behavioral Sciences & the Law 23 (2) (2005): 

227–243.

Cochran, S., M.W. Deane, and R. Borum. “Improving Police Response to 

Mentally Ill People.” Psychiatric Services 51 (10) (2000): 1315–1316.

Compton, M.T., M. Bahora, A.C. Watson, and J.R. Oliva. “A Comprehensive 

Review of Extant Research on Crisis Intervention Team Programs.” 

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online 36 

(2008): 1–2.

Condon, C.D. “Falling Crime Rates, Rising Caseload Numbers: Using PoliceProbation Partnerships.” Corrections Today 65 (1) (2003): 44.

Consensus Project, Council of State Governments. www.consensusproject.org

Crawford, C. and V. Talucci. “Partnerships for Public Safety.” Corrections Today

62 (1) (2000): 42.

Dembinski, J.P. “Restorative Justice: Vermont State Policy.” Vermont Bar 

Journal 29 (5) (2003): 39–60.

Doble, J. “Crime and Corrections: The Views of the People of Vermont—A 

Report to the Vermont Department of Corrections.” Englewood Cliffs, 

N.J.: Doble Research Associates, 1994.
References  91

Dupont, R.T. and C.S. Cochran. “The Memphis CIT Model” in Serving Mentally Ill 

Offenders: Challenges and Opportunities for Mental Health Professionals;

(G. Landsberg, M. Rock, L. Berg, and A. Smiley, eds.), New York: Springer 

Publishing Company, 2002.

Essex Community Justice Center. www.essex.org

Evans, D. “Project Spotlight—Partnership in Supervision.” Corrections Today

63 (1) (2001): 110-111.

Evans, D.G. “Boston’s Probation and Police Partnership.” Corrections Today 59 (4) 

(1997): 126.

Gordon, M.B. Making the Match: Law Enforcement, the Faith Community and 

the Value-Based Initiative. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2004.

Greenberg, S. F. “Police Response to People with Mental Illness” in Solving 

Crime and Disorder Problems: Current Issues, Police Strategies and 

Organizational Tactics, (M. Reuland, C.S. Brito, and L. Carroll, eds.). 

Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 2001, 43–58.

Hines, D. and G. Bazemore. “Restorative Policing, Conferencing and 

Community.” Police Practice and Research 4 (4) (2003): 411–427.

James, D. and L. Glaze. Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates. U.S. 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, 2006.

“Juvenile Detentions Down 25% in N.J.” The Press of Atlantic City, 

June 12, 2008.

Karp, D., G. Bazemore, and J. Chesire. “The Role and Attitudes of Restorative 

Board Members: A Case Study of Volunteers in Community Justice.” 

Crime & Delinquency 50 (4) (2004): 487–515.

Karp, D. and K. Drakulich. “Minor Crime in a Quaint Setting: Practices, Outcomes 

and Limits of Vermont Reparative Probation Boards.” Criminology & Public 

Policy 3 (4) (2004): 655–686.

Katz, J. and G. Bonham. “Changing a Culture: Reflections on 8 Years of Research 

Restorative Justice in Missouri’s Juvenile Courts.” International Journal of 

Restorative Justice 4 (2) (2008): 20–38.

Katz, J. and M. Gordon. A Decade of Restorative Justice in Missouri’s Juvenile 

Courts: Accountability, Restitution and Transformation. Missouri 

Department of Public Safety and the Juvenile Justice Advisory Group, 

September 2006.
92  Effective Alternatives to Incarceration: Police Collaborations with Corrections and Communities

Kim, B., J. Gerber, and D. Beto. “Collaboration Between Law Enforcement 

and Community Corrections Agencies.” TELEMASP Bulletin. Huntsville, 

Texas: Sam Houston State University, 2007.

La Vigne, N., A. Solomon, K. Beckman, and K. Dedel. Prisoner Reentry and 

Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety. U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

2006. 

Mauer, M. “Lessons of the ‘Get Tough’ Movement in the United States.” The 

Sentencing Project, presented at the International Corrections and Prison 

Association 6th Annual Conference, Beijing, China, October 25, 2004.

McGaha, A., R. Boothroyd, N. Poythress, J. Petrila, and R. Ort. “Evaluation and 

Program Planning.” Evaluation and Program Planning, 25 (2) (2005): 

125–135.

Mirsky, L. “The Nanaimo Community Justice Forum: A Restorative Justice 

Partnership in British Columbia, Canada.” Restorative Justice Practices 

EForum, February 16, 2005.

National Institute of Mental Health. NIMH: The Number Count—Mental 

Disorders in America. www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/numbers.cfm. 2008. 

New Jersey Kids Count. The State of Children in Our State. Newark, New 

Jersey: Association for Children of New Jersey, 2006.

Petrila, J. “An Introduction to Special Jurisdiction Courts.” International Journal 

of Law and Psychiatry 26 (2003): 3–12.

Pew Center on the States. One in 100: Behind Bars in America. 2008.

www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=35904

Pew Center on the States. One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections.

2009. www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/PSPP_1in31_

report_FINALWEB_3-26-09.pdf

Pfeiffer, M.B. Crazy in America: The Hidden Tragedy of Our Criminalized 

Mentally Ill. New York: Carroll and Graf Publisher, 2007.

Price, M. “Commentary: The Challenge of Training Police Officers.” The Journal 

of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 33 (2005): 50–54.

“Project Spotlight: The Texas Interagency Initiative to Provide Intensive 

Probation Supervision.” TELEMASP Bulletin 9 (4) (2002): 1.

Reichert, K. “Police-Probation Partnerships: Boston’s Operation Night Light.” 

Promising Approaches to Addressing Crime. Washington, D.C.: Forum 

on Crime and Justice, 2002.
References  93

Report of the Reentry Policy Council. (no date) www.reentrypolicy.org/

publications/rpc_report_preview;file.

Rinehart, T., A. Laszlo, and G. Briscoe. Collaboration Toolkit: How to Build, Fix, 

and Sustain Productive Partnerships. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing, 2001.

Ruiz, J. and C. Miller. “An Exploratory Study of Pennsylvania Police Officers’ 

Perceptions of Dangerousness and Their Ability to Manage Persons with 

Mental Illness.” Police Quarterly 7 (2004): 359–371.

Rutland’s United Neighborhoods Community Justice Center. www.runcjc.org/

aboutCJC.php

Slate, R. and W. Johnson. Criminalization of Mental Illness: Crisis and 

Opportunity for the Justice System. Durham, North Carolina: Carolina 

Academic Press, 2008.

Spigel, S. “Broward County (Florida) Mental Health Court.” OLR Research 

Report, June 26, 2001.

Tonry, M. and J. Petersilia. Prisons Research at the Beginning of the 21st 

Century. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 2000.

Winooski Community Justice Center. www.winooskipolice.com/WCJC


U. S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details about COPS Office programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov

e070930222

At a time when one in 100 American adults is confined to prison or jail, the 

ballooning cost of incarceration—about $29,000 per inmate annually—is 

strangling state budgets without increasing the safety of our communities. 

In response, police have collaborated with community corrections officials, 

others in the criminal justice system, and community members to find safe 

and effective alternatives to incarceration for the growing legion of low-risk 

offenders who end up behind bars. This report provides concrete examples of 

some of the most successful and innovative alternative programs that have 

evolved from these collaborations and that are keeping our communities safe 

at a fraction of the cost of incarceration.