Juvenile Probation and Police Partnerships as Loosely Coupled Systems: A Qualitative Analysis

Most organizational theories assume that agency partnerships within a system are seamless and tightly fit. Through qualitative interviews with program personnel, this study measured the extent to which juvenile probation and police partnerships were characterized as a ‘‘loosely coupled system.’’ Loosely coupled systems were measured by each agency’s willingness to share information, willingness to share power, flexibility in decision making, open communication without fear of reprisal, valuing diverse backgrounds of outside agencies, and degree of mutual commitment toward a common goal. Evidence to support the existence of a loosely coupled system was the willingness of officers to expand and broaden their traditional roles and appropriately share power, such that there was no mission distortion and role confusion observed. Information sharing efforts had a significant impact on dissolving old ways of thinking about traditional roles and instead built a new sense of trust, improved morale, and greater access to information.

[1]  J. Byrne,et al.  Examining the Role of the Police in Reentry Partnership Initiatives , 2004 .

[2]  Robert T. Sigler,et al.  Law enforcement partnership in community corrections: An evaluation of juvenile offender curfew checks , 2002 .

[3]  K. Weick,et al.  Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization , 1990 .

[4]  K. Weick Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems , 1976, Gestión y Estrategia.

[5]  David P. Aday,et al.  An Empirical Typology of American Metropolitan Juvenile Courts , 1982, American Journal of Sociology.

[6]  John L. Worrall,et al.  The effect of police-probation partnerships on juvenile arrests , 2006 .

[7]  Nancy C. Jurik,et al.  Organizational Cooptation or Social Change? , 2000 .

[8]  John D. Hewitt,et al.  Ceremonial Justice: Crime and Punishment in a Loosely Coupled System , 1979 .

[9]  Jim Thomas Justice as Interaction: Loose Coupling and Mediations in the Adversary Process* , 1983 .

[10]  Faith E. Lutze,et al.  Police-probation partnerships: Professional identity and the sharing of coercive power , 2009 .

[11]  Karl E. Weick,et al.  Administering Education in Loosely Coupled Schools. , 1982 .

[12]  J. Worrall,et al.  The threat of mission distortion in police‐probation partnerships , 2007 .

[13]  Jim Thomas SOME ASPECTS OF NEGOTIATED ORDER, LOOSE COUPLING AND MESOSTRUCTURE IN MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISONS* , 1984 .

[14]  C. Sharp theoretical and practical application of loose Coupling : a Study of Criminal Justice agencies in the State of florida , 2009 .