American Journal of Criminal Justice

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 275–291 | Cite as

Developing Outcome Measures for Criminal Justice Information Sharing: A Study of a Multi-Jurisdictional Officer Notification System for Policing Sex Offenders in Southern California

Article

Abstract

Information-sharing efforts are broadly assumed by criminal justice and security practitioners to be effective, yet their impact on policing performance has not been thoroughly studied. This paper develops measures for an information-sharing system in a population of sex offenders in Southern California. We compared interagency involvement and policing outcomes for registered sex offenders with (n = 3,919) and without (n = 581) records pertaining to their sex offender status in the Officer Notification System (ONS) of ARJIS. To account for differences in criminal activity, offenders were matched on each of four focal incidents (citations, field interviews, crime cases, and arrests) and compared on outcomes that followed the focal incident. Compared to controls, sex offenders with ONS records were 75 % more likely to be involved with multiple agencies, 92 % more likely to have a citation following a crime case, 34 % more likely to have multiple crime cases (i.e., a crime case following an initial crime case), 44 % more likely to have a field interview following a citation, over 2 times more likely to have a field interview following a crime case, and 20-30 % more likely to have an arrest after a crime case, citation, or field interview. Novel measures of information sharing revealed links between the sharing of information about sex offender registrant status and the frequency and timing of police incidents and inter-agency involvement.

Keywords

Information technology Intelligence Knowledge management Law enforcement Policing 

References

  1. Bailey, D.S.L.L. (2015). Sex offender supervision in context: The need for qualitative examinations of social distance in sex offender-supervision officer relationships. Technical report, http://cjp.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/02/20/0887403415572876.abstract.
  2. Bureau of Justice Assistance (2014). What have we learned from evaluations of information sharing/integration initiatives? Technical report, https://www.bja.gov/evaluation/program-informationsharing/isii2.htm, Washington, D.C.
  3. Bureau of Justice Assistance and US Dept of Justice and Office of Justice Programs and United States of America (2002). Regional information sharing systems program. NCJ 192666.Google Scholar
  4. Center for Sex Offender Management (2008). Key roles of law enforcement in sex offender management. Technical report, http://www.csom.org/pubs/law_enforcement_key_roles.pdf, Silver Spring, MD.
  5. Center for Sex Offender Management (2007). The comprehensive assessment protocol: A system-wide review of adult and juvenile sex offender management strategies. Technical report, http://www.csom.org/pubs/cap/download/Comprehensiveocol.pdf, Silver Spring, MD.
  6. Conley, T., Hill, K., Church, W.T., Stoeckel, E., & Allen, H. (2011). Assessing probation and community corrections workers attitudes toward sex offenders using the community attitudes toward sex offenders (catso) scale in a rural state. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 18(2), 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Council on State Governments (2010). Sex offender management policy in the states. Technical report, http://www.csg.org/policy/documents/SOMFinalReport-FINAL.pdf, Lexington, KY.
  8. Cox, D.R., & Oakes, D. (1984). Analysis of survival data (Vol. 21). CRC Press.Google Scholar
  9. Craig, L.A. (2005). The impact of training on attitudes towards sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 11(2), 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Government Accountability Office (2010). Information sharing: Dhs could better define how it plans to meet its state and local mission and improve performance accountability. Technical report, GAO-11-223.Google Scholar
  11. Government Accountability Office (2013). Information sharing: Additional actions could help ensure that efforts to share terrorism-related suspicious activity reports are effective. Technical report, FAO-13-233.Google Scholar
  12. Government Accountability Office (2011). Information sharing: Progress made and challenges remaining in sharing terrorism-related information. Technical report, GAO-12-144T.Google Scholar
  13. Government Accountability Office (2012). Information sharing: Dhs has demonstrated leadership and progress, but additional actions could help sustain and strengthen efforts. Technical report, GAO-12-809.Google Scholar
  14. Helfgott, J.B., & Gunnison, E. (2008). Influence of social distance on community corrections officer perceptions of offender reentry needs, the. Federal Probation, 72, 2–12.Google Scholar
  15. International Association of Chiefs of Police (2007). Sex offenders in the community: Enforcement and prevention strategies for law enforcement. Technical report, http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/SexOffendersintheCommunity.pdf, Alexandria, VA.
  16. International Association of Chiefs of Police and United States of America (2008). National summit on intelligence: Gathering, sharing, analysis, and use after 9-11.Google Scholar
  17. Jackson, B. (2014). How do we know what information sharing is really worth? Santa Monica, CA; RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  18. Lea, S., Auburn, T., & Kibblewhite, K. (1999). Working with sex offenders: The perceptions and experiences of professionals and paraprofessionals. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43(1), 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mustaine, E.E., Tewksbury, R., Connor, D.P., & Payne, B.K. (2015). Criminal justice officials views of sex offenders, sex offender registration, community notification, and residency restrictions. Justice System Journal, 36(1), 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Paul, K. (2012). Annual report to the congress on the information sharing environment, Technical report, DTIC Document.Google Scholar
  21. Payne, B.K., & DeMichele, M. (2008). Warning: Sex offenders need to be supervised in the community. Federal Probation, 72, 37–42.Google Scholar
  22. Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E.E. (2013). Law-enforcement officials’ views of sex offender registration and community notification. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 15, 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tewksbury, R., Mustaine, E.E., & Payne, B.K. (2012). Community corrections professionals attitudes about sex offenders: is the catso applicable? Criminal Justice Studies, 25(2), 145–157.Google Scholar
  24. Wagner, L.W. (2005). Use of data in police departments: A survey of police chiefs and data analysts. Washington: Justice Research and Statistics Association.Google Scholar
  25. Wagner, L. W. (2006). Information sharing systems: A survey of law enforcement. Justice Research and Statistics Association.Google Scholar
  26. Zaworski, M.J. (2005). An assessment of an information sharing technology (ARJIS): Examining its potential contribution to improved performance through the eyes of street level officers. Washington: National Criminal Justice Research Service, NCJRS 210487.Google Scholar
  27. Zevitz, R.G., & Farkas, M.A. (2000). The impact of sex-offender community notification on probation/parole in Wisconsin. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(1), 8–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RAND CorporationSanta MonicaUSA
  2. 2.ARJISSan DiegoUSA
  3. 3.RAND CorporationArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations