¶ … Law Enforcement Differences Between Various Levels Of Law Enforcement

Federal prisons are for conviction under Federal laws. State prisons are similar in all concepts and applications but are for convictions under state statutes (Albanese, 2002). Privatized prisons are owned by the state in which they are in and have been tried (or are being used) by several states on the assumption that a privately operated prison will cost less money over a state run entity (Raine, 1994). If you look historically at the privately run prisons, you will find that they have lost millions due to law suits lost in medical claims filed by inmates who were incarcerated there (Albanese, 2002).

Fully third of the budget of a state run prison is for medical care. When an inmate has a medical condition that demands operations, MRI's, CAT scans and the like, they are taken to local hospitals and treated there while under supervision of Correctional staff (Finckenauer, 2000). We cannot deny medical care or operations while a person is incarcerated.

In Ohio, for example, there are two privately run prisons here. The two prisons are owned by the Department of Corrections but are contracted out to security companies who have a contractual agreement to operate at a minimum of 5% under their state run counterparts (Finckenauer, 2000). For the last 5 years, both prisons have failed miserably plus both have outstanding lawsuits for denial of medical care. Florida and Tennessee are states that also have privatized prisons and both states have lost millions due to the same problems.

Securing clearances and information sharing -- Law enforcement agencies at all levels need to be better educated about the different types of security clearances. Federal agency personnel need more guidance on what and how information can be shared as unclassified materials, as well as training on the most useful ways to present information to local law enforcement and line officers (Finckenauer, 2000). Changes, both legislative and administrative, need to be made to facilitate the clearance process for local law enforcement...

Local agencies need to identify those personnel most in need of clearances and the level of clearance needed. Local agency personnel must adhere to nondisclosure agreements (Albanese, 2002).
Joint terrorism task forces -- Task forces can be an effective "force multiplier," but they need additional resources, investigators, analysts, and administrative staff to make them more effective. Task forces should establish a governing board such as an executive committee that would be comprised of key law enforcement personnel from federal and local agencies that would ensure proper information sharing, commitment, accountability, coordination, and would handle other various issues such as turnover of key personnel and the reassignment of officers and agents (Finckenauer, 2000). To promote long-term local agency involvement, task forces should develop a formal mechanism for providing regular briefings to and ensure accountability of participating agencies. A model for this would be the New York Police Department (NYPD) COMPSTAT (Computerized Statistics) meetings. Local agencies that do not have a permanent member on the task force should designate a liaison to the task force to facilitate the development of relationships between local agencies and the task force. Federal agencies need to understand that the effectiveness of task forces is diminished with the existence of duplicative task forces due to the limited personnel and resources of local law enforcement (Albanese, 2002). Federal resources for task forces and specific training are scarce in some regions while abundant/redundant in others. These resources need to be more strategically planned to improve consistency and coordination (Finckenauer, 2000).

FBI strategies -- FBI and local law enforcement need to reach consensus on ways to prevent and investigate criminal activities that are consistent with local needs and priorities, and that are…