Task force creation and implementation strategies

Terrorist Profiling

Task force case study: Creating a new parole policy to reduce crime and expenditures on crime

Other than her immediate advisors or cabinet members, who should the governor seek for advice on the plan?

The two major areas of controversy that are likely to arise regarding the Utopian governor's plan are how the plan deals with community safety and the need to balance the rights of currently and formerly incarcerated prisoners with the rights of victims. Members of the state police and corrections divisions who have considerable experience in dealing with reintegrating offenders into the community should provide input into how they think the plan will impact and change the current levels of violence and recidivism within the state and within the prison population. Equally critical, however, is to solicit the viewpoints of local advocates in crime-ridden communities to discuss how the policies being developed will affect residents.

Representatives of victim advocacy groups must have a voice, to ensure that the individuals affected by crime are not forgotten. Given that the new policy is based upon classical criminological theory that the certainty of punishment is more important than its severity, the advice of university experts in criminology should be sought, to examine how to put this old theory into contemporary practice (Marshall, 1998). If any community in the nation or within a specific county has created a potential successful forerunner of the new community parole program, the advice from a community or political leader could prove invaluable.

Who should be appointed to her task force?

The task force should consist of representatives from the state police, representatives from the state agency currently charge of overseeing paroles, representatives of any current community corrections and parole administrative divisions, a representative from all of the major cities and communities most affected by crime in the state, and representatives from victim rights advocacy groups.

What language and metaphors should she use in her presentation to the individuals she would ask to serve on the task force?

Given the governor's long-standing image is that she is 'tough on crime' and friendly to law enforcement, it is essential that she maintain this image to seem consistent, and also to continue her friendly relations with all of the representatives of the law enforcement community, even though she is attempting to instate budget cuts. She may wish to note that the new policy will not result in job losses, and may merely mean shifting law enforcement personnel from in-house corrections to community parole and policing divisions.

When communicating with victim rights groups, she should also use her past record as evidence that her use of community policing is not evidence that she is becoming 'soft on crime' and that she still 'feels the pain' of victims whose lives have been affected by crime. She must also stress that dangerous offenders will not be released upon the public, and will be properly monitored by trained parole officers. Likewise, in dealing with community leaders from crime-affected areas, she must communicate the fact that she is 'sensitive' to the need for better policing and monitoring of these areas in general. Her message should be the same, but the degree to which feel and sensitivity may differ slightly, to create a consistent yet integrated image. Consistency, to avoid later charges of hypocrisy in the media, is important, and also to create a smoothly running task force.

How should the governor announce her plan to the public?

The announcement should come with the governor flanked by representatives of the law enforcement community in uniform and prominent community activists and representatives of victim witness advocacy groups, so she can retain her 'tough on crime' image. She will no doubt be questioned as to how her plan will impact public safety, and she must clearly demonstrate that statistically other states that have created such programs have not seen an increase in crime, as well as provide some preliminary details about how the released convicts will be monitored over the course of her parole.

She will also be asked if this is a cost-cutting measure, and if this sacrifices justice to 'the bottom line.' She should stress that she does empathize and feel the pain of victims, and would never compromise community safety to cut costs, or misuse community corrections -- the policy is to reduce crime, not to simply reduce sentences.

What barriers to communications will exist between the task force members you have selected in response to question 2 above? How can those barriers be overcome?

Representatives of crime-ridden communities may feel more sympathy for certain criminals than victim advocacy representatives, and certain members of the law enforcement community may be in conflict as to the length of sentencing and the degree to which the feelings of victims should impact the terms of the parole. Officers on the streets and corrections officers in prisons may take a more cynical view of the rehabilitative process than parole officers. However, given that the aim of the plan is to balance the need for crime reduction and rehabilitation with still being 'tough on crime,' a common language can hopefully be created.