LARNet; The
Cyber Journal of Applied Leisure and Recreation Research
An Exploratory
Study of Collaborative Efforts
Between Local Law Enforcement Agencies and PublicParks
and Recreation Departments
(Feb 2004)
Julie
S. Knapp, Ph.D.
Lynn M. Jamieson, Re.D.
contact:
Julie S. Knapp, Ph.D.
IndianaUniversity
Department of Recreation and Park
Administration
HPER 133
Bloomington, IN47405
PH: (812) 855-8037
Fax: (812) 855-3998
Email:julknapp@indiana.ed
Lynn M. Jamieson, Re.D.
IndianaUniversity
Department of Recreation and Park
Administration
HPER 133
Bloomington, IN47405
PH: (812) 855-8676
Email:lyjamies@indiana.edu
Abstract
Parks and recreation
departments throughout North
America have
partnered
with a number of different agencies to provide a variety of diverse
services
to maintain and improve the quality of life for their constituents. An
exploratory study was conducted to investigate the nature of
collaborative
efforts between parks and recreation departments and law enforcement
agencies.The
study was conducted with law enforcement administrators and officers,
parks
and recreation administrators and recreation staff.Study
observations, interviews, and document analyses were carried out to
capture
perceptions and experiences of individuals within these settings.
The
constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was used for
analysis
of interviews, field observation, and documents. The core theme
resulting
from the analysis was that collaborative partnerships were formed based
on positive relationships established between law enforcement and the
parks
and recreation departments.
Keywords:Collaboration,
Law Enforcement, Parks and Recreation, Qualitative Research
Within the recreation
management literature, a growing body of research
is addressing issues related to youth at-risk. This research has
focused
on perceptions of how recreation departments are dealing with at-risk
youth,
specific programmatic approaches used by communities to address youth
crime,
and the need for collaborative programming between social service
agencies
in programming for youth at-risk (Brown, 1995; Witt & Crompton,
1996;
McCann & Peters, 1996; Montiel, Hultsman, & Martin, 1996).
While
some attention has been given to collaborative efforts between social
service
agencies (Larkin, 1994; Brown, 1995), little research has examined the
collaborative relationship between local law enforcement agencies and
public
parks and recreation departments. The purpose of this study was to
explore
the nature of collaborative efforts between public parks and recreation
departments and local law enforcement agencies in their attempt to
serve
at-risk youth in three Midwestern communities.
Background
<>Park
and recreation departments throughout
North America
have partnered with a number of different agencies to provide a variety
of diverse services to maintain and improve the quality of life for
their
constituents (Witt & Crompton, 1996).
A
demographic
segment of these communities include youth living in “high risk”
environments.
It
is estimated that up to 50 percent of all youth are at serious risk or
moderate risk of achieving a negative lifestyle (Carnegie Council,
1992).
Communities have pooled resources and embraced prevention strategies
designed
to lower the number of youth-at-risk of engaging in undesirable
behaviors.
These collaborative partnerships are coordinated efforts that often
welcome
an overlap of jurisdictions, authorities and mandates, and programs and
resources (Witt & Crompton, 1996). Based on its three-year study of
youth development and community organizations, the Carnegie Council
(1995)
identified the characteristics of community programs that are
responsive
to the needs of young adolescents. The study found that one element of
an effective youth program is the presence of partnerships between a
variety
of community organizations and government agencies to extend their
reach
to youth-at-risk. Youth –at-risk can be defined as adolescents who are
at risk of being failed by on or more adults or an adult-driven system
or institution (Tumbleson, 2001).
<>
<>In
a study by Chaiken (1998), partnerships between law enforcement
officers
and youth serving organizations were found to take many forms.The
research cited that officer involvement in the community ranged from
providing
basic safety, to occasional talks with youth, to officers leading
community
groups and programs on an ongoing basis.
<>In
a collaborative situation, organizations cooperate out of mutual need
and
share the risks in order to reach a common goal (Lewis, 1990). Huxham
and
Macdonald (1992) defined collaboration as participants working together
to pursue a shared goal while also pursuing their individual missions.
These collaborations may be highly structured with written agreements
or
contracts, or unstructured with informal verbal agreements.They
may be short term, addressing one immediate issue or problem, or long
term
with agencies engaged in an ongoing relationship (Selin & Chavez,
1994).
<>
<>
Collaborative
efforts produce and provide far more resources and services than any
single
organization could provide. Witt and Crompton (1996) noted that
successful
intervention programs require the collaboration of many community and
youth-serving
organizations.These partnerships presumably
increase
program opportunities, allow for more efficient use of funds, and often
allow for a wide variety of important youth services and programs.
<>
<>
Research
on collaborations and partnerships suggests that there are a variety of
factors that contribute to effective collaborative efforts (Gray, 1985;
Huxham & Macdonald, 1992; Selin & Chavez, 1994). Based on a
study
of collaborations and partnerships within the Forest Service and
previous
partnership related research, Selin and Chavez (1994) proposed a
framework
that described many of these characteristics. The framework included
personal,
interpersonal, organizational, and operational characteristics. Within
these groupings, subcategories reflecting areas such as leadership,
communication,
trust, shared vision, administrative support, staff continuity, and
cooperative
agreements were identified.While progress has
been
made in identifying characteristics of the nature of collaborations and
partnerships, more empirical research is needed to test the assumptions
of these descriptive sources.
<>
The
concept of collaboration among organizations is not new to recreation
related
agencies. Montiel, Hultsman, and Martin (1996) addressed how senior
administrators
of park and recreation agencies deal with at-risk youth related to
partnering.They
identified specific collaborative programmatic approaches used by
several
cities to address youth crime.Brown (1995) noted
support for this effort as a need for interagency collaboration by
citing
the city of Durham, North
Carolina
in its effort to develop responsive programming for at-risk youth.More
than 40 agencies collaborated to decrease juvenile delinquency.Key
leadership was provided by the DurhamParks
and Recreation Department in cooperation with higher education
institutions,
juvenile justice agencies, and many non-profit organizations.This
effort was based upon the concept that a comprehensive approach allowed
for an increase in supervision and an improvement in organizational
structure.
Further,
McCann and Peters (1996) cited the city of Phoenix
as developing a comprehensive and collaborative prevention and
intervention
program by restructuring and reconfiguring its youth serving
resources. Phoenix’s
Juvenile Curfew Program is jointly operated by the police department
and
the parks, recreation and library department’s at-risk youth division.
This program opens three recreation centers all night and staffs them
with
police officers and recreation professionals.Even
though evidence supports the efforts of park and recreation departments
in addressing at-risk youth, the extent of collaboration with local law
enforcement agencies is unclear.
In
the summer of 1999, an exploratory study was conducted to investigate
the
nature of collaborative efforts between public parks and recreation
departments
and local law enforcement agencies that collaborate, in their attempt
to
serve at-risk youth, in three Midwestern communities. This study was
linked
to a previous quantitative study that investigated how police are
trained
in the areas of human relations (Jamieson, Suren, & Knapp, 2000).
The
study explored whether community relations aspects of police training
are
addressing community recreation issues as they relate to youth crime
prevention.It
was concluded that public recreation departments and law enforcement
should
address the way that they can collaborate in using recreation as
intervention.
Jamieson et al. (2000) noted that training competencies gained at
police
academies need to be extended to include suitable ways of responding
positively
to crime presentation through interventions and collaborative efforts
that
include recreation.
Methodology
As
advocated by Marshall and Rossman (1989), qualitative research
approaches
are appropriate for studies with descriptive, exploratory, and
explanatory
purposes.The inductive approach to inquiry, which
characterizes qualitative research, was essential for understanding the
nature of collaborative efforts between public parks and recreation
departments
and local law enforcement agencies. Qualitative approaches emphasize
the
“importance of getting close to the people and situations being
studied”
(Patton, 1990, p. 46).
The
use of multiple case study design was employed as an appropriate method
for studying the subjective meanings public parks and recreation
administrators,
staff and the local law enforcement administrators/officers attached to
their involvement with providing public recreation opportunities for
youth
at-risk. The case study process was used on the assumptions of
interpretive
or naturalistic research (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln
&
Guba 1985). Study observations,
interviews and document analyses took place within community recreation
department facilities to capture perceptions and experiences of
individuals
within these settings.
<>
A
qualitative methodology was imperative for this research because as
data
emerged throughout the interview, observation, and document analysis
process
the interviewers were able to design and alter questions to address the
uniqueness of each community’s collaborative efforts. A survey method
would
have limited the depth and thoroughness of questioning that the
qualitative
process provides. The interview and observation methods allowed the
researchers
to reveal interrelationships among
dimensions of group interactions that are inherent in collaborative
situations. To
construct a population of collaborative efforts involving public parks
and recreation and police departments, park and recreation
administrators
throughout the identified Midwestern region were contacted requesting
information
describing programs and services that utilize local law enforcement.
A
criteria based procedure was used to select three communities for the
project.
The criteria included attributes such as past collaborative efforts
with
local law enforcement, existence of cooperative programs targeting
at-risk
youth, administrative support, and regional proximity. The three
communities
chosen included North Bay,
Centertown, and Braunville.
1During the summer of
1999,
the
authors visited each community. Study observations, interviews, and
document
analyses took place within recreation department facilities to capture
perceptions and experiences of individuals within these settings.
North
Bay, Centertown, and Braunville, the communities
under study, varied in size and ethnic/cultural and socioeconomic
diversity.Braunville
and Centertown were both larger communities.Braunville
had a population of over 200,000 and Centertown’s population exceeded
700,000.
The city of North Bay’s
population was under 50,000. North Bay was
more
ethnically diverse (approximately 45-50% Hispanic, 35-40% African
American
and approximately 10-15% Caucasian, Asian, etc.), had a lower per
capita
household income, a quarter of its residents fell below the poverty
level
and the community struggled with a higher crime rate than both
Braunville
and Centertown.
<>The
communities of North Bay,
Centertown, and Braunville were chosen in this study based on their
differing
population sizes and their parks and recreation programs targeting
at-risk
youth. At-risk youth in the three communities were identified as youth
who are or have the potential to be negatively affected by family,
peers,
and their environment.
<>Access
to the field involved initial contact with park and recreation agency
officials.The
agencies facilitated further contact with local law enforcement
agencies
and staff offering the collaborative programs. Throughout the research
process, informed consent documents were signed by interviewees and
confidentiality
was maintained by using pseudonyms.All interviews
were tape recorded and later transcribed by the researcher team, word
for
word for subsequent analysis.The
initial field design called for semi-structured interviews with public
parks and recreation administrators and front line staff.The
second round of interviews involved police administrators and patrol
officers
who worked with public parks and recreation programs and employees. The
majority of interviews were conducted in a two to one format (two
researchers
with one subject). In two instances, a group interview was conducted. A
total of 30 interviews were conducted, each lasting an average of 45-60
minutes. In all cases, the most directly involved and knowledgeable
individual
from the park and recreation department and local law enforcement
agency
within each collaborative effort was interviewed.
The
interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of nine local law
enforcement
administrators and officers (three from each community). The law
enforcement
representatives varied with respect to years on the job and rank. The
chief
of police was represented by each community during the interviews and
the
interviewed officers consisted of one that was in his or her position
for
less than 6 years and one that had at least 10 years experience in law
enforcement.Six public parks and recreation
administrators
(two from each community) were interviewed and fifteen public parks and
recreation staff (five from each community).
The
interviews were used to gather data about collaborative efforts from
public
parks and recreation administrators, staff, and the local law
enforcement
administrators/officers.These interviews allowed
the interviewees to speak in their own voices and describe situations
from
their perceptions.An interview guide approach was
used for the interview process. Initially, two practice interviews were
conducted to “test” the quality of the research questions.After
these interviews were conducted, some questions were deleted and
additional
questions were added to the interview guide.
The
open–ended interview questions focused on the current relationships
between
the two agencies (public parks and recreation department and the local
law enforcement agency), collaborative programs offered jointly by the
two agencies, changes in the community from the collaborative efforts
between
the agencies, and perceptions of police and the local parks and
recreation
department in the three communities, before and after the introduction
of collaborative programs. The interview guide was modified depending
on
which group was being interviewed. The interview questions were
developed
based on initial information gathered from community recreation
department
directors and information gleaned from past collaborative efforts and
existence
of cooperative programs.
Examples
of the questions included: “Tell us about collaborative programs with
the
parks and recreation department and local police department that are
being
offered in your community. How have perceptions of police changed since
the adoption of these programs? On a scale of one to ten, ten being the
most effective, where would you place the parks and recreation programs
and collaborative programs today in terms of effectively serving the
needs
of at-risk youth in your community?Followed by,
why would you assign this number?”
Seven
field observations were made that involved youth interactions with
recreation
staff and/or police officers in the field. The field observations
allowed
the researchers to observe participants, staff and police officers
involved
with the programs at various locations throughout the communities.
Field
notes were taken during and immediately after observations.The
researchers were involved in each interview and field observation.
A
number of written documents were analyzed for data. These documents
providedsupport
pieces to the observations and interviews. Documents that were reviewed
included in-house training documents, program guides, and staff
manuals.
One particularly rich data source was grant application packets
submitted
to corporate and private foundations for program funding.These
applications included letters of support and specific statistical data
related to collaborative programs.
Triangulation
of data sources included a member checking process where interviewees
were
consulted regarding the accuracy of observations, interview transcripts
and initial themes from data analysis. This process addressed the
trustworthiness
of the authors’ interpretation of the results by allowing the
participants
to confirm or refute the interpretation of their answers to the
interview
questions and observations.
The
constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was used for
analysis
of the transcribed interviews, field observation notes, and document
analysis
to identify patterns and themes. This procedure for data analysis is a
method designed to identify, describe, and document various categories
that emerge from the data. The initial stages of analysis included
breaking
down, comparing, and conceptualizing statements and observations from
each
interview and observation transcript.This
strategy
fractures the data and requires careful examination of words used by
the
participants.This process of data analysis
resulted
in the generation of conceptual statements representing emergent
categories
and subcategories.
Table
1.
Distribution of sub-categories
within emergent categories
| Emergent
Categories |
Subcategories |
| Involvement |
Sense
of community
Cooperation
Trust
RelationshipBuilding |
| Taking
Advantage of Opportunities |
Professional
development
Leadership
Common
goals
and objectives |
| Overcoming
Barriers and Constraints |
Lack
of staff
Territorial
issues
Overcoming
perceptions
Leadership |
<>
<> All
interview transcripts, field observation and document analysis notes
were read several times to identify and code possible categories based
upon the incidences described.
<>
<>
The
next coding level involved the comparison of categories for
similarities
between each to begin to describe relationships among topics. These
higher
order categories represented theoretical constructs and described
relationships
between the themes. A card sort strategy was employed to compare
categories
and determine their relationships. This process resulted in three key
categories:
1) Involvement; 2) Taking Advantage of Opportunities; and 3) Overcoming
Barriers and Constraints. The final level of coding involved the
development
of “a central phenomenon around which all the other categories were
integrated”
(Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 116). This core theme described the
central
story of the participants and was used to write the emerging theory.The
generation of a number of categories and theoretical memos provided a
basis
for the identification of a core theme.
<>
Results
An
emerging core theme that came from the analysis of the categories was
that
collaborative partnerships were formed based on positive relationships
established between local law enforcement and the local public parks
and
recreation department.
Table 1.
Distribution of sub-categories
within emergent categories
| Emergent
Categories |
Subcategories |
| Involvement |
Sense
of community
Cooperation
Trust
RelationshipBuilding |
| Taking
Advantage of Opportunities |
Professional
development
Leadership
Common
goals
and objectives |
| Overcoming
Barriers and Constraints |
Lack
of staff
Territorial
issues
Overcoming
perceptions
Leadership |
A
collaborative relationship that has both public service agencies
working
together toward common goals and objectives will be more synergistic
in providing recreation services to youth in high-risk environments
(Brown,
1995). In addition, the collaborative effort must have an element of
trust,
strong leadership, and sense of community (Gray, 1989). In this study,
all of the recreation administrators from the three cities acknowledged
that a positive relationship between the recreation department and the
local law enforcement agency was necessary for a collaborative
partnership;
however, only the community of North
Bay was
found to have a variety of active programs and services offered in
collaboration
by both agencies.
A
group interview at a local restaurant in North
Bay
involved
a meeting between the Chief of Police, two community police officers,
the
Recreation and Parks Department Director, the Recreation
Superintendent,
and the researchers involved in the study. Comments made during the
interview
provide an example of positive relationships formed between local law
enforcement
and the local public parks and recreation department. The following
comment
was made before the Police Chief arrived to the lunch interview: “I
will
tell you how great of a guy the Police Chief is, he is on vacation and
he is coming to lunch with us. When I first met the Police Chief, he
said,
“hey, we have got to work together”.He said,
“lets
see how we can partner up and cooperate” (North Bay Recreation
Director,
personal communication, July 13, 1999).
Relationships
must be developed that facilitate cooperation and partnerships between
these two public service providers. The field observations conducted
involving
police and recreation staff interaction were positive and open.Relationships
between the two agencies appeared to display a positive work
environment.
During
a field observation at a North Bay 3-on-3 basketball tournament, North
Bay police and staff from the recreation department worked together to
offer the tournament.Staffing and supervision of
the tournament was shared by both agencies. In contrast, Braunville has
struggled to offer collaborative recreation programs over the years, a
Braunville Recreation staff member provided the following example. “I
think
that we need to offer more programs that expose the kids to the police.I
think it would work if you get the right people involved.I
think it is needed because some kids from certain areas have
misinformation
about police officers and preconceived notions” (Braunville Recreation
staff member, personal communication, June 20, 1999).
<>
<>Involvement
<><>The
predominant actions of the law enforcement officials and officers and
the
public parks and recreation administrators and staff were related to
the
desire to become involved in the collaborative effort. Both parties
shared
examples of involvement between the two public service providers.As
one recreation staff person explained “At our centers, we have
community
police that actually come in plain clothes and play ball with the kids.It
basically takes them out of the stranger form and brings them into a
more
involved, personal relationship.They want to try
and form a more trusting bond between themselves, the recreation
department
and our at-risk youth” (North Bay Recreation Center Staff, personal
communication,
July 13, 1999).
<>
Examples
of programs that were observed or described included special community
events, litter control/recycling programs in the parks, teen camping
programs,
bike safety programs, basketball tournaments, summer camp programs, etc.Most
of the observed and described programs were implemented within the last
five years.The level of involvement varied among
the communities in the study.North
Bay’s
law enforcement and recreation department had the highest level of
involvement.
Centertown and Braunville were in the early stages of program
development
and implementation.
<>The
Braunville Recreation Director and Superintendent reflected on past
success
and failure stories related to collaborative ventures with the local
police
department. “Cooperation and involvement
with
the local police department has been good and bad from year to year.Right
now it is pretty good.A lot of it depends on who
the current police chief is”(Braunville Recreation Superintendent, June
17, 1999). Support of collaborative programs and services was welcomed
and supported by the current Braunville Police Chief, however the
recreation
director and superintendent identified years where it was impossible to
forge collaborative programs. Money, time, and priorities were
identified
as reasons why past police chiefs were not as supportive of
collaboration
between the parks and recreation department and the police department.
Cooperation and relationship building with the current police
department
and police chief were critical factors in the development and
implementation
of collaborative programs.
<>
<>When
a collaborative venture is undertaken, a sense of community involvement
and support is recognized.A North
Bay
recreation
staff member added, “I love North
Bay.I
think that what I am doing is giving back to our kids.For
a long time everybody’s dream was to get out of North
Bay.I
am a true believer in giving them something to stay for.You
know, go to college and come back and get involved and give back to
your
community” (North Bay recreation staff, personal communication, July
13,
1999).In a similar vein, a neighborhood summer
dance
party was organized by a local law enforcement officer in North
Bay
five
years ago.This annual neighborhood event is
currently
supported by both agencies in that they share staff, building space,
and
program supplies.
Building
a sense of community was identified as being an important factor
related
to the collaborative efforts undertaken by the agencies. A shared
vision
and goal of improving the quality of life for the community residents
was
important to staff from both public agencies involved in collaborative
programs targeting at-risk youth.
<>Willingness
to Take Advantage of Opportunities
<>Involvement from these public
service agencies was in some part attributed
to their willingness to take advantage of opportunities to collaborate.The
professional development that both the recreation staff and law
enforcement
officers are afforded through collaborative programs was identified.The
ability to partner and work with different agencies gives new insight
and
ideas to both the police officers and recreation staff.A North
Bay
officer started her own neighborhood summer night program after being
involved
with a collaborative program that the recreation and the police
department
offered. “I found that there was a need in my neighborhood for
additional
programming, so my husband and I started our own summer night program.We
offer talent shows, street dances and baby contests for the
neighborhood
residents.” (personal communication, July
13, 1999). She
added
that she learned about programming from watching the recreation
programs
and trial and error.
<>
A Centertown recreation center manager
provided a similar experience related
to taking advantage of opportunities, “I saw this job come open and I
knew
that I had all of my professional development in this neighborhood, so
it was a match.Most of my ties are from this
neighborhood
and that is why, with the juvenile courts sitting just a few miles away
from here, we have already done some partnering.So,
I know that it is going to work, we have common goals. We are going to
turn this building into a true family center with the help of juvenile
courts and local police”(personal
communication, July
16, 1999).
This willingness to take advantage of
collaborative opportunities continued
to be evident in the other interviews. The North Bay Chief of Police
noted,
“Joe (the parks and recreation director) was here before we got the new
pools and he asked me what he should do about security at the pools.I
told him security would be a good idea because at some point the gangs
were intimidating the young kids, trying to recruit, take their money
and
scare them.Nobody wanted to go into the pool.When
he asked me if the police would like to come in there, I told him that
I thought that it would be a good idea.Ever
since,
we started getting more kids coming out and feeling a little bit more
secure
and safe.Joe also opened up the recreation
centers
at different hours.We have police working the
recreation
centers” (personal communication, July
13, 1999).
Supportive
leadership and common goals and objectives between the recreation
agency and police departments is crucial for a collaborative effort.With
support from both agencies, there is an opportunity for planning and
implementing
collaborative programs.In most cases, when
leadership
is supportive of the collaborative effort and there is a shared
interest
in achieving common goals and objectives, the likelihood of a continued
collaborative effort is greater.
<>Overcoming
Barriers and Constraints
<>Involvement from these public
service agencies and their willingness to
take advantage of opportunities to collaborate became the foundation
for
their ability to overcome barriers and constraints related to offering
programs for youth in high risk environments.One
of the most basic tenets of collaboration is that there is a greater
contribution
of ideas, resources, and services. In
this study, agencies cooperated out of mutual need and shared the risks
in order to reach a common goal of providing programs and services for
at-risk youth.These collaborative efforts have
produced
more resources than any single organization could provide.
<>
The
ability for recreation professionals
and staff and local law enforcement to overcome barriers and
constraints
associated with offering programs and services was essential in
attempting
to offer collaborative programs for youth. For example, one staff
member
commented on issues related to lack of staff. “The major weakness of
our
program is the lack of staff to run it.Initially
it was something written up in a grant where one person basically
operated
the program and it was supposed to have anywhere between 40 to 50
youth,
that is too much, a joint program with the local police department
would
help off set the problem” (Braunville recreation staff, personal
communication,
June 17, 1999). Collaborative efforts between public service
departments
allow agencies to stretch scarce resources. Often these resources are
human
and through partnering, agencies are able to share staff and provide
organizational
flexibility.
The Recreation Superintendent of North
Bay
discussed territorial issues related to recruiting staff. “ Our
neighborhoods
are segmented. We have neighborhood centers that are the focal point of
the pockets within our community. We hire a lot of teens in the summer
and we are finding that they don’t want to work in centers that aren’t
in their neighborhood.They aren’t familiar to
people
in that neighborhood and they are afraid that someone will think they
are
in a gang and shoot them.” (North Bay Recreation Superintendent,
personal
communication, July 13, 1999).By utilizing
neighborhood
police officers who are assigned to specific segments of the community,
recreation staff may be more likely to work in other neighborhoods
where
there is a police presence, thus stretching human resources and
providing
organizational flexibility. In addition, the collaborative efforts
provided
access to new ideas and information, provided support systems, and new
friendships.
Constraints related to programming are
related to perceptions of the community.
“Involvement with police is very important for our collaborative
program,
not only for protection reasons but by involving our police officers
with
our kids, you are breaking down that stigma that kids have of the
police
officer and the stigma that police officers have about our teenagers.That
is the real issue that we need to address” (North Bay Recreation
Superintendent,
personal communication, July 13, 1999).
Discussion
This study
suggested that a positive relationship between the agencies
must be present if the collaborative effort is to continue.For
example, a Centertown center director shared the following
perceptions
of current involvement with local law enforcement. “Before I came to
this
department the police were fairly active with the recreation
department.
Some centers do still use police officers but they have dropped down, I
think that they are restructuring and might be under a new police
administrator”
(Centertown recreation center director, personal communication, June
20,
1999).Strong and consistent leadership within the
department is necessary for a collaborative venture.Without
a shared sense of community, cooperation, trust,
relationship building, professional development, leadership, and common
goals and objectives the collaborative effort may not be a success.
These
factors were identified as sub-categories within the emergent
categories
of involvement and taking advantage of opportunities.These
findings confirm previous collaboration and partnership literature
(Selin
& Chavez, 1994) that investigated common characteristics of
partnerships.
Past research suggested there are many reasons why collaboration
efforts
fall short of the ideal or are not initiated (Selin & Chavez, 1994).Past
management philosophy stressed that organizations resist collaboration
for reasons associated with change, turf protection, lack of awareness,
bureaucratic procedures, and limitations of staff and funds (Selin
&
Chavez, 1994). These were similar to the sub-categories found within
the
category of overcoming barriers and constraints were territorial
issues,
lack of staff and overcoming perceptions were identified.Montiel,
Hultsman, and Herrin Armistead (1997) found that leisure service
professionals
generally agree that achieving collaborative synergies are extremely
difficult
and, at best, the collaborative process is time-consuming. An important
goal of many collaborative efforts is to cooperate out of mutual need
and
share the risks in order to reach a common goal.This
goal is difficult to accomplish if positive relationships between the
agencies
are not present. The mutual goal in this study was for public parks and
recreation and law enforcement departments to offer collaborative
programs
to reach and serve at-risk youth in the communities.
This study found that
recreation departments and local law enforcement
agencies were more likely to collaborate if positive relationships were
established and both organizations were willing to cooperate out of
mutual
need to reach a common goal of serving at-risk youth. More
specifically,
that top administrators supported the collaborative effort. This was
supported
by the fact that in North Bay, the community that was found to have the
most active collaborative programs between the local law enforcement
agency
and the local parks and recreation department, there was overwhelming
support
of collaboration by both the Police Chief and Parks and Recreation
Director.
For example, the North Bay Recreation Superintendent shared the
following
comment about their collaborative relationship with the local police,
“I
have never been involved in an experience like this where police
relationships
with the recreation department are so important. The relationship
started
with our Recreation Director and the Police Chief. We collaborate with
them on a big special event that involves 1,500 kids where we work with
the police department. We raffle off bikes, we have a petting zoo, pony
rides, carnival games, and inflatable play areas. It has become so
successful
that we are now working with the police department every year to offer
it” (North Bay Recreation Superintendent, personal communication, July
13, 1999).
Conclusion
<>The goal of this study was to
investigate the nature of collaborative efforts
between public parks and recreation departments and local law
enforcement
agencies in three Midwestern communities. This involved an inductive
qualitative
research approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). An emerging theme that
came from the analysis of these categories was that collaborative
partnerships
were formed based on positive relationships established between local
law
enforcement and the local public parks and recreation department.
<>
<>Predominant
actions such as active involvement in the collaborative effort,
willingness
to take advantage of collaborative opportunities, and the ability to
overcome
the barriers and constraints in establishing programs and services for
at-risk youth were important in achieving a collaborative effort.
Without
active involvement from both public service agencies and the ability to
seek out potential opportunities for collaboration, the agencies
collaborative
efforts would not have been fruitful. In addition, the ability for the
agencies to overcome barriers and constraints to programming through
the
implementation of collaborative programs have helped in offering
services
to at-risk youth. The intervening conditions/variables that constrained
the collaborative efforts were identified as a lack of staff,
territorial issues, and negative police perception in the
community.As
a consequence, all of the recreation departments in this study were
dealing
with constraints in offering collaborative programs and services with
the
local law enforcement agencies.
The findings generated
from this study suggest that accomplishing a positive
and supportive relationship between agencies helps facilitate a
collaborative
effort. The positive support and established relationships between
the North
Bay parks and recreation department and the
local
law enforcement agency provided an environment for collaboration
through
shared involvement in the collaborative effort, a willingness to take
advantage
of collaborative opportunities and the ability to overcome barriers and
constraints through offering collaborative programs and services
related
to at-risk youth.Further studies should be
completed
to investigate the programmatic, financial and operational components
of
the collaborative programs, the impact of these collaborative efforts,
and how they can be further developed to meet the needs of youth in
high
risk environments.
Implications for Research and
Practice
<>Although this
exploratory research study has filled a gap in the understanding
of collaborative efforts between local law enforcement agencies and
public
parks and recreation departments, there are still many issues related
to
collaboration and public service providers that need to be addressed.
The
relationship between the local law enforcement agency and the public
parks
and recreation department deserves further attention. More
specifically,
how are these relationships developed, enhanced, and supported? The
investigation
of these issues will help strengthen existing collaborative programs,
provide
necessary background for new ventures, and add support for public
agency
collaborative programs. This study provides tentative evidence in
support
of establishing positive collaborative relationships with public
service
entities to further develop programs and services for the public good
in
order to improve the quality of life in communities; in other words,
what
is the nature of a collaborative relationship in the public sector?
<>These
results suggest that it is important for public parks and recreation
departments
to foster and develop positive relationships with local law enforcement
administrators and officers. These positive relationships improve the
development
and implementation of collaborative programs.A
relationship
building approach is necessary and requires the parks and recreation
director
or administrator in the community to seek out opportunities to work
with
law enforcement officials to address community concerns.
<>
<>Park
and recreation administrators may benefit from assessing current
relationships
and perceptions of their department to determine the importance that
other
public service providers, such as law enforcement, place on the role of
the parks and recreation department and vice versa.What
is also necessary is to further examine the barriers and constraints to
collaboration between the two public service providers.Recreation
administrators and staff must be aware of the turf, bureaucratic,
awareness
and staffing barriers that can create constraints to collaborative
efforts
with law enforcement agencies.
In
an environment where issues related to youth-at-risk include crime,
non-productive
use of time, helplessness, and hopelessness, interagency cooperation is
a means to solve community problems.The
particularly
unique collaborative working relationship of public parks and
recreation
and law enforcement departments in essential in linking youth with
cooperative
services that will lead to an increase in youth empowerment and an
improved
relationship with community service providers.
References
Brown,
K. H. (1995). Alternatives through integrating collaboration.Journal
of Health,Physical Education, Recreation and
Dance,
66, 35-37.
Cappel, M. L.
(1997). A generation
of youth-at-risk: A societal dilemma.
CaliforniaParks
and Recreation 53,
36-37,
39-42.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1992). A matter of
time:
Risk and opportunity in the out-of-school hours.
New
York, NY:
Carnegie
Foundation.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1995). Great
transitions: Preparing adolescents for a new century.New
York, NY:Carnegie
Foundation.
Chaiken,
M. R. (1998). Kids, cops, and communities.Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of
Justice. 104.
Glaser,
B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.Chicago:
Aldine.
Gray,
B. (1989).Collaborating: Finding common ground
for multiparty problems.San
Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
Gray,
B. (1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration.Human
Relations, 38 (10), 911-936.
Huxham,
C. & Macdonald, D. (1992). Introducing collaborative advantage:
Achieving
inter-organizational effectiveness through meta-strategy.Management
Decisions, 30 (3), 50-56.
Jamieson,
L., Suren, A., & Knapp, J. (2000).A
competency
analysis of law enforcement training and its linkage to recreation as
intervention
in youth crime prevention. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 215-226.
Larkin,
G. (1994). Public-private partnerships in economic development: A
review
of theory and practice.Economic Development
Review,
12 (1), 7-9.
Lewis,
J. D. (1990).Partnerships for profit:
Structuring
and managing strategic alliances.New
York:
The Free Press.
Lincoln,
Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New
York: Sage.
Marshall,
C., & Rossman, G. B.(1989). Designing
qualitative
research.Newbury
Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
McCann,
R. E.,& Peters, C. (1996). At risk youth:
The Phoenix
phenomenon.Journal of Health, Physical
Education,
Recreation and Dance, 67, 38-40.
Montiel,
M., Hultsman, J.,& Herrin Armistead, S.(1997).
Systemic barriers to effecting governmental youth policy:A
case study of a failed collaboration and its implications for public
parks
and recreation.Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 15, (1) 83-100.
Montiel,
M.,Hultsman, J., & Martin, J. (1996). A
foundation
for youth social policy: The implications for the perspectives of
senior
administrators of large cities.Parks and
Recreation,
14, 20-40.
Selin,
S., & Chavez, D. (1994).Characteristics of
successful
tourism partnerships: A multiple case study design. Journal of Park
and Recreation Administration, 12 (2), 51-61.
Strauss,
A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:
Grounded
theory procedures and techniques.Newbury
Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Tumbleson,
H. (2001, August 21). A better definition of at-risk-youths. Seattle
Times. Retrieved November
23, 2003, from http://www.archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com
Witt,
P. A., & Crompton, J. L. (1996).Programs
that
work: Public recreation in high-risk environments.Arlington, VA:National
Recreation and Park Association.
1All
community
and individual names have been changed to ensure anonymity.