Assessment of the Nature and Impact of Police Liaison Units

• NCJ Number: 84648
• Author(s): L Siegel; J Calpin; M Berlin; M Molof
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 133 pages
• Grant Number(s): 79-NI-AX-0104
• Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ); US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
• Corporate Author: Mitre Corporation
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: National Evaluation Program

Annotation

The study examines the organization, operation, and effectiveness of three types of police liaison units: police legal advisor, police-school liaison officer, and police youth service bureau. It presents strategies that police may use to evaluate the impact of their liaison units.

Abstract

Most school liaison units and youth service bureaus consist of patrol officers with several years' experience and sometimes civilian employees with counseling and job placement expertise. Legal advisor units consist of assistant and civilian city attorneys as well as police officers who are also attorneys. All these units use similar strategies, although their staffs have wide latitude with respect to the nature and scope of their activities. Liaison attorneys provide legal advice to patrol officers, school liaison officers try to instill respect for the law among students through lectures and counseling, and youth service officers counsel juveniles and try to divert them from the juvenile justice system. Police liaison units can be distinguished according to the degree of emphasis they place on performing liaison-specific activities. Liaison functions are central to the operations of school liaison units and youth service bureaus, whereas 'squad car' legal advisor units perform activities designed to improve police internal operations. Youth service bureaus appear to deal with the widest range of agencies. Legal advisor units have undergone the greatest degree of changes in terms of both objectives and activities, with school liaison units having introduced some changes and youth service bureaus remaining relatively stable. Legal liaison units have not yet been effectively evaluated, yet testimonials abound praising their achievements. Legal and school units have been more successful than youth service bureaus in maintaining manpower and activities, under local funding, at levels consistent with those under Federal funding. Data tables, footnotes, and four bibliographies are included.