--- title: "Ranch Reintegration Program" type: "pdf" year: "2000" canonical: "/projects/325" --- # Ranch Reintegration Program 2000 Herman Goldstein AwardforExcellence on Problem Oriented Policing Award Submission ![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/00-06/img-0.jpeg) Submitted by the Concord Police Department 1950 Galindo St. Concord California CITY OF CONCORD POLICE DEPARTMENT 135[I<-alic-dnStreet Concord, C.iiih.rnia ti-ka-[i (925) 691-6942 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE Telephone: (925)671-3193 CITY OF CONCORD POLICE DEPARTMENT 135[I<-alir-dnStreet Concord, C.iiih.rnia ti-ka-[i (925) 691-6942 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE Telephone: (925)671-3193 May 9, 2000 Police Executive Research Forum Attention: Herman Goldstein Award 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 930 Washington, DC 20036 USA Dear Herman Goldstein Award Selection Committee: I'd like to take this opportunity to nominate the Concord Police Department's "Ranch Reintegration Program" for the 2000 Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. The "Ranch Reintegration Program" is a collaborative effort that involves the Concord Police Department, Contra Costa County Probation, the Mt. Diablo Unified School District, the Youth Employment Bureau, and private sector agencies. The program is designed to help youth who are involved with youth gang activity and violent crime with their transition back into the community after incarceration at the Boys' Ranch. The "Ranch Reintegration Program" assists youths and their families in identifying and accessing resources to help with their successful reintegration back into the community. The program combines enforcement, intervention and prevention. The reintegration team also works with the siblings of the youthful offenders to help prevent them from embracing the gang lifestyle. It is my firm belief that the Concord Police Department's "Ranch Reintegration Program" is deserving of recognition as a program of excellence. Thank you for your time and consideration. Should you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at any time. Sincerely, Ron Ace Chief of Police RA:imsk # Table of Contents - [Ranch Reintegration Program](#ranch-reintegration-program) - [1 Submission Summary](#1-submission-summary) - [Background:](#background) - [Scanning:](#scanning) - [Analysis:](#analysis) - [Response.:](#response) - [Assessment:](#assessment) - [2. Submission Description](#2-submission-description) - [INTRODUCTION](#introduction) - [SCANNING AND ANAL YSIS](#scanning-and-anal-ysis) - [RESPONSE](#response) - [ASSESSMENT](#assessment) - [CONCLUSION](#conclusion) - [3. Agency and Officer Information](#3-agency-and-officer-information) # 1 Submission Summary ## Background: The Juvenile Probation Department of County of Contra Costa County, California operates a custodial facility for delinquent male juveniles called the Orin Allen Boys Ranch. The Ranch is essentially a juvenile's last chance for rehabilitation before commitment to the high security environment of the California Youth Authority. Ranch wards are released back into their community of origin after their sentence is completed. ## Scanning: - The Concord Police Department Street Gang Investigation Unit (SGU) recognized that Ranch wards were released back into the Concord community with little communication between the SGU and Juvenile Probation. ## Analysis: - Missed opportunity for proactive enforcement by the SGU and Juvenile Probation Departments. This also created an unsafe situation for the Probation Officer involved with the wards. - No collaboration on crime investigation by members of the SGU and Juvenile Probation. - The SGU lacked timely and important information updates on ward status. - SGU and Juvenile Probation both lacked any significant intervention strategy to assist with ward rehabilitation. ## Response.: - A team of the SGU and the Ranch Probation Officer meet weekly with wards nearing their release in order to identify needs, reinforce behavior expectations, and provide rehabilitation resources. - Wards receive intensive home, school, and work visits from the SGU/Probation Officer team for 45 days after their release. - Qualified wards meet with a representative from the California State Employment Opportunity Program for employment assistance - Qualified wards are given the opportunity to request attendance at the school they believe will best serve their success. ## Assessment: - The Program is too young to properly evaluate for intervention success and reoffense prevention, but shows promise for future success. - The Reintegration Program seems to allow for a significant increase in the ability of Juvenile Probation Officers and the SGU to proactively recognize and resolve criminal activity by wards. - Program assessment demonstrated the need for tattoo removal procedures and greater parental involvement in the Program. These issues are now being addressed. # 2. Submission Description ## INTRODUCTION T he City of Concord is the largest city in Contra Costa County, California with a population of 120,000 people. Residents are middle to upper-middle class, with an ethnic makeup of $13 \%$ Hispanic, $2.5 \%$ Black, $11 \%$ Asian, $5 \%$ other, and the remainder being White. In 1992, the Concord Police Department chose to approach its mission using direction from the concepts of problem-and community-oriented policing. While it has certainly not been an easy change, the Department has reached a point where much of the philosophies have been organizationalized. One result of the Department's new paradigm was a community survey performed to recognize concerns, perceptions, and fears held by Concord residents. The first survey in 1992 revealed that Concord residents placed concern about street gangs above all else. This was likely due to media coverage of a general increase in gang activity in Concord, as well as a well-publicized gang homicide in a local park. In response, the Concord PD Street Gang Unit was created. The Unit was a deviation from the generalist approach of the Department, but this was believed necessary due to the gang expertise required to perform the job. Since its inception, the Street Gang Unit (SGU) has evolved to include two investigators, an intelligence officer, and a civilian (non-sworn) Violence Prevention Specialist. The SGU is tasked with investigating all gang-involved crimes. It is also responsible for gathering gang intelligence, providing community and peer education, performing proactive street-level enforcement, collaborating with the Concord Police Department School Resource Officers, and performing intervention activity. Juvenile crimes investigated by the SGU are referred to the Contra Costa County Juvenile Probation Department, which uses a myriad of methods of case adjudication. Most juvenile cases are closed with informal probation, work details, and fines. More serious crimes are reprimanded by custody in the County Juvenile Hall. Very serious crimes and repeat offenders are often referred to a complex at the far East rural edge of the county called the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility; commonly called only "The Ranch". The Ranch houses 100 of the County's worst juvenile offenders and it provides their last chance for rehabilitation before transfer to the California State Youth Authority. As they near the end of their custody, the Ranch Parole Officer meets with them to clarify their probation terms. After the juvenile's release, they undergo a 45 day parole period. The Parole Officer performs an intensive supervision routine, including drug testing, and home and school visits. The visits include probation searches of the ward's possessions to reinforce compliance as well as discover violations. After the juvenile completes the 45day period, he is transferred to a community-based Probation Officer to fulfill the remainder of his probation term. The Probation Department has assigned two community-based Probation Officers to work exclusively with street gang members. One of these Gang Probation Officers is assigned to the Concord area, and he now works part-time at a desk within the SGU. This proximity has resulted in a close partnership between the SGU and the Probation Officer, who regularly confer on criminal matters, conduct bi-monthly probation sweeps, and collaborate on investigations. # SCANNING AND ANAL YSIS In November 1999, members of the SGU discussed the performance of the Unit to scrutinize any need for change. Members recognized that there was a lack of communication with Ranch personnel regarding ward activity and pending releases_This was significant for several reasons. Firstly, the SGU and the probation Department were missing an opportunity for proactive enforcement. Most Ranch wards are gang involved, and they are eventually placed on the Gang Probation Officer's caseload. As such, they are exposed to the enforcement efforts of the SGU. However, due to the Ranch parole period, court hearing requirements, and casework transfer lag time, the SGU and the Gang Probation Officer did not recognize the ward's return to the Concord community until as much as 50 days after their release from the Ranch. The Ranch Parole Officer's duties include intensive home visitation and drug screening with released wards. He formerly performed this job alone, without backup and without defense weapons. Due to interest in his own personal safety, the Parole Officer commonly conducted only cursory searches of ward's possessions. As a result, evidence and gang intelligence were most certainly overlooked. While necessary for the Parole Officer's safety, these cursory searches were a disservice to the ward and to the County Juvenile Justice System alike. The SGU and Probation lost evidence of probation violations and new crimes, and more importantly, the ward lost faith in a probation system that seeks to prevent recidivism by promising swift penalties for reoffense. The wards surely learned that any evidence of reoffense could easily be hidden from the Parole Officer. Secondly, the SGU and the Probation Department lost the benefits of collaboration and information sharing on new criminal investigations involving released wards. If a ward committed a new offense during his 45 -day parole period, the SGU would not recognize that the incident occurred due to ignorance that the ward had returned to the Concord community. As a result, the SGU had no input into the resolution of the matter. Due to lack of SGU involvement, the Parole Officer's only source of information for use in adjudicating the offense would be the police report. Further, if the criminal violation was minor and the ward was not transferred to Juvenile Hall, the Parole Officer would not receive the report until weeks after the violation occurred, resulting in a negation of the swift penalty for misbehavior that probation promises. Thirdly, the Concord Police Department lacked basic intelligence information that allowed officers to properly monitor Ranch wards. Depending on their weekly behavior, Ranch wards are granted "two-hour" and weekend passes to return home to visit their families. Traditionally, notices of these passes were faxed to the Concord Police Department to alert officers to the ward's presence. Unfortunately, bureaucracy on both ends of the fax connection often resulted in the Concord officers not learning of the release until after the ward returned to the Ranch for the week. This collapse of communication is best demonstrated by a shooting that occurred in 1995. Ranch ward Jason T. was given a weekend pass and returned to his home in a neighboring community. The police agency there had no knowledge of Jason's visit, and Jason was free to drink alcohol and smoke marijuana with his friends unchecked by the authorities. Jason obtained a pistol, and then he and several companions went to nearby San Francisco. During an attempted robbery of $\$ .25$, Jason shot and wounded a tourist. He is now serving three years in prison. While is it impossible to determine if the timely exchange of information between the Ranch and the police department would have prevented this tragedy, it most certainly would have been an improvement over the complete lack of communication that occurred. Lastly and most importantly, the SGU had no mechanism in place for reintegration and resource provision to incoming wards and their families, while the Juvenile Probation Department provided only marginal services. On their release day, Wards were removed from the structured environment of the Ranch and placed into the custody of their parents or guardians. Depending on the family culture, the wards often found themselves in a completely unstructured environment with absentee parents and a lot of free time. As was customary, the wards were placed at one of two "County Day Schools". These schools are known to be occupied by gang members and are certainly not the best environment for a rehabilitating Ranch ward. During the weeks following, the ward's only contact with the juvenile justice system came in the form of bi-weekly visits by the Parole Officer. The Parole Officer made every attempt to provide resources for rehabilitation but the size of his caseload prevented intensive positive reinforcement and mentoring. It is arguable that the justice system failed these wards, as the human psyche can rarely handle such a significant lifestyle change without exterior support. In the cases where the ward had no parental support, it is likely that they turned to the next closest resource; gang associates from their past. It was recognized that the offender population from the Ranch was not great in size but that they had committed a disproportionate amount of serious offenses. While only approximately two wards returned to Concord per month, their committing offenses were serious matters that presented a hazard to the community, such as robbery, battery with great bodily injury, weapons violations, and burglary. Overall, the SGU, Juvenile Probation, the community as a whole, and the wards and their families suffered from these problems on several different levels. The SGU missed the opportunity for proactive enforcement, intelligence gathering, and the decrease in caseload that may result from increased oversight and intervention effort. Juvenile Probation suffered from the loss of intelligence information, timely feedback on ward behavior in the community, and the lack of an ability to safely and thoroughly conduct probation compliance checks. The community bore the risk of unchecked recidivist behavior and the potential of victimization. At the core of the issue, the ward and their family missed a significant opportunity for rehabilitation, self-betterment, and access to a myriad of community resources. # RESPONSE The SGU recognized it was critical that any response to this dilemma had to be performed through a partnership with County Juvenile Probation, and more specifically, directly with the Ranch itself. The Ranch Parole Officer joined in a meeting with the SGU to discuss the above-described problems. The following two theories were formulated as the best route to a resolution: 1. Ranch ward recidivism can be decreased by increasing the frequency of collaborative proactive enforcement while also increasing the availability and scope of intervention resources. - The desired effect of this two-pronged approach was to make recidivism plainly detrimental to the well being of the ward and also make self-betterment attractive and obtainable. 2. Ward recidivism in the form of new criminal activity or probation violations are better recognized and resolved more expeditiously through open communication and the exchange of information between the SGU and Juvenile Probation. - Ward criminal activity world be recognized more quickly and dealt with more appropriately through a partnership of organizations. The manifestation of both theories is the Ranch Reintegration Program. The Program consists of two 45-day segments, during which the wards are subject to different influences from several organizations. During the first segment, the Parole Officer provides the SGU with data on pending releases 45 days before their re-entry into Concord. The SGU and the Parole Officer then meet with the wards every week until their release. This equates to roughly five meetings with each ward before their re-entry into Concord. Topics discussed during these times are introductions, clarification of probation terms, expected behavior upon release, counseling availability, gang membership, re-offense resistance, consequences, and offers of mentorship_ The need for parent involvement is also considered to be of importance during the first segment. The Reintegration Program Team decided that parents would be contacted by a member of the team shortly before the release of their son from the Ranch. The parent would be appraised of the goals of the program and offered resources for help in preventing re-offense. The first segment seeks to resolve the later two deficiencies described above in the analysis portion of this document. While he is still within the protective environment of the Ranch, the ward is divulged with rehabilitative and interventive resources. He is also impressed with the necessity that he adhere to the provisions of his probation. Due to the face to face contact between the SGU and the Parole Officer, this arrangement also lends itself the exchange of intelligence information and update of ward status. The second segment of the Reintegration Program was designed to occur concurrently with the 45-day parole period. During this time, the SGU and Parole Officer makes home and school visits of wards to reinforce positive behaviors and reprimand negative behaviors. Due to it's proximity to the ward's home, the SGU becomes a quick response resource for the ward, to assist in the resolution of potential problems before they develop into criminal issues. In the event of a criminal incident or probation violation, the SGU takes a zero-tolerance approach, making necessary arrests and notifying the Parole Officer as quickly as possible. Perhaps of most significance, members of the SGU attempt to position themselves as mentors for the wards that demonstrate an interest in such support. As mentors, the SGU offers a voice of morality, promotes peer pressure resistance, educates on conflict mediation, and performs gang activity intervention. The SGU also acts as a catalyst to ease the ward's transition from the intensity of Ranch Parole supervision to the lesser oversight of common probation. During the second segment, the Ranch Reintegration Team also performs extensive probation checks at regular intervals. The entire Reintegration Team, consisting of the Parole Officer, the SGU, and the Gang Probation Officer, performs at least three probation searches of the ward, his room, and his possessions during the 45-day parole. On face value, this exercise is a fact-finding effort to locate evidence of probation violations. However, the effort also gives the ward a reminder to strive to comply with his probation terms and a vehicle by which he can deflect peer's suggestions of criminal activity. Many wards have told Team members that they used the Team's zealousness as an excuse not to recidivate. The second segment of the Ranch Reintegration Program was conceived as a method to primarily resolve the first two dilemmas detailed in the analysis portion of this document. Through intensive visitation with released wards, the Reintegration Team proactively works to deter reoffense, while at the same time recognizing violations and acting on them expeditiously and appropriately. Through the partnership, the SGU and the Parole Officer are also able to more rapidly recognize and investigate criminal activity and probation violations. However, the second segment also allows an opportunity to further address intelligence gathering activities and re-offense diversion efforts. This is because any proactive and investigative activity is also accompanied by the potential for intelligence development. Further, every contact with a ward is an opportunity to mentor, provide positive reinforcement, and offer self-improvement resources. Once the ward completes his parole period, and with it the second segment of the Ranch Reintegration Program, he is usually transferred to the Gang Probation Officer. As described earlier in this document, the SGU and the Gang Probation Officer continue to maintain contact, conduct probation searches, and offer resources for the remainder of the ward's probation term. There are no funds specifically designated for the Reintegration Program. The program has no overt monetary expense, but it requires large amounts of employee time for Ranch, school, and home visits. The program has been calculated to require approximately 36 employee hours per month. Fortunately, this was a cost the Police Department and Probation Department chose to incur in an effort to resolve what seemed to be a significant void in gang response strategy. The SGU met with it's first ward on December $1^{\text {st }}$, 1999. Jesse A. was visibly apprehensive and, in hindsight, it is obvious why. The Parole Officer was not able to attend the first meeting so the SGU chose to continue without him. Without the familiarity and support of the Parole Officer, Jesse was clearly uneasy in the presence of several police officers. He seemed unable to believe that they were there out of interest in helping him and not hurting him. Thankfully, he was also candid about his concerns and the SGU learned several valuable lessons that have carried on through the program: - The Parole Officer must be present to provide support and reassurance for the ward - The goals of the Reintegration Team must be clearly stated at the first meeting. - The ward must be assured that the meetings are occurring to help him and not to gather damaging evidence. - Wards should be reassured that Reintegration Team members are there by choice; not because they are forced to do so by their organization. The first meeting also established the need for resources from other organizations, Jesse was interested in help with enrollment in a school that he believed would most bolster his efforts to avoid reoffense. He was also interested in employment to occupy his idle time. To prepare for these needs on future meetings, the local school district was tapped for direction on school placement. The Mt Diablo Unified School District and the Concord Police Department enjoy a long-term partnership that dates back many years so the SGU had no difficulty obtaining support on this issue. The District's Student Services Administrative Office was interested in the program and offered to assist the Reintegration Team with school placement when necessary. This was significant because it allowed for ward placement at selected schools instead of a generalized placement at a County Day School, as had been the past practice. The task of obtaining employment assistance proved more difficult due to a lack of employment resources for juveniles. The Reintegration Team ultimately located a source within the California State Employment Opportunity Program (EOP). The EOP is an organization that employs at-risk juveniles to help other at-risk youth to find employment. The EOP agreed to participate in the Reintegration program and a representative of the EOP now accompanies the SGU to the Ranch approximately once per month. Job hunting and employment options are discussed, and the wards are offered an opportunity to begin their job search while still in custody. SGU members also take the EOP representative to school campuses and the ward 's homes to complete follow-up visits and provide new employment information. To further enhance resources offered by the Reintegration Program, a outdoor camp program is planned for August $29^{\text {th }}$ through the $31^{\text {st }}$. The City of Concord owns and operates a campground in the Lake Tahoe area, near the Nevada border. The City has agreed to provide camp scholarships for up to 15 Ranch wards during these dates, and the Parole Officer and SGU members will be acting as camp `counselors. ${ }^{\text {B }}$ The Reintegration Team is using the trip as an enticement for the wards; promising them a position on the excursion if they are able to demonstrate a sustained interest in rehabilitation. The trip is also planned for the purpose of removing the wards from their familiar environments and exposing them to opportunities they may otherwise never experience. To date, the Reintegration Team has completed 37 Ranch visits of 13 wards since December $12^{\text {th }}, 1999 .{ }^{1}$ Of the 9 wards released since December 1, 1999, the SGU has collaborated with the Mt. Diablo Unified School District to place 3 eligible wards into the schools they requested. The Team has completed 29 home and school visits, and employment counseling has been given to 5 wards. To enable assessment of the program, the progression of each ward is recorded in a Microsoft Access database. Tentative and actual release dates are recorded, and the database uses these dates to determine the ward's entry and exit dates in the Reintegration Program. The database also calculates dates at 3, 6, and 12-month intervals on which the SGU will check the wards for reoffense. Refer to attachment 41 for a sample of the database entry screen used to catalog each ward. # ASSESSMENT The Reintegration Program is structured for a scheduled assessment once per year. Assessment is done by comparison of the reoffense frequency of wards involved in the Reintegration Program to wards that were not involved in the program. For the purposes of evaluation, reoffense is defined as an incident generating a police offense report where the ward is listed as a suspect or an arrestee. The data is collected at 3, 6, [^0] [^0]: This obviously does not equate to 5 visits per ranch Ward. Due to custody rules followed by the Ranch, some wards are released before the 5 visits are complete. and 12-month intervals from the time of the ward's release. Data on wards not involved in the Program is obtained by the random selection of individuals released from the Ranch who have had no contact with the Program. Finally, a demonstration of a statistically significant decrease in recidivism by wards involved in the program would be generalized to affirm theory \#1, which suggests wards in the Program have a higher likelihood of rehabilitation. Theory \#2 is scrutinized by the use of police reports documenting reoffense. The reports are evaluated by members of the SGU and determined to be the result of proactive or reactive street officer response, or proactive or reactive SGU response. A disproportionately high percentage of proactive and reactive SGU responses suggests that increased SGU involvement through the Reintegration Team resulted in an increased capacity for recognition of criminal behavior by wards; a validation of theory \#2. Due to the infancy of the Ranch Reintegration Program and the deadline demand for submission of the program to PERF, the assessment sample size of wards involved in the Program was limited to 5 juveniles. None of the 5 wards had passed the 6-month check period so the sample was limited to those who passed the 3-month check. While this is obviously a statistically insufficient sample, the results can be used to suggest the potential success of the Program, as well as imply the outcome of future assessments Of the 5 wards involved in the program, $2(40 \%)$ had not reoffended by the end of the 3-month evaluation. Of the 3 reoffenders, $2(67 \%)$ reoffended after they were released from the 45 day parole period. All of the offenses were minor crimes: petty theft, public intoxication, and withholding information on a wanted person. Alternately, of 5 randomly selected wards not involved in the Ranch Reintegration Program, 3 (60\%) had not reoffended within 3 months. Of the two recidivists, both reoffended during their 45 day parole. Both wards committed serious crimes in the form of burglary and unlawful sexual intercourse. While not directly relevant to this assessment, it is potentially important to note that all 5 wards who were not involved in the Program reoffended within 6 months after their release from the Ranch. Offenses included arson, gang fights and possession of marijuana. These offenses were generally much more serious than those committed by wards involved in the program. The Reintegration Program is too young to provide data to conclude the meaning of this circumstance, but it suggests that wards involved in the Program who reoffend may tend to commit less serious crimes than those who have no program involvement. Based on the 3 month data it seems apparent that wards involved in the Ranch Reintegration Program may actually have a higher likelihood of reoffense; disproving theory \#1. However, analysis of theory \#2 suggests that this result is misleading and possibly untrue. ![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/00-06/img-1.jpeg) To test the success of the Ranch Reintegration Program in satisfying theory \#2, police reports were gathered on involved and non-involved ward's offenses. Reports were separated into proactive and reactive police response, then again separated into events initiated by the SGU or by a beat officer. Of the 3 Reintegration Program wards that reoffended, 2 offenses were the result of proactive work by the SGU and one was a reactive arrest performed by a beat officer. Further examination of the two offenses originating out of the SGU revealed that both violations were likely recognized only due to the expertise and knowledge of SGU members. The offenses would likely have not been investigated or even noticed by a beat officer. Alternately, the 2 offenses committed by the non-involved wards were the result of reactive work by beat officers responding to a citizen-generated complaint. ![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/00-06/img-2.jpeg) While the sample size is insufficient, the data thus far seems to affirm theory \#2 and suggest that the SGU/Probation Partnership leads to increased success in recognizing and resolving ward reoffense. This is even more evident if 6-month data for the noninvolved wards is considered. As mentioned before, all wards released from the Ranch within the past 6 months and who are not involved in the Reintegration program reoffended at least once. Of these offenses, all were initiated by beat officers, and all but one offense was reactive in nature. The data suggests that the non-involved wards may have actually recidivated significantly more than was recognized by the police or probation. If the results of both premise tests are taken in total, they prompt that Reintegration Team efforts result in a greatly improved ability by the SGU and the Parole Officer to monitor wards, recognize violations, and efficiently resolve them. The partnership allows the team to move beyond reactive resolutions to patrol-generated offenses and deal with recidivism in a comprehensive manner. However, it is not yet accurate or beneficial to generalize the data to demonstrate the ability of the Reintegration Program in decreasing recidivism. The available data is simply too sparse to make such a determination. The 3 month evaluation suggests that non-involved wards tend to recidivate less, but this is refuted by an examination of reoffense rates for the same group at a period 6 months from their release date. Aside from data assessment, the Reintegration Team has also reflected on other functions of the Reintegration Program. Two aspects were recognized as lacking. Firstly, wards have requested information or direction on removal of their gang tattoos. The team had no referral for this service so the need was researched, and the Reintegration Program is now in the late planning stages of the establishment of a tattoo removal procedure. A partnership is developing with the Mt Diablo Hospital Laser Surgery Center, which has agreed to provide the service at a discounted fee, assist with the location and writing of applicable grants, and assist with program evaluation. The SGU has also submitted a request for funding to the United Way Foundation. Secondly, it was recognized that the Program lacked significant involvement with the ward's parents. The role of the Reintegration Program was reviewed and defined specifically to be a resource for parents, not to take their place. It was realized that the Team had been inadvertently doing the later to some extent since the Program's inception. To properly address this misdirection, the following plan was developed: Ward's parents will be mailed an introductory letter near the beginning of their son's entry into the program. The letter defines the role of the Integration Team and it invites the parent to accompany the Team to the Ranch to visit their son. During this visit, the separate roles of the Team and the parent in the ward's rehabilitation will be clarified. The parent will also be thoroughly educated on the ward's probation terms and the Team's operational plan for the second segment of the Program. # CONCLUSION While the Reintegration Program is too young to correctly assess for success or failure, data produced by the effort thus far is promising. With the addition of a tattoo removal procedure and greater parental involvement, the program seemingly has the potential to address what has historically been a rather large void in the intervention and enforcement strategies of the Concord Police Department and the Juvenile Probation Department. Beyond this, participants on the Team believe the Ranch Reintegration Program clearly demonstrates the significant value of partnerships in community problem response. # 3. Agency and Officer Information The Ranch Reintegration Program was created and is operated at the line level of the Concord Police Department by the 4 members of the Street Gang Unit. All members of the Unit, with exception of the Violence Prevention Specialist, have received training on Problem Oriented Policing, Community Policing, and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Certain members of the SGU have also received past training on specialized Juvenile Justice issues that are the focus of this program. There were no additional incentives offered to officers involved in the program. The process of problem solving is considered an integral part of most positions within the Concord Police Department so the program is considered to be an included duty of the Street Gang Unit. Members of the SGU each have varying levels of experience in youth resiliency, gang intervention, and resource provision. This experience was drawn on to formulate the program structure and direction. Specialists training in pertinent fields, such as tattoo removal and employment assistance, were consulted to provide the program with guidance on unique resources. The only outstanding problem encountered was not a result of a flaw with the problem oriented policing model itself. Instead, the difficulty has to do with the mobilization of the model; an issue that is not new to the problem oriented policing philosophy. Supervisors and line level employees alike, from within the police culture and also from outside, occasionally question the reason for comprehensive programs such as the Reintegration Program. They argue that the effort is a waste of time and resources, and that it would be much simpler to just arrest them and throw them in jail." While this contention becomes less prominent as time passes, Reintegration Team members find themselves needing to be constantly prepared to argue the merits of the undertaking. Approximately 3 SGU members at a cost of 36 total hours per month are committed to the involvement of the Concord Police Department in the Reintegration Team. Thus far, the cost has not exceeded the existing budget of the SGU and it has not required overtime. Further questions or comments about the Ranch Reintegration Program should be directed to: Detective Russ NorrisStreet Gang UnitConcord Police DepartmentConcord California 94521Telephone: 925-671-3251Fax Line: 925-671-3124Email: russn@cpd.ci. concord. ca. us Thank you for your time. Respectfully Submitted, ![img-3.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/00-06/img-3.jpeg) Detective Russ Norris Birthdate A e 1012616 14 Address 1123 Street St Phone 1123-456-7789 Parent Gang School Social Security JRed Mt Diablo J1112223333 TENATIVE RELEASE RELEASE DATE 5112100: Visit Start Date: 3128100 Parole End Date 6126100 HOMEISCHOOL VISITS-. Date and Details RANCH VISITS Date and Details 3128100 REOFFENSE CHECK' 3 Month Default Re-offend? E 6 Month Default Re-Offend 12 Month Default Re-Offend? Menlo officer Con acts/Etc. Proabtion Officer:,