Estado y dEscEntralización

strong perception

that the task force

had an impact on

the homicide and

violent crime rates

in both counties

but particularly in

St. Clair, the source

of most task force

cases.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

AG’s Office attorneys. Jurisdictions contemplating similar initiatives should carefully consider this experience.

All parties involved in the initiative agreed that the primary focus of task force operations should be on East St. Louis due to its high per capita homi- cide rate and its high number of unsolved homicides. It was felt the task force could help address the crime problem with its resources and skilled personnel and also assist in improving the ability of the various police departments to deal with serious crimes by bringing local officers into the task force operation. Although the program narrative provided for the full- time assignment of two ESL police officers, the program budget did not allow any grant funds to pay the salaries of local officers. During the concep- tion and beginning operation of the task force, the ESL Police Department was understaffed, overwhelmed with a serious crime wave, and poorly financed. Interviews with officials in more financially resourceful communi- ties revealed that they could not afford to lose officers and generally felt they should not be responsible for assigning officers to a task force they perceived was primarily concerned with another city’s crime problem. If similar initia- tives are undertaken in the future and local participation is regarded as important, provision must be made for the payment of salaries for assigned officers.

While the underrepresentation of local law enforcement appears to be mostly a financial issue, the reduced use of the AG’s Office attorneys by local prose- cutors and by ISP seems to have been more complex and subject to various interpretations. The original task force design specified a very active role for the AG’s Office attorneys in supporting local prosecutors and even manag- ing and leading some prosecutions—a role that was realized in Madison County. However, the bulk of the task force investigations and prosecutions involved St. Clair County cases; during the course of the grants, only two St. Clair cases involved an AG’s Office attorney as the lead prosecutor.

One possible explanation for the difference in use by Madison and St. Clair Counties may be related to familiarity with the AG’s Office lead prosecutor. Whereas the initial lead attorney for the AG’s Office component had no criminal prosecution experience, the subsequent lead prosecutor had been employed as a special prosecutor in homicide and other serious cases in Madison County (state’s attorney’s office) before joining the task force. No attorney had a similar prior association with St. Clair County, although familiarity with and respect for the lead prosecutor’s credentials was evinced by the representatives of the St. Clair County state’s attorney’s office. The more likely explanation for the lack of use of the AG’s Office attorney by St. Clair County appears to be a philosophical preference for using local prosecutors.

Two recommendations may help similar future initiatives avoid some of the frustrations experienced by the AG’s Office attorneys. First, prior to initiation of the project, the parameters and conditions for assistance should be clearly

established between the local prosecutor and any entity offering assistance to the prosecutor. It appears that this was not accomplished in the case of the task force. Second, outside assistance to local prosecutors may be of more value in counties with staff too small to handle current caseloads or where specialized expertise is not available in the local office.

The initial task force design also envisioned a substantial role for the AG’s Office attorneys in initial case screening and in decisionmaking regarding whether to proceed with case investigations. After less than a year, the involvement of the attorneys moved from regular to as needed, as deter- mined by the case agents or their squad leader. Several factors appear to have contributed to this change. The initial staffing of the AG’s Office com- ponent with a lead attorney who had no criminal prosecution experience eroded the faith of the ISP component in the ability of that attorney to make a positive contribution to the process. Even after the replacement of the lead prosecutor with an attorney whose credentials were respected by the ISP personnel, the AG’s Office attorneys were still involved only on an as- needed basis. The initial staffing does not, however, provide an explanation for the continually limited role of the attorneys in case-screening and investi- gation processes. Two factors appear to account for the permanent nature of the change. First, while the lead prosecutor’s abilities were widely respected, he was not always available to the task force. Eventually, the ISP component controlled the case up to an arrest warrant, after which control of task force activity shifted to the AG’s Office component. Second, as the task force developed, even the ISP component moved away from roundtable decision- making to a model that centered on joint consultations between the investi- gator and the squad leader in the early phases of case development and between the case agent and the squad leader for decisions after assignment to a case agent.

The internal decisionmaking process that eventually took hold in the task force seems to have worked well. The division of labor complemented the areas of expertise of each component. In addition, the ISP component valued access to legal advice when needed. The source of the legal advice and the amount of resources devoted to the legal component were matters of dis- agreement among task force members. In future projects, a careful appraisal should be made of potential sources of legal consultation and the costs and benefits associated with various sources. For example, using the local prose- cutor for regular legal consultation could result in a closer liaison; frequent contact could also increase tension by providing opportunities for disagree- ment. Also, assignment of a particular member of the prosecutor’s office as legal counsel to a task force might breed jealousy and resentment among other members of the prosecutor’s office. Each situation should be evaluated individually, taking into consideration historical relationships and personal dynamics.

The internal decision-