Pages and Modules (2)
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Central Florida *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
6704
Subject
Sociology
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
99
Uploaded by DrKangaroo4107
CCJ 6016 Pages and Modules from Canvas Quiz 1
Module 1 Week 1 - Intro, Support, Analysis & Proof of Life
Policy and Policy Analysis – Academic and Applied Issues
Weekly Objectives:
“Introduce” myself and learn a bit about you – see other module materials;
Open a discussion about policy analysis from the academic and applied perspectives;
Distinguish “analysis” from other components of the “critical thinking” process; and,
Complete the “evidence of student engagement” assignment (your extra credit for the term)
Why do we offer a course titled “Policy Analysis in Criminal Justice” when you are unlikely to find a similar course in Sociology, Psychology, or Anthropology – some of our core disciplines? You are likely to find such a course in Public Administration (yep!), Social Work (yep!) and Political Science (yep!). So,
what it is about the academic study of Criminal Justice that makes this topic required?
One of the first answers is to look at the nature of the domains listed above. Some of us would argue that Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, and Political Science (or Politics as it is known in much of the English-speaking academic world), are “core disciplines.” That is, the theories and research methodologies of those “
disciplines
” are relatively unique from each other, though there is overlap, and that each of them forms a unique domain of knowledge.
Ron Akers (1992:2) defined a “discipline” as a “perspective-defined” focus, “organized around and essentially different from other disciplines by one or more predominant perspectives from which a number of different problems are viewed.” Perspective, or lens as some put it, is what defines a discipline; Sociology looks at societal-level variables while Psychology looks at individual-level variable (and social psychology and organizational studies then become…)
Akers termed Criminology and Criminal Justice in the academic realms as “areas of study” rather than disciplines. “A field of study is problem-defined. It is differentiated from other fields of study by the
object
of study” (Akers, 1992:2). Criminology, like the other disciplines, is almost completely academic in nature; Criminal Justice, on the other hand, has both academic and applied dimensions. In this way it is like Public Health and public health – Criminal Justice (academic) and criminal justice (applied). A crude distinction, but one that will serve us well for the time-being.
Criminal Justice, Public Administration, and Social Work are often thought of as “
inter-disciplinary
.” That is, they draw their core theories and methods from several of the fields listed above. Social Work, for example, is often viewed as a combination of Psychology, Sociology, and Political Science. These days there is a healthy dose of health-related disciplines also involved. Public Administration is the applied field that utilizes principles from Political Science and Law, among other disciplines, to bring these to bear on issues of governance of public and non-governmental organizations (and a healthy dose of various business disciplines). Criminal Justice, as viewed by many, is the applied cousin of another interdisciplinary field called Criminology. Both draw heavily on social science disciplines and Law for their theories, research methods, and ideas of application (Akers, Potter & Hill, 2013: 79-89).
Policy and policy analysis are often the focus of study by academics located in interdisciplinary academic
departments (and multi-disciplinary, but let’s avoid further distinction for now). You can imagine the fights over what this means in combined criminal justice, social work, and pre-law departments! Not everyone will agree with this characterization – which is the nature of academics. As a general rule, if the academic department/domain has a directly applied counterpart organization/agency out in the “real world,” there is probably going to be a course on policy analysis in their required work.
It makes sense that a Criminal Justice program at the Master’s level would require such a course. The bigger question is what that program focuses on as policy analysis. It has been my experience that people who have been in the academic environment most of their working lives focus on using their inter/discipline’s theoretical and/or research base to subject statutes, regulations, and practices (policy) to the “gaze” of that inter/discipline. That is, how well does the policy compare to what the academic enterprise thinks is the answer to the issue?
For those of us who have spent time in organizations where part of our job was to develop and/or examine
draft policies and provide analysis, that was a rare occurrence. Not that we might not try to sneak some of
our home inter/discipline’s ideas in the analysis, but it was rare that anyone based a draft policy on social science research – maybe some research, if we were lucky.
Academics in social science programs and individuals working in policy-making agencies often (probably
more often than not) approach policy analysis from different viewpoints, and often with different outcomes in mind. As we move through this term, I want to expose you to both approaches. Most of you probably not going on to become research academics. I am assuming the rest of you will want to take leadership opportunities in the formal justice system or the allied organizations we need to do the work expected of us by the public (and legislatures, county commissions, city governments, etc.). For the majority of you, policy analysis is going to be part of the policy development, implementation, and evaluation cycle in your organizations.
In this first part of our time together, we want to explore some of the distinctions between what most academics think and teach about “policy,” and what policy developers and analysts “out there” actually do and how they do it.
The module that follows offers you a definition of “analysis” that we will use as a guide for this course. As noted, it is not the highest level of critical thinking. So, please understand that in other courses, the preferred outcome may be more integration. But first, make sure you get that “student engagement” or what I call the “proof of life” quiz done!
Introduction of Dr. Potter
More about Dr. Potter than you ever wanted to know:
Why does the Department of Criminal Justice have me teaching this course? The answer lies in my education as a Sociologist-Criminologist and my experiences as a researcher and practitioner in the criminal justice, social welfare, and public health sectors over the past 40 years.
I hold a Doctorate in Sociology from the University of Florida where I specialized in the areas of Criminology, Organizations, and Social Psychology. My dissertation was on decision-making in the Florida Juvenile Justice System and involved the early version of juvenile diversion programs in Florida (concentrated in the central Florida area; dissertation available on-line through the UF Smathers Library -
https://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00003861/00001
(Links to an external site.)
). My dissertation was, though not expressed this way at the time, an early exploration of what is known as “institutional” organizational
theory. It was also a dissertation that focused on what we then called "differential outcomes" of justice system decision-making. So, if people try to tell you that "procedural justice," "implicit bias," and other trendy terms are something new - no, they go back to at least the work of Aaron Cicourel (1964) and others - we just use different terminology these days.
After graduate school, I migrated to Tallahassee where I was with the Bureau of Criminal Justice Assistance as a Criminal Justice Planner/Evaluator, then to the Florida Supreme Court/Office of the State Courts Administrator as the Director of the Florida Juvenile Justice Institute. I then had the opportunity to
help resurrect the Florida Network of Youth and Family Services before heading to Atlanta and some misspent time managing a software training operation. After my brief stint in the real private sector, I returned to family welfare and crime prevention with the Families First agency as Evaluation Director.
In the early 1990s I received an offer to take a position in the Department of Sociology at the University of New England in New South Wales, Australia (THE University of New England) to develop a criminology and criminal justice program with an applied focus. I spent five and one half years there doing work with all types of criminal justice and regulatory agencies. I then returned to the US to direct the Institute for Correctional Research and Training at Morehead State University in Kentucky. An offer to help develop the evaluation programs for the Division of Violence Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention brought me back to Atlanta. I spent three years doing program work in Family and Intimate Partner and Youth Violence Prevention before moving into the Corrections and Substance Abuse Unit in the National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention. That work morphed into becoming a Goal Team Leader responsible for cross-agency planning in the areas of corrections and homeless populations – and, for a while – universities. As part of those positions I was liaison with the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice and several national organizations.
In 2008 I returned to Florida to take this position. From 2014-2016 I was the interim chair of the Department, experiencing yet another organizational and managerial environment. My work across every part of the justice system, the public health system, universities, and family welfare agencies has exposed me to many of the issues faced, and nearly every organizational form used, in the criminal justice process.
Over the past nearly 40 years I have been on all sides of the policy arena. I have helped develop policies at the organizational, state, and federal levels. I have provided advice on policy impact and evaluation of policy effects at state and federal levels. I have provided policy analysis at state and federal levels. In sum, I am one of the few individuals in our program who has worked all sides of the policy process, not simply written articles on how a particular criminal justice/criminological theory can be used to examine a pre-existing statute, regulation, or policy. I hope my experiences will provide you with a broad understanding of policy that affects and is affected by the criminal justice system.
I hope that the combination of readings, some of the lecture materials to come, and interactions you have with me will pass on both the fundamental understanding of this unique problem and its impact on what we call criminal justice.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
What Does “Analysis” Mean?
Hello everyone,
As a college student, you are expected to be analytical. So, I just want to clarify the meaning of "analysis" with you. Being able to analyze means that you are able to do the following:
define
relevant terms
compare and contrast
(ideas, concepts, philosophies, theories, analytical techniques, processes, outcomes, etc.)
provide examples
.
Analysis is not the highest level of critical thinking skills. However, being able to analyze is the minimum level of learning that will get you through your graduate education (See the General Rubric). Your learning comprehension should strive for at least
this level of understanding and educational performance. Below, I am providing a description of the various critical thinking skill levels to assist you in achieving your collegial expectations. I recommend keeping this handy for all your courses.
Technology and Support
Hello everyone!
We're going to do our best to advise you on getting your technology up and running for this course. We will be using UCF’s Webcourse and, as a UCF student, you are able to access software from Microsoft. We are giving you some recommendations, but getting the technology you need is ultimately up to you. We are going to quickly cover the following: Webcourse access, browsers, Canvas, UCF Apps, Microsoft 365, UCF Computer Labs, LyndaCampus, and Support links.
Webcourse Access
One way to access Webcourse is by going to http://www.ucf.edu, clicking on the “UCF Log in” at the upper right, and then clicking on the Webcourses portal. Use your NID (not PID) and password, and click on the course you need. Since you’re already here, I don’t think we have to worry about this too much. :-)
Browsers
You can use Firefox, Internet Explorer, or Google Chrome as a browser, amongst others. However, for any browser, you need to use one of the latest two versions. I typically switch between Google Chrome and Firefox, as neither one does everything I need.
Canvas
For information about UCF’s Webcourse delivery system, Canvas, take a tour at https://online.ucf.edu/support/webcourses/other/student-tour/
Links to an external site.
or go to http://guides.instructure.com/
(Links to an external site.)
UCF Apps
UCF Apps is a service available to all students. You can use MS Office, SPSS, and many other applications from your favorite device, whether you have a desktop, laptop, or tablet. As long as you have a good internet connection, you can access UCF Apps. UCF Apps is funded by the Technology Fee, so there is no additional cost for you to use this service.
For support - If you have issues, questions, or feedback regarding UCF Apps, visit https://it.ucf.edu/ucf-apps/
Links to an external site.
. We recommend the video “How Do I Get Started?”
Note -
For the best experience, save your work to the Knight Drive (K)
. The Knight Drive is networked file space that is available on every device on which you use UCF Apps, as well as the Library and other campus public lab spaces.
WARNING!!
- If you do not have internet or wifi access, you will
NOT
be able to access the K drive!! We recommend that you also
back up your files on the K drive to another source
, such
as a flash drive. It is ultimately your responsibility to be able to access your files at any time, regardless of technical problems. If you have backed up your files and downloaded Microsoft
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
software (see next section), you will be able to continue working on your projects and assignments.
Microsoft 365
You are also able to download Microsoft Office 365 software to your personal computer through
your Knights Email. Visit https://tpc.ucf.edu/product/microsoft-office-2016/ for more information.
Links to an external site.
You may note on some of the submissions I require you to provide a .doc or .docx file sent via the Canvas/Webcourse portal. The Office 365 version of Word will try to default to an on-line Word document - I cannot comment or edit on those documents. So, always make sure you save your work to a non-cloud version that I can edit/comment on. Believe me, my typing is much better than my writing when I mark up your documents!
Support Links
For more help go to:
• Online Learning at http://online.ucf.edu/learn-online/
Links to an external site.
or Online Support at http://online.ucf.edu/support/
Links to an external site.
• There are many links in myUCF at my.ucf.edu or go to https://my.ucf.edu/psp/IHPROD/GUEST/EMPL/h/?tab=PAPP_GUEST&errCd=logout
Links to an external site.
. You can sign in with your NID and password and click on the tab “Informational Resources”.
Zoom Information
Hello everyone! The following is provided for your information - we will use Zoom primarily as a private communication tool if needed. But, this is a great overview!
As you may know, many of our classes this
fall, 2020
, will be using Zoom in place of live classes. When you register, these courses are designated as a
"v" (video streaming)
instructional model.
"V" courses are different from
"W" (world wide web)
. In web-based courses, students are not expected to meet at regularly designated dates and times.
"W" courses are asynchronous, whereas "V" courses are synchronous (See Synchronous vs. Asynchronous
(Links to an external site.)
).
Zoom has grown in usage and popularity. It's something we'll all need to get used to. So, I am doing what I can to get us all familiar with Zoom. Here is some information you may find useful.
To be clear -
This is a "W" course, so you will NOT
be required to use Zoom
. I just want to assist anyone who may want to get familiar with the this technology. :-)
What is Zoom?
Zoom is a video-conferencing platform that allows you to engage in live Web conversations with
your students using audio, video, and text-based chat features. Unlike a video-conferencing program like Skype or Google Hangouts, you do not need a unique username or account to use Zoom. Instead, your UCF NID and password will allow you to generate a link (much like you might for a Google Document) and a phone number that you can share with anyone. Participants can then follow the web link or call the phone number to join in on a live conversation.
You can
access
your university Zoom account in
two different ways
:
1.
Visit ucf.zoom.us
and log-in with your UCF NID and password.
2.
Through your Webcourses@UCF course if it is enabled by your instructor.
NOTE
- When launching the meeting, the desktop application has more/different features than the browser. So, if possible, you'll want to download or run the application to start the meeting, rather than using the browser option.
Zoom Sessions
If your course is using Zoom, meeting dates and times will be scheduled through Webcourses@UCF and should appear on your calendar.
Please take the time to familiarize yourself with Zoom by visiting the UCF Zoom Guides
Links to
an external site.
[https://cdl.ucf.edu/support/webcourses/zoom/].
You may choose to use Zoom on your mobile device (phone or tablet).
Things to Know About Zoom:
You must sign in to my Zoom session using your UCF NID and password.
The Zoom sessions are recorded.
Improper classroom behavior is not tolerated within Zoom sessions and may result in a referral to the Office of Student Conduct.
If you have any technical issues accessing Zoom, you can contact Webcourses@UCF
Support
Links to an external site.
Module 2 Week 2: Policy Analysis – Real World and Academia What is a Policy?
Objectives for this week:
Discuss the issues involved when trying to define “policy”
Discuss key differences between the ways in which academics think about policy analysis compared to policy analysis in the applied world
Required Reading:
Bardach, E. & Patashnik, E.M. (2020), Pages vi-xx.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Download Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013).
CDC’s Policy Analytical Framework.
Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services.
ChangeLab
Download ChangeLab. (2017).
What is Policy?
ChangeLab Solutions.
Czajkoski
Download Czajkoski, E.H. (2002) “One More Journal.”
The Criminologist,27
(2):1-5.
Recommended Resources:
Criminal Justice Policy Review
– “About this journal” page: https://journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp
(Links to an external site.)
.
Criminology & Public Policy
– “Overview” page: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/17459133/homepage/productinformation.html
(Links to an external site.)
Both of these journals are accessible through the UCF Library system – you must log-in with your NID and password to search and obtain – do not purchase articles!
Narrative
In the Introduction material I noted that academics and persons working in a variety of “real world” organizations and agencies often approach policy analysis quite differently. That often starts from differences in what people think “policy” is. As you read through this week and next in the Bardach & Patashnik (2020) text, look for a definition of policy.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
The Czajkoski
Download Czajkoski(2002) reading is from a former Dean of the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the Florida State University. “Dean Gene, the administerin’ machine,” as we used to call him when I was staff to the Governor’s Council on Crime and Delinquency in 1981-82 and he was a member of the Council, was a public administration specialist. So, when a second criminology/criminal justice “policy” journal was introduced, Dean
Gene had some comments (and I think Dr. Clear was still at FSU at that time). Czajkoski (2002: 3) defined policy as “a formal statement of goals usually set in priority order. It is a guide for action and is more open-ended than a plan…” True to form, Dean Gene pointed out something that still bugs many of us, the fact most academics don’t distinguish between policy and program.
I highly recommend you pay attention to that definitional paragraph, especially the sentence: “Policymaking is not like the decision making found in the sciences where the number of significant factors can be narrowed along the lines of cause and effect.” Likewise, in the next paragraph: “Public policymaking means laying down general directives rather than detailed instructions.” We will revisit some of the differences between planning and policymaking in other discussions. Dean Gene finished his questioning of why another (useless?) journal about criminal justice policymaking written by academics is needed with a set of points Dr. Humiston and I have developed in our criminal justice organizations course and text – the source of the problems we face in our sector. We will “talk” more about these as we get into the problem-
solving segment next week.
There is another dimension to Dean Czajkoski’s brief piece that bears emphasis. His emphasis is on
public
policymaking. As we will explore from time to time in this course, not all policymaking is done in the public domain. When we talk about statutes, regulations, and other government policies, we are in the public domain. Some of you will go on to work in non-profit and/or for-profit organizations that interact with the justice system, including universities. Within
those “private” organizations there will be a need for policy development and analysis. You have
already been introduced to at least one set of university policies – assuming you followed that link in the syllabus. So, policymaking and analysis are skills that are transferrable across the public and private organizational domains.
The selection from ChangeLab
Download ChangeLabalso avoids providing a clear definition of what a policy is. Rather, they tell us what policy does – it “is a tool used to change…” They give us examples of policies in multiple domains. The important point here, as in Dean Czajkoski’s reading, is the difference between public and private policy and to whom each applies. In the end, through their examples of policies, they reinforce Czajkoski’s notion that polices are guides for action – how you enact them is more program than policy. Much of what we do in criminal justice is enactment of policy documents from legislative bodies and administrators.
Turning to my employer for the decade before I came to UCF, I have provided the link to the CDC policy analysis
Download CDC policy analysisframework. Last week I noted that public health was one of the inter-disciplines that taught academic policy analysis. Public health is not shy about stating that part of what they do is advocacy – unlike many in the social
sciences. This brief framework document has some remarkable similarities to the Eightfold Path approach. But, again, do you see a definition of “policy”?
One of the unique features of the CDC framework is the “policy analysis table” (Figure 2). It provides three domains (impact, feasibility, and economic/budgetary impact) on which a policy proposal can be “ranked.” It does not specify the content of a policy.
This is actually the point where we wanted to arrive this week – though it is a somewhat frustrating point with no clear definition of “policy.” That is because a policy should be something that directs action around an identified problem. As we move through the remainder of the semester, you will be expanding on the CDC framework in understanding how policy is developed and analyzed – regardless of the domain it addresses. To complete this week, I want to
give you some idea of what the “knowledge, skills, and abilities” expected of policy analysts are,
at least at the state and federal levels.
What Do Policy Analysts Do?
Let us begin at the federal level with an advertisement for a policy analyst position in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Download Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. By the way, most of the non-lawyer analysts in the Office of Justice Programs (NIJ, BJA, BJS, OVC, etc.) occupy a category labeled social science analyst (at CDC, I was a Behavioral Scientist, Public Health Advisor, and a Health Scientist - did policy development and analysis in all three categories). In the position statement, just in case it doesn’t load as a picture, it states that the analyst oversees “the Federal regulatory system so that agencies’ regulatory actions are consistent with economic principles, sound public policy, and the goals of the President… review requests by agencies for approval of collections of information…review and analyze other Administration and Congressional policy initiatives.” They “work directly with high-level policy officials and have a great deal of responsibility in a wide array of policy areas,”
including criminal justice. They use tools such as economics, statistics, and risk assessment, with
a heavy focus on cost/benefit analysis.
At the state level in Florida, most policy analysis is carried out by the Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability (OPPAGA - http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/
(Links to an external site.)
). Interestingly, this was the work we did at the old Bureau of Criminal Justice Assistance (BCJA), the agency where I met Dean Czajkoski, but focused on criminal justice policy, before BCJA was disbanded at the end of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) funding. So, let’s see what you need to be able to do to join OPPAGA
Download OPPAGA:
“OPPAGA is seeking a Legislative Policy Analyst to serve as a technical expert conducting research studies, program evaluations, and policy analyses of public programs and agencies. Policy analysts are expected to become proficient in conducting program evaluations and policy analyses, demonstrate strong writing and presentation skills, and develop substantive knowledge of Florida state government operations and the legislative process.”
As you look at the list of knowledge, skills, and abilities required to perform the job requirements, I want you to think about your coursework for the MA degree. It does not make sense to avoid the harder courses if you want to move up in the administrative ranks!
In the end, part of this exercise is to make you aware that policy analysis (and policy development) is something you can learn to do through this degree program and especially those of you in the dual CJ/PA program. There is a focus on the methodological knowledge and analytic skills, not necessarily the theoretical content. That will allow you to become a specialist,
of course. However, as I learned working with epidemiologists at the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), there are fields where the skills are transferable to problems; you can learn the topic later. I still don’t agree with that completely…
Wrapping-up
I want to make sure you walk away from this course understanding that policy analysis is not unique to criminal justice – it is a process that applies to multiple domains, at multiple levels. A traditional way of teaching policy analysis in criminal justice is to look at a statute and ask how it
stands up to a particular criminological or criminal justice theory. You will be able to do that by the time we finish the course. It is my hope you will be able to apply the knowledge, skills, and abilities – get used to that phrase, job seekers! – of the policy analysis process to multiple domains. For the past few decades, at least, criminal justice policy has affected and been affected
by policies in other domains. We can no longer be satisfied gazing only at our own reflection.
Now, to one of the core themes of anything I teach – problem definition! “See” you next week!
First Assignment Description
Starting now you will be able to begin uploading/copy/pasting your first assignment to the Assignments Portal. It will accept only .doc or .docx files - do not send .pdf or any sort of cloud-
based files! For those of you using Apple products, I recommend doing the copy/paste approach. Bottom line, just like when I was a grant officer in the feds, if I can't read it, I can't accept it - follow the instructions, please!
You have the next few weeks to work on the first written assignment. I have reproduced it here so that you can begin to write your response as a separate file before you upload/copy/paste it into the Assignment folder by 11:59pm Sunday, February 2. If you complete it before that time -
wonderful! I may grade it, but I will not return the grades until I have all papers in the machine. In my experience, about 5 of the 30 of you currently in the course will beat the deadline - the others will use the deadline as a final source of motivation :-).
Where I have instructions on length - it means I quit reading if you go beyond that length and grade on what you put in the allowed space. The page lengths are limits, not targets. If you feel you can do the quality job you want to in less space, please don't think you have to fill space to make me happy - lose that idea for the real world!
So, here is the first assignment - do well, ask reasoned questions if you have them, and I will share answers with the group:
Defining the Policy Problem
.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
In the first few weeks of the term we have focused on defining the problem your policy should solve/ameliorate/address and a bit on providing evidence to support your policy position. You are not yet ready to develop a policy, so we will use a couple of statutes to allow you to answer some fundamental questions regarding existing law and policy.
You will have had this assignment in the form of a sub-module for a couple of weeks, so prepare your document according to the guidelines below and upload it when you have completed it.
This assignment is worth 25% of your total grade (or 25 of 100 points available). Your analysis –
which you will copy into the Assignment Portal once you have completed it – will take the following format:
1.
Baker Act Analysis (Florida Mental Health Act, Florida Statutes, Chapter 394; http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?
App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300-0399/0394/0394PARTIContentsIndex.html
(Links to an external site.)
):
Problem Definition – rate the clarity of the “problem” addressed by the “Baker Act” with specific reference to sections of the statute and your interpretation – not direct quotes – of the problem to be addressed.
Evidence – With reference to the specific section of the Act, what criminal justice, criminological, or other social science theories, if any, are explicitly cited in the Act? If none, what sorts of theories do you think “fit” and why? By "
specific
," I mean something more fine-
grained than "criminological," "psychological," or "sociological." Within any of those, what branch of theory would you be applying? For example, if a criminological theory is used, would it be a conflict/critical, social learning/differential learning, or control sort of theory?
No more than two (2) pages double-spaced, 12-point font – 8 total points.
2.
Smoking Prohibition Inside State Correctional Facilities Analysis (Florida Statutes, Chapter 944; http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?
App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0944/Sections/
0944.115.html
(Links to an external site.)
)
Problem Definition – rate the clarity of the “problem” addressed by the “No Smoking Act” with specific reference to sections of the statute and your interpretation – not direct quotes – of the problem to be addressed.
Evidence – With reference to the specific section of the Act, what criminal justice, criminological, or other social science theories, if any, are explicitly cited in the Act? If none, what sorts of theories do you think “fit” and why? By "
specific
," I mean something more fine-
grained than "criminological," "psychological," or "sociological." Within any of those, what branch of theory would you be applying? For example, if a criminological theory is used, would it be a conflict/critical, social learning/differential learning, or control sort of theory?
No more than two (2) pages double-spaced, 12-point font – 8 total points.
3.
Interpretation – Now that you have reviewed two statutes related to the Florida criminal justice system/process, what is your overall assessment of the contribution of
criminal justice/criminological/behavioral science theory and research to the formulation of these policies?
One page maximum double-spaced, 12-point font – 4 total points
So, a maximum five pages of narrative to address the three components; an optional cover sheet -
do include your name somewhere on the submission, even if it is in Webcourses - and a bibliography that does not count against your five pages of narrative.
In essence, you are giving me two "two-pagers" and a "one-pager." In my federal experience, any proposal we made started with a "1-pager." If you got through the first round, you got a "2-
pager." Only if you made it to the big competition did you get to write more than a "5-pager." I got two through to the Assistant Secretary for Health at HHS, but never further :-(
Equality versus Equity – What Is Our Goal in Criminal Justice Policy?
You are probably familiar with the phrase “equality under the law.” The idea being that everyone is treated the same by the law, regardless of social standing or characteristics. We also use the term “equal protection under the law” in criminal justice. There are both statutory provisions and procedural rules that are supposed to guarantee that everyone who is prosecuted in the criminal courts gets the same processes applied to their case. The outcomes, on the other hand, are not guaranteed to be the same.
Back in the 1970s and 1980s we used the term “differential outcomes” when examining differences in how group outcomes, especially race/ethnic and gender groups, differed as the result of criminal justice processing. These were “outcomes”-based analyses, as opposed to “process”-based outcomes (if you had done Research Methods with me, you would recognize this difference easily).
In the early 1980s I found myself riding from Tallahassee to Orlando to attend a Judicial College. I was employed at the Office of the State Courts Administrator (Court Administration (About Us) - Florida Courts (flcourts.org)
(Links to an external site.)
), and I was riding with the Court Administrator (Donald Conn) to attend the conference. We began to discuss the upcoming
federal Supreme Court case that was attempting to use the types of differential outcomes in death
penalty decisions to overturn the death penalty in an individual case. After I explained the logic behind the use of differential outcomes analyses and their implications for unequal treatment in death penalty cases for African American defendants, (now) Judge Conn explained the legal reasoning and why the case would be (and was) decided as happened. Criminal justice is about the individual case. Unless a mistake in some aspect of the application of law and/or procedure
in that individual case could be shown, the aggregated outcomes of other decisions was not relevant. In short, criminal justice is about the individual case, not the accumulation of outcomes
of individual cases.
In those days we were encouraged not to attribute intent to aggregated outcomes unless we had specific evidence to draw a causal connection. Remember, correlation does not provide causality. Now, as one of the sources below says, we acknowledge that past injustices have led to the differential outcomes we observe at the current point in history.
Given the events of the past few years surrounding minority communities and criminal justice practices and outcomes, we need to address the questions of “equity” as well as “equality.” I will observe that my experiences with legislators is that when it comes to the criminal law they lean heavily on what they perceive to be the powers of deterrence and punishment – regardless of
what the academic research demonstrates about these approaches. What matters is that the law is
applied equally, regardless of the characteristics of the individuals involved – or the groups to which those individuals belong.
Here lies an emerging problem for criminal justice policy makers – whether we are talking about big “P” policy (statutes, etc.) or small “p” policy (organizational, agency) – is the outcome we seek to achieve one of equality or equity?
From the George Washington University materials below:
“
Equality
means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities.
Equity
recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.“
“
Equity is a solution for addressing imbalanced social systems. Justice can take equity one step further by fixing the systems in a way that leads to long-term, sustainable, equitable access for generations to come.
”
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) has an interesting graphic that illustrates one of the fundamental dilemmas we face in policy development and/or analysis - equality versus equity (Visualizing Health Equity: Diverse People, Challenges, and Solutions Infographic - RWJF
(Links to an external site.)
) In the RWJF presentation, equality is defined as a "one size fits all" approach, while equity is more of a person- or group-specific outcome. The website at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at the George Washington University has a more detailed explanation of the differences between equality and equity (Equity vs. Equality: What’s the Difference? - Resources (gwu.edu)
(Links to an external site.)
), at least in terms of health outcomes.
In more recent presentations at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the favorite metaphor involves a fence with individuals of different heights trying to look at a mountain view. Some people have blocked vision due to their shorter heights. Some solutions involve providing building steps to allow people of different heights to step up and achieve the same view as taller individuals. The current trendy solution, however, is to knock down the fence! Those of you who have studied Merton's Structural Strain or "Anomie" theory will recognize the genesis of such ideas. So, be ready for multiple metaphors to assist you in differentiating equity from equality!
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
As you move forward with the processes of policymaking and analysis, ask yourself which outcome is more important - equality or equity. This is a particularly tricky issue for the criminal
justice process and system, one that is challenging us on the front of including "social justice" in our thinking about outcomes. If you aren't familiar with their work on violence prevention, let me direct you to David Kennedy's group as a good resource on social justice and criminal justice outcomes -
National Network for Safe Communities
Home - National Network for Safe Communities (NNSC) (nnscommunities.org)
(Links to an external site.)
A challenge to those of you who are beginning your careers in criminal justice lies in determining whether the criminal justice system and the policies that guide it are focused on guaranteeing both "just" individual outcomes
and
group outcomes. Understanding how past policies have led us to the point we encounter today is critically important. Whether individual justice outcomes are more, as, or less important than social justice outcomes is a moral question, though science can help us think about the problem. Can we have a criminal justice system that achieves equity without endangering equality before the law? Can a criminal justice system that guarantees equality before the law be blamed for unequal outcomes at a socially defined (especially by academics!) level? Keep these questions in mind as you think about your final policy development assignment, you will need to explain whether you are addressing equity or equality in your policy…
Diversity & Inclusion - Keys to Equity & Equality?
Learning Objectives:
Students will be able to:
Define and distinguish among the concepts of diversity, inclusion, and exclusion
Explain the links among diversity, inclusion, equity, and equality
Resources:
Diversity & Inclusion (opm.gov)
(Links to an external site.)
FINAL What is Inclusion 01.10.19.indd (floridainclusionnetwork.com)
(Links to
an external site.)
Inclusion-Guidelines-for-Developing-Policy.pdf (nrpa.org)
(Links to an external site.)
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018. The Criminal Justice System and Social Exclusion: Race, Ethnicity, and Gender:
Proceedings of a Workshop in Brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25247.
Potter, R.H.
, Reid, A. and Gardiner, S. (2012). “Culturally Competent Jails
Download Culturally Competent Jails?”
American Jails Magazine XXV
(6):59-62.
Our Story - Movement Strategy Center
(Links to an external site.)
In the CCJ6118 (Criminal Justice Organizations) course Dr. Humiston and I spend a great deal of time on the environment in which criminal justice agencies exist. In the first few weeks of this course (Policy Analysis), we are examining some of the environmental constraints and requirements that affect CJOs. Earlier we explored issues of equality and equity. Inclusion and diversity are two other terms you will be hearing a great deal in policy debates, along with equity and equality. Let us take a look at how these ideas affect policy development and analysis at both the external and internal CJO environmental levels.
Diversity – What Does It Mean?
Let us begin our exploration with the term “diversity” in terms of policy making and analysis. Like many concepts in policy, it seems so clear but can
be so muddy. Take the definition from the Florida Bar:
Florida Bar (2010): The term “diversity” has a dynamic meaning that changes as the demographics of Floridians change. Apart from differences in race, color, gender, national origin, religion, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, and geography, to mention a few, the public and our profession will experience changes in thought, culture, and beliefs. These demographics
are constantly in flux. Defining “diversity” based on current differences would limit its application to future changes, and likewise restrict or limit The
Florida Bar’s consideration of and response to such changes (Diversity / Inclusion – The Florida Bar
(Links to an external site.)
).
The point to be drawn here is that achieving diversity is about having the viewpoints of as many groups as possible included (note that who defines the “group” is not addressed). I am not sure I would include “thought, culture, and beliefs” as demographics, but that is a Sociologist critiquing lawyers, so guess who wins; I do agree that diversity of thought is something
often overlooked in debates about diversity.
A broader definition of diversity is provided by a UK group:
Bloomerang: Diversity is the presence of difference within a giving (sic - given) setting. In this case the workplace is the setting and the differences typically refer to identity like race and gender, and sometimes ethnicity,
religion, nationality, or sexual orientation… Diversity is about a collective or a group. (Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity Policy Template (bloomerang.co)
(Links to an external site.)
.
The key point from this definition is the last clause – “diversity is about a collective or a group.” This definition also brings us down to the “little p” level of policy – an organization or group.
Cultural Competency
I want to introduce a related concept you may encounter from time to time – “cultural competency.” Nearly a decade ago (What? Where did the time go…), two of my graduate research assistants and I analyzed racial/ethic identification data on employees in jails across the nation to examine the issue of cultural competency, an approach to studying diversity. Here are some of the definitions of cultural competency we examined:
“Different organizations each have different definitions of the term. For example, the definition used by the US Government (Cross et al.,1989) define cultural competence as “a set of congruent behaviors, attitudes and policies that come together in a system, agency or among professionals that enables effective work in cross-cultural situations”. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) defines cultural competency as: “cultural competency enables systems, agencies and groups of professionals to function effectively in order
to understand the needs of groups accessing health information and health care or are participating in research in an inclusive partnership where the provider and user of the information meet on common ground” (NIH, 2011). In 2000, the Office of Minority Health, United States Department of Health and Human Services (OMH/HHS), promulgated standards for “cultural and linguistic competence”(Health, 2001) they suggest should be followed by all health care providers and agencies. .. For this article, we want to focus on one particular standard, number 2 (Health, 2000: 54-58):
“Health care organizations should implement strategies to recruit, retain, and promote at all levels of the organization a diverse staff and leadership that are
representative of the demographic characteristics of the service area.
”
However, in regards to the criminal justice system (more specifically the National Institute of Corrections [NIC]), the definition of cultural competence is geared more towards the line of work. While NIC broadly defines cultural competency as “the ability to function effectively in a society of cultural variation” (NIC, 1992), they go on to elaborate further that cultural competency: “Cultivates opportunities through diverse people; respects and relates well to diverse worldviews and is sensitive to group definitions. It also
sees diversity as an opportunity and challenges bias and intolerance” (Hoffman et al, 2011). All of these definitions, along with several others,
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
convey the same message: Cultural competency is basically the ability to respect the cultures of others.
How does this apply to the field of criminal justice, more specifically, the inmate/correctional officer population within jails? For some, cultural competency means that the staff in jails should resemble the population within the facility. This argument is generally used in advocacy complaints. Because those detained in jails are viewed as “vulnerable populations” there is a belief that the correctional officers need to be comprised of similar racial/ethnic ratios as the inmate population. This article looks at whether jails have similar officer to detainee ratios and whether these ratios actually matter to the delivery of justice in the United States.”
Indeed, when we used the “similar racial/ethnic ratios” measure, we found that the most “culturally competent” areas of the nation were in the south and western areas of the nation, with the least “competent” in the northeast and far west.
The concept of cultural competence links to the concept of “inclusion” nicely.
What Does “Inclusion” Mean?
Several writers note that “inclusion” is a concept that got its primary beginning in the educational realm, so let us begin with a definition from a Florida-level organization:
Florida Inclusion Network: Inclusion is the practice of educating all students together – students with disabilities and students without disabilities – side-
by-side in the general education setting in their neighborhood school. It is based on the premise that students with disabilities can be full participants in their classrooms and in the local school community (FINAL What is Inclusion 01.10.19.indd (floridainclusionnetwork.com)
(Links to an external site.)
. Going broader, we begin to see the involvement of diverse populations in activities such as the policy analysis and development process:
The National Recreation and Parks Association defines inclusion as: efforts aim to build a culture of belonging by actively inviting the contribution and participation of all people (Inclusion-Guidelines-for-Developing-Policy.pdf (nrpa.org)
(Links to an external site.)
.
Bloomerang: Inclusion has to do with people with different identities feeling and/or being valued, leveraged, and welcomed within a given setting (Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity Policy Template (bloomerang.co)
(Links to an
external site.)
.
Participation, belonging, contribution, valued are not ideas we often see in the development or analysis of criminal justice policy, are they? Yet, in the
environment of criminal justice over the past several years, we are hearing increasing calls for such.
Exclusion
The opposite of inclusion is exclusion. As noted in the National Academies reference above, criminal justice policies are overwhelmingly exclusionary.
Bruce Western (a good Queensland product – I knew his father at Uni of Queensland back in the early 1990s while I was at the Uni of New England), offered the following definition of exclusion: “Social exclusion is the deprivation of the qualities and opportunities of life in mainstream society. It extends beyond economic impoverishment, and the disadvantage of one is the product of another’s relative advantage.” You may notice some of the language of critical criminology in here. This is the idea that society is a zero-sum game, advantage for some comes at the disadvantage of others.
Many of our criminal penalties do lead to exclusion. One need only think of felony disenfranchisement in voting, exclusion from Pell Grants (somewhat reversed now), lack of access to housing opportunities and student loans to get a small picture of how criminal penalties affect those caught up in the CJS. But can you imagine involving persons serving time in the actual development of CJ policies? Well, that is exactly what the academics at the National Academy meeting suggested:
“Multiple participants suggested that academic researchers should include in
their studies the voices and expertise of people who have experienced the criminal justice system. This approach includes combining quantitative with qualitative methods, as well as using participatory research approaches. Furthermore, several participants suggested, researchers should aim to give communities a voice in determining the relationship they have with justice agents. Edward Hailes, Jr. (Advancement Project) noted that this is especially
important for communities of color. Jones-Brown suggested that
to increase
social inclusion—those who are policed the most and otherwise have
disproportionate contact with criminal justice apparatus— should be
given a voice in decision making.
She also noted that more criminal justice researchers of color are needed, especially those of black racial identity and, especially on the topic of policing (P. 10 – emphasis added).”
Summing Up
Criminal justice policy, particularly at the “Big P” level has been almost entirely the domain of legislators (from County to Federal levels), and often overwhelmingly members of the majority community. At the organizational level, “little p” policies are almost exclusively the domain of organizational members. As we move into the future, we should expect to see more demand from a broader segment of society to be included in the development of these important policies that affect some communities more
disproportionately than others. If the events of 2020 and early 2021 are any indication, that will be an on-going demand.
You can expect more demand from communities to be represented in the development of policies at agency level. Perhaps we should anticipate that those who have experienced the impact of the CJS – offenders and victims – will have a greater involvement in the development of state and federal CJ policy? The movement to restore rights to those who have fulfilled their “debt to society” in the past few years may be a good indication of how that will be done.
I offer these brief introductory comments to those of you who are and will be leaders in the CJS simply as that – introductory. You will want to develop your understanding of these ideas and the steps you can take to facilitate equity, equality, diversity, and inclusion in your organizations and society at large. This is just a start…
Without diversity and inclusion you are unlikely to achieve either equity or equality. Whether your focus is on the outcome (equity) or the opportunity (equality), developing policy to achieve either in a pluralistic society will require broader participation than we have achieve in the past. Of course, some of us have been through these discussions before - "it's like deja vu all over again" - and we are hopeful that the shortcomings of the past will be overcome under your leadership. I wish you the best of outcomes...
Table 1: Policy Analysis: Key Questions
What is the policy lever- is it legislative, administrative, regulatory, other?
What level of government or institution will implement?
How does the policy work/operate? (e.g. is it mandatory? Will enforcement be necessary? How is it funded? Who is responsible for administering the policy?)
What are the objectives of the policy?
What is the legal landscape surrounding the policy (e.g. court rulings, constitutionality)?
What is the historical context? (e.g. has the policy been debated previously?)
What are the experiences of other jurisdictions?
What is the value-added of the policy?
What are the expected short, intermediate, and long-term outcomes?
What might be unintended positive and negative consequences of the policy?
NIH
: National Institute of Health
NIC
: National Institute of Corrections
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
OMH/HHS
: Office of Minority Health/ US Department of Health and Human Services
Cultural Competence
: U.S government defines cultural competence as “a set of congruent behaviors, attitudes and policies that come together in a system, agency or among professionals that enables effective work in cross-cultural situations”. The National Institutes of Health argue that cultural competency “enables systems, agencies and groups of professionals to function effectively to understand the needs of groups accessing health info and health care- or
participating in research in an inclusive partnership where the provider and user of the information meet on common ground.
National Institute of Corrections definition of cultural competence is geared more toward correctional work, broadly defining cultural competency as “the ability to function effectively in a society of cultural variation.” Cultural Diversity:
Ameliorate
: make (something bad or unsatisfactory) better. Make improvements.
Module 3
Week 3: Problem Definition Problem Definition and Criminal Justice Policy
Objectives for this Module:
Discuss the sources and “nature” of “problems” in search of policy;
Discuss the different ways in which groups “push” problems into policy;
Distinguish between
social
and
organizational-level
policy and their relationship to “problems”;
List and explain Bardach’s & Patachnik’s elements of defining a problem in relation to criminal justice theory;
Discuss the relationship between social policy and criminal justice policy; and,
Discuss key differences between the ways in which academics approach policy analysis compared to policy analysis in the applied world.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Required Reading:
Bardach, E. & Patashnik, E.M. (2020), Pages 1 - 14.
Step One: Defining the Problem
Those who have taken Criminal Justice Organizations (CCJ 6118) with me (or Dr. Humiston) or Research Methods (CCJ 6704) with me will know that learning how to define a problem is a core
skill whether you are in the applied or academic world. Whether it is the Bardach and Patashnik (2016) text, the CDC policy analysis framework, or a Research Methods text, we will all stress the importance of knowing how to define a problem.
As Dr. Humiston and I point out in our text (Potter & Humiston, 2017), sometimes the problem you’re handed isn’t really the problem. In our current Criminal Justice and elections climate, we are hearing and seeing "problems" being defined via multiple "frames" or "standpoints" - something I would teach about in greater depth in a Sociology of Social Problems course. The point is that the same "objective" problem can be viewed in many different ways by social groups - the greater question is whose view/lens will take the lead.
The Nature of a ‘Problem”
Bardach & Patashnik (2020) note something about the nature of a “problem” looking for a policy
that Potter & Humiston (2017) develop a bit more. Bardach & Patashnik (2020:3) note that “people’s private troubles
cannot
typically be ameliorated by even the most well-intentioned governmental interventions.” Typically, items that rise to the level of a “collective” or “social” problem that requires policy attention do so through a process we call “collective action.” I come
at this from “social problems theory” in Sociology. So, if you haven’t read the Potter & Humiston (or any of the other places I’ve explained social problems theory in regard to a variety of “problems”), let me give you a brief overview.
Generally, when a group of people begin to experience a condition – social, environmental, economic, etc. – as a “problem” affecting them collectively, they may opt to organize to bring their grievance to some administrative/legislative body they believe can address the problem. If they do not organize, it is unlikely that the alleged problem will gain much traction with policy makers. That is why we spend time in the Potter & Humiston text writing about “claims-making”
groups – they are likely to be the organizations that bring some alleged problem to public attention, especially those administrative/legislative bodies that have authority to do something about the “problem.”
Not all groups are created equally. Some groups will be much more able to get their alleged problem before those administrative/legislative bodies than will others. Lobbyists do play a role in this process. The key point I want you to take away is that social problems are not equally visible to everyone. The “problem” is not objective (even when it is measurable), it always requires some social group to interpret it as problematic and worthy of public policy consideration. The utilization of the criminal law is one of the most potent symbols of the importance of a social problem. If it is criminal, it must be bad.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Returning to our current text, the notional “problem” can come from a variety of sources. The members of a regulatory/legislative body themselves can decide some situation needs to be addressed by policy (before it gets out of hand!). The various “claims-making” groups in the community/society may go through the process of attempting to bring the alleged problem to the rule-making body. Media organizations might attempt to bring some issue to the forefront. And, though I touched on this in the Potter & Humiston text, public interest advocacy groups may use the Courts to force an administrative/legislative body to act on a “problem.” That “problem” often falls in our laps; sometimes, we are the “problem.”
In short, as Bardach & Patashnik agree, “problems” in search of policy come at you from a variety of directions. This is especially true in the criminal justice system domain. We inherit the failures of every social system, and then create a few of our own. And, as noted above, the “problem” with which we are presented may not be the actual problem. Believe me, that is something Judges and Legislators often don’t want to hear. But, once that “problem” comes to you, you are expected to do something about it. Now that it’s here, what do you do with it?
From the responses to the “proof of life” quiz, I want to revisit some points from last week when we talk about the genesis of problems. Remember that Czajkoski (2002), as well as Bardach & Patashnik, note that their emphasis is on “public policy.” Some of you will work and/or have worked on
organizational-level
“policies and procedures.” One of Dean Gene’s complaints was that “there is little evident understanding of the difference between policy and program” (2002: 3), and I would add procedures and practices to that list. For now, let us say that an “internal” problem may call for a policy – “goals usually set in a priority order” – and those policies will lead to procedures/programs/practices to achieve the goals and objectives of the policy directive. These apply only to those within that particular organization, not to society.
Defining the Problem
How do you define a problem? First, reverse Ockham’s Razor – sometimes simplified to “parsimony.” Rather than trying to make the solution the simplest possible solution, try to start with the simplest version of the problem you can. Those of you who have worked with me in the past know I am advising you often at the end of the term to keep your problem definition simple – it is just so tempting to try to make things complex and seemingly elegant. Simple is elegant!
When it comes to public policy analysis, Bardach & Patashnik (2020:1)
recommend some steps you can read more about in the text:
Thinking in terms of “deficit and excess”
Making the definition of the problem “evaluative” – will it make things better or worse?
o
At the bottom of page 3, think though the problems associated with manipulation of crime statistics as an example of a reason governments might “fail to advance the social good”
Addressing uncertainty – Economists have the “volatility index,” maybe we need one
for policy development?
Quantify the problem as much as possible – go back to the crime stats and their manipulation for some pros and cons on this – and a good reason to take CCJ 6704 seriously!
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Diagnose conditions that cause problems
Talk in terms of “odds” – remember, all social science is probabilistic – we do not work in certainties, only likelihoods (given that certain specified conditions prevail, we can state that something might happen XX% of the time)
Identify potential “missed opportunities” (aka “opportunity costs”) for taking one course of action over another
Do not define the solution into the alleged problem, -
stop-n-frisk” may not always be the best response to a lifestyle issue…
Do not agree with the solutions others offer in defining the problem without subjecting them to empirical research (the use of logic models, evaluation designs, etc., again CCJ 6704), and
Think iteratively – just as I do in several of my courses, you learn by doing things over when they don’t go right the first time – it is a developmental approach to problem-solving, which is part of the policy development and analysis process – a process, not just an outcome!
In several other courses I tend to teach here, I introduce students to a variety of ways of defining and “solving” problems through the use of social science methods and techniques. Some of you have experienced those in the Org or Methods courses. For this course, we will focus more on “problems” that are handed to us demanding a policy, or as individuals and team members who will be analyzing existing policies to see if they are accomplishing the goals/objective/producing the outcomes they were supposed to when promulgated.
This is one of the defining differences between working in the applied world versus the world of academia. As academics, we are “allowed” to develop research and theory “problems” that interest us, not just a funding agency or the university administration. I do address how federal and foundation funding have “encroached” on that freedom of problem selection in the Methods course. I believe that the search for funding has changed how academics do research - if you want someone else to pay for your research! Working in the applied policy world, it is rare that you, as an analyst, get to “select” a “problem” and develop or evaluate policy about that problem. In short, your “problem selection” is generally directed by anyone from a legislative body to your supervisor. Some folks thrive in each of these environments; other folks find working in one absolutely unbearable. I happen to be able to work in both – I just tend to get frustrated in either after a period of time, so switch back and forth – see my work history! I recommend some solid “values clarification” before you commit to either path.
Policy Analysis and Criminal Justice Theory (not Criminological theory, necessarily)
In that section on defining the problem, Bardach & Patachnik (2020: 5) make this statement: “Policy analysis typically bridges all political ideologies by reliance on the normative standard of
‘maximizing welfare’ and on social science theorizing and evidence about the comparative advantages of different institutions for different purposes.” This leads us to the core of what some are calling a theory of criminal justice distinct from criminological theory – the selection of
criminal law and organizations to enforce rules, as opposed to some other social institution (e.g., public health, education, social work, etc.). For those of you who have read our text (Potter & Humiston, 2017: 4), you will find we argue that is the core of what Duffee and Allen (2007) are
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
attempting in differentiating criminal justice from criminology as academic “disciplines” (though
I still put them as inter-disciplines).
Herein lies one of the answers to some of your questions – and I still think Dean Gene said it wonderfully: “In looking at the
public
side of the policy concept, we see that
public policy,
under which criminal justice policy is, of course, subsumed
, aims in some way at the general welfare, admittedly an ephemeral notion” (Czajkoski, 2002: 3; bold emphasis added). Focusing only on criminal justice policy in this course would short-change you of the fact it is a sub-set of policy development and analysis. Choosing when to use the criminal law, as opposed to a civil law or a regulatory approach, is a key public issue. The notion “we can’t arrest our way out of this” is often an admission that a poor policy choice was made at some prior point. We can
apply that notion to a range of individual and social behaviors, can’t we?
One of my hopes for you as my students is that you will leave this course understanding when to say criminal justice policy is the wrong approach to use with a particular problem. Seriously, do we need to jail people for watering their grass on the wrong day of the week? Of course, that leads us into the symbolic value of policy – see the sub-module on "symbolic crusades." For now, I want to introduce the idea that problems are rarely “objective” (think climate change), even when there is overwhelming empirical evidence something is problematic. When it comes to
public
policy, there is almost always some group that will see things differently. Your job, should you choose to accept it, will be to define the alleged problem is such a way we can develop something close to a consensus – not unanimity – Google it! – develop goals/objectives/targets, and then the procedures/programs/practices needed to address the defined problem – hoping it really is “the” problem…
In a future module we will begin to look at how we can apply empirical research from individuals who would consider themselves criminal justice/criminology researchers and theorists. For now, be thinking about how you would recognize the “problem” in a policy statement such as a statute.
Symbolic Crusades and Public Policy
Why is Policy Important to Criminal Justice?
Learning Objectives for this Sub-module:
Explain the reason criminal justice is considered “normative”
Explain the idea of group “interests” and how they may impact the policy development and analysis processes
Define and explain a “symbolic crusade” and "status politics"
Explain how group interests, symbolic crusades, and public policy intersect in the formulation and analysis of criminal justice policy
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
I am going to start with some observations that may not be universally accepted by Criminal Justice/Criminology academics. Applied criminal justice is a fundamentally moral enterprise – it seeks to establish and uphold a moral order in a society. In the academic world, as will be noted below, CJ is often described as a “normative field of study.” At best, academic CJ/Crim attempts to apply a patina of science on this fundamentally moral enterprise. Academic CJ policy analysis is a prime example of attempts to subject
moral and political processes of social control to the “gaze” of social science. Regardless of whether your end goal in pursuing a graduate degree
in CJ (or PA, for that matter) is to become an academic or enhance your career in the practice world (including the non-profit field), understanding that CJ policy (and practice) is an exercise in interest group power is important. How much influence CJ academics have on this process is a matter of debate. For now, let us look at an example of a widely-discredited criminal justice policy from just about 100 years ago - Alcohol Prohibition - to illustrate how status groups use public policy to enforce the moral order of that group on the rest of society.
Status Politics and Moral Crusades
During my days at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), I would occasionally be told someone wanted something done “because it is policy” to do it. I would then ask if the “policy” was statutory, regulatory, organizational, or just someone’s personal preference. More often than not, it was the latter (and I would ignore it).
Why is it important to understand the policy environment in an academic criminal justice program? After all, “we don’t make the law, we just enforce it” – right? Well, why do we enforce it? The issue of “interest” comes into play here. In this section I want to explore some of the intersections between group interests and policy development and enforcement.
Criminal Justice is often described as a “normative” field of study. By this we
mean that it relies on some sense of what the norms of society are and how they should be maintained. In Sociology, we refer to this a “consensus” approach to the definition of what should be. My purpose here is not to evaluate or critique the beliefs held by those whose ideas are enshrined in policy at various levels. We will treat these positions as data about the social
world, or
accounts
of the ways in which the world
should
operate.
The desire to control the behavior of others forms the basis of this section of the course. I want to explore how a form of behavior becomes the focus of intense campaigns, or
moral crusades
, where
moral entrepreneurs
seek to impose their version of "correct behavior" upon the rest of society. Allied with this will be an analysis of examples of
status politics
, or the attempts of various groups either to enhance or protect their position in the social world.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Notice here the involvement of both individuals and groups in such movements. Let me begin with a brief overview of moral crusades and status politics as they have developed from the work of Joseph Gusfield (1963, 1981).
My presentation in this section is based closely on the works of Joseph Gusfield (1963, 1981) on moral crusades and status politics. Gusfield's work,
in turn, was heavily influenced by the work of Kenneth Burke in political science. Gusfield's (1963) early work involved an analysis of the social politics which culminated in the Prohibition era and the overturning of the Constitutional amendment (18th) which outlawed the production, distribution, and consumption of alcoholic beverages in the United States. He traces the beginnings of the Prohibition movement to the Temperance movement. In social terms, this was viewed as an attempt by a primarily (White) Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASPs) majority to protect its status as the dominant moral community in the United States. The Prohibition movement arose at a time when massive migration from non-Anglo Europe was bringing
many people into predominately sober, hard-working Protestant communities. The values systems associated with these immigrant communities were often grounded in Catholicism.
Among the behaviors associated with these migrant communities was the consumption of alcohol, sometimes to excess. Alcohol soon became the symbol of the types of deviancies associated with these immigrants. The sorts of social dislocation caused by massive migration became crystallised in the evils of alcohol consumption. Rather than alcohol consumption being associated with those who were unemployed, alcohol became the cause of unemployment. Domestic disharmony was caused by (male) alcohol consumption, rather than being a by-product of other social factors. If there was a social ill, real or attributed, Prohibition campaigners linked it to the evil
of alcohol. Alcohol was the destroyer of decency; the source of all moral rot.
Alcohol was the evil, those who were associated with it were the folk devils (Stan Cohen’s phrase for those we don’t want to be like).
Alcohol became the
symbol
around which a struggle for
normative dominance
was fought. The idea behind normative dominance is that a particular group's ways of doing things ("norms") becomes
the
way in which
all
people in the social environment
should
do things. The ability of one group to impose its way of living upon others gives that group the important social resource of
prestige
. Associated with prestige are assumptions about the ways in which members of other groups should act toward the prestigious group, and
vice versa
. Often these assumptions carry
ideas about respect due or deference between members of the various groups. This is especially true when the symbols around which prestige is based involve ethnicity or skin colour. The ultimate indicator that a group's norms are those most highly valued in a society comes when those norms are encoded into
law
(the highest form of policy). Not only is this now a
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
symbolic reference to the superiority of that group's way of acting (morality),
but it is now often accompanied by very real penalties for acting in a contrary manner.
Status politics and symbolic crusades are about either protecting or enhancing the social prestige of a particular group
: "Status politics is an effort to control the status of a group by acts which function to raise, lower, or maintain the social status of that group vis-a-vis others in the society...Status movements are collective actions which attempt to raise or maintain the prestige of a group..." (Gusfield, 1963:19-20). It is the relational aspect of prestige that is important here. Prestige, like power (often closely associated), is a social resource which can wax and wane over time. Social prestige exists in relation to one group's status in comparison with another group.
The moral component is quite important as it is moral behavior, real or attributed, around which the group boundaries are constructed:
"Each status group operates with an image of correct behavior which it prizes and with a contrast conception in the behavior of despised groups whose status is beneath them... It is often overlooked that persons and groups of low social status are also sources of behavior for those above them, although in negative terms. They are negative reference groups, models of what
not
to do. We look in two directions in gaining cues to status
producing behavior" (Gusfield, 1963: 27-28).
Gusfield's point about negative
reference groups is very similar to Cohen's (1980) ideas about "folk devils.” People who act as we do are more worthy of deference than people who act as those other groups do.
Jack Douglas (1970: 6) argued that such "moral evaluations constitute a 'zero-sum game'.” We in western societies tend to construct moral meanings in terms of oppositions, or at least in relative terms. In order to consider oneself a "moral" person, then, there must be those who are "immoral" or "disreputable" against whom one can measure oneself. Those in the "disreputable" category are then "looked down upon" by those who are (more) "respectable.” That is, for one group to have prestige, the group(s) to which it is compared must have less or no prestige.
The moral element of a symbolic crusade is a key part of the movement. The moral boundaries established help to make the lines between "people like us" and "people like them" clear. For example, moral people do not consume alcohol; immoral people do. Being moral versus immoral carries a strong symbolic message: Moral people are better than immoral people. In some circumstances this message is translated into: Moral people deserve better treatment than immoral people.
Gusfield (1981: 9) has provided two components which comprise a situation which achieves the status of a public issue:
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
"The cognitive side consists in beliefs about the facticity of the situation and events comprising the problem...The moral side is that which enables the situation to be viewed as painful, ignoble, immoral. It is what makes alteration or eradication desirable or continuation valuable...The moral side of a problem suggests a condemnable state of affairs from the perspective of
someone's morality...Issues of equality, of justice, of economy all involve judgments of goodness, badness, and morality...But events and situations are also cognitively assessed. A world of fact is posited...Significantly there are beliefs about the alterability of phenomena. They are, but need not be."
The difference between the "factual" evidence about a social problem (or putative social problem) and the moral dimension will vary across “problems.”
Symbolic crusades are organized around the meanings that behaviors or ideas have to particular groups: "It is useful to think of symbolic acts as forms of rhetoric, functioning to organize the perceptions, attitudes, and feelings of observers...They are persuasive devices which alter the observer's view of the objects" (Gusfield, 1963:170).
The goal of a symbolic crusade is to alter the way in which members of other groups view the symbol in such a way as to have your group's meaning become the important meaning. Gusfield argues that they are essentially about
morality
,
about the ways in which things should or should not be done. They are about the ways in which certain types of people should or should not interact
with other types of people.
It is difficult to justify treating people of one group (sex, gender, color, ethnicity, religion, class or sexual preference) differently from one's own group in liberal democracies. After all, most liberal democracies are founded
on the basis that all people are equal, at least in terms of essential human worth. To argue directly that another group is less worthy than one's own opens one up to a variety of charges, from racism to sexism to elitism. Thus,
members of groups who are seeking to either protect or enhance the status of their own group must find some way to symbolise their superiority which does not denigrate directly the other group(s) whose behavior(s) (morality) they oppose: "Precisely because drinking and nondrinking have been ways to
identify the members of a subculture, drinking and abstinence became symbols of social status, identifying social levels of the society whose styles of life separated them culturally" (Gusfield, 1963: 4).
In the case of the Temperance movement, the identified evil was alcohol.
More recently the "war against drugs" has occupied similar social territory.
Gusfield's (1981) later work focused on the war against drunk driving as a form of status politics.
In a symbolic crusade the targeted symbolic behavior is one associated with a group against which the crusading group wishes to improve its social position:
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
"As status groups vie with each other to change or defend their prestige allocation, they do so through symbolic rather than instrumental goals. The significant meanings are not given in the intrinsic properties of the action but
in what it has come to signify for the participants...In symbolic behavior the action is ritualistic and ceremonial in that the goal is reached in the behavior itself rather than in any state which it brings about" (Gusfield, 1963: 21).
Alcohol consumption was a symbol of the encroachment of often Catholic immigrants upon the prestige of the, up to then, dominant Protestant middle class of the United States. The best way to establish the moral superiority of
white Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASPs) was to make the consumption of alcohol illegal. It was not a direct attack upon immigrant populations, but a symbolic expression that the new ways were not as valued as the old ones.
The Social Value of Policy
Codification of one status group's morality into law is the last point I want to explore in this section. The ultimate goal of a status movement or symbolic crusade is to have its version of the moral order enacted into either the criminal or civil law (i.e., policy). This enactment confers the official stamp of
approval on the way in which this group believes people should behave:
"As his own claim to social respect and honor are diminished, the sober, abstaining citizen seeks for public acts through which he may reaffirm the dominance and prestige of his style of life. Converting the sinner to virtue is one way; law is another. Even if the law is not enforced or enforceable, the symbolic import of its passage is important to the reformer. It settles the controversies between those who represent clashing cultures. The public support of one conception of morality at the expense of another enhances the prestige and self-esteem of the victors and degrades the culture of the losers" (Gusfield, 1963: 4-5).
Gusfield (1963: 119) notes that Prohibition had both an instrumental and a symbolic impact on American life: "First, it actually did restrict the ability of the person to take a drink...Second, the official status of a law lent it a sanction which made it the societal behavior at the level of public visibility."
That Prohibition would not work was not important:
"Law contains a great deal which has little direct effect upon behavior...While we do not maintain that [legislation] has had no effect on behavior, we do find its instrumental effects are slight compared to the response which it entails as a symbol, irrespective of its utility as a means to a tangible end" (Gusfield, 1963: 169). What was important was that, for a time, the values of the WASP community were ensconced as the cherished and legitimate values of the United States. By the way, per capita alcohol consumption in the United States returned to pre-prohibition levels only in the first decade of the 21st Century – Prohibition did work to reduce alcohol consumption for nearly 80 years.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Those of you who took the Criminal Justice Organizations course (CCJ 6118) with me or Dr. Humiston will recognize some of these ideas from the chapter on Social Movement Organizations. For our purposes here, the key takeaway message is that all policies, and especially statutory-level policies, reflect the interests of some social group. Sometimes those interests serve us all – a “happy accident” as Chambliss and Siedman once wrote about "just" outcomes in the CJS. At other times, those interests reflect the positions of social groups who wish to impose their version of proper reality on the rest of us.
Particularly during a time of social unrest, understanding that group interests and prestige play a role in the formulation and enactment of policy should be in the front of our minds. This is one of the reasons for using something like the Eightfold Path to guide you in analyzing and developing policies. Returning to my opening statement, we find sometimes that even at an organizational level the interests of a particular individual or group with
the ability to control the policy development and enforcement process will be
privileged over other interests. So, yes, policy can sometimes be an individual preference at the organizational level.
Interest group influence on public policy is nothing new to Sociology, Political Science, Criminology, or Criminal Justice theory. The "pluralistic conflict" theories of crime and criminal justice were well-established before the introduction of "critical theory" (Marxist) and its subsequent splintering into "intersectional" and "standpoint" critical approaches since the 1970s. Understanding the role of symbolic crusades in the formulation of policy goes
back to the 1950s. As we think about public policy development, especially as it involves criminal justice policy, it is good to remember that there are cycles in the process. These are often driven by interest groups seeking to maintain or enhance the groups' social prestige and power. Developing and enforcing public policy (and often organizational policy) is an act of power over others - please keep that in mind and use that power wisely.
Gene Czajkoski: The Criminologist Notes
ASC
: American Society of Criminology
CPP
: Criminology and Public Policy
NIJ
: National Institute of Justice Criminologist
: mimics the New England Journal of Medicine
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Remember that Czajkoski (2002), as well as Bardach & Patashnik,
note that their emphasis is on “public policy.” Some of you will work and/or have worked on
organizational-level
“policies and procedures.” One of Dean Gene’s complaints was that “there is little evident understanding of the difference between policy and program” (2002: 3), and I would add procedures and practices to that list. For now, let us say that an “internal” problem may call for a policy – “goals usually set in a priority order” – and those policies will lead to procedures/programs/practices to achieve the goals and objectives of the policy directive. These apply only to those within that particular organization, not to society.
Learning Objectives
Discuss the issues involved when trying to define “policy”?
Discuss key differences between the ways in which academics think about policy analysis compared to policy analysis in the applied world.
Define and distinguish among the concepts of diversity, inclusion, and exclusion
Explain the links among diversity, inclusion, equity, and equality
Discuss the sources and “nature” of “problems” in search of policy
Discuss the different ways in which groups “push” problems into policy
Distinguish between social and organizational-level policy and their relationship to “problems”
List and explain Bardach’s and Patachnik’s elements of defining a problem in relation to criminal justice theory
Discuss the relationship between social policy and criminal justice policy and
Discuss the key differences between the ways in which academics approach policy analysis compared to policy analysis in the applied world. Equity vs Equality tree example While the terms equity and equality may sound similar, the implementation of one versus the other can lead to dramatically different outcomes for marginalized people.
Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
In the illustration below, two individuals have unequal access to a system — in this case, the tree that provides fruit. With equal support from evenly distributed tools, their access to the fruit still remains unequal. The equitable solution, however, allocates the exact resources that each person needs to access the fruit, leading to positive outcomes for both individuals.
While the tree appears to be a naturally occurring system, it’s critical to remember that social systems aren’t naturally inequitable — they’ve been intentionally designed to reward specific demographics for so long that the system’s outcomes may appear unintentional but are actually rooted discriminatory practices and beliefs.
Source: “Addressing Imbalance,” by Tony Ruth for the 2019 Design in Tech Report.
External link:
open_in_new
Equity is a solution for addressing imbalanced social systems. Justice can take equity one step further by fixing the systems in a way that leads to long-term, sustainable, equitable access for generations to come.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), equity is defined
External link:
open_in_new
as “the absence of avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people, whether those groups are defined socially, economically, demographically or geographically.” Therefore, as the WHO notes, health inequities involve more than lack of equal access to needed resources to maintain or improve health outcomes. They also refer to difficulty when it comes to “inequalities that infringe on fairness and human rights norms.”
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) refers to health equity
External link:
open_in_new
as “when everyone has the opportunity to be as healthy as possible.” As such, equity is a process and equality is an outcome of that process. Or, as the Race Matters Institute
External link:
open_in_new
describes, “The route to achieving equity will not be accomplished through treating everyone equally. It will be achieved by treating everyone equitably, or justly according to their circumstances.”
Understanding the difference between health equality and health equity
External link:
open_in_new
is important to public health to ensure that resources are directed appropriately — as well as supporting the ongoing process of meeting people where they are. Inherent to this process is the promotion of diversity in teams and personnel, public health practice, research methods and other related factors. For these reasons, providing the same type and number of resources to all is not enough. In order to reduce the health disparities gap, the underlying issues and individual needs of underserved and vulnerable populations must be effectively addressed.
The Difference Between Equity and Equality
“The route to achieving equity will not be accomplished through treating everyone equally. It will be achieved by treating everyone justly according to their circumstances.”
—Paula Dressel, Race Matters Institute
1
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
EXAMPLES OF EQUALITY
2
A city cuts the budget for 25 community centers by reducing the operational hours for all
centers by the same amount at the same times.
A community meeting, where all members of the community are invited, about a local environmental health concern is held in English though English is not the primary language for 25% of the residents.
Examples of EqualityAll public schools in a community have computer labs with the same number of computers and hours of operation during school hours.
EXAMPLES OF EQUITY
2
The city determines which times and how many hours communities actually need to use
their community centers and reduces hours for centers that aren’t used as frequently.
Examples of EquityThe community leaders hire translators to attend the meeting or offer
an additional meeting held in another language.
Examples of EquityComputer labs in lower income neighborhoods have more computers and printers, as well as longer hours of operation, as some students don’t have access to computers or internet at home.
There are many successful initiatives in communities around the United States where specific steps have been taken to make approaches to health more equitable (PDF, 4.9MB),
External link:
open_in_new
according to the CDC. Attempts to achieve equity have involved identifying the individualized needs of specific populations and implementing steps to help meet those needs. Below are three examples of public health initiatives.
From Inclusion Guidelines for Developing Policy- Parks for Inclusion WHAT IS A POLICY AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? A policy is a written document that outlines an agency’s dedication to a topic and that helps to ensure community inclusion. A well-documented and comprehensive policy: • Provides guidance about how to achieve goals, strategies and objectives • Sets clear expectations and rules for staff and community members (e.g., community members enrolling in programs with clear policies know what they are signing up
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
for, what is allowable and unallowable, etc.) • Provides a framework for clear and consistent action and reaction (e.g., when responding to a complaint, policies ensure that communication will be relayed consistently) • Sets rules and guidelines for decision making in routine situations that may arise at park and recreation facilities or within programs (e.g., during extreme weather events, programs may be canceled according to policy) • Holds organizations accountable for their decisions and actions • Supports sustainability and long-term change (e.g., staff turnover can be common in the park and recreation field, having policies in place ensure that work will continue to be prioritized and remain of high quality) The purpose of this guide is to provide your agency with best practices, reallife examples and steps to help you implement an inclusion policy and create sustainable changes across your agency. Even if your park and recreation agency already has existing policies around inclusion, there is always room for evaluation, growth, expansion and customization based on learning about the changing climate
of your community, and its unique needs, challenges and strengths. TARGET AUDIENCES While some guidelines, like the Americans with Disabilities Act, have laid the foundation for formal policy creation, the most impactful inclusion policies go above and beyond these legalities to address and meet the needs of those most vulnerable community members. NRPA’s Parks for Inclusion initiative focuses on four historically marginalized groups: • Racial and ethnic minorities • Those with physical and cognitive disabilities • The LGBTQ+ community • New Americans, or refugees and immigrants
Quiz 1 Score 18/20. Twenty questions 40 minutes
.
CDC Policy Analytical Framework
This document provides a guide for identifying, analyzing, and prioritization policies that can improve health. The policy analytical framework expands on domains I, II, and III of CDC’s Policy Process (Problem Identification, Policy Analysis, and Strategy and Policy Development). The goals of this document are
to:
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
o
Improve the analytic basis for identifying and prioritizing policies that can improve health.
o
Improve the strategic approach to identify and further the adoption of policy solutions.
The key steps include:
1.
Identify the problem or issue
2.
Identify an appropriate policy solution
3.
Identify and describe policy options.
a.
Assess policy options
b. Prioritize policy options
4.
Develop a strategy for furthering adoption of a policy solution. Note: CDC plays an important role in identifying and describing policy options to address public health problems, analyzing policies to understand their potential health, economic and budgetary impacts, and identifying evidence-based solutions and gaps in the evidence base. Note that federal law prohibits lobbying related activities by CDC at the federal, state, and local level. Step 1: Identify the Problem or Issue
The first step is to clearly identify the problem or issue you are trying to address. Synthesize data on the characteristics of the problem or issue, including the burden (how many people it affects), frequency (how often
it occurs), severity (how serious of a problem is it), and scope (the range of outcomes it affects). It helps to define the problem or issue as specifically as possible- for example “lack of access to fresh fruits and vegetables” (instead of “obesity”) or “barriers to sustaining HIV treatment” (instead of “HIV/AIDS”). A way to look for these is a contributing factors or risk factors in the literature on the public health problem.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Domain 2: Policy Analysis
Step 2A. Identify and Describe Policy Options
Identify: Research possible policy options relevant to the problem or issue you have identified and described. Potential strategies for gathering evidence include
Reviewing literature on the topic;
Surveying best practices (including best practice sin other problem/issue areas), and
Conducting an environmental scan to understand what other jurisdictions are doing. Step 2B: Assess Policy Options Use the answers to the questions from Table 1 to rate the policy options. Also, for each criterion, note whether there are concerns about the amount or quality of data.
Step 2C: Prioritize Policy Options
Domain 3: Strategy and Policy Development CDC Policy Analysis: Framing Questions
What is the policy lever- is it legislative, administrative, regulatory, other?
What level of government or institution will implement?
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
How does the policy work/operate? (is it mandatory? Will enforcement be necessary?
What are the objectives of the policy?
What is the legal landscape surrounding the policy (court rulings, constitutionality)?
What is the historical context (has the policy been debated previously)?
What are the experiences of other jurisdictions?
What is the value-added of the policy?
What are the expected short, intermediate, and long-term outcomes?
What might be the unintended positive and negative consequences of the policy?
Module 4
First mod for Quiz 2
Not Just Data Analysis
Learning Objectives for this Module
List and explain the two primary activities involved in developing and analyzing policies
Differentiate among “data,” “information,” and “evidence”
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Explain the three principle purposes for using evidence in the policy
development and analysis processes
Explain why an “educated guess” might sometimes be acceptable in policy development and/or analysis
Discuss how criminal justice/criminological/social science theories are used in the literature review for policy development and/or analysis purposes
Explain how “best practices” and “evidence-based” practices/programs are used in the policy development/analysis process
Define “analogy” and explain the utility of using them in explaining policies
Explain why working with those who might be affected by your policy, even when you have solid science, is a good idea
Required Reading:
Bardash & Patashnik, Pages 14-20; 97-121 .
Suggested Reading:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
CDC’s Policy Analytical Framework.
Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2013.
Narrative:
If I taught this course as many life-long academics do, you would probably be
spending almost all of the term doing something like reading a statute and analyzing it from a particular theoretical/research perspective. Frankly, nobody outside the academic realm does that!
Rather, those several dozen journals and our texts out there get distilled into
a set of “talking points” or something similar – if they get used at all. Academics publish dozens of “policy analyses” in journals annually that will be read only by other academics, or you poor students when we require you to read them. If you become a policy analyst in a government agency your job will be to bring those dozens of journal articles, or the one or two that are
applicable to the problem under consideration, down to a few key points to be considered by decision-makers.
If you are developing policy in an agency, you may be tasked with looking at the current academic literature to determine what the current “best practices” and “evidence-based” practices/programs (EBPs) are, especially in
relation to the “standards” that may guide the criminal justice or services sector in which you work. Then again, maybe not… Liability and other considerations may take precedent over empirical research.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
The level of “evidence” required in the development and/or analysis of a policy will vary across the organizational and political setting in which the policy is being developed/analyzed. It may also vary at the development stage, compared with the analysis stage. As Bardach and Patashnik (2016:13) note, “evidence is information that affects the existing beliefs of important people (including yourself) about significant features of the problem you are studying and how it might be solved or mitigated.” Sometimes, for some people, this requires a great deal of rigorous research information, such as what it takes to make an EBP. At other times, the “bar” is set much lower. Part of your task as a developer or analyst is to determine the level of evidence required (whether you think the bar is high enough is another matter where the “art” of policymaking is important).
Not all people working in the field of criminal justice and allied services are familiar with the term “evidence-based” practices/programs; many are familiar with the term “best practices.” Outside of those working in the field, I would wager that relatively few people know these terms, and most likely the few who do have little idea of the difference between them. I spend a fair
amount of time in the CCJ 6704 (Methods) course making the distinction. For now, let us say that an EBP has been through a series of rigorous research studies in more than one population and demonstrated the desired outcome in those studies at a statistically significant level. Best practices generally have only a lower level of research backing their effectiveness. This is an important distinction, especially when an organization is applying for funding
from many sources, so pay some attention to EBPs.
As an example, when I was consulting with the Georgia Re-entry Task Force under Governor Perdue, I asked the Governor’s chief of staff whether we were going to require that agencies seeking to do re-entry work with state prisoners use EBPs. Many of the faith-based organizations, as well as some of
the secular community-based organizations, were providing services to returning citizens that had little or no research evidence behind them. In the end, the Governor’s staff decided, in order not to alienate certain key partners that, if the organization could provide a logical connection between the service and the desired outcome, a best practice approach was sufficient. This is a great illustration of how the political considerations of a government can overshadow the best scientific advice.
Another point made by Bardach and Patashnik is that evidence collection is costly, and decisions about how much evidence is required need to be made.
Ever wonder why you are given so many “research” articles where the authors are doing “secondary data analysis” rather than being involved in the collection of the data and then analyzing it? Well - cost! Doing quality research costs a great deal of money when it involves surveys, long-term observation, interviewing, etc. That is why so many academics make their career analyzing the data others collect – primary research activities are costly (not to mention the various bureaucracies involved just within the
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
university)! One of the early decisions that governments and organizations must make involves the cost of data gathering to develop or analyze the policy. While we don’t want to think that decisions about polices that affect millions of citizens is done “on the cheap,” the reality is that only so much funding exists to conduct policy development and analysis.
That brings us back to the issues of involving a range of “stakeholders” and others in the development and analysis process. They are important in helping to establish the level of evidence required to bring that consensus – not unanimity – together to get the policy developed or to provide buy-in for the analysis results. Doing so can enhance the likelihood of adoption of a policy, the “smoothness” of an analysis, and/or the changes needed to modify a policy following analysis. That does involve people skills, not just theory and research conduct skills. Again, science meets art. That is why the idea of teamwork in policy develop, enactment, analysis, and modification is so necessary. It is not just about technical skills, but social skills, too.
In the end, assembling some evidence isn’t a cut-and-dried academic exercise. It involves multiple decision points, multiple audiences, and a range
of skills we don’t tend to teach in the University. So, sharpen not only your analytic skills, but those skills you learned back in clubs and other organizational settings!
Reputable Data Sources - Week 4
I have pointed out elsewhere that, by the time peer-reviewed articles and texts are published (other than immediate on-line journals), the data contained in them is often a minimum 3-5 years out of date. Even the best national-level information from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will take around two years to collate, clean, clear and publish after the close of data collection (e.g., December 31 or June 30). For that reason, I recommend that serious policy analysts visit websites such as those below for the most recent, clean and reputable data on topics related to criminal justice and allied organizations.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
State-Level:
http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/ReportsByTopic.aspx?topic=Criminal%20and
%20Juvenile%20Justice
(Links to an external site.)
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/FSAC-Home.aspx
(Links to an external site.)
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/index.html
(Links to an external site.)
Washington State has been one of the leaders in policy analysis, particularly in developing quantitative approaches to policy analysis. They are often a great starting point.
https://www.doc.wa.gov/about/agency/executive-policy/default.htm
(Links to an external site.)
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/
(Links to an external site.)
At the federal level, the best sources of information/data about criminal justice issues is found at the websites below.
https://www.bjs.gov/
(Links to an external site.)
https://www.samhsa.gov/data/
(Links to an external site.)
https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html
(Links to an external site.)
https://crimesolutions.gov/
(Links to an external site.)
As I mentioned elsewhere, advocacy organizations are likely to have their own interpretations of the data found at these sources. They may provide other data they have developed on their own, or summaries of peer-
reviewed articles that fit their agenda. Be careful in utilizing "evidence" from
those sources, especially if the original data and analyses can be found at some of the sites listed above.
For a recent "policy analysis" of Florida's Criminal Code, conducted by the Community Resources for Justice group (who have been contractors on some
DOJ projects with which I have been associated over the past few years), follow this link (who knows, it may be useful in a later assignment):
https://www.crj.org/publication/florida_cpc_analysis_2019/
(Link
s to an external site.)
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Model Policy Organizations - Week 5
Required Reading:
Bardach & Patashnik, Pages 133-145.
Weblinks are embedded in the narrative.
Learning Objectives:
Identify key “peak” organizations that produce model/off the shelf policies in the criminal justice domain; and,
Defend or criticize the utilization of model policies at the state level
One of the “seasoned” policy analysis professors here at UCF is straightforward about how many policy analyses and proposals get done. His
experience is that a legislator or an administrator directs a staff person to find an existing policy that addresses the current (real or perceived) problem
and make it “fit” our situation. In the corrections sector I can tell you this happens frequently. I read the American Jail Association (AJA) discussion board most days and requests for policies already developed by other jurisdictions that might fit the agency making the request are frequent. In fact, you may be looking at some of the policies agencies have agreed to let me share with you throughout the remainder of the course. These are mostly
“small p” policies, of course.
Over the past two decades, at the “big P” policy level, there has emerged a “rivalry” of sorts between at least two organizations that affect the policy analysis and development processes in the CJS. The reports and draft policies these agencies produce are often found among the bills being introduced in many legislatures.
The first organization is one I worked with when I was a fed to produce a variety of reports. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has been in existence since 1975. The weblink for their Criminal Justice section is: http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice.aspx
(Links to an external site.)
. I recommend taking a tour of the remainder of the site for more contextual information. For many of the legislators with whom I have worked over the years, NCSL is the first stop for information. Their search function in the “documents” section is very helpful.
The more recent entrant into the policy domain is the American
Legislative
Exchange
Council
(ALEC; https://www.alec.org/ ). ALEC is generally considered the more “
conservative
” of the two national
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
organizations. They have been very influential in the criminal justice domain over the past 20 years. You can see a list of other organizations with whom they are involved in criminal justice policy analysis and development at this address (https://www.alec.org/issue/criminal-justice-reform/ ). They have had
a great deal of impact on the “Smart Justice” movement (see Potter & Humiston, 2017 for a brief overview of these sorts of organizations). You may
note that some of the partnership make “strange bedfellows,” which is the way business gets done in the political world.
Another important government support group in the CJ policy environment is the Council of State Governments (CSG; https://csgjusticecenter.org/
(Links to an external site.)
). While the previous two organizations (NCSL & ALEC) are mostly focused on legislatures/legislators, CSG has a broader focus, but at the state level. When we first began working on re-entry issues, for example, the agency I worked with was the National Governors’ Association (NGA). The one person working for CSG’s Justice Center attended as an observer. Well, now CSG is a major contract provider of technical assistance, research, and grant oversight for DOJ, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and several other justice-related funding agencies. That did not take long!
These groups, and others, provide what some are calling “off the shelf” approaches to a variety of criminal and juvenile justice policy issues. Their materials are used widely in policy analysis and development discussions. This has led to questions recently about whether “off the shelf” policies, or “model” policies, developed by these organizations (especially ALEC), are really appropriate for utilization by states and localities. For those of us who have been in the policy trenches, sometimes they are a great help; sometimes they are not. Once again, the problem being addressed should drive the relevant evidence – and if the glove don’t fit, you shouldn’t use the off-the shelf policy!
For now, use these sources as resources for your policy development paper (2). I encourage you to learn about the various groups that represent municipal and county officials, too. They may be as or more relevant to your career as these groups.
NCSL: Our Mission
NCSL, founded in 1975, represents the legislatures in the states, territories and commonwealths of the U.S. Its mission is to advance the effectiveness, independence and integrity of legislatures and to foster interstate cooperation and facilitate the exchange of information among legislatures.
NCSL also represents legislatures in dealing with the federal government, especially in support of state sovereignty and state flexibility and protection from unfunded
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
federal mandates and unwarranted federal preemption. The conference promotes cooperation between state legislatures in the U.S. and those in other countries.
In addition, NCSL is committed to improving the operations and management of state legislatures, and the effectiveness of legislators and legislative staff. NCSL also encourages the practice of high standards of conduct by legislators and legislative staff.
Some Crim/CJ Academic Resources- Week 5
As part of the "construction of alternatives," you may want to turn to the peer-reviewed academic literature. Below is a list of generally recent resources I stole from Dr. Gau’s syllabus that provide academic, peer-
reviewed articles that might be relevant to the “construction of alternatives” portion of your upcoming assignments. You will not be quizzed on any of these (sigh of relief, eh?).
All readings are available for free download on Google Scholar when you are using campus internet. Do not pay for any articles.
Auerhahn, K. (1999). Selective incapacitation and the problem of prediction.
Criminology
,
37
(4), 703 – 734.
Benson, M. L. (1985). Denying the guilty mind: Accounting for involvement in
a white-collar crime.
Criminology, 23
(4), 583 – 607.
Benson, M. L., Madensen, T. D., & Eck, J. E. (2009). White-collar crime from and opportunity perspective. In S. S. Simpson & D. Weisburd (Eds.),
The criminology of white-collar crime
(pp. 175 – 193). New York, NY: Springer.
Braga, A. A. (2008). Pulling levers focused deterrence strategies and the prevention of gun homicide.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 36
, 332 – 343.
Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2014). The effects of hot spots policing on crime: An updated systematic review and meta-
analysis.
Justice Quarterly
,
31
(4), 633 – 663.
Braga, A. A., Welsh, B. C., & Schnell, C. (2015). Can policing disorder reduce crime? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
,
52
(4), 567 – 588.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Caldwell, M. F. (2010). Study characteristics and recidivism base rates in juvenile sex offender recidivism.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54
(2), 197 – 212.
Chuang, J. (2006). Beyond a shapshot: Preventing human trafficking in the global economy. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 13
(1), 137 – 163.
Cochran, J. K., Boots, D. P., & Heide, K. M. (2003). Attribution styles and attitudes toward capital punishment for juveniles, the mentally incompetent, and the mentally retarded.
Justice Quarterly, 20
(1), 65 – 93.
Cochran, J. K., Chamlin, M. B., & Seth, M. (1994). Deterrence or brutalization?
An impact assessment of Oklahoma’s return to capital punishment.
Criminology, 32
(1), 107 – 134.
Collins, C. R., Neal, Z. P., & Neal, J. W. (2017). Transforming social cohesion into informal social control: Deconstructing collective efficacy and the moderating role of neighborhood racial homogeneity.
Journal of Urban Affairs
,
39
(3), 307-322.
Cook, P. J., Harris, R. J., Ludwig, J., & Pollack, H. A. (2015). Some sources of crime guns in Chicago: Dirty dealers, straw purchasers, and traffickers.
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 104
(4), 717 – 760.
Cullen, F., Jonson, C. L., & Mears, D. P. (2017). Reinventing community corrections.
Crime and Justice, 46
, 27 – 93.
Daly, K. (2006). Gender and varieties of white-collar crime.
Criminology, 27
(4), 769 – 794.
Decker, S., Wright, R., & Logie, R. (1993). Perceptual deterrence among active residential burglars: A research note.
Criminology, 31
(1), 135 – 147.
DeFosset, A. R., Schooley, T. S., Abrams, L. S., Kuo, T., & Gase, L. N. (2017). Describing the theoretical underpinnings in juvenile justice diversion: A case study explicating Teen Court program theory to guide research and practice.
Children and Youth Services Review, 73
, 419 – 429.
Farrell, A. & Pfeffer, R. (2014). Policing human trafficking: Cultural blinders and organizational barriers.
Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 653
, 46 – 64.
Hagan, J. & Coleman, J. P. (2001). Returning captives of the American war on drugs: Issues of community and family reentry.
Crime & Delinquency, 47
(3), 352 – 367.
Landenberger, N. A. & Lipsey, M. W. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive-
behavioral programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with
effective treatment.
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1
, 451 – 476.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Liedka, R. V., Piehl, A. M., & Useem, B. (2006). The crime-control effect of incarceration: Does scale matter?
Criminology & Public Policy, 5
(2), 245 – 276.
Lin, J. & Phillips, S. (2014). Media coverage of capital murder: Exceptions sustain the rule. Justice Quarterly, 31
(5), 934 – 959.
Maddan, S., Miller, J. M., Walker, J. T., & Marshall, I. H. (2011). Utilizing criminal history information to explore the effect of community notification on sex offender recidivism.
Justice Quarterly, 28
(2), 303 – 324.
Makarios, M. D. & Pratt, T. C. (2012). The effectiveness of policies and programs that attempt to reduce firearm violence: A meta-analysis.
Crime & Delinquency, 58
(2), 222 – 244.
McGarrell, E. F., Chermak, S., Wilson, J. M., & Corsaro, N. (2006). Reducing homicide through a “lever pulling” strategy.
Justice Quarterly, 23
(2), 214 – 231.
McGloin, J. M. (2007). The organizational structure of street gangs in Newark,
New Jersey: A network analysis methodology.
Journal of Gang Research, 15
(1), 1 – 34.
McGloin, J. M. & Piquero, A. R. (2009). On the relationship between co-
offending network redundancy and offending versatility.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47
(1), 63 – 90.
Nagin, D. S. (1998). Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-
first century.
Crime and Justice, 23
, 1 – 42.
Paternoster, R. (1987). The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty of punishment: A review of the evidence and issues.
Justice Quarterly, 4
(2), 173
– 217.
Sample, L. L. & Bray, T. M. (2006). Are sex offenders different? An examination of rearrest patterns.
Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17
(1), 83 – 102.
Sherman, L. W. (2013). The rise of evidence-based policing: Targeting, testing, and tracking.
Crime and Justice
,
42
(1), 377 – 451.
Sundt, J., Salisbury, E. J., & Harmon, M. G. (2016). Is downsizing prisons dangerous? The effect of California’s Realignment Act on public safety.
Criminology & Public Policy, 15
(2), 315 – 341.
Taxy, S., Samuels, J., & Adams, W. (2015). Drug offenders in federal prison: Estimates of characteristics based on linked data (NCJ 248648). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Thielo, A. J., Cullen, F. T., Cohen, D. M., & Chouhy, C. (2016). Rehabilitation in
a red state: Public support for correctional reform in Texas.
Criminology & Public Policy, 15
(1), 137 – 170.
Tonry, M. (1999). Why are U.S. incarceration rates so high?
Crime & Delinquency, 45
(4), 419 – 437.
Warner, B. D. (2014). Neighborhood factors related to the likelihood of successful informal social control efforts.
Journal of Criminal Justice
,
42
(5), 421 – 430.
Zane, S. N., Welsh, B. C., & Mears, D. P. (2016). Juvenile transfer and the specific deterrence hypothesis.
Criminology & Public Policy, 15
(3), 901 – 925.
It is up to you to "match" the appropriate article to the policy problem you might be addressing. These are a good start for many of the issues you might face. Our appreciation to Dr. Gau!
Hear ye, Oye, Oye... Week 5
Collecting Information - beyond the academic research...
Up to this point in your university experience you have probably been instructed to pay attention to the scholarly literature as you develop ideas and alternatives. In the policy world, alternatives for consideration are often presented by multiple “others” in the environment. I want to take a moment to introduce some elements of the processes often used in the development of policy options during the development process.
We will begin with statute-level policies. You may be aware that the Florida Legislature meets for two months annually – either April-May or January-
February (Some states and the federal government have year-round legislative sessions). When I lived in Kentucky, the legislature met every two years for about three months (apparently many natives of the Commonwealth thought this was the most dangerous time period every two years). There is a great deal of work that goes into the statutory development process, including committee hearings that may begin as early as July before session begins, but certainly by October. These hearings are venues at which individuals or groups wishing to comment on potential legislation may present their case. Those submissions often constitute the broad range of options that policymakers consider. That is not to say some do not have more weight than others, of course.
I was part of two major federal policy overhauls during my decade as a fed. The first had to do with how HIV and AIDS were reported each year. Prior to the early 2000s, only cases that had progressed to AIDS were reported by physicians and/or laboratories to the CDC; after the new policy was adopted
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
all HIV diagnoses were required to be reported to the CDC. Once the new policy was proposed, a year-long series of community input was held around the nation. Groups on all sides of the change in mandatory reporting were asked for input, written and/or presentation. Once that set of information and
options were collected, the policymakers moved forward with the recommendation to Congress.
The second major policy area on which I worked was the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). I was among those who helped summarize the peer-
reviewed research in the criminal justice domain to develop options for the PREA Commission. A series of hearings was held around the nation soliciting input and options. I had the privilege of providing my information at a meeting on Capitol Hill. Once the final policy document was drafted, there was another set of inputs sought by the Attorney General before the final rules were published. Those of you working in corrections are probably familiar with what has evolved in terms of PREA.
In both cases the range of options presented by groups and individuals ranged from both ends of the continuum of the problem being considered. It was the task of the policy analysts to collate and navigate the information and alternatives presented, and then pass those on to the final decision-
makers (rarely the role of the analyst!) to develop the final legislation and/or regulations associated with the legislation. How those recommendations are made provides a great segue to our next topic – selecting criteria on which to
make decisions and recommendations.
The regulatory domain (after legislation) is similar in the approach taken. There is generally some published comment period during which public input
is accepted regarding the proposed regulations (it was one year for PREA). After that, the policymakers will provide the decision-makers with a final set of policy recommendations. Once the decision is made, we move on to the implementation and enforcement phases.
Organizational policies may be much less democratic in their process, especially policies in private organizations. In those settings the policy analyst may be asked to do the data gathering, alternatives generation, and criteria selection in solitude or with a small group of other employees. The administrative level of the organization then makes the decision about how to proceed.
Those of you doing the dual PA/CJ major will likely spend much more time in the PA segment of your program learning about regulatory processes. For those of you doing CJ only, you may find yourself working in a unit that does “code enforcement.” Some of our graduates work in the business and occupation regulatory field, or the child/elder/disabled abuse field. Often these involve more regulatory activities than criminal prosecution activities. Knowing how these policies are developed may not be a requirement, but it often helps in understanding why you are doing the tasks you are. It also
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
helps when the people against whom you are enforcing a regulation yell at you that they aren’t doing anything “illegal.” They should have taken the time to provide an option to the regulation! But how many of us pay attention to the regulatory process in any given year?
This is a very brief discourse on another information-gathering and policy option development processes. The take-away is that policy analysis in the government sector requires a process that incorporated much broader information sources than we tend to encourage you to use in the academic realm. It doesn't hurt to learn as much as you can about the legislative and regulatory processes as you enforce the policies others have set.
Vocab words
Reticence:
Modicum:
Psychometric:
Ostensibly:
Buttressing:
Auspicious:
Collate:
Ameliorate:
Parsimony:
Ephemeral:
Unanimity:
Normative:
Patina:
Ignoble:
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Iterative: the repetition of a process in order to generate a sequence of outcomes.
Ensconced:
EBPs (Evidence Based policies)
OPPAGA: Office of Program Policy and Analysis and Government Accountability
From What is Policy Analysis YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n--JRze11E
1.
Identification of the problem
a.
Identification of the problem b. To whom is the problem important and why? (Burden- how many people it affects, Frequency- how often it occurs, severity- how serious of a problem is it, and scope- the range of outcomes it affects)
c.
What is the current status of the problem?
d. What is the history of the problem?
e.
What are some of the past attempts to deal with the problem and what are their successes and failures?
2.
The problem as policy.
a.
What are the policy goal(s)
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
b. The possible policy alternatives for meeting the goal(s)
i. Describe of each option
ii. Resources required for implementation
iii. Feasibility of each option
1.
Political, economic, social obstacles associated with this option at national, regional, and international levels.
2.
Foreseen consequences of this option at various levels
3.
Policy recommendations- usually shortest part of the paper
a.
Criteria used for choosing recommended alternatives
b. Recommended course of action
c.
Discuss strategies for implementing those strategies
d. Strategy for managing foreseen problems and consequences.
From What is Public Policy? YouTube Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoNNIPC0Euc
What is Policy Anyway? A policy is a rule made up and enforced to control the behaviors of people in their:
-Family (Family Policy)
- Work Places (Hospital Policy)
- City, State, or Country (Public Policy)
Take Roberto Potter’s CCJ 6704 Methods course
From Some Crim/CJ Academic Resources – Week 5
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
1.
Daly, K. (2006). Gender and varieties of white-collar crime.
Criminology,
27
(4), 769 – 794.
2.
Benson, M. L. (1985). Denying the guilty mind: Accounting for involvement in a white-collar crime.
Criminology, 23
(4), 583 – 607.
3.
Benson, M. L., Madensen, T. D., & Eck, J. E. (2009). White-collar crime from and opportunity perspective. In S. S. Simpson & D. Weisburd (Eds.),
The criminology of white-collar crime
(pp. 175 – 193). New York,
NY: Springer.
From Part IV “Smart (Best) Practices” Research:
Understanding and Making Use of What Look Like Good Ideas from Somewhere Else Notes “
Best Practices
” research- a method or technique that has been generally accepted as superior to any alternatives because it produces results that are superior to those achieved by other means or because it has become a standard way of doing things, e.g., a standard way of complying with legal or ethical requirements. Good but also relies on anecdotes and on very limited empirical observations for your ideas. Internal Validity Problems- even if good effects have truly occurred, the allegedly good practice had little or or nothing to do with producing them.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
External Validity Problem- extrapolating from a setting in which a good practice has indeed worked well to settings that differ in little-
understood but important ways that may lead to weak, perverse, or otherwise damaging results. Practice- a tangible and visible behavior. “Smart Practices”- practices that embody clever ideas. Basic mechanism
is its means of directly accomplishing useful work in a cost-effective manner. A smart practice is made up of (1) the laten potential for creating value plus (2) the mechanism for extracting and focusing that potential. Secondary features of a smart practice
Implementing features:
Supportive features:
Optional Features:
Functions should be formulated as gerunds, verb-like nouns ending in “ing”- as in the actions defined earlier as setting, verifying, creating, and
instilling- while the features that perform these functions can be indicated by pure nouns. Free Lunches examples page 134-135 “New public management” NPM- New Zealand in the 1980s a new management reform paradigm. Key ideas:
Page 140 Generic Vulnerability- a potential weakness of the practice that is somehow connected with its basic causal structure. It may have to do with a high sensitivity to small errors in execution or with the environment in which the practice is being implemented (e.g. an environment that imposes certain insupportable stresses.)
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Safeguarding strategies- consider the generic vulnerabilities of the smart practice: Are the most dangerous of them likely to cause unacceptable trouble in your context? From Source to Target. Is Target area worthy of
this smart practice, ask yourself will it work here? Enhancement Strategies- Consider what we called earlier the “supportive features” that can help a practice to work better. What supportive features will be put into play? How well are they likely to perform? Can you do anything to improve them? For instance, can you attract top-notch personnel to manage this program or undertake this project? Can you obtain more stable funding than annual appropriations?
Can you mobilize the press to take positive notice of what you are doing?
Start of Quiz 3
CJ Alternatives - How Wide Can You Go? -
Week 6
Learning Objectives for this Module
Define the term “alternatives” in public policy terms
Discuss the merits of moving from comprehensive to restricted alternatives in policy development
Define and differentiate among “market,” “production,” “conformity,” and “evolutionary” models in the policy development process
Define “conceptualization” and “simplification” to explain the role each plays in moving toward policy alternatives
Discuss the value of using alternatives on a “continuum” basis;
Discuss the value of using “contingencies” in the policy development process.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Required Reading:
Bardash & Patashnik, Pages 21-31; 121-132.
Suggested Reading:
See items in Narrative section.
Narrative:
Once you have a clear understanding of the policy “problem,” you can begin to gather evidence that addresses the “problem.” Odds are you will find information that tends to be contradictory. This is the beginning of developing alternatives. As Bardash & Patashnik summarize this, you are going to develop and explore different ‘courses of action’ regarding how to address the program.
In the “problem solving” Module, I noted that a fundamental question for criminal justice theory is whether the application of criminal statute is the appropriate response to a perceived problem. For example, in 1914 the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act was passed at the federal level. It was the first federal legislation that made possession of non-prescribed opiate- and coca-
based substances illegal and subject to criminal prosecution (some states had passed alcohol prohibition, but it did not become a federal prohibition until 1920).
By 2011, the “hillbilly heroin epidemic” (diversion of pharmaceutical-
produced opioid products) and associated mortality had reached levels that prompted the Florida Legislature to enact the “pill mill” legislation (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?
App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899/0893/Sections/0893.055.html
(
Links to an external site.)
). Our study of the effects of the law for law enforcement purposes provided support for the reduction in “pill mill” facilities and prosecution of those who operated them (https://nij.gov/topics/drugs/markets/Pages/florida-legislation-helps-reduce-
the-number-of-pill-mills.aspx
(Links to an external site.)
). I have, unfortunately, been among those who have publicly suggested that the impact of the new prescribing rules, which have become even more restrictive since 2011, have negatively impacted the lives of those who have legitimate needs for opioid-based pain medications.
Shortly after the enactment of the Harrison Act, a doctoral student at the University of Chicago began researching the impact of the Act on those who on one day were non-criminal uses of opioids and the next day were potential criminals. Alfred Lindesmith later published articles and books on
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
his research and introduced what many now call the “public health” approach to substance use. We now subsume that early work under the term
“harm reduction” approaches. It basically states that we should treat substance addiction as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue. We explored that topic in greater detail in the recent Behavioral Health and Criminal Justice course, and probably in our other “drugs and crime” courses.
The point here is that, while we have had an active alternative position on how to deal with the “demand side” of the drug use “problem” for at least a century, our lawmakers tend to default to the criminalization solution each time. After 100 years, is it time to offer some other alternatives – and maybe address other issues that lead people to seek relief from life’s pressures?
This brings us to the admonition from Bardach & Patashnik to start comprehensive and end up focused. If you have engaged in a “brainstorming” exercise before, this is a good analogy for the process. In brainstorming you are often told no idea is wrong; in policymaking, some are. The point from the authors is not to focus in on one single policy option; generate a few – some of which may seem to contradict, some may complement, and some may appear to be more “additive.” That latter idea is
that some alternatives may build on each other; if you do one, then you can do the next. They encourage the analyst to “know their audience,” the current trendy ideas among those who will eventually pass or enact the policy. At the same time, they discourage thinking only within those boundaries and encourage the thinking beyond current limitations (“out of the box” or “outside the square”).
Let us return to criminal justice policies for a moment… Consider the current situation regarding school discipline. What are our alternatives for keeping students safe, at least on campus and during school-associated activities? We have just seen the Florida Legislature passing the expanded “Guardian” program to allow specially trained teachers and administrators to carry firearms to protect students (deterrence or reaction?), put more licensed law enforcement officers (LEOs) on campus, and expand behavioral health services within schools (maybe you want to look into Counselor Education?). Yet, many of our reactions still are to suspend and/or expel problematic students; at best we develop “alternative schools” (and concentrate those with anti-social tendencies together?). As a last resort, though far too often as a first response, we see school administrators demanding LEOs arrest and
remove the children from the school.
If you have been exposed to the notions of “reintegrative shaming” associated with John Braithwaite’s work of the early 1990s, you will be aware
of the work of my old friend David Moore. David and John McDonald took their victim-offender conferencing model into the juvenile justice system to try to resolve minor issues that might develop into criminal careers if not addressed early (diversion). Their early work in Wagga Wagga (right on the
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
New South Wales and Victoria state lines) still forms the foundation of “Real Justice” approaches here in the United States (we evolved Transformative Justice Australia a few years later). The New South Wales public schools took the TJA conferencing approach as their primary method of addressing within-
student conflicts or student anti-social behaviors against the school, rather than a criminal justice response. Only if the student failed to fulfill the conference agreement did the issue get escalated to a higher level, such as referral to juvenile services.
The point of this trip down my memory lane is to demonstrate that too often,
especially regarding policies addressed at crime reduction, we tend to return
to what we’ve done in the past too quickly. In my experience, legislators tend to think in what we would term deterrence theory terms almost exclusively. Part of the analysts’ task is to provide alternatives – now we want alternatives based in evidence (EBPs) – not simply repeat what we know hasn’t worked well before. So, if you are not aware of more than what has been done in the past, it is doubtful you will be able to generate many alternatives. So, pay attention to those theories – they can be useful for alternative generation.
Now, as you move through the text you will get past the models and to the ideas of “conceptualization” and “simplification.” This section may help explain why the papers in this course are relatively brief for an academic course. On page 25 the authors write that “[T]he key to simplification is to distinguish between a basic alternative and its variants… It helps to use very
plain, short phrases stripped of jargon.”
In my experience as a state and federal analyst, we rarely got more than two
pages on an initial analysis to explain the problem, canvas the alternatives, and make an initial suggestion of the direction to take. It had to be written in
“plain English” (my longer documents had to be written at no higher than an eighth grade reading comprehension level). I once asked a journalist boss of mine why things had to be so simple – were legislators really that dumb?! No, he explained and asked me how much material I thought came across the desk of a legislator in a given day. The volume alone makes it difficult to keep up with the work. If your work is not concise, plainly written, to the point – in the first paragraph – it will not be read! Well, maybe some staffer will read it, but it is unlikely. Learning to write in that manner is not what academics teach typically. It is an important skill to develop for working in the applied world, especially the political world. If you don’t think criminal justice is part of the political world, you are sadly mistaken…
The final point from the Bardach and Patachnik text I want to emphasize is the development of contingent alternatives. As we move into the “trade-off” section soon, this will become very important. I very much recommend the development of a “decision tree” that allows one to model how different contingencies might flow from decisions made by those who approve and/or
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
enact the policies you generated. Believe me, what you generated rarely looks like what gets enacted. But, that is a different lesson…
The required reading for this Module may be short, but the information contained within is massive. Please take your time and look over these sections closely. Start thinking in alternatives, not absolutes; be thinking about how the theories we teach you can be applied and whether your knowledge base is expansive enough yet. When you think it is, you’ll find there is more to learn – life-long learning we call it.
The "Handling a design Problem" portion of the reading will start getting you ready for the second assignment. For now, just pay attention to the process. I do not expect you to be able to replicate all of this by the end of this term. For those of you who have taken or will be taking the Org course with me or Dr. Humiston, the relevance of those sections on technologies and organizational form should start to come alive even more. Yes, there will be quiz questions, so make sure you define, outline, and absorb!
Design Thinking - Week 6
Learning Objectives:
Define and discuss the elements of the “design thinking” approach
Relate design thinking to the development of public and organizational policy
If you take CJ Organizations (6118) with me, Dr. Humiston or Dr. Mattusiak, you will get a brief introduction to the ideas of “isomorphism,” both “coercive” and “mimetic.” These are organizational processes that lead to “same-ness” (isomorphism), and are often used to explain why organizations
in certain sectors come to look alike, in terms of organizational structure.
“Coercive” is, well, exactly what you would expect – something forces the organizations to have similar structures. This is part of the policy impact in certain sectors. For example, Research 1 universities (UCF among them) will have certain offices and functions within their research and/or ethics offices because federal funding regulations demand (coerce) them to do so. The power of the federal purse is amazing!
At other times, administrators in corporations look across their sector’s landscape and see other organizations (or administrators) they want to be like (or better). They will look to see what it is that seems to “separate” that organization from their own. If they can put their finger on it, they will try to “copy” the attributes they believe bring them up to the level of the
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
organization they envy ("prestige"). “Mimetic isomorphism” can be shortened to being a volunteer “copy-cat” at essence. Universities are notorious for this, but they are not alone. One of the first examples on this campus was the need to build our own stadium, when we had the Tangerine Bowl just miles away. But, some of the administrators decided – against empirical evidence – that having a football stadium on campus was necessary to move into the big leagues. At least these days it gets filled on game day!
Back when I was department chair, the university administration announced we would be developing a downtown campus. Part of the impetus for the new campus was that it would be a facility that followed “design thinking” principles. Now, here is where the mimetic isomorphism comes in. Stanford had a design center… A couple of years later I had the opportunity to visit the Stanford campus and took one of the daily tours of the Design Center (
photo1
Download photo1
,
photo2
Download photo2
,
photo3
Download photo3
,
photo4
Download photo4
). Now, what do those first couple of photos make anyone who has been to an older jail think of, eh? It is
not the facility that makes design thinking occur! Build it, and it will happen? Design thinking is much more than working in a facility where you can write on any surface! Actually, Valencia College West Campus has one of the best
design thinking facilities in the area – especially when you get their wonderful facilitators working with you…
So, what is design thinking? For that, I want you to go through the Leland J. Stanford Junior University
document
Download document
on design thinking and be able to define and discuss the “empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test” process as it relates to policy development, particularly when developing a criminal justice policy (both internal and social).
Design thinking is potentially a “fad” that will sweep across larger criminal justice organizations in the near future, just as it has across the academic world. It does challenge us to think about policy development in the CJS in different terms, so how well it will “fit” our sector remains to be seen. However, if you doubt the power of prestige to encourage mimetic isomorphism, wait until you have a few years of service in an organizational sector and then look back. It ain’t all bad, but it is often unnecessary to the organizational mission.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
An Outside Perspective (Supplemental Material)
As the debates over reforms in the criminal justice system have intensified, one of the organizational/occupational players in the field has been public health, especially academic Public Health (like CJ, they have both street-level
and academic branches). Here I want to provide a resource for how some in the public health sector, especially those affiliated with leading academic centers, have sought to "re-frame" issues of criminal justice.
If you saw a description of faculty research interests on the poster in our hallway, you would see that one of the areas attributed to me is the study of "social reality." True enough; several of my writings deal with how groups/organizations seek to manipulate the way you see social reality. One of the areas in which I deal is the use of "metaphor" to frame solutions to social problems - those of you who have or will be taking Criminal Justice Organizations (CCJ6118) with me or Dr. Humiston will get more of a dose of my thinking on such things - criminal justice issues often being the core problem.
The reading to which I am linking you here is an example of how a Harvard-
affiliated public health think tank explains one way of getting people to think differently about criminal justice reform. You need only read the Executive Summary, but I provide the entire document for your possible use in a paper here or another course.
Kendall-Taylor, N.
(2013).
Mazes and gears: Using Explanatory Metaphors to increase public Understanding of the challenges facing the criminal justice system.
Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute. (The link wasn't working for
some, so try: https://canvadocs.instructure.com/1/sessions/eyJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiIsInR5c
CI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJjIjoxNjAwMTAyMTk3NjQxLCJkIjoiVGpqZFBfdU5lSXNJdlp3clVpS
XdOVUl2ekdJUkRhIiwiZSI6MTYwMDEzODE5NywiciI6InBkZmpzIiwibCI6ImVuIiw
iZyI6Im5vbmUiLCJoIjp7fSwiaWF0IjoxNjAwMTAyMTk3LCJleHAiOjE2MDAxMzgx
OTZ9.E0byyYHJSh0SKMERuIGpLb5oVT_g_cjPECx3J4_635oNVoQvWWKmVolXi
DG5ZZuMBB5GvWtSRXthbCVmHwYpPg/view?theme=dark
(Links to an external site.)
).
Enjoy, if you decide to!
END OF WEEK 6!
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Leland J. Stanford University Document on design thinking and be able to define and discuss the
“Empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test” process as it relates to policy development, particularly when developing a criminal justice policy (both internal and social).
Empathize mode: the work you do to understand people, within the context of your design challenge. Centerpiece of a human-centered design process.
To empathize you:
o
Observe: view users and their behavior in the context of their lives.
o
Engage: sometimes we call this technique “interviewing” but it should really feel more like a conversation.
o
Watch and Listen: Certainly you can, and should, combine observation and engagement.
Define Mode: of the design process is all about bringing clarity and focus to the design space. Define the challenge you are taking on, based on what you have learned about your user and about the context. Making sense of the wide spread info you have gathered.
Goal of define mode: to craft a meaningful and actionable problem statement- this is what we call a point-of-view. This should be a guiding statement that focuses on insights
and needs of a particular user, or composite character. Define Mode= SENSEMAKING
Why design? Because it results in your point-of-view (POV): the explicit expression of the problem you are striving to address. An endeavor to synthesize your scattered findings into powerful insights. It is this synthesis of your empathy work that gives you the advantage that no one else has: discoveries that you can leverage to tackle the design challenge; that is, INSIGHT.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Ideate: the mode of the design process in which you concentrate on idea generation. Represents process of “going wide” in terms of concepts and outcomes. Ideation provides both the fuel and also the source material for building prototypes and getting innovative solutions into the hands of your users.
Why ideate: in order to transition from identifying problems to creating solutions for your users. Ideation is your chance to combine the understanding you have of the problem space and people you are designing for with your imagination to generation solution concepts. How to ideate: by combining your conscious and unconscious mind, and rational thoughts with imagination. Building- that is, prototyping itself can be
an ideation technique. Other techs- bodystorming, mindmapping, and sketching. One theme= deferring judgment- that is, separating the generation of ideas from the evaluation of ideas. Transition: Ideate > Prototype
In order to avoid losing all of the innovation potential you have just generated through ideation, we recommend a process of considered selection, by which you bring multiple ideas forward into prototyping, thus maintaining your innovation potential. Prototype Mode: the iterative generation of artifacts intended to answer questions that get you closer to your final solution. Why Prototype:
To ideate and problem-solv. Build to think.
To communicate. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a prototype is worth a thousand pictures.
To start a conversation: Your interactions with users are often richer when centered around a conversation piece. A prototype is an opportunity to have another, directed conversation with a user. To fail quickly and cheaply. Committing as few resources as possible to each idea means less time and money invested up front. To test possibilities. Staying low-res allows you to pursue many different ideas without committing to a direction too early on.
To manage the solution-building process. Identifying a variable also encourages you to break a large problem down into smaller, testable chunks.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
How to prototype
Start building. Don’t spend too long on one prototype.ID a variable, Build with the user in mind. Transition: Prototype > Test
Prototype and Test are modes that you consider in tandem more than you transition between. What you are trying to test and how you are going to test
that aspect are critically important to consider before you create a prototype.
What is the Test mode: The test mode is when you solicit feedback, about the
prototypes you have created, from your users and have another opportunity to gain empathy for the people you are designing for. Testing is another opportunity to understand your user, but unlike your initial empathy mode, you have more likely done more framing of the problem and created prototypes to test. Ideally you can test within a real context of the user’s life. Why Test? To refine prototypes and solutions. To learn about your user. To refind you POV. How to Test. Show don’t tell. Create Experiences. Ask users to compare.
Iteration and making the process your own. Iteration is a fundamental of good design. Iterate both by cycling through the process multiple times, and also by iterating within a step- for example by creating multiple prototypes or
trying variations of a brainstorming topics with multiple groups.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Florida Legislation Helps reduce the
number of Pill Mills
February 7, 2018
Florida is one of the states that has been hardest hit by the prescription drug abuse epidemic. In 2010, more people died in Florida from opioids than from cocaine. In the same year, prescription drugs were associated with 81 percent of all drug-related or drug-caused deaths, excluding those caused by alcohol. The next year, that percentage was even higher.
Florida’s state legislature has attempted to address the epidemic with a series of laws aimed at reducing the number of so-called “pill mills” — clinics that fuel the drug trade by prescribing large amounts of opioid drugs. Researchers funded by NIJ studied the effects of these laws and found that they did indeed help reduce the number of clinics. Through interviews with law enforcement officers, the researchers learned about the complexities of making a case against a pill mill and how the legislation helped. The study is part of an NIJ effort to understand the different ways in which states and local governments can work on
disrupting the illegal market in prescription drugs
.
The researchers, from the University of Central Florida’s Department of
Criminal Justice, studied the impact of three laws passed in 2010 and 2011 that defined and regulated pain management clinics and set up a
prescription drug monitoring program. The “pill mill law,” passed in 2011, banned pain management clinics from dispensing drugs and established requirements for medical examinations and follow-ups before and after prescribing opioids for chronic pain, among other new requirements, with the intent of reducing the number of pill mills.
Number of Pill-Mill Clinics in
Florida
Year
No. Pill Mills
2009-2010
921
2010-2011
823
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Number of Pill-Mill Clinics in
Florida
Year
No. Pill Mills
2011-2012
441
2012-2013
384
2013-2014
371
Over the next three years, the number of pain clinics in Florida dropped. The first year that pain management clinics had to register, the 2009-2010 fiscal year, there were more than 900 clinics. By 2013-
2014, that number had fallen by 60 percent, to 371. The researchers also examined geographical data and found that pain clinics tend to operate in areas where homicide, rape, burglary, and other serious crimes are common. However, the data cannot show the nature of the connection — whether pain clinics are drawn to high-crime areas, whether they increase the risk of crime, or whether there is some other
reason entirely why pain clinics are in high-crime areas.
In interviews, law enforcement officers said that making a case against
an illegal pain clinic is very difficult. Pill mills are lucrative businesses: A physician prescribing opioids can make thousands of dollars a day, often in cash, and owners and physicians can afford expensive defense
attorneys. For that reason, some officers said that laws that allow law enforcement to seize assets were very helpful. In one investigation, officers found more than $30 million in cash; a single house had more than $1 million in the attic.
The officers also said that successful investigations depend on a collaborative approach, with a prosecutor involved from the beginning.
Investigations can be expensive; undercover visits to buy pills alone require a lot of cash, and investigators also need money for surveillance equipment and overtime.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Criteria and Interests - Week 7
Learning Objectives for this Module
Following Bardach & Patashnik, define, differentiate and relate the terms “analytic” and “evaluative” regarding policy analysis
Explain the difference between criteria and criterion (Google it!)
“Locate” the criteria selection process in terms of analytic and evaluative steps
Discuss the “pros” and “cons” of using “hitting the target” as an evaluative criterion
Discuss the “pros” and “cons” of using “efficiency” as an evaluative
criterion
Discuss the “pros” and “cons” of using “hitting the target” as an evaluative criterion
Differentiate among the various “values” from pages 32-34 in the text and discuss the “pros” and “cons” of using those as evaluative criteria
Outline the three “evaluative criteria” on pages 34-37 and discuss the role of the analyst in each
Outline each of the “commonly used practical criteria” and provide a critique of each, including when they are helpful and when they are harmful to the policy analysis process
Explain the inverse relationship between a primary criterion and the
policy “problem” to be addressed
Explain the importance of specific metrics (measurement) to the policy analysis process
Differentiate between “alternatives” and “criteria” and explain why they must be kept separated
Required Reading:
Bardash & Patashnik, Pages 31-49; 131.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Suggested Reading: In text and your most recent CJ/Crim theory text...
Narrative:
We can gather data until we are overwhelmed and still get nowhere. The current emphasis on “big data” is a great example. Criminal justice organizations (CJOs) gather tons of data daily – and much of it just sits in a data base on some local storage farm or on a cloud server somewhere, hopefully secure. Until recently most people in CJOs had little idea how to utilize those data. The “big data” analysts are now upon us, telling CJO leadership how to structure and analyze those data. I will tell you this is another skill that is likely to set you apart from the competition – understanding “big data” and how to utilize it. Ever looked at our digital forensics program
?
You can analyze data until your computer melts and still have no idea what to make of those analyses. This is where the idea of “criteria” come in, especially what Bardash and Patashnik define as the “evaluative” criteria. As
they point out, evaluative criteria are essentially value judgements. One of the leading social psychologists of my early years, Milton Rokeach (1973), wrote about values as “preferred end-states of existence” and “preferred modes of conduct.” Values, though held by individuals, are derived from society – “broad ideas regarding what is desirable, correct, and good that
most
members of a society share” (Vander Zanden, 1996). This little discourse is to reinforce the idea that “values” is not a dirty word; it is a social fact. Of course, which values prevail is the issue, and which groups’ interest they represent (see page 40 of your text) can skew the evaluation of
your policy development.
This is a point at which social science theory and research can be brought in to understand the policy process. Dr. Humiston and I make the case that the unique aspect of the criminal justice system as a civil institution is the authorized use of force, up to and including deadly force, in the interest of the State. Criminal justice policy is, then, a unique case of the imposition of power by those in control of the State. It is no accident that Thomas Hobbes used the term “Leviathan” – a reference to a monster from the Judeo-
Christian-Islamic tradition - to describe the awesome power of the State and the need for a strong civil government (in his case, a “sovereign” – a term later adopted by some Institutional analysts of policing organization). To be clear, criminal justice policy is one of the most direct expressions of power by the State over its’ citizens. Exercise of such power should demand solid analysis, and a bit of humility.
In Sociology and Criminology, we have a series of theories that focus on the role of “interest groups” who seek to influence the development of policy (see Pages 38-40 in your text). I will lump these under the banner of “social conflict” theories, ranging from Marxist theories to inter-ethnic and social class conflict theories. From these have sprung several “critical” theories
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
focused on social factors such as gender, sexual identity, race, etc. I usually lump those under the “standpoint” theories. These are taken from one of Karl Marx’ ideas that only the oppressed group can see the true “consciousness.” Thus, where one sits in the social world determines how one sees the world; and the standpoint of the oppressed is the “true” view. For our purposes here, view these various perspectives as examples of interest groups and their attempts to enshrine their view of the world as the view taken by policy. From a conflict perspective (and social problems theory), having your group’s interest position reflected in the criminal law is one of the greatest social victories possible.
The Bardash and Patashnik canvassing of criteria selection is one of the best,
brief overviews I think you will find. Keep the learning objectives above in mind as you read through this somewhat dense section of text. “Social justice” is an idea that sometimes seems to be in conflict with what criminal justice emphasizes. Here we can return to the earlier issues of equity versus equality. In the CJ world, equality of process is a key driver of what we do; but is it equitable? Does that matter to us?
You will also see echoes of that old phrase – “good enough for government work” – in this section. Sometimes the policy just needs to get the minimum done. But, at what cost? For a look at how state agencies in Florida are supposed to do cost estimations and evaluations, visit http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/shell.aspx?pagepath=pb2.htm
(Links to an external site.)
. While you are there, take a look at some of the policy reports so you can begin to think about how you will address your final project for this course.
Returning to the text, the discussion of “commonly used practical criteria” (Pages 38-42) gets to the nub of what really matters in most policy analyses.
What we academics think is rarely among those criteria, as you will note. We
do help provide some of the “lenses” through which issues can be analyzed, but not in a direct manner, at least most of the time. Another key point is to start with “one primary criterion” (Page 42) to reduce confusion and frustration in the analysis and development process; or, KISS – keep it short and simple! Finally, in the text, you see the need for a solid understanding of
what we teach you in research methods and quantitative analysis courses – those “metrics.” So, while you are visiting the OPPAGA site, take another look at the job descriptions so you can plan your elective courses during this degree!
Define
Alternatives
: page 21. By alternatives, we mean something like “policy options,” or “alternative course of action” or “alternative strategies of intervention to solve or mitigate the problem.”
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Interventions: Page 26. Market Models: Page 26. Equilibration through exchange. Disaggregated suppliers exchange goods or services with disaggregated demanders can apply to unpriced goods and services. Supply and demand. Can be used for other things like how many beds a mental hospital has and how many patients demand a room. Production Models: Page 27. Optimization lenses. Little academic lit has examined the operating logics of the common types of production systems found in public policy- such as command-and control regulation, service provision. The main concern in understanding production systems should be to identify the parameters whose values, when they move out of a certain range, make the systems most vulnerable to breakdown, fraud and abuse, egregious diseconomies, and the distortion of intended purpose. Conformity Models: Page 27. Describe a process by which individuals adapt the attitudes and actions of other people around them. Three sources of conformity, automatic mimicry and imitation, normative influence (doing what others do to increase social acceptance), and informational influence (the crowd is often a good source of information about what is correct and appropriate). Evolutionary Models: Page 28. Describes a common process of change over time. It is constructed of three important subprocesses: variation among competitors, selection, and retention. Conceptualization: Page 28. The key to conceptualization is to try and sum up the basic strategic thrust of an alternative in a simple sentence or even a phrase. Helps to use very plain, short phrases stripped of jargon. Simplification: Page 28. Key to simplification is to distinguish between a basic
alternative and its variants. Value of using alts on a “continuum” basis: Page 29-30. Step one is to establish the upper and the lower limits of an acceptable range of possibilities, and step two is to choose some point within that range. This two-step procedure could be useful for a variety of problems involving near-
continuous variables as alts- for example, budget allocations, future dates to being or to discontinue a service, the number of people to be accommodated
by some project or program, emission limits for some effluent, fee, or fine schedules, or quantity of water to be released from a reservoir. Value of using alts “contingencies”:
Elements of Design Thinking approach:
Analytic:
Evaluative Criteria: Page 37
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Difference between Criteria and Criterion: Criterion refers to a single thing, while criteria refer to two or more things. Pros and cons of “hitting the target”: page 32. Cut the rate of state water consumption by 5% for the first quarter of next year. Have target date. Helps
frame analytic agenda. Various values page 32-34
Efficiency: Page 33. Efficiency criterion is the most important evaluative consideration in cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost studies. We use efficiency, more or less as the term is used in economics, for maximizing the aggregate of individual’ welfare as that welfare would be construed by the individuals themselves- in economic jargon, “Maximize the sum of individual utilities,” or “Maximize net benefits.” Maximize the public benefit. Inverse relationship Page 36 possible relevance as evaluative criteria: free markets, economic freedom, capitalism, freedom from government control, equality before the law, equality of opportunity, equality of result, free speech, religious freedom, privacy, safety, neighborliness, community, sense of belonging, order, security, absence of fear, traditional family structure. Alternatives are courses of action, whereas criteria are mental standards for evaluating the results
of action. Some Criminological Thinking
I tend to be grounded in what might be grouped as the "pluralistic" conflict approach to criminal justice/criminology. This is partly because of my work on "social problems" and collective behavior from sociology (we get into more of that in CJ Organizations). From the work of Joseph Gusfield on "status politics" through my own work on topics I won't mention, the "interests" of certain groups in everything from the "recognition" of an issue to how it is "framed" to how groups organize to get their perspective enshrined in public policy is a key element of my research. One of the nicest
people I ever met in Sociology/Criminology was Richard Quinney. He is also one of my favorite theorists of law and society (and he taught Ron Akers when Ron was a grad student at Kentucky).
As we consider the role of group interests in the formulation of public policy, especially statutory policy, I want to share a summary of Quinney's ideas on interest groups and public policy development. These come from his 1970 (and subsequent revisions) text -
The Social Reality of Crime
. I will contrast
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
them with the "consensus" perspective on law - this is from my old intro to criminology course:
THEORIES OF LAW (SOCIOLOGY OF LAW)
Law is a social creation; therefore, it is open to study just as any social phenomenon and may obey certain "social laws," just like any other “social fact.” Let us take a brief look at some of the ways the law has been analyzed by social analysts.
1.
Roscoe Pound and
sociological jurisprudence (Consensus approach)
:
Pound was a jurist and law professor who saw law as a specialized form
of social control that brings pressure to bear upon each person "in order to constrain him (sic) to do his (sic) part in upholding civilized society and to deter him (sic) from anti-social conduct, that is, conduct at variance with the postulates of social order."
Pound was the first to outline the importance of
social interests
in the formulation of the law, to study the law in action. In Pound's view, law was autonomous in society, developing according to its own logic and proceeding
along its own lines. His thinking included the following ideas, and many more: 1.
Law represents the consciousness of the total society. This is a consensus model of criminal law. Law is a decisive reflection of the social consciousness of a society. What is important to the society will be reflected in its laws;
2.
Law reflects the needs of a well-ordered society. Law is a form of "social engineering" in a civilized society because it orders human behavior. Thus, the interests that the law serves will ultimately improve the social order;
3.
This theory is teleological (describes things in terms of their apparent purpose, directive principle, or goal), in that it asserts that
law plays a role in the grand development of society;
4.
Law provides the general framework within which individual and group life is carried out, according to the postulates of social order. Law is an instrument which controls interests according to the requirements of social order. Law adjusts and reconciles conflicting
interests.
2. Richard Quinney and the
Critical approach
:
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
1.
Society is characterized by diversity, conflict, coercion, and change,
rather than by consensus and stability;
2.
Law is a result of the operation of interests
rather than an instrument that operates outside of particular interests;
3.
Law incorporates the interests of specific persons and groups
, it is seldom the product of the whole society. Law does not represent a compromise of the diverse interests in society but supports some interests at the expense of others;
4.
Law is devoid of teleological considerations – it is not part of some “grand plan”;
5.
Authority relations are present in all social groupings, some persons
are always at the command of others. Control systems vary considerably in the way they operate, from informal to formal;
6.
The legal system is the most explicit form of social control
:
1.
Specific rules of conduct;
2.
Planned use of sanctions to enforce the rules; and,
3.
Designated officials to interpret and enforce the rules
7.
Law is a dynamic force that is constantly being created and interpreted.
Law is both a social product and a social force simultaneously
.
8.
Law is a political process, which results in the triumph of certain interests over others
. Different groups have different interests. Through positions of authority within the political structure, some groups have greater power to encode their interests in public policy or law; and,
9.
Law is a form of public policy that (ideally) regulates the behavior and activity of all members of a society. It is formulated and administered by those segments of society which are able to incorporate their interests into the creation and interpretation of public policy.
Rather than representing the institutional concerns of all segments of society, law secures the interests of particular segments, supporting one point of view at the expense of others
.
The criminal law is viewed by some writers as the peak way an interest group enshrines its values as "the" values of a society. How we view the "function" of law, especially criminal law, in a society will play a strong role in
how we evaluate policy as a solution to an identified "problem." That also affects how we view the enforcement of the law in question.
This is offered to help you gain a broader perspective on interests and policy - it won't be on your quiz...
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Week 8 start of quiz 4 March 7-11 Spring Break! March 14 Step 5: Project the Outcomes
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future”
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future” (attributed to Yogi Berra; not Yogi Bear) - Week 8
Learning Objectives for this Module
Identify and explain the three practical/psychological difficulties B&P state must be confronted in terms of projecting outcomes;
Identify and explain the four “additions” to “common sense” B&P outline, especially how projections relate to items in earlier steps;
Define the idea of a “base case” and how it affects predictions:
o
Should there be no change in policy;
o
Should there be multiple changes in policy; or
o
Should only one policy option be adopted
Explain the role of “magnitude estimates” in the development of policy projections;
Discuss the role of “trends” in the development of policy projections;
Explain the concept of “burden of justification” in the development of “break-even estimates” for policy projections, especially using the four steps outlined by B&P to evaluate uncertainty;
Explain “sensitivity analysis” and discuss its role in the development of policy projections;
B&P caution not to become overly optimistic in policy projections – explain how scenario writing and identifying potential undesired outcomes helps reduce the probability of excessive optimism;
Explain what B&P mean by the “emergent-features problem” and ways they suggest to avoid that problem;
Explain the idea of an “outcomes matrix” and the utility of such a tool for developing policy outcome predictions;
Discuss the idea of a “policy context” and explain how it assists the analyst in developing policy outcome predictions.
Required Reading: Bardach & Patashnik, Pages 49 – 69; 132.
Suggested Reading:
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Section III – “Manifest and Latent Functions” in Merton, R.K. (1967).
On Theoretical Sociology
. New York: Free Press.
I opened this section with a quote attributed to the great American philosopher Yogi Berra – not a bad baseball player or broadcaster, either – about the difficulties of making predictions about the future (“It’s like déjà vu
all over again”; “the past ain’t what it used to be”, etc…). Being able to provide a range of projected outcomes should a particular policy be implemented is one of the hallmarks of a great policy analyst, in my opinion. I will also say that it is what separates great policy analysts from advocacy analysts, in my not so humble opinion. It isn’t easy, often makes one confront one’s own values and perceptions, but helps frame the policy impact in meaningful terms.
There are a couple of expansions I want to make on what Bardach & Patashnik (B&P) write in this section. The first is something potentially from a
methods course –
sensitivity versus specificity
. I will take the definitions from the
Principles of Epidemiology, 3
rd
Edition
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “Sensitivity is the ability of surveillance to detect the health problem it is intended to detect” (P. 5-43). Basically, we are talking about being sure that our policy will address the problem we think it should be addressing. “Specificity,” in public health terms, is “the ability… to exclude persons without the health condition of interest” (P. 18 in
Glossary).
For our purposes, making sure you are solving the actual problem (sensitivity) would translate into being sure that a proposed policy would not have detrimental impacts on those it was not intended to impact, while impacting those targeted in the intended manner. As a personal example, the evaluation of Florida’s pill-mill legislation showed it was a great success for law enforcement and prosecutors in going after unscrupulous physicians and pharmacists. For those of us whose families where the purchase of legal opioids is necessary, the process has become onerous and even more costly.
In the end, drug overdoses have not declined, and street-level heroin, often laced with dangerous fentanyl products, has re-emerged as a major criminal justice and public health dilemma. I think some of us warned legislators of the comeback of heroin during the early phases of the pill-mill legislation development. Oh, well, at least the work of CJS personnel was made easier – which was the intended outcome.
On the specificity side, this extends to not adding benefits to those already benefiting in the name of helping those who need the help. One example of this is the introduction of the “Austudy” university student support program in the late 1980s to help Australian working-class families send their children
to university. The intended outcome was to increase movement of working-
class individuals into middle-class occupations and improve living conditions for a broader segment of the society (and tax revenues for the
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Commonwealth government). By the early 2000s (“naught-ies”) the evaluations showed that the intended impact had not been achieved. Yes, more people were attending university, but they were not the children of the working-class. Rather, the daughters of the middle-class were more likely to be attending university than before the introduction of Austudy. That is, the intended benefit was not achieved by the group targeted by the policy, but by those who were already enjoying the fruits of a middle-class social position. The role of working-class culture in a fairly class-conscious society (not as rigid at the UK, but more-so than the US), had not been overcome. The benefit was being enjoyed by those already enjoying middle-class status – sound familiar?
The CDC documentation provides a formula for computing specificity versus sensitivity when looking at disease diagnosis that looks very much like a Chi-
square analysis. B&P mention that such policy outcomes can be modeled using a “Monte Carlo simulation” technique. For now, I don’t want to get wrapped-up in the statistical tools one can use (I’m just an end-abuser of statistics!). The key point from this discussion is that an adequate knowledge
of social science statistics is truly important in policy analysis and development. These are skills often missing among legislators, so we hope the policy analysts will be able to bring this information to the policy-making process.
The second expansion to B&P’s presentation is to bring in a little sociological theory from the developer of what we know as societal strain/anomie theory (that from which many social programs sprung in the 1960s and from which Bob Agnew developed micro-strain theory back in the early 1990s).
That policy may not have the intended outcome leads us into the idea of “unanticipated consequences” (Merton, 1967). You may also hear terms such as “unanticipated outcomes of intended social action.” Indeed, this is one of the classic academic criminology/criminal justice approaches to “policy analysis.” Did the policy (generally a statute) achieve the outcomes it
should have following a particular theory we “fit” to the situation. As you are learning, policymakers may have some notional theory in their mind when developing policy, but it probably isn’t as specific as we academics might want it to be.
In Merton’s discussion of “manifest” (intended) and “latent” (unanticipated) functions, the focus is on the
motivation
that formed the foundation for the action. “Manifest functions are those objective consequences contributing to the adjustment or adaptation of the system which are intended and recognized by participants in the system… Latent functions, correlatively, being those which are neither intended nor recognized” (Merton, 1967: 105).
Manifest functions are not necessarily positive – think about criticisms of everything from the Constitution to specific laws as instruments of racial oppression. Latent functions are not necessarily negative - they can, in fact,
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
have important social cohesion outcomes for the group where they are being
observed. So, what is the underlying motivation of the policy you are proposing – and later, what motivation can others attribute to you when the policy was being developed?
Those of you who take CCJ 6118 with me or Dr. Humiston will get more detail
on how we use Merton’s ideas in the development of social consciousness and social movements and how those movements intersect with criminal justice organizations carrying out policy of all sorts. For now, let us be satisfied with knowing that what you learn in parts of social science theory can inform policy development via predicting outcomes.
The final point from B&P I want to emphasize is their “But Policy Contexts Differ.” Policies of all types tend to suffer from a “one size fits all” mentality. In a different context I have termed this “vaccine thinking” – if we just put this policy in place everyone will follow it and we will achieve the intended outcome – the metaphor being that the policy is the vaccine and the behavior is the disease we are preventing. In the empirical world, however, there are cultural, resource, and other differences that will affect how individuals and groups in the environment will embrace or reject the policy. Scenarios and policy matrices are great tools to use when developing policy. Involving others in the development and critique of those scenarios is important, as they may not share our mindsets and blinders.
To summarize, prediction is hard, especially when you don’t take the time to do it well. Unlike academic policy analysts, people who are tasked with developing policies generally work under time, political and resource pressures. In the end, if I may paraphrase Mr. Berra, sometimes the future ain’t what it used to be, but you have to work with it anyway. Just understand that someone in the future won’t bother to know what was going on when you developed a policy, and their judgement may be different from the one you were able to make at the time the policy was developed. Everybody’s a critic!
Local Exemplars of "small p" Policies
You have had one exemplar of a "big P" policy via the two statute sections you have examined. For exemplars of the "small p" policies, let us stick very
close to home - UCF Polices and Procedures. You can find the formal UCF polices at the following site:
https://policies.ucf.edu/
Links to an external site.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
There is even a "policy on policies," if you will:
"The University of Central Florida is governed by state and federal statutes, regulations of the Florida Board of Governors, and university regulations. The university must adopt policies and related procedures to dictate and guide the operations of the university when statutes, rules, and regulations do not provide specific guidance or do not offer procedures or implementation directives necessary for efficient university operations" (2-001).
That second sentence is important - in the lack of specifics from the higher-
order instructions, policy is developed. How UCF officials define a policy is also interesting:
Links to an external site.
"Policy. A statement of management philosophy or practice established to provide direction and assistance to the university community in the conduct of university business or activities that directly and substantially affect multiple units, departments, or divisions with respect
to their operations at the university. Policies must not conflict with statutes, rules, or regulations applicable to the university. Policies may include related
procedures" (2-001).
Do note that section that policies must not conflict with applicable "statutes, rules, or regulations applicable to...". Small "p" policy still has to fit under the governing structures.
As a way to prepare for your final project, let me suggest that you go to the policy site and review some of the policies that might be relevant to your experience as a student (2-005, 2-106.5, 3-115.1, 3-119.2, etc.). See how they policy statements are structured and what items of explanation provided. Also, note where the policy and procedure are separated. One of the common experiences I hear about from retired criminal justice professionals, especially those who rose through the leadership ranks, is that
they get pulled in or volunteer to write or re-write the policies and procedure manuals of new organizations for which they go to work after "retirement" (well, after the first 20-year job). Sometimes they do it because of the lack of structure at the new organizations; sometimes they do it because of the liability the new organizations are in for not having adequate policies and procedures (standard operating procedures - SOPs) on the books. Because the criminal justice system is rule-bound, polices and associated procedures are very important. That is why you often hear in media coverage of questionable behavior by law enforcement personnel that, although a law may not have been broken, the individual was fired for failure to follow policy
or procedure. There are substantive penalties associated with some policies,
so pay attention to them.
Another form of policy document often overlooked in criminal justice academic education is what we call "standards." I will make a guess that this
is because so few of the academics have been involved with "voluntary
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
consensus standards" developed by large occupational organizations.
We may be more familiar with "mandatory standards" imposed by the federal government agencies, such as the Prison Rape Elimination Act standards (I co-chaired the health care standards sub-committee during my CDC days for PREA). Dr. Humiston and I write more about how these organizational standards help to direct the policies and practices among multiple segments of the criminal justice system in our text, so you may learn more about them if you take the CCJ 6118 course with one of us. Let me say here that standards play a greater role in helping shape organizational policy than anything other than statute , especially in corrections. Alas, the personal preferences of leadership still have a stronger impact than we might want to see...
As I say, these are relatively brief (most of them) policy statements that may
give you more examples of what policies look like at an organizational level. You are not required to read them. I think it may be helpful for your final project to look at a few...
Step 6 - Trading Up, Off, Spaces & Places... - Week 9
Step Six: Confront the Trade-Offs Module Narrative
Learning Objectives for this Module
Define and distinguish between “alternatives” and “outcomes” to explain why outcomes are most important when considering trade-
offs
Explain the concept of “dominance” in alternatives and trade-offs
Explain the role of outcomes in helping to explore the value of various trade-offs in policy analysis and development
Define “commensurability” in policy analysis/development terms and relate to break-even analysis
Explain the importance of measurable outcomes to presenting trade-offs in policy development
Provide at least two examples of standardized measures and explain why they are important in establishing measurable comparisons for policy analysis
Explain the concept of “rank-ordering” and explain why it is important to policy analysis and development
Required Reading:
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Bardach & Patashnik, Pages 69 - 77; 132.
Personal Appearance Standards sub-module
Narrative:
We work in an area often considered to be “black and white,” where decision-making rules are very clear. In the world of policy making and analysis, this is often not the case. We know it is not the case in criminal justice, given the range of discretionary decisions that must be made in the course of doing business. There are trade-offs associated with every decision
we make, especially at the policy level.
Bardach and Patashnik provide an example of a trade-off that might need to be made by a policing agency regarding whether to invest money into more patrol cards (toys for the boys?) or personnel to deter burglaries. This is an instructive example because it allows us to start to pull several lines of your educational experience with us together.
One of the first is their admonition not to confuse alternatives with outcomes. They key question the analyst needs to address at this point is – what is the problem you want to address, and what is the outcome that you want to achieve? From the methods course to the organizations course, I teach that “outcomes” are specific, measurable changes we want to see following some course of intervention. In the specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-phased (SMART) approach, outcomes may be achieved over different time frames. The key is that a reasonable observer can tell that the outcome was achieved – observable. In their example, how many burglaries would be averted/avoided/deterred if we put more feet on the ground versus butts in car seats?
Another line that comes into play is the way in which you measure the outcome. I have to say that the example they use may not make sense if you
are just starting out in the CJ world. But, as you move upward through management and leadership positions, knowing how to measure outcomes is
going to become increasingly important. This is especially true when you go seeking additional funding or have to justify why you need the funding you already receive. In their example, they attach a cost figure to each burglary. At some point you will need to be able to express the difference between proposed policies and their outcomes in similar terms.
There are some standardized ways to measure the impact of crime and assign monetary values to crimes averted. They are often found at organizations such as OPPAGA or other state-level policy bodies. I will argue that CJ has not been as active as public health in this regard. So, let me share two standardized measures of health impact that are often used to explore (and justify) health policy considerations.
The first of these is known as a QALY:
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
“Quality adjusted life year (QALY): A year of life adjusted for its quality or its value. A year in perfect health is considered equal to 1.0 QALY. The value of a year in ill health would be discounted. For example, a year bedridden might have a value equal to 0.5 QALY.”
The second is known as a DALY:
“Disability-adjusted life year (DALY): An estimate of how much a burden a disease poses to public health. The estimate includes the number of early deaths caused by the disease relative to the average life expectancy of a population and the severity and duration of the functional losses the disease causes in those who survive with it” (Medical Dictionary, © 2009 Farlex and Partners).
My friends at the Bureau of Justice Statistics and some health researchers have begun to examine the impact of incarceration on QALY and DALY outcomes. So, what would be the policy implications of a finding that incarceration for a period of less than six months is more costly in terms of QALYs than no incarceration (e.g., probation)? That was a question policymakers in Western Australia grappled with back in the late 1990s before deciding that short sentences of incarceration were more socially disruptive than producing any positive impact. Can you imagine such an analysis here? Well, yes; the current debates about bail/bond
going on around the nation are good examples of something similar
, especially the role of commercial bonding, . By the way, how many states allow commercial bail bonds? How many nations besides the US?
Bardach and Patashnik also give you a great brief discussion of the tricky issues encountered in developing these “average” sorts of measures and applying them to the policymaking process. The best of these “average” approaches necessarily ignores the variation across the population from which the average was taken. As a local example, what is the “real” value of being falsely convicted and sentenced to prison time? Florida law puts a cap of $2 million on a false conviction (
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?
App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0961/Sections/0961.06.html
(L
inks to an external site.)
). Would you find that an acceptable amount?
A brief word on the use of the term “commensurability” in the Bardach and Patashnik text (Pp. 66-67). I am curious why they didn’t define the term for you, especially as it can have multiple meanings depending upon one’s disciplinary home. If you go back to the base term “commensurate,” you will find it means something like proportional. For our purposes here, the key definition is the use of a common measure; we sometimes call these “standards.” So, as you read that section, think about what sorts of common measures you can use if you find yourself analyzing/developing policies that involve trade-offs.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
For those of you who might go on to study the philosophy/sociology/history of science (and knowledge), you may run into “commensurability” as the idea that someone cannot hold competing ideas in their mind simultaneously
without too much dissonance. The classic example is a practitioner of science who is also a person of faith. Because these are sometimes set as oppositional ideas in academic writing, there are those who question how a scientist can be a person of faith ("incommensurability"). Some people can, some people can’t, some people can do a bit of both, but feel compelled to make a choice. Mirrors the first law of Sociology quite well! Now, when you get to mathematics and commensurability, my ability to explain things is very limited – but it has yet another meaning with some relation to what I’ve just outlined.
In the end, Bardach and Patashnik argue that the more quantifiable a policy analyst/developer can make their trade-off discussions, the better. I have to agree. We do often hear that “numbers/money talks” in policy discussions. While my experience tells me that this is more often the case than not, there
are exceptions where basic humanity will carry the day. A good policy analyst/developer learns to balance the beans with beneficence.
Once again, we see that there are moral issues in selecting among policy alternatives based on the outcomes we want to achieve. At the organizational level, one often finds pressure to develop and adopt a policy that reflects the moral and sometimes religious bias of powerful members of the organization.
One recent example from the jail world is the issue of tattoos and piercings allowed among recruits. I will attach an exemplar in this module. The basic question of what an agency would allow opened the conversation about what
such policies were attempting to achieve (the problem!), especially in a time when recruiting correctional officers is difficult. What is the trade-off for a non-gang tattoo showing on a forearm versus overtime because one can’t hire new recruits? What is the bias being conveyed by the policy?
Editorial comment: Want a job? Check correctional opportunities!
“Trade-offs” are important issues in policy analysis. Without knowledge of what various factions believed about the problem identified represented in both moral and fiscal terms, one’s analysis will be biased. Sometimes the powerful will carry the day; sometimes the analyst will provide acceptable balance among the various trade-offs that appear. It isn’t as easy as simply asking if a particular policy “fits” within an academic framework such as a theory.
Personal Appearance Policy
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
The following policy is provided for your information. The policy was provided by an out of state law enforcement agency and used with their permission. Keep in mind as you review it how many of your fellow students,
and especially our undergraduates, would be able to follow this policy? What
is the problem being addressed? How does this affect recruitment to an agency such as this?
Personal Appearance Standards
POLICY Employees present a professional appearance consistent with the expectations
of the City and County of ...
PURPOSE An individual’s image reflects both on the individual officer, as well as the
Department, and that image should be one of professionalism.
DEFINITIONS Branding: A mark, usually a symbol or ornamental pattern, is burned into the
skin, with the intention that the resulting scar makes it permanent.
Cutting: Th e intentional, direct injuring of body tissue, to permanently mark the
skin , with the intention that the resulting scar makes it permanent.
Tattoo: A form of body modification where a design is made by inserting ink,
dyes and pigments, either indelible or temporary, into the dermis layer of the
skin to change the pigment.
SOP None
1023.1 APPEARANCE STANDARDS - OFFICERS AND UNIFORMED ASSIGNMENTS
Officers maintain a professional, neat, clean, well-groomed personal appearance.
1023.1.1 HAIR
1. Hair color shall be natural or of a conservative color and have no unnatural
tones of
color.
2. Hair in the front shall not cover the officer’s eyes or obscure their vision.
3. The hair style shall not interfere with the proper wear of agency headgear,
nor protrude
onto the forehead below the band of properly worn headgear.
4. Hair shall be clean and neatly groomed and the bulk of the hair shall not be excessive or
present an unkempt or extreme appearance.
5. Extreme or faddish hairstyles are prohibited, including but not limited to styles that
incorporate designs or sculptures using the hair and/or cut into the hair (e.g.,
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
mohawks,
faux hawks, etc.), and any style that presents an unprofessional or disheveled
appearance.
6. For female officers, hair must not extend below the lowest point of the front collar of their
uniform shirt. Females with longer hair shall arrange it in a manner to keep it
up and
back. Styles such as "pigtails" and large bouffants are not acceptable.
7. For male officers, hair must not extend below the lowest point of the back of the collar of
their uniform shirt, as well as not over the ears. Male officers may not wear their hair in a
"ponytail", "rat tail", bun, braids, or other similar styles, nor have hair long enough to
wear in such styles.
1023.1.2 SIDEBURNS
Sideburns shall not extend below the bottom of the outer ear opening (the top of the earlobes)
and shall be trimmed and neat.
1023.1.3 FACIAL HAIR
1. Officers may have mustaches, mustaches with a goatee or a circle beard (a style where
the mustache and goatee connect).
2. Mustaches alone may not extend below the jawline.
3. Facial hair may not be grown in a manner that interferes with the proper deployment of a
gas mask.
4. Full beards are prohibited.
5. Extreme styles such as a Fu Manchu, handlebar, goatee without a mustache, or soul
patch (which is just a small patch or strip of hair just below the lower lip) are prohibited.
1023.1.4 JEWELRY AND ACCESSORIES
1. Traditional watches, rings, necklaces, and bracelets may be worn. The Department
prohibits the wearing of jewelry that detracts from a professional image or presents a
safety hazard. Officers can wear:
a. Up to two rings on each hand.
b. One necklace, worn under the uniform undershirt.
c. One bracelet on each arm.
2. Officers may choose to have facial, ear, tongue, or other piercings. While on duty or in
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
uniform, they abstain from wearing any visible jewelry in those piercings, except that
female officers may wear up to two simple post earrings in each earlobe.
1023.1.5 BODY MODIFICATIONS (TATTOOS, BRANDING & CUTTING)
1. Visible tattoos, body art, cuttings, brandings, or other body modifications will not be of an
offensive nature. Considerations when determining if the markings are offensive will
include, but are not limited to, those that are obscene, sexually suggestive, profane, or
discriminatory towards persons on the basis of their race, color, national origin, ancestry,
religion or creed, age, sex, or disability or advocate or symbolize gang or extremist
groups.
2. The Chief of Police or his designee will determine if a visible tattoo, body art, cutting,
branding, or other body modification is offensive and must be covered by the
employee’s
uniform or business dress while on duty. When possible, officers are encouraged to get
pre-approval of any visible tattoo, body art, cuttings, branding, or other body
modifications to ensure that it will not be deemed as offensive and thus be required to be
covered.
3. Officers may not have any tattoos, body art, cuttings, branding, or other body
modifications on their head, face, neck, scalp, or hands unless authorized by the Chief or
his designee due to special circumstances. Visible tattoos, body art, cuttings,
branding,
or other body modifications must be limited to the area from the end of a short sleeve
shirt to the wrist or the end of approved bike shorts to the ankle.
4. Visible tattoos shall not be excessive in size (generally covering more than
30% of the
exposed body part).
5. Applicants for employment must disclose existing tattoos, body art, cuttings, branding, or
other body modifications that will be visible while wearing a police uniform. The
existence of tattoos, body art, cuttings, or other body modifications will not be a
consideration for declining any candidate a position. The candidate that has visible
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
tattoos, body art, cuttings, branding, or other body modification will be provided with a
copy of this policy and will be required to agree to abide by it should employment follow.
1023.2 APPEARANCE STANDARDS - NON-UNIFORMED EMPLOYEES
1. Employees performing non-uniformed assignments maintain a well-
groomed
professional personal appearance.
2. Non-uniformed employees comply with the same standards for hair and facial hair as
officers, although women's hair styles may be worn longer and men may have full
beards that are neat, clean, and well groomed.
Revision Dates: None
Quiz
4
Week 8 Page 1: “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future” Page 2: Local Exemplars of “small p” Policies
Page 3-24 = Textbook pages 49-69 and 131-132
Week 9
Page 25: Trading up, Off, Spaces & Places Page 26: Personal Appearance Policy
Page 27-36 = Textbook pages 69-77; 132 To
Do
Read pages above throughout Sunday and Monday-Saturday. Take Quiz 4 on Sunday night
o
Sunday: Quiz 4 x
Create an easy 1-page study guide of the 8 steps
List them all out with simple definitions and explanations
Make a separate pdf with a bunch of the semantic tips throughout the textbook
1 page of all the theories, pdf the excel spreadsheet into something printable or that fits
on one page- Strain/Anomie Theory Vocab
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Efficacious: (of something inanimate or abstract) successful in producing a desired or intended result; effective.
Start of Quiz 5. Steps 7: Stop, Focus, Narrow!” Pg 77-84
Step Seven: Stop, Focus, Narrow, Deepen, Decide Module Narrative
Learning Objectives for this Module
Explain why it is important to ensure that at least one of your alternative policy options will be the best choice among all options, rather than leaving it to the client
List and explain why politics and institutional features of organizations are important to a suggested course of action
Explain why reflection on the alternative options you have developed is important
Explain the “$20 bill test” and how it helps prepare you to “sell” your analysis
Required Reading:
Bardach and Patashnik, Pages 77-84; 133.
Narrative:
Bardach and Patashnik are encouraging you to take a bit of a break from the policy analysis/development process and reflect before you start to tell the policy story. As an analogy, how many times have you been counseled to let an angry email sit overnight before you send it out? The idea here is somewhat similar.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
The other warning Bardach and Patashnik are giving is that sometimes we get too caught up in the process and lose sight of those outcomes we talked about last Module. It is not that hard to get enthused about the process, some of the tools (they note the outcomes matrix) and such and focus more on technical sophistication than the outcome you are supposed to address.
To use the text of an old poster that hung in many government offices, “when you’re up to you’re a** (neck) in alligators, it is sometimes difficult to remember you came to drain the swamp.” Now, as a native Floridian, I always thought that was a terrible saying – apparently a great many developers did not…
The point is that by the time we are about to reveal our recommendations, we are often diverted by the shiny objects of new statistical techniques, new cost models, etc. It means we should step back, look at the original problem that brought us here, and re-focus before we get lost in all that glitter and shiny stuff.
I will argue that is what most academic policy “research” really is – the application of a new shiny theory or statistical analysis tool.
As they note, you should apply their two techniques before moving to the final phase. Can you convince yourself the policy options you think are best will pass the “sniff/laugh/etc.” test? If you can’t, forget those fancy new statistical models and go back to the basics. And, if your idea is so good, why
hasn’t anyone tried it before? Granted, you are so smart and so clever that others may not have thought of it before… (did that pass the laugh test?).
This may be a brief section of the text, but it is of vital importance. Keep your policy analysis eye on the problem and assess coldly the alternatives you are suggesting against the outcomes to be achieved by the policy alternative adopted. It may not be your choice in the end, but you are framing the choices for the policymakers.
No pressure…
Step 8: Pulling It Together -
Week 11
Step Eight: Tell Your Story Module Narrative
Learning Objectives for this Module
List the steps recommended before providing your final policy “story”
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Explain the need to be able to explain your policy recommendation in “sufficiently simple and down-to-earth-terms”
Explain the need to “know your audience” when explaining your policy recommendation
Explain the considerations for figuring out what communication medium works best with your audience (if you have an option)
Explain the relationship between motivating your audience and the frame of reference for policy
List and explain the “common pitfalls” to avoid when developing your policy presentation
Discuss the pros and cons of using data tables in policy recommendation presentations
Explain the key role of the analyst, as opposed to the analysis presented
Required Reading:
Bardach and Patashnik, Pages 84-93.
Narrative
One of the reasons I chose this text was its practical nature. Step Eight exemplifies this. There are multiple references to why the analyst does not write or present like an academic might for a journal article or at an academic conference. That does not mean you won’t use the same tools and
knowledge you learn as part of the academic experience! It does mean that you have to take the time to learn how to make your presentation sensible to
those who will have to vote on a policy and those who will need to implement and govern by the policy. I would add that it should be equally understandable to those upon whom it will be enforced.
Let me illustrate a couple of items with examples from my own career (nigh on 40 years now… spoken in old man creaky voice). We generally ask you to write an “abstract” for papers in the academic world. The varieties of abstract formats vary across disciplines, but generally focus on problem statement, method, key findings and implications written for an academic audience. One of the first skills I learned as an planner/evaluator (what Florida called policy analysts back in the early 1980s, at least in the CJS), was to write an “Executive Summary.”
The Executive Summary has a great deal in common with an abstract. However, it is generally written in a much less stuffy style, using simple language to explain what the issue was, what you did, what you found, and the implications of your findings for the problem at hand. An Executive Summary can range from one page to longer, depending on the complexity of the report it accompanies. You are not likely to see an Executive Summary
of more than 20 pages for a major report. As a fed, I had to keep my Executive Summary written at a fifth-grade reading level; yes, 5
th
grade.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
My first boss at the Administrative Office of the Courts was a journalism graduate who had worked in state government for nearly 20 years when I joined the Court Services Division. One day when he brought back an Executive Summary I was writing dripping in red ink, I got frustrated. I said something to the effect that legislators weren’t all dummies, so why did I need to make it simpler? His response was an important moment for someone who had left the academic world about a year earlier: no, they aren’t all dummies, but they were people who had a great deal of information cross their desk every day. If they had to read something twice, they probably wouldn’t. They would toss it aside and move to the next item. This leads a bit into the “know your audience” discussion because you need to understand that different “targets” for your analysis will react to the complexity of your analysis in different ways. If they aren’t academics, they are unlikely to be insulted by simple language that allows them to read and comprehend your message quickly. You are lucky if someone other than the staffers read beyond the Executive Summary, so craft it well.
In the summer of 2019 I returned to the CDC as an evaluator for a program funded by my old group, the Division of Violence Prevention. The young people who did the presentation, and have probably never done an evaluation of their own, spent a great deal of energy on "telling your story." Apparently it has taken root in some schools of public health. So, perhaps this is a good skill to begin to develop for job purposes - just be sure you are telling a true story!
The other early experience my boss gave me involved knowing your audience for the presentation of your analysis. We were asked to provide testimony before a state Senate committee about some juvenile justice issue
(we were the Florida Juvenile Justice Institute, after all). I spent weeks preparing that testimony. In those days graphics presentations were made on overhead sheets that required a special printer and printing process. I had
to go to another agency to find one of those printers! The morning of the presentation came along. I had practiced to get my presentation down to a simple 15-minute presentation with minimal overhead switching. It went well, and the Senator who requested it gave me the thumbs-up.
I was followed on the stand by a maybe 25 year-old Junior Leaguer from Miami dressed in her best Nancy Reagan Adolfo suit (Google those). About a moment into her testimony, my boss nudged me and said to watch the old men on the Committee. They were focused on her much more than they had been on my graphs. When her bottom lip began to quiver as she told her story about the youths she worked with in Liberty City, he nudged me again. When the first tears rolled down her cheek and the old men on the Committee rushed to provide a tissue, he looked at me and said – they’ve forgotten everything you said. Probably true, but it was their staffers to whom my information mattered – know your real audience, not just where you present!
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
The advice given on pages 90-92 about structure and formatting are useful as you start to put your final paper together, so do pay some attention. One of the areas on referencing that may be changing, especially for those of you
early in your career development, is the way in which referencing is done. One of my students several years ago told me that the reports he wrote as a military officer no longer included a bibliography. Instead, everything that required a reference was now a “hot link” to the website where the information could be found. I don’t know how soon that will become a standard for anything submitted electronically but keep that development in mind.
For our purposes, however, I expect a bibliography in APA 6.X or 7.X format!
Exploring Policy Software in CJ - Week 13
Module 11: Technological Applications in Policy Development, Maintenance, Compliance and Change
Required Activities:
Read narrative
Explore the websites/products in the Resources section
Complete the Assignment
Learning Objectives:
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Identify and discuss five (5) key areas that policy software utilization seeks to address;
Explain how policy changes are shared with employees and the public;
Discuss the effect size of a department might have on the utilization
of software for policy;
Explain the linkages between policy and human resources functions
of software;
Explain the linkages between policy, accreditation, and standards;
Explain how such software might help in legal proceedings.
Narrative:
One of the graduates of the Masters program in Public Administration observed that anyone who moves beyond a front-line position, and many on front-line, will be involved in the policy development process in criminal justice agencies. This is a great example of what we might call a “small p” policy function. Now that we have explored the policy analysis and development process, especially the “big P” area, we want to turn to how such policies are maintained, how compliance is achieved, and how change is planned and/or occurs.
Because I believe technological innovation is an important part of criminal justice, I want to introduce you to some of the technologies available on the public market that assist agencies in the policy process, from the problem to quality improvement. The growing role of software in the policy maintenance and compliance processes, including training, standards, and accreditation, is something I think receives far too little attention in our programs. My hope is that I can first expose you to some of the currently available products out there; and, then have you experience an exercise in decision-making about how you might go about making a selection of a product for your agency.
For our purposes, I want to suggest that policy software programs seek to address at least five areas and related sub-areas. These are:
Policy development
o
Promulgation/Announcing
Policy implementation
Training regarding policies, including
o
Meeting standards
o
Achieving accreditation
Compliance monitoring
“CYA” or law-suit resistance
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
We will cover each of these in the narrative, though not in this order. This will prepare you to complete the final assignment for the course (insert link to Assignments page).
Around a decade ago, when I was occasionally a part of an assessment team doing accreditation audits of correctional health in prisons, occasionally my job would entail reviewing policy manuals in the facilities. When I was department chair five – seven years ago, the university still used paper files for policy documents. So, in my mind, policies are still held in those big binders on a shelf in an office. Boy, have I been out of it for a while!
Promulgation
Even at the university level, how policies are promulgated (openly/publicly announced), maintained, and compliance tracked (well, at least the existence of the policy recorded), has changed over the 12 years I have been
here. For example, all official UCF policies are housed at the following location:
https://www.policies.ucf.edu/
Links to an external site.
(you may remember that site from earlier in the course). At least the COVID-19 policies are easy to locate! Otherwise, I do not recommend this as a great way to structure a website with policy information (but, hey, I just work here…).
When a policy is developed at UCF, the central administration sends out an email to all employees or affected categories of individuals to announce the policy and its location. Now, we know how little academics pay to emails that come from the administration, so if there is a policy that has implications for federal funding, there is also often a requirement that faculty
or staff complete at least a check-off on a survey form to acknowledge they are aware of the policy. Sometimes there is more extensive training associated with the announcement. There may be a quiz that requires faculty to achieve a certain percentage of correct answers before they are acknowledged as understanding the policy. See, you are rarely finished with quizzes if you work for a government agency! These sorts of policies often relate to student confidentiality, equal opportunity, harassment, and such. Ignorance of the policy is no excuse!
Gone are the annual printed hand-outs of new policies; sort of like how we have moved almost all testing on-line… If you want to know something about a policy, you can now access the policies website and take a look for yourself on-line. If policies are revised, an announcement may be sent out. This is particularly true if violation of the policy might affect federal funding! Often, however, the university community is not advised of policies that are removed.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Moving into the Current Criminal Justice World
Now, some of you who are working in larger agencies may be smiling because you know that the days of the binder on the wall are long gone…
Some of you who work in smaller agencies may be looking at the binders on the wall… Some of you who have not worked in the field or work for other types of small agencies may be wondering what the fuss is all about!? The variation in size of local law enforcement agencies (
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd16p.pdf
(Links to an external site.)
) and county-level correctional facilities (
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ji18.pdf
(Links to an external site.)
) will likely have an impact on whether policies are maintained in a web-based application or binders on the shelf. Right now, there is probably great variation across the nation in terms of how policies are maintained, compliance recorded, and the process of change handled.
I will “pick on” the Orlando Police Department (OPD) for a local exemplar of how policies are now promulgated (distributed/published) and maintained. Although OPD uses one of the products listed for you to review internally, they currently have to promulgate their policies via the City government website (
https://www.orlando.gov/Our-Government/Departments-Offices/Orlando-
Police-Department/Policies-and-Procedures
(Links to an external site.)
).
Development and Implementation
As described to me by OPD staff, there is a special process for developing new policies. Once the policies have been developed and achieved approval by a hierarchy of approval agents, including the Union and ending with the Chief, the policy is promulgated via the internal system. All employees (at least those affected by the policy) are notified of the new policy and its location via email. If there is a compliance element involved, then directions
for training and/or evidence of knowledge of the policy is included in the email. Once training has been completed, the evidence of the employee’s acknowledgement of the policy and/or training is also recorded in the system
for purposes of accreditation or compliance certification.
Many of you may think of OPD as a “large” policing agency, at 700 sworn offices and 100 staff. Returning to the BJS data reported by Hyland and Davis (2019 – above), around three percent (3%) of all policing agencies employ 52% of full-time sworn officers (and generally serve populations greater than 100,000 residents). That places OPD in the second group of policing agencies, representing less than one-half of one percent (0.4%) of all policing agencies at local or county level.
So, yes, OPD is a large policing
agency! Looking at the number of policies listed for OPD, you may begin to
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
understand why using automated policy software is important for larger agencies. OPD, like many of the large policing agencies has a staff of full-
time attorneys who are involved in the policy development process.
I note the attorneys on the OPD staff because since because most policing agencies are small it is unlikely that those smaller agencies will be able to afford a stable of full-time attorneys dedicated to the policy development, implementation and compliance tracking processes. And, no, it is not the job
of the State/District Attorney to provide those services to local policing agencies. What is a smaller department to do?
In the first parts of this course we addressed the policy development process. Here we are dealing with what those of you who have completed the CJ Organizations (CCJ 6118) with Dr. Humiston or me will recognize as the “policy environment” in which agencies exist. As there are changes in the “big P” policy environment at federal, state, or local levels, organizational policies may require changing. Given that most local policing and/or correctional agencies are not going to have dedicated attorneys who track changes in legislation, draft policies to adapt to those changes, or have
a compliance staff to ensure training and compliance tracking, what is a small agency to do?
Some of the products you will be reviewing offer a service to track legislative
and regulatory changes at the federal- or state-level and provide model policies for their client agencies. Many of these will likely be more human resources-oriented policies and procedures. The key point is that there are software vendors out there who will sell a range of policy-related services. How good those “canned” policies are for “CYA” purposes relative to agency-
generated policies is open to question.
Acknowledgement/Training
Just because an organization promulgates its policies does not mean that the
employees will pay attention to the policy. As noted earlier, many organizations now require a “sign-off” as a minimal acknowledgement that the employee is aware of new or changed policies. In some instances, the organization may include a “quiz” of some sort to assess the employee’s understanding of the policy – note this does not require an agreement – merely understanding. We live in a democratic society; we rarely work in an organization that practices democracy! Often times the “quiz” may require that the employee score at a certain level – I believe most of ours are at the 80% level – before their knowledge of the policy is accepted.
Some of the software packages you will review offer a tracking service for these quiz scores. In addition, they will also keep track of the variety of trainings the employee receives as part of their employment requirements and outside education such as your degree attainment. If there are required
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
trainings to maintain certification, or there are levels of training across the agency required for accreditation or standards compliance, the software can track those for the agency. Where there are deficiencies, a report can be generated in order to take steps to come back into compliance with the accreditation or standard.
Compliance Monitoring
Compliance as we use the term in organizations is generally tied to a standard, certification requirement, or some outside regulatory or legal requirement for the organization. One of the functions of the compliance officer – often the accreditation manager in CJ organizations – is to maintain records that can be used to achieve accreditation or certification for the organization. I hope you can begin to see how policies, regulations, standards for accreditation and certification are tied together.
Compliance must be monitored. Some of the tracking functions we mentioned in the previous segment apply here. When individual employees are out of compliance, notices of non-compliance can be generated, procedures to bring the person back into compliance developed, and satisfaction of those procedures tracked to bring the individual back into compliance. The same can be applied at the unit or organization levels, as well.
Compliance with policies has important functions for the organization itself, and the ways in which it can present itself to the larger environment in which
it exists, especially the community it serves. Just as universities have developed complex compliance programs – and the administrative staff to perform them – in order to retain access to federal funding (this means our FIRPA and research ethics training, for example), CJ organizations must remain in compliance with a variety of policies, regulations and laws to receive federal and other funding. We do not pay a great deal of attention to
this increasingly important function in CJ organizations in academia. Yet the compliance function and its importance to our organizations has grown in complexity and importance over the past few decades. For many of you there may be a compliance officer role in your future!
CYA and Law-Suit Resistance
In our CJ Organizations text (2017), Dr. Humiston and I write about how some
accrediting organizations market their accreditation processes and certifications. One of the “selling points” they use is the likelihood that, by adhering to the voluntary consensus standards of the industrial sector, you are telling a judge you are compliant with the best practices (some even evidence-based!) of your sector. This is likely to influence the hearing officer/judge to treat you more leniently in a legal proceeding.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
In short, if we are simply cynical, compliance is a “CYA” (not “see ya”) effort to make it appear that your organization practices the best policies and procedures of your industrial sector.
In the end, we hope that compliance and accreditation bring organizations into line with the best, or at least the minimal, practices of organizations in the criminal justice world. The increasingly complex world of policy and regulation that apply to the CJ environment mean that software applications will probably play an increasingly important role in the policy process in CJ organizations. It is just another example of how leaders in the CJ environment need to understand and master as much of the technology applications that surround you.
Key Words:
Promulgate: Promote or make widely known (an idea or cause).
Accreditation
: the action or process of officially recognizing someone as having a particular status or being qualified to perform a particular activity.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Related Documents
Recommended textbooks for you
Social Psychology (10th Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:9780134641287
Author:Elliot Aronson, Timothy D. Wilson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers
Publisher:Pearson College Div
Introduction to Sociology (Eleventh Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:9780393639407
Author:Deborah Carr, Anthony Giddens, Mitchell Duneier, Richard P. Appelbaum
Publisher:W. W. Norton & Company
The Basics of Social Research (MindTap Course Lis...
Sociology
ISBN:9781305503076
Author:Earl R. Babbie
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Scien...
Sociology
ISBN:9780134477596
Author:Saferstein, Richard
Publisher:PEARSON
Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach (13th Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:9780134205571
Author:James M. Henslin
Publisher:PEARSON
Society: The Basics (14th Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:9780134206325
Author:John J. Macionis
Publisher:PEARSON
Recommended textbooks for you
- Social Psychology (10th Edition)SociologyISBN:9780134641287Author:Elliot Aronson, Timothy D. Wilson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. SommersPublisher:Pearson College DivIntroduction to Sociology (Eleventh Edition)SociologyISBN:9780393639407Author:Deborah Carr, Anthony Giddens, Mitchell Duneier, Richard P. AppelbaumPublisher:W. W. Norton & CompanyThe Basics of Social Research (MindTap Course Lis...SociologyISBN:9781305503076Author:Earl R. BabbiePublisher:Cengage Learning
- Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Scien...SociologyISBN:9780134477596Author:Saferstein, RichardPublisher:PEARSONSociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach (13th Edition)SociologyISBN:9780134205571Author:James M. HenslinPublisher:PEARSONSociety: The Basics (14th Edition)SociologyISBN:9780134206325Author:John J. MacionisPublisher:PEARSON
Social Psychology (10th Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:9780134641287
Author:Elliot Aronson, Timothy D. Wilson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers
Publisher:Pearson College Div
Introduction to Sociology (Eleventh Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:9780393639407
Author:Deborah Carr, Anthony Giddens, Mitchell Duneier, Richard P. Appelbaum
Publisher:W. W. Norton & Company
The Basics of Social Research (MindTap Course Lis...
Sociology
ISBN:9781305503076
Author:Earl R. Babbie
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Scien...
Sociology
ISBN:9780134477596
Author:Saferstein, Richard
Publisher:PEARSON
Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach (13th Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:9780134205571
Author:James M. Henslin
Publisher:PEARSON
Society: The Basics (14th Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:9780134206325
Author:John J. Macionis
Publisher:PEARSON