Week 1.1

1.1 What Is Policy?

If one consults the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term “policy” includes definitions, such as the “prudence or wisdom in the management of affairs” and “a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). Policies are utilized throughout governments and organizations to facilitate and regulate action, guide the decision-making process and provide direction as the policy is implemented. While there have been a number of different theories and discussions about the policy development process, we can generally organize this process into six stages: (a) problem identification, (b) policy demands, (c) agenda formation, (d) policy adoption, (e) policy implementation, and (f) policy evaluation. Figure 1.1 showcases how these six stages work together in the development of policy. Before a policy can be developed, there must be an issue at hand. Issues can be identified by concerned citizens, the media, and advocacy groups, as well as by politicians. Issues in criminal justice might include rising crime rates, the need for drug and alcohol counseling in prisons, or concerns about the residency requirements for convicted sex offenders in the community. Once an issue is identified, there can be significant debate over the demands of the policy. What is the goal or objective of the policy? Is it to increase punishments? Is it to increase community safety? It is during this stage that the intent of the policy is put forward. Once this is decided, the agenda formation process begins. This is perhaps one of the most politicized stages in policy development as it involves a variety of different voices—from government officials to special interest groups and individuals who ultimately are affected by the policy—all of whom want to be heard. The next stage involves the adoption of the policy. Depending on the nature of the policy, this could involve the passage of new laws or the signing of executive orders. Upon completion of this stage, the cycle moves to policy implementation. Implementation is all about spending money—from hiring more officers, to increasing police presence in particular regions, to allocating funds to supervise offenders in the community. The ways in which a policy is implemented may differ significantly from the original intention of the authors of a policy. This can present significant challenges—perhaps the law as it was written was too vague, or there isn’t enough funding to effectively implement the policy, or there may be challenges to the policy that may stall or halt the implementation. Finally, the evaluation stage looks at the efficacy of the policy. Did the policy accomplish what it set out to do? What impact does the policy have (Cochran, Mayer, Carr, Cayer, & McKenzie, 2011)? Policy evaluation can be divided into two general categories: process evaluation and outcome evaluation. Process evaluation involves looking at the progression of the policy development experience. Are there areas where these methods could be improved or streamlined? If the implementation of the policy differs from the original intent (positively or negatively), how might this be resolved? In contrast, an outcome evaluation looks at the changes that occur as a result of the policy. For example, does the implementation of early intervention programming in elementary schools reduce the number of youth who are adjudicated delinquent in the juvenile court? It is important that both process and outcome evaluations are conducted in order to identify whether the policy produced a change (outcome) and why the change did or did not occur (process). Evaluation is perhaps the most important stage of policy development, but one that many suggest is overlooked and under-emphasized.

The Need for Criminal Justice Policy

Changes in criminal justice policy generally occur in response to a need or issue that faces the criminal justice system and society as a whole. Much of these needs are rooted in discussions about the levels of crime in society. Here, policy is seen as a way to deal with the presence of crime and the handling of offenders. The federal government has been an active player in the creation of crime control policies. Table 1.1 highlights some of the significant pieces of Federal legislation implemented by Congress over the past five decades. Throughout this text, you are exposed to several of these different pieces of legislation and how the implementation of these policies affected the management of our criminal justice system. Given the high level of policy implementation related to criminal justice issues, one might be led to believe that crime rates have spiraled out of control. After all, we have more police officers on the streets, our prisons are overcrowded, and we spend billions of dollars nationwide supporting the enterprise of criminal justice. In 2012, the Department of Justice’s budget included 28.2 billion dollars in discretionary funding (U.S. Department of Justice, 2012).

Yet with all these policies designed to respond to crime and punish offenders, what impact has this had on our crime rates? A review of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report finds that crime across the nation decreased over the past twenty years. In 1992, the violent crime rate was 757.7 per 100,000 individuals. In 2011, the crime rate was 386.3, a 49% decrease. In 1992, the property crime rate was 4,903.7 compared to 2,908.7 in 2011 (FBI, 2012). It is certainly possible that the criminal justice policies implemented over the past twenty years may have contributed to these lower crime rates. After all, such policies created interventions for at-risk and low level offenders, increased screening tools for risk assessment, provided funds for more officers on the streets, and increased prison capacities. Despite the fact that the rate of crimes known to law enforcement significantly decreased, our prison population has increased over 500% nationwide since the 1980’s (which is when many of the “tough on crime” policies were first passed). Figure 1.2 demonstrates this trend. For example, the federal incarceration rate in 2000 was 44 (per 100,000 residents) and increased to 63 by 2010 (an average of 3% increase annually). State prisons also increased, though not at such a dramatic rate (426 per 100,000 in 2000, compared to 429 per 100,000 in 2010, an average of 0.3% increase annually) (Carson & Sabol, 2012). The impact of many of these policies had detrimental effects for certain populations. Drug offenders make up the majority of the incarcerated population in Federal prisons and their length of sentences for these crimes accounted for one-third of the prison growth between 1998 and 2010 (Mallik-Kane, Parthasarathy, & Adams, 2012). Much of this growth can be associated with the use of mandatory minimum sentencing for drugs, which you learn more about in Chapter 8 of this text. Trends in the disproportionate minority confinement are also present, as the rate of white male incarceration in 2011 was 478 (per 100,000), while the rate of African American male incarceration was 3,023, and the rate for Hispanic males was 1,238. Similar patterns exist for female incarceration rates where 51 (per 100,000) of incarcerated women are white, compared to rates of African American (129) and Hispanic (71) females, respectfully (Carson & Sabol, 2012).

Figure 1.1 Incarcerated Americans 1920–2006

figure

Sources: Justice Policy Institute Report: The Punishing Decade, & U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin NCJ 219416 - Prisoners in 2006.

Table 1.1 Examples of Federal Criminal Justice Policies

Controlled Substances Act (Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970) – Regulated the manufacturing, importation, possession, and use of controlled substances (both legal and illegal).

Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 – Regulates the over-the-counter sale of medicinal products containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine (products typically found in cold medications and used to manufacture methamphetamine).

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 – Enacted mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession.

Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 – Changed the sentencing ratio between crack cocaine and powder cocaine to 1 to 18 (previously a 1 to 100 ratio).

Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (Comprehensive Crime Control Act) – Created sentencing structure for Federal offenses, established the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and abolished Federal parole.

Sex Offender (Jacob Wetterling) Act of 1994 – Requires convicted sex offenders to notify policy of changes to residency and employment status.

Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 – Organizes sex offenders into a 3- tier system and mandates timelines for registration based on tier. Creates a national sex offender registry and provides for the civil commitment for sexually dangerous persons.

U.S. Patriot Act (2001) – Expanded the power of police agencies to gather intelligence data on terrorism suspects, and broadened discretionary powers to detain and deport immigrants suspected of terrorism.

Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 – Enhanced criminal punishments for Federal fraud laws, including mortgage fraud, securities fraud, commodities fraud, and fraud by financial institutions.

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 – Deinstitutionalized status offenders, provided for separation from youth and adult inmates, and required the states to review disproportionate minority confinement. Created the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and the National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (NIJJDP). Reauthorized six times (1977, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, and 2002) with additional provisions, such as addressing gender bias, an emphasis on prevention and treatment, family strengthening, graduate sanctions, risk and needs assessments, and funding provisions.

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 – Largest crime bill in history. Includes:

Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (banned the manufacturing of all fully automatic firearms and selected semi-automatic firearms, as well as high capacity ammunition magazines) Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 (increased the number of federal crimes that are eligible for the death penalty) Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (provided funding for the prosecution of offenders of crimes of domestic violence, imposed mandatory restitution, and created opportunities for civil remedies for victims. Reauthorized in 2000 and 2005) Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program of 2000 (provided funding to implement community policing programs in jurisdictions nationwide)

1

1.1 What Is Policy?

download

Available Content

DOC Why_there_are_no_downloads

11/14/18, 11'53 PM Page 1 of 1