Week 1.2

3.1 What Is Bureaucracy?

The study of modern organizations is usually traced back to Max Weber’s work on bureaucracy at the turn of the 20th century. Bureaucracy can be defined as the structure and rules that allow large organizations to pursue their missions and goals, and is indicative of any sizable organization—from the Walt Disney Corporation, to the university, to government agencies. Weber was writing as the industrial revolution was underway, and he recognized that all organizations would grow in size and become more formally structured as society became more complex; not surprisingly, public organizations like police agencies, corrections departments, and the court system all exhibit this formalization and complexity (Weber, 1964). While the study of bureaucracy has advanced well beyond Weber, many of the basic characteristics that he identified nearly 100 years ago remain important components of modern organizational structures, including specialization and division of labor, hierarchy, formal rules and neutrality.

In criminal justice agencies, specialization and division of labor are obvious. The courts have judges, prosecuting and defense attorneys, and bailiffs; all these positions necessitating specific education, training, and experience requirements, and each plays a very different role in the courtroom. Police departments have officers, detectives, police captains and chiefs of police, and while all may have had to go through the police academy at one point, their titles connote a clear division of labor within their departments. The example of a police department also illustrates the hierarchical nature of bureaucracy with police officers stationed at the lowest ranks, followed by detectives, sergeants, lieutenants, captains, and chiefs. As with many bureaucratic organizations, in a police department there are distinct career ranks that one may attain over the course of a career. These characteristics are important for the maintenance of professionalism and discipline as street-level bureaucrats carry out public policy. Of course, there are many formal rules which dictate operations of employees of the criminal justice system, including those guaranteeing rights to citizens by the U.S. and state constitutions as well as federal and state statutes and agency specific requirements. For example, parole and probation officers operate under a host of regulations regarding their legal and procedural duties when implementing their agency’s policies. Under the protocols found in Megan’s Laws (specifically, those regarding sex offenders released from incarceration), parole officers in many states have experienced an expansion of responsibilities for monitoring and supervising parolees, for life.

Finally, while the courts and probation and parole offices are fairly standard public sector bureaucracies, police agencies and corrections departments have the distinction of being quasi-military organizations, which affects the way their officers implement policy. These agencies are characterized by fairly rigid hierarchies and authoritarian command structures designed to ensure that strict discipline is maintained in emergency situations where rapid mobilization is required. For example, the academy experience for police and corrections officers is designed to socialize them to accept this hierarchical structure and instill in them a loyalty and dedication to their profession (Jermier & Berkes, 1979).

On the other hand, the nature of street-level bureaucracy is such that formal bureaucratic structures are infused with informal organizational cultures (Brehm & Gates, 1997; Jenness & Grattet, 2005; Jermier, Slocum, Fry, & Gaines, 1991). Culture in an organization describes all of the characteristics that help the organization to function—from uniforms and oaths, to celebrations and rites of passage; organizational culture is often described as “how we do things around here.” A high level of loyalty to one another and to their profession is a unique aspect of policing, and is considered an important part of the police culture as loyalty helps officers maneuver through the complex, often dangerous landscape of police work (Carlson, 2005). As explained by Robert Jackall (2005),

Police guard a social order that they had little hand in forming. Even when they give voice to the plight of victims who can no longer speak for themselves, or rush into ugliness and danger from which others flee, their efforts become subject to an endless, concerted public acrimony over what kind of social order shall prevail. Their beleaguerment helps shape a remarkable occupational solidarity that binds them one to another. (p. 19)

These same aspects of the police culture can produce problems, when their loyalty to one another leads them to ignore instances of misconduct or citizen abuse, an issue taken up later in this chapter (Carlson, 2005; Greene, 2007).

Another pertinent characteristic of bureaucracy that Max Weber described is its impersonal nature. The size and complexity of modern society and organizations make it impractical for bureaucrats to become closely tied to the people they serve; thus, as they implement public policies they are supposed to be neutral toward citizens. This is particularly important with criminal justice policy because our system expects fairness and equal treatment under the law. Of course, in practice this means that a couple celebrating with champagne their 25th wedding anniversary in the park where they were married is equally at risk of being fined for an “open alcohol” violation as a homeless person drinking a bottle of Boone’s Farm from a paper bag in that same park (Carlson, 2005). As we know, however, law enforcement is often implemented with a fair degree of bureaucratic discretion and while equally engaged in illegal behavior, the individuals in the two scenarios just described may experience different treatment from the police. This high level of discretion over policies implemented by street- level bureaucrats is a factor that becomes increasingly important as we examine work at the front lines of the criminal justice system (Jermier et al., 1991; Lipsky, 2010; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003).

3.1 What is Bureaucracy?

11/14/18, 11'59 PM Page 1 of 1