Week 1.2

3.3 Implications for the Criminal Justice System

Policy implementation is never easy. Laws are often vague, goals can be difficult to reach and may conflict with one another, resources are usually insufficient to meet public need, and success is often in the eye of the beholder as public values are prioritized differently by different constituencies. In the policy area of criminal justice, these difficulties can be magnified. Policy implementation in the criminal justice system is frequently mundane, as when performing the routine procedures of every day administration; policy implementation is often difficult; for example, in no other policy area is it more important to ensure due process and equal protection under the law. And policy implementation is occasionally dangerous, serving clients that often exist at the margins of society. Jackall writes that the police agencies, district attorneys’ offices, and courthouses of the criminal justice system are “a world of splintered jurisdictions and scattered information, intense competition for prestige, vying hierarchies, and arcane, hair-splitting distinctions. These bureaucratic behemoths fracture authority and knowledge and make absurdity the constant bedfellow of rationality” (2005, p. 18). The street-level bureaucrats of the criminal justice system navigate this difficult environment by relying on standard rules and procedures, but the unique circumstances of individual citizens often require making judgments, exercising discretion, and developing shortcuts in order to process their large, complex workloads (Lipsky, 2010).

While some worry that street-level bureaucrats simply use their autonomy and discretion to wield excessive power over defenseless citizens, flouting agency procedures, and ignoring policy mandates at will, it must be remembered that there are a number of constraints on bureaucratic misbehavior. These include basic rules and procedures that must be followed, supervisor evaluations of performance, and sanctions for underperformance. Constraints also exist in the form of oversight from legislative committees and the courts. As discussed at the start of this chapter, even though the Supreme Court ruled that “show me your papers” is constitutional, they left open the possibility that if the ruling is implemented by police in a manner that violates civil rights, then the court could take another look at the law’s constitutionality. Client feedback is another source of bureaucratic restraint and citizen complaints can be taken very seriously, especially when agencies have formal grievance procedures. Similarly, civilian oversight commissions are growing in popularity as a way to hold police agencies accountable to the public, and while not perfect, represent an important step forward in shedding light on the often insular practices of police work (Greene, 2007; Wells & Schafer, 2007). The media and other watchdog groups also act to constrain misconduct in the criminal justice field. One such example is The Sentencing Project, a nonprofit organization founded in 1986 to provide training to defense attorneys and to help reduce incarceration rates in the United States. Since that time, the organization has become a strong voice for research and advocacy to create a more just and fair criminal justice system.

Other factors constraining bureaucratic behavior are the professional norms and codes of conduct for those working in the field of criminal justice. Attorneys and judges who fail to uphold appropriate legal standards or who engage in unethical behavior can be disbarred from the profession, for example. Appropriate peer behavior and a positive organizational culture are also important in keeping street-level bureaucrats accountable to their agencies and the public, as evidenced in Brehm and Gates’ (1997) work. Finally, public service motivation, which attracts individuals to the public sector in the first place, often leads street- level bureaucrats to view public service as a noble calling and to dedicate themselves to it, thereby reducing the odds of either shirking or sabotage.

Given the wide range of difficulties inherent in the work of street-level bureaucracy, and beyond the rules and monitoring, an intrinsic feeling of professionalism and dedication to public service drive most of those employed in the courts, prisons, and parole and police departments to implement public policy to the best of their abilities. As Brehm and Gates (1997) concluded, street-level bureaucracy does not work because of principal-agent relationships, rather, bureaucracy works because public servants act as “principled agents” as they implement the public policies for which they are responsible.

KEY TERMS

Bureaucracy

Citizen-agent narrative

Discretion

Law-in-action

Law-on-the-books

Organizational cultures

Participatory accountability

Policy implementation

Political accountability

Principal-agent theory

Professional accountability

Quasi-military organization

Sabotage

Shirking

State-agent narrative

Street-level bureaucrats

Street-level policy implementation

Street-level realism

Transparency

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Street-level bureaucrats in the criminal justice system share a variety of characteristics, including direct citizen interaction, bureaucratic discretion, autonomy, inadequate resources, excessive demand for services, vague and difficult to measure work goals, clients who are involuntary involved with the system, and work that is subject to public accountability. How do these characteristics affect the work of those on the front lines of the criminal justice system, both for better and for worse?

2. Many aspects of bureaucracy constrain the work of those in the criminal justice system, including specialization, division of labor, formal rules, regulations and the law: what is known as the “state-agent narrative.” At the same time, other aspects of their work, including professional experience, autonomy, and agency culture allow workers a greater degree of discretion: the “citizen-agent narrative.” Discuss the tensions between these two narratives. Is it more appropriate for these officials to follow the state-agent or the citizen-agent narrative when carrying out their work in the criminal justice system?

3. Accountability manifests itself in different ways for those working in the criminal justice system. The criminal justice worker is accountable to whom and why? Discuss the differences between top-down and bottom-up accountability. Which, in your opinion, is more important for street-level bureaucrats implementing policy in the criminal justice system?

WEBSITES FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH

History of Social Work: http://www.historyofsocialwork.org/eng/details.php?cps=17

RAND: http://www.rand.org/research_areas.html

American Society for Public Administration: http://www.aspanet.org/public/

NASPAA (National Schools of Public Affairs and Administration) Public Service Careers: http://www.publicservicecareers.org/

Partnership for Public Service: http://www.ourpublicservice.org/OPS/

Governing Magazine Online: http://www.governing.com/

3.3 Implications for the Criminal Justic…

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