Crime & Delinquency

The debate between two bands of professionals in the cor rectional system, the healers and the keepers, serves to perpetuate the failures of the past and to frustrate innovative, effective analysis and reform. Given the present context, reforms inevit ably become tools for further punishment and control. The old questions are irrelevant; the old verities, insufficient. The data collected are inadequate, supplying poor answers to insignificant questions. What is urged here is that new frames of reference, borrowed from the methods of policy analysis, be applied to correctional systems. Professional bias constrains the vision of those now working in the system and forces them to divide into factions; therefore, a new band of analysts, cynical and gen eralist in outlook and background, is required to formulate and clarify the system's assumptions, values, goals, program structures, and evaluation. Otherwise, correction will remain transfixed in its hypnotic obsession with failure and obscurity.

The techniques of cost/benefit analysis are presented in a general way in order to encourage decision-makers in the crim inal justice system to adopt a style of thought that will assist them in formulating decisional alternatives. Discussion of the promises and pitfalls of the technique addresses the question of whether the "benefits" of cost/benefit analysis are sufficient to outweigh the "costs" in its adoption. The authors contend that the technique can be quite useful to executives in their quest to manage their organizations toward the achievement of organizational goals because the technique will enable them to identify new programs worthy of experimentation, will encour age the development of an accurate information system, will en hance their ability to base programatic decisions on community and social indicatcrs, and will better equip them in their rela tionships with legislators, funding bodies, and interest groups.

A review of the literature indicates that correction has sig nificantly failed to "correct," "rehabilitate," or otherwise change its clients. Some attribute this failure to the so-called profound philosophical cleavage between custody and treatment forces; others say that treatment, as currently conducted in most cor rectional agencies, is nothing more than a euphemism for custody or control. This paper discusses these positions and concludes that the custody-treatment cleavage is more myth than reality and that it is not the primary basis for correctional failure. The failure, instead, is attributable in part to inadequate and in competent management and leadership by correctional execu tives. A number of reasons for managerial inadequacy and sev eral possible ameliorative steps that can be taken to produce success instead of failure are suggested.

Several problems in correction can be managed either more effectinely or more efficiently by changing the system than by attempting to change the individuals being processed through the system. The evidence of the relative ineffectiveness of traditional correctional treatment programing is reviewed. An alternative approach, involving changing decisions based upon information feedback concerning decision outcomes, is illustrated by several case studies, including the California Probation Subsidy Program, the California Adult Authority Resolution 284, and the Cali fornia Department of Corrections' Parole Work Unit Program. The possibility of extending this approach to other areas of the criminal justice system is discussed. It is concluded that this alternative method of dealing with correctional problems can have an important influence, permitting the reallocation of exist ing resources to other persistent concerns.

Since crime became a national political issue, Americans have been deluged with studies and reports. The money poured into the states by federal legislation for criminal justice reform has not been spent wisely, and citizen participation in decisions on allocation of these funds has been minimal. Citizens must par ticipate at the planning level and should become involved in the system itself.

This paper asserts that restructuring the organization and management patterns of existing probation departments is funda mental to the more effective delivery of probation service and to the testing of new programs. Organizational administrative prob lems are analyzed within the context of administrative theory and practice. Max Weber's principles of bureaucracy are applied to probation practice as a method of conceptualizing problems in contemporary justice; they are buttressed by Douglas McGregor's more recent analysis of bureaucratic organizations and the as sumptions about human nature and behavior underlying such organizational structures (Theory X). Finally, personnel motiva tion is examined from the perspective of Abraham Maslow's "hierarchy of needs" theory.

"It may seem stupid, but this is the only time someone ever listened to us." That blunt confession of a rioting prisoner states eloquently the need for a grievance mechanism in the correc tional context. The cost of violence as a means of obtaining redress of grievances is recognized unanimously as prohibitive.

A survey was conducted of all agencies in the United States having parole jurisdiction over felony offenders sentenced to a correctional institution for more than one year. The results of the survey yielded information on organizational trends, per sonnel development, and procedures employed at parole release and revocation hearings. Parole boards were found to be moving away from their role as autonomous decision-makers and instead are developing an expanded function as part of larger depart ments of correction. Parole board members are now, to a greater degree than a few years ago, full-time personnel serving longer terms of office-perhaps an indication of a trend toward in creased professionalism. Procedures at parole release hearings have not changed much in recent years, except for the manner of informing the inmate of the board's decision. On the other hand, procedures at revocation hearings have shown an increas ing tendency to accord to the offender the right to a number of due process safeguards, a trend that was clear even before the requirements set forth in the recent Supreme Court decision in Morrissey v. Brewer.

Fundamental changes have occurred in juvenile court pro cedure, the administration of probation and parole, and the op eration of correctional institutions. While they do not constitute a "criminal law revolution," they are steps in "an orderly evolu tion." These changes, which re-emphasize our constitutional guar antees of civil rights, have been brought about largely through decisions in the federal and state supreme courts, not through sociological theory. Sociological theories of the causes of crime- especially individual psychological, social psychological learning, and functional sociological theories—have not been validated by empirical research and do not explain crime from a truly scien tific point of view. They have not been of much practical utility to correctional workers.

Our criminal justice system operates in a bureaucratic envi ronment espousing three legal fictions: (1) that justice is blind, (2) that the defendant in a criminal case is innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) that it is an adversary system.