MIAMI UNIVERSITY the Graduate School Certificate for Approving the Dissertation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MIAMI UNIVERSITY The Graduate School Certificate for Approving the Dissertation We hereby approve the Dissertation of Craig S. McClure Candidate for the Degree: Doctor of Philosophy _______________________________________ Director Dr. Philip A. Russo, Jr. _______________________________________ Reader Dr. Melvin Cohen ______________________________________ Reader Dr. John P. Forren ______________________________________ Graduate School Representative Dr. Peter M. Schuller ABSTRACT SEEKING JUSTICE: EXAMINING ADULT OFFENDER REENTRY COURT PARTNERSHIPS FROM A POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PERSPECTIVE by Craig S. McClure This dissertation reveals a unique and atypical role for community level judges as adult offender reentry coordinators. Reentry court partnerships (RCPs) place the judge at the center of post-release supervision and treatment. RCPs are new and innovative community-based programs that are designed to help offenders leave the state prison system and successfully return to society. This study asks the fundamental question, “How are reentry court partnerships being implemented?” In answering the question, reentry court actors and their decisions are the focus of data collection using a values- based survey instrument. This dissertation contributes to clarifying a disparate body of policy implementation research generally, as well as provides data that will aid current and future reentry court development nationwide. The key findings of this dissertation are that an actors’ sense of accountability most strongly influences decision making in the policy implementation process, and that elected judges can emerge as powerful agents for social change in the community. SEEKING JUSTICE: EXAMINING ADULT OFFENDER REENTRY COURT PARTNERSHIPS FROM A POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PERSPECTIVE A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Political Science Department by Craig S. McClure Miami University Oxford, Ohio 2005 Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Philip A. Russo, Jr. CONTENTS I. List of Tables vi II. Preface vii A. Research Question viii B. Acknowledgements ix C. Dedication x PART 1 CHAPTER 1 TWO SUBFIELDS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE: PUBLIC POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION PERSPECTIVES AND APPROACHES I. Introduction 1 II. Background and History 1 III. Public Policy and Its Definition 4 A. First Area 4 B. Second Area 5 C. Policy Types 6 D. Policy Areas 7 IV. The Development of Public Policy Implementation Research 7 A. First Generation 7 B. Second Generation 8 1. Part 1, “Top-down” 8 2. Part 2, “Bottom-up” 11 3. Part 3, “Synthesis” 13 C. Third Generation 17 V. Public Administration and its Definition 18 A. Wrongly Separating Politics from Administration 18 1. Characteristics of Bureaucracy 20 2. Principles of Scientific Management 21 B. Rediscovering Democratic Values in Public Administration 22 VI. Conclusion 25 CHAPTER 2 VALUES-BASED PUBLIC POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION: IMPLEMENTATION CONTEXT, VARIABLE DEFINITION, AND RESEARCH MODEL I. Implementation as Decision Making in Context 26 A. The Implementation Context in Terms of Ambiguity and Conflict 27 1. Administrative implementation 28 2. Political implementation 28 ii 3. Symbolic implementation 29 4. Experimental implementation 30 B. The Experimental Context of Reentry Court Partnerships 30 II. A Taxonomy: Separating Variables by Classification, Type, Category and Variety 32 A. Variables by Classification and Type 33 B. Variable Types Explained in Terms of Responsibility 34 1. Personal responsibility 34 2. Procedural responsibility 34 3. Professional responsibility 35 4. Political responsibility 36 C. From Variable Classification to Categories 36 D. Defining Discretion: Responsibility & Accountability 38 1. Responsibility (Internal/Informal) 39 2. Accountability (External/Formal) 40 E. Defining Resources: Expertise & Material 42 1. Expertise (Internal/Formal) 43 2. Material (External/Informal) 43 F. Variable Varieties 43 G. Applying Context and Variables to the RCP Environment 46 III. Variable Types Explained in terms of Decisions 47 IV. Conclusion 48 PART 2 CHAPTER 3 THE RISING COST OF OFFENDER SUPERVISION: REENTRY COURT PARTNERSHIPS AS AN INNOVATIVE SOLUTION I. The Context for Reentry Court Development: Prison and Parole Policy 50 A. State Financial and Social Costs 51 B. The Social and Administrative Impact of Incarceration 53 C. The Failure of Post-Release Supervision and the New Prisoner Reentry Philosophy 55 D. Revitalize or Replace Parole Supervision? 56 E. Administrative Realities and Advocacy Initiatives 57 II. Reentry Court Partnerships Defined 59 A. The Role of Judges 60 B. The Role of the Courts 62 C. The Role of the Community 63 D. Public Policy Implementation Research & RCPs 64 iii III. The Richland County, Ohio Reentry Court Partnership 66 A. Ohio Reentry Court Concept Model 67 1. Assessment and Planning 67 2. Merging Parole and Probation Supervision 69 3. Developing Shared Standards 70 4. Institutionalizing a Shared Sense of Ownership 72 B. Ohio Reentry Court Program Elements 73 1. Objectives 73 2. Community Partners and Treatment 75 IV. The Allen County, Indiana Reentry Court Partnership 76 A. Indiana Reentry Court Concept Model 76 1. Community Corrections 77 2. Joint Monitoring and Supervision 79 B. Indiana Reentry Court Program Elements 79 1. Risk Assessment and Reintegration Plan 80 2. Job Academy 81 3. Community Partners 82 V. Conclusion 83 CHAPTER 4 REENTRY COURT PARTNERSHIPS EXAMINED: VALUES-BASED DECISION MAKING AS THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING POLICY IMPLEMENATION I. Introduction: “How are Reentry Courts Being Implemented?” 84 II. Key Actors: The Judges 86 A. Key Findings: The Data 87 B. Ohio Judges by Decision Type 90 C. Indiana Judges by Decision Type 92 D. Decisions Measured by Category and Division 96 E. Ohio and Indiana Judges Decisions by Category and Division 96 1. Discretion: Responsibility and Accountability 96 2. Resources: Expertise and Material 98 F. The Judges’ Implementation Decisions 99 III. Key Actors: The Administrators 100 A. Ohio Administrators by Decision Type 101 B. Indiana Administrators by Decision Type 104 C. Ohio and Indiana Administrators Decisions by Category and Division 106 1. Discretion: Responsibility and Accountability 106 2. Resources: Expertise and Material 108 D. The Administrators’ Implementation Decisions 109 IV. Key Actors: The Community Partners 110 A. Ohio Community Partners by Decision Type 110 B. Indiana Community Partners by Decision Type 112 iv C. Ohio and Indiana Community Partner Decisions by Category and Division 113 1. Discretion: Responsibility and Accountability 113 2. Resources: Expertise and Material 115 D. The Community Partners’ Implementation Decisions 115 V. Aggregated Findings 117 A. Decision Making as the Key to Understanding Policy Implementation 117 1. Ohio RCP Actor Decisions Informed by Type 119 2. Indiana RCP Actor Decisions Informed by Type 120 3. Ohio RCP Actor Decisions Influenced by Category 121 4. Indiana RCP Actor Decisions Influenced by Category 122 B. Findings and Recommendations 123 C. Conclusion 127 APPENDICES Appendix A: Case Selection Value Key and Table 129 Appendix B: Democratic Implementation Research System Model 131 Appendix C: Reentry Court Participant Survey 132 Appendix D: Richland County, Ohio Reentry Court Process Flowchart 138 Appendix E: Allen County, Indiana Reentry Court Process Flowchart 139 REFERENCES 140 v TABLES Table Page 2.1. Ambiguity – Conflict Matrix: Policy Implementation Process 28 2.2. Variable Classification and Type 33 2.3. Categories of Variables 38 2.4. Combined Table of Variables and Definitions 45 2.5. Specific and General Variables by Classification, Category and Type 46 3.1. Prison Costs for Fiscal Year 2001 (States in This Study) 51 4.1 Ohio Reentry Court Judges’ Mean Survey Scores by Decision Type 89 4.2 Indiana Reentry Court Judge’s Mean Survey Scores by Decision Type 93 4.3 All Reentry Court Judges’ Mean Scores by Jurisdiction, Division & Category 97 4.4 Ohio Reentry Court Administrators’ Mean Scores by Decision Type 102 4.5 Indiana Reentry Court Administrators’ Mean Scores by Decision Type 105 4.6 All Reentry Court Administrators’ Decisions by Jurisdiction, Division & Category 107 4.7 Ohio Reentry Court Community Partners’ Mean Scores by Decision Type 111 4.8 Indiana Reentry Court Community Partners’ Mean Scores by Decision Type 114 4.9 Reentry Court Community Partners’ Decisions by Division & Category 116 4.10 All Actors’ Mean Scores Compared by Decision Type and Category 118 vi PREFACE Reentry court partnerships (RCPs) are innovative community programs designed to place judges at the center of the offender reentry process. This unconventional placement and definition of a judge’s role has public and private dimensions and implications. The public role of judges in the RCP model transforms them from being a neutral arbiter interpreting the law in an adversarial setting, to that of an active partner in setting and enforcing reentry program standards. Behind the scenes, the judge takes on the role of lead reentry administrator and case manager in order to regulate the process and the progress of reentering offenders. The reentry process, simply defined, is the series of events and interventions that occur in the time an offender is released from prison and successfully returns to society as a reformed citizen, or is returned to prison as a recidivist. This process, specifically as it applies to RCPs and the new role of judges, has yet to draw the attention of political scientists,