home. . .contact us. . .
. . .
"The Hope of the World" A Role for Criminologists in the Making of Rational Crime Policy

By Mike Israel


Research and Policy:
For a decade there has been a "debate" in the criminal justice academic community on participation in the making of crime policy. I put debate in quotations because only one side has been heard, namely, that the profession should be involved; but the silent position, so far, has more or less prevailed. Our involvement is at best marginal, and we have not been players in the game of crime policy making. It is time to reconsider.

In 1994 Gregg Barak wrote: "The Silences of (criminologists) on such domestic issues of crime, criminal justice, poverty, unemployment, homelessness, welfare, health care, and education is deafening." (He) called for criminal justice educators to actively intercede in the process, and his essay seemed to ignite a consideration of the issue. Many essays and papers followed, and one consequence has been the move of the national office of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences in 1997 to Washington, D.C.

I was at the Executive Board Meeting when that unanimous vote was taken. The hairs on the back of my neck stood up for I had an incredible feeling that history was being made, and not just ACJS history, but American history. The plan included hiring a legislative liaison between ACJS and Washington policy making. The great dream was that our research and experience would have a voice and hopefully an influence on crime policy. "The hope of the world," so it has been called, a rational, research driven policy in place of what Barak called a "mediated" crime policy by the press, politicians, and a "mean world view," a policy made from myths, politics, hysteria, moral panic. Good policy, made for the right reasons, by people who knew. The hope of the world!

ACJS has been in the nation's capitol for years, along with thousands of non-profit organizations, probably close to a hundred with an interest in crime policy, dozens working directly on crime policy reform, and coalitions of these groups; a great city of staffers, lobbyists, professionals, researchers and evaluators, bureaucrats, journalists, PhD's, and 587 elected officials, and making crime policy has shown some signs of change. There are signs of a new era, but the academic criminology community remains marginalized.

Of course most criminal justice activity occurs in the states, but the federal level seems to dominate the political agenda, sets the tone and legal patterns, and spends a great deal of money. To paraphrase Everitt Dirksen, "You spend a billion here, and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money." This year about $40 billion will be spent on all criminal justice programs, not counting Homeland Security money for domestic use. There are reasons to look toward Washington.

The criminal justice system is one of government. A democratic government, by definition, invites participation, and participation inherently means politics. Politics, to the exclusion of almost everything else, makes crime policy. This may be largely true of all policy, but the crime issue has a history of being intensely political due to its salience to a mitigated public (read that: a public that watches TV). We are either part of the process, or we have chosen to let others do it; and virtually every criminological scholar who has taken pen to paper in almost a generation agrees on one main point: those who have made policy have done so badly.

Following Gregg Barak, the criminologists who have probably done the most to promote debate and discussion on the hope of the world have been Todd Clear, original editor of the policy oriented journal Criminology and Public Policy, Larry Sherman, principle author of the Report to Congress What Works in Preventing Crime, [see our links] Martin Schwatrz, Pat Van Voorhis, Drew Humphries, and Gene Czajkoski, all who wrote in The Criminologist, and Jim Austin.

This literature, taken as a whole, seems to say, yes, in the name of reason, we are compelled to do something about bad public policy, but there is a lack of clarity on what to do. The approach of Clear and Sherman is to put research findings out there for policy makers to see. The others generally equated taking sides on policy as part of a larger theme of professionalism. Jim Austin, principle author of two White Papers commissioned by the American Society of Criminology, wants to do both. There is no "juice" without policy positions, he has said. One paper, "The Use of Incarceration in the United States," with four co-authors, summarized research on the American prison boom and advocated against long, mandatory sentencing policy. ASC adopted as policy a summary of his other paper which argued from research against the death penalty.

Aside from the problem that policy makers do not read academic papers, it is also unclear what those papers are intended to do. They are products of an academic culture which considers carefulness more important than advocacy, and partisan readers can draw almost any conclusion on which they are so inclined. They could conclude that capital punishment can be fixed and does not have to be abandoned. They could find language to justify more prisons and longer sentences. Both of those conclusions are the last thing the authors intended. Outside of the academic culture, scholarly caution translates: conclude anything you want.

For example, The White Paper: "…the causes of crime are complex and varied."
Politicians' reaction: "See, they don't know."

Unintended Consequences:
Every researcher fears unintended consequences, such as punitive policies when they are calling for proportionality, but that can be the result and often is. A generation ago a philosophical argument for fair and predictable sentencing, based on crime seriousness—called just desserts—was just ambiguous enough for conservatives to claim it as their mantra. Just desserts became retribution, to the rejection of all functional theories, and retribution became severity in the world of policy.

That was not what the criminologists intended, but the politicians could, and did, say: "The criminologists told us to do it."
About 15 years ago some scholarship found that much crime was committed by a small group of offenders. This became known as the career criminal literature and led to incapacitation sentencing theories. Putting aside the fact that the research has been shown by history to be invalid, the conclusion at the time was that public safety would be enhanced by incapacitating with long prison sentences the small proportion of persistent offenders. What happened in policy? Long sentences for all offenders! Somehow the political language translated career criminals into all criminals. And no one was there to refute it.

The Current Issue:
Currently criminologists are asking the question, what policies work? It would seem that the direction of the research from this question is not philosophical, but an empirical question of what reduces crime. What does research, not myth, say will either control crime or rehabilitate criminals? We are asking the right question, as a start, but we are not asking, and must ask, what we should do about it. Regrettably, something in this analysis is missing, and it is a dirty word: politics.

The essay writers noted above overwhelmingly argue for involvement, and for most of them that means taking stands. That is what involvement means, taking public positions, and that is what "we" should do because we have substantial agreement on which policy direction the research points, so they say. Involvement means advocacy, nothing less.

The white paper approach is inadequate, so it is argued, because policy makers do not read papers, if they did they wouldn't understand them, and if they thought they understood them they probably would misinterpret them and use them the wrong way intended. Only public positions have traction, or juice, so it is said.

Taking stands is a legitimate—not illegal or unethical—means of participation; but it is far from the only way, and it might well be disingenuous considering the clashes of cultures between researchers and policy makers. Our community simply doesn't have much power. There aren't enough of us to make a difference in elections, and we don't contribute to political campaigns, and at least the criminology organizations don't have lobbyists. Why should policy makers care what stands we take? There are many non-profits in this town that do not take stands, and they are not here for the weather. They relinquish nothing in their passion and their quest for influence. What we must see is that we have influence in our status and legitimacy.

Is it Legal for Non-profits to Take Stands?
Of course it's legal to be citizens and function in a democracy, but will taking stands threaten our organizations' tax exempt status? Tax law not only allows non-profits to get involved in policy, but encourages it, in the name of "citizen lobbying." Organizations, under their banner, can take public positions on issues, specific legislation, even candidates for office. They can initiate legislation; and of course criticize it (that we have done). They can inform their members of these positions, inform the public, and inform policy makers. It is especially appropriate for an educational organization to educate, and not necessarily on abstractions, but on specific policies, bills, politicians. They can even endorse candidates for office. They can spend up to 15% of their annual budget on citizen lobbying without an audit. I'm not saying they should, but they can. Is it not the essence of democratic government!

The only thing non-profit groups can not do is contribute to candidates' election campaigns, which is hardly on the radar screen. Non-profits that lose tax emption are policy advocacy groups that are primarily engaged in lobbying. Groups with a mission of education and research are encouraged to spend part of their resources on citizen lobbying. The issue before us is an ethical one, not a legal one, and, I believe, one of strategy.

Is it Ethical?
Perhaps the most important resource of non-profit groups is their prestige, which can translate into political legitimacy. Academic groups are expected to be disinterested, not uninterested. Not having a stake in policies gives some groups an aura of objectivity. They shouldn't give that up lightly, at least without assessing the cost. They should always have the image that method supercedes results. To lose that image is to lose their legitimacy, and hence their power.

There are some crime policy issues on which research is divided, and some on which there is a fair consensus, but less than unanimity. Taking positions would be divisive and cost academic groups some of their internal cohesion. Would it be worth it? It might be, if it led to substantive policy influence. That, I am afraid, is an area that is ignored by the literature, and our essayists. Policy analysis has been, to date, about what is good policy—or, more often, bad policy—and recently whether or not that is our business; but not how policy is made. It is time.

What can be Done?
The criminology academic organizations have never called a press conference, never issued a press release, and are generally pretty awkward whenever they try to communicate on a popular level. Suppose they did take a position on a bill—what then? Some groups hold "briefing sessions" in or near the capitol, and if there is food it is a nice event; but in attendance will be very junior staffers, interns, and a few members of the sponsoring event. The press will not be there unless policy makers are there. The only way one of them will show up is if they are going to speak, and then they leave. No policy maker ever stays and listens to what other people have to say. They don't go to events, they are the event. Our interested groups are there to listen to them.

American political ideology extols the governments' accessibility to its citizens. We can write letters to chairs and members of issue relevant crime subcommittees, but every such letter is irradiated, takes a month to get there, and arrives crinkly and smelly, and will get a machine generated reply. Emails are ignored or even blocked, unless from a constituent, and then they get a machine generated reply. Telephone calls invariably get a machine, and unless they know you from your recorded message, no reply. We can actually go to see the key Congressional players in their offices, and after a wait we will see yet another very junior staffer who does not have the faintest idea what we are talking about. Citizens' access to political power is a myth.

Why should any Congressional policy maker pay attention to the positions of powerless outsiders? Is it because we can guide policy better than the mediated moral panic that they are used to? The mediated public has clout, and we do not. But we have reason! In Washington and the state capitols, what has more influence, power or reason? Don't answer (but "reason" is not exercised effectively).
Influencing crime policy is very difficult, and requires a particular set of skills. If the research community wants to have that influence, it needs a strategy that works, in the Washington culture, not theirs.

The Citizen Lobbing Model:
The research community needs its own resources, and they should be exploited. For example, the prefix "Doctor" or "Professor" carries some weight. Everyone understands that an institutional affiliation is for identification purposes and doesn't commit a university or agency to a position, so the prestige of that letterhead should be an arrow in the quiver. It is pointless to rely on the authority and power of a national organization that does not have any authority or power, as defined by numbers or money. Then it is wise to rely on the power and authority that is there, which is considerable, and has currency in politics, namely, that of an articulate cohesive community, that functions comfortably in complex organizations, and is generally willing to be recognized and has nerve. Organized minorities have enormous power in this town. A small group looks like an army if it knows what it is doing.

But that army—actually a squad that looks like an army—needs a visible presence, and it has to be much more than published research articles on policies, even if they are summarized and easy to find. Many groups fill that need with a lobbyist in a Washington office who coordinates citizen lobbying. This person is a professional who knows what the legislative initiatives are before Congress; and also knows what new legislation is on the drawing boards. Pros learn this from insider newsletters, relationships with key players who are staffers, not elected officials, and from like-minded interest groups with their own legislative agendas.

It is unrealistic to expect criminologists who have full time jobs and their own research and service agendas to be informed enough about the Washington legislative machinery to know what to do and when to do it. Research based knowledge is useless, at least in the short run, without a legislative initiative on which to attach. Knowing about it in time can open the door to contributing to its development, not just wait for it to happen and then criticize it (our tradition). Prescriptive analysis is unusual for all social scientists, and criminologists are no exception, but it is impossible without an understanding of the political system, as well as the criminal justice system, to know where and when it fits.

The new journal, Criminology and Public Policy, does indeed break new ground toward prescriptive criminal justice analysis, but the policy recommendations generally are addressed to no ongoing legislative work. If the authors of the articles knew of developing legislation—the kinds of issues that go on for years, and there are many such issues—they could be so directed.

In the absence of a Washington office and a lobbyist, this Crimeletter website will try to contribute to citizen lobbying by "those who know" toward rational crime policy.

Realistic Goals:
Those of us who are not part of the political culture must understand that policy makers are not in the position they are in to make reasoned, research driven policy. First of all, good policy in the political system is a concept that is complicated and more illusive than meets the eye than what is good policy for the criminal justice system. Politicians, at one level of their role want to make good policy, but they always ask, according to whom, and with what fall-out. Their main job in a pluralistic society is to balance conflicting interests and build consensus for their policies, which is their idea of what works.

I am not suggesting a surrender to the prevailing political winds and gratuitously turn research towards what is popular and manipulate findings that conform, although that is not unheard of. There are creative ways to become an effective voice and make a contribution to a rational crime policy, if not entirely driven by research, at least without disregarding it. Criminologists should be looking for a place at the table. Much of the thinking about our role in crime policy making has tended to assume that policy should be decided at our table.

What does that table look like? It is the forming of coalitions, with overlapping but not consistent interests. Joining coalitions is really new ground for criminologists, along with one paragraph summaries in CPP of policy focused journal articles. Most non-profits have specific, focused agendas (anti death penalty, anti war on drugs, diversity integration, et al), unlike the diffuse goal of research based policy. That is why citizen lobbying is the appropriate strategy. Everyone acts on their own responsibility with those groups with which they feel comfortable, with their own research-policy fit. Interest groups have resources, lobbyists, mailing lists, and the ability to mobilize them; and they take positions that research might support, and should.

Also there is the government table. Legislation works its way through committees, which are influenced by their staffs. They are the actors with the most interest in rational policy, and we can get the ear of the politicians through them. Most crime legislation is assigned to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, and each has a crime subcommittee. Not only does each elected official have staff, usually with one assigned to crime policy, but the committees have their own staff, including counsel. There are about a dozen key actors in both chambers who are the influential crime policy makers, and criminologists should be sitting at their table. They know how to make policy; we know what it should be. Ironically, they need us more than we need them.

They do not read journal articles, or books, but they might read summaries. They like to go to websites and read brief policy statements, when they have time, late at night. Websites, like this one, are the place for policy statements, under the authority of the authors. [see our links] The staffers are quick studies, not scholars, but they are not the public either. These dozen or so key actors have the talent to process research findings of what is good policy with their cultures' need for building consensus and legitimacy, meaning, what can get passed.

The citizen lobbying model is recognizable in this town. Its effectiveness depends upon the articulateness, timing, and focus of the message. Still, policy influence is a relationship, and in the words of one Washington insider, it is: "Personal, based on trust, and late at night."

Part of History:
We criminologists like to see ourselves as social scientists, and we anchor our integrity in our capacity for value free research. We need to see ourselves as part of history as well. We have come through a generation of crime policy hysteria, the moral panic that put a stranglehold on bad policy. We do not want it to happen again.

I know this. When intellectuals are silent, policy is made without reason. Reasoned policy is the hope of the world. Where there is no reason, passion alone leads to policies of violence. 		.
.

back to top

. . . .
5505 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Box 300, Washington, DC 20015-2601 301-270-5944