|
home. . .contact us. . .
|
|
| . | . | . |
The concept behind this website is the fairly widely held belief that criminologists have a research based perspective that ought to be heard by policy makers; and it has not been in an effective enough way. The resources here are pointed toward relevant participation by the community of criminologists and professionals; although it is intrinsically valuable being informed about something so mystifying, this website can assist teaching, and stimulate research ideas. Understanding how policy is made ought to help us understand the substance of the policy, as it is found in reality. All crime policy is a combination of substance and process. The means of participation available here are focused mainly toward the later. I am thinking of formal participation by criminologists in four ways, all of which contribute toward our mission. First, as constituents, our elected representatives always have some interest in our points of view, and it is easy to email them, but we must know what the salient legislative issues are, at the right time. It’s pointless to write a letter about an issue—even if we have research that is legislatively relevant—if there is no bill before Congress. First, find out what committees and subcommittees your two Senators and your Congressperson serves on, and if one of them is a member of either Judiciary Committee, or a Crime Subcommittee, or the relevant Appropriations Committees, you have access to the mother lode of crime policy. Non constituents don’t have email access. When you communicate, identify your expertise. Second, when Congressional committees and subcommittees hold hearings, there is a window when the record--The Congressional Record—is open; so we must know and think about the issues in advance and be ready to fax and email the Chairs, addressed properly, for the record. We write on our own responsibility, identified by our institutions, but it is understood that we are spokespersons of the criminology community, an interested group, not an interest group. Our institutional or agency affiliation is for identification, and we don’t speak for them by so identifying ourselves. Third, Congressional hearings call witnesses, as experts, also of course on the record. The majority party can call three witnesses, the minority party one, and there is discussion with the policy makers. In all honesty, this reinforces positions already held; but the opportunity must not be missed. Testifying won’t happen very often, but it is the gold standard of expert participation. A trip to Washington is required. Fourth, we can influence the influences. Most of us can’t lobby, but dozens of non-profit groups in Washington, with resources, have access to policy initiating. There is intensive work developing legislation before a bill is "dropped" into the formal process. Here is where research and experience can contribute, but coordinating is required. Little happens spontaneously. We can have a seat at the policy making table, without an ominous commitment of time and expense. Readers of this website are busy but informed citizens, articulate in the substance of our profession, but generally not in a position to make crime policy a major part of our professional lives. Our energy needs an understanding of the dynamics of how policy is made. Usually we wait for it to happen and then evaluate and criticize it. I am trying to inform how we can participate in making policy, as research and experience based experts, without altering the rhythm of our lives and careers. Also I think the policy process is interesting, will intellectually enrich us, and will contribute toward a definition of our selves as no longer marginalized. The system, I argue, will be responsive to us, but only if we know what we’re doing. |
. |
| . |
back to top |
. | . | . | . |
|
5505 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Box 300, Washington, DC 20015-2601 301-270-5944
|
|