Study Guides (247,941)
United States (123,244)
All (2)
Final

COMPLETE Introduction to Public Policy Notes [4.0ed this final]

34 Pages
137 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Political Science
Course
CAS PO 141
Professor
All Professors
Semester
Winter

Description
1/19/2012 A Conceptual Framework for Policy Analysis Policy Analysis vs. Political Science A. Political Science: politics of primary importance, policy characteristics secondary B. Policy Analysis: policy characteristics of primary importance, politics secondary I. Policy Analysis is a problem solving approach to politics A. Goal: improvement of policymaking to produce policies that achieve their goals B. What are these goals? II. Concept of the Public Interest Rossell: Policy analysts have a basic notion of the public interest 1. Embodied in the Declaration of Independence 2. Some criterion necessary to judge success of a policy III. Criteria for Evaluating Policymaking: Equity, Efficiency, and Effectiveness A. Equity 1. Similarly situated people should be treated equally 2. Claims for the redistribution of income a. Issue of luck - demands for social justice 3. Fair distribution of services and income B. Efficiency 1. Ratio of inputs to outputs or B/C not best criterion 2. More benefit for less cost C. Effectiveness 1. Net benefit or B-C: always choose the policy with the greatest net benefit (best criterion) D. Conflict between equity, efficiency, and effectiveness IV. American Values A. Specific egalitarianism (politicians) 1. Social conscience not offended by all deficits 2. Lack of basic needs: health, life, basic shelter more offensive than other deficits 3. Basic needs - the good itself or a voucher B. General egalitarianism (policy analysts) 1. Equity and justice problems resolved through taxation and redistribution of income 1/24/2012 V. Regulatory Mechanisms in Policy More government intervention: Command & Control Less government intervention: Market Incentives Model A. Command and Control Model 1. Regulation by public decision 2. Government officials decide the law and the specific standard B. Market Incentives Model 1. Regulation using private decisions 2. Government creates a new kind of market in previously untraded goods 3. Policy is structured so it is in the self-interest of the regulated entity to comply Command & Control Market Incentives School Desegregation Mand. Reassignments Mag. - Voluntary Energy Regulation of Energy Production, Charges, & Conditions of ProductionComplete Marketplace Solution Environmental Regulates Specifying Pollution Government Market in Pollution Tax/Effluent Charge Standards, Emissions, & Technology Pollution Rights Cap & Trade (aka tradeable discharge permits) Health Nat. Public Health Service Nat. Health Insurance Welfare Publicly Provided Goods (Food, Health, Housing, Education, Small Cash Allotment Dollar Amount) Education Requirements on Goals, Standards, Government Provided Vouchers Characteristics, and Public Funding Charter Schools 1/26/2012 VI. Political Feasibility - Fourth Criterion for Choosing Among Policies • Equity, efficiency, and effectiveness are values to be achieved • Political feasibility is a means to achieve them Considerations: 1.Would it get adopted? 2.Is it possible to design features so it will be adopted? 3.Political costs of offering proposal 4.Will it be implemented faithfully? Rational-Comprehensive (Root) Successive Limited Comparisons (Branch) [Incrementalism] 1a. Values and goals established 1b. Establishing values and goals part before empirical analysis of alternative of empirical analysis policies 2a. Policy-formulation is 1. 2b. Means and goals are analyzed establishing goals; 2. means to together achieve them 3a. Test of a "good" policy is that it is 3b. The test of a "good" policy is the most appropriate means to typically that various analysts find desired ends (greatest net benefit) themselves directly agreeing on a policy (without their agreeing that it is the most appropriate means to an agreed objective) 4a. Analysis is comprehensive: every 4b. Analysis is drastically limited. important relevant factor is taken into Neglected are account i) Important possible outcomes ii) Important alternative potential policies iii) Important affected values 5a. Heavy reliance on theory 5b. A succession of comparisons reduces or eliminates reliance on theory Successive limited comparisons (aka disjointed incrementalism): is both 1) Description (is) 2) Prescription (ought to be) 1/31/2012 Free Markets - Economics Does Not Lie (Sorman) Sorman: The more the public understands and embraces these propositions, the more prosperous the world will become 1.The market economy is the most efficient of all economic systems ◦ No central planning institution could possibly manage the huge quantity of information that the market organizes automatically and spontaneously by pricing resources ◦ If global warming does become a real problem, price mechanisms or a carbon tax will reduce it ▪ Rossell: First point is correct, but second point is "off" since price mechanisms, carbon taxes, and cap and trade are not pure market systems, they are market incentive systems that include some government regulation or (cap and trade) a lot of government regulation 2.Free trade helps economic development ◦ Importing less expensive goods from poor countries increases the income of poor and middle classes in wealthier nations ◦ Whenever differences in the cost of producing goods exist between two countries, both will benefit from free trade, a mechanism that allocates their resources most effectively ▪ Rossell: Americans pay about $8 billion a year for import tariffs with the cost to consumers per job saved ranging from a low of $25,000 to a high of approximately $1 million ◦ America is still economic power in the world backed by the strongest military in the world 3.Good institutions help development ◦ An independent and reliable legal system to enforce contracts and ensure fair competition ▪ Rossell: We and most European countries overdo the latter confusing "thin markets" with "technical monopolies" ◦ Private rating agencies can help (but because run by humans are imperfect) ◦ Government is needed to help us with our irrational impulses; however, government is run by humans and so should not be relied on excessively ◦ Less agreement among economists on which other institutions are essential and less still on how to create them ▪ Democracy resists an unequivocal description ▪ There are cases of capitalism without democracy such as China, but no cases of democracy without capitalism ▪ Research indicates no stable democracy if per capita income below $7,000, and more likely if above $8,000 4.The best measure of a good economy is its growth ◦ Measure as increase in a country's gross domestic product (GDP) ◦ Rossell: total wealth is probably more important than growth ◦ Inequality, human development, happiness 5.Creative destruction is the engine of economic growth ◦ Rossell: true, but painful to those thrown out of work which is probably why all industrialized democracies have unemployment insurance and bankruptcy laws 6.Monetary stability, too, is necessary for growth; inflation is always harmful ◦ Best way to restrain inflation is to create independent central banks like the Federal Reserve and the European Bank ◦ Rossell: Israel? 7.Unemployment among unskilled workers is largely determined by how much labor costs ◦ Minimum wage adds to labor costs and increases unemployment ◦ Rossell: I agree and so do policies that make it hard to fire workers, as in France 8.While the welfare state is necessary in some form, it isn't always effective ◦ Rossell: Incentives needed to get people to work, but U.S. system may not be the best, as Sorman believes 9.The creation of complex financial markets has brought about economic progress ◦ The debate among economists today concerns only the degree of transparency and regulation necessary for effective functioning ◦ Rossell: Complex financial markets are run by human beings who do not seem to understand them 10. Competition is usually desirable ◦ Beyond that there is no unanimity ◦ Rossell: stability may be in many cases more important than competition ▪ Post offices, schools, etc. 2/2/2012 School Desegregation and Civil Rights Policy Equality of Input - Rossell 1.Equality Under the Law - (CCMC text) ◦ Suspect categories: race, religion, national origin, and sometimes gender and sexual preferences 2.Equality of Opportunity - (CMCC text) Equality of Outcome - Rossell 1.Equality of Material Well-Being - (CMCC text) 1. Proportionate Equality ▪ Employment: Same % in jobs as population ▪ Education: State must produce equal outcomes in achieving test scores, GPA, HS graduation rates, college matriculation 2.School Desegregation Policy Inputs: Court Decisions and Legislation 1. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) ▪ 14th amendment: Section 1: …No state shall make or enforce any law which shall bridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws ▪ Separate but equal ▪ Plessy was told to move from the white section of the train to the black section ▪ The Supreme Court ruled that this was constitutional because he would remain on the train in a separate car, but that was still equal (equal opportunity, as long as the opportunity given) 2. Gaines v. Missouri (1938) Law School Student -- Elite Group ▪ Lloyd Gaines applied and was denied because he was black, Supreme Court ruled that he needed to be accepted (created precedent) 3. President Truman desegregates the armed services (1949) 4. Sweatt v. Painter (1950) ▪ Sweatt sued because the University of Texas Law School didn't accept Sweatt on the basis of him being black ▪ Separate cannot be equal ▪ There was no other school that he could go to, so there was no equal for him (a separate black law school would have taken a long time to build, and would not have had the prestige) 5. Brown v. Board of Ed. (1954) (Brown I) ▪ Kenneth Clark's doll studies ▪ Scientific study: 1. Treatment group 2. Control or comparison group 3. Statistical control for pretreatment differences between two groups ▪ Desegregation necessary but insufficient condition for equal status ▪ Found that there was a problem 6. Brown v. Board of Education (1955) (Brown II) ▪ Schools must have compact attendance zones (and not irregularly shaped to influence demographics) ▪ Did not start busing ▪ Found a solution to the problem 7. Civil Rights Act (1964) ▪ "thou shalt not discriminate against anyone due to race or national origin" ▪ Rejuvenated the department of justice ▪ Made schools in the South aware they might lose federal funds if they didn't desegregate 8. Coleman Report (1966) "Equality of Educational Opportunity" ▪ Black students in white schools had higher achievement 1. The problem with this: self-selection bias (instead of higher achievement due to being in white schools, higher achievers may have chosen white schools) 9. Green v. New Kent County (1968) ▪ Supreme Court decided that just stopping discrimination and having neighborhood schools was not enough ▪ New Kent County had two schools: one for only blacks, one for only whites ▪ Blacks went to the white school, but whites didn't go to the black school, so black school was smaller and only had blacks ▪ Only when there are "just schools" (i.e. not "black" and "white" schools) will there be no discrimination ▪ In essence, Green turned Brown on its head 10. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg (1971) ▪ Federal district judge ordered a racially-balanced plan for Charlotte- Mecklenburg ▪ Whites bused across town to black schools and vice-versa, so each school would roughly follow the demographic composition of the town ▪ Freedom of choice is not sufficient, affirmative desegregation is required, and even if the school had not been discriminating, the mere existence of "black" schools was sufficient 11. Unitary Status ▪ Once school district attains unitary status, it usually cannot use racial quotas in student assignment to schools or in admission to special schools (e.g. magnet schools) 12. Parents v. Seattle School District (2007) (Together with Meredith v. Jefferson County School Board) ▪ Decided to use mandatory reassignment (forced busing) ▪ Supreme Court ruled: You cannot use race in assigning individual students to K-12 schools or admitting them to schools ▪ Kennedy concurring opinion left room for pursuing racial diversity through drawing attendance zones, etc. 2/7/2012 School Desegregation Policy Outcomes Academic Achievement • Black-white gap reduced by 1/3 since the 70s • Continues to be reduced by every measure • No evidence that being in a desegregated school has any effect on achievement Attitudes • Principle of Integration 1. In 1954, less than a majority of U.S. whites supported the principle of integration (almost no southerners) 2. In 1985, peaked at 93% • Civil Rights movement achieved symbolic goals 1. Racial prejudice is socially unacceptable 2. Blacks and Whites in agreement • African-American Parents: only a minority support mandatory reassignment 1. A majority would not go along with a mandatory reassignment of their own child 2. Black parents prefer their neighborhood school to being bused to a school that they did not choose 3. Black parents prefer their current neighborhood schools to magnet schools 4. Why? Believed their neighborhood schools were fine • Why did the Civil Rights Movement Ignore Black Parents? (Derek Bell) 1. Conflict of interest 2. Class action lawsuits: ego gratification in slaying "a fiercer dragon" Policymaking Model • Modified incremental model (1938 to present) Historical Stages of School Desegregation 1.Nondiscrimination (1954 to 1968) 2.Affirmative action (1968 to present) 3.Nondiscrimination - "strict scrutiny" (late 90s to present) 2/9/2012 Model of Compliance 1.Modified command and control (1954 - 1968) 2.Command and control (1970) ◦ Government gives you no freedom, simply forces you to do it, and gives no incentives for you to comply 3.Market incentives (after 1981), no new plans ◦ Magnet schools: transportation provided, small class sizes, unique features (e.g. planetariums) Ranking Desegregation Plans by Their Desegregation Effectiveness (Ignore table in the article) • Latest research by Rossell shows FOC (also known as voluntary M to M) produces more desegregation than magnet-voluntary plans Model 1: Northern only up to 1971 Model 2: Northern + Southern through 1975 Model 3: 600 districts randomly selected, 1991 Model 4: 600 districts updated data, FOC Eliminating Discrimination Outside Education (in jobs, public facilities) and Race (gender, handicap, sexual preference) 1.The major federal role outside the courts - Civil Rights Act of 1964 and amendments (1965 - Voting; 1968 - Housing) ◦ Based on the power of the U.S. to regulate interstate commerce, used to forbid discrimination 2.Affirmative action court decisions ◦ Plaintiffs must show intentional discrimination ◦ Bakke v. Regents of UC (1978) 1. Admission based on GPA, MCAT scores, plus interview; 16% minority quota 2. 5-4 decision to admit Bakke, fixed quota invalid but race could be one of several factors ◦ Hopwood v. University of Texas Law School (1996) 1. Hopwood (white) denied admissions, felt it was because she was white 2. 5th Circuit (Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana) racial preferences violated 14th amendment 3. Supremes refused to hear appeal 4. University of Texas is now virtually all-white ◦ Supreme Court June 23, 2003 decision University of Michigan law school (Grutter v. Bollinger) and undergraduate admission (Gratz v. Bollinger) 1. Were white, felt they had been denied admission because they were white 2. (5-4) Law School admission constitutional, race not the only factor and upheld Bakke (okay to use race as one of many factors) 3. (6-3) Undergraduate admission unconstitutional, gave 20 points out of 150 to non-Asian minorities (100 is guaranteed admission) ◦ Cost of affirmative action: dropout rates for minorities higher in colleges and law schools (top 1/5) that practiced affirmative action 3.Legislation-Initiatives ◦ California Civil Rights Initiative, Proposition 209 (1996) 1. Forbade preferences or discrimination on the basis of race, gender, national origin, ethnicity, or color 2. Outcomes: ▪ UC's fewer; Cal states, community colleges with higher minority ▪ Dropout rate declined overall 4.Mortgage rejection of blacks ◦ Income, credit history, current employment state, family status, reason for mortgage, guarantor, loan to value ratio, other assets, debt to income ratio are all part of mortgage approval ◦ B/W gap reduced in half by controlling for these variables ◦ Statistical discrimination: blacks have a higher default rate, because they're poorer ◦ (You can't just assume it's discrimination until you control all of the factors that affect mortgage approval) 5.Gender Equality ◦ Only a minority of Supreme Court justices have held sex to be a suspect category 1. Women's right to vote - 1920, fifty years after black males ◦ Rostker v. Goldberg (1981) upheld Congress' exemption of women from draft; women can now be in volunteer army, but cannot fight on the ground; can be fighter pilots 6.Unequal Earnings ◦ 2005 - Women's median income is 77% that of males (full time, year-round, total) ◦ Not correct analysis to prove employer discrimination ◦ Type of job, time off from work (uninterrupted work), hours worked on job that pays salary, men work 8 more hours per week, years of experience, education, all factors that contribute to salary amount ◦ Salary asked, raises demand ◦ Other analysis: Women median income 98% of males when controlling for factors affecting income ◦ Childless women earn 117% of childless males 2/16/2012 Social Welfare Policy I. Three types of income maintenance or income support policies: 1.Social insurance programs (least controversial) 2.Work/employment programs 3.Public assistance programs (most controversial) II. Defining Poverty • ABSOLUTE or ◦ How much money do you have to have to at least live decently? (not extravagant, but enough) • RELATIVE terms ◦ How does your income compare to other human beings in your political entity? (used in all international comparisons) ◦ Income inequality, not who is poor • Absolute Definition 1. Most widely used: Social Security Administration definition ▪ Poverty standard family of four one adult and three children ▪ 2011 was $22,891 (Census Bureau) 2. Criticisms of SSA definition: ▪ too low (but only cash) ▪ ignores regional variation in cost of living 3. Department of Agriculture standard would set poverty threshold about four thousand dollars higher • Relative Definition 1. Poor = earning less than 1/2 of U.S. median income 2. Increasing income inequality from 1967 to present III. Who are the poor? 1.Aged ◦ Without social security, there would be more; even with it, there are a lot 2.Women 3.Less educated ◦ If you have less education, you tend to earn less money, but what is cause and what is effect? 4.Rural 5.Working poor -- minimum wage (2012 Federal MW = $7.25) * 40 hours * 52 weeks = $15,080 (2012 Mass. MW = $8.00 * 40 * 52 weeks = $16,640) IV. How poor are the poor in U.S.? 1.43% own their own homes 2.80% have air conditioning 3.Only 6% are over-crowded ◦ Average poor American has more living space than the average PERSON in many European cities 4.3/4 own their own car 5.Virtually all have a roof over their head, flush toilet, electric refrigerator, stove, central heating, color TV, and telephone V. Trends by Definition of Poverty: Market (1) Pre-Welfare Post-Transfer Adj. For In- (inc. SS) (2) (Census- Kind Benefits Official) (3) (4) 1965 21.3 16.3 15.6 12.1 1968 18.2 13.6 12.8 9.9 1976 21.0 13.1 11.8 6.7 1980 21.9 14.2 13.0 8.0 1983 24.2 16.1 15.2 10.2 1994 25.0 14.6 10.0 1998 24.0 12.7 8.2 2000 18.7 11.3 10.1 8.8 2002 20.0 11.9 10.9 9.4 2003 21.0 12.0 8.6 2004 22.0 12.7 10.5 2005 21.0 12.1 10.0 2007 21.0 12.5 10.5 2008 22.5 13.2 11.0 2009 25.0 14.3 11.9 2009* 15.7* 2010 15.3 *adjusted for geographic variation in cost of living VI. Preventative Strategy (Social Insurance) • Social Security Act of 1935 = Old Age, Survivors, Disability, and Health Insurance (OASDHI) 1. Eligible = those who paid in to it ▪ Over 90% of working population covered, including self-employed ▪ Not covered state, local, federal with own defined benefit pension plan 2. Expanded - ▪ 1939 survivors benefits ▪ 1956 disability insurance ▪ 1965 Medicare 3. Single largest item of federal spending until 2009, surpassed by defense (maybe) VII. Alleviative Strategy -- Public Assistance or "Welfare" • Means tested: 1) AFDC and SSI, 2) General Assistance (state programs for emergencies); 3) TANF 1996 • Supplemental Security Income (SSI): aged, blind, disabled 2/23/2012 • 1974 replacing federal-state programs est. by SSA 1935 • First guaranteed minimum income program in U.S. funded from general revenues for aged, blind, disabled • Complex with state and federal administration: ◦ can supplement social security benefits C. Earned Income Tax Credit (temp. 1974; perm. 1978) Poor taxpayers receive a tax credit (max $5,751 in 2011) w/3 children, phased out as income goes up • Credit disappeared at $36,052 in 2011 (3 or more children); if filing jointly, at $41,132 • Resulted in workers w/children at poverty line paying no taxes and getting a refundable credit • Largest cash assistance program for the poor D. General Assistance • Completely state funded and administered programs E. Public Assistance • Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) 1935-1996 • TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families, est. 1997) by 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1995 in MA) • AFDC = U 1.SSA 1935 = only for children, later expanded to include single mothers, by 1988, unemployed fathers 2.Federal funding for AFDC was 55 percent of total benefits ◦ Benefit levels varied from state to state ◦ States not required to pay benefits at 100 percent of need and none did (AFDC) or do (TANF) F. In-Kind Benefits (still in existence) • Food Stamps (SNAP) 1. Administrated by the Department of Agriculture, which pays the entire cost of allotment and 2/3 of state's administrative costs 2. Can only be used for food items 3. 40% of those eligible do not receive benefits • Housing (in-kind benefit) 1. Housing assistance began in 1937 2. Two major programs: ▪ Public housing (Command & Control) ▪ Section 8 voucher - 2-3 times as large as public housing (M.I.) 3. Only 1/4 eligible for housing assistance receive it • Work/Employment (in-kind benefit) 1. Job training programs - not very effective because it does not involve job creation G. 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) Public assistance turned over to states with a system of block grants Goals of PRWOR: 1.To assist needy families 2.To end welfare dependency 3.To reduce unwed pregnancy 4.To promote two-parent families 5.To reduce costs State Control 1.States have wide discretion in determining eligibility and setting requirements. States can: ◦ Deny assistance to unwed mothers <18 and children born to TANF recipients ◦ Divert money from one program to another ◦ Contract with private businesses ◦ Use own money to supplement federal block grant Federal Requirements 1.States must spend 75% of 1994 AFDC $; keep rest 2.Limit of 2 years for welfare benefits in a row 3.Maximum lifetime welfare benefits is 5 years ◦ 20% of caseload can be exempted ◦ Maximum can be shorter than 5 years ◦ Mass. reduces benefits after 5 years of assistance, by about $15/mo for a family of 3 ▪ In mass., can be exempt from 2 and 5 year restrictions based on individual circumstances 4.PRWORA working requirements phased in: ◦ PRWORA originally required 25% of welfare families working by 1997 ◦ Originally 50% of welfare families required to be working by 2002 ◦ Not fully implemented, states supplementing 5.States must offer Medicaid for one year after losing TANF benefits Evaluation of PRWORA • Few states met work participation standards because caseload reduction credit lowered standards to almost zero ◦ Current law is that every percentage point reduction in welfare caseload from 2005 level reduces percentage who have to work (???) Outcome 1: Decline in number of families receiving cash assistance • Welfare rolls declined 49 percent from 1994 to 1999 • How much due to 1996 welfare reform? Research findings on Cause of Welfare Caseload Reduction • Economy: 10-25% • Aid to working poor: 30-45% • Increase in min. wage: 0-5% • Welfare reform: 30-45% Outcome 2: Welfare offices focused on work, not aid Jobs • Prior to PRWORA, jobs for welfare recipients not a priority • After PRWORA, ◦ Finding jobs a priority ◦ Making work pay by expanding ▪ EITC $ and eligibility to single, childless men ▪ Child care and child health insurance (chip) ▪ Medicaid ▪ Food stamps (SNAP) ▪ (not minimum wage) Labor Market Effects 1.Employers not hiring long-term recipients ◦ Those that get jobs have short-term variable hours, a problem with child care 2.40-50% have "disappeared" (hassle factor) ◦ Other sources of government support (SS, SSI, Medicaid, Food Stamps (SNAP)?) ◦ Over 2/3 of those leaving welfare received help from family or friends (free housing, income, transportation) ▪ Fallback on pre-existing sources of support ◦ In low payment states, just do without ◦ Other states have partial check sanctions ▪ Happily sanctioned ▪ Child only welfare benefits - not required to work Making Work Pay • More than 46 states supplemented earnings by only gradually reducing welfare benefits ◦ Creates inequity between former welfare recipients and working poor who were never on welfare Outcome 3: States and feds spending more on welfare Child Care • Cheaper to pay recipients to stay home and take care of their children than to pay for job training, placement, child care of persons in low-skill jobs with minimum wage • All major federal child care folded into Child Care and Dev. Block grant • Child care $ in PRWORA not adequate, and still not adequate Children Better Off in Daycare? • Depends on quality of parent care vs. quality of child care Child Support • If all children support collected, could reduce welfare rolls by 20% and $ by 1/3 (???????????) SSI (Supplemental Security Income) • Children eligibility tightened: must have "marked and severe functional limitations" Food Stamps (SNAP) • More working poor eligible for food stamps (SNAP) Medicaid 1.Once limited to welfare recipients 2.Now includes working poor and families 1 year off TANF Better Off? • Only programs that offered earnings supplements [MONEY] consistently increased 1. Income (the gains also increased benefit payment amounts and thus costs) 2. Benefited children (school readiness, school performance: achievement, social behavior, repeating grades, dropping out, suspension, teen parent) • Poverty has increased slightly among the lowest income group • Most who go off welfare and to work are still poor 1. More expenses (childcare?, transportation, clothing) • Surveys of poor: 1. 55% better off 2. 25% same 3. 20% worse off Long Term Effects on Children • Positive if income supplemented • Negative if income not supplemented Summary of Goal of Eliminating Poverty 1.The marketplace cannot do it ◦ 20-25% poor if no government intervention at all 2.Public consensus: Government must eliminate poverty by making work pay ◦ A. Creating jobs at above poverty wages (subsidizing wages, government jobs, etc.) ▪ Murray: The Plan: $10,000 annual grant to all Americans not in jail of which $3,000 must be used for health care ◦ Early childhood education programs: ◦ B. Subsidizing childcare (eligibility constant and amount of subsidy based on income, not program status) ▪ If marketplace does not offer night and weekend childcare, states should (voucher) if goal IS to make work pay for poor ◦ C. Parental Education Programs and Home Visits ◦ D. Universal preschool at age 2 ◦ For every $1 spent on early childhood intervention programs, at least $2-$17 in benefits: reduced special education, grade retention, child abuse and neglect, crime ◦ E. Extended day on-site all public schools ◦ F. Cash and goods if you can't work Model of Policymaking: Incremental • ADC 1935 large incremental change • PRWORA 1996 large incremental change Mostly specific egalitarianism: • Cash: AFDC and TANF, EITC, SSI, etc. • Goods: Medicaid, Food Stamps, Section 8, Public Housing, etc. Model of Regulation: Command and Control 3/1/2012 Crime and Criminal Justice Goal of Crime Policy Provide internal peace so citizens can maintain life, liberty, and pursue happiness I. Background 1.Kinds of Crime 1. Against property: 1. Some street crime: auto theft 2. White-collar 3. Political 2. Against persons: 1. Street crime including assault, murder, rape, robbery 3. Victimless 2.Rising crime and fear of crime 1. In 4 decades after WWII, major crime increased dramatically 2. Effect -- target hardening 1. Home and business security systems 2. Gated communities 3. Private security businesses 3.Crime Rate Computation 1. FBI Uniform Crime Report 1. 7 categories crime, rates per 100,000: 2. Murder and manslaughter 3. Forcible rape 4. Robbery 5. Aggravated assault 6. Burglary 7. Larceny and theft 8. Auto theft 2. DiIulio: 3 limits to FBI crime index 1. Based only on crimes reported to the police ▪ Reported is 1/4 to 1/3 of actual crime 2. Local police departments compile stats 3. FBI "hierarchical" counting; only most serious crimes reported (leads to an under-reporting of crime in the US) 3. White-collar crime not in index 1. Costs more than street crime 2. Psychologically easier to handle II. Explanations for Long Rise in Crime Rates 1.Laws increasing 2.Increase in reporting ◦ Computers ◦ Sympathetic staff ◦ More police on street 3.Drug prohibition ◦ Crime 1: Sales and possession ◦ Crime 2: (Unintended) street crime to pay for illegal-->expensive drugs 4.Demographic changes in post WWII ◦ Urbanization of America ◦ Higher birth rates in lower class ◦ Growth in population under 25 5.Increase in status for criminals in ghettos 6.Identity politics ◦ Consciousness of victimhood ◦ Crime against oppressive system 7.Breakdown of family ◦ Lack of a father: theory ◦ Not enough adults: research Rossell: Denominator Problem • DiIulio: Philadelphia: almost all murder victims were black • Rossell: Even if all murders by blacks, <1% of blacks commit murders • DiIulio: 6% of boys do 50% of crimes • Rossell: 98% of all violent attacks on street by males, but <1% of males attack 3/6/2012 III. Recent Crime Reduction Since 1995, violent crimes have gone down Explanation for decline: 1.Order maintenance policing (OMP) ◦ NYC: Mayor Giuliani (Bratton miracle) ◦ Theory: Broken windows effect (James Q. Wilson) ▪ Well-maintained public space results in a decline in crime (people will expect the order and apparent respect occupants have) ◦ Policy: Crackdown on misdemeanors - graffiti, aggressive panhandling, vandalism ◦ (Brooks) Harcourt & Ludwig on OMP: ▪ "effectiveness" based on faulty research ▪ public housing tenants moved to nicer neighborhoods continued to offend at same rate ▪ (Brooks) Sampson & Raudenbush on OMP: a. race rather than reality determines perception of disorder, b. perception true for blacks and
More Less

Related notes for CAS PO 141

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit