9.2: Social/Public Policy

The material in this section discusses the ways policy is influenced by social, political, economic, legal, and ideological forces. It should not be a secret that each of these forces plays some role in policy formation. Marion & Oliver, (2006; 2012) assert that the formulation of policy is influenced by social, political, economic, legal and ideological factors. The reader should pay close attention to these criteria in preparation for future evaluations. According to Marion & Oliver (2006: 2012) “The end result is crime policy that is rarely about reducing crime but policy that plays well with the public and the media” (p.23). None the less formulation of policy is the choice of those in charge either by position or authority, may be the inclination of fear mongering rather than factual contextual reporting.

Social influence may be derived through polls, financial support (politician’s life blood), lobbying groups, and advocates that not only provide rhetoric for the argument but also for financial support and is taken seriously in the creation of policy. Political influence regarding crime comes down to who would vote against a crime bill, but also the personal ideology of the politician plays a role in policy development (conservative or liberal point of view). Furthermore it is critical that the politician exhibits to the constituent that he or she is listening to their concerns. The government official that is at the bidding of the public listens to those that financially support her/him. The economic influence may create a false sense of complacency on two fronts.

First, how is the policy implemented by the bureaucracy delegated for implementation? That is the governmental entity charged to fully implement public policy may be at odds with the policy itself. Especially if a new administration wishes to use the funding stream to satisfy the new agenda and as long as it remains in the spirt of law then it is generally accepted. The second issue is the funding stream may be elusive, ambiguous, and can again be diverted or reduced.

An example is the COPS program partially funding police officers for three years and then the municipality must begin to pay for the officer. The concept is flawed in that most municipalities do not have funding mechanisms to pay for the additional officers and the strings attached by the COPS Office could make it difficult for a municipality to enter into the program. An organization or municipality that is financially troubled to begin with (generally the areas in most need of additional officers), may apply under an exception that would normally require a portion of funding for the officers up front, and the exception could waive the upfront contribution. Ethically, a law enforcement administrator should bring to the attention of the COPS Office that the municipality does not expect a significant financial improvement at the conclusion of the grant period. However, the funding source may be narrowly focused on getting 50,000 new cops on the street and by-passes the notice. An additional consideration of economics is what and by whom reaps financial gain from stricter laws and more cops on the street to enforce the laws. Could one easily assume the previous discussion may be a building block for the beforehand Prison Industrial Complex?

The legal influence is critical as the Supreme Court may issue decisions on the constitutionality of a policy becoming a political actor in the policy process. A contemporary issue of Immigration ban (2017) on certain religions or populations was considered by the courts and overturned in the newly issued Presidential Executive Order. In the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), the court ruled Congress could not restrict the amount of money that may be contributed to a candidate. To do otherwise is a violation of the 1st Amendment prohibiting speech. Can the two previous public policies mentioned have and influence on who may be the Commander in Chief?

Finally the ideological influences may determine whether an issue makes it to the front door, let alone going through the door of the policy makers; without ideological differences there exists no issue. The ideology of the policy maker is critical, but so is the ideology of the bureaucracy charged with its implementation (Marion & Oliver, 2006; 2012).

Helco (1994) asserts “that there are three building blocks on which our political systems shaped and formed policy, including our criminal justice system. These three building blocks are: ideas, interests, and institutions” (cited in Marion & Oliver, 2012, p. 56). In short the ideas relate the meaning of interests; interests instruct institutions on what to do; and the institutions dictate how the idea is to survive (Marion & Oliver, 2012). The reality of policy making is constructed in Helco’s theory as politics are everywhere and everything.