Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:27:28.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policy Evaluation and Recidivism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Martin A. Levin
Martin A. Levin*
Affiliation:
Brandeis University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

During the past few years there has been a refreshing wave of studies of the relationship between policy inputs and outputs in American urban and state politics. These studies have attempted to go beyond the analysis of the political processes of a unit of government, to analyze its relationship and that of other factors such as socio-economic characteristics to the policy outputs of that unit. They have gone beyond the analysis of “who governs?” to the analysis of “what difference does it make who governs?” and “what difference do certain socioeconomic characteristics make?” (Wilson, 1964: 133). In other words, what are the consequences of these inputs for the life of the average citizen? These consequences have been analyzed in terms of the policy outputs and services of these governments in areas such as education, welfare, criminal justice, planning programs, and general social welfare measures.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , August 1971 , pp. 17 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © 1971 by the Law and Society Association

Footnotes

AUTHOR'S NOTE: The research on which this study is based has been supported by a grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the U.S. Department of Justice (Pilot Grant NI-70-065-Pa-19). Support for the final stages of its preparation was kindly provided by the James Gordon Foundation of Chicago. Earlier stages of the large project of which this is a part were supported by the Joint Center for Urban Studies of M.I.T. and Harvard and by a Research Training Fellowship of the Social Science Research Council. I wish to thank all these organizations for their support, but the analysis and views expressed here are my own. The fact that the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice furnished financial support to the activity described in this publicaton does not necessarily indicate the concurrence of the Institute in the statements or conclusions contained herein. I also wish to thank the following individuals for many helpful suggestions during the preliminary stages of this study: James Q. Wilson, Martin Shapiro, Eugene Bardach, Frank Levy, Sheen Kassouf, and Zeenas Sykes. Michael Furstenberg provided invaluable aid as my research assistant during the final stages of the study.

References

Cases

Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963).Google Scholar

References

BEATTIE, Ronald H. and Charles K., BRIDGES (1970) Superior Court Probation and/or Jail Sample. Superior Court Probation and/or Jail Sample: Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Department of Justice.Google Scholar
BECKER, Howard S. (1963) Outsiders. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
BECKER, Theodore L. (1969) The Impact of Supreme Court Decisions. The Impact of Supreme Court Decisions: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
BLALOCK, Herbert Jr. (1963) “Correlated Independent Variables: The Problem of Multicollinearity,” 62 Social Forces 233.Google Scholar
BOWLES, S. and H., LEVIN (1968) “The Determinants of Scholastic Achievement,” 3 Journal of Human Resources 3.Google Scholar
CAMPBELL, Donald T. (1969) “Reforms as Experiments,” 24 American Psychologist 409.Google Scholar
COHEN, David (1970) “Politics and Research: The Evaluation of Social Action Programs in Education.” 40 Review of Educational Research 213.Google Scholar
COLEMAN, James S., et al. (1966) Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
DAVIS, George (1964) “A Study of Adult Probation Violation Rates by Means of the Cohort Approach,” 55 Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 70.Google Scholar
DYE, Thomas (1966) Politics, Economics, and the Public. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
EICHMAN, Charles J. (1966) The Impact of the Gideon Decision Upon Crime and Sentencing in Florida. The Impact of the Gideon Decision Upon Crime and Sentencing in Florida: Florida Division of Correction.Google Scholar
ENGLAND, Ralph W. Jr. (1957) “What is Responsible for Satisfactory Probation and Post-Probation Outcome?” 47 Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 667.Google Scholar
EVANS, John (1969) “The Westinghouse Study: Comments on the Criticisms,” in David G., HAYS, Britannica Review of American Education, Vol. 1. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica.Google Scholar
FARRAR, Donald E. and Robert R., GLAUBNER (1967) “Multicollinearity in Regression Analysis: The Problem Revisited,” 49 Review of Economics and Statistics 92.Google Scholar
FRY, Brian and Richard, WINTERS (1970) “The Politics of Redistribution,” 64 American Political Science Review 508.Google Scholar
GLASER, Daniel (1964) The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System. The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System: Bobbs Merrill.Google Scholar
HOMANS, George (1950) The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
JACOB, Herbert and Michael, LIPSKY (1968) “Outputs, Structure and Power: An Assessment of Changes in the Study of State and Local Politics,” 30 Journal of Politics 510.Google Scholar
JACOB, Herbert and Kenneth, VINES (1965) Politics in the American States. Politics in the American States: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
JOHNSTON, John (1963) Econometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
KITSUSE, John T. (1962) “Societal Reaction to Deviant Behavior: Problems of Theory and Method,” 9 Social Problems 247.Google Scholar
KOLODNEY, Steven, et al. (1970) A Study of the Characteristics and Recidivism Experience of California Prisoners. A Study of the Characteristics and Recidivism Experience of California Prisoners: Public Systems Incorporated.Google Scholar
LEMERT, Edwin M. (1967) Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control. Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
LEVIN, Martin A. (forthcoming) Urban Political Systems and Judicial Behavior: The Criminal Courts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
LEVIN, Martin A. (forthcoming) (1970) “An Empirical Evaluation of Urban Political Systems: The Criminal Courts,” in Sam, KILPATRICK and David, MORGAN, Urban Politics: A System Analysis. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
MEYER, John R. and Edwin, KUH (1957) The Investment Decision: An Empirical Analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MILLER, Walter (forthcoming) City Gangs. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
MUIR, William Jr. (1967) Prayer in the Public Schools: Law and Attitude Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
ORCUTT, Guy, et al. (1961) Microanalysis of Socioeconomic Systems: A Simulation Study. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
PENNOCK, J. Roland (1966) “Political Development, Political Systems, and Political Goods,” 18 World Politics 415.Google Scholar
PRAIS, S. J. and H. S., HOUTHAKKER (1955) The Analysis of Family Budgets. Cambridge, England: University Press.Google Scholar
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Criminal Justice (1967) The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
ROETHLISBERGER, Fritz J. and William J., DICKSON (1939) Management and the Worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
ROSENTHAL, Robert (1966) Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
ROSENTHAL, Robert and Lenore, JACOBSON (1968a) Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROSENTHAL, Robert and Lenore, JACOBSON (1968b) “Teacher Expectations for the Disadvantaged,” 218 Scientific American 19.Google Scholar
SHAPIRO, Arthur (1960) “A Contribution to a History of the Placebo Effect,” 5 Behavioral Science 109.Google Scholar
STONE, Richard (1954) The Measurement of Consumers' Expenditure and Behavior in the United Kingdom. Cambridge, England: University Press.Google Scholar
TUFTE, Edward (1969) “Improving Data Analysis in Political Science,” 21 World Politics 641.Google Scholar
TUKEY, J. W. (1954) “Causation, Regression, and Path Analysis,” in Oscar, KEMPTHORNE, et al., Statistics and Mathematics in Biology. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press. Quoted on page 237 of Herbert BLALOCK, Jr. (1963) “Correlated Independent Variables: The Problem of Multicollinearity,” 62 Social Forces 233.Google Scholar
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1967) Racial Isolation in the Public Schools. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Task Force on Corrections (1967) Task Force Report: Corrections. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
WARREN, M. Q. (1967) The Community Treatment Project After Five Years. The Community Treatment Project After Five Years: California Youth Authority.Google Scholar
WASBY, Stephen L. (1970) The Impact of the U.S. The Impact of the U.S: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
Westinghouse Learning Corporation Study (1969) The Impact of Head Start: An Evaluation of the Effects of Head Start on Children's Cognitive and Affective Development.Google Scholar
WILSON, James Q. (1968) City Politics and Public Policy. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
WILSON, James Q. (1967) “The Crime Commission Reports,” 9 The Public Interest 64.Google Scholar
WILSON, James Q. (1964) “Problems in the Study of Urban Politics,” in E. H. BUEHRIG, Essays in Political Science. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar