STATE-LOCAL RELATIONS AND THE AMERICAN JAIL CRISIS: AN ASSESSMENT OF STATE JAIL MANDATES

Years of neglect, combined with the recent development of a “hands on” judicial policy have resulted in a jail crisis in America. States, recognizing their contribution to this situation, have begun to develop policies designed to assist local jail officials in operating safe, humane, and constitutional facilities. These state efforts are a form o f mandating, and primarily concern minimum operating standards and inspections programs. In this research we investigate three questions related to state mandating of local jail operations: (1) what is the extent of state involvement, (2) what factors are associated with state involvement, and (3) what is the impact of state involvement? Our findings indicate (1) states have been active in developing and administering jail mandates, (2) state involvement is associated with state-level corrections policy, and (3) jail standards and inspections programs have a substantial impact on local jail performance. We conclude with a discussion of how state and local governments may proceed in the process of developing standards, inspections, and enforcement procedures.     

THE IMPACT OF STATE STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES ON LOCAL JAIL PERFORMANCE

One of the recent trends in the field of criminal justice has been the development of state jail standards. The nature of local politics has meant that jails have been among the most poorly funded and operated governmental institutions. The result of decades of neglect is a fertile ground for inmate litigation. The interest shown by the courts, in a variety of operational and procedural areas, has been a key factor in leading many states to assume a greater role in local jail oversight. This article examines some of the problems facing jails and describes state efforts to address these problems through state-level jail standards and enforcement procedures.     

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION IN THE USA: LESSONS LEARNT AND TO BE LEARNT

Abstract: In the 1970s, both Australia and the United States instituted legal reforms aimed at promoting greater accountability among public servants. Prompted by growing awareness of the need to encourage and protect federal government whistleblowers, Congress enacted whistleblower protection measures in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Although the notion of open government in Australia has never been extended to include whistleblowing by public servants, probing the issue of whether or not United States whistleblower protection can serve as a reform model in the search for more effective legal mechanisms for ensuring government accountability can provide lessons and insights of value to Australian public administrators. Analysis of the role and impact of the Office of the Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board as established under the Civil Service Reform Act reveals many difficulties associated with whistleblower protection. Research has substantiated the jurisdictional ambiguities, administrative and procedural deficiencies and lack of sanctioning power which plague this reform effort. Similar deficiencies also impede the protection of parliamentary witnesses in Australia. Evaluation of whistleblower protection leads to the conclusion that reform models in either country for ensuring government accountability must not be judged solely through examination of statutory provisions. There must also be in place strong stabilising factors such as political unity, economic comfort, social discipline, civic virtue and public service ideology in order to achieve the common public service goal of rendering governmental decision-making more accountable to persons affected by it and open to review by independent decision makers.     

Budget makers as agents: A preliminar investigation of discretionary behavior under state-contingent rewards

An earlier version of this essay was delivered at the Public Choice Society Meeting, Tucson AZ, 27–29 March 1987. Our thanks to Laura Langbein, Steve Maser, Eugenia Froedge-Toma, and Gordon Tullock for helpful comments. Special thanks to George Racette.     

Local government and development in a regional city: The case of Iloilo City,Philippines

The development of urban hinterland centres, known as the Regional Cities Development Project (RCDP), is a key strategy applied by the Philippine government to rectify the country's grave regional imbalances. Yet RCDP has not markedly altered the distorted demographic, spatial and economic growth patterns of the Philippines. Unlike the sizeable body of literature which mainly explains failures of the ‘growth centre approach’ by economic factors emanating from the metropolis-periphery relationship, this study places greater emphasis on politico-administrative factors that affect regional city development. The article demonstrates that regional city development in Iloilo City–one of four Philippine secondary centres selected as RCDP sites–is impeded by an elitist, conservative local oligarchy, excessive patronage politics, severe financial constraints, limited managerial capabilities, a low degree of local autonomy, over-politicization and the impact of an adverse economic environment. Following an in-depth analysis of the politico-administrative culture of Iloilo City, the authors present suggestions that in the long run may positively affect the city's developmental path.