Why Is the Intelligence Community So Difficult to Redesign? Smart Practices,Conflicting Goals,and the Creation of Purpose‐Based Organizations

The adoption of “smart practices” requires that smart practices can actually be identified for the areas of public policy in which we are interested. For the problem of designing structures for public agencies, however, identifying smart practices is not easy. This article explores the reasons for the substantial conservativism, lasting over 50 years, regarding the structural design of the U.S. intelligence community. One central argument is simply that it was very difficult to discover a clearly superior structure; in fact, the long‐standing structure may have had some unrecognized virtues. But the other central argument is that one smart practice may have emerged since the 9/11 attacks: It involves the creation of problem‐focused interagency centers that are intended to enhance the sharing and integration of information within the intelligence community. These conclusions about redesigning the structure of the intelligence community are based on the arguments of Luther Gulick on methods of departmentalization and Martin Landau on redundancy and system reliability.     

DOES PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY WORK? AN ASSESSMENT TOOL

In recent years, there has been a drive to strengthen existing public accountability arrangements and to design new ones. This prompts the question whether accountability arrangements actually work. In the existing literature, both accountability ‘deficits’ and ‘overloads’ are alleged to exist. However, owing to the lack of a cogent yardstick, the debate tends to be impressionistic and event‐driven. In this article we develop an instrument for systematically assessing public accountability arrangements, drawing on three different normative perspectives. In the democratic perspective, accountability arrangements should effectively link government actions to the ‘democratic chain of delegation’. In the constitutional perspective, it is essential that accountability arrangements prevent or uncover abuses of public authority. In the learning perspective, accountability is a tool to make governments effective in delivering on their promises. We demonstrate the use of our multicriteria assessment tool in an analysis of a new accountability arrangement: the boards of oversight of agencies.     

Child Abuse,Neglect, and Dependency Mediation Pilot Project

The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) established a goal of one year from removal to permanence for all children taken into protective custody. When the Family Court of Mecklenburg County (Charlotte), N.C., opened its doors in 1999, more than half of the children in the protective custody of the Department of Social Services had been in custody for 12 months or more. Innovative approaches were needed to provide children in Mecklenburg County with a safe and permanent home in a more timely manner. The Child Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Mediation Pilot Project was one approach selected by the Mecklenburg County Family Court to help achieve ASFA's goal of one year to permanence. This article details the court's two‐year journey to make dependency mediation a reality.     

Bringing Justice Back to the Community

As states and local governments struggle to meet the demands of increasing workloads with decreasing revenues, a strategy is emerging that brings new energy and resources to the juvenile justice system. This strategy, Community Justice, empowers the community to prevent and resolve problems once thought to be the exclusive responsibility of the justice system. Juvenile courts operating within this new approach are discovering that community residents are willing to become actively involved when allowed to participate in defining the goals, objectives, and their roles in furthering community safety. This article describes this new approach, provides examples of promising practices, and articulates the crucial role of the court in promoting community justice strategies.     

ISSUES AND MISCONCEPTIONS IN PRISONER LITIGATION: A CRITICAL VIEW*

In the past quarter-century, the number of suits filed by prisoners in federal courts has substantially increased. Critics have borrowed metaphors from ballistics or pathologv to describe this increase as an “epidemic” of “legal pollution” or an “explosion.” The causes of this “hyperlexis,” or excessive litigation, are often attributed to prisoners' attempts to retry their cases once they have lost, or to some psychological attribute of plaintiffs who view litigation as a means of striking back at their keepers. This paper examines several common conceptions of prisoner litigation. National ling data from federal district courts are used to assess the merits of each. The data provide little support for many of the conceptions of and explanations for prisoner suits. It is suggested that prisoners' use of courts may be a form of social resistance to conditions for which there is no other legitimate avenue for relief: