BRITISH 'WAR CABINETS' IN LIMITED WARS: KOREA, SUEZ AND THE FALKLANDS

In crises leading to a limited war, the Cabinet assigns responsibility for its detailed management to a 'War Cabinet'. For Korea the standing Defence Committee was used; the Cabinet's role was effectively limited to parliamentary and public relations. Smaller, ad hoc committees were used in the Suez and Falklands crises. At times of greatest pressure the Cabinet in each case had the formal opportunity to take major decisions; but in practice, especially during Suez, this amounted to an opportunity for a veto which was unlikely to be used. Two dangers facing a War Cabinet are those of tunnel vision and of the undue influence of military or technical considerations. The full Cabinet, best suited in principle to relate the problems of the war to the Government's other problems and goals, risks finding itself flanked by a War Cabinet too close to the war and by a Parliament which is too far away and too excitable.     

“A CROSS-BURNING IS NOT JUST AN ARSON”: POLICE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF HATE CRIMES IN BALTIMORE COUNTY*

Growing public concern over racial and ethnic conflict and a perceived increase in hate crimes during the 1980s have led to legislation expanding the scope of the law and the severity of punishment for such offenses and to police-initiated efforts to focus attention on hate crimes. Although a number of critiques have examined the legislative approach, little attention has been devoted to the police response. This article examines the rationale for a police initiative in addressing hate crimes; the characteristics of incidents labeled as such in one jurisdiction, Baltimore County, Maryland; and some of the problems in defining, identifying, and verifying bias motivation. Because about 40% of the offenses initially considered by the Baltimore County Police Department to be motivated by racial, religious, or ethnic (RRE) prejudice subsequently are not verified as RRE motivated, a closer examination of all such cases permits insight into the social construction of “bias motivation” and related issues raised by a police hate-crime program. These include determining what forms of bias are eligible for special responses; identifying bias motivation; weighing the victim's perception of the event; determining the line between criminal and non-criminal incidents; and adopting consistent standards for verifying ambiguous events.     

PLANNING AND CONTROLLING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE IN THE UK, PART II: THE EFFECTS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SURVEY

Part I of this article [spring 19921 examined and explained the processes by which the Treasury plans and controls public expenditure through the Public Expenditure Survey. This second part analyses the survey's effects and effectiveness. Throughout we assess the survey by the extent to which the principal functions of planning, allocating, controlling and evaluating public expenditure are articulated and performed. We use four sets of criteria. Firstly, the survey is assessed as a means of regulating the interdependent relationships of the principal participants. Secondly, as a system for making decisions about public expenditure, the survey is judged by the extent to which it has enabled governments to achieve their broad spending objectives. Thirdly, the survey is assessed b the extent to which it provides directly for the participation of ministers collectively in tie process of decision-making, and how they decide the relative priority of both the total of public expenditure and its composition. And fourthly, its effects are measured by analysing the outputs of the system - the allocation of spending to departments and agencies. In the concluding section we address directly the question of whose interests are best served by the survey.     

Reclaiming Futures: A Model for Judicial Leadership in Community Responses to Juvenile Substance Abuse

Juvenile courts across the country have become the leading service delivery system for youths with substance abuse problems, not by choice, but by necessity. At 10 communities around the nation, judges and project staff are in their fifth year of pioneering changes to the way the juvenile justice system helps teens in trouble with drugs, alcohol, and crime. These judges are part of Reclaiming Futures, an initiative of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and they are working with local leaders to re‐invent the way law enforcement, courts, probation, detention facilities, treatment providers, families, schools, and the community work together to help troubled youths succeed. Together, they have written a guide for judges, court administrators, government entities, community leaders, and interested citizens to share the knowledge and experience they have gained from the nationwide Reclaiming Futures initiative. Their goal is to encourage and motivate others to launch similar projects in their communities, and to provide a blueprint for judges and others striving to undertake this level of collaboration.