THE TASMANIAN PUBLIC SERVICE AND THE FUTURE

Abstract: State governments in Australia have been regarded essentially as service deliverers, with the result that the specialist heads of public organizations, although technically competent, have rarely questioned the need for their activities. Nor does the argument that such questioning is the responsibility of the politician take account of the inertia of the existing system; an analysis of the activities which the Tasmanian government has undertaken over the past six years—including those of statutory authorities—shows a fair degree of stability. Thus we should consider building into the State's existing organizational arrangements some means of evaluating existing programs and new proposals. Such policy analysis should widen the narrow focus of the advice currently offered by public servants. Although there have been some moves in this direction in Tasmania (particularly in the Premier's Department), it has not been reflected in the structures of the public service generally. A survey of 22 government departments showed that only eight had officers concerned with evaluatory planning, and only three departments were engaged in innovative and initiatory planning. Other directions in which Tasmania's public organizations could move with benefit include an increase in lateral recruitment; breaking down the rigidity of the promotion appeals and classification systems; introducing flexible management and budgeting procedures throughout the service as a whole; and continually reviewing the structure and functions of public organizations. The questions that have been raised by recent inquiries into State and Federal government administration, namely coordination, efficiency, economy, effectiveness, decentralization and participation, have not stressed sufficiently the key issue for the public services of the 1980s, which is the nature of the relationship between the politician, the public service and the community.     

Violent recidivism in criminal psychopaths

The predictive validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) was compared with 3 actuarial risk scales in a sample of 81 offenders followed for a maximum of 67 months (average of 30 months). The recommittal or general recidivism rate for the entire sample was 57% (40% for nonpsychopaths, 51.2% for a mixed group, and 85% for psychopaths). The violent reoffense rate was 10% for the sample (nonpsychopaths 0%, mixed 7.3%, psychopaths 25%). All instruments were significantly correlated with general recidivism; however, the PCL-R was the best predictor of violent recidivism. Compared to the actuarial scales, the PCL-R had a higher predictive efficiency (Relative Improvement Over Chance (RIOC)) and yielded fewer decision errors. Most importantly, Factor 1 was a better predictor of violent recidivism than Factor 2, suggesting that the trait construct of psychopathy makes a unique contribution to the prediction of violent recidivism.     

State criminality and the “new” world order

B.A., Bowdoin College 1976; J.D., Harvard University 1980. I acknowledge with gratitude the assistance of Joni Charme, Adam Greenstone, and Bill Graves.