Article: Graham, S. R., & Makowsky, M. D. (2021). Local government dependence on criminal justice revenue and emerging constraints. Annual Review of Criminology, 4, 311-330.
Research Question and Central Thesis of the Article
The goal of the Graham and Makowsky article, “Local government dependence on criminal justice revenue and emerging constraints,” published in the Annual Review of Criminology in 2021 is to analyze the effects of local government dependence on criminal justice revenue on the criminal justice system and its implications for the future of criminal justice policy in the US. The researchers develop a clear research question that they want to investigate: How do local government dependence on criminal justice revenue influence public policy choices and economic outcomes, and how is this dependence impacted by new constraints like modifications to state and federal policies? The first element of the study question explores how local government reliance on criminal justice revenue affects judgments about public policy and the state of the economy. The purpose of this section of the question is to better understand how local governments’ funding sources can affect the way those governments adopt and carry out policies, as well as how those policies affect economic outcomes like employment growth and economic development.
The second component of the study topic is the impact of new restrictions, such as modifications to state and federal policies, on local governments’ reliance on criminal justice revenue. Because it acknowledges that local government financing sources are vulnerable to change and that those changes may impact local government decision-making, this portion of the question is equally significant. The article’s main argument is that local governments in the US are becoming more dependent on money from the criminal justice system, which has several negative effects, such as causing conflicts of interest, unfair justice, and criminalizing poverty. The authors contend that local governments’ motivation to sustain and grow the system to produce cash, rather than concentrating on justice, constraints criminal justice policy.
The method used to support the claims of the article. State whether the method is quantitative or qualitative and briefly explain the methodological approach.
By employing a quantitative research technique, the authors conducted a thorough and systematic analysis of the relationship between local governments’ reliance on criminal justice revenue, societal choices, and economic results. The authors were able to back their arguments with statistics and gain important insights into how criminal justice revenue affects local government decision-making by gathering and analyzing numerical data.
The authors used quantitative research to gather and analyze numerical data to support their claims. The authors gathered data on the forms of criminal justice revenue that local governments earned and how much of their budget was funded by these sources using a national survey of local governments that was carried out between 2008 and 2012. More than 2,000 local governments, including towns, counties, and cities, responded to the poll. The authors constructed metrics of local government dependence on criminal justice revenue from this data and looked at how this dependence connected to societal choices about public policy and economic results.
The authors employed statistical techniques like regression analysis and difference-in-differences analysis to analyze the data. A statistical technique called regression analysis is used to look at the relationship between two or more variables. The authors employed regression analysis in this study to investigate the relationship between local government reliance on criminal justice revenue and societal and economic consequences. Also, they employed a statistical technique called difference-in-differences analysis to compare the outcomes of two groups across time. By employing this methodology, the authors of this study could examine the financial results of local governments that heavily relied on criminal justice revenue and those that did not.
The article’s authors’ strategy for gathering data closely matched the inquiry they set out to investigate. The authors sought to examine how local governments’ reliance on criminal justice revenue affects judgments about public policy and economic outcomes, as well as how this reliance is impacted by new restrictions such as adjustments to state and federal legislation. The authors gathered information on the forms of criminal justice revenue that local governments earned and how much of their budget was funded by these sources from a national survey of local governments performed between 2008 and 2012.
The authors identified four potential sources of criminal justice income for local governments: penalties and forfeitures, court fines and costs, police service fees, and income from prisons. The level to which local governments depended on various funding sources was then determined by the authors using the survey data. They discovered that, on average, money from the criminal justice system accounted for 7.4% of local government expenditures. This number varied greatly by jurisdiction, with some local governments deriving over 20% of their budgets from the criminal justice system.
The authors employed statistical techniques like regression analysis and difference-in-differences analysis to evaluate the effects of local government reliance on criminal justice revenue. With the aid of these techniques, the authors were able to account for additional variables that might be influencing the link between public policy choices and economic outcomes and the dependency of local governments on criminal justice revenue. The authors discovered that a local government’s reliance on revenue from the criminal justice system was linked to harsher criminal justice policies, such as longer jail terms and a greater propensity for the death penalty. Moreover, the local government’s reliance on criminal justice revenue was linked to unfavorable economic consequences, such as slower economic growth and higher poverty rates.
The authors also looked at how local governments’ reliance on criminal justice revenue was affected by changes in state and federal laws. They discovered that local governments reacted by increasing their reliance on other sources of criminal justice revenue when states implemented policies to reduce local government dependence on criminal justice revenue, such as capping the amount of revenue that could be generated from certain sources or redirecting revenue to the state level. These results imply that extensive efforts must be made to address all potential sources of income to lessen local government dependence on criminal justice revenue.
The study was designed to collect data on the sorts of criminal justice revenue local governments received and the proportion of their budgets supported by these sources. The data gathered includes details on penalties and forfeitures, bail and bond fees, court expenses and fees, jail and prison fees, probation and parole fees, police fees, fines, and money made from asset forfeiture. The survey gathered information on the local governments’ sizes and populations, their geographic locations, their political and economic aspects, and data on funding sources for the criminal justice system. With a complete picture of local government supplied by these data, the researchers could investigate the relationship between local government reliance on criminal justice revenue and societal and economic results.
By gathering this information, the researchers were able to create metrics of local government reliance on criminal justice revenue and investigate how this reliance connected to societal choices and economic outcomes. Additionally, they looked at how modifications to state and federal policy affected local governments’ reliance on criminal justice revenue. As a result, the researchers were able to offer a thorough and systematic investigation of the influence of criminal justice income on local government decision-making.
Assess whether the conclusions drawn by the article’s authors sound based on the data they present.
Based on the information they provide, the writers’ conclusions in the article seem reasonable. The authors can thoroughly evaluate the relationship between local government dependence on criminal justice revenue and public policy decisions and economic results using statistical approaches, including regression analysis and difference-in-differences analysis. The authors conclude that local governments are more likely to implement harsh criminal justice policies, such as more arrests and longer jail terms if they rely more on money from the criminal justice system. The results confirm this conclusion, which states that adopting punitive criminal justice policies positively correlates with the share of local government budgets funded by criminal justice income.
The authors also discover that local governments that depend more on criminal justice revenue suffer from detrimental economic effects, such as lower median household incomes and increased poverty rates. The facts, which demonstrate a negative correlation between economic performance and the proportion of local government budgets funded by criminal justice revenue, also corroborate this conclusion.
Additionally, they looked at how shifting state and federal policies impact local governments’ reliance on criminal justice funding. They discover that changes in state policies have a greater impact on local governments’ reliance on criminal justice funding than changes in federal policies. This conclusion is corroborated by the data, which demonstrates that changes in state policies have a stronger correlation with changes in local government’s reliance on criminal justice revenue than changes in federal policy.
Weaknesses or oversights of the article.
Some certain flaws and oversights should be pointed out, notwithstanding the article’s thorough investigation of the connection between local governments’ reliance on criminal justice revenue and political choices and economic outcomes. The little window of time during which the data was collected may be a drawback of the article. Between 2008 and 2012, a national poll was conducted, and the results were used to compile the statistics. Although this time frame offers a snapshot of the relationship between local government reliance on criminal justice revenue and public policy choices and economic outcomes, the relationship has likely evolved in the years since the survey was completed. For example, changes in state and federal policies may have significantly impacted local government dependence on criminal justice revenue in recent years.
The article’s restricted regional scope could be another area for improvement. The information was gathered from local governments all around the United States; however, it is probable that in other nations or locations, there may be differences in the relationship between local governments’ reliance on criminal justice revenue, public policy choices, and economic consequences. Although the authors know this drawback, it is crucial to consider if their findings are transferable to other situations.
The authors also emphasize the detrimental effects of local government’s dependence on criminal justice revenue, such as the implementation of harsh criminal justice policies and unfavorable economic results. Although this is a crucial component of the research, concentrating solely on the drawbacks may need to be more complex. Local governments’ dependence on criminal justice system proceeds may also have advantageous effects, such as greater funding for criminal justice-related initiatives and services.
The lack of examination of the underlying factors contributing to the local government’s dependence on criminal justice revenue is another possible flaw in the article. The authors analyze how local governments’ reliance on criminal justice revenue affects public policy choices and economic results. Still, they do not detail the underlying causes of this dependence. The development of solutions to lessen this dependence on criminal justice revenue would benefit from understanding the underlying issues.
Finally, the authors do not define what they mean by “criminal justice revenue” in a precise manner. There is no precise definition of criminal justice revenue, although they give instances of the different kinds of money that fall into this category. This can make it unclear which sources of income should be counted when determining how dependent a local government is on criminal justice revenue.
Notwithstanding these flaws and omissions, the article offers important insights into the connections between public policy choices and economic results, as well as local government dependence on criminal justice revenue. The data supplied and the statistical techniques used confirm the authors’ findings and prove the link between local governments’ reliance on criminal justice revenue and unfavorable results. When deciding how to allocate funds and resources in the criminal justice system, policymakers and practitioners should consider the study’s conclusions. The development of methods to lessen this dependence and lessen the negative effects highlighted in this study will depend partly on further investigation into the underlying factors contributing to the local government’s reliance on criminal justice revenue.
References
Graham, S. R., & Makowsky, M. D. (2021). Local government dependence on criminal justice revenue and emerging constraints. Annual Review of Criminology, 4, 311-330.
write