The Western Criminologist:
Policy design and policy analysis are performed mainly by professional
experts in a variety of policy fields. Their approach often is grounded
in scientific analysis borne out of positivism. Positivism suggests that
phenomena are observable, explainable and measurable in quantitative terms.
As such, reality consists of a world of objectively defined facts which
can be scientifically measured (Henwood & Pidgeon, 1993). Thus, the advice
of experts is assumed to be "objective" and "accurate."
Moreover, policy analysis practiced by experts using this "scientific
approach" is based on instrumental rationality. Dunn (1981, p.273)
suggests that this type of technical rationality is a "characteristic
of reasoned choices that involve the comparison of alternatives according
to their capacity to promote effective solutions for problems." Furthermore,
in relation to criminal and juvenile justice issues, technical approaches
often involve ranking intervention, treatment and/or punishment alternatives
and determining which alternative is most effective. This approach is common
in the policy science field.
Laswell (1951, p.15) states that the purpose of the policy sciences are
to provide knowledge "needed to improve the practice of democracy."
According to Fisher, the 1951 policy science approach of Laswell was "to
be grounded in a fundamental moral objective: the protection and furtherance
of democracy in America and the world" (1993, p.165). Based on this
presupposition, does the use of expert knowledge improve, encourage or discourage
democracy and ultimately, citizenship?
Experts, that is intellectuals, academicians, members of advisory structures,
civil servants and/or private consultants, play a major role in designing,
forming and analyzing policy, including juvenile justice policy. As such,
youth, parents, and citizens are often left out of the policy process. This
leads to the support of the status quo and a narrow focus on controlling
members of society rather than empowering them, unlike the purpose of the
policy sciences as described by Laswell. The policy sciences appear to impede
rather than encourage democracy since the actual process of democracy is
not being adequately practiced. One such example is the Arizona juvenile
intensive probation supervision program.
Juvenile intensive probation supervision (JIPS) has become an increasingly
popular policy for youth. JIPS emerged in the mid to late 1980s as an alternative
to incarceration under the "get tough" movement, not the "get
treatment" approach as did the community corrections movement in the
1970s. The community corrections movement was primarily built on the medical
model of corrections with the purpose of "treating" offenders
and thus, rehabilitating them in the community. This ideology has changed
considerably and community corrections programs are now usually referred
to as intermediate punishments or alternatives to incarceration and are
built upon a more retributive philosophy.
This "get tough" approach was primarily a response to the overcrowding
problem in the nation's prisons and jails. According to Burkhart (1987,
p.75), Americans were facing a "social dilemma caused by the desire
to obtain maximum offender control through imprisonment and a reluctance
to support the high public costs associated with prison construction and
the maintenance of a large inmate population." As such, intensive supervision
programs provided an opportunity to "get tough" without adding
to the overall cost of corrections (Byrne, 1990), and was viewed as doing
"tough time" in the community without jeopardizing public safety.
For example, in many states youth on JIPS are contacted by their probation
officer several times per week. They are to attend many counseling sessions,
perform community service, work and/or go to school. They are to stay at
home at all times unless they are working, attending school or fulfilling
a service requirement. These conditions are much more stringent and intensive
than standard probation in which there are few visits with limited control
provisions.
JIPS reflects a "get tough" approach to delinquency and under
this philosophy, it mirrors the classical approach in dealing with offenders,
i.e., punishment and retribution. However, the original purpose of the juvenile
justice system was to treat and rehabilitate youth, not to punish them (Short,
1990). Prior to the establishment of the first juvenile court in 1899, children
were treated like adults and were subjected to the same rules and regulations
as adults (Empey, 1991). The juvenile court began with a rehabilitative
philosophy which was greatly influenced by the medical model of delinquency
(Champion, 1992). According to the medical model, delinquency was considered
a physical illness which was susceptible to treatment in which individual
conditions could be changed through treatment services, not punishment.
This philosophy was inherently different than other tactics in dealing with
"problem" youth. In a sense, the juvenile court was a "rescue"
operation to act in the best interests of the youth (Rothman, 1979), through
individualized treatment services with the goal of rehabilitation.
However, there has been some disagreement about the motives and intent of
the juvenile court system. An alternative view is that problems and delinquency
were generated by large-scale urban growth of Western European immigrants
and that poor children posed a threat to the moral fabric of American society
(Siegel & Senna, 1994). As such, Platt (1977) suggests that the juvenile
justice system was just another mechanism of controlling youth, especially
lower-class immigrant youth. Bortner (1988) states that the juvenile justice
system was created to resocialize youth to conform to society and according
to Platt (1977), it was an extension of state control and oppression formed
by those with power and privilege.
In spite of the conflicting views of the philosophy of the juvenile court,
it can be concluded that the ideal view of the juvenile justice system was
to provide treatment in hopes that at least some youth would become rehabilitated
and would benefit from the treatment services. Punishment and retribution
were to play no part in the juvenile justice system. However, today's policies
and programs for youth often reflect the punitive nature of the system.
The rising concern about serious delinquencies of youth and the desire to
hold youth more accountable for their actions has increased the punitiveness
of the juvenile justice system. Policies and legislation reflect this philosophy
which is divergent from the original concept of the juvenile court (Davis,
1980).
For example, most JIPS programs in practice contain a strong punishment
component. JIPS contains high levels of offender control and posits a "punishment"
approach through home arrest and frequent control mechanisms of surveillance
and frequent face-to-face contacts. According to Lurigio & Petersilia (1992,
p.9), "the increased monitoring and surveillance in intensive probation
supervision programs are designed to boost offenders' perceptions of the
effectiveness of the system in detecting and punishing their criminal behavior."
Hence, intensive probation may be designed for the mere purpose of punishment
in the guise of some limited treatment services. But what should be noted
is that every JIPS program is different and may have different goals. Unsettling
tension exists amongst the experts between the two polarized elements of
the purpose and practice of JIPS; that is, treatment and rehabilitation
v. control and punishment. Harland & Rosen (1987) define this dilemma as
the "control versus cure" debate.
However, if the ideal purpose of the juvenile court is to treat children,
then why do the punishment provisions even exist? Furthermore, the important
question is who exactly designs and develops these programs? Moreover, many
policies, such as the Arizona JIPS policy, emphasize the quantitative element
in impact evaluations while ignoring qualitative approaches that one would
not necessarily detect. For example, if these youths had better self-esteem,
had improved their relationships, took more control over their life, and/or
obtained a job, an impact evaluation may not uncover these findings since
in traditional outcome evaluations, one of the most common measures are
recidivism and cost effectiveness. But when taking a child-centered approach,
what does all of this mean for the juveniles?
Most JIPS programs target on changing an individual once s/he has been in
the system. However, are these individuals ever involved in the policy process?
Those who design and develop JIPS programs are usually those at the top,
such as experts, legislators and public officials who think they know what
is best for youth. What appears to be missing in the formation and delivery
of juvenile policies is the involvement of the people most affected
by programming for youth; that is, the youth, parents, teachers and the
community-at-large. A technical expert making many public policy decisions
often forgets or does not understand the problems of youth and his/her special
needs. Policies made by professionals often ignore the human element. Policies
such as JIPS may offer some treatment potential, but it may be yet another
way of controlling oppressed individuals, such as youth, while ensuring
the position of those in power. Only a few are involved in the process of
policy making. As such, democracy "by the people" appears to be
overshadowed and actual involvement by ordinary citizens in the process
of engaging in policy making is misconstrued.
JIPS policy is, in part, a result of public demands that we need to "do
something" about delinquency. Hackler (1985, p.181) states that:
Since we must act, it is normal to ask the 'experts' to research the problem,
analyze the causes, generate reasonable proposals, launch programs based
on these proposals, evaluate these programs and rationally select the programs
that will 'cure' delinquency. Many believe that this scientific approach
will lead to the 'solution' of the problem.
Moreover, policy making and analysis develops from a process dominated by
politics in which knowledge of experts plays an increasingly significant
role. Technical policy analysis convinces agencies and the general public
that the expert or professional knows what is best (Edelman, 1977). The
government recognizes that expert knowledge is the preferred method of legitimizing
social classifications. By giving authority to the experts, political leaders
can escape responsibility and politics.
Stone (1993) agrees and uses the terms "clinical reasoning" or
"clinical authority" of experts. She believes that clinical reasoning
of experts removes power from ordinary citizens and places it in the hands
of experts and professional researchers. As such, clinical reasoning through
quantitative measurement then is to yield "objective" information.
The objectivity begins with the examination of the target population, in
this case, juvenile delinquents.
For example, clinical authority is often utilized to arbitrate claims of
"truth" in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. Rape trauma
syndrome, the battered women's syndrome and the child abuse accommodation
syndrome are all illustrations of how clinical authority is used in criminal
and juvenile justice. To illustrate, the rape trauma syndrome unarguably
has empowered women by giving them more credence and legitimacy in the courtroom.
However, the substitution of "clinical" knowledge by the experts
in place of experiential knowledge by the victims may have denigrated women
as legitimate witnesses. According to Stone (1993, p.58), "the substitution
of clinical observations for women's own claims still denies them credibility
in the courts. Clinical experts--not women themselves--are constituted as
the bearers of truth." The claim then becomes constructed and legitimized
by the experts.
In essence, clinical authority may enhance the power of less privileged
people on the surface, but the clinical professionals, not ordinary
people or victims, gain influence over the public's understanding of a social
problem. The professional experts have the power to construct such envisionary
transformations and claims. Stone also maintains that clinical authority
"expects to find the source of trouble in the individual, and it promises
to locate and define problems by measuring something inside the boundaries
of the person" (p.47). In other words, clinical authority identifies
an individual as a "delinquent," and measures his/her risks to
decide a proper correctional approach. Moreover, it is the technical ability
of the experts and professionals to reveal what is unknown that gives them
their claim to control citizen classification on behalf of society (Ibid).
It replaces subjective knowledge of the client with objective knowledge
of the expert. However, what appears to be ironic is that the public-at-large
does not appear to be nearly as punitive as public officials who are making
the policy (see Schwartz, Guo & Kerbs (1993), Steinhart (1990) and Cullen
et al (1983).
Nevertheless, it is the politician and other public officials who make the
policies directed at the youth. They are the ones who have the power to
create punishment-oriented policies to demonstrate that they are "getting
tough" on crime. If policies were developed and formed by people within
communities, they might be quite different and would instead, reflect the
public's ideas; hence, the community would be not only involved in the process
but empowered through such involvement and decision-making. Thus, the policies
would come from and by the people to whom the policy is directed.
Experts identify some feature of an individual, i.e., the juvenile, that
has measurable characteristics. For example, in order to be recommended
for JIPS, the juvenile has to meet several conditions. Prior delinquent
history, severity of the offense, emotional/mental stability, substance
abuse and school performance all play a part in whether or not a juvenile
is recommended for JIPS. Frequently, a risk-factor and/or needs assessment
is conducted to determine if the juvenile is appropriate for intensive probation.
Risk/needs assessments are empirically derived statistical predictions to
measure the "dangerousness" of an individual, to assess the probability
of recidivism and/or objectively measure the needs of such offenders with
possible rehabilitation in mind. Risk-needs assessments are used to choose
among sentencing alternatives, such as JIPS. They are objective checklists
that involve a number of categorical characteristics of the juvenile. According
to the risk-needs assessments, one youth may pose more of a threat to recidivate
and hence, may produce high levels of surveillance. Conversely, another
youth on JIPS may indicate a greater need for substance abuse counseling
or education and hence, may have more treatment requirements.
Since the early 1980s quantitative assessment instruments have increased
in popularity due to the belief that they are valid and accurate, and it
is believed to limit the amount of discretion of decision makers in criminal
and juvenile justice. For example, risk/needs assessments are purportedly
used to lessen the amount of disparity and discretion of some of the key
decision makers; that is, intake workers, juvenile probation officers, and
judges. Individual-level case processing studies have demonstrated how "extralegal"
or "social" factors such as race, age, gender and social class
of the offender greatly influence court decision making (Hagan, 1974; Hagan
& Bumiller; 1983; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1988) ,as well as "extralegal"
factors of key decision makers themselves (Reese, Curtis & Whitworth, 1988).
Reese et al (1988) concluded that decisions made on behalf of the youth
may reflect the systematic disparity of juvenile justice personnel, specifically
that of juvenile probation officers.
Added to these "extralegal" factors, "legal" factors
such as type and seriousness of offense and prior criminal history also
influence decision making in the juvenile justice system. These elements
are often the factors on which risk/needs assessments instruments are formed.
In addition, the structural context of the juvenile court itself (Sampson
& Laub, 1993) may offer some reasons as to disparities in juvenile justice
processing, including the differing ideologies of each juvenile court in
the United States. Furthermore, the context and setting in which interactions
between youth and juvenile justice officials are made also may affect decision
making. Demeanor, language, speech, non-verbal communications and self-presentation
of an offender all may account for varying amounts of discretion, both at
the individual and system-wide level.
Even though risk/needs assessments may be used to limit the amount of discretion,
the underlying purpose is to, for example, predict future law-violating
behavior and/or future needs in which offenders are assigned into "categories"
to determine the proper level of supervision. Armstrong (1991, p.23) suggests
that "the use of more formal and more quantitative assessment techniques
will ensure a growing ability to target those youths who require more structured
intervention and/or services and resource provisions." Armstrong continues
by saying that "if a major underlying principle of intensive supervision
programs is the selection of that population of clients who will benefit
the most from their involvement, a central objective must be the use of
procedures providing the most objective and accurate predictions of both
future conduct (risk) and the nature/extent of present problems and deficits
(needs)" (p.20). In essence, quantitative measurements, such as risk-needs
assessments, are popular tools used for the prediction of "accurate"
intervention, treatment and/or punishment modalities. However, some studies
contend that they may not be as "accurate" as generally believed
(Ashford & LeCroy, 1988; Andrews, Bonta & Hoge, 1990; Andrews & Kiessling,
1988.
Considerable debate continues on the "accuracy" of measurement
devices. However, what occurs through this "objectification" is
that offenders are subsequently "lumped" into categories based
on their score. The higher the score, the more "punishment" and/or
intervention. Thus, it takes the individuality out of juvenile justice and
assigns them a number by which their future in the system is determined.
However, risk assessments may not really measure anything at all. It can
be said that these type of devices are yet another sources of clinical authority
in which a level of risk or need becomes legitimized by a statistical design
created by experts. Some suggest that these predictive scores may limit
the amount of discretion by decision-makers, but conversely, the youth's
future may, in part, be determined by how s/he "fits" into a measurement
scale. As such, youths are treated as objects of intervention through such
scales while the human element is forgotten. Furthermore, these scales purport
to be scientific and are developed by experts who claim that they can give
accurate predictions. However, in reality this is far from the case. Moreover,
risk assessment instruments legitimize the practice of those in power while
maintaining the status quo and controlling the predicted behavior of offenders.
Yet another aspect of expert knowledge in juvenile justice is evaluations
to study the effectiveness of governmental programs for youth. Virtually
all criminal justice and juvenile justice programs have an evaluation component
built into the design. Most evaluations of intensive probation programs
have looked at effectiveness questions (Armstrong, 1991; Barton & Butts,
1990; Barton & Butts, 1991; Feinberg, 1991; Latessa, 1987; Petersilia & Turner,
1990), without analyzing the actual policy itself. These impact evaluations
often focus on technical violations, rates of recidivism or cost effectiveness.
Some outcome evaluations determine the impact of more treatment-oriented
goals or address the impact of the program on the system itself, i.e., net-widening.
As such, evaluations conducted by "experts" may involve different
approaches and the experts themselves may not always agree on which variables
to measure.
However, criminal justice and juvenile justice evaluations almost always
identify rates of recidivism to determine how effective the program is or
if it is "working." If the program is not working, then the experts
are to find out why. These evaluations conducted by experts often measure
quantitatively the outcomes of the conditions and its relative effectiveness.
Countless evaluations of intensive probation programs have been conducted
by experts to determine these effectiveness dimensions which are based on
objectively defined criteria (see Armstrong, 1991; Baird, 1991; Byrne, 1989;
Clear & Hardyman, 1990; Fagan & Reinarman, 1991; Feinberg, 1991; Latessa,
1987; Petersilia, 1990; Petersilia, 1989; Petersilia & Turner, 1990; Turner,
Petersilia, & Deschenes, 1992). Furthermore, most studies have documented
that JIPS is not cost effective and does not reduce recidivism.
In other words, research has identified what happens to offenders after
they have been in the program. But what about the actual JIPS policy that
creates the conditions? Who is part of creating the policy, the policy process
and of screening "appropriate" offenders? These types of issues
are not adequately addressed since it is assumed that the technical experts
are knowledgeable and hence, make the "correct" decisions and
know what is best for society.
One result of expert policy is that it ignores the human side of individuals.
For example, juveniles considered delinquent are socially constructed as
being deviant and as being "monsters." As such, "claims makers"
construct problems and then promote a particular definition or perspective
about them (Palumbo, 1994). Social problems, such as delinquency, "exist
only because claimsmakers construct them and make the public and policy
makers aware of their existence" (Ibid, p.v). For example, by the mid
1980s the characterization of alternatives to incarceration was changed
from community corrections to "intermediate sanctions." Researchers
began to refer to them as "intermediate punishments," saying that
they were essential to achieve "just deserts" and to give judges
more sentencing options than just probation or prison (McCarthy, 1987; Morris
& Tonry, 1990; von Hirsch, 1992). "This new characterization of alternatives
to incarceration emphasizes intermediate punishments and control
over offenders rather than rehabilitation and community responsibility"
(Palumbo & Petersen, 1994, p.161, original emphasis), as did the community
corrections movement of the 1970s.
It is also suspect as to whether or not these types of sanctions are really
alternatives to incarceration at all, since many offenders have not necessarily
been targeted correctly; that is, if sanctions such as intensive probation
did not exist, would they have received standard probation? This also raises
the question of the net-widening effect of intermediate sanctions such as
JIPS, in which this effect may not always have positive outcomes. The "toughness"
of risk control may be a waste for those who constitute little risk. Furthermore,
rehabilitation may not necessarily be the goal of JIPS and in essence, is
another mechanism of control. Little potential for rehabilitation exists
in many intermediate punishments but they have been seen by the public as
offering some potential for rehabilitation of young offenders.
Moreover, social problems, such as juvenile delinquency, are not
objectively defined as suggested by proponents of positivism. Rather, they
are socially constructed by "claimsmakers" who usually have a
stake in their claim. This type of constructionist approach looks beyond
the assumptions of neutrality and objectivity of social problems. For example,
in regard to the construction of elderly abuse, Baumann (1989, p.65) writes
that "claims-makers seek to persuade readers to accept their conclusions
about the necessity for intervention and the appropriateness of the proposed
intervention schemes." Furthermore, experts play an increasingly important
role in the construction of social problems. Powerless or marginalized people
do not have the power to make such claims of social problems and as such,
the claims making of professionals often limit their ability to effectively
participate in policies that influence their lives.
Stone (1993, p.65) suggests that clinical authority "elevates a
particular type of expert knowledge and denigrates or even ignores the knowledge,
perceptions, and interpretation of ordinary citizens in their relations
with other individuals and with social institutions." This then results
in profoundly antidemocratic values (Dryzek, 1990; Stone, 1993), with citizens
being prevented from self expression. The use of experts identifies individual
problems and policies directed at individual behavior and thus, ignores
the structural problems that exist in our society.
Expert knowledge reinforces the status quo, and usually fails to question
social structures as causes of problems. Moreover, Lindbloom & Woodhouse
(1993, p.135) state that "professional policy analysis tends to end
up supporting the existing social order and its prevailing distribution
of privileges and deprivations." Experts assume that the existing system
or policy is workable rather than challenging the irrationalities or coercive
elements of, for example, the juvenile justice system. They do not
appear to challenge the status quo.
Furthermore, public policy analysis conducted by experts has tended to focus
on effectiveness and scientific quantitative analysis rather than to question
citizenship and democracy (Dryzek, 1990; Smith & Ingram, 1993) or structural
inequalities. Moreover, Dryzek (1990, p.112) notes that policy analysis
within an expert culture is "another force of impoverishment of the
life world and the obstruction of discursive democracy." It has neglected
to look at the full effects; that is, the effects of public policy on citizenship,
participation or democratic values. Groups receiving policy may feel neglected
in the policy process which leads to alienation and low participation. Disadvantaged
groups' voices, such as youth on JIPS, will rarely be heard.
"Delinquent" youth are considered a deviant population with a
message sent to them that they are "bad" people who pose a nuisance
to others and who will subsequently be punished for their actions. Ingram
& Schneider (1993, p.91) suggest that these types of people are "angry
and oppressed people who have no faith in government's fairness or effectiveness.
They see themselves as alone and as individual players who have no chance
of 'winning' in a game that they view as essentially corrupt." As such,
justice and democracy may have little or no meaning to them.
Lindbloom & Woodhouse (1993) suggest that to improve the professional contributions
to policy making, we need to reduce professional impairment; have experts
become more open to challenge and to practice skepticism. Moreover, they
state that "rather than aiming analysis solely at political elites,
recognize that improved thinking by ordinary people may be humanities best
hope" (p.138). In other words, maybe a professional could elicit the
responses from groups to whom the policy is most effected, which could empower
disadvantaged groups. Furthermore, I do not believe we should abandon the
use of experts per se, but that their expertise could be used differently.
Experts could assist and facilitate bottom-up empowerment. It is the actual
process of decision making that is crucial for democracy.
Youth at all levels need to be empowered and should have opportunities to
represent themselves. With regard to juvenile delinquency, how then would
public policy be developed by the youth? First, we should ask youth their
views of delinquency and the best ways to deal with "troublesome"
kids. Youth in schools would be the main target of such decision-making.
However, many youth do not necessarily attend school. Therefore, job corps,
youth in correctional facilities and youth in-the-streets also need to be
involved so, they too, would be involved in decision-making.
Youth would be asked their view and the best ways to deal with all types
of adolescent issues. Their voices' would not only be heard, but then acted-upon
and as such, policies would represent their vested interests and
not just the professionals who have the power. Furthermore, parents, teachers
and members of the community would also take part in decision-making. Policies
would then represent the interests of those most effected by future decisions
and would represent the interests of the community collectively, not solely
a technical expert who may not even know or adequately understand the community
conditions or culture. From this would spur a grass-roots movement. This
type of representation would help instill the ideas of democracy and citizenship
in those people who never really had much voice before. However, this might
be very difficult to do in such an individualistic society such as ours
that is not in practice, based on communitarianism.
The restoration of community-based societal improvements will transpire
and be "successful" only if all voices are heard and all are involved
in decisions that affect their lives. It is fairly accepted that traditional
punishment in its truest form of retribution does not work and as public
opinion polls have demonstrated, the public has not yet given up on rehabilitation
for its youth. Currently, only one part of the crime problem is being addressed
and that is retribution, taking action after an offense has been
committed. However, we need to attack the problems of crime and delinquency
in a much more proactive policy approach, bringing together and encouraging
as many voices as possible with the goal of each having an equal participatory
voice. Support of the public, not solely the experts, is what needs to be
greatly expanded in order for our society to improve.
In short, policy analysis based on instrumental rationality by professional
experts can be antithetical to democracy. Policy design and analysis with
expert advice tends to support the status quo, which in turn reflects the
values of the powerful. Ordinary citizens, such as those on JIPS, are not
involved in the policy process and they are the ones to whom policy is directed
toward. The end result is detrimental for youth and ultimately to society
in that people without power often become more alienated from democracy
and from further "buying into" society. Moreover, to help change
this current practice, policy analysis needs to first look to society and
social structures instead of identifying the individual as the center of
the problem. Moreover, critical theory suggests that people need to become
empowered, enlightened, and emancipated through policy rather than feeling
alienated, neglected or ignored. Participating in the policy process is
of utmost importance for individuals as well as society's democratic values;
people must feel as if they are part of society and hence, of democracy.
A participatory democracy would receive strong resistance from the government
(Dryzek, 1990) since it may challenge the status quo and experts may not
necessarily be used. Traditional policy-making would be "dismantled"
and "ordinary" citizens would be highly involved. Dryzek suggests
that this type of action would be like a removal of policy analysis from
the state to the public. According to Kaufman-Osborne (1985), the goal of
policy inquiry is to generate a community capable of taking political action
on a particular social problem rather than an expert. This could be accomplished
by involving citizens in the policy process.
Presently, policy design and analysis is conducted by experts who rely heavily
upon objectively defined criteria in the selection of those eligible for
a policy. They often support quantitative measurements and observable phenomena
(i.e., delinquency). Policies such as JIPS are often aimed at correcting
an individual problem rather than identifying problems with structures of
society. Furthermore, traditional policy-making does not challenge the status
quo. As a result, policies do not encourage participation of the recipients
or that of the wider community. In essence, the experts are removing power
from the already powerless citizens and youth; thus, are placing it in the
hands of a few who are viewed as knowing what is best for everyone.
The ultimate goal of creating policy is that people need to be adequately
represented and empowered. We need to "empower those experiencing personal
troubles with greater individual autonomy and greater say in the establishment
of public issues" (Katovich & Reese, 1993, p.392). In other words,
youth, parents and communities need to be able to be empowered to participate
in activities that effect their lives. We need to instill the concepts of
community and citizenship in public policy.
A "community-centered" and bottom-up approach to decision making
and policy making would represent a true participatory democracy. Problems
and solutions would be examined from those within the community which would
reflect a genuine participatory policy approach that Laswell might have
envisioned. In order for policies to encourage citizenship and democracy,
clients of a policy and the community-at-large need to become empowered
and thus, a part of the policy process. The policy process needs to be expanded
to include all to whom the policy effects, whether this be directly or indirectly.
Youth, parents and community residents' voices need to be heard and acted
upon for policies to become more democratic. Authentic democratic participation
is key to ameliorating the conditions of society.