Identification

• The different levels and agencies of government, including those involved in the criminal justice system, operate in what political scientist James E. Anderson labeled “cooperative federalism," with federal, state and local levels of government involved in the crafting and implementation of policy. As a result, criminal justice agencies at the local level play an important role in enforcing policies and decisions made by state and federal officials.
  
  

Effects

• Criminal justice policy actions taken at the federal and state levels affect local criminal justice agencies in various ways. Many policies provide grants and other forms of assistance to local police departments and other criminal justice agencies. However, with the carrot of additional funding comes the stick of mandated actions. Receiving additional funding may require local criminal justice agencies to bring their priorities in line with those of state and federal policymakers. Policies related to the “war on drugs,” for example, poured billions into the coffers of local law enforcement authorities, who in turn stepped up their drug enforcement and investigation activities, arrested many suspected drug dealers and users.
  
  

Features

• In many cases, state and national policy issues result in legislators passing new laws to address the issue, then ordering local agencies to enforce the new measure, with little or no funding and little guidance on enforcement actions. The Arizona immigration law passed in 2010 stands as one example. The New York Times reported in April 2010 that many Arizona law enforcement officials opposed the new law, which requires police to detain suspected illegal immigrants, as burdensome for local police officers.
  
  

Warning

• In other cases, the local level of the criminal justice system bears the cost when state and federal officials fail to act. Overcrowding in state prisons provides one example. During the 1980s, overcrowded conditions in Texas prisons resulted in many county jails being forced to house inmates awaiting transfer to state prisons. This imposed heavy costs on local jail operators, with no help from state officials, who faced federal court pressure to reduce crowding in state prisons. Texas built new prisons and expanded others but made no policy changes to reduce recidivism rates or provide alternatives to incarceration, according to the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition.
  
  

Expert Insight

• Anderson points out that the fragmented nature of policy making in criminal justice, as well as other policy areas, results in long chains of federal, state and local authorities promulgating rules and taking enforcement actions. Because of the complexities involved in this process, many policies fall short of their intended goals.