When Policy Comes to Town: Discourses and Dilemmas of Implementation of a Statewide Reentry Policy in Kansas

Abstract

In this case study, we document challenges to reform implementation posed by line staff, supervisors, and managers during a large-scale realignment of the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) in which they sought to replace a traditional approach of "risk containment" focused on surveillance and incarceration with a new model of "risk reduction" focused on service delivery and reintegration. We draw on interviews, observations, and archival research to document the staff's discursive challenges to the rollout of the new policy. More specifically, we describe how varying challenges to the reforms-"denial," "dismissal," and "defiance"-reflect actors' positions within the organization, the local contexts in which they operate, and more general frames of interpretation of the long-term orientation of the KDOC. We integrate these perspectives to contribute to the ongoing expansion of conventional models of penal change that highlight the role of actors and local social and institutional context as moderators of the gap between "law on the books" and "law in action."In 2006, the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) formalized an agency-wide, multiyear process of reorganization. The series of reforms-collectively known as the Kansas Offender Risk Reduction and Reentry Plan (KOR3P)-were intended to replace the KDOC's traditional approach of risk containment focused on surveillance, enforcement, and incarceration with a new model of risk reduction focused on rehabilitation, service delivery, and prisoner reintegration (KDOC, 2006). As noted in The New York Times, the initiative was aimed at offering "a hand instead of cuffs" (Eckholm, 2008). Through these reforms, new programs were established and corrections officers, counselors, and parole officers were retained in new assessment tools, new communication techniques, and new intervention protocols. Additional positions were created through an upgraded division of Reentry Services staffed with specialists in charge of coordinating services for high-risk prisoners and parolees (Pellant et al., 2007). Finally, also through these reforms, collaborations with partners were realigned, recentralizing *We are grateful to Rosemary Gardner and the anonymous reviewers of Criminology for their helpful suggestions, comments, and guidance.

From Bright Plots to Blind Spots: Mapping Departures in Case Review Post-Bail Reform in Two New Jersey Courts

“…For instance, Miller and Maloney (2013) conceptualize the relative completeness and usability of case management notes by probation officers as markers of their compliance with new supervision and classification protocols. This is consistent with studies suggesting that deviations from process-exchanges may have more opacity for specific cases (Laskorunsky, 2018; Rengifo & Fowler, 2016), and when new mandates are seen as illegitimate or contrary to perceived institutional values (Lynch, 1998; Rengifo et al, 2017).…”

“…Instead, departures motioned by prosecutors—prompted more directly by judicial intervention—are usually seen as compliant with exemptions or motivated by (largely stable) focal concerns related to the perceived dangerousness or blameworthiness of defendants (Johnson et al, 2008; Lehmann et al, 2019; Stemen et al, 2015). The notion of circumvention as resistance has been more systematically applied to other criminal justice actors such as probation or corrections officers (Miller & Maloney, 2013; Rengifo et al, 2017; Rudes, 2012) perhaps due to the reduced scrutiny of judicial actions or the low rate of reforms that limit the study of cycles of change and adaptation. However, it is likely that reforms marked by a structured process of decision-making or reduced involvement of key participants can elicit similar adaptation strategies that undermine implementation across all justice institutions (Werth, 2017; Wormith et al, 2012).…”

“…These “blind spots” are not specific to reforms of pretrial systems. Process remains a critical gap in the implementation of evidence-based policies (Viglione, 2017, p. 1357) and smart decarceration programs (Pettus-Davis & Epperson, 2015), despite studies noting that line-staff or managers condition the transformative potential of new models (Lynch, 1998; Rengifo et al, 2017; Rudes, 2012). The shortage of courtroom-based data and theory is acute in the case of prosecutors and defense attorneys relative to judges (Laskorunsky, 2018), with little known about how new models shape their exchanges and behaviors (Yule & Schumann, 2019).…”

Risk and punishment: The recent history and uncertain future of actuarial, algorithmic, and “evidence‐based” penal techniques

“…As Cheliotis (, p. 314) contends, it would be a mistake to view “penal agents as executive automata or docile bodies entrapped in the “iron cage” of an over‐rationalized criminal justice system.” Rather, we can conceive of correctional personnel as more akin to “street‐level bureaucrats” (see Lipsky, ) responsible for the everyday interpretation and enactment of penal policy (see Garland, ). A number of studies show that practitioners sometimes “push back” against risk techniques: They alter, minimize, subvert, or resist them in various ways (Ballucci, ; Bonta, Rugge, Scott, Bourgon, & Yessine, ; Bullock, ; Ibarra, Gur, & Erez, ; Kemshall, ; Kemshall & McGuire, ; Lynch, ; McNeill, Burns, Halliday, Hutton, & Tata, ; Rengifo, Stemen, & Amidon, ; Robinson, ; Rudes et al, ; Werth, ). Even when promoted by policy makers and upper managers, practitioners sometimes view actuarial assessments as less effective and trustworthy than their own clinical, professional evaluations (Hilton & Simmons, ; Krysik & LeCroy, ; Lynch, ; McNeill et al, ; Werth, ).…”

Facilitators and Impediments to Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating Risk-Based Policing Strategies Using Risk Terrain Modeling: Insights from a Multi-City Evaluation in the United States

“…Research also suggests that supervision of front-line staff, specifically in terms of the performance of mid-level managers and supervisors, is key to program implementation. Rengifo et al (2017) noted that agency supervisors involved in the Kansas Offender Risk Reduction and Reentry Plan verbalized challenges to the need, feasibility, and success of the newly implemented program, sending a message to front-line participants that the newly developed strategy was not worthwhile. The effect of mid-managers on adherence to newly formed programs has also been observed in policing.…”