No abstract

The goal of this article is to provide insight on the predictive value of California's inmate classification system. The authors argue that the current system is based heavily on an inmate's sentence length and that such an indicator provides little or no predictive value for inmate misconduct and is therefore not meeting the policy objectives assigned to classification and risk assessment. The authors use a large data set (N = 13,000) based on incident reports from 1992 to 1994 to test the hypothesis that the length of an inmate sentence is positively related to the rate of serious misconduct. The findings show that an inmate's sentence length is not related to infraction rates during incarceration and that a multivariate analysis produces negative coefficients.

It is often contended that support for local limitations on residential development results from the demands of the affluent, who wish to ensure limited access to their communities. This contention, along with alternative explanations of local growth-control support, are examined. The article explores empirical dimensions of support for elect orally induced control of residential development. A major finding, which utilizes a discriminant function analysis of a random sample survey of registered voters, is that under some circumstances there may be no relationship between measures of affluence or socioeconomic status and support for limiting residential development. In addition, the findings reveal the possible existence of substantial, wide-based support for protection of the local environment that is related to a commitment to the role of government in maintaining local amenities and services. The article concludes with an analysis of local growth control as an issue that significantly defines the agenda of suburban politics and the concerns of a broad spectrum of American citizens.

Given the prevailing levels of elite partisan contentiousness over immigration issues, we expect to see mass attitudes towards immigration replicate this polarization. We explore the partisan implications of this issue by examining popular attitudes towards immigrants in California, where attitudes towards immigration and immigrants have formed central themes in a series of highly charged political campaigns and elite discourse on the issue is polarized. Yet even in California we find that many different kinds of voters share a surprisingly similar set of concerns about the flow of immigrants into the nation. We are particularly interested in whether Democrats and Republicans view the public policy consequences of immigration in similar or different ways. We find that Republicans more likely indicate they think immigration will have harmful effects on social and policy outcomes in the United States, but Democrats tend to share similar concerns. One consequence of this pattern is that the US Republican Party -at least the party in California -may be able to use the immigration issue as a wedge to attract support from people who tend to support Democratic candidates, often thought friendlier to immigrants. 36Neiman et al.

Residential development restrictions among Southern California suburban jurisdictions are examined. The purpose of the analysis is to assess the relative importance of various measures of community status, partisanship, and growth as predictors of local policy to regulate residential development. Social status and growth rates appear to account for some of the interurisdictional variation in policy, although it is clear that excluded factors are also important. Several issues regarding the study of local development policy and what might affect findings from study to study are also addressed.