Measuring Degrees of Successful Implementation

Abstract

The Oregon Community Corrections Act was passed in 1977, partly due to the need to relieve overcrowding in the state's prisons. Our research was undertaken to determine whether degrees of successful achievement of the goals of the Act are due to the way in which community corrections legislation is being implemented-and, specifically, to determine if the roles of street-level bureaucrats and modifications of the program during implementation are the keys to successful achievement of goals. In Oregon, we found that there is wide variation from county to county in the way the legislation is being implemented and the degree to which goals are being achieved. Even though not all specific statutory goals are being achieved, the general policy goals are being met. The more successful counties have reached a higher level of implementation in individual and county efforts than the least successful counties. In addition, the former are more likely to have a "fixer" active in getting the program established and making it work, street-level implementors who often have a higher level of commitment to the program, modifications to meet local needs, and a higher degree of support from elected officials and the community.

From policy design to campus: Implementation of a tuition decentralization policy.

“…Bottom-up approaches stress the importance of local environments and the need to provide implementers with the flexibility to shape the policy for their particular situation (Palumbo, Maynard-Moody, & Wright, 1984). Fundamentally, this approach focuses on the evaluation made at the micro-level of policy enactment as well as the local factors that hinder intended policy outcomes (Matland, 1995).…”

Policy Implementation, Street-level Bureaucracy, and the Importance of Discretion

“…The first effect, which is often noted, is that a certain amount of discretion can increase the meaningfulness of a policy for clients (Palumbo et al 1984). An example can clarify this.…”

The Organizational Diffusion of a Correctional Reform

“…This strategy includes the study of conditions external to and within the implementing public service agencies (see Mohr, 1982; Musheno, 1982;Lincoln, 1985). Additionally, this strategy relies on multiple measures of implementation success (see Palumbo, et al, 1984), and the mix of quantitative and qualitative methods of inquiry (see Jick, 1979;Pettigrew, 1979;Cook, 1985).To study the process of installing a new in-service training regimen, we employ multiple measures of implementation success and rely on mixed methods of inquiry. To explain implementation success and failure, we concentrate on internal organizational characteristics only, holding the external environment constant by studying diffusion of the reform in three operational units of a single correctional complex (for further details on the effect of the external environment see Jurik, 1985 andJurik andMusheno, 1986).…”

“…The facility also housed a correctional training unit responsible for the initial training of new recruits (Complex Training). In short, this facility had the greatest capacity among the state's institutions to diffuse the new training regimen.The research strategy used in this analysis draws upon the literature on the diffusion of innovations (Palumbo, et al 1984;Rice and Rogers, 1980; Rogers, 1978). Specifically, we focus on the diffusion or use of the training modules in each operational unit and assume, from the outset, that implementation may be different rather than uniform among the operational units.…”