Notes on Public Policy, Bureaucracy, and Police Typifications

What is a Policy?

• Public policy: What the government, acting on our behalf, chooses to do or not to do.

• A policy is a statement by government of what it intends to do or not to do, such as a law, regulation, ruling, decision, or order, or a combination of these.

• What are some examples of well-known policies?

Public Policy

• Public policy is made in the “public’s” name.

• Public policy making is about problem solving.

• Many disciplines study public policy.

• We study public policy for two broad reasons:

  • Scholarly reasons

  • Practical reasons

Bureaucracy

• Working definition (Weber): A rule-bound, hierarchical organization staffed by salaried officials with specialized roles; legitimacy rooted in legal-rational authority.

• Why it matters:

  • Enables scale, continuity, and predictable administration in large polities.

  • Also raises perennial debates about discretion, accountability, and democratic control.

Levels of Policy

• What are some examples of the levels of policy?

  • Constitutional

  • Statutory

  • Regulatory

  • SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures)

  • Street-level bureaucrats

  • Subtle changes in cognition

  • Typology (a system for categorizing things on the basis of similar characteristics, and for differentiating things with different characteristics)

Table 7.1: Levels of Policy Codification

• Constitutional

  • Where codified: In the federal or state constitutions

  • Accessibility: Highly visible at the federal level; the Constitution has been edited very few times. Some state constitutions are more easily amended for minor changes.

• Statutory

  • Where codified: United States Code, Statutes at Large

  • Accessibility: Highly visible through codification in statute law, publication in Statutes at Large.

• Regulatory

  • Where codified: Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations

  • Accessibility: Moderately visible through the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register.

• Formal record of standard operating procedures

  • SOPs/Operating Procedures Manuals

  • Accessibility: Low visibility because SOPs are often only internally published.

• Patterned behavior by “street level bureaucrats”

  • Not formally codified; evidence of a policy may be found in some agency records

  • Accessibility: Low visibility because these are behavioral changes with variations among actors

What Does It Mean for a Public Official to Act Responsibly?

• [Prompts for reflection are listed on the slide; see pages 9 and 27 for discussion questions.]

Non-English/Decorative Content

• 維維

• 粒粒粒

Discussion Prompts: Transparency, Responsibility, and Accountability

• How can we tell if an official is being transparent with the public?

• Should we judge responsibility by intentions, outcomes, or both?

• How should an official balance the needs of different groups when they conflict?

• Is following the law enough to count as acting responsibly? Why or why not?

• When, if ever, is it responsible for an official to go against public opinion?

• How important is accountability to voters, the media, or watchdog groups?

• How should we evaluate an official’s actions when the results aren’t clear until years later?

Introduction to Police Typifications and Street-Level Discretion

• Topic: Police typifications and street-level discretion.

• Van Maanen's ethnographic study of urban patrol officers.

• Quote: 'Nothing more than asshole control.'

• Language reflects occupational power.

Police Typology of Citizens

• Suspicious Persons – Potential offenders

• Assholes – Disrespect authority; subject to punishment

• Know-Nothings – Law-abiding but naïve citizens

• These categories reflect moral judgment, not legal status.

Occupational Culture of Police Work

• Real Police Work – Symbolic importance of 'search, chase, capture'

• Territoriality – Officers define what is normal/troubling

• Maintaining the Edge – Must control every encounter

• Moral Mandate – Protect order, defend personal/professional respect

Labeling the Asshole

• Arises during interaction, not based on criminal history

• 3 Stages: Affront, Clarification, Remedy

• Asshole label provides moral justification for informal punishment

Street Justice

• Extra-legal punishment to restore authority

• Examples: ridicule, harassment, excessive search

• Symbolic acts to teach lessons or assert control

• Can escalate due to public scrutiny or disrespect

The Impact of the “Asshole” Label

• Power and Control: The label is used to rationalize and justify aggressive or dismissive behavior toward civilians.

• Dehumanization: Labeling can reduce empathy, making it easier to engage in hostile or forceful actions.

• Discussion Question: How might labeling a civilian as an "asshole" impact the officer’s behavior toward that individual?

Implications of the Label

• Supports occupational solidarity – 'us vs. them' mentality.

• Simplifies complex interactions, encourages stereotyping.

• Can escalate distrust in marginalized communities.

• Encourages a self-fulfilling prophecy of confrontation.

The Role of Authority and Power in Labeling

• Authority Dynamics: Police officers’ positions of authority can contribute to entitlement and labeling those who challenge power as “assholes.”

• Lack of Reciprocity: Officers expect cooperation; when not given, the civilian may be dehumanized with the label.

• Discussion Question: How do power dynamics in police-civilian interactions contribute to labeling certain civilians as “assholes”?

Asshole Behavior and Escalation of Conflict

• Escalation: The label can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy where officer’s negative expectations influence actions, escalating conflict.

• Impact on Decision Making: Civilians seen as “assholes” may lead officers to escalate by using force or confrontation.

• Discussion Question: How does labeling someone as an “asshole” lead to the escalation of a situation?

The Impact of “Asshole” Labeling on Police-Civilian Relations

• Mistrust: Labeling contributes to breakdown of trust between law enforcement and the public.

• Cultural Divide: Exacerbates “us vs. them” mentality; civilians seen as adversaries rather than partners.

• Discussion Question: What are the potential long-term effects of the “asshole” label on police-civilian relationships?

Disrespect Toward Civilians and Officer Behavior

• Verbal Abuse: Officers may respond with verbal abuse, threats, or other disrespect.

• Aggression: The label can lead to increased aggression as the civilian is perceived as challenging authority.

Structural and Institutional Impacts of “Asshole” Labeling

• Normalization in Police Culture: The label can become institutionalized, influencing how new officers perceive and treat civilians.

• Reinforcement of Bias: May reinforce biases, especially regarding race and class, affecting who is labeled as an “asshole”.

• Discussion Question: How does the normalization of the “asshole” label within police culture contribute to systemic issues in law enforcement?

The Psychological Impact on Officers

• Emotional Toll: Constantly labeling civilians as “assholes” can lead to desensitization to violence, burnout, and frustration.

• Cynicism: May become more cynical and less empathetic over time.

The Role of Training in Mitigating “Asshole” Labeling

• Training Focus: Empathy, communication, and de-escalation techniques can reduce labeling tendencies.

• Importance of Self-Reflection: Officers should reflect on biases and the impact of behavior on the public.

• Discussion Question: What might be the positive and negative impacts of eliminating or mitigating the “asshole” labeling for officers, the community, government function, and the labeled individuals?

The Ethical Implications of “Asshole” Labeling

• Ethical Concerns: Raises questions about fairness, objectivity, and humanity in policing.

• Impact on Justice: Can undermine fairness by allowing officers to treat individuals unjustly based on subjective perceptions.

Accountability and Oversight

• Internal Accountability: Departments must hold officers accountable for using derogatory labels and behaviors that undermine public trust.

• External Oversight: Independent bodies can provide checks and balances to ensure adherence to ethical standards.

• Discussion Question: How can internal and external oversight help reduce the harmful effects of the “asshole” label in policing?

Building Trust Between Police and the Public

• Restoring Trust: Requires transparency, accountability, and a commitment to dignity and respect for all civilians.

• Community Engagement: Community-oriented policing strategies can help build stronger, more cooperative relationships with the public.

Reiterated Discussion Prompts (from Page 27)

• How can we tell if an official is being transparent with the public?

• Should we judge responsibility by intentions, outcomes, or both?

• How should an official balance the needs of different groups when they conflict?

• Is following the law enough to count as acting responsibly? Why or why not?

• When, if ever, is it responsible for an official to go against public opinion?

• How important is accountability to voters, the media, or watchdog groups?

• How should we evaluate an official’s actions when the results aren’t clear until years later?

Decorative/Uncontented Pages

• Pages 28–32 contain repeated non-content characters: 維維, or variations thereof. These appear to be decorative or filler and do not add substantive content to the notes.

Title: Notes on Public Policy, Bureaucracy, and Police Typifications