The Boundary Problem and Linear Thinking
In many states in this country,governors proudly proclaim more annual public expenditure for prison construction to deal with the problem of overcrowded prisons. As noted, state prison construction expenditures increased 150% from 1986 to 2001(US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS] 2005).In addition to the existing thirty-two prisons holding 170,000 prisoners, California is planning to add six more (The Economist 2009d, 71).It is estimated that at least eleven more prisons will be required to keep up with demand. This solution stems from an analysis of the problem that is similar to "the lack of lane space" as a definition of the traffic problem given by highway engineers, leading to policies that must build ahead of demand. It may also remind one of the practice in earlier centuries of locking up debtors until they could pay their debts. Thus,characterized by narrow, self-imposed boundaries, the erroneous definition of the jail problem as somehow separate from the drug control problem highlights flaws in problem definition and the failure or misuse of problem-structuring techniques by policy analysts and decision makers.
One should fust approach the issue from the general to the specific. What are some background factors of the political environment that can condition problem structuring? Perhaps as important as the composition of expert teams participating in policy analysis (e.g., are they all prison construction engineers?) is the locus of their activity. For example, is the analysis to be done in a think tank with a political reputation? Is it a study from the state's department of prisons? Will it be a gubernatorial office analytic unit? Will it be a legislative policy analysis unit? The conclusions, for example, from a legislative unit may carry more weight with legislators who ultimately write the laws that guide court decisions or judicial policymaking.