Racial Profiling ~ hurts our communities

Racial profiling exists only in the mind of those who make it their own agenda either con or pro compliance with the laws and their own personal believe that it is happening to them or others. Therefore, conditionally, it does exist. It is not a universal concept applied by everyone or every police agency since we are talking about cops.

It is conditional in every sense of the phrase and subject to many moral values as well as existing laws and norm values in our society. This can be defined by demographics as well as geographical histories, customs, practices and traditions but nevertheless, a negative input on how we perceive things in our head.

What we have here is two arguments. The first finding the objective definition of racial profiling that includes compelling reasons that it does exist in content and context given. The second is what "we" believe is racial profiling. The truth lies somewhere in between and whenever you are subjective about any issue, then the power is swayed towards that "believe" and that you are right no matter how the law or truth is read. However, this is not a method of compelling reasoning and is flawed severely.

Contextuality expresses the fact that an action does not exist in a vacuum. When we examine an action, we cannot ignore that the action takes place in a given context. This context is necessary to evaluate the consequences of an action, because it informs the values that are affected by the action. Unlike the phrase “a picture tells a thousand words” there should only be one inference or understanding of what really happened and how it was created. This is called a finding. This is where the facts [hopefully objective in nature] come in to rationalize the event or behaviors and explains the truth in objective and clear sense rather than emotional or irrational in manner.

It is important here to understand that while values themselves are objective in all ways, their specific implementation differs from person to person and from culture to culture thus what may be normal in one setting may be abnormal in another setting. Hence each case is different and must be examined for facts, not feelings or believes one is telling the truth.
Community policing is effective when the police officers are culturally diverse and trained in recognizing these values as norms thus avoiding stereotyping when responding to a call or incident whenever possible. Police policies may differ from region to region, district to district and is applied by the officer's knowledge of such direction. It does not imply racial profiling per se but can come under scrutiny if there are acts or words said that warrant a closer look at this incident to acquire a truth statement or finding.

In order to win an argument that racial profiling existed during the event, the officer or the subject [or witnesses] must effectively prove or disprove “objective moral facts” in this type of case and provide a compelling reason to believe they exist within the statements provided making their statement more powerful and truthful in the end than the other person’ strong believe that was based on their own or individual subjective matter and personal values rather than facts.
In other words, racial profiling hurts law enforcement as it disconnects the community with those who are there to help them.

Unfortunately, the perception of truth may be distorted by the subjectivity involved on either side when the persons involved are viewed to be racist as this kicks in the defensive mechanisms we depend on for survival and self-defense. It is hard to convince another person you are not being a racist when they have already made up their minds that what you [cop] are doing is based on their believe you are profiling them on race hence the confrontation,relationship is heightened to a new and volatile level.

 

Hybrid Governance in Arizona Prisons and other public services

Hybrid governance with Prisons

By Carl R. ToersBijns, former deputy warden, ASPC Eyman, Florence, AZ

The age of hybrid governance is already upon us. Arizona today has made a clear decision to allow private prison contractors to occupy vital middle ground between our public-owned prison system and numerous and various private-sector organizations. The ideology is capitalistic and powerful as is has already established firm roots in the daily practice of running our prisons today.

 

What hasn’t been talked about is the parasitic nature of this relationship and how it is designed to absorb more government functions as time goes by. No longer an emerging market, private prison contractors have established the practice and future of public governance based on lessons learned from the past and have merged sizable government stakes, subsidies and management decision making that reflect a practice of preferential treatment in more than many ways.

 

There is no doubt that this merger has compromised those leading elements of the public sector’s regulatory environment as they evolve existing regulations to meet the new hybrid status between government and private industries.

 

This changes the traditional roles of the past and created an infusion of ideologies beyond the traditional division between labor and market demands. In fact, this merger is almost invisible and when active to the fullest extend, will remain blurred creating confusion to the taxpayers as to what actual role the government plays versus the role of private business in our state.

 

There is no secret between the cooperative levels of this state’s governor and elected officials towards private prison groups as there has been significant wealth distributed between the two parties.

 

Today, Arizona is witnessing a massive agenda of proliferation in the number of new contracts and business dealings with new parastatal entities around the state as well as outside the state. It impacts the entire criminal justice system including the administrative and judicial elements of law with little or no scrutiny of how business is conducted under this new hybrid process.

 

Public authorities have been compromised to be managed privately and secretively based on private enterprise standards not subject to open meeting laws or other regulatory requirements.

 

Power diffusion is the key in this methodology as more decisions are conducted in the shadows of corporate strength and weaker public infusions to the table. Operating in such a closed market with little scrutiny will change the integrity of government and allow growth or development of mediocrity in performance and corruption for many who are willing to ride this train as a parasite leeches off the body.

 

Thus on the pretense of improving state run agencies and reducing inefficiencies, the privatization of public service will be handed over to those corporations that can meet the productive needs of this market.

 

Power diffusion continues even in the shadow of strength. Recent decades have witnessed a gradual revival of parastatals that foreshadowed their present surge. They gained access to international capital markets and have leveraged investment to expand operations.

 

By floating shares on exchanges, contracting with auditing firms, establishing independent boards of directors, restricting subsidies from the government, and improving recruiting standards and managerial incentives, parastatals have been able to make themselves competitive with the private sector justifying their creation and existence by those that praise the concept.  

 

Today there are very few, if any, areas of governance that have not been placed in the custody of parastatals entities that undertake commercial activities on the government’s behalf. They range from public transportation, medical care, economic and logistical support of state utilities down to the smallest micro purpose of government services such as the maintenance of parks, recreation and other support agencies.

 

There are reasons for this transition.  First and foremost, state governments are broke. They lack funding and in fact are unable to manage current needs as they exist. Frustration has led to exploring alternatives and aside from the traditional practices of raising taxes or other fees they have considerable needs to improve the infrastructure and manpower requirement to meet the full demands placed on them by law and other regulatory mandates.

 

In short, parastatals are the entities everyone wants to do business with because in places where politics is an opaque void or a byzantine labyrinth, they “get things done.” Collectively, these types of parastatals have been crucial for rising powers to capture the commanding heights of personal wealth and finance.

 

Their recruitment of top investment-banking and private-equity talent and riskier investments are a major departure from decades of more conservative asset management by central banks allowing hybrid governance to coexist in many places.

 

It’s a sign of the times and Arizona is smack in the middle of such financial relationships, endorsements and futuristic expectations of spreading this hybrid governance concept to other states in due time.

 

Source:

http://www.mckinsey.com/features/government_designed_for_new_times/the_rise_of_hybrid_governance

Managing Change

Managing Change in Our Prisons

By Carl R. ToersBijns, former deputy warden, ASPC Eyman, Florence, AZ

 

 

The psychology of “change management” suggests there are four (4) basic conditions are necessary before employees will change their behaviors:

 

• Justification for change (reasons and current events)
• Role modeling and embracement of new practices (leadership)
• Reinforcing mechanisms to support proposed change with existing and new resources (support mechanisms)
• Capability improvements e.g. training and skill abilities to make the desired changes (cultural diversity)

 

It has been said that most change programs are prone to failure. It is also said that if one takes the time to develop a sound concept that is well rounded and balances, a rational change in environment or operations can happen.

 

Change must have its own merits that can stand alone and withstand criticism and opposition to such a new concept. It is very important not to disregard the most important element of change management alas human beings involved in the change.

 

Justification for change (reasons and current events) – the justification for change must include:

• Motivation – this change must motivate your employees as it must bring past shortcomings to the front and detail how change would turn this around to be most beneficial to the “good of all” rather than any individual within the organization.
• Turnaround – this action must reflect short-comings of following standards on prison management and how these new changes would allow the organization to grow and survive external criticism [community growth) as well as provide career success opportunities (paycheck, promotions, benefits) for the workplace.
• Ownership of the change – When we choose for ourselves, we are far more committed to the outcome and should be important for management to accept this for maximum impact of the proposed change.
• Creating positive energy – take an approach that deflects blame and wrongful performance but rather embraces positive designs with a positive destiny and allow employees to take the risks of leaving the past behind with aspirations of gaining something more than they currently have.

 

Role modeling and embracement of new practices (leadership) - Leaders believe mistakenly that they already “are the change.”

• Commit yourself to personally role modeling the desired behaviors
• Change in behavior and role modeling should be based on external factors and not those within themselves. Being what others want to be or see is more effective than what you want to see.

 

Reinforcing mechanisms to support proposed change with existing and new resources (support mechanisms) –

• Emphasize the importance of reinforcing and embedding desired outcome or changes in the organizational structure, systems, goals and objectives, and incentives. Incentives can be anything that includes money or better salaries, job survival and prolonged durations of successful delivery of benefits and performance motivational logic.
• Competition can be used as a motivator but be careful as particular care should be taken where changes affect how employees interact with one another within the organization creating fragmentation rather than unification.

 

Capability improvements e.g. training and skill abilities to make the desired changes (cultural diversity) –

Change-management outlines should emphasize the importance of building the skills and talent needed for the desired change.

• Managers attempt to drive performance by changing the way employees behave; they all too often neglect the thoughts, feelings, and beliefs that, in turn, drive behavior in the wrong direction causing failures.
• Good skill-building programs usually take into account that people learn better by doing than by listening. These programs are replete with interactive simulations and role plays, and commitments are made by participants regarding what they will “practice” back in the workplace.
• Make enhancements to traditional training approaches in order to hardwire day-to-day practice into capability-building processes.
• Training should not be a one-off event. It should be ongoing with a “field and forum” approach should be taken, in which classroom training is spread over a series of learning forums and fieldwork is assigned in between.
• Create real fieldwork assignments that link directly to the day jobs of participants, requiring them to put into practice new mind-sets and skills in ways that are hardwired into their responsibilities.
• Assignments should have quantifiable, outcome-based measures that indicate levels of competence gained and certification that recognizes and rewards the skills attained.
• These fieldwork assignments must be observed and evaluated by supervisors to allow growth and self-development based on feedback by those in the field.

 

Good intentions aren’t enough. This lack of follow-through from the tip of management to the lowest point in the workforce is usually not due to ill intent: it is because nothing formal has been done to lower the barriers to practicing new concepts, new behaviors and new skills.

 

The time and energy required to do something additional, or even to do something in a new way, simply don’t exist in the busy day-to-day schedules of most employees but should be included as part of the overall commitment to excellence it is this failure to create the space for practice back in the workplace dooms most training programs to deliver returns that are far below their potential or expectations.

 

Source:

 

https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com