This study seeks to explain the shift from traditional conceptions of prosecution toward the adoption of community prosecution. Using a contingency theory framework, the authors hypothesize that community prosecution is dependent on organizational size, structural complexity of prosecutors' offices, and uncertainty in both the internal and external operating environment. Data from 749 counties in the 2001 National Survey of Prosecutors (NSP) were used to measure four community prosecution elements potentially used by prosecutor offices and organizational characteristics. Hypotheses were tested using the NSP data, county-level socioeconomic demographics from the 1990 and 2000 census, and drug arrests from the Uniform Crime Reports 1994 to 1999. The results indicate that adoption of community prosecution is principally predicted by organizational size and structural complexity. Implications for the research and implementation of community-based justice initiatives are discussed.
American Prosecutors Research Institute. (1995). Community prosecution implementation manual. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.
2.
Boland, B. (1998). Community prosecution: Portland's experience. In D. R. Karp (Ed.),Community justice: An emerging field (pp. 253-277). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
3.
Bursik, R., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective crime control. New York: Lexington Books.
4.
Coles, C. (2000). Community prosecution, problem solving, and public accountability: The evolving strategy of the American prosecutor. Unpublished manuscript, Program in Criminal Justice, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
5.
Crank, J. P., & Langworthy, R. (1992). An institutional perspective of policing. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 83, 338-363.
6.
Donaldson, L. (1996). The normal science of structural contingency theory. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.),Handbook of organizational studies (pp. 57-76). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
Duffee, D. E., Fluellen, R., & Renauer, B. C. (1999). Community variables in community policing. Police Quarterly, 2(1), 5-31.
8.
Fisher, S. Z. (1989). Zealousness and “overzealousness”: Making sense of the prosecutor's duty to seek justice. The Prosecutor, 22(3), 9-28.
9.
Forst, B. (2002). Prosecution. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.),Crime: Public policies for crime control (pp. 509-536). Oakland, CA: ICS.
10.
Goldkamp, J. S., Irons-Guynn, C., & Weiland, D. (2003). Community prosecution strategies. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.
11.
Katz, C. M., Maguire, E. R., & Roncek, D. W. (2002). The creation of specialized police gang units: A macro-level analysis of contingency, social threat, and resource dependency explanations. Policing, 25, 472-506.
12.
Kelling, G., & Moore, M. (1998). The evolving strategy of policing. Perspectives on policing (Vol. 4). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
13.
Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
Maguire, E. R. (1997). Structural change in large municipal police organizations during the community policing era. Justice Quarterly, 14, 547-576.
15.
Maguire, E. R., & Mastrofski, S. D. (2000). Patterns of community policing in the United States. Police Quarterly, 3, 4-45.
16.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations and formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
17.
Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39, 517-560.
18.
Neubauer, D. (1988). America's courts and the criminal justice system. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
19.
Nugent, E., Fanflik, P., & Bromirski, D. (2004). The changing nature of prosecution: Community prosecution vs. traditional prosecution approaches. Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors Research Institute.
20.
Osgood, D. W. (2000). Poisson-base regression analysis of aggregate crime rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16(1), 21-43.
21.
Packer, H. L. (1968). The limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
22.
Renauer, B. C., Duffee, D. E., Scott, J. D., Chermak, S., & McGarrell, E. (2004). Community building measures: How police and neighborhood groups can measure their collaboration. Law enforcement executive forum: Community policing. Macomb: Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board Executive Institute.
23.
Renauer, B. C., Scott, J. D., & Duffee, D. E. (2003). Measuring police community coproduction: Tradeoffs in two observational approaches. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 26(1), 9-28.
24.
Roman, C. G., Moore, G. E., Jenkins, S., & Small, K. M. (2003). Understanding community justice partnerships: Assessing the capacity to partner. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
25.
Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774-802.
26.
Schoonhoven, C. (1981). Problems with contingency theory: Testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency “theory.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 349-377.
27.
Weistein, S. P. (1998). Community prosecution: Community policing's legal partner. FBI LawEnforcement Bulletin, 67(4), 19-25.
