Justice in Black and Brown: The impact of political control and representative bureaucracy on street level outcomes

• Published date: 01 March 2023
• Author: William T. Jackson,Milena I. Neshkova,Kenneth J. Meier
• Date: 01 March 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13600

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Justice in Black and Brown: The impact of political control

and representative bureaucracy on street level outcomes

William T. Jackson

1

| Milena I. Neshkova

2

| Kenneth J. Meier

1

1

Department of Public Administration and

Policy, School of Public Affairs, American

University, Washington, District of

Columbia, USA

2

Department of Public Policy and

Administration, School of International and

Public Affairs, Florida International University,

Miami, Florida, USA

Correspondence

William T. Jackson, Department of Public

Administration and Policy, School of Public

Affairs, American University, Kerwin Hall 325,

4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20016, USA.

Email: wjackson@american.edu

Kenneth J. Meier, Department of Public

Administration and Policy, School of Public

Affairs, American University, Kerwin Hall 330,

4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20016, USA.

Email: kmeier@american.edu

Abstract

This study tests the explanatory power of two prominent public administration

theories—political control and representative bureaucracy—in understanding dis-

parities in public service provision. While prior research focused on street-level

bureaucracy, we study here how political and group identities of top elected law

enforcement officials affect the distribution of youth arrests, alternatives, and prosecu-

tions among minority groups. Data from Florida’s 67 counties between 2015 and

2020 demonstrate that sheriff’s and state attorney’s party affiliation, race, and ethnicity

do affect street-level outcomes. However, the effects are more pronounced for race

than ideology. Also, representative bureaucracy appears more relevant for race than

ethnicity and explains the behavior of Black sheriffs but not Black state attorneys.

Evidence for practice

•The social and political identities of top elected officials affect policy implemen-

tation at the street level.

•Representative bureaucracy explains the distribution of youth arrests among

minority groups better than political control. Yet, the partisanship of state attor-

neys explains prosecutions better than their group identity does.

•Race appears more salient than ethnicity as a mechanism of representation

among minority sheriffs.

•Minorities are not monolithic—Black and Hispanic juveniles are subject to differ-

ential treatment and see disparate justice outcomes.

Prior research has extensively studied unequal justice out-

comes among social groups, including police encounters,

arrests, prosecutions, and court decisions (Headley &

Wright II, 2020; Mitchell & Caudy, 2015; Stolzenberg

et al., 2013). Scholars agree that social and contextual fac-

tors alone cannot explain these disparities (Bishop, 2005).

Research on representative bureaucracy has provided

valuable insights into how street-level officers could pro-

duce favorable justice outcomes for social groups with

whom they identify (Ding et al., 2021; Meier & Nicholson-

Crotty, 2006; Theobald & Haider-Markel, 2009; Wilkins &

Williams, 2008,2009). Less understood is whether and

how the characteristics of elected law enforcement offi-

cials influence street-level outcomes. This group of public

officials warrants investigation because sheriffs and state

attorneys belong to a class of officials known as elected

executives (Miller, 2013). While selected by a popular

vote, they perform administrative functions. As agency

heads, they can influence street-level bureaucrats directly

through the chain of command and indirectly through

their political and social identities. Focusing on elected

executives in law enforcement allows us to investigate

how their partisanship and race/ethnicity affect bureau-

cratic behavior on the ground and assess two prominent

public administration theories—political control of the

bureaucracy and representative bureaucracy.

We examine these effects within the juvenile justice

system, where outcomes often have life-changing conse-

quences, and disparities among social groups at this level

are perpetuated in the adult criminal justice system. To

assess the distribution of justice among social groups, we

study the overrepresentation of Blacks and Hispanics in

Received: 7 December 2021 Revised: 14 December 2022 Accepted: 18 December 2022

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13600

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribu tion and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original work is properly cited.

© 2022 The Authors. Public Administration Review published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Public Administration.

Public Admin Rev. 2023;83:333–352. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/puar 333

arrests, alternatives (that is, diversion to other programs

to avoid arrest), and prosecutions. Data are from all

67 counties in Florida (2015–2020), a state with signifi-

cant racial diversity and differences in group political

mobilization (Bishin & Klofstad, 2012; Meier & Stewart

Jr, 1991; Rocha & Hawes, 2009).

The analysis shows that Black youth experience dispa-

rate justice outcomes compared to Hispanic youth. Demo-

graphic characteristics of the sheriff, especially their race,

have a more pronounced effect on the disparities in Black

youth arrests than the sheriff’s ideology. Having a Black

sheriff mitigates disparities in Black youth arrests; however,

we document increasing disparities in Black youth prosecu-

tions among counties with Black state attorneys.

The study makes three main contributions. First, it exam-

ines an important but understudied question about the

impact of top elected officials’identities and whether these

predict street-level bureaucratic outcomes in an essential

local government service—justice provision. Specifically, the

political affiliation and race/ethnicity of the most powerful

law enforcement actors at the local level—the sheriff and

state attorney—are associated with outcomes for minority

youth. Although police officers make the actual arrests, their

behavior corresponds with the messages they receive from

the upper echelons of their agencies.

Second, top law enforcement officials are principals

within their respective agencies and can affect the behav-

iors of their subordinates in direct and indirect ways.

Studying elected executives allows us to compare the rel-

ative explanatory power of political control and represen-

tative bureaucracy. While the former assumes that the

outcomes produced by frontline officers will reflect the

political preferences of elected principals, the latter posits

that the social identities of office holders will generate

benefits for clients with similar social identities. Our analy-

sis suggests that representative bureaucracy explains the

distribution of Black youth arrests better than political

control, and race appears more salient than ethnicity as a

mechanism of representation among minority sheriffs. In

contrast, the partisanship of state attorneys explains Black

youth prosecutions better than their group identity does.

Third, the research examines the disparities by compar-

ing the justice outcomes of the two main minority groups—

Blacks and Hispanics—rather than between minority and

majority groups. Our findings reveal that minorities are far

from being monolithic—Black and Hispanic juveniles are

treated differently and experience disparate outcomes in

arrests, alternatives, and prosecutions. Such differences likely

also reflect other differences in political power and social

status. In this sense, our work speaks to the comparability of

minority groups’experiences, with important implications

for the provision of public services.

We next discuss the elected executive status of

sheriffs and state attorneys and the power structure

in Florida. The following section outlines the tenets of

the two theories—political control and representative

bureaucracy—identifies the potential pathways of

influence for each theory, and presents hypotheses for

the empirical tests. We continue with the research setting

and why Florida is an appropriate test ground. After

reporting the results, we discuss the implications of our

findings and avenues for future research.

ELECTED EXECUTIVES IN LOCAL LAW

ENFORCEMENT

Sheriffs and state attorneys belong to a class of public

officials elected through a direct vote but charged with

administrative responsibilities (Miller, 2013). Like legisla-

tors, they run for office and feel the pressure of electoral

accountability, yet they administer public agencies like

other top-level managers.

In Florida, sheriffs and state attorneys are part of the

judicial branch. County sheriffs are responsible for enfor-

cing the Florida Constitution, state laws, and statutes.

Theirroleistoprovideforcitizens’security, safety, and

well-being. According to Chapter 30 of Florida Statutes,

the sheriff has exclusive power to appoint, promote, and

terminate a deputy sheriff. The sheriff and the sheriff’s

deputies execute all processes of the Supreme Court, cir-

cuit courts, county courts, and boards of the county

commissioners.

Florida’s state attorneys are local officials responsible

for appearing in circuit and county courts within their

jurisdictions to prosecute or defend on behalf of the state

all suits, applications, or motions, civil or criminal, in

which the state is a party. Chief prosecutors appoint assis-

tant state attorneys (state prosecutors) to serve at their

pleasure. The assistant state attorney assumes all the

powers and duties of the appointing state attorney.

In the juvenile justice system, when a minor violates the

law, there are three possible outcomes of their encounter

with a sheriff or sheriff’s deputy. Depending on the crime’s

severity and the officer’s discretion, the youth can receive a

warning, an arrest, or a civil citation (an alternative to an

arrest). States utilize various pre-arrest diversion initiatives.

Prior research uses “alternative”as an umbrella term (Nadel

et al., 2021). In Florida, an alternative equates to a civil cita-

tion.AsSmith,Visher,andDavidson(

1984, 234) explain, “[t]

he discretionary nature of policing, coupled with the power-

ful implications of police discretion in the justice system,

defines the primary issue of concern: whether decisions to

arrest are influenced by suspect characteristics such as race,

sex, and age.”

If the minor is arrested, the case is referred to the

state attorney’s office. The state attorney (or assistant

state attorney) then decides whether or not to prosecute.

Because prosecutors possess vast discretion, they are con-

sidered the most powerful actors within the justice sys-

tem (Baker & Hassan, 2021). As Gordon and Huber (2009)

put it, “criminal prosecutors exercise enormous discretion

in coordinating investigations with law enforcement

agencies, deciding which cases to bring to trial and

334 POLITICAL CONTROL AND REPRESENTATIVE BUREAUCRACY