Network Linkages - An Interorganizational Study of the Criminal Justice Network in San Francisco (CA)

• NCJ Number: 74963
• Author(s): B Hoffman
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 120 pages
• Grant Number(s): A-2926-2-79
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice; San Francisco Mayor's Criminal Justice Council; San Francisco Criminal Justice Planning Office
• Corporate Author: San Francisco City and Cty Municipal Court
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: System Improvement Project - Report Number Five

Annotation

A study of the use of communication structures or channels between agencies that comprise the San Francisco criminal justice network is discussed.

Abstract

Because the criminal justice network involves two levels of government with no single administrative authority, it must operate through cooperation. In recent years, there has been an intensification of efforts to increase cooperation within the San Francisco network. It was expected that information gained from this study would lead to recommendations for handling exchange between the organizations. The study was based on interorganizational theory, specifically on the multifactor theory of linkages. Basically, the theory states that effective ways for organizations to relate to each other can be determined by looking at five dimensions. These dimensions include the extent to which organizations officially recognize their interdependence, the extent to which they view each other's goals as supportive or competitive, the extent to which organizations are structured according to bureaucratic or human relations lines, the extent to which exchange is standardized, and the volume and frequency of linkages and exchanges. It was assumed that the San Francisco network is sequentially interdependent, based on standardized situations, replete with frequent interactions, and composed of seven large organizations. Examined variables included recognition, competitive or facilitative attitude, volume of contacts, formality, trust, cooperation, and communication. Two questionnaires were used. One was used by an investigator with the top agency administrators. The other was self-administered by agency personnel. The return rate was 378. Response analysis indicated that official recognition of network interdependency is high, that the highest level of formal interactions is with the courts, and that top administrators gave high scores on interagency level of trust, while agency staff tended to give low positive or negative scores. Four references, 11 footnotes, 12 figures, and 5 appendixes of survey instruments are included. (Author abstract modified)