Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:17 pm
Time: 8:17 pm
Results for case processing
19 results foundAuthor: National Youth Gang Center Title: Gang Prosecution Manual Summary: This publication was brings together information on the basics of gang crime prosecution at the local level. It is a workbook designed to help local prosecutors and investigators visualize and prepare for every step of a gang-related crime prosecution, from the initial crime scene investigation to preparing and presenting the case and, finally, sentencing issues specific to gang cases. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2009. 116p. Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117561 Keywords: Case ProcessingGangsInvestigative TechniquesProsecution of GangsProsecutorsSentencing |
Author: Huenke, Charles J., Jr. Title: Delaware Felony Case Processing An Analysis of 2006 Adult Arrests Summary: When one looks at criminal justice planning documents that intend to inform us about the results of laws and polices we often see the funnel flowchart showing the steps felony arrestees follow as their cases progress through the criminal justice system. Correctly, this chart shows that many cases fall by the wayside not resulting in a felony conviction or a prison term. Interestingly this chart has not changed since the early 1970’s when it was originally developed for the old U.S. Department of Justice Law Enforcement Administration Assistance (LEAA) agency (now the DOJ Office of Programs). The reason the chart has not changed is that no one could credibly put numbers on the page. The false assumption that someone could push a computer button and produce these results cast light on our then sadly incomplete, disconnected and non-standardized criminal justice information systems. Over the years, counties, states and the federal government have poured billions of dollars into systematic efforts to improve our criminal justice information systems to ensure identification (fingerprints), develop and maintain law files (standardization of legal terms), fleshing out sentencing orders (measure of punishment and surveillance), and linking each offender’s arrest with the end result including release from prison (system integration). Delaware participated in the 2010 effort hosted by the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and administered by the Justice Research and Statistics Association to test the hypothesis that after all these criminal justice system improvements we could “push the button” for results. The answer is we and the four other participating states got viable results; the sticky point is the button got stuck. We were able to produce statewide numbers for the first time for all 2006 felony arrestees in the Delaware and track them successfully to either falling out of the felony part of the criminal justice system or being sentenced – sometimes to prison. Historically this is a remarkable feat. While the data exist that allows this analysis, which is good news, it still takes a very significant amount of work of knowledgeable researchers to put it together. We now have viable results tracking felons though the criminal justice system. Following a brief discussion of some of the issues with the criminal justice databases, the second part of this study provides step by step details for the flow of felons through the criminal justice system. On the following page a brief summary of these results are presented. For instance, 43 percent of the arrested felons are convicted of a felony, while overall 69 percent of the felony arrestees are convicted of either a felony or a misdemeanor. For all of these convictions, only 11 percent are sentenced to prison for terms of one year or more; however 47 percent are sentenced to some type of incarceration (including prison, jail or time served). The severity of the crime makes a difference. For those felons being arrested for violent crimes and convicted, 40 percent are sentenced to prison, and when all types of incarceration are considered the rate is 80 percent. Interestingly, 50 percent of the felony arrestees have two or more prior felony arrests in their criminal histories. Details: Dover, DE: Delaware Statistical Analysis Center, 2011. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 4, 2011 at: http://sac.omb.delaware.gov/publications/documents/DelawareFelony2006Jan142011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://sac.omb.delaware.gov/publications/documents/DelawareFelony2006Jan142011.pdf Shelf Number: 122976 Keywords: Case ProcessingFelony ArrestsFelony OffendersSentencing (Delaware) |
Author: Kim, KiDeuk Title: A Case Study on the Practice of Pretrial Services and Risk Assessment in Three Cities Summary: This report compares three pretrial agencies—Washington, D.C., New York City, and Baltimore—and discusses their practice of pretrial services and programs, with a particular focus on risk assessment. DCPI researchers identify several unique attributes of the District of Columbia’s Pretrial Service Agency, including its focus on public safety, implementation of formal assessments of flight risk, and lack of reliance on monetary bail. They conclude that PSA’s pretrial risk assessment is more comprehensive than in the other two agencies because it is both designed to inform the use of a broad range of pretrial treatment and supervision options and is focused on helping to reduce and manage the risk to public safety posed by pretrial defendants. Details: Washington, DC: District of Columbia Crime Policy Institute, The Urban Institute, 2011. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 12, 2012 at http://www.dccrimepolicy.org/images/Pretrial-Comparative-Final-Report_1.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.dccrimepolicy.org/images/Pretrial-Comparative-Final-Report_1.pdf Shelf Number: 124103 Keywords: Case ManagementCase ProcessingPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Petrosino, Anthony Title: Formal System Processing of Juveniles: Effects on Delinquency Summary: Justice practitioners have tremendous discretion when handling juvenile offenders who have committed minor crimes. Police officers, district attorneys, juvenile court intake officers, juvenile and family court judges and other officials decide whether the youth should be "officially processed" by the juvenile justice system of diverted from the system to a program, counseling, other services - or simply released. An important policy question is which strategy leads to the best outcome for juveniles. When examining the impact of juvenile system processing and whether it reduces subsequent delinquency, the authors reviewed studies that included more than 7,300 juveniles across 29 experiments reported over a 35-year period. Based on the evidence presented, not only does formal processing of juveniles appear not to control crime, it actually seems to increase delinquency. Details: Oslo: Campbell Collaboration, 2010. 88p. Source: Cambell Systematic Reviews 2010:1, Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2012 at www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/download/761/ Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118215 Keywords: Administration of JusticeCase ManagementCase ProcessingJuvenile DelinquecyJuvenile DiversionJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Perry, Steven W. Title: Prosecutors in State Courts, 2007 - Statistical Tables Summary: Presents findings on felony caseloads and convictions in the 2,330 chief prosecutors' offices in the United States that handled felony cases in state courts of general jurisdiction. The report summarizes the annual office budget, tenure and salaries of chief state court prosecutors, and the full-time office staffing, including attorneys, investigators, victim advocates, and support personnel. It presents data on threats against staff and data on staff who carry firearms. It details the number of felony cases closed, felony jury trial verdicts, and the use of DNA evidence. Statistical tables include selected types of cases prosecuted, such as methamphetamine production, use of internet for child exploitation, elder abuse, and gang-related violence. Data are from the 2007 National Census of State Court Prosecutors, the second complete census of all state prosecutors' offices litigating felony cases in state courts of general jurisdiction. Highlights include the following: In 2007, 2,330 prosecutors’ offices across the United States served districts with populations ranging in size from 500 to 9.9 million residents; In 2007, almost half (47%) of prosecutors’ offices had received a written threat, a threatening phone call, a face-to-face threat, or had staff who were victims of battery or assault; The average annual salary of a chief prosecutor in 2007 was $98,000, with mean salaries ranging from $165,700 for chief prosecutors in the largest offices to less than $45,000 in part-time offices. Details: Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 2011. 12p. Source: NCJ 234211: Internet Resource: Accessed March 10, 2012 at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/psc07st.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/psc07st.pdf Shelf Number: 124423 Keywords: Administration of Justice (U.S.)Case ProcessingFelony CourtsProsecutors (U.S.) |
Author: Stiegel, Lori A. Title: Final Technical Report to the National Institute of Justice on "A Multi-Site Assessment of Five Court-Focused Elder Abuse Initiatives" Summary: We assessed the five court-focused elder abuse initiatives in existence when our study began to examine how they handle elder abuse cases and determine whether they improve the criminal justice response to those cases. The initiatives were the: “Elder Protection Court” in Alameda County, California; “Elder Justice Center” in Hillsborough County, Florida; “Elder Justice Center” in Palm Beach County, Florida; “In-Home Emergency Protective Order Initiative” in Jefferson County, Kentucky; “Elder Temporary Order of Protection” Initiative in Kings County, New York. Our goal was to provide judges, court administrators, policymakers, and funders with evidence-based knowledge about the structure, process, and outcomes of these initiatives so they can make informed decisions about supporting similar initiatives in their communities. Guided by a multidisciplinary advisory committee, we: reviewed research literature; identified and surveyed key informants; identified key stakeholders from an array of disciplines; developed four question sets for stakeholder interviews; created a case file review sheet; conducted five site visits at which we interviewed 92 stakeholders, including three victims, and reviewed 68 court case files; coded and analyzed (qualitatively and quantitatively) stakeholder interview and court case file data; and developed findings and arrived at conclusions. We found that the initiatives improved handling of elder abuse cases and enhanced the criminal justice response to elder abuse in several ways, including: facilitating greater access to justice and better court outcomes for victims through court accommodations, increasing judges’ and other professionals’ knowledge about elder abuse, and providing emotional support throughout the court process; providing services to courts or to victims that enhance victim safety and prevent further abuse; connecting victims with services that may help address underlying problems and prevent future court cases; providing services to courts or to victims that may facilitate prosecution of elder abuse cases; and handling elder abuse cases more efficiently and with fewer delays. We also found that the initiatives do almost nothing to self-assess their impact and outcomes and should strengthen evaluation and data collection efforts. Each initiative does a better job of handling elder abuse cases than do courts and communities without such initiatives. Given the extent of elder abuse now, its anticipated growth, and its devastating effects on victims, we recommend that judges, court administrators, service providers, policymakers, and funders in other communities give serious consideration to implementing similar efforts. Details: American Bar Association and University of Kentucky Research Foundation, 2011. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 25, 2012 at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/2011/2011_aging_ea_multi_assess.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/2011/2011_aging_ea_multi_assess.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 124741 Keywords: Case ProcessingElder Abuse and NeglectProblem-Solving CourtsVictim Services |
Author: Adler, Robin Title: Domestic Violence Case Processing in Vermont 2004 -2008 Summary: In the criminal courts, domestic violence is best measured by domestic assault charges and violations of abuse order charges. This report examines the district court case processing and sentencing of these offenses during the study period of 2004 to 2008. Key findings: - A majority of convictions are for the same category of offense (domestic assault or violation of abuse orders) as the original charge. Ninety-nine percent of felony relief from abuse order convictions are for a violation of an order. - Race is not a statistically significant factor in determining which defendants are sentenced to incarceration for domestic assault. Women, however, are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration. - The Counties vary in their approach to sentencing domestic assault and violations of abuse orders. The county of conviction is statistically significant in determining which defendants are incarcerated for domestic assault. Details: Northfield Falls, VT: Vermont Center for Justice Research, 2011. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2013 at: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/dvcaseprocess.html Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/dvcaseprocess.html Shelf Number: 127572 Keywords: Case ProcessingDomestic Violence (Vermont)Domestic Violence CourtsProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Anderson, James M. Title: Measuring the Effect of Defense Counsel on Homicide Case Outcomes Summary: This study examined the impact of randomly assigned public defenders and court-appointed private attorneys in the outcome of criminal cases in Philadelphia. The study found that there are vast differences in outcomes for defendants assigned different counsel types raises important questions about the adequacy and fairness of the criminal justice system. Details: Final report to the U.S. Department of Justice, 2012. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 26, 2013 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/241158.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/241158.pdf Shelf Number: 127721 Keywords: AttorneysCase ProcessingDefense Counsel (U.S.)HomicidesIndigent DefensePublic Defenders |
Author: Sideman, Olivia Title: Prosecution and Racial Justice in New York County - Partnership Report Summary: The number of blacks and Latinos involved in the criminal justice system is disproportionately large compared to their numbers in the general population. This phenomenon, known as minority overrepresentation in the criminal justice system, has attracted the attention and concern of researchers, policymakers, and advocates nationwide. Yet attempts to understand the factors contributing to this disproportion historically have been limited by some inherent aspects of the justice system structure. Specifically, the system grants prosecutors broad, largely unchecked, and virtually unreviewable discretion in filing, changing, or reducing charges, plea bargaining, and making sentencing recommendations. Despite the vast influence of prosecutors in the criminal justice system, there is little existing research that adequately examines the extent to which prosecutors may contribute to unwarranted racial and ethnic disparities. Researchers rarely get access to the data necessary to investigate the relationship between race or ethnicity and prosecutorial outcomes; indeed, most jurisdictions do not systematically capture this information. When researchers are able to use available data, they typically examine the data in isolation from prosecutorial practices. The results are of relatively little use to prosecutors concerned with developing a more deliberate approach to the exercise of discretion within their offices and with ensuring the equitable treatment of defendants. With an interest in addressing this gap in the research and providing practical findings and evidence-based technical assistance, the Prosecution and Racial Justice Program (PRJ) of the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) has partnered with a number of district attorneys' (DAs') offices around the country, using a unique researcher-practitioner model. This report describes Vera's most recent partnership, with the New York County District Attorney's Office (DANY), which was funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). The partnership allowed Vera to place two-to-three researchers, depending on the phase of the project, at DANY for 20 months to work closely with DANY staff and analyze felony and misdemeanor cases disposed in 2010 and 2011. The study began in January 2012. It aimed to explore the influence of defendants' race and ethnicity on case acceptance for prosecution; detention status; plea offers to a lesser charge and custodial punishment offers; case dismissals; sentencing; and charge dynamics while considering a host of other factors influencing prosecutorial decision making (e.g., prior record or charge seriousness). The project involved: (1) evaluating and analyzing existing administrative data; (2) conducting prosecutorial semi-structured interviews to better understand case processing and data limitations; (3) collecting additional data from a sample of 2,409 case files; (4) hosting meetings to discuss research findings and their policy implications; and (5) disseminating findings through reports, peer-reviewed publications, and conference presentations. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2014. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 28, 2014 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/race-and-prosecution-manhattan-partnership.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/race-and-prosecution-manhattan-partnership.pdf Shelf Number: 133152 Keywords: Case ProcessingEthnic DisparitiesProsecution (New York)Prosecutorial Decision-MakingProsecutorial DiscretionProsecutorsRacial Disparities |
Author: Worwood, Erin B. Title: Evaluation of Early Case Resolution (ECR): Final Report Summary: Early Case Resolution (ECR) Court pilot program was developed as a systemic approach to address challenges faced by the criminal justice system in Utah through a collaborative partnership of state and local agencies. By identifying lower level cases that were eligible for expedited processing, ECR Court aimed to: (1) increase the speed of processing for all cases filed in Third District Court; (2) provide the 'same justice sooner'; (3) provide criminal defendants with appropriate sentences and treatment services; and (4) reduce recidivism rates. Results from this three-year study of ECR Court indicate that: 1.Case processing time was decreased for criminal cases in Third District Court as a result of ECR and the procedural changes that accompanied its implementation. 2.ECR cases received differential sentences for similar types of crime, rather than the 'same justice sooner'. Even after controlling for group differences, ECR cases received more lenient sentences (e.g., lower supervision level, shorter probation length, fewer jail days) than non-ECR cases. 3.Although not lower risk on the LSI-R alcohol and drug domain, fewer ECR cases were ordered to complete substance use disorder (SUD)-related services at sentencing. The same trend was also observed at defendants' first post-sentencing hearings for non-compliance, where fewer ECR cases were ordered to complete SUD-related services, even though they were not less likely to have committed a drug or alcohol violation. 4.Although typically sentenced to shorter probation terms, ECR cases were more likely to be terminated unsuccessfully from probation and were terminated more quickly than non-ECR cases. ECR cases also recidivated more quickly and more often than non-ECR cases; however, the relationship between ECR participation and greater recidivism was reduced for some outcomes when risk to recidivate (as measured by the LSI-R) was included in the predictive model. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2014. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 28, 2015 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/ECR_FinalReport.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/ECR_FinalReport.pdf Shelf Number: 135796 Keywords: Case ProcessingCourtsPartnerships |
Author: Gentles, Peggy Title: Non-Felony Driving While Intoxicated: Case Processing in Wright County Minnesota Summary: Driving while impaired incidents in Minnesota have significant public safety and criminal justice impacts. This project studied 2013 non-felony impaired driving (DWI) dispositions in Wright County, Minnesota. The Minnesota Judicial Branch has timing objectives for the disposition of cases, including non-felony criminal cases. The project sought to analyze the disposed cases to identify changes in case processing that could positively impact time to disposition in non-felony DWI cases. Additionally, the possibility of triaging first-time offenders' cases to both improve performance on the timing objectives as well as to reduce recidivism of those offenders is investigated. The source data for the project were large data extracts from the Court's case management system. Case-level and hearing level data on non-felony DWI disposed cases were examined. The data sets were analyzed using descriptive statistics and variance analysis to identify any independent variable's impact on time to disposition. The level of offense, defendant's representation status (private counsel, public defender, and self-represented), and number of hearings were found to significantly impact time to disposition. Prosecuting agency and blood alcohol content were not found to impact time to disposition. A random sample of first-time offender cases was evaluated based on factors identified in research as predictive of recidivism. At the beginning of the project, the author assumed that triaging cases could identify cases requiring less judicial intervention, freeing up court calendar time, without increasing recidivism. The analysis revealed that cases identified through triage for less judicial intervention already were disposing quickly and with few hearings. Therefore, the hope that formal triage could be adopted to further reduce time to disposition was not borne out by the data. The project concludes that Wright County District Court's non-felony 2013 DWI dispositions did not meet state timing objectives. The Court's time to disposition compared favorably neither to the statewide averages nor to similarly sized counties. The Court should establish a more active case management strategy for non-felony DWI cases. A committee of stakeholders should be formed to look specifically at the variables that were found to impact time to disposition and evaluate the necessity of their impact. The project also identified limitations in data quality and availability of data to court managers and therefore recommends improvements both for local court administration and the state court administrator's offices. Finally, the proposal to use the concept of triage based on anticipated outcomes rather than case characteristics should be investigated further. While the sample data in this project did not prompt a recommendation for further consideration in this project's context, additional scholarship may develop the efficacy, as well as potential ethical concerns, of such an approach. Details: Williamsburg, VA: Institute for Court Management, 2015. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 17, 2015 at: http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/spcts/id/291/rec/1 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/spcts/id/291/rec/1 Shelf Number: 136438 Keywords: Case ProcessingDriving Under the InfluenceDrunk DrivingProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Clairmont, Don Title: Crime Prevention and Youth Case Processing: Where and How to Invest and Intervene Summary: The evaluation assessment has been fully summarized in seventeen points on pages 57 to 59 of this report. Essentially the John Howard Society and its restorative justice agency initially had a broad set of objectives for the project wherein the YCLW would play both a liaison role to the CJS for youth and an outreach role vis-a-vis the accused youths and their families. Government specification centered strongly on the liaison role - getting the youth engaged more quickly in the court process via legal aid, to their own and to the justice system's benefit. The governmental emphasis reflected clearly that the project was largely a response to the recommendations of the Nunn Inquiry concerning processing youth cases. As it turned out the project's emphasis was indeed on the contacting the young offenders and encouraging them to make arrangements with Legal Aid if they had not already done so. There was little further contact if the youth was lawyered up or readily indicated an intention to do so or simply did not want any assistance from the YCLW. Lack of adequate contact coordinates and significant transiency among the youth meant that a large proportion of the youth who were referred to the YCLW, or appeared on the court dockets subsequently made available to the YCLW, were never contacted. Few youths were referred by the police agencies which of course largely eliminated the possibility of their being contacted by the YCLW worker prior to first court appearance. There was little emphasis on a more active and continuing outreach role for the YCLW for several basic reasons - narrow interpretation of the role's formal mandate and a strict adherence to that in practice, such that linking the youth to NSLA, and / or making them aware of the need and value to obtain such counsel, became the almost exclusive objective; lack of effective 'buy-in' to the project by many CJS officials which limited police collaboration and led few other court role players to utilize the services of the YCLW; turnover among the YCLW workers which limited the build-up of rapport with officials and familiarity with the young accuseds; no compellability for youths to meet with or talk to the YCLW worker. The contact of the YCLW with the young accused usually occurred over the telephone when such information was provided by police officials or by attendance at youth court but for various reasons the contact was quite limited and only in the last months of the project were they beginning to become more than a single short encounter. The YCLW in concert with the RJ agency staff did develop a YCLW manual, job description, information cards, and promoted and explained the initiative to CJS officials in both Truro and New Glasgow, especially in Truro where the worker had an office. There was a modest input into NSLA practices (i.e., suggestions for simplifying the process of certification for youth). Few services were provided other than encouraging the youths to link up with NSLA and only in last month or so, were a few significant contacts established with youth and/or parent/ guardians. There were also significant lessons and insights that could be drawn from this largely unsuccessful project, in large measure because the competent project management and staff did their best to carry out their mandate and thus, analyses of shortcomings has to focus not on them but on the major structural and problem specification issues such as effectively reaching the small number of multiple repeat offenders - a grouping we have labeled "the 15" since in so many jurisdiction in Nova Scotia roughly that number generate much of the youth crime and a much larger proportion of "secondary" crime (i.e., administration of justice crime). The project perhaps inadvertently highlighted the central query for crime prevention, namely where to put the emphasis, where to make more investment. The overall policy relevance of the YCLW project may well have been to sharply underline that the pivotal policy problem issue for crime prevention and for youth court administration is not the average length of time in processing youth cases. Rather, it is the fact that a small number of multiple repeat offenders - "the 15" as we have labeled them - cause a disproportionate amount of court time and account not only for much crime but also for perhaps as much as 75% of all the administration of justice or "secondary" criminalization which does take court time and limit effective court action. They constitute the proverbial "elephant in the room" for crime prevention and case processing. The YCLW project was not focused on this central problem and did not have the mandate or the tools to deal with it. A different model would appear to be required, a youth intervention outreach model, a model that does not exist in Nova Scotia but does have some modest commonality with the NSLA approach in HRM and the MLSN court worker approach in the Aboriginal community. In this evaluator's viewpoint such a multi-tasked youth intervention approach pinpointing the central youth crime problem highlighted by the YCLW project could be a major step forward for the justice system in Nova Scotia. Details: Dalhousie, Nova Scotia: Atlantic Institute of Criminology, Dalhousie University, 2010. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2015 at: http://ns.johnhoward.ca/images/YCLWFinalEvaluationReport.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Canada URL: http://ns.johnhoward.ca/images/YCLWFinalEvaluationReport.pdf Shelf Number: 136635 Keywords: Case ProcessingJuvenile CourtJuvenile OffendersLegal AidYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Weatherburn, Don Title: Trial court delay and the NSW District Criminal Court Summary: Aim: To describe the growth in trial court delay in the NSW District Criminal Court and the factors affecting it. Method: Descriptive analysis of court data. Results: Where the accused is on bail, the average time between committal for trial and case finalisation in the NSW District Criminal Court has grown by 34 per cent since 2007. Where the accused is in custody, the average time between committal for trial and case finalisation has grown by 44 per cent. The principal causes of the growth in delay are (1) a growth in persons arrested for serious (strictly indictable) offences, (2) an increase in the proportion of cases registered for trial that are actually proceeding to trial and (3) a growth in trial duration. Conclusion: Action needs to be taken to reduce court delay in the NSW District Criminal Court and to improve the indicators of trial case processing. Measures that expand the Court's capacity or improve its efficiency will have a more immediate (though not necessarily larger) effect than measures that reduce demand for trial court time. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2015. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice No. 184: Accessed August 31, 2015 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report_2015_Court_Delay_cjb184.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report_2015_Court_Delay_cjb184.pdf Shelf Number: 136644 Keywords: Case ProcessingCourt DelayCriminal CourtGuilty Plea |
Author: Gewirtz, Marian Title: Recidivism Among Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2007-2012: A Comparison by Case Outcome Summary: New York State's Juvenile Offender (JO) Law was passed as part of the Omnibus Crime Control Bill of 1978 in response to concerns about serious crime committed by young offenders. The JO Law lowered the age of criminal responsibility for juveniles in New York State from age 16, already among the lowest in the country, to age 14 for selected serious felony offenses1 and to age 13 when the charge was second degree murder. In accordance with the provisions of this law, cases are brought directly to the adult rather than the juvenile court for prosecution. Previous CJA research on recidivism among juveniles processed in the adult courts in New York City focused solely on juveniles processed in the Supreme Court (upper court), excluding the many juveniles whose cases were dismissed in the Criminal Court (lower court) or transferred to the Family Court. Furthermore, the previous research did not directly consider re-arrest during pretrial case processing. That is, that research tracked re-arrest regardless of whether the re-arrest occurred before the initial case reached disposition, between disposition and sentencing, after sentencing, or even after the juvenile served any sentence. However, the research showed very high rates of recidivism. Most of the juveniles were re-arrested at some point (three quarters were re-arrested within four years at risk and half were re-arrested for a violent felony offense within that time), though only 16 percent of the re-arrests in that study were prior to disposition. The current research focuses on the relationship between recidivism and case outcome. Re-arrest rates are compared across juveniles whose cases reached disposition in the Criminal Court, by dismissal or by transfer to the Family Court, or in the Supreme Court, by conviction3 or by dismissal or transfer to the Family Court. We begin with a description of the research dataset and of the juveniles that are in the two groups used in this research. The second section presents case outcome and release status in the full research file to provide context for the two research groups. The third section discusses the relationship between case outcome and the demographic and court-related characteristics of the juveniles. The re-arrests are the focus in the fourth section which includes discussion of the first re-arrest, re-arrest rates by demographic, CJA interview and court-related factors, as well as re-arrest rates by time at risk to re-arrest. We then report the results of multivariate analyses using Cox proportional hazards regression to explore the factors associated with elapsed time to first pretrial re-arrest and first pretrial felony re-arrest for both research groups to determine if re-arrest varies by case outcome. Details: New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, 2015. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 25, 2015 at: http://www.nycja.org/library.php Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.nycja.org/library.php Shelf Number: 137337 Keywords: Case ProcessingJuvenile Court TransferJuvenile OffendersRe-ArrestRecidivismWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Chicago Appleseed Title: Pre-Trial Delay and Length of Stay in Cook County Jail: Observations and Recommendations from the Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice Summary: From 2007 to 2011, felony case filings in the Cook County Circuit Court fell by 17% and Cook County jail admissions dropped by 26%. Despite these shrinking caseloads and jail admissions, Cook County's average daily jail population decreased by just 9%. Why? People are staying in the jail for longer. And since the vast majority of people in jail are awaiting trial, it's reasonable to look to the pretrial process for sources of delay. From 2007 to 2011, the overall average length of stay increased 6.2 days, from 47.9 to 54.1 days in jail. Even small increases in average length of stay can significantly drive up the average daily jail population. This additional 6.2 days translates to a total of 454,888 additional jail bed days or, in other words, 1,246 additional inmates in the jail's average daily population. This report analyzes the pretrial process in search of causes and solutions to increasing pretrial detention. It draws on jail and court data analysis as well as stakeholder interviews and research literature. We describe the types of offenses and outcomes associated with longer jail stays, and describe how delay affects the justice system. In general, we find no "smoking gun" causing lengthier pretrial detention. Rather, there are a variety of issues that interact to create needless and costly delays. And while all stakeholders share responsibility for these issues, we recommend proven strategies for judges to promote a speedy and fair pretrial process. Details: Chicago: Chicago Appleseed, 2013. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: http://www.chicagoappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/CAFFJ-Pre-Trial-Delay-and-Length-of-Stay-Final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.chicagoappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/CAFFJ-Pre-Trial-Delay-and-Length-of-Stay-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 139350 Keywords: Case ProcessingJailsPretrial Detention |
Author: Hobday, Jamie Title: Targeting Reasons for Rejecting Random Assignment in an RCT Summary: The Randomised Control Trial (RCT) is seen as the 'gold standard' of evaluation work, but running such experiments with high fidelity and validity can be a challenge, especially in an operational policing environment. Researchers are continually seeking tools and methods of working that can support experimentation in front-line policing operations. An algorithmic triage approach to case selection and random allocation, utilising the Cambridge Gateway on-line tool, holds promise in this arena. This approach and tool has been operationalised in the Turning-Point Experiment, UK. Five custody suites in a busy urban police agency utilised this approach over a three year period. Case selection and random allocation was conducted by operational police officers on a 24/7 basis. Officers were instructed to use their discretion to exclude cases that were ostensibly eligible, but they felt would not have the public's support. The consistency and validity of their decisions is studied through these decisions to reject random allocation. The improving rate of rejection over the Turning-Point experiments life is investigated, and the method of project implementation is proposed as a likely explanation for improvements. Officer's rejections are categorised as either appropriate or inappropriate and inter-rate reliability is measured across four key project staff. The pattern of inappropriate rejections amongst individual officers is studied and compared to officers' characteristics identified from a survey. A moderate correlation is found between officers making better quality decisions and higher levels of educational achievement. The conclusion is reached that this model can be effective at utilising officers in case selection and random allocation roles in large scale RCTs in policing. Recommendations are made to any researchers wanting to replicate the experiment. Details: Cambridge, UK: Wolfson College, University of Cambridge, 2014. 119p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed October 14, 2016 at: http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/alumni/theses/Jamie%20Hobday.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/alumni/theses/Jamie%20Hobday.pdf Shelf Number: 144939 Keywords: Case ProcessingCriminal Justice EvaluationRandomized Control Trial |
Author: Denman, Kristine Title: Pretrial Detention and Case Processing Measures: A Study of Nine New Mexico Counties Summary: The New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center completed a study of pretrial case processing measures and pretrial detention within nine New Mexico counties. This study addresses multiple objectives. First, this study was intended to explore the feasibility of developing case processing performance measures that are more robust than those currently used. Second, this study is intended to understand the extent of pretrial detention and the factors associated with pretrial detention. Third, we assess the degree to which pretrial detention decisions appear to be accurate. Finally, we explored whether pretrial detention influences case processing and outcomes. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center, 2017. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2017 at: http://isr.unm.edu/reports/2017/pretrial-detention-and-case-processing-measures--a-study-of-nine-new-mexico-counties-.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://isr.unm.edu/reports/2017/pretrial-detention-and-case-processing-measures--a-study-of-nine-new-mexico-counties-.pdf Shelf Number: 147348 Keywords: BailCase ProcessingJailsPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Needs Assessment |
Author: MacDonald, John Title: An Analysis of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Case Dispositions and Sentencing Outcomes for Criminal Cases Presented to and Processed by the Office of the San Francisco District Attorney Summary: In this project, we document and explore the sources of racial and ethnic disparities in outcomes for criminal cases that are presented to and prosecuted by the San Francisco District Attorney's Office (SFDA). We assess the degree to which racial and ethnic disparities in case outcomes are attributable to characteristics of the cases that are presented to the SFDA (e.g., seriousness of arrest charges and criminal history) in comparison to aspects of case processing that generate disparate impacts. We also explore the extent to which disparities remain after making statistical adjustments for case characteristics and specific case processing aspects, such as pre-trial detention. The study merges administrative data from the SFDA case management system, data on jail admission and release from the San Francisco Sheriff's Department, and statewide criminal history data from the California Department of Justice. Our principal conclusions are as follows: CONCLUSION #1: Racial and ethnic disparities in case disposition outcomes tend to disfavor African-Americans, Asians, and Hispanics relative to White suspects arrested in City and County of San Francisco. Figure ES1 displays average values for a select set of case disposition outcomes by race and ethnicity. The figure shows the percent of cases where charges are not filed, where the defendant is successfully diverted, where the defendant is released to another agency or where a motion to revoke probation is filed, where felony charges are filed after a felony arrest, where a felony arrest results in a felony conviction, and the percentage of cases that result in a prison sentence. Figure ES1 also displays the average sentence in months for cases that result in a new conviction. There are several notable patterns in these outcomes. First, Blacks fare poorly relative to Whites for each outcome. Black defendants are less likely to have their cases dropped or dismissed, less likely to be successfully diverted, more likely to be released to another agency or have a motion to revoke filed against them, and when convicted, receive the longest incarceration sentences and are the most likely to receive a prison sentence. Second, Asian and Hispanic defendants also fare poorly for several outcomes relative to White defendants. Asian suspects face a much lower likelihood that their case is dismissed and a higher likelihood of conviction. Broad disposition outcomes are similar for Hispanic and White defendants, though Hispanic defendants are slightly less likely to be successfully diverted and slightly more likely to receive a prison sentence. Details: San Francisco: San Francisco District Attorney's Office, 2017. 140p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2018 at: http://sfdistrictattorney.org/sites/default/files/MacDonald_Raphael_December42017_FINALREPORT%20%28002%29.pdf?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=0b80a2c4-8465-4af0-9860-63350bb9cb70 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://sfdistrictattorney.org/sites/default/files/MacDonald_Raphael_December42017_FINALREPORT%20%28002%29.pdf?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=0b80a2c4-8465-4af0-9860-63350bb9cb70 Shelf Number: 149290 Keywords: Case ProcessingCriminal Courts Ethnic Disparities Racial Disparities Sentencing |
Author: Luminosity, Inc. Title: Pretrial Case Processing in Maine : A Study of System Efficiency & Effectiveness Summary: The Corrections Alternatives Advisory Committee (CAAC) was created by the Maine Legislature in the spring of 2005 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the state's corrections system and to better manage costs. The objectives of the committee were to increase systemwide efficiencies, enhance state and county coordination, and effectively manage defendants/offenders risk and needs. A portion of the committee's responsibility was to examine the local criminal justice system which is considered the "front end" of the larger criminal justice system. An examination of the "front end" of the system, specifically the pretrial stage (including arrest through case disposition) and how cases are processed in the system was the focus of this study. This in-depth study included an examination of the critical stages of pretrial case processing in all 16 counties in Maine, as well as the policies and practices of the key participants involved. The assessment was completed by conducting extensive research, onsite visits, interviews with nearly 250 key stakeholders, and observations of the critical stages of pretrial case processing. The results of the study led to findings and recommendations for improvements related to system efficiencies, system effectiveness, and risk management of pretrial defendants. Great care was taken to ensure that the recommendations were consistent with maintaining judicial system integrity, protecting the presumption of innocence, and ensuring the highest level of protection to our communities. The report begins with an overview of Maine's pretrial case processing system, including the identification of seven critical stages and eight key system participants. Details: St. Petersburg, FL: Luminosity, 2006. 162p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2018 at: http://digitalmaine.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=doc_docs Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://digitalmaine.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=doc_docs Shelf Number: 149868 Keywords: BailCase ProcessingPretrial DetentionPretrial JusticePretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |