Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:36 am
Time: 2:36 am
Results for courts (u.s.)
2 results foundAuthor: Bornstein, Brian H. Title: Reducing Courts’ Failure to Appear Rate: A Procedural Justice Approach Summary: Failure-to-appear (FTA) is a significant problem in the nation’s courts. This paper examines the effectiveness of using different kinds of written reminders to reduce misdemeanants’ FTA rates. Misdemeanants (n = 7865) in 14 Nebraska counties were randomly assigned to one of four conditions prior to their court date: no reminder (control), reminder-only, reminder with information on the negative consequences of FTA (reminder-sanctions), or reminder with information on sanctions as well as the procedural justice benefits of appearing (reminder-combined). A subset of defendants (n = 452) was also surveyed after their scheduled court date to assess their perceptions of procedural fairness (both in general and regarding participants’ specific court experience) and their level of trust/confidence in the courts. Reminders significantly reduced FTA overall, and more substantive reminders were significantly more effective than a simple reminder. Specifically, the FTA rate was 12.6% in the control condition, 10.9% in the reminder-only condition, 8.3% in the reminder-sanctions condition, and 9.8% in the reminder-combined condition. The FTA rate was higher for some categories of misdemeanors than others, and for defendants with multiple charges (15.4% if two or more charges, versus 5.4% for one charge). The baseline FTA rate was higher for Blacks (18.7%) than for Whites (11.7%) and Hispanics (10.5%), but this difference was not statistically significant when controlling for other factors such as number of offenses and type of offense. Survey results indicated that misdemeanants’ trust/confidence assessments, as well as their perceptions of procedural justice, were related to their appearance in court. Defendants who appeared in court had higher institutional confidence and felt they had been treated more fairly by the criminal justice system (means = 3.23 and 3.52, respectively, on a 5-point scale) than non-appearers (means = 3.02 and 3.23, respectively). Institutional confidence and procedural justice were themselves highly correlated. Defendants with low trust in the courts were less likely to appear than those with higher trust when there was no reminder, but this relationship was not statistically significant when there was a reminder. The study has important implications for public policy and pretrial services, such as improving system efficiencies and increasing criminal defendants’ perceptions of procedural justice. We recommend that courts, especially in larger jurisdictions, adopt a reminder program for defendants and engage in outreach to increase offenders’ trust/confidence. Details: Final Report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2011. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2011 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/234370.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/234370.pdf Shelf Number: 121934 Keywords: Court DelaysCourt ProceduresCourts (U.S.)Failure to Appear |
Author: Illinois. Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts Title: Circuit Court of Cook County Pretrial Operational Review Summary: For decades, the highly publicized issue of jail over-crowding has plagued Cook County. Through the years, experts have examined Cook County's pretrial and bond court operations, studied crime statistical data, and recorded remedies, some of which resulted in operational, environmental, programmatic, and policy changes with varying effects. From the point of arrest through the pretrial and bond court process, there is a critical dilemma that persists: whether to allow the defendant to remain in the community and continue to work and attend school, or to detain the defendant and alleviate any risk of failing to appear or committing another crime while awaiting trial. Ultimately, judicial discretion determines such decisions based upon the facts presented to the judge during bond court. The Illinois Pretrial Services Act provides the legal framework for this process. In practice, it has become largely aspirational, rather than a model for everyday procedure. Under the Act, pretrial services would provide a pivotal function in collecting and verifying information to be used by the judge to determine bond and release conditions, and in providing post-release supervision as a means to respond to non-compliance with court conditions while awaiting trial. In 2013, Cook County pretrial services staff conducted 24,977 interviews/assessments and conducted 7,164 intakes on defendants ordered to pretrial supervision as reported through monthly statistical reports submitted to the Administrative Office. Unfortunately, however, the reliance upon the work of pretrial services is generally dismissed or minimized because of a lack of confidence in the credibility of the risk assessment and community living information. During this operational review, it was evident that much of the information obtained by pretrial services officers was not verified, so the response from stakeholders and judges was understandable. Though a series of technological, managerial, interpersonal, and operational factors were substantiated during the review process and described in this document, there is no single group, program or "fix" that accounts for the fracture of the process. Notwithstanding, while there was non-reliance upon the risk assessment and other information and a limited number of cases placed under pretrial supervision, this was juxtaposed by judges overwhelmingly voicing support for pretrial services personnel and the need for the program. Further, collection of statistical reports and other data has been cumbersome and inconsistent due to antiquated technology, unfamiliarity with the scope of data collected by respective stakeholder groups, absence of a coordinated data sharing process, and to a degree, data request protocols. Therefore, the data presented in this report is limited to that reported to the Administrative Office through the Adult Probation Department monthly statistical pretrial reports, data reported by the Cook County Circuit Court Clerk as contained in the Annual Statistical Reports to the Supreme Court, and publications prepared by Loyola University professor/researcher on the jail population for the Cook County Sheriff's Reentry Council Research Bulletin. Data requests submitted to the Circuit Clerk's office, Pretrial Services and the Sheriff's department have been submitted by the Administrative Office and are pending. While the impetus to conduct this review was a request by Chief Judge Evans for the funding of additional pretrial positions, such consideration must also be accompanied by systemic change. The two must not be separate. Unless there is a commitment amongst stakeholders to delve into these issues, reach consensus of resolutions and act to implement collaborative organizational and operational policies and practices in the pretrial and the bond court process, strictly adding positions will be minimally effective. While challenges exist, this is also a time of great opportunity. Many positive partnerships and activities are underway in Cook County that foster institutionalizing change and favorable outcomes. These include the Cook County Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems Committee (CCICJIS) and the plan to move from a paper-based to electronic systems of data exchange and sharing among stakeholders; the joint meetings of Cook County elected officials that are fleshing out issues and solutions to the process; the planned evaluation of the bond court process that will provide baseline performance data in Central Bond Court (CBC); and the Administrative Office's initiative, in conjunction with a notable national research team, to validate a statewide pretrial risk assessment tool. Details: Chicago, IL: Illinois Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, 2014. 138p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2015 at: https://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Reports/Pretrial/Pretrial_Operational_Review_Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Reports/Pretrial/Pretrial_Operational_Review_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 134952 Keywords: Bail BondsCourts (U.S.)Judicial DiscretionPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleasePretrial Services (Illinois)Risk Assessment |