Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: May 5, 2024 Sun
Time: 10:43 am
Time: 10:43 am
Results for civil sanctions
4 results foundAuthor: Flint, John Title: An Evaluation of the Sanction of Housing Benefit Summary: In September 2007, the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research at Sheffield Hallam University and the Centre for Housing Policy at the University of York were commissioned by the DWP to undertake an evaluation of the sanction of HB being piloted in eight local authority areas in England. This report provides an account of the main findings and issues emerging from the evaluation. Chapter 2 describes the policy background to the sanction of HB pilot. Chapter 3 provides information about the aims of the evaluation and the research methods used. Chapter 4 summarises the background context and delivery structures developed and established in the eight local authority areas at the commencement of the pilot in October 2007. Chapter 5 provides an account of the delivery and operation of the sanction of HB pilot until its conclusion on 31 October 2009. Chapter 6 presents findings on the use and impacts of warnings about the potential use of a sanction of HB. Chapter 7 summarises the key findings and conclusions of the research. Appendix 1 provides further information about the background housing, anti-social behaviour and policy contexts in each of the eight local authority pilot areas. Appendix 2 provides further information about the stakeholders interviewed during the research. The aim of the research was to evaluate the implementation, operation and impacts of the sanction of HB during the two year pilot period in each of the eight pilot local authority areas. The objectives of the research were specifically to: • Monitor and gather information on the implementation and scoping of the local schemes during their initial stages (November 2007 to April 2008). • Capture and evaluate how each of the pilot schemes had operated during the pilot period. • Provide an in-depth profile of the households eligible for sanction (including those sanctioned and not sanctioned). • Identify and understand why households had or had not been sanctioned. • Identify and understand the housing outcomes of as many individuals and households eligible for sanction (including those sanctioned and not sanctioned) as possible. Details: London: Department for Work and Pensions, 2011. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report No. 728: Accessed April 25, 2011 at: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2011-2012/rrep728.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2011-2012/rrep728.pdf Shelf Number: 121490 Keywords: Antisocial BehaviorCivil SanctionsHousing (U.K.) |
Author: Blanton, Rebecca E. Title: Unlawful Detainer Pilot Program: Report to the California Legislature Summary: Renters who remain at a property when they no longer have a legal right to reside at the location may be sued for unlawful detainer. Most often, an unlawful detainer is filed against a renter who is no longer paying rent but continues to occupy a residence. A person may also be the subject of an unlawful detainer if they commit or allow the commission of illegal activity at a rental property. The Los Angeles City Attorney developed the pilot programs under review in this report to “surgically remove” unlawful detainers who were contributing to illegal activities as a method of counteracting gang and drug problems in neighborhoods. In 1998, the California legislature passed AB 1384 (Havice, Ch. 613, Statutes of 1998). The pilot programs were based on the program design of the Los Angeles City Attorney. The legislation authorized pilot programs, in selected cities, that empower city attorneys and city prosecutors to evict nuisance tenants when landlords fail to act. The bill authorized a program that allows law enforcement organizations to assist landlords in evicting renters when the landlords fear retaliation from their tenants. Additionally, AB 1384 (Havice) established “partial eviction” provisions in California. This allows the city attorney to evict only the tenant arrested for a drug crime, leaving the “innocent” tenants in the residence. The goals of the pilot programs are to remove drug dealers from neighborhoods and to provide law enforcement with an effective and efficient option for evicting nuisance tenants. Bill AB 1384 and subsequent legislation for the unlawful detainer (U.D.) pilot programs provide for an evaluation of the program to determine if the programs are meeting these goals. This is the fifth report to the legislature on the U.D. program. Prior reports to the legislature submitted by the Judicial Council demonstrated that this program is being used, but have not fully evaluated the merits of this program. Consistent with the requirements of Chapter 613, Statutes of 2009-2010, the California Research Bureau (CRB) evaluated the 2010 data on unlawful detainer use and outcomes. CRB finds that the program is in use and is supported by the city attorneys and police officers at the pilot locations. However, current data reporting requirements limit the scope of the analysis. In this report, CRB provides the legislature with both an overview of the current program and an alternative program evaluation model to facilitate a more informative analysis in future reports. Our evaluation of the current data, along with conversations with key stakeholders, revealed several key findings. The key findings are located in Table 1. CRB found that important questions posed by the legislature and legislative staff are not currently being answered by the pilot program evaluation. Additionally, several potential benefits of the pilot programs are not currently being measured by the program evaluation. In this report, we provide key findings available with the current data and those gleaned through conversations with key stakeholders. Additionally, we provide a discussion of program evaluation and potential methods for the legislature or future research staff to answer important questions about the use and outcomes of the pilot programs. Details: Sacramento: California Research Bureau, 2010. 105p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 23, 2011 at: http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/11/Unlawful_Detainer_Pilot_Program_Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/11/Unlawful_Detainer_Pilot_Program_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 121778 Keywords: Civil SanctionsDrug Offenders (California)GangsHousingNuisance Behaviors and Disorders |
Author: California. Judicial Council. Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Research Title: Unlawful Detainer Pilot Program: Report to the California Legislature under Health and Safety Code Section 11571.1 and Civil Code Section 3485 Summary: In 1998, Assembly Bill 1384 ([Havice]; Stats. 1998, ch. 613) created an initial three-year unlawful detainer pilot program in cities within five former municipal court districts in the County of Los Angeles to allow city attorneys and prosecutors to seek the eviction of any person who was in violation of the nuisance or controlled substance law. The legislation, which became effective on January 1, 1999, authorized the pilot courts to issue a partial or total eviction order to remove an individual who engages in drug-related activity. AB 1384 also required the participating cities to collect specified data on their experiences under the pilot program and to file reports annually about these cases with the Judicial Council. The legislation further required the Judicial Council to submit a brief report to the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees on or before January 1, 2001, summarizing the information provided by the participating cities and evaluating the merits of the program. The Judicial Council report required under this legislation provided a summary of the program data submitted by the participating cities. Using additional information provided by the Long Beach pilot program, the report also looked into additional areas of program operations, including the type of drug violations leading to the issuing of eviction notices and the timing of the filing of unlawful detainer actions. In 2001, Assembly Bill 815 ([Havice]; Stats. 2001, ch. 431) reauthorized the pilot program for three more years, imposed more specific reporting requirements on the participating cities, and required the Judicial Council to issue another report and evaluation of the program. The Judicial Council’s report that was issued under AB 815 compiled the program data submitted by the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Based on the more specific information on program activities, the report provided an analysis of different components of each pilot program, including, among other things, the use of the pilot program provisions to accomplish partial eviction of the offending tenants. In 2004, Assembly Bill 2523 ([Frommer]; Stats. 2004, ch. 304) further extended the sunset of the pilot program to January 1, 2010, made additional augmentations to the reporting requirements, and expanded the program to include cities in Alameda and San Diego Counties. The legislation also required two additional Judicial Council reports to the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees, one on or before April 15, 2007, and the other on or before April 15, 2009, summarizing the information provided by the participating cities and evaluating the merits of the pilot program. In 2007, Assembly Bill 1013 ([Krekorian]; Stats. 2007, ch. 456) expanded the list of circumstances deemed to constitute a nuisance to include a person who commits an offense involving unlawful possession or use of illegal weapons or ammunition or who uses the premises to further that purpose. It additionally created a similar UD pilot project authorizing evictions based on such nuisance activities in the same cities covered by the original legislation, and added the city of Sacramento to the new pilot program. Details: Sacramento: Judicial Council of California, 2009. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2011 at: http://208.96.4.104/xbcr/cc/unlawful_detainer_pilot.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 121786 Keywords: Civil SanctionsDrug Offenders (California)GangsHousingNuisance Behaviors and Disorders |
Author: Anderson, James M. Title: The Changing Role of Criminal Law in Controlling Corporate Behavior Summary: What should be the role of the criminal law in controlling corporate behavior, and how can the execution of that role be improved? On the one hand, corporations have enormous power, and, when a corporation causes harm, there is a natural instinct to apply criminal sanctions, society's most serious expression of moral disapproval. In the wake of a harm in which a corporation had a prominent role, there are often calls for an increased use of the criminal law to tame corporate excesses. On the other hand, criminal liability has historically usually required criminal intent, a concept that applies oddly to a legal construction, such as a corporation. And more recently, critics have decried what they have termed the overcriminalization of corporate behavior, suggesting that there has been an overreliance on the use of criminal law in this context. To provide guidance to policymakers on the proper role of criminal sanctions in this context, RAND Corporation researchers (1) measure the current use of criminal sanctions in controlling corporate behavior, (2) describe how the current regime developed, and (3) offer suggestions about how the use of criminal sanctions to control corporate behavior might be improved. Key Findings There Is Mixed Evidence About the Changing Role of Criminal Law in Regulating and Controlling Corporate Activity - With the exceptions of the application of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the number of criminal prosecutions of corporations has declined in recent years, suggesting less formal prosecutorial activity rather than more. However, use of deferred-prosecution agreements (DPAs), non-prosecution agreements (NPAs), and debarment activity has increased sharply, suggesting that the threat of criminal action is still playing an important role in controlling behavior in this context. Recommendations - Recognize that criminal sanctions in this context are instrumental tools and not moral judgments. Lawmakers should be reluctant to pass statutes that punish without proof of criminal intent, courts should be reluctant to interpret statutes in ways that ignore criminal intent, and prosecutors should bring such prosecutions sparingly. - Have judges review deferred-prosecution and non-prosecution agreements. This practice would provide some assurance that the agreements are genuinely in the public interest and might allow third parties affected by the agreements to air their objections in a neutral forum. Policymakers should give serious consideration to requiring that every DPA and NPA be reviewed by an appropriate federal judge. This practice would provide additional transparency and reassure the public that justice was being served. - Carefully review debarment provisions. Debarment decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis by the relevant governmental agency, depending on the severity of the allegations made and their relevance to the domain of the governmental entity. - Consider substituting the use of civil sanctions. In many cases, civil sanctions that include formal fact-finding might function as well as or better than criminal sanctions. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2014. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2015 at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR412.html Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR412.html Shelf Number: 134766 Keywords: Civil SanctionsCorporate Crime (U.S.)Criminal Law Criminal SanctionsProsecutionSarbanes-Oxley ActWhite Collar Crime |