Roger E. Hartley

Who Graduates from Drug Courts? Correlates of Client Success

Drug courts combine punishment and treatment to provide an intermediate sanction for offenders. This paper contains an analysis of drug court case files for 196 participants in one mid-Atlantic jurisdiction. Logistic regression reveals that employment status before and during the program, race, education, and referral time are significant predictors of successful completion. Policy implications and suggestions about participant screening and program administration are offered.

The Increasing Senate Scrutiny of Lower Federal Court Nominees

We argue that the scrutiny of lower federal court nominations in the Senate is not unique to the crisis during the Clinton administration or during the tenure of Orrin Hatch as Judiciary Committee chair. Instead, increased scrutiny of lower court nominees has been a long time in the making. Lower court nominations became more contentious during the Carter administration, increased further late in Reagans second term, and reached a zenith after the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress. We employ data that examines the delay of nomination from 1969 until 1998. We examine delay pre and post Carter and pre and post the time Senator Orin Hatch served as judiciary chair. We also examine the impact of unified and divided government on these appointments.

Attorney Expertise, Litigant Success, and Judicial Decisionmaking in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

In the U.S. legal system, litigants frequently retain counsel to represent their interest in civil cases, particularly when the stakes are high. Scholarly work and anecdotal evidence suggest that variation in the quality of advocacy has the potential to affect litigant success. We examine the relationship between attorney characteristics, case outcomes, and judicial voting in products liability decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Our analysis found some differences in the levels of experience and specialization of counsel, representing defendants and plaintiffs and that counsel expertise was, at times, related to litigant success. In a multivariate model of decision making, judge were less likely to support the position of plaintiffs when they were represented by counsel appearing for the first time before the circuit. When defendants were represented by attorneys who did not specialize in relevant areas of the law, judges were more likely to decide in favor of the plaintiff. These finding suggest that those attorneys who do not meet a minimum threshold of expertise will be less likely to find judicial support for their client than other attorneys. Such attorneys may be less successful as a result of their lack of familiarity with the law and appellate process or because they make poor choices regarding the likelihood of success on appeal.

Treating the Tough Cases in Juvenile Drug Court: Individual and Organizational Practices Leading to Success or Failure

Drug Courts are a fundamental change to trial courts. They are considered less adversarial and may alter past notions of treatment for offenders. One goal of drug courts is to provide defendants the opportunity to alter their drug-addicted lifestyles through intense supervision, feedback, treatment, and graduated sanctions and rewards for behavior. This study uses logistic regression to examine measures of failure such as termination from drug court and two measures of offender recidivism. Although the literature on drug courts has been developing for several years, the reality is that universal templates for explanation do not yet exist in the juvenile arena. This paper examines correlates that explain the above measures of failure. The study also proposes the creation of new measures that may assist future research. Findings indicate that participant experiences within the drug court program are the strongest predictors of termination and recidivism.

State Court Budgeting and Judicial Independence: Clues from Oklahoma and Virginia

Perceived assaults on the independence of the judiciary have called new attention to how courts obtain their funding. Little scholarly activity has examined the question of how courts negotiate the politics of budgeting in state arenas. Expanding our knowledge in this area is necessary if we are to understand fully how budgeting affects the ability of the judiciary to effectively play its vital role as an independent branch in American government. Through the use of elite interviews with state court administrators, executive budget officers, and legislative budget analysts in Oklahoma and Virginia, this article examines whether the independence of state courts is under assault by budgetary politics. The evidence questions whether state executive and legislative powers of the purse pose serious threats to the independence of courts.

State Court Strategies and Politics during the Appropriations Process

This article explores state court budgetary strategies and their effectiveness in the appropriations process as perceived by key budgeting actors. In general, we find evidence of state judiciaries that try to remain “above politics” when dealing with budget issues. The most important strategies to this effect include submitting realistic requests, providing documentation to support needs, and not using budget “weapons” at their disposal (e.g., writs of mandamus). However, the survey results do indicate that state judiciaries use certain strategies that have a more political tint, such as lobbying by court officials.

Toward a Shared Services Model for the Delivery of Public Affairs Education

Abstract This article examines the feasibility of online course sharing among Master of Public Administration (MPA) and Master of Public Policy (MPP) programs accredited by the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA). Our cross-sectional study methodology based on a 2013 NASPAA survey identifies the point-in-time interest in such course sharing among NASPAA-accredited programs. Survey data indicate substantial interest in the idea as well as challenges. This article also describes possible funding models and reports on discussions to implement course sharing in public affairs programs in the University of North Carolina system. We conclude by recommending that online course sharing be planned first through agreements among universities within states and then by building toward collaborations among universities in different states and abroad. We recommend that NASPAA play a central role in creating and managing exchanges within and among states.

Putting Yourself in Their Shoes: The Analysis of Real-World Disputes through Group Field Projects

This article explains the development and use of group field projects to analyze real-world public policy disputes in a course on conflict management. In the process of learning about the evolution of disputes, their management, and techniques for resolving them, students are assigned to groups and required to analyze a local public dispute involving multiple parties. Using Carpenter and Kennedy’s (2001) book, Managing Public Disputes, and other course material, students provide a detailed analysis of the conflict’s history, identify stakeholders, and learn about the positions and interests of the disputants. After extensive analysis, students recommend a conflict management program for the dispute. During the semester, this project provides a capstone of sorts to the MPA program. Students get a firsthand look at the complexity of policy disputes, how individuals and groups approach public problems, and why some policy solutions lead to successes and failures.