Parental Criminal Justice Involvement and Children's Involvement With Child Protective Services: Do Adult Drug Treatment Courts Prevent Child Maltreatment?

BACKGROUND: In light of evidence showing reduced criminal recidivism and cost savings, adult drug treatment courts have grown in popularity. However, the potential spillover benefits to family members are understudied. OBJECTIVES: To examine: (1) the overlap between parents who were convicted of a substance-related offense and their children's involvement with child protective services (CPS); and (2) whether parental participation in an adult drug treatment court program reduces children's risk for CPS involvement. METHODS: Administrative data from North Carolina courts, birth records, and social services were linked at the child level. First, children of parents convicted of a substance-related offense were matched to (a) children of parents convicted of a nonsubstance-related offense and (b) those not convicted of any offense. Second, we compared children of parents who completed a DTC program with children of parents who were referred but did not enroll, who enrolled for <90 days but did not complete, and who enrolled for 90+ days but did not complete. Multivariate logistic regression was used to model group differences in the odds of being reported to CPS in the 1 to 3 years following parental criminal conviction or, alternatively, being referred to a DTC program. RESULTS: Children of parents convicted of a substance-related offense were at greater risk of CPS involvement than children whose parents were not convicted of any charge, but DTC participation did not mitigate this risk. Conclusion/Importance: The role of specialty courts as a strategy for reducing children's risk of maltreatment should be further explored.

Administrative justice and the control of bureaucratic decision-making: A study investigating how decision-makers in local authority education departments respond to the work of redress mechanisms

This socio-legal thesis has explored the factors responsible for explaining whether and how redress mechanisms control bureaucratic decision-making. The research considered the three principal institutions of administrative justice: courts, tribunals, and ombudsman schemes. The field setting was the local authority education area and the thesis examined bureaucratic decision-making about admissions to school, home-to-school transport, and Special Educational Needs (SEN). The thesis adopted a qualitative approach, using interviews and documentary research, within a multiple embedded case study design. The intellectual foundations of the research were inter-disciplinary, cutting across law, socio-legal studies, public administration, organization studies, and social policy. The thesis drew on these scholarly fields to explore the nature of bureaucratic decision-making, the extent to which it can be controlled and the way that learning occurs in bureaucracies and, finally, the extent to which redress mechanisms might exercise control. The concept of control was studied across all its dimensions – in relation both to ex post control in specific cases and the more challenging notion of ex ante or structuring control. The aim of the thesis was not to measure the prevalence of bureaucratic control by redress mechanisms, but to understand the factors that might explain its presence or absence in a particular area. The findings of the research have allowed for a number of analytical refinements and extensions to be made to existing theoretical and empirical understandings. 14 factors, along with 87 supporting propositions, have been set out with the aim of making empirically derived suggestions which can be followed up in future research. In terms of the thesis’ contribution to existing knowledge, its comparative focus and its emphasis on the broad notion of control offered the potential for new insights to be developed. Overall, the thesis claims to have made three contributions to the conceptual framework for understanding the exercise of control by redress mechanisms: it emphasizes the importance of ‘feedback’ in relation to the nature of the cases referred to redress mechanisms; it calls attention to the structure of bureaucratic decision-making as well as its normative character; and it discusses how the operational modes of redress mechanisms relate to their control functions.

Administrative Placement of the Information Systems Discipline in Universities - A SWOT Analysis of Queensland University of Technology

In some Queensland universities, Information Systems academics have moved out of Business Faculties. This study uses a pilot SWOT analysis to examine the ramifications of Information Systems academics being located within or outside of the Business Faculty. The analysis provides a useful basis for decision makers in the School studied, to exploit opportunities and minimise external threats. For Information Systems academics contemplating administrative relocation of their group, the study also offers useful insights. The study presages a series of further SWOT analyses to provide a range of perspectives on the relative merits of having Information Systems academics administratively located inside versus outside Business faculties.

Sentencing Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Women in Western Australia’s Higher Courts

This article presents results from an exploratory study seeking to examine the role of sentencing in the continuing overrepresentation of Indigenous women in Western Australia’s prisons. Sentencing data from Western Australia’s higher courts indicate that Indigenous women were less likely than non-Indigenous women to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment when appearing before the court for comparable offending behaviour and histories.

An administrative model for UCON

UCON is an emerging access control framework that lacks an administration model. In this paper we define the problem of administration and propose a novel administrative model. At the core of this model is the concept of attribute, which is also the central component of UCON. In our model, attributes are created by the assertions of subjects, which ascribe properties/rights to other subjects or objects. Through such a treatment of attributes, administration capabilities can be delegated from one subject to another and as a consequence UCON is improved in three aspects. First, immutable attributes that are currently considered as external to the model can be incorporated and thereby treated as mutable at- tributes. Second, the current arbitrary categorisation of users (as modifiers of attributes), to system and administrator can be removed. Attributes and objects are only modifiable by those who possess administration capability over them. Third, the delegation of administration over objects and properties that is not currently expressible in UCON is made possible.

Murri Courts : Indigenous Magistrate Courts : communicating for better outcomes

In setting the scene for this paper, it is useful to briefly outline the history of the Queensland legal system. Our legal system was largely inherited from Britain, so it is, therefore, based in European-Western cultural and legal traditions. Alongside this, and over many thousands of years, Australian Indigenous communities devised their own socio-cultural-legal structures. As a result, when Indigenous people are drawn into interactions with our English-based law and court system, which is very different from Aboriginal law, they face particular disadvantages. Problems may include structural and linguistic differences, the complex language of the law and court processes, cultural differences, gender issues, problems of age, communication differences, the formalities of the courtroom, communication protocols used by judges, barristers, and court administrators, and particularly, the questioning techniques used by police and lawyers.

Narratives of mitigation : sentencing Indigenous criminal defendants in South Australia’s Higher Courts

In their statistical analyses of higher court sentencing in South Australia, Jeffries and Bond (2009) found evidence that Indigenous offenders were treated more leniently than non-Indigenous offenders, when they appeared before the court under similar numerical circumstances. Using a sample of narratives for criminal defendants convicted in South Australia’s higher courts, the current article extends Jeffries and Bond’s (2009) prior statistical work by drawing on the ‘focal concerns’ approach to establish whether, and in what ways, Indigeneity comes to exert a mitigating influence over sentencing. Results show that the sentencing stories of Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders differed in ways that may have reduced assessments of blameworthiness and risk for Indigenous defendants. In addition, judges highlighted a number of Indigenous-specific constraints that potentially could result in imprisonment being construed as an overly harsh and costly sentence for Indigenous offenders.

Advance Directives Refusing Treatment as an Expression of Autonomy: Do the Courts Practise What They Preach?

The principle of autonomy is at the heart of the right of a competent individual to make an advance directive that refuses life-sustaining medical treatment, and to have that directive complied with by medical professionals. That right is protected by both the common law and, to an extent, by legislation that has been enacted in the United Kingdom and many jurisdictions in Australia. The courts have a critical role in protecting that autonomy, both in those jurisdictions in which the common law continues to operate, and in those jurisdictions which are now governed by statute, and in which judicial determinations will need to be made about legislative provisions. The problem explored in this article is that while the judiciary espouses the importance of autonomy in its judgments, that rhetoric is frequently not reflected in the decisions that are reached. In the United Kingdom and Australia, there is a relatively small number of decisions that consider the validity and applicability of advance directives that refuse life-sustaining medical treatment. This article critically evaluates all of the publicly available decisions and concludes that there is cause for concern. In some cases, there has been an unprincipled evolution of common law principles, while in others there has been inappropriate adjudication through operational irregularities or failure to apply correct legal principles. Further, some decisions appear to be based on a strained interpretation of the facts of the case. The apparent reluctance of some members of the judiciary to give effect to advance directives that refuse treatment is also evidenced by the language used in the judgments. While the focus of this article is on common law decisions, reference will also be made to legislation and the extent to which it has addressed some of the problems identified in this article.

A Knight without a Sword? The Effects of Audit Courts on Tax Morale

The intention of this paper is to analyse how audit courts affect tax morale, controlling in a multivariate analysis for a broad variety of potential factors. Switzerland, with its variety of audit-court competence among the cantons, has been analysed. With data from the ISSP [1998] (Swiss data 1999), evidence has been found that higher audit-court competence has a significantly positive effect on tax morale. Thus, the results in Switzerland suggest that in the cantons where audit courts are not just knights without swords; they help improve taxpayers' tax morale and thus citizens' intrinsic motivation to pay taxes.

An examination of the sentencing remarks of Indigenous and non-Indigenous criminal defendants in South Australia’s Higher Courts

Recent Australian research on Indigenous sentencing primarily explores whether disparities in sentencing outcomes exist. Little is known about how judges perceive or refer to Indigenous defendants and their histories, and how they interpret the circumstances of Indigenous defendants in justifying their sentencing decisions. Drawing on the ‘focal concerns’ approach, this study presents a narrative analysis of a sample of judges’ sentencing remarks for Indigenous and non-Indigenous criminal defendants convicted in South Australia’s Higher Courts. The analysis found that the sentencing stories of Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders differed in ways that possibly reduced assessments of blameworthiness and risk for Indigenous defendants.

Sex and sentencing disparity in South Australia’s higher courts

In Australia, studies examining sex differences in sentencing are limited. Using data from South Australia’s higher courts, this article explores a study on the impact of sex on the decision to imprison and the length of imprisonment. After adjusting for past and current criminality, results showed that men were significantly more likely than women to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment and that when sentence length was decided, men received longer periods of incarceration. Furthermore, the study’s results suggest that different factors may be important in determining sentencing outcomes for women and men.

Rights versus reality : the difficulty of providing 'access to English' in Queensland Courts

This report was developed out of a Legal Practitioner on Trust Account Fund grant from the Department of Justice and Attorney-General in Queensland, to review the Aboriginal English in the Courts Handbook. Judges, Magistrates, barristers and court staff were interviewed about the Handbook. The findings extend beyond Aboriginal English into access to English in Queensland Courts. Recommendations are made about language difficulties faced by witnessed and the ability to the courts to respond to them.

Indigeneity and the judicial decision to imprison : a study of Western Australia’s higher courts

Internationally, sentencing research has largely neglected the impact of Indigeneity on sentencing outcomes. Using data from Western Australia’s higher courts for the years 2003–05, we investigate the direct and interactive effects of Indigenous status on the judicial decision to imprison. Unlike prior research on race/ethnicity in which minority offenders are often found to be more harshly treated by sentencing courts, we find that Indigenous status has no direct effect on the decision to imprison,after adjusting for other sentencing factors (especially past and current criminality).However, there are sub-group differences: Indigenous males are more likely to receive a prison sentence compared to non-Indigenous females. We draw on the focal concerns perspective of judicial decision making in interpreting our findings.