Racial Disparities in Service Referrals for Families in the Child Welfare System

Among families in the child welfare system, family reunification depends largely upon the services to which families are referred. This study examines whether race/ethnicity influences the number and types of services to which families are referred. Findings suggest that compared to African American families, Hispanic families were more often referred to psychosocial services (e.g., mental health) than basic needs (e.g., housing). These findings indicate a need to reduce service referral disparities between ethnic groups.     

Norms,Behavioral Compliance,and Status Attribution in International Politics

Extant work on status attribution has largely focused on major powers or state capabilities as key explanatory factors driving these social processes and suggests that status considerations increase conflicts between states. We argue for a more comprehensive approach to status attribution that considers international norms as another major factor that is weighed in the attribution process. We contend that states (policymakers) evaluate one another not only on the basis of economic and military capabilities but also on the extent to which there is behavioral conformance with normative expectations and reward one another dependent upon whether these expectations are met. However, this attribution of status is dependent upon the level of contestation pertaining to that norm. Using a data set that assesses consistency with six different norms (resource transference, multilateralism, economic liberalism, democratic governance, respect for human rights, and peaceful dispute resolution), we find that status attribution is associated with norm-consistent behavior but only when these norms are uncontested at the global level.     

Litigant Status and Trial Court Appeal Mobilization

The advantages held by haves over have nots in litigation have long fascinated scholars, with a long line of research revealing that litigant status often affects litigant resources, experience, and chances of overall success from trial courts to appellate courts. What has received considerably less attention, however, is how this status affects the decision to appeal. Bringing a new perspective to this important area holding implications for the shape and content of the judicial hierarchy, this study analyzes the decision of the losing federal district court litigant to appeal to the US courts of appeals. Utilizing an original database containing a sample of federal district court civil cases decided between 2000 and 2004, the results indicate, as predicted, that litigant status differentials affect whether there will be an appeal. This influence is further magnified when conditioned upon the relative costs of the appeal. These findings provide one of the first detailed examinations of litigant status and appeals coming from US trial courts and, simultaneously, offer the first empirical evidence to date that business litigants, like previously known government parties, are advantaged over individuals when deciding whether to appeal.     

Presentence Reports

This study investigated the use made by judges of background information provided in presentence reports in reaching their sentencing decisions. The presentence reports were furnished in a number of modified forms during an experimental manipulation in a real-life setting. By obtaining judges' provisional decisions during their reading of the report, along with their indications of what they found useful, the influence of different sections of information in the report was determined. All sections. were used by judges to some extent. The recommendation section was analyzed in some detail; while there was high agreement between the probation officer's recommendation and the judge's final disposal, judges tended to rate the recommedation low in terms of usefulness. However, analysis of changes to intended disposals, which occurred during reading of the reports, indicated that these recommendations were in fact quite influential, and even when there was not perfect agreement the recommendation produced a high frequency of shifts in the final disposal, bringing it closer to the recommendation than a preliminary decision had been. Reasons for these inconsistencies are considered in terms of the different methods used.