A Pilot Assessment of a School‐Based Youth Court in a Resource‐Poor African‐American Urban School District: Lessons Learned From Youth Court Volunteers

This study assesses the benefits of youth court participation for volunteers (N = 14) serving as jurors in an urban school‐based youth court. Focus group and questionnaire data indicate that volunteers are capable of providing more effective sanctioning decisions than adults. Volunteers reported developing citizenship skills including learning about the law and decision‐making skills. The youth court leaders developed self‐confidence and maturity while learning the conflict resolution skills necessary for rendering dispositions and conducting trials. We interpret our findings within the context of the youth court literature, the issue of the school‐to‐prison pipeline, and Elijah Anderson's analysis of the Code of the Street.     

Experiences of a learning organization in the public sector

This article explores the experience of a municipal government agency as it confronts the challenges and opportunities of meeting seemingly unlimited demands with limited resources. The City of Scottsdale, Arizona, enjoys a national reputation for innovative approaches to public policy issues. This article examines Scottsdale's efforts to create a learning organization, through a Venture Team which represents a core strategy for continuous improvement and lifelong learning.     

Is outcome fairness used to make procedural fairness judgments when procedural information is inaccessible?

In a study of relocation decisions at seven different sites, procedural fairness was shown to be more sensitive to outcome fairness when respondents had less time to gather information about decision procedures. We interpret this finding to show that inaccessibility of information about decision procedures moderates the influence of outcome fairness judgments on procedural fairness judgments, such that outcome recipients rely more heavily on outcome fairness as a basis for forming procedural fairness judgments when information about decision procedures is not available. A second, laboratory study is reported that confirms the information inaccessibility explanation in the first study. When procedural information is available, procedural characteristics may be the primary bases for procedural fairness judgments, but when such information is unavailable, procedural fairness will likely be more sensitive to self-interest concerns. Future research should therefore take contextual factors such as accessibility to procedural information into account, given that there are likely to be differences on that dimension between organizational settings on the one hand and legal, political, and dispute resolution settings on the other. Information about decision procedures, generally accessible in legal, political, and dispute resolution settings, is often much less accessible in organizations.