Restoring accountability in pretrial release: the Philadelphia pretrial release supervision experiments

As drug arrests and jail overcrowding added pressure to increase pretrial release in localities during the 1980s and 1990s, the need to manage a larger and higher-risk pretrial population of defendants awaiting adjudication in the community became a high priority for justice agencies. In the late 1990s Philadelphia officials sought to discover the ingredients of a successful supervision strategy through four interlinked field experiments to provide an empirical basis for a major reform of the pretrial release system. The results of the linked randomized experiments question common assumptions about “supervision,” its impact and effectiveness, about the underlying nature of the noncompliant defendant, and deterrence implications. The study emphasizes the importance of interpreting the findings in the context of implementation of the policy reform. Findings suggest that facilitative notification strategies wield little influence on defendant behavior and that deterrent aims are undermined by the system's failure to deliver consequences for defendant noncompliance during pretrial release. The most significant contribution of the article is its illustration of a major evidence-based policy reform undertaken by a major court system.     

Proficiency testing (external quality assessment) of drug detection in oral fluid

Eighteen external quality assessment (proficiency testing) samples were prepared from client specimens collected with the Intercept^® oral fluid collection device and by spiking drug-free oral fluid. Samples were circulated in pairs at quarterly intervals to 13 UK and USA based laboratories for analysis by a panel of OraSure micro-plate Intercept^® enzyme immunoassay kits and hyphenated mass spectrophotometric techniques. During the survey, there was a single case of non-specificity in a false report for methadone. The major errors were of lack of sensitivity relative to the concentration thresholds specified for the immunoassays. The sensitivity for overall ‘present’/‘not found’ reports calculated as true positives/(true positives + false negatives) were for the amfetamine specific assay 50%, methyl-amfetamines 93%, barbiturates 64%, cannabinoids 73%, cocaine and metabolites 100%, benzodiazepines 69%, methadone 95%, opiates 79% (opiates excluding oxycodone 93%), phencyclidine 93% and human gamma-globulin 97%. A small number of the sensitivity errors were attributable to errors in chromatographic confirmation techniques.     

Resolving university landlord-tenant disputes

Conclusion The housing arbitration system used by Brigham Young University's Housing Arbitration Board (HAB) has been widely used at the school for many years. It has not worked perfectly. Some landlords are critical of the school's laxness in enforcing arbitral awards.In general, students prefer the process over small claims court (chiefly, it appears, because of cost factors). The school administrators prefer mediation over arbitration but recognize that mediation does not always resolve impasses. Legal questions exist about BYU's potential restraint of trade in using the obligatory contracts the school mandates for landlords. The process relies upon persons of goodwill to serve on the tribunals, but has a long enough track record to demonstrate the HAB concept works quite well. Because of annual turnover, the need for training of mediators/arbitrators is always critical. Other universities may well wish to emulate (or modify) the HAB model in resolving their landlord and student-tenant disputes. William M. Timmins is Professor of Personnel Administration and Labor-Management Relations at the Graduate School of Management, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602. Among his recent publications isThe International Economic Policy Coordination Instrument: The OECD Experience (London: The University Press, 1985).