Critical Factors for Enhancing Municipal Public Hearings

Although public hearings are the most common form of citizen input, they often fail to achieve their objectives. This nationwide survey of city administrators identifies factors that contribute most to successful public hearings. The most successful hearings have (1) a greater number of prehearing educational methods, (2) more media types and greater media frequency in the formal presentation, (3) more control over speakers' presentation time, (4) greater use of open follow-up meetings, and (5) more use of newspaper and direct mail to communicate posthearing decisions to the public. The qualitative data reveal city managers' 10 critical factors that are essential to the success of public hearings: effectively notifying and educating the public before the hearing; carefully planning the meeting; giving a clear, media-rich presentation of the issues; properly facilitating the meeting; and conducting appropriate follow-up.     

The Prosecutor's Toolbox: Investigating and Prosecuting Organized Crime in the United States

Investigating and prosecuting organized crime requires effectivelegal tools. A successful investigation depends to a large extentin maintaining the secrecy of the investigation as much as possible.Some investigative tools, such as electronic surveillance, cangenerally be used without disclosing even the existence of aninvestigation. Although other tools, such as grand jury subpoenasand search warrants, may reveal law enforcement's interest ina particular person or place, a carefully coordinated investigativestrategy can minimize the extent to which their use impedesan ongoing probe. From the viewpoint of substantive law, someof the most important tools in prosecuting organized crime arethe racketeering laws, which enable authorities to charge numerousmembers for participating in a collective criminal enterprise,even where they do not join in some of the particular criminalepisodes in which other members engage. Also important are moneylaundering laws, which enable the state to restrict the flowof money that forms the lifeblood of criminal organizations.     

A comparison of instruments for assessing competency to stand trial

The present study compared two instruments for assessing competency to stand trial, The Competency Screening Test and a revised version of The Georgia Court Competency Test. in a sample of 140 defendants admitted to the forensic unit of a state hospital for court-ordered pretrial evaluation. Scores on the tests were used to predict staff decisions about competency. Correlates of scores on the two tests also were examined. The tests were highly correlated with one another and with the decisions of forensic examiners. Although neither of these instruments should provide the sole basis for competency decisions, both may be useful components of a comprehensive program of competency evaluation.Portions of this paper were presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., August, 1986.