{"title":"To Report or Not To Report: Data on School Law Enforcement, Student Discipline, Race, and the \"School-to-Prison Pipeline\"","authors":"Michael Heise, Jason P. Nance","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3677247","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3677247","url":null,"abstract":"A growing “school-to-prison pipeline” literature focuses on one critical consequence flowing from public schools’ increasingly “legalized” approach towards student discipline: School reports of student disciplinary incidents to law enforcement agencies. Moreover, this literature’s recent empirical turn consistently demonstrates how increases in school resource (and/or police) officers at a school correspond with the school’s increased likelihood of reporting student disciplinary incidents to law enforcement agencies. While a second core claim—that these adverse consequences do not randomly distribute across student sub-groups and disproportionately burden especially vulnerable student groups, including racial minorities—is especially prominent in the normative literature, empirical support for it remains inconclusive, at best. The school-to-prison pipeline research literature’s understandable focus on school reporting behaviors, however, entirely ignores school decisions to not report student incidents to law enforcement agencies. This Article addresses this gap in the scholarly literature by comparing determinants of schools’ decisions to report and to not report student disciplinary matters to law enforcement agencies. In so doing this Article provides insights into and greater clarity on how schools exercise their institutional discretion in the student disciplinary context and how it distributes. It also provides greater insight and clarity into when racial disparities in the disciplinary context tend to emerge. What we find, on balance, is that the salience of a school’s SRO/police presence is comparatively far greater in the school reporting than non-reporting context. As well, traditional distributional worries do not find strong empirical support either in terms of when schools report or when schools decide to exercise institutional discretion and not report.","PeriodicalId":210754,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other Law & Society: Public Law - Courts (Topic)","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131900483","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Organizational and Process Improvements of Investment Processes Administered by Courts in the Czech Republic","authors":"Viktora Martin, M. Špaček","doi":"10.18352/IJCA.267","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18352/IJCA.267","url":null,"abstract":"The goal of this paper is to identify gaps in the efficiency of investment processes of courts in the Czech Republic and to analyse their causes.The authors also suggested some innovative solutions. Preliminary literature research shows that this problem hasn´t been solved yet. Based on the results of the research, the court administration effectiveness lags behind optimum performance. Any further protraction of existing practices would cause inefficiencies and funds wasting. The court administration still operates within the framework of bureaucratic-administrative processes, the foundations of which were laid down in later Austrian-Hungarian monarchy. Moreover, the fundamentals of modern management approaches, like process management or innovation performance measurement haven´t been tackled yet. The main originality of this research lies in lack of a similar investigation to be carried out at the Ministry of Justice.","PeriodicalId":210754,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other Law & Society: Public Law - Courts (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122113990","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"From the Managing Editor: Court Administration in Europe – Management in a Different Context (Introduction)","authors":"P. Langbroek","doi":"10.18352/IJCA.241","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18352/IJCA.241","url":null,"abstract":"From the Managing Editor: Court Administration in Europe – Management in a Different Context. This is an introduction to the Volume 8, No. 3 Special Issue, IACA’s International Journal for Court Administration – in cooperation with NACM’s The Court Manager. The aim of the Special Issue is to contribute to the NACM-IACA Joint Educational Conference, on Court excellence on a world wide scale July 9-13, 2017, Arlington, VA (Washington D.C.).","PeriodicalId":210754,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other Law & Society: Public Law - Courts (Topic)","volume":"310 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114827526","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
