The Limits of Relocation: Employment and Family Well-Being Among Former Madden/Wells Residents

Explores the effects of moving from distressed public housing to safer, mixed-income developments and new work requirements on residents' employment, income, and self-sufficiency. Examines barriers to working, including poor health and lack of education

Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals

It is common knowledge that the federal courts of appeals typically hear cases in panels of three judges and that the composition of the panel can have significant consequences for case outcomes and for legal doctrine more generally. Yet neither legal scholars nor social scientists have focused on the question of how judges are selected for their panels. Instead, a substantial body of scholarship simply assumes that panel assignment is random. This Article provides what, up until this point, has been a missing account of panel assignment. Drawing on a multiyear qualitative study of five circuit courts, including in-depth interviews with thirty-five judges and senior administrators, I show that strictly random selection is a myth, and an improbable one at that—in many instances, it would have been impossible as a practical matter for the courts studied here to create their panels by random draw. Although the courts generally tried to “mix up” the judges, the chief judges and clerks responsible for setting the calendar also took into account various other factors, from collegiality to efficiency-based considerations. Notably, those factors differed from one court to the next; no two courts approached the challenge of panel assignment in precisely the same way. These findings pose an important challenge to the widespread assumption of panel randomness and reveal key normative questions that have been largely ignored in the literature. Although randomness is regarded as the default selection method across much of judicial administration, there is little exposition of why it is valuable. What, exactly, is desirable about having judges brought together randomly in the first place? What, if anything, is problematic about nonrandom methods of selection? This Article sets out to clarify both the costs and benefits of randomness, arguing that there can be valid reasons to depart from it. As such, it provides a framework for assessing different panel assignment practices and the myriad other court practices that rely, to some extent, on randomness

Judicial Attention as a Scarce Resource: A Preliminary Defense of How Judges Allocate Time Across Cases in the Federal Courts of Appeals

Federal appellate judges no longer have the time to hear argument and draft opinions in all of their cases. The average annual filing per active judgeship now stands at 330 filed cases per year — more than four times what it was sixty years ago. In response, judges have adopted case management strategies that effectively involve spending significantly less time on certain classes of cases than on others. Various scholars have decried this state of affairs, suggesting that the courts have created a “bifurcated” system of justice with “separate and unequal tracks.” These reformers propose altering the relevant constraints of the courts, primarily by increasing the number of judges or decreasing the judiciary’s caseload. These approaches, however, have not gained political traction thus far and seem unlikely to in the foreseeable future. This Article takes a realist approach and argues that we should recognize judicial attention for what it is — a scarce resource — and assess whether there is evidence that the courts are allocating that resource improperly. Loosely borrowing the framework of resource allocation from the political science and economics literatures, this Article considers how to apply the concepts of inputs and outputs to the work of the federal appellate courts, suggesting judicial attention as the input and a combination of error correction and law development as the output. It then makes the preliminary case that the courts’ case management techniques in fact largely comport with an output-maximization approach, while still limiting inequality of outputs across cases. This Article concludes that the courts’ overall strategy nevertheless presents opportunities for enhancement. It suggests several improvements, focusing on the review structure of cases that receive the least amount of judicial attention, to help ensure that all federal cases receive an appropriate form of appellate review

Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals

It is common knowledge that the federal courts of appeals typically hear cases in panels of three judges and that the composition of the panel can have significant consequences for case outcomes and for legal doctrine more generally. Yet neither legal scholars nor social scientists have focused on the question of how judges are selected for their panels. Instead, a substantial body of scholarship simply assumes that panel assignment is random. This Article provides what, up until this point, has been a missing account of panel assignment. Drawing on a multiyear qualitative study of five circuit courts, including in-depth interviews with thirty-five judges and senior administrators, I show that strictly random selection is a myth, and an improbable one at that—in many instances, it would have been impossible as a practical matter for the courts studied here to create their panels by random draw. Although the courts generally tried to “mix up” the judges, the chief judges and clerks responsible for setting the calendar also took into account various other factors, from collegiality to efficiency-based considerations. Notably, those factors differed from one court to the next; no two courts approached the challenge of panel assignment in precisely the same way. These findings pose an important challenge to the widespread assumption of panel randomness and reveal key normative questions that have been largely ignored in the literature. Although randomness is regarded as the default selection method across much of judicial administration, there is little exposition of why it is valuable. What, exactly, is desirable about having judges brought together randomly in the first place? What, if anything, is problematic about nonrandom methods of selection? This Article sets out to clarify both the costs and benefits of randomness, arguing that there can be valid reasons to depart from it. As such, it provides a framework for assessing different panel assignment practices and the myriad other court practices that rely, to some extent, on randomness

Relocation Is Not Enough: Employment Barriers Among HOPE VI Families

Examines whether the federal HOPE VI housing program has affected employment rates among residents, and identifies barriers to workforce participation. Based on surveys of residents at five Hope VI public housing sites

Effects From Living in Mixed-Income Communities for Low-Income Families: A Review of the Literature

Reviews the literature on the definitions of mixed-income communities; hypothesized and documented benefits, including poverty alleviation, desegregation and urban revitalization; and prevalence of such communities. Points to areas for future research

The Costs of Judging Judges by the Numbers

This essay discredits current empirical models that are designed to “judge” or rank appellate judges, and then assesses the harms of propagating such models. First, the essay builds on the discussion of empirical models by arguing that (1) the judicial virtues that the legal empiricists set out to measure have little bearing on what actually makes for a good judge; and (2) even if they did, the empiricists’ chosen variables have not measured those virtues accurately. The essay then concludes that by generating unreliable claims about the relative quality of judges, these studies mislead both decision-makers and the public, degrade discussions of judging, and could, if taken seriously, detrimentally alter the behavior of judges themselves

Evaluating the impact of the rural dimension of specialism

Commissioned by the Specialist Schools and Academies TrustThe rural dimension is intended to offer the opportunity to schools to enhance and extend the curriculum. Its focus is the understanding of environmental issues and the countryside, and it is seen as relevant to all schools, including those in urban areas. The Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (SSAT) wishes to evaluate the extent to which the rural dimension is effective in raising standards. The aim of this study, commissioned by the SSAT, was to ascertain the extent to which the work schools undertake as part of their rural dimension has a demonstrable impact on achievement and attainment - in particular concerning: 1) attainment (pupil performance and school standards); 2) behaviour and attendance (on the part of pupils); 3) engagement (pupil interest and motivation, and raising aspirations among pupils and their families). The approach taken in the study is chiefly an interpretative and illuminative one with the aim of throwing light on how the rural dimension acts as an influence within the school context. Rather than looking for linear cause-and-effect, methodologically it was seen as more helpful to view organisations as complex processes of continual interaction in which any one initiative is the catalyst to multiple interpretations and reactions which generate further initiatives. Qualitative data are particularly helpful in throwing light on these processes. An exploratory case study approach was used, generating both qualitative and quantitative data in order to reflect the complexity of practice and experience in the rural dimension. Six case study schools were selected from rural dimension schools which expressed a wish to participate in the study. Criteria were used to maximise the variation in the sample used, although those with relatively large farms are over-represented. Each of the six case study schools was visited by one or more of the research team. Visits involved interviews, observation and perusal and collection of documentary data (including schools’ websites). This report also includes a selective literature review, highlighting some of the issues concerning research into specialisms and the value of education for sustainable development