Narrow your search

Library

Vlaams Parlement (2)


Resource type

book (2)


Language

English (2)


Year
From To Submit

2019 (2)

Listing 1 - 2 of 2
Sort by

Book
Caseload Standards for Indigent Defenders in Michigan: Final Project Report for the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission
Authors: --- --- --- --- --- et al.
Year: 2019 Publisher: Santa Monica, Calif. RAND Corporation

Loading...
Export citation

Choose an application

Bookmark

Abstract

In 2017, the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission (MIDC) asked the RAND Corporation for assistance in determining maximum caseload standards for providers of indigent legal representation to adult defendants in the trial-level courts of the state of Michigan. Such standards are intended to act as one means — though certainly not the only one — of ensuring that indigent defenders will have sufficient time to effectively represent the clients whom they have been appointed to defend. Similar to previous studies in other states that have also addressed the question of reasonable caseloads, this project conducted three data collection efforts to provide the empirical foundation for the Michigan standards: an eight-week time study, a survey of criminal defense attorneys, and a September 2018 conference where experienced criminal defenders reviewed the previously collected data and recommended average time expenditures for counsel representing indigent defendants in various categories of criminal matters in Michigan trial courts. The authors present for the MIDC's consideration recommended caseload standards based on analysis of the collected data.

Keywords


Book
Profile of Institutional Review Board Characteristics Prior to the 2019 Implementation of the Revised Common Rule
Authors: --- --- --- --- --- et al.
Year: 2019 Publisher: Santa Monica, Calif. RAND Corporation

Loading...
Export citation

Choose an application

Bookmark

Abstract

The United States adopted the Common Rule in the 1970s to protect human subjects in research, and research organizations created institutional research boards (IRBs) to ensure the protection of human research participants. A set of proposed changes to the Common Rule was first proposed in 2011 and eventually adopted in 2019. To assess possible changes in attitudes about IRBs as the Revised Common Rule takes effect, a baseline is needed. This report details the results of surveys of IRB chairs, administrators, and members, as well as principal investigators, to obtain baseline information on their demographics and their attitudes about their IRB's efficacy and efficiency and the likely effects of proposed changes in the Revised Common Rule. Where possible, the authors also compare the survey results with the 1998 Bell Report, which used a similar survey to evaluate IRBs' perspectives on the protection of human subjects.

Keywords

Listing 1 - 2 of 2
Sort by