|
APRI convened its second meeting of distinguished members of the Prosecution Study for the 21st Century to consider goals and objectives for prosecutors, meaningful ways to measure performance, and research priorities. Chaired by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, and assisted by University of Maryland Professor Charles Wellford, the group addressed the development of a framework to guide prosecutors as they analyze outcomes of their work. Participants included local prosecutors, former and present senior officials of the Department of Justice, and other justice system experts.
Maurice McTigue of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University opened the meeting by describing a “quiet revolution” in government accountability. Today, the focus is on results. Mr. McTigue suggested that American citizens are more interested in living in safe communities than how law enforcement spends its money. Henry Wray, a Mercatus Center fellow and former accountability expert for the U.S. General Accounting Agency and U.S. Congress, reinforced this theme in the context of the Government Performance and Reporting Act (GPRA). GPRA directs federal agencies to measure results, not activities. Mr. Wray observed that measuring results actually serves two purposes, public accountability and improved agency performance.
|
|
Newman Flanagan
|
|
|
|
President, American Prosecutors Research Institute
|
Riverside County District Attorney Grover Trask presented a report on how his office implements goals, objectives, values and performance measures. District Attorney Trask observed a trend among prosecutors toward greater interest in leadership and policy development. He spoke of three central needs: leadership development, finding better ways to ensure management accountability, and instilling responsibility among staff to build strong relationships with external groups.
Sarah V. Hart, director of the National Institute of Justice, led a discussion of prosecutors’ research needs and priorities. She noted there is very little research on prosecution issues, for example, the cost-effectiveness of alternative management structures (e.g., vertical vs. horizontal prosecution or the use of specialized units). Together, the study group brainstormed on a wide range of ideas, from policy studies (e.g., the impact of sexual assault nurse examiners/sexual assault response teams on prosecution outcomes) to comparative studies of office technology.
Law Professor Ronald Wright of Wake Forest University presented his research on prosecutors’ screening and charging decisions. This groundbreaking study relied on many years of data collected from the Orleans Parish (LA) District Attorney’s Office under then-DA Harry Connick. This study, which examined the “trade-off” between case screening practices and plea negotiations, is an excellent example of research that can inform and improve prosecutor decision making.
APRI is grateful to the National Institute of Justice and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation for their support of this pioneering work, and to the National Academies for serving as a forum for prosecution knowledge building. APRI plans to publish the results of this study in summer 2003, along with preliminary findings of APRI’s latest national prosecutor survey on these topics. Look for our report in your mailbox or on our Web site: www.ndaa-apri.org.
Newman Flanagan, President,
American Prosecutors Research Institute
|
