Hearing Officers Research Articles

Courts interpret mainstreaming: how residential schools can adapt.

This article explores how courts are weighing the mainstreaming preference of the Education for All Handicapped Act in deciding appropriate placements for deaf students. Suggestions are made on how residential and day schools can provide a mainstreaming component meeting the concerns of judges and hearing officers.

Maximizing Restitution for Erroneous Medical Payments When Auditing Samples from More Than One Provider

When auditing payments for medical services by a third party, estimates of payments erroneously made are frequently based on statistical samples. When such procedures are used by government agencies to audit Medicaid payments, hearing officers often base provider restitution on the lower end of an interval estimate, which is a function of sample size. Several methods are tested for maximizing the total restitution obtained from multiple audits subject to a constraint on the total cost of the auditing.

Special education due process hearings in Illinois.

This report analyzes the 314 due process hearings held in Illinois during 1978, 1979, and the first three months of 1980, and the 95 state-level appeals from the hearing officer decisions within these 314 cases. Data were obtained from photocopies of the hearing officer's decisions and the Illinois State Board of Education's (ISBE) appeal rulings provided by the ISBE after all identifying information had been deleted. Data are analyzed and reported by handicapping condition and the issue involved in the hearings. Hearing officer decisions are reported in terms of which party to the hearing was upheld. The analysis of state-level reviews similarly examines the proportion of appeals that upheld the hearing officer's decision or made a different decision. The time involved between certain steps in the process and the cost of the local hearing are discussed, and suggestions for improving due process procedures are offered.

A public policy for hazardous wastes.

Annals of the New York Academy of SciencesVolume 387, Issue 1 p. 39-46 A Public Policy for Hazardous Wastes WILLIAM R. GINSBERG, WILLIAM R. GINSBERG William R. Ginsberg is a Professor at the Hofstra University School of Law in Hempstead, New York 11550. He was the Hearing Officer for the Inter-Agency Task Force on Hazardous Wastes formed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. His report was filed in October 1 979.Search for more papers by this author WILLIAM R. GINSBERG, WILLIAM R. GINSBERG William R. Ginsberg is a Professor at the Hofstra University School of Law in Hempstead, New York 11550. He was the Hearing Officer for the Inter-Agency Task Force on Hazardous Wastes formed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. His report was filed in October 1 979.Search for more papers by this author First published: May 1982 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1982.tb17161.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume387, Issue1Science and Public Policy IIMay 1982Pages 39-46 RelatedInformation

Due process hearing officers: characteristics, needs, and appointment criteria.

Characteristics and training needs of due process hearing officers in North Carolina were surveyed. It was found that current regulations governing appointments of hearing officers are insufficient to ensure appointment of qualified and impartial persons. Criteria were analyzed and suggestions for training and appointments are made.

Between Recommendations and Orders: The Limbo Status of Juvenile Court Referees

Juvenile court reliance on referee hearing officers is another practice that requires revision to comport with the juvenile justice legalization trend. The use of referees is widespread, but not universal. Where used, referees may hear an overwhelming percentage of the juvenile court workload. Referee status and, in turn, juvenile court status suffer from statutory curbs on the authority of this official. Parties dis satisfied with referee advisory decisions may request a new hearing before the juvenile court judge; with exceptions, referee authority is limited to entering findings and recommendations which require confirmation by a judge to become a final order. Recent appellate court decisions threaten these procedures. Double jeopardy problems ac company the state's appeal of a referee's dismissal of charges brought against a youth; due process constraints suggest that a defendant is entitled to a final decision by the official who has heard the testimony in the first place. Analysis indicates that, despite cost savings and certain efficiencies resulting from the transfer of case hearing responsibilities from a judge to a referee, a variety of machinations and defi ciencies attend this practice. Referee use is seen as causing an inappropriate aggrandizement of the power of the juvenile court judge. Abolition of the referee position is recommended as the cleanest way out of the present charades and dilemmas.

US Court of Appeals decision regarding Armstrong v. Kline: the 180 day rule.

On June 21, 1979, Judge Clarence C. Newcomer, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued his decision and Order in the case of Armstrong v. Kline. Judge Newcomer held that the undisputed policy and practice of the Pennsylvania Department of Education of refusing to provide or fund the provision of a program of special education and related services in excess of 180 days per year to any handicapped student was in violation of Public Law 94-142. Also held to be in violation of the law was the Department's companion policy of instructing all hearing officers who preside at special education due process hearings that they were without the power to order or approve any educational programs exceeding 180 days per year. On July 15, 1980, the Appellate Court upheld the District Court in three separate opinions. This article describes the decision of the District Court, explains how the reasoning of the Appellate Court differs, and points out some of the implications of the Appellate Court's holding.

Processing Citizens' Disputes Outside the Courts

Citizen dispute processing programs are becoming more common in the United States as an alternative to expensive, time-consuming litigation in court. Although no empirical evidence has been presented to date on the effectiveness of this type of mediation program, policy makers are calling for an increase in the number of such programs. This article reports on the results of an outcome evaluation of the Orange County (Florida) Bar Association's Citizen Dispute Settlement Project. The results indicate that complainants, respondents, and hearing officers are generally very satisfied with the hearings. In a three-week follow-up, complainant satisfaction increased, while respondent satisfaction stayed at the original high level. A quasi-experimental comparison of hearing and no- hearing groups of disputants indicated that mediation programs of this type may not be particularly effective for long-term solutions of underlying problems. The implications of these results are discussed for public policy-making and for theoretical refinement of the mediation concept.

Maximizing Restitution for Erroneous Medical Payments When Auditing Samples

In auditing of paid Medicaid claims, estimates of payments erroneously paid to providers are frequently based on statistical samples. When such procedures are used, hearing officers are often inclined to use the lower end of an interval estimate to determine restitution by a provider. In this paper, the advantages of estimating from large samples are weighed against the larger costs involved. A procedure for choosing a sample size that would maximize net recovery is proposed.

Conflict resolution a pre-trial intervention

Parties involved in interpersonal disputes often use the Criminal Justice System as a medium of retaliation. This study analyzed the effectiveness of a Citizens’ Dispute Settlement Program as an alternative to criminal prosecution. The program consists of trained volunteer hearing officers mediating between the complainant and the defendant in order to resolve the conflict without court involvement. All hearings scheduled over a six month period were studied (N-264). The hearings were categorized according to type of offense and were analyzed to determine the race and sex of the parties involved, and the effectiveness of conflict resolution efforts in each category. In general, there was no significant relationship between race and being a party in conflict. However, there was a highly significant relationship as to sex, with the majority of complainants being female, and the majority of the respondents being male. Of the scheduled hearings, 93.5% (N-247) were diverted from the court system, for an estimated savings of $80,522. The authors concluded that a Citizens’ Dispute Settlement Program, through the pretrial intervention of conflict resolution efforts, provides an effective means of alleviating the congestion in our courts.

Procedural Due Process: The Two-Edged Sword that the Untrained Should not Unsheath

The issue of procedural due process is examined in this article by first analyzing the associated legal requirements of PL. 94-142 and then identifying the “triggers” which professionals and parents can use to initiate a due process hearing. Problems and unresolved issues associated with interpreting and applying due process safeguards in terms of initiating, conducting, and governing the hearing and hearing officer are discussed. The concluding section of the article identifies specific training implications and creeds of due process hearing officers.

Crisis and Legitimacy: The Administrative Process and American Government, by James O. Freedman

Preface Introduction 1. Crisis and legitimacy in the administrative process Part I. Sources of crisis in the administrative process: 2. Separation of powers and the American imagination 3. The departure from judicial norms 4. Public perceptions and administrative performance 5. Agency independence and political accountability 6. Delegation of power and institutional competence 7. Explaining differences in agency performance 8. The significance of public attitudes toward agency goals 9. The significance of institutional capacities and limitations Part II. The relevance of administrative procedure 10. Administrative procedure and the nature of legitimacy Part III. The nature of the formal administrative process 11. Defining the idea of 'agency' 12. The Administrative Procedure Act and enforcement proceedings 13. The significance of an impartial hearing officer 14. Separation of functions and the Constitution 15. Disqualification for bias Part IV. The nature of the informal administrative process: 16. The meaning of summary action 17. Summary action and the Constitution 18. Summary action as an administrative process 19. Structuring the use of summary action Conclusion: 20. The challenge of administrative legitimacy Notes Bibliography Index.

Crisis and Legitimacy: The Administrative Process and American Government

Preface Introduction 1. Crisis and legitimacy in the administrative process Part I. Sources of crisis in the administrative process: 2. Separation of powers and the American imagination 3. The departure from judicial norms 4. Public perceptions and administrative performance 5. Agency independence and political accountability 6. Delegation of power and institutional competence 7. Explaining differences in agency performance 8. The significance of public attitudes toward agency goals 9. The significance of institutional capacities and limitations Part II. The relevance of administrative procedure 10. Administrative procedure and the nature of legitimacy Part III. The nature of the formal administrative process 11. Defining the idea of 'agency' 12. The Administrative Procedure Act and enforcement proceedings 13. The significance of an impartial hearing officer 14. Separation of functions and the Constitution 15. Disqualification for bias Part IV. The nature of the informal administrative process: 16. The meaning of summary action 17. Summary action and the Constitution 18. Summary action as an administrative process 19. Structuring the use of summary action Conclusion: 20. The challenge of administrative legitimacy Notes Bibliography Index.

Evaluation of an Experimental Treatment for Problem Drivers

This preliminary study compared the effectiveness of a new treatment for problem drivers with the National Safety Council's Defensive Driving Course (DDC) and a control group. Hearing officers from four large Florida cities randomly assigned 432 problem drivers, whose licenses had been suspended, to three groups. Safety officers from each of the four locations taught both the experimental course and the DDC. Pretests and posttests on driving knowlege and attitudes were administered to the three groups. Driving record data of the 358 subjects who completed treatment were used to help identify long-term effectiveness of the treatments. Although there was no significant improvements between the groups in driving knowledge or in attitudes after treatment, the experimental group had a greater reduction than the DDC group and a significantly greater reduction than the control group in traffic law violations and collisions during a one year follow-up period. A larger investigation of the effectiveness of the experimental course is recommended.

Revitalizing Adversary Evaluation: Deep Dark Deficits or Muddled Mistaken Musings

In the June, 1977 Educational Researcher, Popham and Carlson point out several fatal flaws in the adversary evaluation model.2 Their critique emerges from their experiences as participants in the adversary evaluation project directed by the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory examining Hawaii's 3-on-2 program. The inferences they draw about the model from this one experience contrast sharply with my involvement in three different applications of the adversary evaluation model: hearing officer for evaluation of an undergraduate program at the University of Illinois, hearing officer at the 1975 Indiana University evaluation of its Division of Teacher Education,4 and forum moderator at two state sites in the spring of 1977 when BEH employed the model to hold hearings on the IEP component of P.L. 94-142.5 These experiences suggest that the adversary evaluation model is potentially powerful, but presently beset by a number of flaws, two of which go to the heart of the model. Unfortunately, Popham and Carlson fail to focus on these more serious shortcomings; instead they are satisfied to criticize the model for generally irrelevant reasons. Their criticisms, reflected by their tone as well as their content, may lead readers to conclude that the model has no utility. Although the model may ultimately prove to have quite limited applicability in educational evaluation, it should neither be dismissed prematurely nor for the wrong reasons. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to briefly indicate why the bulk of Popham and Carlson's criticisms are irrelevant or unfair, to consider in some greater detail two fundamental problems with the model, and to speculate how the model might be improved by borrowing from other legal forms of inquiry. The Adversary Model of Evaluation

The parole hearing: Decision or justification?

A detailed content analysis of tape-recordings of 100 randomly selected California parole hearings revealed that these hearings take the form of short, unstructured diagnostic interviews in which the hearing officers ask questions of the prisoners who respond in a very minimal way. Different patterns of questioning and prisoner response occurred for hearings where the eventual decision was to grant parole as opposed to deny parole, and this decision outcome could be predicted with a high degree of accuracy by discriminant function analyses. In general, the hearing officers made their own psychological assessments of the prisoners, even though they lacked knowledge and training in this diagnostic skill. According to the results of this study, the parole decision-making process appears to be a reliable one, but nevertheless its validity is questionable.

Judicialization of Administrative Law: The Trial-Type Hearing and the Changing Status of the Hearing Officer

The judicialization of the administrative process, a phenomenon largely taken for granted by both lawyers and the general public in contemporary America, is probably one of the most mysterious, yet significant, features of American government. It is significant because of its increasingly recognized cost and because of the dominant role which it assigns to lawyers. 1 It is mysterious because of the fragile constitutional underpinnings upon which the judicialization was originally based, 2 and because of its remarkable endurance and growth.'

Group Methods in Training Paralegals for The Los Angeles City Attorney's Office

Group methods have been used successfully in a program to train paralegals as hearing officers in misdemeanor matters for the city attorney of Los Angeles. During training, the future officers (1) defined and experimented with their new roles, (2) became more aware of the intra- and inter-personal levels of process during a hearing, (3) learned to listen carefully, hear accurately, and communicate clearly, and (4) acquired enough legal information to perform competently on the job. During the first six months after training, these officers were able to divert 7,965 cases from the courts. It is estimated that they will save the city at least $125,000 per year.

Police Task and Time Study

The author is an Associate Professor, Criminal Justice Department, University of Illinois) Chicago, Ill. He received his Doctor of Criminology from the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Webster has served as a Juvenile Court Hearing Officer) Criminal Statistics Analyst with the California Department of Justice, as well as Chief of Police of Scottdale, Pennsylvania, and a member of the Pennsylvania State Police.-EDITOR.

Toward Administrative Judges

IN SOME WAYS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES RESEMBLES an Acropolis with the awesome remains of marble pillars lying about the landscape. Surely one of the central pillars of the Constitution is the principle of separation of powers, and its shattered condition is nowhere more visible than in the socalled process. Administrative is a phrase sometimes used to describe the exercise of legislative, judicial, as well as executive power by administrators. That process is widely used at all levels of government in the United States today, and occupies such an important place now that it is no exaggeration to say that a new system of government has evolved in the United States. A quiet revolution has gone on, an administrative revolution, centralizing large swaths of legislative and judicial power in the hands of executives, and that revolution continues to unfold toward ever greater executive power. It is not the result of a conspiracy, but is largely a by-product of technology and of complexity in the work of government. I think we have gone too far in scrapping the principle of separation of powers, particularly of separate and independent judicial power, and I will try, briefly, to show why separation of powers should be at least partially resurrected in formal administrative adjudication. This should be done by making hearing officers independent and their decisions final; or, in short, by making administrative judges out of administrative hearing officers. > Too much of the principle of separation of powers, particularly of separate and independent judicial power, has eroded in the United States. The so-called (a term sometimes used to describe the exercise of legislative and judicial power by executives) is widely employed by all levels of government in the United States and centralizes much power in the hands of executives. Separation of powers should be partially resurrected by making administrative hearing officers truly and completely independent and by making their decisions final. While it would not be easy or wholly satisfactory to make hearing officers independent and their decisions final, the case for doing so is nevertheless compelling when cast against the evils of the present system.