Randomized Evaluation in Legal Assistance: What Difference Does Representation (Offer and Actual Use) Make?
We report the results of the first of a series of randomized evaluations of legal assistance programs. This series of evaluations is designed to measure the effect of both an offer of and the actual use of representation, although it was not possible in the first study we report here to measure cons...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Yale law journal 2012-06, Vol.121 (8), p.2118-2214 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2214 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | 2118 |
container_title | The Yale law journal |
container_volume | 121 |
creator | GREINER, D. JAMES PATTANAYAK, CASSANDRA WOLOS |
description | We report the results of the first of a series of randomized evaluations of legal assistance programs. This series of evaluations is designed to measure the effect of both an offer of and the actual use of representation, although it was not possible in the first study we report here to measure constructively all effects of actual use. The results of this first evaluation are unexpected, and we caution against both overgeneralization and undergeneralization. Specifically, the offers of representation came from a law school clinic, which provided high-quality and well-respected assistance in administrative "appeals" to state administrative law judges (ALJs) of initial rulings regarding eligibility for unemployment benefits. These "appeals" were actually de novo mini-trials. Our randomized evaluation found that the offers of representation from the clinic had no statistically significant effect on the probability that unemployment claimants would prevail in their "appeals," but that the offers did delay proceedings by, on average, about two weeks. Actual use of representation (from any source) also delayed the proceeding; we could come to no firm conclusions regarding the effect of actual use of representation (from any source) on the probability that claimants would prevail. Keeping in mind the high-quality and well-respected nature of the representation the law school clinic offered and provided, we explore three possible explanations for our results, each of which has implications for delivery of legal services. We also conduct a review of previous quantitative research attempting to measure representation effects. We find that, excepting the results of two randomized studies separated by more than thirty years, this literature provides virtually no credible quantitative information on the effect of an offer of or actual use of legal representation. Finally, we discuss disadvantages, advantages, and future prospects of randomized studies in the provision of legal assistance. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1726784636</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A293948932</galeid><jstor_id>41510476</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A293948932</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g296t-c4dd2f8a3f95131a9580f7c1a4e3310bbbc2feff299eab3f5c3cd0efa6c2764a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpt0VFr2zAQB3BTNmjW9iMMBH1ZoR6SpdhWX0Zou62QEShr92jO8slVmsipTi5bP301MlgDkR4Ep9__hKSDbCK01HldCvEum3CuVM65VofZB6IlT0NpPckeb8F3w9q9YMeun2E1QnSDZ86zOfawYjMiRxG8wQv26wEiu3LWYsBUYFcDErvFTUBCH7fBT4u_2yw1ZTMTx9ThjvCM_YBH_HKcvbewIjz5tx5ld1-vf15-z-eLbzeXs3neF7qMuVFdV9gapNVTIQXoac1tZQQolFLwtm1NYdHaQmuEVtqpkabjaKE0RVUqkEfZ6bbvJgxPI1JslsMYfDqyEVVRVrUqZflfpWti47wdYgCzdmSaWZFeTtVaFknle1SPHgOsBo_WpfKO_7zHp9nh2pm9gbOdQDIRf8ceRqLmZnG_a8_f2HYk5zH9jyfXP0TaRnb4xy1fUhxCswluDeFPo8RUcFWV8hWzjaeU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1726784636</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Randomized Evaluation in Legal Assistance: What Difference Does Representation (Offer and Actual Use) Make?</title><source>Freely Accessible Journals</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>GREINER, D. JAMES ; PATTANAYAK, CASSANDRA WOLOS</creator><creatorcontrib>GREINER, D. JAMES ; PATTANAYAK, CASSANDRA WOLOS</creatorcontrib><description>We report the results of the first of a series of randomized evaluations of legal assistance programs. This series of evaluations is designed to measure the effect of both an offer of and the actual use of representation, although it was not possible in the first study we report here to measure constructively all effects of actual use. The results of this first evaluation are unexpected, and we caution against both overgeneralization and undergeneralization. Specifically, the offers of representation came from a law school clinic, which provided high-quality and well-respected assistance in administrative "appeals" to state administrative law judges (ALJs) of initial rulings regarding eligibility for unemployment benefits. These "appeals" were actually de novo mini-trials. Our randomized evaluation found that the offers of representation from the clinic had no statistically significant effect on the probability that unemployment claimants would prevail in their "appeals," but that the offers did delay proceedings by, on average, about two weeks. Actual use of representation (from any source) also delayed the proceeding; we could come to no firm conclusions regarding the effect of actual use of representation (from any source) on the probability that claimants would prevail. Keeping in mind the high-quality and well-respected nature of the representation the law school clinic offered and provided, we explore three possible explanations for our results, each of which has implications for delivery of legal services. We also conduct a review of previous quantitative research attempting to measure representation effects. We find that, excepting the results of two randomized studies separated by more than thirty years, this literature provides virtually no credible quantitative information on the effect of an offer of or actual use of legal representation. Finally, we discuss disadvantages, advantages, and future prospects of randomized studies in the provision of legal assistance.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0044-0094</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-8611</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New Haven: The Yale Law Journal Company</publisher><subject>Administrative law ; Appeals ; Attorneys ; Control groups ; Court decisions ; Judges & magistrates ; Legal aid ; Legal assistance to the poor ; Legal proceedings ; Legal representation ; Legal services ; Litigants ; Observational studies ; Random allocation ; Studies ; Unemployment ; Unemployment insurance</subject><ispartof>The Yale law journal, 2012-06, Vol.121 (8), p.2118-2214</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2012 The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2012 Yale University, School of Law</rights><rights>Copyright Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. Jun 2012</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41510476$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/41510476$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,58017,58250</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>GREINER, D. JAMES</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PATTANAYAK, CASSANDRA WOLOS</creatorcontrib><title>Randomized Evaluation in Legal Assistance: What Difference Does Representation (Offer and Actual Use) Make?</title><title>The Yale law journal</title><description>We report the results of the first of a series of randomized evaluations of legal assistance programs. This series of evaluations is designed to measure the effect of both an offer of and the actual use of representation, although it was not possible in the first study we report here to measure constructively all effects of actual use. The results of this first evaluation are unexpected, and we caution against both overgeneralization and undergeneralization. Specifically, the offers of representation came from a law school clinic, which provided high-quality and well-respected assistance in administrative "appeals" to state administrative law judges (ALJs) of initial rulings regarding eligibility for unemployment benefits. These "appeals" were actually de novo mini-trials. Our randomized evaluation found that the offers of representation from the clinic had no statistically significant effect on the probability that unemployment claimants would prevail in their "appeals," but that the offers did delay proceedings by, on average, about two weeks. Actual use of representation (from any source) also delayed the proceeding; we could come to no firm conclusions regarding the effect of actual use of representation (from any source) on the probability that claimants would prevail. Keeping in mind the high-quality and well-respected nature of the representation the law school clinic offered and provided, we explore three possible explanations for our results, each of which has implications for delivery of legal services. We also conduct a review of previous quantitative research attempting to measure representation effects. We find that, excepting the results of two randomized studies separated by more than thirty years, this literature provides virtually no credible quantitative information on the effect of an offer of or actual use of legal representation. Finally, we discuss disadvantages, advantages, and future prospects of randomized studies in the provision of legal assistance.</description><subject>Administrative law</subject><subject>Appeals</subject><subject>Attorneys</subject><subject>Control groups</subject><subject>Court decisions</subject><subject>Judges & magistrates</subject><subject>Legal aid</subject><subject>Legal assistance to the poor</subject><subject>Legal proceedings</subject><subject>Legal representation</subject><subject>Legal services</subject><subject>Litigants</subject><subject>Observational studies</subject><subject>Random allocation</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Unemployment</subject><subject>Unemployment insurance</subject><issn>0044-0094</issn><issn>1939-8611</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>N95</sourceid><recordid>eNpt0VFr2zAQB3BTNmjW9iMMBH1ZoR6SpdhWX0Zou62QEShr92jO8slVmsipTi5bP301MlgDkR4Ep9__hKSDbCK01HldCvEum3CuVM65VofZB6IlT0NpPckeb8F3w9q9YMeun2E1QnSDZ86zOfawYjMiRxG8wQv26wEiu3LWYsBUYFcDErvFTUBCH7fBT4u_2yw1ZTMTx9ThjvCM_YBH_HKcvbewIjz5tx5ld1-vf15-z-eLbzeXs3neF7qMuVFdV9gapNVTIQXoac1tZQQolFLwtm1NYdHaQmuEVtqpkabjaKE0RVUqkEfZ6bbvJgxPI1JslsMYfDqyEVVRVrUqZflfpWti47wdYgCzdmSaWZFeTtVaFknle1SPHgOsBo_WpfKO_7zHp9nh2pm9gbOdQDIRf8ceRqLmZnG_a8_f2HYk5zH9jyfXP0TaRnb4xy1fUhxCswluDeFPo8RUcFWV8hWzjaeU</recordid><startdate>20120601</startdate><enddate>20120601</enddate><creator>GREINER, D. JAMES</creator><creator>PATTANAYAK, CASSANDRA WOLOS</creator><general>The Yale Law Journal Company</general><general>Yale University, School of Law</general><general>Yale Law Journal Company, Inc</general><scope>N95</scope><scope>XI7</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ILT</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120601</creationdate><title>Randomized Evaluation in Legal Assistance: What Difference Does Representation (Offer and Actual Use) Make?</title><author>GREINER, D. JAMES ; PATTANAYAK, CASSANDRA WOLOS</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g296t-c4dd2f8a3f95131a9580f7c1a4e3310bbbc2feff299eab3f5c3cd0efa6c2764a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Administrative law</topic><topic>Appeals</topic><topic>Attorneys</topic><topic>Control groups</topic><topic>Court decisions</topic><topic>Judges & magistrates</topic><topic>Legal aid</topic><topic>Legal assistance to the poor</topic><topic>Legal proceedings</topic><topic>Legal representation</topic><topic>Legal services</topic><topic>Litigants</topic><topic>Observational studies</topic><topic>Random allocation</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Unemployment</topic><topic>Unemployment insurance</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>GREINER, D. JAMES</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PATTANAYAK, CASSANDRA WOLOS</creatorcontrib><collection>Gale Business: Insights</collection><collection>Business Insights: Essentials</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale OneFile: LegalTrac</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>The Yale law journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>GREINER, D. JAMES</au><au>PATTANAYAK, CASSANDRA WOLOS</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Randomized Evaluation in Legal Assistance: What Difference Does Representation (Offer and Actual Use) Make?</atitle><jtitle>The Yale law journal</jtitle><date>2012-06-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>121</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>2118</spage><epage>2214</epage><pages>2118-2214</pages><issn>0044-0094</issn><eissn>1939-8611</eissn><abstract>We report the results of the first of a series of randomized evaluations of legal assistance programs. This series of evaluations is designed to measure the effect of both an offer of and the actual use of representation, although it was not possible in the first study we report here to measure constructively all effects of actual use. The results of this first evaluation are unexpected, and we caution against both overgeneralization and undergeneralization. Specifically, the offers of representation came from a law school clinic, which provided high-quality and well-respected assistance in administrative "appeals" to state administrative law judges (ALJs) of initial rulings regarding eligibility for unemployment benefits. These "appeals" were actually de novo mini-trials. Our randomized evaluation found that the offers of representation from the clinic had no statistically significant effect on the probability that unemployment claimants would prevail in their "appeals," but that the offers did delay proceedings by, on average, about two weeks. Actual use of representation (from any source) also delayed the proceeding; we could come to no firm conclusions regarding the effect of actual use of representation (from any source) on the probability that claimants would prevail. Keeping in mind the high-quality and well-respected nature of the representation the law school clinic offered and provided, we explore three possible explanations for our results, each of which has implications for delivery of legal services. We also conduct a review of previous quantitative research attempting to measure representation effects. We find that, excepting the results of two randomized studies separated by more than thirty years, this literature provides virtually no credible quantitative information on the effect of an offer of or actual use of legal representation. Finally, we discuss disadvantages, advantages, and future prospects of randomized studies in the provision of legal assistance.</abstract><cop>New Haven</cop><pub>The Yale Law Journal Company</pub><tpages>97</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0044-0094 |
ispartof | The Yale law journal, 2012-06, Vol.121 (8), p.2118-2214 |
issn | 0044-0094 1939-8611 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1726784636 |
source | Freely Accessible Journals; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
subjects | Administrative law Appeals Attorneys Control groups Court decisions Judges & magistrates Legal aid Legal assistance to the poor Legal proceedings Legal representation Legal services Litigants Observational studies Random allocation Studies Unemployment Unemployment insurance |
title | Randomized Evaluation in Legal Assistance: What Difference Does Representation (Offer and Actual Use) Make? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-30T17%3A17%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Randomized%20Evaluation%20in%20Legal%20Assistance:%20What%20Difference%20Does%20Representation%20(Offer%20and%20Actual%20Use)%20Make?&rft.jtitle=The%20Yale%20law%20journal&rft.au=GREINER,%20D.%20JAMES&rft.date=2012-06-01&rft.volume=121&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=2118&rft.epage=2214&rft.pages=2118-2214&rft.issn=0044-0094&rft.eissn=1939-8611&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA293948932%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1726784636&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A293948932&rft_jstor_id=41510476&rfr_iscdi=true |