The lawsuit is the cornerstone of the civil justice system in America, and an open court the foundation of American jurisprudence. In a public setting, we resolve disputes, determine liability, and compensate injuries. In recent decades, however, more civil disputes have been resolved out of court and the outcomes have been kept secret. Fewer than 5 percent of the tens of millions of injury claims annually are actually resolved through a public trial with a jury, and the vast majority are settled out of court or through private forums, such as mediation or arbitration, with undisclosed terms. Some argue that the confidentiality of the system keeps it working efficiently and fairly; others argue that the public is being denied information about hazards that may cause harm and that a public system with no data lacks oversight. This collection of essays by leading legal scholars is the first book to approach the issue in a multidisciplinary, nonpartisan, and empirical manner. The essays provide empirical analyses and case studies of the impact of greater disclosure on various aspects of the system, ranging from settlement values to fraud, and propose several novel prescriptions for reform. With special attention to the emergence of modern mass litigation, the authors identify a number of benefits to increasing access to information, including decreased fraud, improved public understanding and confidence in the system, and lower transactions costs. The authors make policy recommendations-such as expanding access to existing databases and using technology to create new databases-that increase transparency while protecting the need for privacy.

RAND is conducting a longitudinal study that evaluates the effectiveness of voluntary summer learning programs in reducing summer learning loss, which contributes substantially to the achievement gap between low- and higher-income students. Based on evaluations of programs in six school districts, this second report in a series provides research-based advice for school district leaders as they create and strengthen summer programs.

What does it means to cultivate demand for the arts? Why is it important and necessary to do so? What can state arts agencies and other arts and education policymakers do to make it happen? The authors set out a framework for thinking about supply and demand in the arts and identify the roles that different factors, particularly arts learning, play in increasing demand for the arts.

Initiatives to coordinate schools, cultural institutions, community-based organizations, foundations, and/or government agencies to promote access to arts education in and outside of schools have recently developed. This study looks at the collaboration efforts of six urban communities: how they started and evolved, the kinds of organizations involved, conditions that helped and that hindered coordination, and strategies used.It examines the efforts of six communities to improve arts education through coordination across multiple organizations, describing how the efforts unfolded and documenting the common and unique benefits and challenges of collaborative approaches.

This study offers a new framework for understanding how the arts create private and public value, highlights the importance of the arts' intrinsic benefits, and identifies how both instrumental and intrinsic benefits are created. During the past decade, arts advocates have relied on an instrumental approach to the benefits of the arts in arguing for support of the arts. This report evaluates these arguments and asserts that a new approach is needed. This new approach offers a more comprehensive view of how the arts create private and public value, underscores the importance of the arts' intrinsic benefits, and links the creation of benefits to arts involvement.

Assesses the impact of MICRA's limits on plaintiffs' awards and attorneys' fees on final judgments in medical malpractice cases A model for limits on trial awards and attorneys' fees in medical malpractice cases is the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), a law enacted in California in 1975 in the hope of controlling soaring medical malpractice insurance premiums and ensuring the continuing availability of malpractice insurance. MICRA caps awards for non-economic losses at USD250,000 and limits plaintiffs' attorney fees. The authors examine the effects these limits have on both plaintiffs' awards and defendants' liabilities.