Junior high school students’ use of their afterschool hours in Ghana: The role of household assets

Studies have examined a broad range of factors for how students use their time, but few attempts have been made to explore the nuanced link between different types of asset ownership and students' use of study time, particularly in resource-limited countries. This study uses data from junior high school students in Ghana to examine how students spend their time after school hours, the predictive influence of different types of household assets, and the extent to which these trends and relationships vary by gender. Polynomial quantile regression models were fitted across three quantiles (24th, 53rd, and 76th percentiles) to align with one hour, one and half hours, and two hours of study time. Results show that the average student spends well above the recommended 90 minutes on their schoolwork during afterschool hours, regardless of gender. Multivariate results indicate that owning limited assets tends to have a negative relationship with use of study time, but higher levels tend to be positively related to use of study time. Also, the predictive influence of asset ownership varies by asset type, and higher levels of asset ownership favor girls more than boys. Given this study's realtively small sample size, caution must be exercised in generalizing the study findings to the general population of junior high school students in Ghana. In light of the study's limitations, the finding of varying asset effect may have practical implications for asset development programs designed to enhance the well-being of low-income families.     

A Criminological Fly in the Ointment: Specialty Courts and the Generality of Deviance

ABSTRACT

Specialty courts—such as drug courts, mental health courts, or domestic violence courts—tend to assume, either implicitly or explicitly, that particular groups of offenders have unique problems that can be best met with specialized case processing. Put simply, specialty courts assume that offenders themselves are specialists when it comes to offending. There is, however, a criminological fly in the ointment. The problem is that criminological theory and research have long demonstrated that offenders tend to be generalists and that they rarely specialize in any given form of misbehavior. Accordingly, the authors argue here that the notion of the “generality of deviance” presents a problem for the potential effectiveness of specialty courts because they are likely operating on a faulty set of ideas about offending behavior. The authors offer strategies for moving forward to better integrate the notion of the generality of deviance into specialty courts: in particular, embracing a rehabilitative philosophy and adopting well-documented correctional treatment approaches such as cognitive-behavioral interventions and the risk-need-responsivity model. They conclude by highlighting the risks associated with granting system efficiency a position of privilege among the multiple goals of corrections.     

Conceptualizing the Landscape of Decision Making for Complex Problem Solving

Complex problem resolution often involves the need for a pragmatic integration of knowledge from stakeholders with competing epistemic claims. The decision-making process regarding complex problem resolution is characterized by four basic sources of knowledge: disciplines, societies, organizations, and individuals. From the perspective of the public administration, we conceptualize the structure of the interactions between the disciplines and other sources of knowledge potentially relevant to the resolution of a public problem. To aid this exercise we examine a series of cases that we believe represent relevant aspects of complex problem resolution. We describe these basic interactions as collaborative, agnostic, or adversarial. This is a reorientation to the knowledge at play in the problem at hand. The study of public administration is well suited as a body of knowledge to address complex problems because it has a rich history of cooperation with other disciplines, practitioners, and stakeholders in the public.     

Agenda building in criminal justice: The case of determinate sentencing

An understanding of policy development, change and implementation is a necessary ingredient in analysis of criminal justice policy. This paper attempts to describe the process of policy formation in criminal justice within the framework, of “Agenda Building.” Through case studies of sentencing reform policy changes in two states, the applicability of the Agenda Building model to the study of criminal justice policy is demonstrated. The argument is advanced that, through the use of such approaches to the study of justice policy change, we will enhance our understanding of the diversity of specific policies and practices which can emerge from an apparently unified reform movement. Further, it is suggested that an enhanced understanding of policy development will allow reformers to better direct and control policy formulation.     

“A summary of parole rules—Thirteen years later”: Revisited thirteen years later

Arluke conducted two surveys of American paroling authorities, thirteen years apart, in 1956 and 1969. He summarized and described the standard conditions or rules of parole then in force in America. His general conclusions to both surveys were that parole rules were too numerous to be of real value, that many were unrealistic and unenforceable, and that the basic rules were not uniform throughout the states.In summer 1981, thirteen years after Arluke's second study, his survey was replicated. Copies of the standard parole conditions imposed on parolees of all fifty states and of the federal and District of Columbia jurisdictions were received and summarized. Many of Arluke's conclusions from his 1956 and 1969 summaries are echoed in this study.     

How Do Nonprofits Respond to Regulatory Thresholds: Evidence From New York's Audit Requirements

Nonprofits in the United States must comply with various state and federal regulations to maintain their tax‐exempt status. Despite persistent calls to increase accountability in the nonprofit sector, there is little research examining the burden imposed by existing regulatory requirements, especially at the state level. This paper uses a bunching design to estimate the avoidance behavior exhibited by tax‐exempt charities in response to New York State's audit requirements. There is clear evidence of bunching in response to the requirement that nonprofits above certain revenue thresholds file financial statements reviewed by or audited by an independent certified public accountant. Measuring the extent of bunching around the revenue notches yields estimates of the average revenue that nonprofits either forego or fail to report in avoidance of the requirements. Results from dynamic estimation show that charities near the threshold for a review engagement report approximately $1,300 less revenue than otherwise predicted by a counterfactual; charities near the threshold for a full audit report approximately $1,400 less. The results have implications for the optimal design of state‐level financial regulations.