The Twelve Tribes' Communities,the Anti-Cult Movement,and Government's Response

The Twelve Tribes Messianic Communities are approximately 25 communities ranging in size from 30 to 120, on four continents. Since their inception 25 years ago, they have been plagued by continual attacks of the Anti-Cult Movement (ACM), originally in North America, but in recent years also in Europe. These believers live a common life of sharing in Communities according to the pattern they perceive in Acts 2 and 4 in the Bible. Despite repeated vindication in the courts, Twelve Tribes' members continue to battle to maintain the right to parent their children according to their beliefs, outside the mainstream popular culture. Antireligionists have effectively influenced governments to act against these parents, based on information that has not proved to be trustworthy evidence in court.     

“Relational goods” and participation: Incorporating sociability into a theory of rational action

Theoretical explanations of why rational individuals would participate in politics remain unsatisfactory. This paper addresses the problem by developing and analyzing models which include among citizens' payoffs “relational goods,” objectives which depend upon interactions among persons. The models predict more participation than do the standard approaches. For example, under some circumstances persons will be more likely to act if they believe others will act, contrary to free-rider logic. More importantly, conditions are identified under which leaders could increase mass activity. Thus, a model is provided of “mobilization” in terms of the preferences and decisions of a rational individual. The author thanks the Russell Sage Foundation for support as a Visiting Fellow during 1986–87. The paper has benefited from the comments of Patricia Gurin, Steve Brams, Jane Mansbridge, Linda Cohen, Tyler Cowen, Ami Glazer, and seminar participants at the University of Rochester.     

Service Efforts and Accomplishments Standards: Fundamental Questions of an Emerging Concept

In 1994, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) adopted and published Concepts Statement No. 2, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting} Although service efforts and accomplishments (SEA) is not a common term, this statement establishes the foundation for the subsequent adoption of reporting requirements that may expand the boundaries of reporting to significantly increase the amount of non-financial information that states and municipalities will report, as well as the cost of external reporting Budget analysts are among prospective users of SEA information. A study of comment letters filed in response to the exposure draft, which preceded Concepts Statement No. 2, shows two divergent views of SEA reporting requirements.2 Support for SEA reporting requirements is grounded in a vision of the potential benefits of SEA reporting;3 opposition to SEA standards is grounded in concerns about potential consequences of instituting reporting requirements.4 The strength of opposition to SEA reporting requirements suggests that consideration of the rationale for standards setting is appropriate. In this article, commonly expressed concerns about reporting requirements are incorporated into five questions. Analysis of these questions evidences the weakness of the rationale for SEA standards as distinguished from the rationale for voluntary SEA reporting. Two proposals are advanced to address concerns about SEA reporting requirements. First, adoption of models of information use from the disciplines of public administration and political science is encouraged. Second, modification of the standard setting process to reflect the non-financial domain of SEA is advocated. Thus, it is proposed that standard setters adopt approaches that emphasize cross-disciplinary research, cooperation with other organizations, and active extension of due process to new stakeholders.     

Decision making and examiner bias in forensic expert recommendations for not guilty by reason of insanity

Source of nomination (prosecution, defense, judge) was varied in a fictional not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) case distributed to 180 community forensic evaluators in a state employing theM'Naghten rule. Differences among examiners by appointment for the final NGRI judgment was not significant; interrater reliability for psychopathological symptomatology was .73. Discriminant analysis revealed significant differences in the decision-making process between evaluators recommending sanity and those endorsing insanity, as well as between psychiatrists and psychologists.