Child Care Subsidies and Employment Behavior Among Very‐Low‐Income Populations in Three States

Using merged administrative data from welfare reform evaluations in three states, we estimate the effects of child care subsidy use on the length of time it takes for a welfare applicant to move into substantial employment. Findings show that the use of a child care subsidy during an unemployed or marginally employed spell of welfare receipt is associated with between a 0.6 and 1.7 quarter (or 11% to 34%) reduction in the time to substantial employment in two of the three state samples. The positive influence of subsidy use on transitions to substantial employment is strongest for those welfare applicants with the lowest earnings who are mixing welfare and work prior to subsidy receipt.     

Scales for perceived risk of student-on-student victimization in grades 7 through 10: A psychometric analysis of the adolescent index on school safety

Although past research has developed scales for the incidence, prevalence, and fear of student-on-student victimization (SSV), little is known about the scaling of perceived risk (i.e., the cognitive appraisal of the chances of experiencing SSV). Hence, this study examined self-report survey data for the perceived risk of SSV as measured in the Adolescent Index for School Safety (AISS). Children in grades 7 through 10 (n=337) in a single Florida public school completed the AISS. Factor analyses using Maximum Likelihood Estimation with Oblimin Rotation identified nine unique factors for perceived risk. Reliability analyses found standardized Cronbach Alphas that ranged from .64 to .91, and seven out of the nine identified scales were above .80, which suggested good to excellent internal consistency. Future research should examine the content validity, construct validity, and predictive validity for the AISS and other self-report surveys of SSV dynamics. This publication was made possible by a grant [#97-MU-FX-KO12 (S-l)] from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (O.J.J.D.P.), United States Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.). This grant is administered through the Hamilton Fish National Institute on School and Community Violence at George Washington University. This specific study was developed and implemented by staff at: 1) East Carolina University’s Department of Criminal Justice; and 2) Florida State University’s Center for Educational Research and Policy Studies. All points of view and opinions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of East Carolina University, Florida State University, the Hamilton Fish National Institute on School and Community Violence, the O.J.J.D.P., or the U.S.D.OJ. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Bill Doerner and Jennifer Jolley for their support, editorial feedback, and insightful comments regarding earlier drafts of this paper.     

Restoring accountability in pretrial release: the Philadelphia pretrial release supervision experiments

As drug arrests and jail overcrowding added pressure to increase pretrial release in localities during the 1980s and 1990s, the need to manage a larger and higher-risk pretrial population of defendants awaiting adjudication in the community became a high priority for justice agencies. In the late 1990s Philadelphia officials sought to discover the ingredients of a successful supervision strategy through four interlinked field experiments to provide an empirical basis for a major reform of the pretrial release system. The results of the linked randomized experiments question common assumptions about “supervision,” its impact and effectiveness, about the underlying nature of the noncompliant defendant, and deterrence implications. The study emphasizes the importance of interpreting the findings in the context of implementation of the policy reform. Findings suggest that facilitative notification strategies wield little influence on defendant behavior and that deterrent aims are undermined by the system's failure to deliver consequences for defendant noncompliance during pretrial release. The most significant contribution of the article is its illustration of a major evidence-based policy reform undertaken by a major court system.     

Proficiency testing (external quality assessment) of drug detection in oral fluid

Eighteen external quality assessment (proficiency testing) samples were prepared from client specimens collected with the Intercept^® oral fluid collection device and by spiking drug-free oral fluid. Samples were circulated in pairs at quarterly intervals to 13 UK and USA based laboratories for analysis by a panel of OraSure micro-plate Intercept^® enzyme immunoassay kits and hyphenated mass spectrophotometric techniques. During the survey, there was a single case of non-specificity in a false report for methadone. The major errors were of lack of sensitivity relative to the concentration thresholds specified for the immunoassays. The sensitivity for overall ‘present’/‘not found’ reports calculated as true positives/(true positives + false negatives) were for the amfetamine specific assay 50%, methyl-amfetamines 93%, barbiturates 64%, cannabinoids 73%, cocaine and metabolites 100%, benzodiazepines 69%, methadone 95%, opiates 79% (opiates excluding oxycodone 93%), phencyclidine 93% and human gamma-globulin 97%. A small number of the sensitivity errors were attributable to errors in chromatographic confirmation techniques.     

Assessment of competency for execution? A guide for mental health professionals

Assessment of competency for execution presents two compelling ethical questions for mental health professionals: whether clinicians can ethically provide such assessment, and if so, how it should be done in order to maximize quality and minimize ethical conflict. In this article we address the issue of whether to participate and, if so, how. The question of whether to participate is discussed by summarizing the arguments for and against participation and offering guidelines for making a decision. The question of how to proceed is discussed in two contexts: preadjudication (before a formal decision about competency) and postadjudication (following a determination of "incompetent" and transfer of the offender to another facility for treatment and further assessment). Finally, recommendations are made regarding research that would improve the quality of execution competency assessments.