Adolescent sexual risk and multiple contexts: interpersonal violence, parenting, and poverty

In this study we estimated the combined effects of violence experiences, parenting processes, and community poverty on sexual onset, alcohol or other drug (AOD) use at last sex, multiple sex partners, and prior pregnancy in a sample of 7th-, 9th-, and 11th-grade adolescents (n = 7,891), and the subsample of sexually experienced adolescents (n = 2,108). Multilevel multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that having experienced any interpersonal violence, and low levels of perceived parental warmth and parental knowledge predicted sexual onset. Adult sexual abuse or peer sexual coercion increased the odds for AOD use at last sex and having multiple sexual partners. When demographic, violence experiences and parenting behaviors were accounted for, poverty was not associated with sexual onset, AOD use at last sex, or multiple sex partners. Results suggest prevention efforts to reduce teen dating violence may be especially important to diminish sexually risky behaviors among adolescents.     

An Exploratory Study of Custody Challenges Experienced by Affirming Mothers of Transgender and Gender‐Nonconforming Children

Family courts have lacked familiarity with evidence‐based recommendations regarding the best interests of transgender and gender‐nonconforming (TGNC) children, resulting in some affirming parents losing physical and/or legal custody. This exploratory, qualitative study with 10 affirming mothers of TGNC children who had experienced custody‐related challenges reported on salient themes, including “blame” for causing children's gender nonconformity, coercion by ex‐partners, bias in the courts, negative impact on children, emotional and financial toll on participants, and the critical importance of adequate resources. Findings indicate the need for better‐educated family court professionals, as well as socioemotional support and financial and legal assistance for affirming parents of TGNC children.     

American Federalism and the Search for Models of Management

Changes in the United States federal system mean that managers must operate by taking into account multiple interacting governments and nongovernmental organizations; dealing with numerous programs emanating from Washington and state capitols; and engaging in multiple intergovernmental transactions with an expanding number of intergovernmental instruments. Four models of management within this changing system are identified. The top-down model emphasizes executive-branch control and is embedded in enforcement and exchange related to the laws, regulations, funding rules, program standards, and guidelines associated with federal/state grant, procurement, and regulation programs. The donor-recipient model emphasizes mutual dependence or shared program administration, where two-party bargaining or reciprocal interactions among government officials is the norm. The jurisdiction-based model is defined by the initiated actions of local officials and managers who seek out program adjustments and other actors and resources to serve the strategic aims of their governments. The network model highlights the actions of multiple interdependent government and nongovernmental organizations pursuing joint action and intergovernmental adjustment. Although the first two models are long-standing and the latter two are emergent, all appear to be alive and well on the intergovernmental scene, posing complex challenges for public managers.     

Translating Behavioral Science into Practice: A Framework to Determine Science Quality and Applicability for Police Organizations

Policy on officer‐involved shootings is critically reviewed and errors in applying scientific knowledge identified. Identifying and evaluating the most relevant science to a field‐based problem is challenging. Law enforcement administrators with a clear understanding of valid science and application are in a better position to utilize scientific knowledge for the benefit of their organizations and officers. A recommended framework is proposed for considering the validity of science and its application. Valid science emerges via hypothesis testing, replication, extension and marked by peer review, known error rates, and general acceptance in its field of origin. Valid application of behavioral science requires an understanding of the methodology employed, measures used, and participants recruited to determine whether the science is ready for application. Fostering a science–practitioner partnership and an organizational culture that embraces quality, empirically based policy, and practices improves science‐to‐practice translation.     

Commentary: Promising answers,and the next generation of questions

The papers in this special issue will be immensely valuable in taking forward the agenda of research, practice and theory construction in the field of offender rehabilitation. Some have consolidated existing knowledge in specific areas and analysed its potential implications. Others have identified the key points at issue in the debate between different models of the rehabilitation process. Still others have explored or developed a number of relatively neglected matters, including the delivery of treatment within a coercive framework; the role of labelling in change and desistance processes; the importance of the therapeutic alliance in offence-focused work; and reconceptualisation of the responsivity principle within the framework of therapeutic jurisprudence. The present paper extracts some further principal themes from the spectrum of issues raised. Discussion of these is grouped under the four headings of theory construction, evidence accumulation, practical implementation, and ethical and political dimensions.     

Lawyers,Justices, and Issue Salience: When and How Do Legal Arguments Affect the U.S. Supreme Court?

A good deal of scholarly evidence suggests that the decisionmaking of the U.S. Supreme Court is affected by legal argument. At the same time, it seems clear that in a great many cases the justices have enduring, strongly held views. In such cases, they should be impervious to the effects of advocacy. When are the justices apt to be influenced by the Court's legal community, and when will lawyers be less relevant? The answer, we think, has to do with the salience of the issue before the Court. We suspect that in nonsalient cases the justices have less‐intense preferences and therefore are open to the persuasion of lawyers. In salient cases, by contrast, the content of legal policy matters much more to the justices. As a result, they are less amenable to legal argument and adhere more strictly to their personal policy preferences. Our empirical tests support this orientation.