The importance of appropriate allocation to offending behavior programs

This study examined the impact on reconviction of appropriate allocation to three general offending behavior programs involving adult male offenders in the English and Welsh Probation Service. Appropriate allocation was defined by level of risk for reconviction. There were three allocation groups: too low, appropriate, and too high. Using a quasi-experimental design, the reconviction rates of offenders who were allocated to and completed a program, offenders allocated to a program who failed to start, and a comparison group were compared. It was found that the appropriateness of allocation affected reconviction independently of treatment group. Furthermore, in line with the risk principle, there was an interaction between treatment group and the appropriateness of allocation.     

The Effect of Problem Severity,Managerial and Organizational Capacity,and Agency Structure on Intergovernmental Collaboration: Evidence from Local Emergency Management

Like most public managers nowadays, local emergency managers operate within complex, uncertain environments. Rapid changes in the scope and severity of the issues increase the extent of intergovernmental collaboration necessary to address such challenges. Using a large data set of county emergency management agency directors, variations in intergovernmental collaboration reflect influences from problem severity, managerial capacity, and structural factors. The results demonstrate that public managers who perceive problems as severe, possess specific managerial skills, lead high‐capacity organizations, and operate in less complex agency structures collaborate more often and more effectively across governmental boundaries.     

Do Parent-Adolescent Discrepancies Predict Deviant Peer Affiliation and Subsequent Substance Use?

Recent evidence suggests parent-adolescent discrepancies regarding adolescent disclosure can provide insight into parent-child relations and adolescent adjustment. However, pathways linking discrepancies to adjustment are not well known. We tested a model linking parent-adolescent discrepancies in disclosure to adolescent substance use through affiliation with deviant peers. Using three annual waves of data from a community-based study (N?=?357; 91% African American; 53% female; M_age?=?13.13 years, SD?=?1.62 years at baseline), findings revealed that adolescent-reported secrecy and deviant peer affiliation were positively associated with substance use one and two years later, respectively, but there was no evidence of mediation. The results highlight associations of adolescent secrecy and adjustment, and the role peers play in adolescent substance use behaviors.     

Methodological considerations in the evaluation of offender interventions: the problem of attrition

Attrition from offender interventions presents methodological problems when the effectiveness of the intervention is under evaluation. This article proposes a treatment-received (TR) design, which incorporates one-to-one matching on criminogenic variables. This design permits the comparison of completer, noncompleter, and nonstarter groups with their paired comparisons and, hence, allows a more accurate evaluation of program completion and noncompletion effects. A sample of 173 offenders, referred to one of two general offending behavior cognitive skills programs within community settings, was matched one-to-one by criminogenic variables to offenders from an appropriate comparison group. Reconviction analyses were undertaken using intention to treat (ITT) analysis, TR analysis using the full comparison group, and TR analysis using matched comparison groups. The ITT design found no impact of group membership on reconviction. The TR designs, however, provided evidence of moderate effects of completion: For every three completers, five of the matched comparison group members were reconvicted. The analysis also suggested a noncompletion effect: Noncompleters were twice as likely as their matched comparison group to be reconvicted.     

Birth Order,Preferences, and Norms on the U.S. Supreme Court

The members of the U.S. Supreme Court have different ideas about what constitutes good judicial policy as well as how best to achieve that policy. From where do these ideas originate? Evolutionary psychology suggests that an answer may lie in early life experiences in which siblings assume roles that affect an adult's likely acceptance of changes in the established order. According to this view, older siblings take on responsibilities that make them more conservative and rule‐bound, while younger ones adopt roles that promote liberalism and greater rebelliousness. Applying this theory to the Court, I show that these childhood roles manifest themselves in later life in the decisions of the justices. Birth order explains not only the justices’ policy preferences but also their acceptance of one important norm of judicial decisionmaking, specifically their willingness to exercise judicial review.     

Maternal and Family Correlates of Intrinsic Religiosity Profiles Among Low-Income Urban African American Adolescents

Journal of Youth and Adolescence - National trends show that African American adolescents, relative to most other demographic groups, are more religious, and show fewer declines in religiosity,...     

Political and economic determinants of insurance regulation in mental health

This article studies determinants of two important sets of laws regulating insurance coverage for mental health care: mandated inclusion of minimum coverage for psychotherapy, and mandated coverage for psychologist services, the so-called freedom of choice (FOC) laws. Political market models are developed and estimated to examine the passage of mandates and FOC laws among all fifty states from 1968 through 1983. Findings indicate that a number of groups influence whether these laws are passed, including psychologists and the state, which acts both in its own interests as a direct provider of services and to protect the public's interest. A state's political system and socioeconomic environment also influence the likelihood of passage of these regulations. Our findings run counter to the assumption often made by policymakers and researchers that regulations exclusively serve the interests of providers.     

Ivory Tower Meets Smoke-Filled Back Rooms of Politics: An Academic Perspective on Illinois' School Funding Debate

In anticipation of an upcoming legislative debate, in the early summer of 1996 public advocacy groups in Illinois contracted with the Institute of Government and Public Affairs of the University of Illinois to provide analysis of school funding reform proposals. The intent was to make the analysis and models widely available for use by government officials as well as concerned citizens. We prepared a report on options for Illinois to help focus the school funding discussion on the fundamental policy choices facing lawmakers. In this article, we summarize the process of and the university's contribution to the policy debate. Five illustrative alternatives to the current system are analyzed. While we think these options are of interest for their own sake, our primary goal in writing this article is to provide an example of how academic analysts can make a constructive contribution to heated political debate without advocating any particular plan.