What's “New” About the Balanced Approach?

Over the past decade, many juvenile justice professionals became familiar with the “Balanced Approach as a new mission for juvenile probation. In recent months, a number of jurisdictions have adopted the Balanced Approach, by statute or policy, as the mission for their juvenile courts and juvenile justice systems. However, a great deal of misunderstanding persists about the meaning and practical differences between the Balanced Approach and other intervention models. While both quality and consistency of implementation of “balanced” policy and practice vary widely, some juvenile justice managers are using this new mission as a tool or “roadmap” for comprehensive re-structuring of juvenile justice systems and agencies. This paper argues that when viewed as a guide to systemic, rather than programmatic, reform, the Balanced Approach can be clearly distinguished from both the traditional individual treatment and the new retributive/punitive juvenile justice missions. Six critical differences between the Balanced Approach and these missions are described.     

UTILIZATION IN THE POLICY CYCLE: DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH*

The study of policy utilization has been unnecessarily confined to one policy stage and to one group of policymakers-high ranking civil servants. This article suggests to broaden research concerns by including the various stages of the policy cycle and the various policymakers. Utilization plays different functions in different stages and the incentives of policymakers in each stage are guided by self-interest and political-bureaucratic efficacy.     

GASB's Survival Potential: An Agency Theory Perspective

The primary objective of this article is to develop a framework for examining the survival or demise of an accounting standards setting body, with specific emphasis on analyzing the survival potential of the proposed GASB (Government Accounting Standards Board). In meeting this objective, we will first contrast the survival of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with the demise of the Cost Accounting Standards Board (CASE), based on a framework derived from recent developments in agency theory.
The position taken in this article is neither that of an advocate nor an adversary of the various accounting regulatory bodies discussed. Instead, the authors' intent is to shed light on the complex issues surrounding the potential for survival of such bodies. An improved understanding of these issues should, in turn, permit a more enlightened analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of such bodies.