Relinquishing custody as a requisite for receiving services for children with serious emotional disorders

A review of the literature was conducted to assess the extent and nature of the practice of requiring parents to transfer custody in order to receive public funding for intensive services needed by their child/adolescent who had a serious emotional disorder. The review focused on the legal and policy basis of this practice as well as its social and psychological impact on child and family. We conclude that the practice of transfer of custody as a requirement for receiving financial aid occurs in a majority of states, though the actual extent of this practice is not known. The major factor influencing the use of transfer of custody appears to be the absence of an appropriate and adequate system of services for children and adolescents with serious emotional disorders. We recommend that the practice of requiring custody transfer for the sole purpose of receiving services be abolished and offer several suggestions for improving acess to services.Preparation of this article was supported in part by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) under contract no. 89MF761903. The authors are grateful to John Burke and Kelly Kelleher of the Division of Biometry and Applied Sciences, NIMH for their assistance on this project. Laurie Flynn, Executive Director for the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, was very helpful during the informative stage of the project. Barbara Friesen, Director of the Research and Training Center at Portland State University, gave us useful guidance throughout the project. We thank Stephen Hill, Consultant to the National Governors' Association, for his help. We are grateful to Amy Hewitt and Carol Ishler for their assistance in preparing this report. We also would like to acknowledge several individuals who assisted us with research reported in this article. We are grateful to Governor Richard F. Celeste of Ohio for his letter of support for the state survey of custody transfer practices. We appreciate the efforts on behalf of this survey by staff from the State of Ohio, particularly Jean Ellen Stevens, Administrative Assistant to the Director of the Department of Mental Health. Margraret McNally assisted in the compilation of data for both surveys.     

What Are the Federal Home Loan Banks Up To? Emerging Views of Purpose among Institutional Leadership

The Federal Home Loan Bank System has come under sharp criticism in recent years, and the question has been raised as to whether it still has a public purpose. In this article, we ask what leaders in the Federal Home Loan Banks view their institutions' purpose to be in light of legislative changes to their mandates in 1989 and 1999. Based on interviews with FHLB executive managers and board members, we identify three clearly distinguishable views of these institutions' mission: housing finance, support for the viability of community financial institutions, and support for and community development. We go on to identify some of the implications of these distinctive views for the behavior of the FHLBs and for their governance structures.     

Myths of the insanity defense: Inherent and procedural obstacles

Often societies perceptions can be shaped by the media not only by what it reports but by how it is reported. This article discusses the impact that the American media has had on the social perception that the insanity defense is too often successfully used to avoid legal and criminal culpability. Many of the procedural obstacles associated with the assertion of an insanity defense are poorly understood or ignored. The article further address some of the less attractive characteristics associated with the assertion of the insanity defense that are not procedurally founded but nonetheless serve as an impediment the wide spread use of the defense. In conclusion the insanity defense is submitted as an unavoidable necessary evil in a civilized society that incarcerates its criminals.