Chapter 2: Pay Now So You Won't Pay Later: The Effectiveness of Prevention Programming in the Fight to Reduce Delinquency

Community-based delinquency prevention programs, designed to work with youth and families before they become involved with the official court process, are relatively rare. Likewise, few studies have been published concerninge valuative research on such programs. This article reviews some background on program concepts, describes the operations of the Oakland County Probate Court Youth Assistance casework services program, and reports the results of a comprehensive program evaluation project. The findings suggest that prevention programming is one effective strategy to aid in reducing the likelihood of more costly court interventions. Recommendations for program development are offered.     

Implementing Equal Justice for Parents in Washington: A Dual Approach

In many states, legal representation for parents of dependent children is inadequate and can be a source of delays in securing permanency for children and unnecessarily protracted court proceedings. Often, such parents also face barriers to accessing services and independent evaluators. These issues are being addressed in the state of Washington through two approaches. The first is a successful enhanced legal representation program that has substantially improved case outcomes. The second is a statewide committee using innovative means to examine systemic responses to the challenges of the Adoption and Safe Families Act.     

The Revitalization of the Permanent Court of Arbitration

Netherlands International Law Review -     

Die Berücksichtigung von Auswirkungen auf charakteristische Arten der Lebensräume nach Anhang I der FFH-Richtlinie in der FFH-Verträglichkeitsprüfung Anmerkungen zum Urteil des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts vom 16. März 2006 – 4 A 1075.04 (Großflughafen Berlin-Brandenburg)

Das Bundesverwaltungsgericht hat in seinem Urteil vom 16.3.2006 zum Gro?flughafen Berlin-Brandenburg in einem Leitsatz festgestellt, dass das FFH-Schutzregime, dem bestimmte Biotope unterliegen, sich nicht auf V?gel erstreckt, denen das betreffende Biotop als Habitat dient. Diese Feststellung führt zu der Frage, inwieweit charakteristische Arten von Lebensr?umen nach Anhang I FFH-RL in der FFH-Vertr?glichkeitsprüfung nach § 34 BNatSchG überhaupt bewertungsrelevant sind. Der Beitrag setzt sich dazu mit dem Urteil kritisch auseinander.