The New Zealand Model of Family Group Conferencing

The Family Group Conference (FGC) originated in New Zealand where it is the foundation stone of the Youth Justice system introduced in 1989. A significant feature of that system is the way in which it enables restorative justice principles to be implemented in an integrated manner in a statutory framework supervised by the courts and applicable to all young offenders throughout New Zealand. FGCs are used both as a diversionary technique (pre-adjudication) and at a (post-adjudication) pre-sentencing stage. In addition this type of model is now being applied in a voluntary way but on a small scale with adults. A significant feature of the FGC model is its greater use of community-based solutions with a consequent reduction in the number of young persons in state institutions.     

Allocations among programs having counteractive outcomes

Difficulties have been encountered in attempting to apply benefit-cost analysis to the problem of determining resource allocations among social programs, especially when there are multiple outcomes associated with each of the programs. Further complications result when program outcomes are characterized as counteractive: a specific allocation of resources to a program is likely to achieve a favorable impact regarding certain objectives while that allocation is also likely to have an unfavorable impact regarding other objectives. A model which promises to be useful in determining optimal resource allocations among programs having counteractive outcomes is presented. Two steps are required for the use of the model: (1) values, reflecting priorities, need to be assigned to the various objectives that programs are intended to accomplish and (2) an ensemble of probabilistic functions relating resources to program outcomes needs to be specified and combined to reflect the value of an ensemble of programs. In addition to determining optimal resource allocations, the model provides insights into the consequences of resource decisions based on noneconomic considerations. An example illustrates the major features of the model.     

Why Medical Child Support is Important—and Complex

Courts resolving child support cases involving separated, divorced, and non‐marital children are charged with defining responsibility for health care coverage for the children under that order. This article explores historical and current medical child support requirements under Title IV‐D of the Social Security Act—the national child support enforcement (“IV‐D”) program. It analyzes legal requirements and policy recommendations, and provides a practical tool judges may use to determine whether health care coverage available to either or both parents is appropriate—that is, comprehensive, accessible, and affordable.     

On the Choice of Remedies

At a time when misuse of the power to zone seems to be increasing—some say rampant—when such misuse is frequently ignored even sanctioned by the courts, e.g.; Belle Terre v. Boraas, Steelhill v. Sanbornton, U.S. v. Black Jack (lower federal court), it is heartening to find a powerful court unite behind an articulate and powerfully worded opinion which strikes down an exercise of the police power (zoning) which legislates local biases and unreasonably excludes low income housing. There is an appropriateness too in that it is Justice Hall, some 12 years after his classic dissent in the Vickers case, who rationalizes a long line of often misunderstood New Jersey cases and the case law of other jurisdictions and concludes: “that every … municipality must, by its land use regulations, … make realistically possible an appropriate variety and choice of housing.” A strong concurring opinion further notes; “the use of the zoning power by municipalities to maintain themselves as enclaves of affluence or of social homogeneity … [is] improper and to be strongly condemned.”