Critiquing Food Security Inter‐governmental Partnership Approaches in Victoria,Australia

Food security is an issue, not only in developing countries but also in developed economies such as Australia where people from vulnerable groups cannot access affordable and appropriate food on a daily basis. Agencies emphasise the need for collaborative approaches to such complex, multi‐sectoral challenges. This article analyses two inter‐governmental partnership approaches facilitating local government's response to food insecurity in 12 municipalities within the state of Victoria. We focus on the partnership approaches to collaboration, processes and structures, and collective outcomes. The comparative data analysis from in‐depth interviews and document analysis of project‐associated materials and municipal policies provides insight into the different partnership approaches. Results suggest that while strategically designed and focused inter‐governmental partnerships can build local government capacity to respond to food security, there are systemic, regulatory, and resource barriers in play. In conclusion, the implications of these findings for future inter‐governmental approaches to address complex challenges are considered.     

A Defense of Professionalism: A Response to Fusco and Baizerman

Fusco and Baizerman (2013) criticized professionalization efforts for assumptions about improved outcomes, “reducing” youth work to skills, “controlling behavior,” bureaucratization, depersonalized services, a neoliberal focus, removing practice wisdom, and a “telos of …scientifically based youth work” (p. 189). They do not provide evidence or arguments for these claims. Academics benefit from professionalization, and it is curious to oppose efforts to provide those benefits to others. We believe that they and their colleagues, in the same issue, have misread other authors on key ideas and present an incomplete and rather one-sided representation. They conflate professionalization and professionalism. They conflate the industrial aspects of professionalization with the ethical aspects. They have overestimated the potential harm of professionalization and underestimated the harm being done by uninformed youth work practices. They misinterpreted social history—and Aristotle. They have incompletely cited other writers about professionalization. Professionalization and professionalism are not guarantees of anything, but our critique of them needs to be coherent, consistent, and based on arguments and evidence.     

The Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on A Collaborative and Child‐Focused Approach to Alternative Dispute Resolution

The Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families (RCSDF) is a teaching model for providing interdisciplinary services to separating and divorcing families. The model was developed by the Honoring Families Initiative at the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver. Services are provided by graduate and law students at the University of Denver, working side‐by‐side with a supervising licensed attorney, psychologist, and social worker. The experiential and interdisciplinary model of teaching and providing direct client services is the first of its kind in the United States. RCSDF students and staff seek to empower parents to make positive decisions about their family's future in a supportive and educational environment.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• The current system of preparing graduate and law students for careers in family law is in need of improvement. This article provides information for educators and the family law community about the impact of interdisciplinary and experiential learning for students.
• Parents going through the transition of separation or divorce experience psychological and financial stressors that can create serious behavioral and adjustment issues for their children. The RCSDF works in a holistic manner with parents and children to minimize the levels of stress and anxiety during the transition.

     

When risk‐based regulation aims low: A strategic framework

This article develops a strategic framework for regulators to employ when choosing intervention strategies for dealing with low risks and reviewing performance, building on the analysis by the same authors in the previous edition of this journal. The framework occupies the operational “middle ground” between risk analysis and formal enforcement action. At its core is a matrix, the Good Regulatory Intervention Design (GRID), which provides a framework to categorize sites or activities on the basis of two factors: the nature of the risk and the nature of the regulatee. Using GRID, regulators can select which intervention tools to use, and determine the overall level of regulatory intensity that should apply. GRID is accompanied by the Good Regulatory Assessment Framework (GRAF) for agencies to use in reviewing their performance and provides a step‐by‐step process for enabling “double loop learning.” The article also argues that the process of developing such a framework highlighted the extent to which “low risk” and “high risk” regulation are distinct. “Low risk” means “low priority.” Justifying why certain risks should not receive much regulatory attention requires a particular type of engagement, and has a bearing on the regulatory strategies that are adopted.     

Driving Priorities in Risk‐based Regulation: What's the Problem?

Both risk‐based and problem‐centred regulatory techniques emphasize giving priority to matters that are serious and important. In the case of both risks and problems, however, issues of identification, selection, and prioritization involve inescapably normative and political choices. It is important, therefore, to understand why regulators target the risks and problems that they do; which factors drive such choices; and how regulation is affected when these factors pull in similar or opposite directions. Such an understanding provides a fresh framework for thinking about the challenges of both risk‐based and problem‐centred regulation. The analysis presented here does not oppose either risk‐based or problem‐centred regulation, but it illustrates why neither is as straightforward as simple calls for ‘better regulation’ may suggest, and it proposes ways in which key aspects of those challenges may be addressed.     

Working Through Work Release: An Analysis of Factors Associated with the Successful Completion of Work Release

In line with reentry and life course research that has shown increases in desistance for individuals connected with employment, work release programming attempts to achieve desistance from crime by linking criminal offenders to the labor market while in the correctional system. Recent research has speculated that the completion of rigorous employment programming may serve as a signal to employers that criminal careers have ceased and the offenders are employable. Therefore, it is important to understand factors associated with successful program completion. This study utilizes a sample of jail-based work release participants to explore factors correlated with program completion. Consistent with prior research, we find that offenders who are older, Caucasian, and employed at time of arrest are more likely to complete the program and that minority participants and those with prior mental health treatment are less likely to complete the program.