Do graduated university incubator firms benefit from their relationship with university incubators?

Business incubators have become a popular policy option and economic development intervention tool. However, recent research shows that incubated firms may not benefit significantly from their incubator relationships, and may even be more vulnerable to failure post departure (graduation) from an incubator. These findings suggest that the impact of business incubation on new venture viability may be contingent on the type of support offered by an incubator and attributes of business environments within which incubation services are provided. Incubation services that protect and isolate ventures from key resource dependencies may hinder venture development and increase subsequent vulnerability to environmental demands. Alternatively, incubation services that help ventures connect and align with key resource dependencies are likely to promote firm survival. We propose that incubators vary in the services and resources they offer, and that university incubators typically provide greater connectivity and legitimacy with respect to important contingencies associated with key industry and community stakeholders. This leads us to propose that university affiliation is an important contingency that affects the relationship between firms’ participation in incubators and their subsequent performance. The purpose of this study is to evaluate this contingency by examining whether firms graduating from university incubators attain higher levels of post-incubation performance than firms participating in non-university affiliated incubators. We test this by evaluating the performance of a sample of graduated firms associated with the population of university-based incubators in the US contrasted against the performance of a matched cohort of non-incubated firms. The analysis uses an enhanced dataset that tracks the number of employees, sales, and the entry and graduation (departure) points of incubated firms from a university incubation program, so as to delineate the scope of influence of the incubator.     

I’m From the Government and I’m Here to Help: How Can Public Health Perspectives Improve Outreach in Child Maltreatment Prevention Programs?

State and local governments are designing programs to prevent child maltreatment at an increasing rate. A relatively small portion of families offered these programs go on to engage in and complete services. Workers in a child maltreatment prevention program implemented across 21 sites in 1 state documented outreach efforts in logs maintained by program evaluators. Additionally, evaluators interviewed 23 outreach workers and supervisors who were developing and refining outreach strategies in this prevention program. Data from logs and responses to interviews speak to challenges in navigating prevention outreach with families to achieve engagement and buy-in, particularly when “cold-calling” about screened-out reports of child maltreatment. This paper presents a summary of barriers and facilitators of family engagement in outreach for prevention services, guidance from the public health literature on improving outreach strategies for at-risk populations, and suggested practice, policy, and research implications.     

A review of the historical use and criticisms of gait analysis evidence

The use of gait analysis is a well-established facet of practice for many professions and a fundamental aspect of clinical practice. In recent times, gait analysis evidence has emerged as a new area of forensic practice. As its use has continued to spread and develop, the area of work has come under close scrutiny and subsequent criticism. The purpose of this paper is to examine the historical use of gait analysis evidence and consider the criticisms of this work. Through the use of the historical records of cases within the public domain it has been determined that gait analysis as evidence was first presented in court over 175?years ago, although it has only been utilized by experts in more recent times. The quality of analysis underpinning such evidence has been variable, and has been undertaken by both non-expert and expert witnesses. The work undertaken by expert witnesses appears to have been both non-scientific and scientific in nature, though there is limited reporting of cases involving scientific approaches. Given the variation in the quality of the methodologies utilized, there is the potential for confusion within the courts, where it may be difficult for the judge or jury to determine the appropriate weight that can be attributed to the evidence. It is concluded that future publications should explore the scientific basis of forensic gait analysis to evaluate standards, reliability and validity, as well as reporting the methodologies utilized in relevant cases in the field. It is also recommended that courts consider in greater depth an expert's theoretical approach and experience prior to admitting their evidence. The publication of ‘Forensic gait analysis: a primer for courts’, although limited in some aspects of its consideration of practice, is a welcome addition to the information available for guidance.