Child Care Subsidies and Employment Behavior Among Very‐Low‐Income Populations in Three States

Using merged administrative data from welfare reform evaluations in three states, we estimate the effects of child care subsidy use on the length of time it takes for a welfare applicant to move into substantial employment. Findings show that the use of a child care subsidy during an unemployed or marginally employed spell of welfare receipt is associated with between a 0.6 and 1.7 quarter (or 11% to 34%) reduction in the time to substantial employment in two of the three state samples. The positive influence of subsidy use on transitions to substantial employment is strongest for those welfare applicants with the lowest earnings who are mixing welfare and work prior to subsidy receipt.     

Reentry and Removal: Implications for Juvenile Confinement Facilities

An important national initiative in juvenile justice is Juvenile Offender Reentry (JOR). The renewed emphasis on offender reintegration has generated significant attention to juvenile justice practices, with the notable exception of juvenile confinement facilities. Juvenile detention and, to a lesser degree, juvenile corrections practitioners are involved but not invested in reentry, having made very few programmatic changes to accommodate JOR initiatives largely because these initiatives have been external to the institution and its staff. Yet, reentry is a powerful concept for juvenile facility practitioners, and the application of reentry principles could have a profound impact on daily operations. This article addresses a range of issues about investing juvenile institutions in reentry practices. Several reentry models are discussed along with their implications for daily operations and programs.     

Assessment of competency for execution? A guide for mental health professionals

Assessment of competency for execution presents two compelling ethical questions for mental health professionals: whether clinicians can ethically provide such assessment, and if so, how it should be done in order to maximize quality and minimize ethical conflict. In this article we address the issue of whether to participate and, if so, how. The question of whether to participate is discussed by summarizing the arguments for and against participation and offering guidelines for making a decision. The question of how to proceed is discussed in two contexts: preadjudication (before a formal decision about competency) and postadjudication (following a determination of "incompetent" and transfer of the offender to another facility for treatment and further assessment). Finally, recommendations are made regarding research that would improve the quality of execution competency assessments.     

The Medicare secondary payor provisions: possible rewards and pitfalls

A 1990 report prepared by the Office of Inspector General estimated that as much as $1 billion is lost to the Medicare program annually because (i) secondary payor situations are not detected and (ii) insurance companies often do not pay when they are required to be the primary payors. Office of Inspector General, No. A-09-98-00151, April 1990, Medicare and Medicaid Guide (CCH) [symbol: see text] 39,112, at 25,649. In order to better enforce the MSP provisions, suggestions have been made at the Congressional level to impose sanctions against providers who demonstrate a pattern of inappropriate billing practices such as double billing, repeated failures to screen beneficiaries for other insurance coverage, and the repeated submission to Medicare of bills that should be submitted to another payor. (See the Subcommittee Report on erroneous payments under the MSP program, supra.) Although authority for such sanctions has yet to be adopted, given the fiscal problems currently plaguing the federal government, providers can expect increased enforcement of the MSP provisions as a means of reducing Medicare costs, and should review their screening and billing practices accordingly.