Predicting troublemaking offenders: A discriminant analysis

Violence, attempted escapes, thefts, persistent rule violations, and other extreme forms of maladaptive prison behavior have created problems for correctional authorities since congregate confinement became the watchword in American corrections. The evolution of prisoner classification programs has aided prison administrators in their attempts to recognize potential behavioral problems but the subjective nature of a number of state classification models has resulted in a continuous wave of litigation and fiscal constraints. The objective of this paper is to provide a prediction model to assist in the classification of adult prisoners. Data on all members of the Georgia adult, male prison population from 1971 to 1978 were used as a baseline. A sample was chosen from inmates in long-term disciplinary segregation whose files contained all necessary demographic, psychometric and judicial variables. A discriminant analysis of these two groups identified 14 variables which correctly assigned inmates in 85% of the cases. The predictive variables include both demographic and personality characteristics.     

Citizen response to regional integration in the Americas: The cases of Costa Rica and El Salvador

This study examines public opinion in Costa Rica and El Salvador regarding regional integration in Central America. Recent efforts at regional integration as well as the response of the governments of the above countries to those efforts are reviewed. Public opinion toward regional integration is significantly more positive but less structured in El Salvador than in Costa Rica. Differences in the international and domestic contexts help to explain the differential responses in these two countries. Likewise, contextual factors help to account for differences between Central American and European publics in attitudes toward regional integration. Charles L. Davis is associate professor of political science at the University of Kentucky. His interests are Latin American politics and comparative political behavior. Matthew J. Gabel is assistant professor of political science at the University of Kentucky. His interests are European politics and the politics of regional integration. Kenneth M. Coleman is a former professor at the University of Kentucky, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, and the University of New Mexico. His interests are Latin American politics and public opinion.     

Reaching for the Philosopher's Stone: Contingent Coordination and the Military's Response to Hurricane Katrina

When Hurricane Katrina made landfall on the Mississippi Gulf Coast in August 2005, it immediately overwhelmed the abilities of local and state emergency management officials to respond to the ensuing disaster. Although the U.S. Coast Guard and some military units were on scene shortly after the passage of the storm, there seemed to be interminable delays before the military forces began to arrive in numbers to both provide humanitarian relief and secure the affected areas. This article analyzes the response of the National Guard, active-duty military, and Coast Guard forces through the lens of coordination. We find evidence of the successful use of both traditional hierarchical and network-based coordination; we also find support for Donald Kettl's idea of "contingent coordination."     

Visions of (In)Security and American Strategic Style

This essay was stimulated (provoked) by discussions in three separate venues: (1) a U.S. Naval War College conference on "Alternative Futures in War and Conflict: Implications for U.S. National Security," held in late 1999; (2) several recent widely circulated "blue-ribbon" reports on the subject; and (3) recent papers emerging from the U.S. defense bureaucracy speculating on strategic visions of the next ten to twenty years. My contention is that the prevailing official and quasi-official debate exhibits excessive and overly definitive emphases on: (1) particular facets of insecurity; (2) attributions to the U.S. of benign intent and capacity; and (3) assumptions that most others share that interpretation of our words and deeds. There also tends to be unwarranted neglect of representation and standing issues which discriminate for and against different policy perspectives and forms of program expertise. A plea is offered for an alternative approach based on what we know about how persons, organizations, and communities can best position themselves for (in)security futures.