Norfolk Island as Region: A Pacific Puzzle

Commonwealth‐enforced changes to the constitutional status of Norfolk Island through 2014–2016 have removed the island's autonomous identity as a self‐governing Australian territory. Its conversion to what is effectively a part of New South Wales, with the main instrument of governance titled ‘regional council’, is said to be based on a NSW local government model. However, it is difficult to view Norfolk Island as a region, and difficult also to trace the thinking that bestowed the form of the regional council on its governance. This article briefly summarizes the Norfolk changes. It then considers how the concept of the regional council has been used in NSW, and moves on to Queensland where the concept is better defined. It notes particularly how it has been applied in the case of the Torres Strait Islands, and asks whether that application might have relevance for Norfolk. It concludes with speculation about what might be a better approach in designing a system of governance suitable for Norfolk conditions.     

Intergovernmental councils in the United States

ABSTRACT

This article focuses on intergovernmental councils (IGCs) in the United States in which prominent state-level executive politicians, that is, governors, play a leadership role. In the US case, these IGCs developed out of a desire to facilitate interstate information exchanges and a need for state governments to join forces to protect their autonomy vis-à-vis the federal government. In this latter role, the councils function as lobbyists for state government interests. The research question driving the analysis has to do with impact: what difference do executive-led IGCs make, either vertically or horizontally, in the US federal system? The question of impact is particularly relevant because growing partisan polarization in contemporary federal and state political institutions complicates collective action by states.     

The purpose of intergovernmental councils: A framework for analysis and comparison

ABSTRACT

Intergovernmental councils (IGCs) are specific, institutionalized forums of intergovernmental relations. They provide essential horizontal and/or vertical executive channels for preparing, deciding, and implementing multilevel policies. We assume there to be variation, both across federal systems and policy domains, in the purpose they serve – from mutual influence and protection of autonomy through joint decision-making to mere exchange of information – the use that central or sub-state actors make of IGCs, as well as their effectivity. In order to map and explain such variation, this introductory article provides a framework for analysis that includes both conceptual building blocks and conjectural relationships, laying the comparative groundwork for the case studies included in this Special Issue. Findings from the case studies indicate that it is primarily the institutional architecture, but also the structure of the multilevel party system, that account for variation in the purpose and effectiveness of IGCs.     

Vertical influence or horizontal coordination? The purpose of intergovernmental councils in Switzerland

ABSTRACT

In 1993, the Swiss cantons established the conference of cantonal governments (KdK). While the literature on Swiss federalism generally acknowledges the important role of the KdK, little is known about its specific purpose, in particular compared to other, older intergovernmental councils operating in Switzerland. We therefore investigate the purpose of the KdK and contrast it with two other intercantonal conferences with nationwide scope, namely those on education and finance. To do so, we trace two of the most important federal reform processes of the last decade: the latest renewal of fiscal equalization and educational harmonization. We find a division of labour between the KdK and policy-specific councils. While the former aims at vertical political influence, the latter primarily engage in genuine horizontal policy coordination. This flexible and smooth interplay of the two types of councils has contributed to further strengthening the political role of the cantons in the Swiss federation.     

A Roadmap for CANS Validation

In nearly every jurisdiction, juvenile or family courts will be using the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) tool to assess whether children can safely be treated in family-like settings to meet federal Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA) requirements. Yet, a number of peer-reviewed publications have raised serious concerns regarding the lack of CANS validation research. Rather than reject CANS, this article provides a roadmap for validating the tool with data that jurisdictions have already collected. Courts should require these three simple analyses before relying on the assessment.     

Privadentiality: Developing a Coherent Framework for Establishing Communication Protections in Family and Child Protection Dispute Resolution Methods

The emergence of innovative family and child protection dispute resolution (DR) methods has resulted in a varying array of communication protections. Review of these communication protections in the United States reveals a lack of consistency and clarity within each form of DR, and no clear policy to guide the development of the different communication protections across the spectrum of DR methods. This article proposes a new term, privadentiality, to describe communication protections which may be provided for a wide range of DR methods and a framework for categorizing DR methods in order to develop more consistent and appropriate communication protections across the spectrum of DR. This article concludes with recommendations to improve party and professional understanding of DR communication protections; protect families from escalating conflict; promote the integrity of DR methods; and enable courts to appropriately review and, where appropriate, approve DR outcomes.     

Legal Recognition of Plural Unions: Is A Nonmarital Relationship Status the Answer to the Dilemma?

Intimate relationships involving three or more adults are increasingly visible in American society. Multiparty relationships, which are also known as plural unions, mainly take two different forms: systemic polygyny and polyamory. Family law currently denies recognition to all plural unions. Granting legal recognition to multiparty relationships would advance the goal of family pluralism and expand access to valuable legal protections. However, the possibility of granting official recognition to plural unions must be approached with caution, because systemic polygyny poses a serious risk of harm to women and children arising from the imposition of oppressive gender roles. A possible solution to this dilemma lies in offering a formal nonmarital status (such as civil union, domestic partnership, reciprocal beneficiary, or designated beneficiary) to participants in plural unions. As a result of their differing attitudes toward marriage, polyamorists would be likely to embrace a nonmarital relationship status, while participants in systemic polygyny would most likely reject it. Thus, providing a nonmarital status for plural unions could allow polyamorists to obtain the benefits of relationship recognition, without placing the government's seal of approval on the oppressive aspects of systemic polygyny.     

Continuity and Change from Adolescence to Emerging Adulthood: Adolescence-limited vs. Life-course-persistent Profound Ego Development Arrests

Participants (n = 36) with consistent Pre-conformist ego development levels during multiple adolescent assessments were studied to determine whether and how their ego levels had changed at age 25. Those (n = 12) whose ego levels remained at the Pre-conformist level were assigned to a life-course-persistent profound ego development arrest trajectory group; those (n = 24) whose ego levels reached the Conformist or Post-conformist level at age 25 were assigned to an adolescence-limited profound ego development arrest trajectory group. Analysis of predictors and age 25 correlates of group membership revealed that selected age 14 family interaction behaviors differentiated the two groups. At age 25, members of the adolescence-limited group showed superior performance on several measures of interpersonal and intrapersonal functioning.

Familial Correlates of Overt and Relational Aggression between Young Adolescent Siblings

Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis and multi-group structural equation modeling were used to test correlates of overt and relational aggression between young adolescent siblings across four groups (i.e., male/male, male/female, female/male, and female/female sibling pairs), using 433 predominately European American families. Similar patterns of associations were found across groups when distinguished by gender composition. Family environment emerged as an important factor in explaining internalizing problems as well as overt/relational aggression for both younger and older siblings. While perceived maternal psychological control was significantly positively related to overt/relational aggression and internalizing problems for younger siblings, it was significantly positively associated with only relational aggression for older siblings. Findings also provided partial support for the positive linkages between young adolescents’ aggression and their own and siblings’ internalizing problems above and beyond the aforementioned family and maternal variables. Results of the current study extend the understanding of adolescent aggression to a new relational context, or among siblings, and highlight the role of family factors in promoting or buffering the impact of aggression on internalizing behaviors.

The Impact of Gender and Family Processes on Mental Health and Substance Use Issues in a Sample of Court-Involved Female and Male Adolescents

Greater empirical attention directed toward gender-sensitive assessment strategies that concentrate on family-specific factors is thought to be both timely and necessary, especially with regard to outcome variables associated with mental health and substance abuse in at-risk adolescent populations. A sample of 2,646 court-involved adolescents was used to test two competing models regarding relationships among disruptive family processes, mental health (as both internalizing and externalizing problems), and substance abuse issues according to gender. The results of multiple group structural equation modeling procedures indicated that disrupted family processes were significantly associated with higher levels of internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and substance abuse in both male and female youth. For females, however, disrupted family processes were more related to internalizing problems and substance abuse than externalizing problems. Further, the relationship between disrupted family processes and substance abuse was not mediated by mental health issues, indicating a lack of support for the alternative model tested in this study. Together, the findings underscore the primacy of the family’s impact on issues related to adolescent development and well-being in tandem with the need for a more gender sensitive approach to the needs of court-involved males and females.