Jane Roitsch* and Annemarie L. Horn
Department of Communication Disorders & Special Education
Old Dominion University

*Corresponding author: Dr. Jane Roitsch, 200 Child Study Center, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA 23529-0136, [email protected]; phone: 757-683-4024

Receiving special education and/or related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (hereafter IDEA) begins with a referral, and an extensive assessment process follows to determine eligibility and placement (Yell & Drasgow, 2007).  Once found eligible, IDEA requires reevaluation to occur on an annual basis, at minimum, and a triennial reevaluation must be conducted at least every three years.  Though there is some overlap, these evaluations (i.e., annual and triennial) serve different purposes.  The annual evaluation determines individual educational needs of the student, evaluates progress, and assesses whether adjustments to special education or related services are required for the student to meet his or her annual IEP goals.  The triennial reevaluation, on the other hand, “is to determine if a student is still eligible for services under IDEA” (Yell & Drasgow, 2007, p. 200).  After reviewing student data, the parents and team may agree to waive the triennial reevaluation, if it is determined that the student continues to have the disability and his or her educational needs are being met in the current placement. 

Teresina G. Robbins
University of New Haven 

Crime analysis, a significant component of effective evidence-based policing strategies, is defined as “the qualitative and quantitative study of crime and law enforcement information in combination with socio-demographic and spatial factors to apprehend criminals, prevent crime, reduce disorder, and evaluate organizational procedures” (Boba, 2001, p. 9). In other words, crime analysts use data and context across time and geographic area to assist law enforcement agencies with problem-solving. Santos (2014) offers the anecdote that crime analysis is more of a diagnostic tool, akin to an MRI machine, rather than a direct cure for crime.

Jill T. Ruggiero
University of New Haven 

In late 2014, 18-year-old Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missouri was shot and killed by a Ferguson police officer.  The immediate response from the media, as well as former President Obama (who promptly directed then Attorney General Eric Holder to respond to Ferguson), was that the killing of Brown was unjustified and excessive because Brown was unarmed.   Whatever the factual circumstances were at the time, or were later learned to be, did not really matter.  It was the perceptions of what took place--compounded by historically poor police community and race relations--that were enough to reignite the flame.  The perceived unjustifiable killing of yet another young black male sparked national movements, intensified scrutiny on police use of force, and police-community relations, and strengthened calls for complete criminal justice system overhaul.  After Michael Brown’s death, several other high-profile officer involved shootings occurred, which served to further erode the already suffering police-community relations and trust in the system. 

Jennifer Eberhardt (2019)
New York, United States: Viking Press, 340 pages, ISBN 9780735224933

Book Review by Paul Klee, University of New Haven

Dr. Jennifer Eberhardt uses her personal experiences as an African-American woman, who grew up in the United States, and her renowned expertise on racial bias to uncover and analyze how implicit bias perpetuates racial disparity in the United States criminal justice system and throughout society at-large. It is well-known that African-American citizens are over-represented in our criminal justice system. Dr. Eberhardt explains that the overrepresentation of African-American citizens is due to the implicit biases that plague the actions of police, courts, and corrections to automatically incriminate them based on unconscious biases, rather than procedural justice guaranteed by the 14^th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Generalizations about African-Americans have been shaped from ill-informed beliefs that society has about them, such as being good athletes, not doing well in school, being poor, dancing well, living in low-income neighborhoods, and the stereotype that African-Americans should be feared. Dr. Eberhardt breaks down implicit bias and demonstrates how it works within our criminal justice system to further incriminate African-Americans. 

Kelly Orts, University of New Haven

What is a child? There is worldwide variation in how a "child" is defined differently from an "adult." The factors taken into consideration when creating this definition differ even further (Morgan, 2010). The varying cultures, societal norms, histories, economies, and political climates create challenges to establishing a globally accepted juvenile justice system. There is a societal understanding that children differ from adults and should, therefore, receive different and separate treatment (Morgan, 2010). Juvenile justice systems, child welfare systems, and other protective services for youth were created on the basis that children lack the maturity, rights, responsibility, and capacity of adults. The common goal in addressing youthful behavior is for systems to focus on rehabilitating and supporting the child and his or her family. With this in mind, the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) and the age of criminal majority (ACM) set the boundaries of entry into the juvenile justice system.

Thomas Dutcher, University of New Haven

"It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life … and those who are in the shadows of life—the sick, the needy and the handicapped" (Vice President Humphry as cited in Platt & Library of Congress, 1989). The importance of studying the criminalization of homelessness and persons experiencing homelessness,[1] particularly through coercive care tactics, is revealed through Humphry’s words. He argues from a moralistic perspective, finding it to be the duty of the state in creating its legitimacy to protect vulnerable populations, such as persons experiencing homelessness. A Marxist interpretation of the importance of this topic would argue that capitalistic societies create "those without,” establishing perennial homelessness, and its criminalization will not change this fact (Lynch & Michalowski, 2010). From a human rights perspective, we find importance in examining how persons experiencing homelessness also perceive the police to be barriers to services they may be attempting to receive (Welsh & Abdel-Samad, 2018).

Interview with Mark M. Lowis, LMSW, Evidence-Based Implementation Specialist

1. Can you please summarize the work you do, both for Joyfields Institute and the Evidence-Based Professionals Society, and in your regular work life?

As a contact-level practitioner, I am able to provide staff training and development on evidence-based practices that involve practitioner skills for guiding dialog to promote changes in behaviors necessary for recovery of critical life functions lost to disabling symptoms and conditions.  Engagement, commitment to change, follow-through, participation, etc. are all in the choice and control of an individual.  In the State of Michigan, I am responsible to ensure that practitioners are using the most effective evidence-based practices for Adult Mental Health Services provided by the public health system.  That includes providing regional, local, and state-wide training and consulting for a variety of evidence-based practices, providing evaluation of practice, and funding opportunities for improvement through Federal and State Grant funding.

2. Why and how did you first become interested in evidence-based approaches? What specific evidence-based approaches do you focus upon in your current work?

Interview with David L. Myers, PhD, University of New Haven Professor and Director of the Criminal Justice PhD Program

1. Can you please summarize the work you do, both for Joyfields Institute and the Evidence-Based Professionals Society, and in your regular work life?

I provide training, consulting, and evaluation services in the area of evidence-based organizational development. In collaborating with criminal justice and human service agencies, I assist with enhancing the use of evidence-based approaches, assessing organizational culture and climate, implementing strategic and action plans, and evaluating organizational outcomes. At the University of New Haven, I am a Professor and Director of the Criminal Justice PhD Program. I teach graduate-level courses on research methods, statistics, and criminal justice policy, planning, and evaluation. My recent research has focused on community corrections, reentry, juvenile justice/delinquency, and use of evidence-based programs and practices.

2. Why and how did you first become interested in evidence-based approaches? What specific evidence-based approaches do you focus upon in your current work?

• David L. Myers, PhD, University of New Haven
• Daniel R. Lee, PhD, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
• Dennis M. Giever, PhD, New Mexico State University

In September 2015, Somerset County, PA, received a 3-year “Smart Supervision: Reducing Prison Populations, Saving Money, and Creating Safer Communities” grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (under the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs). The goals of this funding program, now known as the “Innovations in Supervision Initiative” (ISI), are to develop and test innovative strategies and implement evidence-based probation and parole approaches. In turn, ISI seeks to improve supervision success rates and increase community safety, by effectively addressing client risk, needs, and recidivism. Receipt of grant funding in Somerset County followed previous successful efforts directed at justice system strategic planning, cross-systems mapping, and implementation of evidence-based approaches.

Dr. George Froggé, Austin Peay State University

Abstract

This study examined bullying and its correlation with school violence.  Students at a mid-sized state university, in the southeast region of the United States, were surveyed to determine the different types of bullying they might have experienced:  face-to-face at school, by phone or text, and online through social media.  Consideration was given to the frequency of bullying type(s) and retaliatory incidents occurring because of a bullying offense.  The results indicated that face-to-face bullying at school was more prevalent than phone or text and social media bullying. Sixty-nine percent of the respondents reported knowing or witnessing a retaliatory incident due to a bullying offense.

Introduction

American schools are supposed to provide a warm, friendly, nurturing environment, so our children may learn and grow up to be responsible citizens.  Instead, some of our country’s schools have become scenes of death and destruction because of shooting incidents. School violence and safety has become an important educational issue and affects everyone in our country.  Prior research has pointed to the notion of bullying as a contributing factor for school violence (Burgess et al., 2006; Harter et al., 2003; Leary et al., 2003; Sandler & Alpert, 2000).