The rise in cases of child abuse and neglect over the past two decades has overwhelmed the nation’s dependency court and child welfare agencies. While multiple factors are associated with child abuse and neglect, it is indisputable that substance abuse plays a significant role. The families that come into the dependency system with substance abuse issues are substantially more difficult and challenging to serve. Consequently, the families experience low levels of reunification and high levels of child welfare recidivism. In response to the increase in dependency cases involving substance abuse and the inability of the traditional dependency courts (TDC) to handle these cases, Family Dependency Drug Courts (FDDC) were created. The study utilized Therapeutic Jurisprudence Theory to examine differences in child welfare outcomes between substance abusing individuals served in a traditional dependency court system versus the therapeutic jurisprudence driven Family Dependency Drug Court system. Logistic regression, ANOVA and Chi-square were performed on a non-random sample derived from court systems in two Central Florida counties to examine two child welfare outcomes, specifically reunification rates and child welfare recidivism. The findings indicate that substance using participants in the FDDC have much higher rates of reunification than comparable substance using participants processed through the traditional dependency court. Also, of the individuals who attended FDDC, iv those who graduated were reunified at a significantly higher rate than those that didn’t graduate. In regards to child welfare recidivism within a one year time period, there was not a statistically significant difference when comparing the FDDC participants and the TDC participants. When comparing the FDDC participants who completed the program versus those that failed to complete the program, while the child welfare recidivism rates were not significantly different, there is some evidence that the participants that completed the FDDC program experience less child welfare recidivism than those that don’t have the full experience of therapeutic jurisprudence. This research lends some support for both the FDDC program and the explanatory power of Therapeutic Jurisprudence Theory. Theoretical and policy implications, as well as further research, are proposed and discussed

This thesis examines two issues facing Florida's young and fledgling Veteran Treatment Courts. First is whether or not a separate hybrid court of already existing mental health and drug courts is needed exclusively for veterans; and second, funding and efficiency of such courts as compared to traditional criminal institutions.

In this dissertation, I explore a quite unique legal situation, namely administrative court hearings relating to coercive interventions: the Care of Young Persons Act (LVU), Care of Abusers (Special Provisions) Act (LVM), and the Compulsory Psychiatric Care Act (LPT). There are three central participatory roles in the court hearings: The official party is the authority who files the application for coercive intervention – either a chief psychiatrist or a social welfare board (typically represented by a social worker or sometimes a lawyer assisted by a social worker), whereas the citizen party is the person about whom the application is brought. The citizen party is represented by a legal representative. The professionals represent two different logics: therapeutic and judicial. The purpose of this dissertation has been to study the tension between therapeutic and judicial logic in court hearings relating to compulsory care. With theoretical concepts from Scott (1995) and Wetherell & Potter (1998), it is possible to say that the therapeutic and judicial logics are built up by institutional elements that are communicated through interpretative repertoires. Three questions are central: 1. How do professional participators handle the different role expectations embedded in therapeutic and judicial logic? In this case, I am particularly interested in role conflicts faced by social workers and psychiatrists. 2. How do different institutional elements (regulative, normative/cognitive) play out in the court hearings? 3. To what extent can these court hearings be considered a scrutinizing order of discourse, where the arguments of official party are subjected to critical examination? In my analysis I am inspired by both critical discourse analysis and organizational theory, more precisely, new institutionalism. These two perspectives provide useful insights and make it possible to combine the micro- and macro levels in the analysis. Data for the analysis consist of 43 court hearings and 31 interviews, gathered from two different county administrative courts in Sweden. All written documents used and produced by the courts are also part of our data. The dissertation consists of five studies that indicate that the court hearings hardly can be described as a scrutinising order of discourse. In spite of this, the court constantly finds that the legal criteria for coercive intervention are satisfied. Neither the official party nor the legal representative argue according to a judicial logic. Instead, therapeutic logic dominates the order of discourse. When the arguments for compulsory care are therapeutic, they are not explicitly related to the criteria in the law. In my interpretation, the reason why the conflict between therapeutic and judicial logic is not realised can be found in the existence of a logic of normalisation. This ideological logic of normalisation can be found in most of the institutions in the Swedish society and are built on the idea of traditional welfare norms.

This mixed methods, multisite case study examined the relational ecology of two urban middle schools that had adopted school-wide restorative practices (SWRPs) and the changes that occurred as a result of the reform initiative. The study was conducted in two Title I middle schools in the Oakland Unified School District in California. A positive relational ecology existed in these two urban middle schools, and this ecology was built on the interacting and interrelated themes of relational trust, being heard, a relational-based, student-centered culture, and a commitment to the principles of social justice. The positive relational ecology created a strong foundation upon which change could occur at the organizational, individual, and pedagogical levels. Various structures within the schools, including circles, instructional leadership teams, student councils, and peer mediation, created space for teachers and students to be heard and empowered, which subsequently facilitated change and growth for many administrators, teachers, and students. High turnover, lack of initial and ongoing training, and the development of quasi- or non-restorative processes jeopardized program fidelity. Findings revealed that in these restorative schools, relational ecology and change were inseparable, and that they moved and influenced each other. A positive relational ecology created an environment that enabled leaders and staff to feel safe as they embarked upon the journey of change. Changes in the ways that members of the school communities related to each other on a daily basis provided additional motivation to continue the change effort, and these changes then strengthened the relational ecologies. Findings of this study are significant and have implications for schools and school districts, policy makers, and teacher and leader education programs. Future research should include longitudinal, mixed methods studies that assess the school culture before and after implementing SWRPs, as well as experimental or quasi-experimental designs that compare restorative and non-restorative schools. Such studies may provide more empirical evidence that links healthy relational ecologies to student achievement, less teacher turnover, decreased conflict, and healthier communities, thereby strengthening the case for rejecting punitive and discriminatory zero tolerance school discipline policies and adopting restorative justice in education instead. / Includes bibliography. / Dissertation (Ph.D.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2015. / FAU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Collection

abstract: This exploratory qualitative study is the first to examine secondary trauma experiences among capital trial defense practitioners, including attorneys, mitigation specialists, paralegals, and investigators, who work as a team in representing indigent clients facing a charge of capital murder which may result in the death penalty. Death penalty jurisprudence has been critically examined in numerous ways, and the negative psychological effects on those who are involved in the process is one of the issues that limited studies have documented. However, no systemic investigation of secondary trauma associated with capital trial defense practice for indigent clients has been conducted to date, and this dissertation aims to address this gap in knowledge. Data were collected through semi-structured individual interviews using an interview guide, which allows participants to express their experiences in their own words in depth, while the researcher can stay focused on the research questions of the study. Data were analyzed using a constructivist phenomenological approach, and thematic identifications were conducted under overarching categories that were closely related to research questions including (1) motivation to engage in capital trial defense practice for indigent clients, (2) challenges in defending clients who face the death penalty, (3) emotional reactions to clients receiving death verdicts, (4) effects of the stress on the practitioners, (5) coping strategies, and (6) support system. The findings indicate that a significant number of the participants had secondary traumatic experiences because of their engagement in capital trial defense practice for indigent clients. A death verdict for clients was perceived as a traumatic experience by the participants because of their long-term empathetic engagement with their clients and their family members as well as the dehumanization against their clients in death penalty jurisprudence. The participants often experienced stigmatization in their communities that was associated with their work, while organizational support in recognizing their emotional pain and attendance to psychological needs was unavailable. The findings of this study suggest that the human cost of the death penalty should be re-examined and organizational effects be made to address the negative psychological effects associated with capital trial defense practice for indigent clients. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Social Work 2016

This thesis is a case study from 1980 to 2012 of law reform applied to workers’ compensation in Ontario. It aims to understand the promise of law reform and its implementation from the standpoint of injured workers. The study is structured in three parts. Part One constructs an analytical framework drawing on legal theories and principles of adjudication. It provides a brief history of the Ontario Workers’ Compensation Board, its powers and adjudicative practices prior to the reforms. Part Two summarizes reform in Ontario’s workers’ compensation law from 1980 to 2012. The description is organized into five periods reflecting significant shifts in direction. It focuses on government recommendations for reform, identifies and describes key legislative changes, and explores changes to governance, appeals and adjudication. Legislation, case law, policy and practice are reviewed. Part Three reviews the evidence of the impact of the Ontario reforms on a particular group: unemployed, permanently disabled workers. While the Board refuses to track the economic status of injured workers, research suggests poverty and stigma face many. Conclusions suggest that Ontario’s workers’ compensation system was transformed from one established to address the interests of workers and employers separately to one that balances those interests and now into one that privileges the interests of employers. Workers’ interests are a cost to be reduced. The prospect of law reform as an empirically driven process to address injustice has been corrupted by a focus on correctness with fairness as an afterthought. Cette thèse étudie les réformes de la législation ontarienne en matière d'indemnisation pour les accidents du travail apportées entre 1980 et 2012. Elle vise à comprendre, du point de vue des travailleurs accidentés, les promesses des réformes et leur mise en oeuvre. L'étude est structurée en trois parties. La première partie fournit un cadre théorique ancré sur certaines théories juridiques et sur les principes régissant la prise de décision. Elle fournit une courte historique de la Commission des accidents du travail de l'Ontario, en regard de ses pouvoirs et pratiques décisionnelles avant les réformes. La deuxième partie fait la synthèse de la réforme de la législation ontarienne en matière d'accidents du travail de 1980 à 2012. Elle se divise en cinq périodes reflétant les réorientations importantes. Elle aborde les recommandations gouvernementales, décrit les modifications législatives et explore les changements apportés au niveau de la gouvernance, des appels et des modalités de prise de décision. La législation, la jurisprudence, les directives et les pratiques sont étudiées. La troisième partie analyse, à la lumière des statistiques et les recherches scientifiques sur le sujet, l'impact des réformes ontariennes sur un groupe particulier: les travailleurs porteurs d'atteintes permanentes et qui sont sans emploi. Alors que la Commission refuse de documenter le statut économique des travailleurs accidentés, la recherche suggère que plusieurs font face à la pauvreté et la stigmatisation. Les conclusions de la thèse suggèrent que le système d'indemnisation des accidentés du travail de l'Ontario est passé d'un système conçu pour répondre aux intérêts des travailleurs et des employeurs de manière séparée à un système qui a cherché l'équilibre entre ces intérêts, pour, maintenant, privilégier les intérêts des employeurs. Les intérêts des travailleurs sont des coûts à être réduits. La perspective de la réforme du droit en tant que processus fondé sur les données scientifiques pour répondre à l'injustice a été corrompue par un focus sur le caractère correct des décisions, et l'équité est devenue une considération qui vient en dernier lieu.

Currently, the drug court treatment outcome literature provides little guidance about examining clients that fail to complete drug court. Typically, only successful clients are tracked and measured for outcome success characteristics and not much is known about unsuccessful client outcomes. A large portion of individuals who begin drug court do not complete the program. With unsuccessful rates ranging from 34 to 73%, it seems reasonable to examine the outcome of these cases. Ignoring this phenomenon is problematic because various stakeholders remain uninformed about the drug court model’s full effectiveness. The focus on successful clients may fail to fully capture and understand positive residual effects of the drug court program. Questions in this research include: Do unsuccessful drug court clients experience positive program results? Has self-awareness increased about the extent of their substance abuse problem? Are unsuccessful clients more confident in their ability to effect positive change? Is there an increased motivation to change? If non-completers are more aware of the potential for harm, are there reductions in risky behaviors? This study is a qualitative investigation using a phenomenological design. The data source is a convenience sample of unsuccessful drug court clients that participated in a pre-trial intervention or postplea adult drug court program in East Central, Florida. The unit of analysis is the individual, and the total number of participants interviewed is N=30. A grounded theory approach, a harm reduction paradigm from the psychotherapy arena, and a variation of an Intention-to-Treat design from the medical field were used to frame the research. This study found some reductions in both criminality and substance use. Several participants also reported improved familial relations and continued connections to the recovery community. Many participants demonstrated an increased self-awareness of a destructive lifestyle, an increased motivation to change destructive behaviors, and an increased self-efficacy in their ability to make substantive life changes. Incarceration was also found to be a motivator for positive change. Therefore, the inclusion of unsuccessful client outcomes was found to be critical to fully understanding the impact of the therapeutic jurisprudence model. iv I wish to dedicate this dissertation to my family. In memory of my Great Aunt Pat and Uncle Charlie. To my mother, Lou Ray, who considered me her hero for which I never deserved. And to my sister, Toni, whom I truly love. I appreciate their understanding as I embarked on this sometimes onerous endeavor. To a few of my closest friends who were my champions throughout this process. To my dearest friend, Bill Van Poyck, for his continuous support and encouragement. Bill has helped me more than he will ever know. Thank you for acknowledging and understanding this difficult undertaking, and for always believing in me. To my dear friend, Kay McKee, who continually checked on me to make sure I was doing okay. Irrespective of her own life challenges, she put my struggles before her own. Kay has been such a wonderful friend and great supporter over the years. To my long-time, committed friend, JuJu, who shared one of my most stressful weekends working on this project. JuJu puts up with me when few people will. Most of all to my wonderful husband, Nick. He has been by my side through much angst and trepidation. He has helped me greatly with determining the best approach to take in several instances during this arduous endeavor. His unflagging patience, encouragement, and love I can never repay. Throughout my entire academic career, even though much time was taken away from him, he never once complained. He is the person I can always count on, and he often places my welfare ahead of his own. Finally, in memory of our boy, Willie McCool Francis. He brought so much joy into our lives. We know he can never be replaced. My dear friend told me, "we loved him and he loved us and that is a beautiful thing." We will never forget his unconditional and unwavering love for us. v AC

No description available.

<p>In this dissertation, I explore a quite unique legal situation, namely administrative court hearings relating to coercive interventions: the Care of Young Persons Act (LVU), Care of Abusers (Special Provisions) Act (LVM), and the Compulsory Psychiatric Care Act (LPT). There are three central participatory roles in the court hearings: The official party is the authority who files the application for coercive intervention – either a chief psychiatrist or a social welfare board (typically represented by a social worker or sometimes a lawyer assisted by a social worker), whereas the citizen party is the person about whom the application is brought. The citizen party is represented by a legal representative. The professionals represent two different logics: therapeutic and judicial.</p><p>The purpose of this dissertation has been to study the tension between therapeutic and judicial logic in court hearings relating to compulsory care. With theoretical concepts from Scott (1995) and Wetherell & Potter (1998), it is possible to say that the therapeutic and judicial logics are built up by institutional elements that are communicated through interpretative repertoires. Three questions are central:</p><p>1. How do professional participators handle the different role expectations embedded in therapeutic and judicial logic? In this case, I am particularly interested in role conflicts faced by social workers and psychiatrists.</p><p>2. How do different institutional elements (regulative, normative/cognitive) play out in the court hearings?</p><p>3. To what extent can these court hearings be considered a scrutinizing order of discourse, where the arguments of official party are subjected to critical examination?</p><p>In my analysis I am inspired by both critical discourse analysis and organizational theory, more precisely, new institutionalism. These two perspectives provide useful insights and make it possible to combine the micro- and macro levels in the analysis. Data for the analysis consist of 43 court hearings and 31 interviews, gathered from two different county administrative courts in Sweden. All written documents used and produced by the courts are also part of our data.</p><p>The dissertation consists of five studies that indicate that the court hearings hardly can be described as a scrutinising order of discourse. In spite of this, the court constantly finds that the legal criteria for coercive intervention are satisfied. Neither the official party nor the legal representative argue according to a judicial logic. Instead, therapeutic logic dominates the order of discourse. When the arguments for compulsory care are therapeutic, they are not explicitly related to the criteria in the law. In my interpretation, the reason why the conflict between therapeutic and judicial logic is not realised can be found in the existence of a logic of normalisation. This ideological logic of normalisation can be found in most of the institutions in the Swedish society and are built on the idea of traditional welfare norms.</p>

No description available.