Matching Items (3)
Description
ABSTRACT Research suggests that there are benefits of early intervention and in focusing on mental health for infants and toddlers who have been maltreated. Court Teams for Infants and Toddlers is a model program designed to improve developmental outcomes using a systemic change approach. Multi-system collaboration between the courts, child welfare, health professionals, child advocates, and community partners are promoted to increase awareness and improve outcomes for infants and toddlers who have been removed from their parents. The Court Teams model in Arizona is known as Best for Babies. This study looks at implementation efforts of Best for Babies in two counties, Yavapai and Pima, and the unique perspectives of foster parents and attorneys representing the infants and toddlers while in the foster care system. It is important for purposes of effective program implementation to understand whether the Best for Babies program has impacted how these stakeholders address the unique needs of infants and toddlers. Findings reveal that most foster parents in this study were not familiar with the Best for Babies program; however, many of the comments shared are aligned with the values of the program. For example, all participants commented that collaboration among various stakeholders is necessary. Areas of opportunity were also illustrated in the findings regarding Best for Babies program implementation. For instance, the study found that even those foster parents familiar with the program could not attribute an impact on their care of infants and toddlers specifically to Best for Babies.
ContributorsWhite, Jennifer (Author) / Krysik, Judy (Thesis advisor) / Roe-Sepowitz, Dominique (Committee member) / Ayón, Cecilia (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
Immigration courts fail to live up to courtroom ideals. Around 2009, proposals were offered to address the problems of these troubled courts. My study illustrates the inevitable linkage between court reform proposals and conceptions of fairness and efficiency, and ultimately justice. I ask: (1) From the perspective of attorneys defending immigrants' rights, what are the obstacles to justice? How should they be addressed? And (2) How do proposals speak to these attorneys' concerns and proposed resolutions? The proposals reviewed generally favor restructuring the court. On the other hand, immigration (cause) lawyers remain unconvinced that current proposals to reform the courts' structure would be successful at addressing the pivotal issues of these courts: confounding laws and problematic personnel. They are particularly concerned about the legal needs and rights of immigrants and how reforms may affect their current and potential clients. With this in mind, they prefer incremental changes - such as extending pro bono programs - to the system. These findings suggest the importance of professional location in conceptualizing justice through law. They offer rich ground for theorizing about courts and politics, and justice in immigration adjudication.
ContributorsAbbott, Katherine R (Author) / Provine, Doris M. (Thesis advisor) / Cruz, Evelyn H. (Committee member) / Johnson, John M. (Committee member) / Zatz, Marjorie S. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
This paper discusses the levels of job satisfaction amongst practicing lawyers, with a distinction between government-employed lawyers (public) and those in the private sector. The purpose of this report is to provide insight into the joys and sorrows of practicing law and provide those who are curious about becoming a lawyer with the tools to be the happiest lawyer that they can be throughout their career. The paper includes analysis of a primary research survey, comparisons with existing research, and a brief overview of happiness based research. It concludes with personal applications of the knowledge gained. Findings of the project conclude that publicly employed lawyers are, on average, slightly happier than lawyers in the private sector. On a scale from 1-7 public lawyers held an average happiness rating of 6.8, while private lawyers came in at a 6.06. Both factions were found to be satisfied in their work, which can dispel the myth that lawyers in general are unhappy with their job or field. Research into happiness shows that only 40% of an individual's overall happiness can be directly affected by their mindset and actins. The other 60% is comprised of genetic and circumstantial factors. Steps and advice to increase happiness derived from a profession or life are offered. The key to finding satisfaction in the workplace lies in aligning one's strengths with one's values. This paper concludes by imploring those who seek a job in the legal field to spend time understanding what their values are, and pursuing satisfaction in the workplace instead of prestige or pay.
ContributorsGattenio, Scott Robert (Author) / Koretz, Lora (Thesis director) / Dietrich, John (Committee member) / Department of Marketing (Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-12