Providing Interdisciplinary Services to At‐Risk Families to Prevent the Placement of Children In Foster Care

Grandparents need support to take on the responsibility of children whose parents cannot care for them due to drug addiction, mental health issues, HIV illness, or other health problems. Without support and assistance, these families and children are likely to end up enmeshed in the already overburdened child abuse and neglect system. The University of Maryland has created a model program providing social work and legal services to at‐risk grandparent families to help avoid the unnecessary placement of these children in foster care. In this new program, student attorneys and student social workers worked with the grandparent client to help stabilize the family, providing representation or advice on housing, public benefits, custody, and school‐related issues. Joint education of student attorneys and student social workers in a clinical experience enhances their understanding of their roles and those of the other profession and prepares them for a more thoughtful and informed approach to family law, child welfare cases, and at‐risk children.     

A NOTE ON AMERICA'S "CLOACAL" JAILS

A large literature points to the abominable condition of American jails. Comparison of national surveys of jail conditions conducted in 1972 and 1978 indicates that what little improvement has occurred is minimal compared to remaining problems. A number of factors have prevented state-set standards from achieving widespread improvement in local jail conditions: high costs, local autonomy and lack of credible threats for forcing compliance. The failure of New York State to implement adequate health standards illustrates the limitations of the standards approach. Other approaches, such as strategies for replacing local jails with regional facilities, deserve the attention of policy researchers.     

Risk Regulation and Deliberation in EU Administrative Governance—GMO Regulation and Its Reform

The article analyses the problems of EU risk regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) through the lens of deliberative theories of EU law and governance, such as deliberative supranationalism and experimentalist governance. Previous research had suggested that the GMO issue is not conductive to deliberation within EU institutions because of its high politicisation. This article argues that another equally salient factor is the scientification of the GMO authorisation process. Scientification stands for the Commission's overreliance on epistemic legitimacy as the basis for risk management. Given the deadlock of comitology in this field, scientification is exacerbated by a reversion to top‐down regulation by the Commission. As a result, political responsibility for GMO authorisations gets lost. This article argues that both scientification and politicisation are mutually accelerative processes ultimately leading to a break down of dialogue at the EU level. This contradicts the assumption that deliberation is fostered by technocratic ‘behind closed door’ decision‐making. In the GMO case, the top‐down imposition of epistemic authority has only increased politicisation contributing to the de‐legitimation of all EU institutions involved in GMO regulation. The recent EU reform on national opt‐outs is not sufficient to address this problem. A successful reform should mitigate the negative effects of both politicisation and scientification.