Output-based Aid for Sustainable Sanitation

A review of the experience to date in applying output-based and other results-oriented financing aid formats to the delivery of sanitation services and goods in developing countries. The paper looks at the theoretical underpinnings which justify output-based subsidies in sanitation, reviews a selection of output-based aid projects and then proposes some new approaches which could help to make financing in sanitation more effective and accountable

Roundabouts: A Study in Green

The purpose of this project was to provide insight on the subject of the implementation of roundabouts as an alternative to traditional intersections. Specifically, this project focuses primarily on intersection improvement projects performed by the City of Green, a municipality local to Akron, Ohio. The report discusses many of the considerations that contributed to roundabout conversion being established as the preferred improvement for the State Route 619-Pickle Rd and State Route 619-Myersville Rd intersections located within the City of Green, along with additional details pertaining to these two public projects (completed in 2018 and 2019 respectively). The intent of this research is that it be an instructive resource for developing a more comprehensive understanding of the thought processes associated with intersection improvement via roundabout conversion

Telehealth Standardized Patient Simulations and Nurse Practitioner Students’ Self-Confidence and Satisfaction Levels

Background: Telehealth accounts for 22.9% of primary care visits, increasing healthcare accessibility and affordability. Nurse practitioners (NPs) have noted technological and patient interaction-based differences between telehealth and in-person patient encounters. Healthcare organizations expect newly graduated NPs to use telehealth upon graduation. Problem: Integration of formalized, telehealth-focused education in NP programs is lacking, decreasing telehealth preparation and use among new graduate NPs. Methods: A quality improvement project was conducted. Participants were a convenience sample of Doctor of Nursing Practice/Family Nurse Practitioner students enrolled in an advanced NP pediatrics course at a private, liberal arts university in central Pennsylvania. The National League for Nursing Student Satisfaction and Self-Confidence in Learning © (NLN SCLS) instrument was used to collect data. Intervention: Two telehealth standardized patient (SP) simulations were integrated into the 6th and 12th weeks of a 16-week advanced NP pediatrics course. Results: Project limitations prevented analysis of statistical and clinical significance. However, findings were consistent with current literature. Participants’ NLN SCLS © instrument scores demonstrated high levels of confidence and satisfaction after each simulation. Following the second simulation, participants reported an increased likelihood to use telehealth after graduation. Conclusion: The telehealth SP simulations were positive learning experiences for participants. Thus, the project site intends to continue use of the intervention, providing the framework for longitudinal data collection measuring site-specific effects of telehealth SP simulation integration

User Privacy and Information Disclosure: The Need for Clarity in Opt-in Questions for Consent to Share Personal Information

Many company Web sites obtain permission to disclose their users’ private information to third parties through the use of “opt-in” mechanisms, which require consumers to affirmatively grant consent to collect data from the user. These opt-in questions often ask general questions, such as whether the user would like to receive further information about the company or a product. Many companies construe an affirmative answer as consent to disclose personal information in accordance with its privacy policy. Although companies with this practice have generally avoided liability in the past, a recent case raises significant skepticism regarding the practice. In CollegeNET, Inc. v. XAP Corp., a U.S. district court held that answering “yes” to an opt-in question may not qualify as express consent to disclose a user’s private information. This Article addresses the potential causes of action, and likelihood of their success, against companies with these types of business practices. This Article also suggests that it is a good business practice to provide unambiguous opt-in questions to obtain informed consent from users before disclosing their personal information

Special Education in Tunisia: A Case Study in Social Entrepreneurship

Despite a series of modernist reforms and national programs, Tunisian early education is not yet suited to fully integrate children with special needs. The public education sector lacks the trained professionals and multidisciplinary coordination needed to meet the needs of handicapped students. This paper will analyze impact of a private therapeutic preschool to determine the feasibility of social entrepreneurship in fulfilling unmet special education needs in Tunisia. A presentation of the limitations facing entrepreneurs in this sector is included, and special attention is given to financial and social restraints preventing the scholastic integration of these children

The Executive’s Privilege

Both the executive branch and Congress claim the final word in oversight disputes. Congress asserts its subpoenas are legally binding. The executive branch claims the final authority to assert executive privilege and, accordingly, to refuse to comply with a subpoena without consequence. These divergent views stem in large part from the relative absence of any judicial precedent, including not a single Supreme Court decision on the privilege in the context of congressional oversight. In that vacuum—unconstrained by precedent—the executive branch has developed a comprehensive theory of executive privilege to support and implement prophylactic doctrines that render Congress largely powerless in oversight disputes. For the first time, this Article sets out the full extent of the executive branch’s doctrine, the various pieces of which have been expressed in OLC opinions, letters to Congress, and court filings. Existing scholarship largely ignores this doctrine and addresses executive privilege on the basis of two unexamined premises: first, that the privilege is an affirmative constitutional authority belonging to the president, and, second, that the privilege is akin to an evidentiary privilege that protects specified categories of information. Moreover, existing scholarship rarely distinguishes between executive privilege in the context of judicial proceedings and congressional oversight. Rejecting those premises, this Article proposes an understanding of executive privilege specific to congressional oversight that better reflects history and first principles of constitutional interpretation. Executive privilege in the context of congressional oversight is not an affirmative constitutional authority based on specific types of information but a limited presidential immunity from compelled congressional process—the Executive’s privilege. Both Congress’s oversight authority and executive privilege are recognized as implied constitutional authorities. But rather than infer two competing affirmative authorities, this Article proposes to infer a limit—presidential immunity—on the first. Doing so is more consonant with first principles of constitutional interpretation, more consistent with history, and more conducive to the proper balance of power between the branches. The Executive’s privilege, as set out in this Article, is an immunity contingent upon a president’s finding that concrete, identifiable harm would result from the disclosure of specific information to Congress. Understanding executive privilege as a limited immunity—and severing the privilege from the undifferentiated confidentiality interests and broad categories of information with which the executive branch has conflated it—eliminates the prophylactic doctrines on which the executive branch relies to thwart legitimate congressional oversight. Further, this understanding of the privilege provides a theoretical foundation to explain why it does not apply in impeachment, a position consistent with the historical understanding of Congress’s broad powers of inquiry during impeachments and subsequent trials

The Executive\u27s Privilege

Both the executive branch and Congress claim the final word in oversight disputes. Congress asserts its subpoenas are legal binding. The executive branch claims the final authority to assert executive privilege and, accordingly, to refuse to comply with a subpoena without consequence. These divergent views stem in large part from the relative absence of any judicial precedent, including not a single Supreme Court decision on the privilege in context of congressional oversight. In that vacuum - unconstrained by precedent - the executive branch has developed a comprehensive theory of executive privilege to support and implement prophylactic doctrines that render Congress largely powerless in oversight disputes