The Effects of Participating in Book Clubs for People with Intellectual Disabilities

The Next Chapter Book Club (NCBC) is an innovative program that allows individuals with intellectual disabilities to meet at book stores, libraries and read a book of the groups’ choice. The study of NCBC looked at five measures including language skill, motivation, behavioral problems, quality-of-life and overall satisfaction with the book club. The study was conducted at the Ohio State Nisonger Center. The participants were individuals who were either currently active in the book club and those who were no longer active in the book club. The participants were provided by the Columbus Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (FCBMR/DD) and various programs at the Nisonger Center. Ten participants who were still active in the club were matched based on age, gender, IQ and living environment with eight participants who were no longer active in the club. The expected results included improved language skills, increased motivation to read, learn and interact socially, a decrease in social behavioral problems and an overall higher quality-of-life. The actual results suggest that the need for social contact and community connectedness was evident in both members and non-members. There were fewer behavioral problems in active members, an increase in curiosity and motivation and an overall satisfaction with their experience in the book club. The theoretical implications suggest that individuals with intellectual disabilities who are exposed to reading and social environments will want to read and interact with other individuals in a social setting as well as read better and feel better about themselves in comparison to those individuals that are not exposed to reading in social settings. The practical implications suggest that the lives of people with mental retardation will live happier, more fulfilling lives when they have a feeling of social connectedness and encounter a stimulating environment

To What Extent Does Clinical Supervision And Experience Relate To The Self-Efficacy Of Counselors-In-Training

TO WHAT EXTENT DOES CLINICAL SUPERVISION AND EXPERIENCE RELATE TO THE SELF-EFFICACY OF COUNSELORS-IN-TRAINING by THOMAS MICHALOS December 2018 Advisor: Dr. John Pietrofesa Major: Counselor Education Degree: Doctor of Philosophy Clinical supervision is an integral part of the education and formation of a counselor. The following study focuses on measuring to what degree clinical supervision and experiences relates to the self-efficacy of counselors-in-training. A sample of 106 graduate level counselor education students were surveyed. Those students who have received clinical supervision had significantly higher levels of self-efficacy than who have never experienced clinical supervision. Additionally for those students in the clinical portion of the program it was found that the timing of clinical supervision relates to the counselors-in-training level of self-efficacy. What was found to be ineffective was raising the level of awareness of clinical supervision through the use of a video source and its relation to the level of self-efficacy

Time Over Matter: Measuring the Reasonableness of Officer Conduct in § 1983 Claims

In the United States, far more police encounters result in civilian and officer deaths than in other democratic countries. When a government actor uses excessive force against an individual during an arrest or investigatory stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a federal civil remedy for that individual. In Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner, the U.S. Supreme Court held that courts should assess the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force to seize an individual in light of the “totality of the circumstances,” which includes the severity of the crime, whether the suspect actively resisted arrest, and whether the suspect posed a threat to the officers and bystanders. However, the Court has never delineated how lower courts should assess the totality of the circumstances in excessive force claims under § 1983. Thus, circuit courts have applied varying methods to analyze law enforcement’s use of force. This Note examines whether the Second Circuit’s narrow approach, the Third Circuit’s broad approach, or the Seventh Circuit’s segmented approach properly identifies the circumstances to consider when measuring the reasonableness of officers’ uses of force during a seizure in § 1983 claims. This Note compares the three circuit court approaches to how Canadian courts evaluate the reasonableness of police conduct in excessive force claims. Ultimately, this Note concludes that the Third Circuit’s approach, which considers causally relevant conduct, such as preseizure conduct, is truest to the notion of “totality” and should be the uniform method. As illustrated by Canadian courts, this Note argues that the Third Circuit standard incorporates de-escalation training as a factor in the reasonableness analysis

Did the Consolidated Appropriations Act Make Bankruptcy Debtors Eligible for PPP Loans?

(Excerpt) In response to the economic fallout of the global COVID-19 pandemic, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”), which makes government-guaranteed loans available to qualified small businesses through the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). The PPP was not created as a standalone program but was added to the existing section 7(a) program, which subjects the PPP to existing conditions and regulations, as well as existing Small Business Administration (the “SBA”) authority. The CARES Act expressly gives the SBA “[e]mergency rulemaking authority” to “issue regulations” carrying out the PPP. And it provides that the SBA “may guarantee covered loans under the same terms, conditions, and processes” as section 7(a). The use of the permissive word “may” vests the SBA with discretionary authority. Subsequently, the SBA decided, when implementing the PPP, that bankruptcy debtors would be explicitly ineligible for the PPP loans resulting in a swarm of litigation as to whether the SBA exceeded its statutory authority. This has led to conflicting decisions around the country. On December 27, 2020, President Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (the “CAA”), which contains provisions that provide some debtors with access to the program on the condition that the SBA provide its written consent. This recent legislation seems to have cleared up the confusion regarding a bankruptcy debtor’s ability to receive PPP loans, at least to courts that appear to agree that Congress intended to bestow authority on the SBA regarding the regulation of the PPP. Yet, this issue has continued to be a source of frustration for bankruptcy debtors. This memorandum discusses the establishment of the PPP in the CARES Act, the amendments to the PPP through the passing of the CAA, and how courts have addressed the issue of the SBA’s authority under these new amendments implemented by the CAA. Part I of this memorandum examines the CARES Act, Part II analyzes the amendments to the PPP and its accessibility to bankruptcy debtors under the CAA, and Part III reviews how some courts have applied the CAA to chapter 11 bankruptcy debtors seeking relief