ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT OF NON-EU NATIONALS IN IRELAND. ESRI RESEARCH SERIES NUMBER 64 JULY 2017

Illegal employment of non-EU nationals can be defined in two ways, in reference to two different typologies: those who are legally resident working outside the conditions of their residence permit and/or without an Employment Permit, and those who are irregularly resident.1 Illegal employment is defined in this study to mean ‘economic activity carried out in violation of provisions set by legislation’ (European Migration Network, 2014). Illegal employment is hidden by nature, meaning estimating the scale both in Ireland and within the EU is challenging. According to research by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2015) high risk sectors tend to be characterised by low wages, long hours and a relatively high turnover in staff. Owing to its hidden nature, illegal employment often impacts upon workers’ fundamental rights. Combatting illegal employment is therefore both a social policy and fundamental rights objective, as employees’ rights are often violated (European Migration Network, 2017). This is the first comprehensive study on illegal employment concerning both regularly and irregularly staying non-EU nationals in Ireland, which outlines in detail policy and practice with input from a variety of stakeholders. Its purpose is to provide an evidence base for national and EU policymakers, researchers, practitioners working with non-EEA nationals as well as the general public. The study focusses on policy, law and practice in relation to: prevention measures and incentives for compliance, direct policy initiatives, inspections, sanctions and outcomes for people found to be working illegally

Public opinion and policy liberalism in Louisiana: does political trust have an effect?

Representative democracy is based on the principle that government should be responsive to citizen wishes; thus government policy should reflect those wishes. Research on public opinion supports this (Erikson, Wright, and McIver 1987). While many scholars agree that public opinion affects policy outcomes, they disagree as to which aspect of public opinion policy outcomes emerge. Hetherington (2005) argues political trust explains policy liberalism. Using national-level data he demonstrates that decreased support for progressive policy results from decreased trust in government. Moreover, he finds that trust affects support for spending only when individuals are asked to sacrifice their self-interests and when the sacrifice entails a perceived risk. But does trust matter at the state level? To answer this I replicate his study using state-level data. Through OLS regression, using survey data from the 2002 Louisiana Survey, I model policy liberalism in Louisiana as a function of trust in state government, and the other political, demographic and socioeconomic variables examined in Hetherington’s study to determine if trust affects support for government spending and if its effect is conditioned by ideology, beneficiary status, and attitudes towards the perceived beneficiaries of state spending. Assuming that citizens connect taxes paid to the funding of state policy, I also consider if trust affects support for state taxation. I find political trust affects support for welfare spending; a policy, according to Hetherington, that entails sacrifice and perceived risk. Its effect is mediated by ideology and racial attitudes, but not by beneficiary status. Regarding support for taxation, I find the effect of trust is accentuated. However, it is not conditioned by ideology, beneficiary status, or racial affect. In Louisiana, trust in government does affect citizen support for progressive policy. Moreover, it affects their support for taxation; thus, it shapes their willingness to pay for certain policy. Because many liberal policies require individuals to support government spending when it does not operate in accordance with their self-interest, trust in government to deliver policies ethically, efficiently, and without waste is vital. Without it, government may be unable to implement policy to solve social ills and ensure representation of minority interests

Moving Forward : Implementing The United Nations Guidelines For The Alternative Care Of Children

The subject of constant and serious concern expressed by the Committee on the Rights of the Child over its two decades of work to monitor and promote the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This concern is not only evident from the Committee’s findings when reviewing individual States’ compliance with the treaty’s provisions, but was also manifested clearly and in global terms when it decided to devote its annual Day of General Discussion to that issue in 2005. The Committee’s preoccupations are based on a variety of factors. These include: • the large number of children coming into alternative care in many countries, too often essentially due to their family’s material poverty, the conditions under which that care is provided, and the low priority that may be afforded to responding appropriately to these children who, lacking the primary protection normally assured by parents, are particularly vulnerable. The reasons for which children find themselves in alternative care are wide-ranging, and addressing these diverse situations – preventively or reactively – similarly requires a panoply of measures to be in place. While the Convention sets out basic State obligations in that regard, it does not provide significant guidance on meeting them. This is why, from the very outset of the initiative in 2004, the Committee gave whole-hearted support to the idea of developing the Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children that would gain the approval of the international community at the highest level. The acceptance of the Guidelines by the UN General Assembly in 2009 signalled all governments’ general agreement that the ‘orientations for policy and practice’ they set out are both well-founded and desirable. Since that time, the Committee has been making full use of the principles and objectives established in the Guidelines when examining the reports of States Parties to the Convention and in formulating its observations and recommendations to them. As with all internationally agreed standards and principles, however, the real test lies in determining how they can be made a reality throughout the world for those that they target – in this case, children who are without, or are at risk of losing, parental care. Identifying those measures means, first of all, understanding the implications of the ‘policy orientations’ proposed in the Guidelines, and then devising the most effective and ‘do-able’ ways of meeting their requirements. Importantly, moreover, the Guidelines are by no means addressed to States alone: they are to be taken into account by everyone, at every level, who is involved in some manner with issues and programmes concerning alternative care provision for children. This is where the Moving Forward handbook steps in. As its title suggests, it seeks precisely to assist all concerned to advance along the road to implementation, by explaining the key thrusts of the Guidelines, outlining the kind of policy responses required, and describing ‘promising’ examples of efforts already made to apply them in diverse communities, countries, regions and cultures. I congratulate all the organisations and individuals that have contributed to bringing the Moving Forward project to fruition. This handbook is clearly an important tool for informing and inspiring practitioners, organisations and governments across the globe who are seeking to provide the best possible rights-based solutions and care for their children

WEB 2.0 made easy : self-directed online learning for Library staff at NUI Maynooth

Web 2 made easy for library staf

Developing the Physician Executive: From the Surgical Suite to the Executive Suite

The perspective of physician executives is “crucial to shaping the future health care system” (Leatt, 2004, p.171). With the increasing need for physician leadership comes a need to increase executive education for physicians and to better define roles and responsibilities. This article will suggest eight models for educating physician executives, as well as recommendations for those seeking to start or improve programs to educate physician executives. This article will focus on physician executive education in the United States although there may be some lessons for physician executives in other nations with different health systems

Developing family-based care : complexities in implementing the UN guidelines for the alternative care of children

In response to immense challenges facing children in out-of-home care in all parts of the world, there is a growing international trend towards the development of family-based placements for children in out-of-home care, away from large-scale institutions. This development of family based care within a range of care options is recommended within the international Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children (the Guidelines), which were welcomed unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly in 2009. This paper offers an overview of these guidelines’ key principles, and considers the complexities that arise in efforts towards their implementation. Drawing on the literature, supported by research that informed Moving forward (the implementation handbook on the Guidelines) and illustrated by practice examples from across global regions, the authors examine three fundamental challenges in States’ efforts to implement the Guidelines’ ‘suitability’ principle, namely: de-institutionalising the care system; financing suitable family-based care and supporting the suitability of kinship care. The paper critically reflects on de-institutionalised systems and practices, and the cross-cultural assumptions about suitable foster and kinship care that emerge in efforts towards de-institutionalisation; it aims to spark new thinking on strategic ways in which alternative care is planned and delivered, to impact on future practice

Using quality assessment tools to critically appraise ageing research: a guide for clinicians

Evidence based medicine tells us that we should not accept published research at face value. Even research from established teams published in the highest impact journals can have methodological flaws, biases and limited generalisability. The critical appraisal of research studies can seem daunting, but tools are available to make the process easier for the non-specialist. Understanding the language and process of quality assessment is essential when considering or conducting research, and is also valuable for all clinicians who use published research to inform their clinical practice. We present a review written specifically for the practising geriatrician. This considers how quality is defined in relation to the methodological conduct and reporting of research. Having established why quality assessment is important, we present and critique tools which are available to standardise quality assessment. We consider five study designs: RCTs, nonrandomised studies, observational studies, systematic reviews and diagnostic test accuracy studies. Quality assessment for each of these study designs is illustrated with an example of published cognitive research. The practical applications of the tools are highlighted, with guidance on their strengths and limitations. We signpost educational resources and offer specific advice for use of these tools. We hope that all geriatricians become comfortable with critical appraisal of published research and that use of the tools described in this review – along with awareness of their strengths and limitations – become a part of teaching, journal clubs and practice