Leadership behavior practice patterns\u27 relationship to employee work engagement in a nonprofit that supports the homeless

An organization\u27s ability to achieve its goals depends on the quality of its leaders and their ability to produce a highly engaged workforce. High levels of employee and managerial turnover and burnout can impede an organization\u27s workforce engagement and ability to grow and be successful. To minimize the impact of these 2 constructs (turnover and burnout), this study examined the link between leadership behavior practice patterns\u27 and employee work engagement in a nonprofit that supports the homeless. Responses from 48 non-managerial employees were used for this study. To investigate this study data were collected using 2 survey instruments: the Leadership Practice Inventory (LPI) and Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). Both surveys were completed by the same population on the same day. The combination of cross-sectional survey designs using quantitative and descriptive correlational research methods helped the researcher analyze the data to identify relationships between the variables under investigation. According to the respondents\u27 ratings, a positive correlation was found to exist between leaders\u27 behavior practice patterns and employee work engagement. Moreover, the results found no negative correlations between the LPI scores and the UWES scores. High employee engagement in a nonprofit organization leads to better economic outcomes for the community and a better workplace for employees who feel their organization cares about their health and well-being, which leads to a more tenured workforce and effective group of leaders. Future directions for research include exploring other variables (leader responses and gender) to potentially predict different work engagement levels and leadership behaviors that could impede employee burnout and turnover

Estimating the proportion of Medicaid-eligible pregnant women in Louisiana who do not get abortions when Medicaid does not cover abortion.

BackgroundTo estimate the proportion of pregnant women in Louisiana who do not obtain abortions because Medicaid does not cover abortion.MethodsTwo hundred sixty nine women presenting at first prenatal visits in Southern Louisiana, 2015-2017, completed self-administered iPad surveys and structured interviews. Women reporting having considered abortion were asked whether Medicaid not paying for abortion was a reason they had not had an abortion. Using study data and published estimates of births, abortions, and Medicaid-covered births in Louisiana, we projected the proportion of Medicaid births that would instead be abortions if Medicaid covered abortion in Louisiana.Results28% considered abortion. Among women with Medicaid, 7.2% [95% CI 4.1-12.3] reported Medicaid not paying as a reason they did not have an abortion. Existing estimates suggest 10% of Louisiana pregnancies end in abortion. If Medicaid covered abortion, this would increase to 14% [95% CI 12, 16]. 29% [95% CI 19, 41] of Medicaid eligible pregnant women who would have an abortion with Medicaid coverage, instead give birth.ConclusionsFor a substantial proportion of pregnant women in Louisiana, the lack of Medicaid funding remains an insurmountable barrier to obtaining an abortion. Forty years after the Hyde Amendment was passed, lack of Medicaid funding for abortion continues to have substantial impacts on women's ability to obtain abortions

Impact of Mental Health Screening with the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument (MAYSI-2) in Juvenile Detention

Introduction: Recent evidence suggests that the prevalence of mental health disorders among youth entering juvenile pretrial detention centers is two to three times higher than youths in the general population (Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dulcan & Mericle, 2002). Within the past five years, mental health screening upon entry to a juvenile justice facility has become standard practice across the nation. We know more about the validity and reliability of mental health screening tools used in this context than we do about the factors that facilitate their implementation. If tools are not implemented properly, their adequate validity is virtually lost. Effective screening procedures require attention to how screening instruments are put into place and how they actually function within juvenile justice facilities. Introduced in 2000, the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument—Second Version (MAYSI-2; Grisso & Barnum, 2006) is now the most widely used mental health screening tool in juvenile justice secure facilities in the United States