What's New

Supporting People with Serious Mental Illnesses and Reducing Their Risk of Contact with the Criminal Justice System

This primer highlights how critical it is for psychiatrists to better identify and address the clinical and forensic needs of these patients and incorporate interventions that address their criminogenic risks and needs into patient treatment plans.

Dos and Don’ts for Reducing Recidivism Among Young Adults in the Justice System

This resource presents a concrete list of dos and don’ts that policymakers and justice system leaders can use to guide policy and practice changes focused on young adults in the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems.

Nevada’s Statewide Approach to Reducing Recidivism and Improving Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System

As a result of participating in Improving Outcomes for Youth: A Statewide Juvenile Justice Initiative (IOYouth), Nevada passed legislation that supports the adoption and implementation of key policy and practice changes to the state’s juvenile justice system. This report summarizes the IOYouth process in Nevada, key findings from the CSG Justice Center’s comprehensive assessment of Nevada’s juvenile justice system, and AB472, the bill that Nevada’s legislature passed to address the challenges identified in the assessment.

This report draws on the experience of five states to present strategies that all states can use to achieve significant reductions in their use of suspensions. The report also offers recommendations for applying a data-driven approach to ensure that school discipline reforms not only reduce suspensions, but also foster supportive learning environments and ultimately improve outcomes for all students.

President Trump this week appeared to back away from what was expected to be a cornerstone of his plan to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure. Meanwhile, federal autonomous vehicle policy gets an update from the U.S. Department of Transportation and in new legislation expected to go before a U.S. Senate committee next week.

In 2016 the Supreme Court was expected to overrule a nearly 40-year old precedent requiring public sector employees who don’t join the union to pay their “fair share” of collective bargaining costs. Justice Scalia died shortly after the Court heard oral argument in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. The Court ultimately issued a 4-4 decision which, practically speaking, kept Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) on the books.

With a ninth Justice now on the bench the Supreme Court has agreed to try again to decide whether to overturn Abood in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. More than 20 states authorize fair share for public sector employees.

transportation icon

Personal and commercial drone usage is on the rise, creating new challenges for the insurance industry and policymakers in areas like property damage and liability. Join legal and risk management experts from Florida State University for a nonpartisan, nonadvocative discussion of current and future drone usage. This hour-long session, presented in collaboration with The Institutes Griffith Insurance Education Foundation, will consider the legal and regulatory environment and examine the myriad insurance-related issues that emerging drone technology presents.

Collaboration and innovation are at the forefront of the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA, plans approved by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. ESSA is a bipartisan measure, signed into law on Dec. 10, 2015 and attempts to provide states with more collaboration and flexibility to serve their students, teachers and communities.

The Supreme Court will no longer hear oral argument in the travel ban case—previously scheduled for October 10—for now. The Court has asked the parties to brief whether the new travel ban makes the case moot, meaning the dispute, and therefore the case, is over.

The president’s March 6 executive order prevented people from six predominately Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days. In June the Supreme Court temporarily prevented it from going into effect against those with a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” This travel ban was set to expire on September 24.

On September 24 the President issued a presidential proclamation indefinitely banning immigration from six countries:  Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, and Yemen. Also, certain government officials and their families from Venezuela may no longer receive non-immigrant visas.

The Supreme Court will no longer hear oral argument in the travel ban case—previously scheduled for October 10—for now. The Court has asked the parties to brief whether the new travel ban makes the case moot, meaning the dispute, and therefore the case, is over.

The president’s March 6 executive order prevented people from six predominately Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days. In June the Supreme Court temporarily prevented it from going into effect against those with a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” This travel ban was set to expire on September 24.

On September 24 the President issued a presidential proclamation indefinitely banning immigration from six countries:  Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, and Yemen. Also, certain government officials and their families from Venezuela may no longer receive non-immigrant visas.

Pages