How faith‐based social service organizations manage secular pressures associated with government funding

This article reports selected findings from a qualitative case study of two faith‐based social service organizations to address two questions: (1) How does government funding influence the religious characteristics of faith‐based social service organizations? (2) How do government‐funded, faith‐based social service organizations manage the tensions arising from both secular and religious contexts? The findings suggest that the adaptation of secular institutional practices is not as inevitable as some have feared. Rather, the two organizations studied showed convincingly that their faith traditions and values were alive and widely evident throughout their organizations. Three key strategies emerged as means for maintaining religiousness in the face of secular pressures: (1) Religious identities were perceived as given rather than chosen, and therefore were not negotiable; (2) religious values provided strong justification for seeking relationships with others who do not share their faith; (3) the religious worldview blurred religious and secular distinctions so that secular technologies and practices could comfortably be utilized.     

No wonder social workers feel uncomfortable in court

The present article assesses the adversary systemper se and asks the question, Is there any place for courtroom antics and histrionics in cases involving children? Social workers are uncomfortable before the august body of thecourt, not because of any lack of education or knowledge on their part but because of the nature of the adversary process itself.     

Zusammenfassungen

Ohne Zusammenfassung German translations by Monika Lütke-Daldrup.     

A modified random-effect procedure for combining risk difference in sets of 2×2 tables from clinical trials

Summary Meta-analyses of sets of clinical trials often combine risk differences from several 2×2 tables according to a random-effects model. The DerSimonian-Laird random-effects procedure, widely used for estimating the populaton mean risk difference, weights the risk difference from each primary study inversely proportional to an estimate of its variance (the sum of the between-study variance and the conditional within-study variance). Because those weights are not independent of the risk differences, however, the procedure sometimes exhibits bias and unnatural behavior. The present paper proposes a modified weighting scheme that uses the unconditional within-study variance to avoid this source of bias. The modified procedure has variance closer to that available from weighting by ideal weights when such weights are known. We studied the modified procedure in extensive simulation experiments using situations whose parameters resemble those of actual studies in medical research. For comparison we also included two unbiased procedures, the unweighted mean and a sample-size-weighted mean; their relative variability depends on the extent of heterogeneity among the primary studies. An example illustrates the application of the procedures to actual data and the differences among the results. This research was supported by Grant HS 05936 from the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research to Harvard University.     

Fast retraction of evidence in a probabilistic expert system

We present and justify a propagation algorithm to facilitate the simultaneous calculation, for every node in a probabilistic exper system of the distribution of the associated random quantity, conditional on all the evidence obtained about the remaining nodes.     

Sexual identity in the ghetto

The more things change, the worse they get.Presented April 18, 1991, Duke University, at the Department of Psychiatry's Grand Rounds, this paper condenses, integrates and updates the author's earlier publication. Acknowledgement and thanks for funding and professional sponsorship of the four research studies this paper draws from are selectively due to the Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Foundation, the Edgar Stern Family Fund, The National Institute for Mental Health, the Baltimore-Washington Institute for Psychoanalysis and the Department of Psychiatry, Children's Hospital National Medical Center.